Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I know that this has probably been discussed before, but I think it is time to revisit this topic.

So when will HPS add Automated Defensive Fire (ADF) to its Napoleonic series of games? I have been given to understand that when the first one in the series, was designed, most of the code was taken directly from the TS series. There is no ADF in TS Napo series because with Cavalry counter-charges in the defensive phase and the requirement for changing formation, position within a stack, ect. in the defensive fire phase, you could not have the computer conducting these phases. But in the HPS series all of these chores have been done away with in the Defensive Fire Phase, so the Napo games play the same in a Manual Defensive Fire game as the ACW series. If the ACW series has the option for Manual Defensive fire with ADF, how difficult would it be to mod the Napo series to add this option?

I'm one of those players that heartily dislikes the continous turn system and will only play with the phased game turn. I have a host of reasons, which is a subject for another, later topic. But this means that I will only play the TS series games in this club. I own all of the HPS games and would love to play them in the club, but I won't until they are amended to give the option to use a phased game turn.

Gentlemen, any comments?

Lt. Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army

You can play PHASED games in the Napoleon series. When you start the game, select MANUAL Defensive fire and the mode is then phased play.

Or did I misunderstand your question?

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
GdD,1e Brig,1eme Div,VI Corps,AdR
President, Colonial Campaign Club
</b></font id="gold">

Yes, Ernie, you did misunderstand.
Bill wants the computer to do the shooting in the defensive phase in a PBEM so that you can play a phased based game at the same pace/file rate as a turn based game. The Civil War games already have this feature. I would also like to see it.
regards,
Baron Jim Pfluecke
Austrian Cavalry Reserve

Austrian Kavalry Reserve

While the multiphase system presumably <i>could</i> have automatic ADF incorporated like the ACW series, it would surely be far more beneficial from a gameplay perspective to restore the cavalry counter-charge and square forming options to the defensive phase. Of course this would require more file exchanges - like for the BG games - but it's main advantage is that it would allow players more tactical options and would mean that square forming could be done in response to an <i>immediate</i> threat from enemy cavalry, rather than having units obliged to form square in the player turn on the off-chance that the enemy cavalry might charge the following turn.

Alternatively, perhaps either option could be allowed (ie. player can chose - ie. as an option at the start of a multiphase game - to have either an ADF defensive phase or the ability to conduct counter charges and form square in the defensive phase. The second option would result in a HPS engine that was effectively a BG engine but with the various new upgrades such as pioneers, weather, etc)

But I suspect most players usually only use the single phase system, so it would seem unlikely that any changes will be made to the multiphase mode.

At some point (this is for single phase mode not the rather stilted multiphase mode) it would be useful if square-forming could become an automatic defensive response to charging cavalry (ie. instead of ADF firing) and for players to be able to "pre-set" (during the player's own turn) cavalry units to counter-charge enemy cavalry that decide to charge. It might even be possible to pre-determine which enemy cavalry to counter-charge. On the other hand, maybe the player shouldn't determine cavalry counter-charges himself? Maybe this should be handled by the A/I, since cavalry leaders would often act in a headstrong way and, besides, there probably wouldn't be time to issue counter-charge orders from above.

So, a cavalry charge would normally trigger threatened infantry to form square rather than just fire at the approaching cavalry. (of course militia might run away instead!)

Also, nearby (undisrupted) cavalry facing the right direction would be liable to <b>counter-charge on their own initiative</b>.


Maj. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

First let me say that Jim's interpretation of my question is correct.

Now to Rich's comments. I fully agree with the second paragraph, giving the players the option as to how much historical accuracy and realism to add. I think it is fair to acknowledge that there are players out there who don't like the single phase turn, so why shouldn't they have the option to enjoy the games as well, especially since the code is already incorporated in every other game system HPS has, i.e. ACW, CCC, PzC. I still cannot understand the problem with incorporating it in the Napoleonic series. I also agree with Rich, on the idea of allowing the AI to make decisions on cavalry counter charges.

Lt. Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army

Its been discussed quite a bit guys. All of the above.

Suffice it to say that I am for:

1. ADF option in the Defense phase.
2. Squaring ability as well as change of formation. NOT BY THE AI - ONLY BY A HUMAN PLAYER.
3. Cavalry counter charge ONLY FOR A HUMAN PLAYER TO CHOOSE TO DO - NOT THE ADF.
4. I would like to see the engine make popcorn too but that probably wont happen anytime soon ... [:D]

Am also hoping that we can get a target selection dialog as we have in the EAW engine.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill,

Doesn't sound like you have much faith in the A/I. Of course, that wouldn't be a problem in multiphase mode, where the player could be allowed to decide for himself (as in the BG games).

