Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by chomski</i>
<br />Sirs,
is there any possibility to change optional rules (turn no melee elimination on) during game? I play large campaign Waterloo scenario with my friends (we are in turn 15) and we would like to set no melee eliminations on.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No, sorry, no way to change optional rules once the game is started.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Next, I thank for repairing prussian independent skirmishers bug but issue is only half resolved. Skirmishers go from Rout to Disordered but there is no signal they could be undisoredered to normal state.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Signal? Is there ever one? Unit cohesion is always your best bet - keep forces within command and control and you should be set.



Maréchal Hamilton, Baron d'Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

Saxon Leib-Garde, de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale

The point though, is that breakthrough and isolation isn't the proper use of Cav in any case. Their historical usage should be "Shatter and Scatter" of enemy troops.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by August Dean</i>
<br />"<b>The new rule listed at the bottom, No Melee Elimination, is a big change</b>... <b>It effectively kills the ZOC Kill folks. The negative effect described above is far outweighed by the positive effect. </b>"

I wonder what’s the effect of this rule on cavalry value. Previously, cavalry could penetrate a front in order to achieve a ZOC kill.

Now what you get from enemy’s line penetration is a isolation of enemy units?!?! Which is far less than ZOC kill.
Is isn’t this likely to reduce the value of Cavalry as a combat arm?
What do you people think?


Captain Alexey Tartyshev
Moscow Grenadiers Regiment
2nd Grenadier Division
8th Infantry Corps
2nd Army of the West (NWC)


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by August Dean</i>
<br />"<b>The new rule listed at the bottom, No Melee Elimination, is a big change</b>... <b>It effectively kills the ZOC Kill folks. The negative effect described above is far outweighed by the positive effect. </b>"
I wonder what’s the effect of this rule on cavalry value. Previously, cavalry could penetrate a front in order to achieve a ZOC kill.
Now what you get from enemy’s line penetration is a isolation of enemy units?!?! Which is far less than ZOC kill.
Is isn’t this likely to reduce the value of Cavalry as a combat arm?
What do you people think?

Captain Alexey Tartyshev
Moscow Grenadiers Regiment
2nd Grenadier Division
8th Infantry Corps
2nd Army of the West (NWC)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

With this rule ZOC kills are still possible but it's now clear what such a kill means. First you cut off a unit or a stack, then you melee it, probaly fire it, keep them encircled for some time - at least one turn- and eliminate routed isolated unit/stack if it becomes routed. This sequence may be interpreted as "unit/stack was encircled and seeing no way out surrendered". This process must last a bit longer than 15 minutes. The rule actually makes possible another possible sequence "unit was encircled but didn't rout and managed to breakthrough" which was not a rare case in Napoleonic warfare. The question is whether ZOCed defenders suffer additional casualties if they loose in melee as in Panzer Campaign engines. I didn't manage to find this out with several probe melees.

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The question is whether ZOCed defenders suffer additional casualties if they loose in melee<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Looks like they don't [V]

<b>general-feldmarshal Eugene Gulyaev
RA Chief of Staff
Leib-Gvardii Semenovskij Polk
Club Secretary
</b>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by chomski</i>
<br />Sirs,
is there any possibility to change optional rules (turn no melee elimination on) during game? I play large campaign Waterloo scenario with my friends (we are in turn 15) and we would like to set no melee eliminations on.

Next, I thank for repairing prussian independent skirmishers bug but issue is only half resolved. Skirmishers go from Rout to Disordered but there is no signal they could be undisoredered to normal state.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

YES! I may be able to help. Email me the file and I will see what I can do. Give me a couple of days to mess around with the file and I may be able to help you out.

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

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jeka</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> The question is whether ZOCed defenders suffer additional casualties if they loose in melee<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Looks like they don't [V]

<b>general-feldmarshal Eugene Gulyaev
RA Chief of Staff
Leib-Gvardii Semenovskij Polk
Club Secretary
</b>


<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Yes they DO. You just dont see the additional losses. They are combined in one total.

Guys, in one melee against Marco Rietveld I was able to wipe out 500 of his men in Line with my French cuirassiers. (test game)

The new modifier makes cavalry very potent. It all depends on how you use them.

I used TWO squadrons of cuirassiers (yes TWO) to hit a 800 man column on the flank and beat it in the melee. This will NOT always happen but the modifier has upped the ante on the INITIAL melee. After that the disorder effect pretty much takes the steam out of a charge. Usually I just bring up fresh cav and hit the next unit with fresh cav.

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

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Looks like they don't [V]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I made a test in campaign Waterloo. Two regiments of french Hussars against one squadron of KGL. Effective forces were 601 vs 138. Outcomes were always a loss for defending Brits except the first one. Casualties were Defender:Attacker: 8:12 (Brits won), 52:24, 26:20, 18:12 when defenders had no valid retreat path and 26:22, 16:12 when they had.

As mathematical statisticians say empirical evidence do not allow us to reject both hypothesis[:)]

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

I think we should wait for creators reply to find this out [:)]

<b>general-feldmarshal Eugene Gulyaev
RA Chief of Staff
Leib-Gvardii Semenovskij Polk
Club Secretary
</b>

There was one already, see below[:)]

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

How do we recognize that a unit "has boats" ?[?]

It seems the only way to define a unit "has boats" is in the scn editor. Do you have modified all the existing scns including units with boats in these ones ?[?]

thanks in advance for the infos[;)]

<font color="orange">Kapitein Valère Bernard </font id="orange">
<font color="red">Anglo-Allied Administrative Adjutant</font id="red">
<font color="orange">Divisie Nederlandsche Kavallerie
I Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
</font id="orange">

I've conducted tests where the defender losses and gets wiped out, and other tests where they did not lose, suffered losses but stayed in the hex and further melees were required to eliminate them. The patch works as designed.

Maréchal Hamilton, Baron d'Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

Saxon Leib-Garde, de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by valere5</i>
<br />How do we recognize that a unit "has boats" ?[?]

It seems the only way to define a unit "has boats" is in the scn editor. Do you have modified all the existing scns including units with boats in these ones ?[?]

thanks in advance for the infos[;)]

<font color="orange">Kapitein Valère Bernard </font id="orange">
<font color="red">Anglo-Allied Administrative Adjutant</font id="red">
<font color="orange">Divisie Nederlandsche Kavallerie
I Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
</font id="orange">

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

As in the Early American Wars series look for a "B" by the movement allowance.

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

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

I made a test with scenario editor. I put on the map routed independent skirmisher (Jaegerdet. IR 12, 1st brigade, 1st Prussian Corps) plus Blucher, Ziethen II, Steinmets and leader of IR 12 Othengraven. All in command chain and in command radius of that skirmisher.

In game skirmisher rallied to disordered state succesfully after first turn. But I could never undisorder him for until the end of scenario (20 turns). It seems that the unit is not even checked for undisordering.

I just did a similar test.

Rich H. - the independent Prussian skirmisher units are NOT undisordering. Can you let John know about this.

No command test report comes up after the first one where all of the routed skirms unrouted. They would have remained in a disordered state throughout the entire 20 turn scenario. I stopped right away recognizing that the program wasnt even trying to do the test in the first place.

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

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

Dirms have to be within 3 hexes of parent unit to undisorder, correct? If no parent is present no chance to reform, correct?


Colonel Al Amos
1erè Brigade Commandant
2ème Division de Dragons