Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

An update for this game will be out soon and will feature an Alternate version of the Scharnhorst Plan first scenario.

Instead of using the entire large Jena map instead the first fight will take place on the same map you get in the Short Campaign. Still large but only 160 turns and probably done in 140 at most. And of course you can put in a Term. Bid to end it earlier than that.

Some fixes were made to one campaign file and the Karlsburg scenario has a correction or two as well.

Thanks to the guys that gave input on the Scharnhorst Plan campaign. Yes, that first scenario is long and I guess I was just happy to give you guys the big map and felt that most would enjoy the big area to move around in. Nevertheless there are those that dont want to play 150 turns before a major engagement can occur ... thus for you the new Alternate campaign will be your meat and potatoes. Courtesy of Idaho of course! [:D]

And of course the engine update the corrects the indepedent skirmisher company rally issue will be incorporated into ALL of the games as well as Jena.

Look for the updates to be out very soon. Enjoy guys.

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]

Bill,

If the canges come out soon maybe you could look through the oob for Russian army once again, I believe I mentioned this before but there was no reaction: average Saxon grenadiers batallion is rated as A with some of them being B and I believe there was one or two A+, Average Prussian grenadiers batallion is rated B, with some being A. All of the Russian grenadiers batallions are rated as an ordinary infantry to be C. It seems unlogical and strange taking into account even your campaign notes evaluate Russian grenadiers as being "good troops" while others "just the average".

There were actually two types of grenadiers in Russian army one - the grenadiers regiments themselves, the other grenadiers batallions of musketeers regiments. Each of them consisted of two musketeers and one grenadiers batallions (btw grenadiers regiment consisted of one grenadiers and two fusiliers batallions). All the batallions were four coys strong.

It will increase historical accuracy, I believe.

Thanks in advance!

<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>

All Russian grenadiers have the fanatical rating. Take a closer look at them next time.

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]

Thanks Bill. Didn't notice that[:I]

And still I do not understand why this addition to the morale was used instead of just increasing the quality. Increasing the quality will give them a bonus in fire and melee, but that's exactly what elite troops should have. Most important why are some troops rated using one considerations while for others there is another set of considerations?

<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>

Take a look at the French morales my friend. I am waiting for the folks to complain about them too.

ALL morales got knocked down in this title. In a future update of Wagram and Eckmuhl I will probably reduce the morales for those titles as well. I want to see how this model works before I spend alot of time correcting files.

Play the game and see how it all works. There are always future updates to correct these issues.

Note that the Prussian/Saxon cavalry is rated higher than the French for the most part. However, for command ratings the Allies are worth less than the French. The Leadership values also are where the Allies will suffer. When it comes to Rally recovery the Allies will not do as well as the French. So the Allies may not rout as often as the French but when they do they will be harder to recover.

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]

This, I would humbly submit, is why the Kriegsspiel, particularly the free variety, always worked best in a military environment -- the participants were used to being told that something is the case and accepting it. I can't imagine running a FK at a convention with modern gamers, each of whom has a well-researched, carefully considered, passionate opinion about just how a fight between the Red Lancers and elite Portugese infantry SHOULD have turned out.

There are times Mr. Hamilton when I do not envy you your task .

Best,

Capt. Jim Owczarski
8eme Hussards
AdN

Gentlemen songsters off on a spree, damned from here to eternity, God have mercy on such as we... -- The Whiffenpoofs

We will consider the morale values for this game as the results come in. There are alot of comlaints about units holding forever in the series. Now you should see a few more routs than normal.

I was the guy that increased the morale ratings back with a patch to Eckmuhl. Frankly it makes the game unhistorical. The units hold far too long. Thus I decreased the morales for this title. We will see based on feedback if something needs to be done in a future update. Thanks guys.

