Just curious as to why you two elected to have NME off? You would not run into this situation with it on.[:D]
Major General Ed Blackburn
Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
| Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/ |
|
| Eckmuhl Game Engine Question https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9198 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | Garhawks [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | Eckmuhl Game Engine Question |
In a campaign game, we are on the third scenario, fighting East of Abensberg. I am playing the Austrians, and had something funny happen that I would like to get some comments on. I will caveat this by saying I have already made my move and no longer have the replay, so the strengths and casaulty numbers are estimates of what I remember, but are really close, and are probably not a factor to my question. I had a battalion of 900 men in the woods facing West. The French moved units to the following positions: Cavalry SE of my unit facing SE; Cavalry NE of my unit facing East; Infantry North of my unit facing SE; Cavalry NW of my unit facing SW. He then meleed my units with the infantry totaling about 1500 men from the hex to my north, hitting my right flank. The result was 60 to the attacker and 120 to the defender. My unit was then eliminated. This despite the fact that I could have been forced to retreat to the hex to the south where there was no unit or ZOC exerted on it. When I expressed my disdain over the elimination of my unit when there was a legal retreat hex, my opponent let me know that as long as you occupy 3 rear hexes and at least one front hex, the unit will be eliminated. Surely that cannot be correct? Had there been a unit exerting a ZOC on the hex to the South, I maybe could have understood why this occurred, although we have weak ZOC on. But as it happened, I do not understand. We are playing with embedded melee rules, and have Weak ZOC and Partial Retreats turned on; No Retreat Overruns and No Melee Eliminations turned off. Would appreciate any comments on why my unit with a legal retreat hex was eliminated. General de Brigade Comte de Flandres et Baron Stephen Edgar 6e Division Commander II Corps ADN |
|
| Author: | Gary McClellan [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:31 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Your opponent is right. Units will only retreat through a rear hex. I'm not entirely sure that's appropriate, but that is the way the rule is right now. Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army Portner Grenadier Bn Allied Coalition C-in-C |
|
| Author: | Ed Blackburn [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 7:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Just curious as to why you two elected to have NME off? You would not run into this situation with it on.[:D] Major General Ed Blackburn Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA 3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
|
|
| Author: | dean beecham [ Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Hmmmm ZOC i hate them. Historically i dont think it happend as much as it dos in these games. If you dont like the ZOC in a game you should say yes to No Melee Eliminations. Have this on. and it will stop most of this in a game. Yes you will still get it. Skirmishers can still be surrounded and ZOC, But large units can not. The enemy must keep it surrounded and blast away at it until it routs . then it can be ZOC. This gives the surrounded guy a chance to get it away by sending in other men to help. A little more Historical. ... Also if you ever play the Jena game. with the change in the movement that also stops a lot of ZOC and makes the game play more Historical. There are guys that may not like the slower movement. but to me its much better on the kind of game play i like. <font color="red">Maréchal</font id="red"> <font color="red">BEECHAM</font id="red"> Commandant 1ème Division de Cuirassiers, 1 Corps Res Cav,ADN. Prince d` Istria et Comte d` Arles La Jeune Garde "Toujours féroce,jamais étourdi" |
|
| Author: | Garhawks [ Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
So even if the unit has legal hexes to retreat to, unoccupied and not in a ZOC, it will still be eliminated simple by covering the 2 rear hexes and 1 front hex? That is not realistic at all, and should be changed in the game engine. To some extent I can understand being eliminated if you are completely surrounded, but not if you have a legal and available retreat hex. I would not think that you would have to use an optional rule in order to keep from having units eliminated. Thanks for the responses. General de Brigade Comte de Flandres et Baron Stephen Edgar 6e Division Commander II Corps ADN |
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Thu Aug 23, 2007 2:20 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The funny and hard to understand thing is not that it works that way, but that it works differently in the different HPS game series's. - Napoleonic games: Occupy the two rear hexes, have a ZOC on the two front hexes, flank hexes do not matter. - Early American War games: Occupy both rear and both flank hexes. The front hexes do not matter. - American Civil War games: Occupy all three (facing is different) rear hexes and have one unit adjacent to the front hexes (it does not have to exert a ZOC). If there's madness, at least there is no method to it. [:p] <center> [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_walter/NWC/16thLD.htm"]  [/url]