But for single phase mode, I don't see there'd be any alternative to the A/I handling this - other than what we've currently got, ie. no automatic square forming or counter-charges. Anyway, I suspect square forming should be the automatic response to a cavalry charge (not a volley of ADF), and perhaps the cavalry counter-charge should be largely out of the player's control. Maybe a target selection dialogue would be a possible answer - thus if the cavalry targetted decide to charge, then the defensive player's cavalry conduct the counter-charge.

While restoring the old BG elements that have been cut from the HPS multiphase mode shouldn't be especially awkward to do - and since you prefer this way of playing I'm surprise you haven't asked for it, since without these features the BG engine retains a number of key tactical advantages - I don't see there much chance of getting any of this complex A/I stuff we've been discussing for single mode anytime soon.

Maj. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

I will say one thing from past history.

This discussion is taking place in entirely the wrong place. Rich Hamilton and Bill Peters can take ideas to John Tiller, and they do. However, John has found himself to be far more receptive to ideas of this nature that are not communicated "through" Rich or Bill, but are instead communicated to him directly.

To wit: Email John [8D]

For instance, as memory serves, the change to "overrun" skirmishers upon a formed unit retreating through them was not implemented until someone directly emailed John, with files, and showed him why he thought it was necessary (I know that's a bit of a controversial change, but it's a good example of how John does things.)

So, if you truly want to see it, email John. This is no guarantee, but I will tell you that it has a far higher chance of working that anything posted on these boards.

FZM Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Battallion
Allied Coalition C-in-C

Rich - I dont know how well you know A/I programming but it doesnt take a guy with a Master's Degree to figure out that all an Attacker has to do to get ALL of the enemy's infantry to go into square is move some Hussars up on turn 1, the enemy forms square and then open up on them with artillery.

Personally I dont want all of my Austrian lines forming square just because of a supposed enemy force that is near my position.

Even if you use the THREAT zone value as a baseline all the other guy needs to do is bring up some cavalry (say a regiment) and presto, the entire front line just went into square.

Just like in history? Perhaps, but I think that the game would assume a different pose at that point.

I rarely have problems getting overrun anymore. You just stick a square out where it can block known cavalry and that does the job. Or put your guns a hex back of a stream in the same hex with a square.

My next game uses 10 min. moves. You can react to the enemy moves easier that way. We still had a few overruns but by reducing the time scale a tad we found that the overrun issues went away for the most part. We still had overruns but it had more to do with someone being caught off balance or in my case with Paco in a battle he will remember well where I just ran out of troops to toss at him.

Now lets take the AI where it regards fire. I watch a replay every so often and find that the artillery fires on idiotic targets at max range. Frankly I would like to see ALL Defensive ADF take place at medium to short range. Not long range. OR better yet add in the EAW fire dialog for the player to choose the range he can use. I have advocated adding that into the engine for years.

So no, I dont care much for the AI's choice of fire. Its not that I am knocking it. I just know that NO AI is perfect no matter how well you program it and while I dont demand perfection I do believe that a battery commander would not fire on skirmishers (soon to be fixed by the way in this next release) as they move but would fire on a nice juicy stack of columns.

In my game of Aspern-Essling with Dean Beecham I have seen the artillery fire on anything that moves. Its hard to move anywhere without getting hit. But the hits are puny. 1,2 men or maybe 8. More of an annoyance but then the other guy gets the file and sees that his ammo consumption for the last turn reduced his supply.

Thus I prefer to see only Medium to Short range artillery fire. I dont believe that the French 12lb guns should be tossing out hits on our guys at 12-15 hexes.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram and ... more to come)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Gary,

Perhaps it's useful for everyone to discuss these various ideas on this board now, and so have given them plenty of thought before bringing them up at Tiller Con II, rather than just emailing John with lots of different ideas that could perhaps end up causing more problems than they solve or else might distract him from coding in other useful engine changes which have been contemplated for some time.

What's most important for this discussion thread would be to determine:

1./ How many people actually play the HPS games in multiphase mode, and whether they play all/most/many of their games in this way or just the occasional game.
2./ How many people still play the BG games because they don't like HPS single phase mode and find that the HPS multiphase mode in it's current form is inferior to the BG engine.

