Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I know I'm "a little bit" late with the question, but why Prussian and British leaders have actually the same command range in HPS Waterloo? With Prussian regiments treaten as brigades the "acting" brigades commanders are Majors, LtColonels and rarely Colonels. While in British ary the are most oftern Colonels or Brigade Generals. BTW French have Colonels and GdBs on these positions. But... The command range for French is set to 4, while for British AND Prussian 3. It's always refered to as if french leaders are more competent in warfare, discussable but still, but then we have to admit that average Prussian major serving in landwerh who was drafted from the retirement is just as competent as average British colonel. The same on the next level. Prussian Colonel I never heard befor is as competent as say Picton or Preponcher. Strange isn't it?

BTW how is this question resolved in Jena? What are the command ranges for Prussians, Russians and French. Is this unexplainable rule of decreasing Russian command range still in force?

<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>

Good question: I can speak up about Jena on this topic.

First, the ratings:

French:
Division 7
Brigade 5

Prussian:
Division 6
Brigade 4

Russian:
Division 5
Brigade 3

First, the French:

I gave them the best ratings because at this juncture they were the best army in Europe not only in the rank and file but in their command system. The RANGE has more to do with their FLEXIBILITY in command and ability of their command system to command larger formations.

Coupled with the better Command/Leadership ratings (you have to get the BIG picture) they have the best army on the field.

Second, the Prussians:

Slightly less you might think and ... why?

I didnt look for RANGE as much as TOTAL EFFECT. The Prussians may have still been COLUMN minded like most of the Allied armies but when you add in their poor Command/Leadership ratings you have an army that has a decent command range for Disorder recovery but doesnt have the better recovery rate of the French.

When you look at the Rout (again, this uses the Leadership rating) recovery of the Allies you can definitely see the disparity.

Thus the Allies generally have better MORALE but when it comes to RECOVERY they will not do so as well as the French.

Finally, the Russians. The army of this period was not really that great. They had plenty of division within the command ranks, etc. as per most armies but definitely had less freedom of movement. Thus I enforce a tighter range of distance between unit and its leader.

Somewhere along the way I have read that the Russians were highly reliant on their leaders and would do anything for them but if one died they could stand motionless for hours. Again, this may be a myth but there is no doubt that the Russian army was not up to par with the French when it came to tactical usage.

Add in that they have smaller sized bns. and in this particular title they are a brittle force. They look good with their guns but trying to keep a solid front is going to be difficult. Add in that they cannot melee with the Prussians against the French and you have a force that plainly will need some narrow frontage in order to survive.

Back to command discussions. The French overall had a very independent minded command structure vs. their opponents during this timeframe.

All bets are off for later periods. But I will let Rich answer on that one.


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]

French had bigger permanent Brigade and Division staffs as well. This allows for better command/control which in our system would be represented by comand radius and leader quality levels.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />French had bigger permanent Brigade and Division staffs as well. This allows for better command/control which in our system would be represented by comand radius and leader quality levels.

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


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

Exactly. The Allies armies, including the British, tended to work with smaller staffs at this level. And Wellington didnt exactly have a large staff at army level either.

Where the game cannot reflect this is in the area of maneuver. We tend to use the old radio concept and instantly men are moved off to counter a threat that historically wouldnt have been stopped until later.

The Austrians for instance at Wagram were more or less fixed on a game plan by the late evening hours. Even Napoleon's great change of front to face the Austrian threat on his left at that battle took some doing and was the exception rather than the rule.

But yes, the staffs of the French were larger. But that probably was to carry all of that perfume that Paco has to maintain at his HQ!

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]

as for me I would prefer a formal procedure to estimate this parameter. And if none present to have them equal for all the armies just like in EAW series. BTW even with equal command ranges for different armies it's quite possible to represent the "flavour" of each army only with leaders quality/troops quality and organization. No need in these strange fanaticism bonuses and different ranges that to my mind sound if not insulting then strange at the very least.

<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>

It would be nice to have to 'issue' orders to formations then have couriers take them for the officers commanding to act upon. Of course the computer could track all that stuff for us, and the designer would have the opportunity to assign variable number of couriers so the better organized armies would have a bit of an advantage.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />It would be nice to have to 'issue' orders to formations then have couriers take them for the officers commanding to act upon. Of course the computer could track all that stuff for us, and the designer would have the opportunity to assign variable number of couriers so the better organized armies would have a bit of an advantage.

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


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

(sounds of drool pouring to ground)

Oh yeah pard. You and me both.

Fire off a message to John on this. Perhaps we could someday see a real command model for ORGs.

The only other thing I can suggest is to write orders and get a third party to monitor the moves now and then.

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 Al Amos</i>
<br />It would be nice to have to 'issue' orders to formations then have couriers take them for the officers commanding to act upon. Of course the computer could track all that stuff for us, and the designer would have the opportunity to assign variable number of couriers so the better organized armies would have a bit of an advantage.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We have that in the "Jean Tessier" system of play and it works out well. Of course, with that system you need one gamemaster to handle the moves, couriers, messages,etc, but it is a fun way to simulate the battlefield conditions.

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

"It would be nice to have to 'issue' orders to formations then have couriers take them for the officers commanding to act upon."

Try playing with Commander Control (one of the best kept secrets in the game)[:)]. It does a pretty good imitation of command & control problems during the Napoleonic Era and you can even play it with PBEM. Plus it has artillery "auto fire" incorporated too.[:D]