Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Which game, board or computer, have you played that accurately portrayed the problems of command on the battlefield. In our games the entire army is off marching right away, reinforcements from over 200 hexes head (or turn to head) for the critical point on the battlefield, etc.

Has anyone played a good set of miniature rules that accurately portray the problems of moving the troops?

Empire III had some interesting rules for command. Miniature rules by and large tend to give a better feel for the battle but of course the fog of war is lacking. Only with an umpire can you achieve that.

Comments?

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 would be happy with a system in the current HPS game that would create a radius of command for corps commanders and army commanders, of course larger than divisional, let's say 20-30 hexes. Then, any unengaged units (reinforcements) far away from the main commander (the player) should be controlled by the AI (a proper marching AI should not be so hard to implement) with the ability of the player to tell the division or corps where he wants it and it would move to that place but with the option to pause en-route (commander laziness) or go into slightly wrong place (confusing orders, missing orders) - that means there would be no direct control over the reinforcements coming as they were too far away from the HQ and their orders could not be delivered effectively.

Col. Dominik Derwinski (LoH, OCR, OE, CV, EM, MM)
Commandant de la Brigade
19eme legere Brigade de Cavalerie
5eme Division de Cavalerie
V Corps
L' Armee du Rhin

Bill,

Board games are all in USA. So I cannot remember.

But, I do remember the old SSI games on Civil War (Computer games - horrible graphics), but I believe they had this.

The question would be, anyone still have the rules for it?

It was rather simple, but effective.



<b><font color="gold">Col. </b></font id="gold">Paul Wakeman [url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/paw/wakeman-AdR.htm"](OBD)[/url]
<font color="beige">2nd Light Rgt</font id="beige">
<font color="orange">2nd Brigade
22nd Saxon Division
<b>VII Saxon Corps</font id="orange">
<font color="red">Armée du Rhin (ADC)</b></font id="red">

Paul_Wakeman@yahoo.com

What Dominik has put down about the AI ..sounds fun...

Miniature rules ..there are so many i have played with..And they all have somthing better than another..
But with FOW ..What i used to do in a club i was with is..Have both sides make a map of were your men are.. Then put down on the table playing cards set out were your men are.. .. And your Figs in the places that can bee seen by the Enemy... This way the enemy can see you have men but are not to sure what units they are....

<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"

I'm glad someone likes my idea.

The most extreme version would be to hide those reinforcement units from the map and only make their leaders available through a dialog box (similar to the one about reinforcements).

It could also be a way to make it easier for the AI because it wouldn't have to really march the units but just calculate the distance traveled and their propable location and if they would come closer to the enemy or to their main army then it would deploy them on that location. So it would be a half-way between current reinforcements (that come in a defined hex on defined hour) and on-map unit (because the reinforcement would just "move" closer and closer to it's destination decided by the player) but still being out of full control of the player and of course it could randomly miss a turn (don't move) or move a bit the wrong way during the resolution (or even you could implement to show estimated position of the unit to the player when in fact the unit would be in a different place - not much away of course). Bear in mind that this would have to happen also with units that are already on the map if they would be send away from the main army and to some far destination - they should enter the "invisible mode" too.

This feature could be very easy to implement I think and very nice!

What do you think?

Col. Dominik Derwinski (LoH, OCR, OE, CV, EM, MM)
Commandant de la Brigade
19eme legere Brigade de Cavalerie
5eme Division de Cavalerie
V Corps
L' Armee du Rhin

With regard to both command and fog of war, I think an interesting set of miniature rules is called Piquet.

The basic process is that each player has a deck of command cards -- move, fire, reload, rally, dress the line etc. The two decks are not the same, they are geared toward the characteristics of the army. Turns are done in phases. For each phase the opposing commanders roll a dice -- 10 sided I think -- the difference, including modifiers determines who wins and how many cards they get to play. There are a number of rules but many cards are played at the commander level, so when you play it the order could apply to a single unit or an entire Division. The non moving side has some limited options during the turn. After the phase is done the dice are rolled again and another phase occurs. When the phasing player's deck is done the turn ends, the decks are shuffled and another turns starts.

Units and commanders also have their characteristics and so the cards can apply differently depending on the unit, its formation, commander location, etc.

Now for those who expect every individual action to be historically accurate, one obvious problem is that one side could theorectically win the dice roll for a number of consecutive phases. There is also no limit (that I can remember) on how many orders one unit could get during a phase, so if for example a number of "movement" cards are revealed, a single (or group of) unit(s) could move substantially across the table top. The best explanation I heard for this when a unit moves across the table and appears on your flank is that where you originally "saw" the unit on the table top was their last "reported position", which was obvioulsy not accurate -- FOW on the table top!

As a practical matter I think things "average" out for both sides, but you certainly see a lot of surprises develop during the game. The deck make up obviously influences things -- there are also some single event cards and every card does not "benefit" the phaisng player -- I think some cards require morale checks or leader casualty checks -- "dress the ranks" cards are basically "no op" cards -- so you could win a phase and then end up doing nothing.

The basic rules have been around for about 10 years and have rule sets for most periods - I don't know enough about the author to know how much historical theory influenced the rules . It is my impression that the rules are less popular at miniatures conventions now compared to a few years ago, but I do think there are a number of local groups that play them extensively. They are definitley more of a thinking players game -- if you want to line up the troops and roll a lot of casualty and melee dice this is probably not your choice.

Major General Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commanding 71st Highlanders
Commandant, RMA

As an old min fg wargamer in Baltimore we played empire rules which I'm really belived are the best.

