Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

General de Division Greg Morgan and myself needs a team of two allied officers to face them at Wagram. We are open minded for scenario and for rules.

Best regards

General Lamezec
Prince et Comte de Davout
French CIC

Messieurs de l'infame coalition

I understand that you fear to face us. But I thought that coalition would have some courageous officers. But may be I was wrong ?

General Lamezec
Prince et Comte de Davout
French CIC

Monsieur le general,
the old Russian Grenadier can get your challenge and call-up on duty an officer of my division, if you are really open-minded for some my rules.
Leastways: 1)Commander starts/leads ("gives order") every NEW march move or battle maneuver with his Brigade/Division.
No more the "dove mail" orders.
2) Cavalry move only by Squadrons along any roads (Road March Order), and by Sqns or Divisions (2 Sqns) elsewhere. By one Regiment icon - noway.
3) No unit stacks in Road March Order.
4) Maximal number of Infantry in Battle Order per one hex: 1.600 men ; maximal number of Cavalry in Battle Order per one hex: 200 horses; maximal number of guns in Battle Order per one hex: 8 cannons.
5) Infantry attack with fire on ANY Cavalry from the maximal range only.
6) Desordered unit advances only with a leader.
7) No the "synthetic" ZOC-kills. I hate that "circledance choreography". It's the complete unreality.
All those above are concerning the battle time and space, and that's why are very principled for me. Moreover, they're realistic and historical.
The rest of HomeRules: MOE-3
If you'll be OK with all that, I'd like to choosey a scenario.

GM and Chevalier Vladimir Repnin
2nd Grenadier Division
8th Corps
2nd H.E.M. West Army

My dear Vladimir

Good to see you again. Do you remember the divisional tournament ?

Well for our plan battle, I think that we don't share the same spirit about this game : you give priority to the historicity, I give priority to the playability.
Neverthless, I am ready to enter in your view if, yourself, you make your best to enter as well in mine. To be frank, I play for fun and don't want to pass all my time asking me if I respect or not historicity. So Iam ready to accept some of your rules but the simpliest of them
Rule 1 : I really don't understand what you want here. What is the "dove mail" orders ? Please explain beacuse for the moment as I don't understand : NO (but I am ready to discuss)
Rule 2 : I have no problem with this apart from the fact that it may make the field of battle rather crowded. I fear not to respect it by lack of attention but my partner will help me. It would be a great concession in my mind.But time is not at concession yet : NO
Rule 3: I can work with that but it will take longer for formed bodies i.e. Brigades / Divisions to reach their destination. Really I don't understand why you don't want of units stacks in road
marcher order. I think the rules 2 and 4 are sufficient. so NO for the moment
Rule 4 same idea than for 2. I can work with it. But
What is battle order? Does this encompass both line and column formations? If you explain I can say yes
Rule5 Seems acceptable to me as it would stop infantry squares hunting down cavalry. With the exception that if cavalry move into a hex adjacent to a square, that square should not be forced to retire to the maximum firing range.
Rule 6. I assume that such a unit can retire or remain in position without a leader? No for this one.
Rule 7 "No the "synthetic" ZOC-kills. I hate that "circledance choreography". It's the complete unreality." If by that you want to say weak zone of control select, I agree

I will do my best not to say no at all your rules. But as we don't share the same spirit of wargaming, I wonder if it reasonable to play together. Fortunately, General de Division Morgan is more open than me to your spirit. So I am ready to discuss and accept more of your rules ...

Take note that not share the same spirit of wargaming doesn't mean that I dislike you. I respect your point of view and I am sure that you respect mine. May be if I was a descendant of General Repnin i would be like you.

General Lamezec
Prince et Comte de Davout
French CIC

Yann: You have mail. [:)]

<center>
Brig. Gen. D.S. "Green Horse" Walter

[url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_walter/NWC/16thLD.htm"][/url]

16th (Queen's) Light Dragoons
4th Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps
----------
3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards
[url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/"][/url]
</center>

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

I will do my best not to say no at all your rules. But as we don't share the same spirit of wargaming, I wonder if it reasonable to play together.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

You're right, Yann, the problem is: I'm a historian.
You tend to simplify the game process, I gravitate to sophistications. And we cannot understand each other. But misunderstanding gives birth of mistrusts. Sorry.
I never play with the real French, and I'd like to make out for myself your national mentality in conditions of wargame battlefield at least.
Recevez mes salutatious empressees -
GM Vladimir Repnin
2nd Grenadier Div.
8th Corps
2nd West Army

My dear Vladimir

I am an historian too (fave a look here : http://www.bibliomonde.com/pages/fiche- ... vrage=5539

But it's true that i consider our game as a game and prefer the playability to the historicity.

Our difference of philosophy make our club rich of our differencies.

Regards

General Lamezec

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Yann Lamezec</i>
I am an historian too [...]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And that makes three of us. [:D]

Serves to show you that being a historian doesn't really explain everything. [8)]

<center>
[url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_walter/NWC/16thLD.htm"][/url]
Brig. Gen. D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
~ 16th (The Queen's) Light Dragoons ~
4th Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps
----------
~ 3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards ~
[url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/"][/url]
</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>

Serves to show you that being a historian doesn't really explain everything. [8)]

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

Fully agree with you, Dierk, as often.[8)]

Regards

General Lamezec
French CIC

I wonder how many more professional historians are around. I believe Rich White is one. [?]

<center>
[url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_walter/NWC/16thLD.htm"][/url]
Brig. Gen. D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
~ 16th (The Queen's) Light Dragoons ~
4th Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps
----------
~ 3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards ~
[url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/"][/url]
</center>

Too many house rules make for a game that is filled with issues.

I prefer it pure and simple. No need for alot of rules that folks forget to play with thus causing the turn to be redone, folks mad at each other, etc.

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]