Unless there's a sizable number of folk that prefer multiphase mode, it's unlikely that John will want to restore the missing BG elements and/or add in ADF for the defensive turn. It just wouldn't be worthwhile if most people only play in single phase mode.

As far as I can tell, the HPS multiphase mode appears to be rather like a fossil - and not even a complete fossil - left over from the earlier BG engine. Perhaps if enough people still play in this mode John will be prepared to restore the missing pieces of the fossil and maybe also provide an ADF option. However, I wouldn't recommend asking for <i>just</i> the ADF option because, in my view, this would still leave the HPS multiphase system inferior to both HPS single phase and the old BG multiphase.

Personally, I wouldn't consider playing in multiphase mode without the missing BG elements. Having the convenience of ADF would be no substitute for cavalry counter-charges and square forming in the defensive phase. These key BG tactical features ensure that this mode of playing will remain a viable alternative to single phase mode.

Meanwhile, the single phase mode is where the main focus is, and measures are being taken to resolve the ZOC melee elimination issue. Further improvements to the single phase mode will no doubt continue to appear in future patches.


Maj. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Bill,

Well, that's one of the problems with single phase mode and a traditional I-go, you-go turn based system. In contrast, in the BG engine, square forming takes place immediately prior to the enemy cavalry charge phase - after all enemy infantry have moved - and the following turn it's possible for any undisrupted square to go back into column formation.

I totally agree with you about the need for a target selection system like in the EAW engine, certainly for artillery but it would be worth having even for infantry, especially for the company level scenarios where the ranges have been increased.


Maj. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

First let me say that I can agree that to add Cav. Counter-charge and changing to square during the def. fire phase would indeed increase the historacity and realism of the game system for Napoleonics. I would also be happy to accept triple the e-mail submissions for a turn. But I get the sense from the responses that this is not likely to happen. So given the reality of the situation, that the HPS Napoleonic series, will probably not be amended to make it more like the more realistic BG series, I still don't understand why ADF can't be added to allow those who want the option to use it. It's not like it's something that is brand new to the HPS games and would have to be designed and developed from scratch. I admit that I know nothing about the world of computer game development, but how hard would it be to take existing code apply it to this game system?

My dislike of the non-phased or single phase game turn goes way beyond some of the very stupid. ahistorical, totally unrealistic things I've seen the computer do in defensive fire, in reponse to the enemies movement, and the ludicris (yeah I know I probably misspelled that one) I've seen opponents do to take advantage of that fact. I to have seen like Bill Peters mentioned, targets fired at a maximum range by artillery when a more lucrative target sits 2 hexes away. I've also seen my opponent move his supply wagon first to draw that artillery fire, then move that column adjacent to the artillery unit to melee and take it out.

But worse than this is that what happens with movement and the passage of time in the non phased turn, is physically impossible to happen in the real world. For example in the game I have seen my opponent move a cavalry unit FOR EXAMPLE, its full movement factor to a point adjacent to a defending unit, melee it and push it out of the way so that another of his units sitting adjacent to the unit pushed out of the way, at the start of the turn, can then move it's full movement through the hole created. Now the first unit which REQUIRED the exenditure of ALL of it's movement point just to reach the front line, has used up all of it's time for that turn. Yet the unit sitting adjacent to the enemy unit, thus removed experience no passage of time while all of this is taking place.

In real terms consider this example. It is 1:00, you have an appointment at 1:15, it takes you 15 minutes to drive from your house to the appointment. (In game terms the turn is 15 minutes, and the distance you can travel in that time is your movement factor.) Now you get to your car and find you have locked your keys in the house, you can't move (this represents an enemy unit blocking your movement). Your wife works 13 minutes from your house, you call on your cell phone and she rushes home to unlock the house so you can get your keys. This represents a unit at the limit of it's movement, taking the time to move adjacent to the enemy preventing your movement, the unlocking of the house and getting your keys takes 2 minutes. This represents the time to melee and remove the obstruction. You now have your keys and can make you movement. BUT HAS NOT STOOD STILL AND THE 15 MINUTES HAS PASSED AND THE TURN SHOULD BE OVER, THERE IS NO WAY YOU CAN MAKE IT TO THE APPOINTMENT AT 1:15. BUT WAIT A MINUTE, THIS IS A NO PHASE TURN, SO FOR YOU THE CLOCK GO BACK TO 1:00 AND NOT A MINUTE HAS PASSED FOR YOU, EVEN THOUGH IT DID FOR YOUR WIFE, WHILE SHE DROVE HOME AND UNLOCKED THE DOOR. If you think about this analogy from a realistic perspective, I don't know how you can argue with the logic of it. This is why the non phased turn doesn't work for me.