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

I don't know how many of you have seen or played Wargamer-Napoleon1813, a rather old computer game by Empire Interactive. But it had rather simple, yet realistic-looking rules regarding movement of troops. Player choose unit, gave him orders (formation, aggression level, deployment, etc.) and set destination. It was then up to AI when, and by what route (usually quickest) those units would move. It sometimes took really long time for some formations to receive orders and to start moving (i'm not sure on what it was dependent-maybe quality of units/leaders, some kind of abstract initiative or couriers missing?), so sometimes unit moved when it was already too late.

Cadet Rafal Wertygus
Ecole Militaire

One other comment about "detailed rule sets". There is also a rule set I've seen for miniatures which is extremely detail. The time frame for each turn is probably something like 15 second intervals. It's not very good for large battles but is alright for smaller units actions. I played it once with an ACW scenario.

The author, whose name escapes me for the moment, has been involved in a number of rulesets, so I think it was pretty good from an historical perspective, but it wasn't my preference for a game - (I think this author is also involved with the Piquet rules I wrote about earlier, but he is not the primary author of Picquet, he's one of the people who acts as gamemaster for a number of games at conventions)-- spending time rousing the boys from camps and getting them into line to move out for a battle isn't my gaming preference -- perhpas once you learn the rules things would move very fast, but in the scenario we played the winner was the side that got the troops into fighting order first -- the battle itself was not much of an event as I recall.

If it is of interest, I'll go rumaging through my miniature gaming achives for more information

Major General Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commanding 71st Highlanders
Commandant, RMA

Ah....Wargamer 1813 I remember it well! Cheesy sounds, fairly random movement of units, piles of corpses from some unknown encounter, frequent crashes......good idea and realistic in theory but way too buggy. I don't want to rely on the AI of any system to carry out orders as it gets confused and does dumb things, moreso than me in fact.

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

Wargamer 1813 was almost an amazing game. Except it did not work. I am no tsure if the tactical battles were broken or just too real time. I don't mind orders taking forever to get there but something just did not seem right about the pace of the game.

In the strategic game, which was brilliantly designed, the AI was so bad it was unplayable. I think the problem may have been that the AI would not move to contact unless the agression level of the commander was failry high. Seeing as agression was really low for nearly any commander, the AI would never attack as either the allies of the french. The idea was that ask commanders gained experience they would start to get better atributes but they were rated too low. Or, perhaps I am wrong and the AI was just broken.

But I really liked the design of the strategic game (the tactical game less so, I disliked the division scale).

Feldmarschall Jim 'Prinz' Pfluecke
Commander, Austrian Cavalry Reserve
3 Graf O'Reilly Chevauxleger Rgt
Hahn Grenadier Bn

Bill,

The miniature rules <i>Napoleon's Battles </i>has, IMO, the simplest and most elegant rules for command control.

Essentially, all units that have an unbroken chain of command back to the army commander can move freely. If the chain is broken, detached "upper echelon" leaders (wing/corps commanders) roll to see if they can act independently. If a detached upper echelon CO passes this check, the subordinate units within his command range move freely. If the upper echelon CO fails his initiative roll, the subordinate units within his command radius move 1/2 if infantry, full if cav. Any Dv COs that are detached from their corps roll separately to see if they will act independently. If a detached <i>Divisional</i> CO passes his check, the subordinate infantry Bgs get 1/2 MPs while cavalry Bgs move full. If the Dv CO fails his initiative check, the subordinate inf Bgs cannot move (but may change formation and/or fire) and cav Bgs move 1/2. Any infantry Bg that is detached from their Dv CO cannot move, while detached cav Bgs move 1/2.

An additional consideration is that a leader has his full command range only if he is not "attached" to a particular unit. Hence, if you attach a leader to a unit in order to get the leader's bonus for an assault, rally routed units, etc., the rest of his command will be out of command on the following turn[B)].

This system could be readily applied to the HPS games with only minor changes. Obviously, army, wing and corps COs would need to have a command radius. Beyond that, a decision would have to be made as to whether Dv COs should become "upper echelon" commanders in the HPS system. In Nap's Battles Bgs are the smallest tactical unit, so there are no leaders below the Dv. Another interesting option would be to use the extra leaders currently in the game to command otherwise detached and immobile units. That would reflect Napoleon's practice of using his "Household" staff to command special task forces.

BTW, after years of playing with the Empire III & IV rules, I finally gave up on them and switched to Nap's Battles. The problem with the Empire rules is that they turned the player into a sergeant major, dressing the formation of every batallion under his command. Meanwhile, despite all the flash of the "grand tactical movement" phases, EVERY Empire game I ever played turned into a meatgrinder frontal assault[xx(].

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>

Hi Bill,

CORPS D'ARMEE (original by Geoffrey Wooten and the War Games Research Group, July 1989).

This was adapted/improved in New Zealand and used for approx 10years (90s +)as the standard 15mm competion rules (1:50 troop scale, Bn, Regt and Bty with Comd being at Bde, Div, Corps and Army levels).

These rules are excellent in the command and control ideas and has a great flow. I consider them the most representative of the era I have ever played.

Basically you have leader command ratings (Charisma and Ability), you issue generic orders to formations and/or specific units. You die for initiative and changes of orders (based on formation commander's ratings). You have <u>limited and varied options of movement and formations</u> based on the order you have. Failure to act or continuing to act against player wishes is very possible. Command range is graduated and important as in the TS/HPS titles.

Multiplayer games with multiple Coprs were playable and exciting.

Lt Col Mike Ellwood
VII Saxon Corps, ADR