Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Gents,

My ideas about possible improvements in order of importance for your humble servant (the higher the more important[:I]):
1. Two additional formations for cavalry - Line and Extended. all of the units are able to use the first one. It's the only one cavalry may effectively melee, limited movement compared to colomn and extended. No fire ability. Disruption when it enters closed terrain or crosses streams, walls etc. Ability to charge.
Extended has a bit increased movement ability or decreased movement costs. It does not receive disordered penalty when enters closed terrain or crosses streams, walls etc. Ability to fire. No ability to charge. Melee penalty of say 1/2 (up to discussion). Decreased exposure to gun- and musketfire (just like skirms if more than a certain number this rule is cancelled). Only light cavalry (including cossacks!) may go into this formation.
2. Marching fatigue. It was described in details numerous times. No need to repeat.
3. No movement penalty for disordered units in Rich White interpretation.
4. Artyllery supply with different types of ammo for different calibers. Working just the same way an an ordinary supply.
5. Notification. If my actions will make units in destination hex disordered I would love to have a dialog boxasking if I'm sure I want to proceed. Will eliminate a lot of "operational risk" disorders.
6. Attack colomns as described here.
7. Disorder rule not applicable to infantry in skirmrishers and cavalry in extended formations.
8. Limbers as a part of arty strength. While unlimbered acting as a separate unit.
9. Ability to cossacks to swim across rivers and creeks.(probably just assign them "has boat" flag?[:I])
Hope not too many of them.[:I]

<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 ideas Anton! Especially the cavalry formations.

I'd suggest allowing both light cavalry (including cossacks) and light infantry to use the <i>extended line </i>formation and perhaps for units in this formation to suffer less losses if shot at and melee at 1/4 strength, but suffer less casualties if meleed. (ie. how the EAW engine deals with this formation). In addition, cavalry in <i>extended line </i>(and ordinary skirmishers too) might have the ACW skirmisher ability to see 2 hexes ahead at night or in difficult terrain. However (like with skirmishers), there should be a max stacking limit for units in extended line to benefit from this formation. <i>Alternatively, instead of adding the extended line formation, maybe it would be simpler to just allow light cavalry to go into skirmish order?</i>

Unfortunately, I suspect it may not be possible (or very awkward) to get new formations added to the game engine, which may be why we've seen no new formations added since the BG days. But I hope this isn't the case.

On the other hand, supply wagons for artillery shouldn't be that difficult to incorporate. I suspect the main problem here would be back-dating the feature to the earlier games in the series - since the oobs, and thus all the scenarios, would need re-doing - although this might be overcome by retaining old style oobs that continue to use the old artillery pool system. However, scenario designers (or players themselves) would be able to update the oob and scenario files and these would then work with the new feature. Thus the updating process might be gradual - and could be carried out by club members as they start up new games - and so wouldn't require a vast amount of reworking (and sleepless nights!) for poor old Bill.


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

You can count me in . with most of the changes you have down..

When Gary said about letting John know with Book Reference ..all he has to do is order any Table top Napoleonic rule book....

All the changes you are putting down are in any of them..,,

One thing Bill put down that we must all remember is .not ALL nationalities used the Attack Column ... But the smae gos to the way they would fight in battle..

Mind you i thought the Russians change by the Russian campaign and used the double column most of the time....

Also ..Did not Napoleon use air ballons as well for finding the enemy..

<font color="red">Maréchal</font id="red">
<font color="red">BEECHAM</font id="red"> Commandant 1ème Division de Cuirassiers,
1 Corps Res Cav,ADN.

Prince d` Istria et Comte d` Arles La Jeune Garde

"Toujours féroce,jamais étourdi"

Gentlemen
My 5 cents - As a Napoleonic buff I agree with pretty much all of the ideas here but I wish to raise one consideration. I come from a tabletop background (25mm). As we do not have the automation the digital world brings we have always had to balance realism with playability. My favourite rules are very realistic but very slow to play. It seems to me whilst the PC does allow automation of calculations that playability vs realism still remains a essential consideration. Whilst I love a historical game some areas of using for example attack columns would be difficult. Not only did not all armies use them the company size of the various combatants varied. Also the strength of a French Btn would effect its ability to form the 2 company frontage. If it was at full strength (around 800 in the later empire and 900 earlier) it would be able to form one but if it was low probably not, what about the big Russian companies in the early period etc etc and so on... Lots to allow for. Also what about the French blended line/column mixed formation? (I wont attempt the French spelling)

There are actually many things that could be integrated into the game system that are not. I probably agree their should be an attack column function or cav line function but we should keep in mind the balance in playability. The more accuracy and detail the slower the game moves.

Regards


Colonel Colin Knox,
4e Chassuer a Cheval
1st Brigade
3e Division Cavalerie Legere
IIIe Corps
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm
Armee du Nord

You're right, there's always the issue of balancing realism with playability.

In some cases (eg. for some formations), it's probably necessary to go down to the company scale, as the battalion scale is really too abstract.

One gaming element that can be discussed - and implemented without the need for any engine changes - would be whether to switch from batteries down to gun sections, as the ACW games have done (and as I did for the company scale Waterloo scenarios). This would allow the different gun types within a battery to be represented, eg. howitzers, which by the way will now be capable of indirect fire.

Personally, I'd like to see OOBs include <i>both</i> batteries and gun sections and include alternative scenarios with gun sections, so that players can chose either option.


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

The scale of abstraction that the game defines is an important consideration when deciding on what is a viable option to implement.

I am concerned about the number of 'options' available. If a scale abstraction simulates the movement and combat properly then the number of player option should be about adding complexity. Most should be hard coded into the game. For example line movement restrictions, what is the norm? Does anybody actually want to choose multiple cavalry and infantry melees? Should not melee terrain modifiers be the norm. Target density is this not a norm? Victory points for leader casualties why not the norm? The current choices are confusing to the experienced never mind the novice. The game should have a standard that works and not have to chose from a multitude of optional rules. 18 choices! In order to please everyone it is becoming a chore just to figure out what your opponent likes. Instead of making the games more enjoyable they are making them less. In my opinion anyway.

Perhaps this is a reflection between gamers and simulationist that Gary was alluding to in another post. Both need to be balanced in order to provide a playable version of a game. After all they are games. The direction seems to be towards a less playable version. Not a good thing to attract new people.

Since these are the main games for the club I am just concerned about ensuring that the new gamers are not left behind in the quest for complexity. New gamers is what will sustain the club and the hobby.





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

But because so many people do not like some of the Options (Mike Cox likes the Skirmisher Overrun Rule - I dont) we have them as Options!

John is big on this. If a rule is suggested that he feels doesnt work with he entire group of gamers then its an option.

The Panzer engine also has alot of options. ACW engine is growing too. These are all good things. I have very little problem finding opponents - we just compromise on a rule or two and move on.

In some cases the Weak ZOC rule would hurt the defender. In some cases you want the Density Modifier. In other cases you dont.

I had the Multiple Infantry Melee rule added so that skirmishers wouldnt be able to block a road. Same goes for the cavalry rule. If cavalry blocks your way just melee them twice or more til you have a clear path along the road.

This series will reach its logical conclusion and by that time I doubt that we would have added more than say 4 more rules. Perhaps a 5th ...

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]