Sorry for the long windedness, but I do feel very stronly about it. Which is why all I'm asking for is the option to play in a manner that provides, for me, a much more realistic flow to the game. Yes I agree, that non phased play can make a more interesting GAME, but for me it fails utterly as a simulation. And to those who would suggest, "Hey, if you don't like the system, don't play with it", I say, you are quite right. But I also say please give me the same viable option you've given me in all of the other game systems.

Lt. Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army

Hi all
If you are thinking of reintroducing square forming in def fire you might consider this. A French currisser regimient would flatten any btn in a formed charge if that unit was not in square and in open terrain. I am sure there are experts who may disagree with me but I have not read of any occassion where infantry could resist in these circumstances unless in square. Indeed historically often a single sqd would suffice to crush a btn not a whole regm.

Unfortunately the game engine does not always allow for this. I have had my currissers defeated despite catching the enemy infantry in the open and sometimes even in the flank. I am concerned what you are proposing will further depower cavalry. That is if you can form square as you could in the old system you had better introduce the cav charge phase again as this made cavarly more powerful in BG.
To add one function and not the other I would say is unbalanced.
Cavalry remained a lethal force in the Napoleonic wars not at all like ACW where the firepower stakes had already began to make them less effective on the battlefield.

Personally I am happy with the current system for HPS although I prefer manual def fire. In larger battles having it all happen in one phase I find very time consuming when planning and integrating tactics. Also I prefer it for the same unrealistic reasons Bill Spitz outlined.

Anyhow my 5 pennies
Regards to All
Colin Knox
ADN

Colin, you're right, it would also need the cavalry charge phase <i><b>reintroduced</b></i> after the defensive phase, just like in the BG engine.

But I don't see any harm in the HPS multiphase mode being an updated BG engine. Unfortunately, due to the removal of these key tactical elements, at the moment it's a lot less.

Highlander, an excellent example that almost made me laugh.[:D] Of course players will always take advantage of a gaming system's flaws and even setting up a series of house rules will only help to a certain extent. I don't see what could be done about this sort of thing, apart from introducing some kind of simultaneous plot and move system, but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon. So the multiphase mode certainly has its advantages.

But how many people play in multiphase mode? I'd suggest starting up a new thread with the following questions:

1./ Do you play the HPS games in multiphase mode, and if so do you play all/most/many of your games in this way or just the occasional game.

2./ Do you still only/mainly/sometimes play the BG games because you don't like HPS single phase mode and find that the HPS multiphase mode in its current form is inferior to the BG engine.

3./Would you play the HPS games in multiphase mode if the missing BG elements - square forming and cavalry counter-charging in the defensive phase and the subsequent charge phase - were restored?

4./ Would you be more likely to buy/buy more HPS games if the missing BG elements were restored to the HPS engine?

and then getting a list of names added. If HPS feels that sales are likely to increase if these BG elements are restored then it's more likely to get done. But not if only two or three players play in multiphase mode, or other folk don't bother to reply. As I've mentioned before, the newer single phase mode is considered the standard way of playing these games, so if a lot of folks do in fact prefer multiphase mode then they ought to make themselves heard. Otherwise it'll be assumed that they're content with the single phase mode.


Maj. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

Colin: Thank you for your support it is appreciated.

Rich: I fully agree with your suggestion about a new thread with the Four Questions (wait a minute Passover isn't until Spring). I would add a 5th one though. "Would you be more inclined to buy and/or play HPS games if only Automatic Defensive Fire was added as an option, without adding all of the other missing BG defensive phase functions?" I have taken the liberty of starting a new thread with your questions copied, verbatim and my number 5 included.

One of you comments in your last response, confirms, in my mind at least a question I've had. If indeed these changes might happen IF HPS THOUGHT IT WOULD INCREASE SALES, it leads one to believe that some of the decisions about the effort to suppport the games, to a certain extent, are being made by the marketing people/beancounters, and not necessarily the game designers and game players in the company. If I've made an incorrect assumption, I offer my apologies.

Lt. Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army