Brig. Gen. D.S. "Green Horse" Walter ~ 16th (The Queen's) Light Dragoons ~ 4th Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps ---------- ~ 3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards ~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/"] [/url]
</center> |
|
| Author: | buffpilot [ Thu Aug 23, 2007 3:00 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
As the person who actually dispatched the offending battalion (who had the audacity to try to turn my flank! ). I will point out that we are playing with the MOE III Embedded melee rules. I much perfer the embedded melee rule than the NME optional rule. The NME rule tends (in my not so humble opinion) to end up with an attacker doing counter-insurgency actions. It makes high morale units literally unkillable. My experience with NME was in a game of HPS: Waterloo Historical QB against the esteemed Andy Moss. By the time I made it to the crosspoads I had 1/3 of my force (an entire French Division) occupied in the rear trying to reduce pockets of isolated units that would not rout and could not be killed. One pocket of Brunswicker Guard and some squadrons of cav (all stacked together with three commanders) held out for 6 turns, isolated, meleed, shot, sabered, lanced, and grape-shot apart, until finally the British Highlanders broke through and relieved them. These guys were in open terrain, but would all not rout at the same time. In another case I had time to move up three batteries of artillery to pound another unit. It lasted 5 turns... So you won't be seeing me play with NME on any time soon (unless I'm defending then I will insist on it!). As for the game engine, I agree you should be able to retreat. Maybe auto-rout instead of elimination? The bottom line is don't leave your guys alone, and don't charge my cavalry with scum austrian militia infantry!!!! (oops, another issue...) Marechal Doug Fuller Duc de Montmorail et Comte de Hainaut 2e' Grenadiers a' Pied de la Vielle Garde I Corp Commander AdN 
|
|
| Author: | Colin Knox [ Sat Aug 25, 2007 4:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
An interesting debate raised by Marechal Fuller. I agree with the problem NME creates. The best solution I and my game partners have found to it so far is to use the multiple melee rules. In a game I am playing against Andy Moss I have surrounded and gradually reduced a lot of units using a blend of firepower (eg 6 units in line +horse arty) and melee. But in this game I hold a large numerical superiority in a smaller game it would be not so easy. I must agree it does not seem that realistic but it is better than the slaughter that can occur without NME. What does everyone think of the NME rule? My personal view is I like it. For example one advantage it offers attackers is the cavalry penetration attack. Ie; a charge into and through the enemy line and then try and reform in their rear. Without NME cavalry charges can often end up slaughtered by a well planned counter. Anyhow an interesting discussion Regards Colonel Colin Knox, Baron de l'Empire 2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur La Jeune Garde IIIe Corps ADN http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm 
|
|
| Author: | dean beecham [ Sat Aug 25, 2007 10:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
NME 100% yes. makes the game more Historical.Guys can still use the MOE III Emdedded rule with it. Saying this. I think the NME works better with the Jena game. because of the movement change .[;)] <font color="red">Maréchal</font id="red"> <font color="red">BEECHAM</font id="red"> Commandant 1ème Division de Cuirassiers, 1 Corps Res Cav,ADN. Prince d` Istria et Comte d` Arles La Jeune Garde "Toujours féroce,jamais étourdi" |
|
| Author: | Francisco Palomo [ Sun Aug 26, 2007 4:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Mssrs., For my part I doubt that I shall ever play again without NME. Although I gained some renown as a practioner of the infamous "ZOC kill" [:D], it always seemed to be the height of gamesmanship when an opponent's entire front line was evaporated in the space of 15 minutes[V]. Moreover, I find it curious that both Marechal Fuller and Baron Knox cite encounters vs. Mssr. Moss as proving the pitfalls of NME since it was a game of the Waterloo-Wavre scenario vs. the Generalissimo that cemented my belief in using NME. As I recall, by 2 PM 1/3 of the Allied forces had been eliminated and Mssr. Moss' sword had been tendered. [8D] With NME, an outnumbered defender can finally stage a meaningful rear-guard action. More importantly, in a stand-up battle the victory no longer goes automatically to whoever lands the first punch. Instead, the palm goes to whoever husbands his reserves so that he can either extricate isolated units or launch truly decisive assaults which irretrievably sunder and isolate the enemy's main line.