Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Is it worthwhile switching from batteries 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 will allow them to make use of indirect fire.

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


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

the only issue I have with gun sections is that when you are matching.

Way to many units if we go to sections... UNLESS we are allowed to put them together by battery when we march.

<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>

We have talked this one over already concerning breaking down the batteries and its basically a no-go at this point.

I try and keep the number of sections down to a minimum as the folks mainly like batteries.

Where I gave sections in the Jena OB (Prussians) some folks felt that they should have been combined. My answer to this will be to publish an OB for them to use which combines them into one battery.

I am against having all of the sections like the ACW series has for the simple reason that it dilutes the strength and rarely (as witnessed by a recent Jena-Karlsburg scenario I am in with Dean) results in MORE shots when attacked.

What I/you can do is put together howitzer batteries from the various batteries in a special/alternate version of the OB. Sort of like combined grenadiers. Pull out the howitzers from the main batteries and combine them into one battery.

For the French in Jena - I used whatever divisions I had in the OBs I had. I added in the small regimental guns for the Prussians and probably should have done the same for the French but for some reason I think I didnt due to play balance. Cant remember my reasoning on those at this point.

For the Prussians - I added in regimental guns because that is what the TO&E said that I had.

For the Russians - I didnt want 12 gun batteries but note that the lowest they go is 4 guns. I felt that this would work better. In the alternate OB I will create I will combine all guns into full batteries.

Some folks (for whatever reason) also wanted the cavalry back to the way it had been. So there will be a further version which combines all of the squadrons into regiments and the division will as per Campaign Eckmuhl (6 squadrons per regiment).

I thought over a breakdown scheme today and it just wont work. Trying to record the losses of each section and then having them recombine and redivide and have the losses reflect right would be alot of work for John. I would prefer to get him to put in other changes at this point which would be more helpful to the game such as sappers being able to help with GATE hexes or in attacking or defending locations.

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]

Sections equals too many shots. For large games with lots of units, it already takes quite a bit of time per turn and multiply that by 3 to 4 for gun sections doesn't sound appealing compared to little gained from the added realism of sections.

Col. Dirk Smith
1e Bg, 16 Dv, V Corps
Armee du Rhin

Mssrs.,

Whenever I've used OBs with "sections" rather than batteries (The original Eylau game is a prime example), I found that it seriously diluted the artillery's effecctiveness. IMO, an artillery unit needs to be firing at least 3 guns per turn to be effective within the current system, and 6-8 guns are the ideal number. Moreover, this reflects the practice of the period which saw all armies abolish "regimental" guns, grouping them instead into Bg/Dv assets. Hence, although in the abstract it would be interesting to differentiate between howitzer and cannon fire, as a practical matter it would only weaken the effectiveness of artillery.

Moreover, in an age without long distance communications other than by courier effective "indirect fire" was simply impossible. Direct observation was essential not simply for the range but to determine how long/short the fuses for shells needed to be cut. The howitzers of the period, and their shells, were notoriously inacurate and could only be used with any degree of reliability against a fixed, non-moving target, such as a town.

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>

Paco, as usual, has hit the nail on the head.

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

Should the series ever go backward in time to the 1790's, or should it ever cover some of the minor actions of the War in Spain, then sections would be nice. For the larger battles, Paco is correct for historical accuracy of the trends within the period, and for game engine performance.

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

For an earlier period a better command control procedure would be needed. Even for this period the command control rules leave something to be desired.

I would prefer a new engine for the Seven Years and Marlborough Wars rather than a modified Napoleonic. A mix between what we have an what you see in the Musket wars products put out by Shrapnel.

Command points would be nice. Jim D. did that with his Defend the Reich game (albeit different approach to the issue) and having a number of command points and also friction level for army rout would be very nice for those games. You could then take it clear back to the 30 Years War and War of the Roses and ECW.

Artillery needs to have some ability to skip when ball is used. Thus a new engine that allows you to pick the "load" for artillery would be VERY nice. The Age of Sail game had that for each ship's broadside. Would be nice for a new product too.

Add in the Command assignment dialog that was in John's Naval series (Jutland, etc) where you can assign troops to commanders AND LOS is based on what the player's troops (only) can see when he is moving. This would stop the practice of being able to see the entire battlefield (although rules lawyers would just move one of their units and mix it with their CinCs troops I suppose to see the overall picture).

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]

BTW, not sure if this kindd of thing should be mentioned in a separate post, but... are ricochetes considered to be introduced. the fact is that cannon balls usually after the first his continued to ricoshete and produce damage and kills. See for example De Brack - he refers a placemnt of cav behind arty as a mistake because it would be slaughtered with these ricosheting cannon balls.

<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>

John was lobied for a "beaten zone" a long time ago, and it was truned down. It would be very nice to have.

BTW Bill, the 1790's would be the wars of the French Revolution, not the SYW.

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 />John was lobied for a "beaten zone" a long time ago, and it was truned down. It would be very nice to have.

BTW Bill, the 1790's would be the wars of the French Revolution, not the SYW.

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


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

Right, was also thinking of the earlier wars too. Pretty much what you would have to do is give the guns more firepower to make it worth the player's while to want to use them. Its sort of like the worthless CSA artillery in the Peninsular game. I basically park them in the rear and hold a Drive In movie. Usually the guys get to see something like Glory or Gettysburg.

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]

For those who want sections, there is a simple solution, just make a copy of your OOB file, and edit it, breaking down the batteries however you want.

Ensign William Davis
23rd (Royal Welsh) Fusiliers

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by WillieD13</i>
<br />For those who want sections, there is a simple solution, just make a copy of your OOB file, and edit it, breaking down the batteries however you want.

Ensign William Davis
23rd (Royal Welsh) Fusiliers

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

That's about the size of it (pun) [;)]

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]

Yes, players can of course edit the OOB and then redo a scenario incorporating gun sections, but this takes time. So it would be more convenient (for players, but not for scenario designers) if gun section variant scenarios were already available to select when starting up a game.

The main issue though is whether it's worthwhile for scenario designers to go to this extra trouble. If only a handful of players are interested in having gun sections then it's not worthwhile. But if a lot of players might like to play with gun sections then it is worth considering.

That's basically the reason for starting up this thread - to see how many players would like to see gun sections.

... and so far, it looks like it's not worthwhile.


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

Rich,

I'm afraid it will make arty iven less effective and prevent player from using it agressively as it happened rather often. Just two considerations:
1. In NRC where we have 12gun russian companies fire of two 6gun semi-companies is much less effective than fire of one combined coy. I don't know why, but that's a fact.
2. Defensive fire effectiveness will be greately decreased. Compare defensive fire of one 12 gun battery and one defensive shot 4gun strong section. Even two shots won't be enough. I suppose an according number would be 3-5, maybe even more.

So. introduction of sections will require recalibration of artyllery effectiveness. It may be done as well with no help from John just altering the pdt file. If it's done it will of course improve the accuracy.

As always I'm for better historical accuracy, but here I'm really not sure the effect is worth the effort.

<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>