Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

There a couple of issues that I would like to raise and debate, attack columns and entrenching. Horse dung issue aside . I think there is an important formation missing from the game which is the attack column. Currently the game systems uses the march column for both. I think that this creates some of the 'Blitzkrieg' situations in the single phase system.

The Attack column was a wider and denser formation then the march columns. It required time to setup and was used to advance against the enemy. It was used by Napoleon as a superior movement formation to approach the enemy line. At the last possible moment the formation was to deploy into line, in theory at least. It could form squares and go to line quickly. It should be more maneuverable then the pure line and not be as easily disrupted when moving. When disrupted it should be able to move further then line. The formation would use the regular terrain movement, not use road movement, and have some difficulty in moving into towns. It would not be a good defence formation as musket and artillery fire would cause severe casualties. Something like a square.

It took time to get to march formation. March formation should have a minimum of attack capability if any and be liable to easier disruption and rout if attacked.

The result would be to have a combat formation that would not be able to use the road movement rate to move up and attack. Therefore a potential reduction in the 'Blitzkrieg' effect. The players would also be slowed down due to the need to change to march formation to use the road.

The result would be to move down a road, change to attack column, move towards the enemy, better then line, and then change to line for full fire capability. Melee in attack column would be effective but suffer higher losses from line fire when approaching. It would be up to the player to decide to change to line or keep advancing and suffer the higher losses.


Entrenchments

There is a total lack of entrenching capability. One piece of equipment that Napoleon provided to each soldier, and thought essential, was the Axe. Fortifying and entrenching positions was often done. Why is this valuable combat tool not available in the engine?

Chef de Battalion Pierre D.
Armee du Rhin
VII Corps, 22eme Division, 1ere Brigade

Hi Pierre,

Yes I agree srongly with your thinking in relation to the game effects/mechanics iof the choice of columns. If these changes were possible I would in fact have three different columns:
<font color="orange">Column of March </font id="orange">- The only way to recieve a road movement bonus. Minimal fire and melee effect. Easily disrupted if fired or meleed.
<font color="orange">Column </font id="orange">- Single coy wide with remaining coys behind - limited fire and melee effect. Hard to disrupt. Good movement over ground and obstacles.
<font color="orange">Attack Column </font id="orange">- 2 or more Coys wide reasonable fire and good melee effect. Average movement over ground and average ability to disrupt from obstacles or fire/melee.

As for entrenchments although they were more common than is generaly thought (especially with artillery) I feel it would lead to a loss of historical 'feel' to the games as everyone would defend with entrenchments as soon as possible. The feel of the era I think is more important in these games and entrenchments would detract from the wonderful 2 dimensional battlefield that was the Napoleonic wars. For those keen on digging in there is always the American Civil Massacres...ooops I mean War.

Lt Col Mike Ellwood
Inf Regt Konig
VII (Saxon) Corps
ADR

I agree with you Pierre (and you Mike) about the column formation issue. It's one crudeness and weakness of the system that really stands out and I'd love to see it fixed.

Regarding the entrenchments. Didn't the latest patches add entrenchments (and abatis) to the game engine? Not the ability for units to build them during the battle but for scenario designers to add them where appropriate. That gets round the potential unhistorical over-use that Mike is talking about.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/Napoleonic/nap.htm"]Lieutenant Colonel Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>

Pierre,

I couldn't agree with you more about the need to distinguish between "road" columns and "attack" columns. This is an issue that was raised at the beginning of the HPS series when Eckmuhl was being playtested, but John Tiller has to date declined to create additional formations for the Nap games. I would strongly encourage you to forward your comments to Rich Hamilton since John has often been more responsive to request for changes that come directly from consumers.

I believe that the entrenchment issue, however, is being addressed. I saw some postings here in the Tavern a month or two ago to the effect that pioneers will soon have the ability to create abattis and other fortifications.

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>

Hey would you add in Cavalry deploying into LINE as the main formation for combat but COLUMN for using roads AND is less able in combat while you are at it.