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]

Anton,

The key thing to bear in mind is that the unit quality ratings are meant to be a <i><b>relative </b></i>comparison of the opposing troops, not an absolute assesment of their relative worth/merit. For instance, the <i>Grande Armee </i>of 1806 was arguably the finest Napoleon commanded yet, for the Jena game, the line infantry has generally received a "C" rating while the elite <i>legere</i> rgts. are only a "B".[B)]

Over the years, as everyone lobbied for their favorite regiments [:)], there had been an unfortunate upward creep of the quality/morale ratings. As Bill points out, this had an unfortunate effect on the games, since units would rally in minutes rather than hours and would march back into the fray even after suffering catastrophic casualties. Historically, units which suffered upwards of 25% casualties became <i>hors de combat</i> for the remainder of a battle. In our games, however, units routinely fight to the literal last man. This is clearly wrong. The soldiers of the period were indeed heroic, but they were not supermen.[xx(] The present Jena OOB addresses this problem by giving <b>everyone</b> unifomly lower ratings. The effect of this change will be to present a more realistic simulation of the period's battles.

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et
Comte de Marseille
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde </i>

Well said Paco

Luitenant Generaal
2de Brigade
2de Nederlandsche Div
I Corps
Anglo Allied Army

Gents!

But I never advocated these shifts for these or that units. The only thing I always wanted to see is a formal procedure for assignment of quality ratings, relative of course, that is followed for all of the units. Ok, let it be informal, based the purposes of gameplay. But it must be the same for all. The reason I started all this is that this kind of uniformity is violated here.

<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>

Kosyanenko;
The same could be said of "troop movement and weapon lethality".

Common numbers should be used through out the series. For instance, infantry should be able to march "X" distance in 20 minutes, and then this would be adjusted in the PDT file for the weather.

The same for weapon lethality, if you look at the cannon lethality in Eckmuhl and Waterloo, they are not even close to being the same numbers for the exact same cannons !!!!!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Kosyanenko</i>
<br />Gents!

But I never advocated these shifts for these or that units. The only thing I always wanted to see is a formal procedure for assignment of quality ratings, relative of course, that is followed for all of the units. Ok, let it be informal, based the purposes of gameplay. But it must be the same for all. The reason I started all this is that this kind of uniformity is violated here.

<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>

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

Given that enough interest has been generated on the morale values I will look into them over the course of the next few months. For instance I may increase the Pavlov gren. to be 5 or 6, take away the fanatical rating, and perhaps increase the other grenadiers to 5.

However, for fire ability you cant prove to me that a Russian 6 morale unit could fire as well as a British 6 morale unit. This is ONE reason why I reduced the morales on the Russians a bit.

But play the game and if you find that the Russians are routing all over the place I will make a concerted effort to cure that issue.

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]

The fanatical bonus can be very helpful rating armies accurately since the 'morale' rating is also the 'training - weapon quality - supply' rating.

So troops that stood forever, aka Russians, may not have been very proficient at musketry. I would rather see them as a 4 with a bonus than a 5 and get any optional rule fire bonus.

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 />The fanatical bonus can be very helpful rating armies accurately since the 'morale' rating is also the 'training - weapon quality - supply' rating.

So troops that stood forever, aka Russians, may not have been very proficient at musketry. I would rather see them as a 4 with a bonus than a 5 and get any optional rule fire bonus.

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


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

My feelings exactly.

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 Panama Red</i>
<br />Kosyanenko;
The same could be said of "troop movement and weapon lethality".

Common numbers should be used through out the series. For instance, infantry should be able to march "X" distance in 20 minutes, and then this would be adjusted in the PDT file for the weather.

The same for weapon lethality, if you look at the cannon lethality in Eckmuhl and Waterloo, they are not even close to being the same numbers for the exact same cannons !!!!!
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Dear Sir,

You may not be aware of this, but there are two principal scenario design teams for HPS' Nap games. Reasonable designers, like gamers, can, and do, differ on such issues as the lethality of artillery, troop movement, etc. Hence, Eckmuhl and Waterloo reflect the differences in the, admittedly subjective, opinions of two different design teams.[:D]

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et
Comte de Marseille
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde </i>