[8D] Yes, high morale units can survive for several turns despite being isolated, but what's wrong with that? Guard units ARE supposed to die hard. But take a look at the broader picture. If an isolated pocket, stacked with their leader, survive in the rear, that means that the remainder of that Bg is now "detached" because their leader is trapped in the pocket. That in turn implies that the balance of the Bg will have a difficult time recovering from disorder, rendering it easy pickings for fresh waves of assaulting troops. I would also note that, mayhaps, too many players have forgotten that a musket is meant to be more than just an appendage for a bayonet[:D]. Why melee an isolated, usually disordered, unit immediately? If you melee the isolated unit, it will actually have a BETTER chance to pass its morale check because the now disordered attackers exert a "0" threat. I would suggest that a better approach is to deploy your inf in line so as to riddle it with fire and simply wait for it to rout. Two or more, ordered bns in line, at point-blank range, exert an almost prohibitive "threat" factor for an isolated unit's morale check. Meanwhile, the return fire will cause negligible casualties and, even more importantly, insignificant fatigue losses on your men. If your opponent launches a rescue operation, use your reserves to make sure that the would be rescuers are themselves trapped.[8D] Regards, Paco <i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo <i>Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et Comte de Marseille Commandant - Ecole Militaire Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde </i> 
|
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Sun Aug 26, 2007 6:37 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by paco</i> With NME, an outnumbered defender can finally stage a meaningful rear-guard action. More importantly, in a stand-up battle the victory no longer goes automatically to whoever lands the first punch. Instead, the palm goes to whoever husbands his reserves so that he can either extricate isolated units or launch truly decisive assaults which irretrievably sunder and isolate the enemy's main line.[8D] <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Amen! [^] <center> [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_walter/NWC/16thLD.htm"] [/url]
Brig. Gen. D.S. "Green Horse" Walter ~ 16th (The Queen's) Light Dragoons ~ 4th Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps ---------- ~ 3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards ~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/"] [/url]
</center> |
|
| Author: | Gary McClellan [ Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Paco, Um, I don't get your reference to "threat" in regards to the rout calculation. Maybe there's something under the hood I don't know about, but I don't recall it, and a fast check of the morale section of the rules eludes me as well. Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army Portner Grenadier Bn Allied Coalition C-in-C |
|
| Author: | Colin Knox [ Sun Aug 26, 2007 8:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thanks Marcechal Palomo I generally agree. I have been using fire but mainly due to saving fatigue from meleeing. I had not thought of the threat factor. As per Gary's post does this impact morale results? Salute Colonel Colin Knox, Baron de l'Empire 2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur La Jeune Garde IIIe Corps ADN http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm
|
|
| Author: | D.S. Walter [ Sun Aug 26, 2007 10:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
The only effect of the threat value that I know is a negative impact on the chance of a formation change to succeed ... <center> [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_walter/NWC/16thLD.htm"] [/url]
Brig. Gen. D.S. "Green Horse" Walter ~ 16th (The Queen's) Light Dragoons ~ 4th Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps ---------- ~ 3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards ~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/"] [/url]
</center> |
|
| Author: | Francisco Palomo [ Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:49 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i> <br />The only effect of the threat value that I know is a negative impact on the chance of a formation change to succeed ... <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Mssrs., Back when I was playing the BG games I first noticed a direct relationship between the number of "threat factors" bearing on a unit and that unit's ability to pass a morale check and/or recover from disorder. If the enemy units bearing on the testing unit were all disordered and there were few or no arty and cav "threatening" it, routs were rare and disordered units quickly reformed. Conversely, when the testing unit did so under high "threat" factors from enemy formed infantry, arty and/or cav, routs were commonplace and units took forever to reform from disorder. I have observed the same pattern in all of the HPS games I've played. I realize that this is not documented in either the BG or HPS games, but I have consistently observed this effect in the dozens of games I have played (hundreds if you include playtesting). Creating this type of "threat" for opposing units (and avoiding it for mine) has become the cornerstone of my tactical approach to the games and it has stood me in good stead[:D]. Regards, Paco <i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo <i>Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et Comte de Marseille Commandant - Ecole Militaire Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde </i>
|
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|