Totally agree with you Pierre. My boss is the boss but he does listen to you guys and perhaps he would think it over if one or more of YOU GUYS sent him a note.

I will tell you right now his main argument of the ROAD COLUMN - that it didnt take much to change from ATTACK COLUMN to ROAD COLUMN.

So when you present your argument you had better be quoting chapter and verse to him. His source was a guy years ago that told him this. Since then neither heaven (Rich) nor earth (me) has moved him.

The cavalry line was found to be better in combat because it would wrap around the column as per many encounters between the French (LINE) and Austrians (COLUMNS).

Now, one problem you do have is that not ALL nationalities used the Attack Column you speak of. For instance the Russian and Austrian columns were VERY narrow. A typical French ATTACK COLUMN was two companies wide. The Grenadiers would normally deploy to the rear or sometimes to the side but from what I remember reading and hearing here they didnt like to go 3 wide as much because of the unsecure flank.

But yes, a ROAD COLUMN should be LONGER than a ATTACK COLUMN and for that reason I would love to see: Road Stacking Maximum. Either one unit or 500 men I would think would do. This would be those units that are in ROAD COLUMN only. The rest of the hex could add up to whatever the max stacking for the hex is at the time.

One big beef I have with the Panzer series is that the stacking for road spills over into the hex. Thus units in Travel mode (T) should not be impeded by the units off of the road. But they are and you end up paying the cost of terrain as a result. Something that I wish that John would end.

I also would like to see the series end the cav/inf disorder issue. Cav and infantry should be able to co-exist in the same hex. Just like in the ACW series.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, 5ème Division, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

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

Cavalry in line was also a formation.

I think it is reasonable to believe that it took a few minutes to change from March to attack. I think that it would be reasonable to believe that you would not simply march up to an enemy line and attack with no loss of time. Just the proximity of enemy would cause a few minutes of delay to get things organized to avoid panic and demoralization. The turns are only 15 minutes! It would probably take longer to go from Attack to March column especially if the unit was in combat or in proximity of the enemy. The overall purpose is to slow down the game system which is much too fast. There needs to be cause and effect so that choices made would have consequences. There is no consequence to March 24 hours except to fatigue units. Attacking at night is almost preferable to reduce artillery range fire etc. Too many things can be done without any appreciable consequence.

Another point is Heavy Cavalry. They move just as nimbly as light. There should be a difference so that you use them like they are supposed to be.

People who agree or disagree for these formations should chime in.

If many of the knowledgeable consumers (5 so far) think that the attack column is a needed improvement that should help with the cause.

With this said they are still great games.

Chef de Battalion Pierre D.
Armee du Rhin
VII Corps, 22eme Division, 1ere Brigade

Going to have to have someone send a note to John though. I have tried in the past. Talking here is nice but you have to approach John on your own to get it done.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, 5ème Division, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

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

I understand Bill just want to discuss it first.

Chef de Battalion Pierre D.
Armee du Rhin
VII Corps, 22eme Division, 1ere Brigade

Pierre...if you're gathering names to support a request to John on these issues please add my name to your petition![:D]

Lt. Tom Bridges
5/3e Artillerie à Cheval
1er Corps, Artillerie du Reserve
AdN

"He that would lead men to die must know how to live"

Great idea Pierre.. Count me in [:D]

<center>
[img]</center>
<center>Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Commanding L'Armee du Rhin
Duc de Paive
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Jeune Garde
NWC President</center>

Hi guys,

Yes add my name to the list if we're going to do a group thing. However should we consider doing it with some authority?
We should put together a list of points for attention with a short and accurate explaination of each, ending with a few ideas on resolving/implimenting the issues.
Each signature should be accompanied by any 'authority' you have on the subject e.g. Have been wargaming this period for 25yrs and am the Grand Master of the Napoleonic Battle Tactics University of the Northern Hemisphere etc etc [:o)]. Joking aside, also how long you have been playing these games would be good.
This I believe is an approach that would have some sense, reason and 'clout' in achieving the objectives that we seek.

Can I also add:

The idea of NOT reducing movement for Disordered Cav. From my reading it would be rerasonable to consider disordered cav very capable of movement at the same if not greater rate. The need to maintain formation was usually gone and the troops were making every effort to remove themselves from the action in order to reform. I find the cavalry losses in comparison to reality are a bit excessive, usually becuase of the fact the units are subjected to musket fire more than would be the case for disordered, dispersed and retreating troops. Does anyone agree?

Also- How about the idea of NOT being able to make Frontal melee attacks against goood order, steady infantry. This would have a number of more 'historic' effect I believe. It would seem that cases where this occured were very very few and far between. As is so often stated in research, one side or the other usually gave way before the bayonet and butt were put to serious use. I say again only FRONTAL melees against good order, steady troops. Flank attacks and attacks into woods and built up areas I would consider still viable but with reduced losses in those types of terrain. Agree or not?

Who has other ideas that we can add to the list?
If we agree on a list we can go ahead research and throw together our reasoning and solutions in that order. Appoint a contact person for each point so that he collects, coalates and presents the argument. One person as the 'Editor' who joins it all up and gets it away.

My more than 2c worth I believe [:D].

Lt Col Mike Ellwood
Inf Regt Konig
VII (Saxon) Corps, ADR

Gents,
I've had mixed results with approaching John over the years. On two occasions I've gotten things changed, and on others, not so much so.

That said, I'd like to give you some advice.

The first and main thing? FOCUS

You aren't going to make a great deal of progress by focusing on more than 1-2 ideas.

Then, document your ideas fully. Give solid references to the tactics, and the difference between March and Assault Column. Instead of saying "I've been gaming for this many years" I think you'd be better served by refering to either actual manuals or at least books which give the details of the formations.

Of course, my advice is free.

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

Good advice Gentlemen.

Let's focus on Attack and March columns for now.

I understand that everything in the game is an abstraction of reality. How best these abstractions give the illusion of reality is the goal.

In a 15 minute turn, there is a movement cost to form Squares, and to go into line. In the game all are used, 15 minutes, to go into square and 5MP to change to line/column, 7 1/2 minutes.

What references were used to give these values?

Reading may books makes you come to the conclusion that the Authors give you their interpretations as to whats happening rather then actual facts. Some are better then others.

Bill did I see you mention a new 10 minute scale. What were the reasons for going from 15 to 10?

Chef de Battalion Pierre D.
Armee du Rhin
VII Corps, 22eme Division, 1ere Brigade

I agree with Mike on cavalry not being reduced in movement. Good thought and something I will ponder for a future suggestion to John.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, 5ème Division, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

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

Pierre,
I think Bill must have missed this, so I'll take a shot at it (as I was on the Playtest team).

The first and foremost reason for the change was to make the pacing of the game a bit more deliberate, which would restrain the ability to use Panzer Tactics within the game (as the reduced time would reduce movement rates) As memory serves, we'd messed with the idea as early as Wagram, but Bill decided to use it in Jena.

However, note that this is not something that is entirely agreed upon, and Waterloo does NOT follow this scheme, nor do any of the earlier games.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Pierre D</i>
<br />Good advice Gentlemen.

Let's focus on Attack and March columns for now.

I understand that everything in the game is an abstraction of reality. How best these abstractions give the illusion of reality is the goal.

In a 15 minute turn, there is a movement cost to form Squares, and to go into line. In the game all are used, 15 minutes, to go into square and 5MP to change to line/column, 7 1/2 minutes.

What references were used to give these values?

Reading may books makes you come to the conclusion that the Authors give you their interpretations as to whats happening rather then actual facts. Some are better then others.

Bill did I see you mention a new 10 minute scale. What were the reasons for going from 15 to 10?

Chef de Battalion Pierre D.
Armee du Rhin
VII Corps, 22eme Division, 1ere Brigade

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

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