Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

History or gamesmanship
In history there is a set way and a plan in gamesmanship there is knowledge that if you do something one way it will affect the game. Do we play this as gamers like say my grandchildren who never read anything or do we play as adults who should read. If I block a force say with a Sk unit is that history or gamesmanship if I have a zone of control is that History or gamesmanship? Are we gamers or are we playing History over ?


Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

It's a bit of a mix, and one thing is this, there are lots of players in this club, and not everyone approaches things the same way.

There are players who take as a high priority that they play the game the most historical way that they can, for others, the "play is the thing" and they will push the system as hard as they can to win a game. They'll happily play "Panzers in Flanders", because it's effective.

Which is right? That's really the wrong question.

This is a club that's big enough that all of us have a "place". There are French Officers I won't play, not because they aren't great people, but because their play style simply doesn't mesh well with mine.

So, if you wish to play one or the other, the best answer is to find a few preferred opponants, and have at them.

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

Excellent topic. Me,myself and I preferre Historic play, even if the
HPS engine allows for more creative options [:)]. In my short time at the club I have come across different styles in opponents, so there is cleary room for both Historic and just gaming it. I would dearly love to know the players in the club who are most interested in a historic simulation, I could then more easily find out who I should play against. Is it possible to have something for reference?

Michael Goeller, Lieutenant, 11ème Régiment de Cuirassiers,1er Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie, Armee du Nord

I believe that most have a mixture in their play. Many of the house rules that many in the club love to play by are set by what we considered standard tactics of the day. The problem is that these tactics were not set into stone and you can find generals that found situations were the standard would not fit. They would improvise and adapt. No greater example can be given than Nelson. We no that skirmishers stayed close to the parent unit, but there have been cases in the smoke and fog of battle were a small unit found itself detached and out side the command and control, yet marched to the sounds of the guns. I agree that supply wagons and routed units would not have blocked lines of retreat and in the case of the game ZOC, but I believe outside extreme cases there is not to much that would be considered to unreasonable in rare cases. I my self try to fight historically, but like many people I like to be able to win now and then so I would let game play drift in, I also like to see the what ifs this I believe can help in the study of war and why things turned out the way they did. I believe that this club and the ACWGC are the best when it comes to a balance of history and game play, while the CCC I believe that people let game play over ride in the name of history when it comes to certain rules they will and will not play with.

Maréchal Tony R.Malone, Comte d'Auvergne et Duc de Vauchamps: Division d'Infanterie de la Moyenne Garde; "The Guard may die, But it never surrenders".

In my opinion it's a gamesmanship no matter how hard you try to be historically accurate.
Games have rules, that can be used to your advantage or disadvantage, and in real world there is always probability that something will go differently than planned or suspected. (you can calculate with great precision how fast your opponent can reach certain destination for example-thing you could only anticipate in real world, but never could be certain of-yet mistake made by many)
And there is always a 'human factor' involved (commanding an army was a matter of human resources organization in some way)- thing that could be simulated (maybe) only in massive multiplayer, when every brigade (at least) is commanded individually, and player's knowledge of the unfolding events restricted to what his commander 'avatar' could know and see. But even then there is no way to simulate leader's fatigue(certainly a factor affecting his judgement), fear (of death by instance) or many other factors we can't even think of now.


Lieutenant Rafal Wertygus
Armee du Rhin
V Corps
16ème Division
1ère Brigade
3ème Artillerie à pied

Mon Ami bar keep rum all around bravo, I like to mix it up and send letters to the other player and see if he is a gentleman or a barbarian, then I know the flag he carries is worth the days and hours of play. To win is great but to play is rewarding

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

I suspect most play with a combination of history and gamesmenship. But there can also be a lot of variation in the definition of both. I think I could reword the initial question to say that "in history, there was knowledge if you did something one way it will affect the result". If someone never read anything about a battle, but found a way to win what is historically thought to have always been a victory for the other side, should they be critized or praised? Even game events like supply wagons or routed units blocking enemy units can be "historical" -- I do think it was common for a unit to stop its advance (ie effectively get blocked) for a little plunder when the opportunity presented itself! And one of my favorites of course is the helicopter command platform with perfect communications to every unit on the field that we all enjoy!!

Major General Sir Bob Breen KT

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

Ok well of course in real life lots of "miracles" can happen, the absurd is possible, and there is usually something that breaks the assumptions on the pitiless shoals of reality. Oh, I am so poetic today. The game engine should of course not constrain the imagination needlessly. So to me, gamesmanship or gamie(y?)play is when the opponent always uses the absurd move, or pushes the exception to the point of making it common, and thereby distorting the experience of fighting a napoleonic set piece. I mean if I just want to play a game, there is chess, and what a wonderful game it is. Why play a simulation of an era, and not follow the common logic of what could and could not be reasonably done and expected to happen. A point - can men really march at top speed and come to battle refreshed and eager for battle? Yes it happened, but what an extraordinary exertion it must have been, yet HPS allows this to happen de rigeur (sp? my High School french fails me). Credulity is stretched past the point of redemption and the pantyhose tears. Mon dieu! Such luck. I rest my cases of wine on the floor, please help yourself. I drink a toast to historical strictures such that movement is heavily constraint by reason. Adieu.

Michael Goeller, Lieutenant, 11ème Régiment de Cuirassiers,1er Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie, Armee du Nord

Gentlemen a fascinating debate I agree. However at the end of the day all wargames are constrained by the rules we have to play them by. I have played extremely historical games and not so historical games on the table top and pc.

What I have found is that there is an underpinning set of principles you can use that will work virtually regardless of the rules. So for example I have made a study of the method of Napoleon and use it as my own method for battle regardless of the gaming system. (I still play 25mm)

This does not stop me from employing certain tactics as the rules dictate to achieve the intent of the Napoleonic system for battle. I argue the tactical detail is not the key as such but the operational level is the area we can focus on historically.

Therefore I believe you can be both historical and play the game well.

Had Napoleon played HPS he would certainly have stretched every nerve and option to implement his operational plan.

I do however subscribe to some limits. For example it is a good idea to prevent an army marching all night by mutual agreement with your opponent on night rules.

Salute!



Colonel Colin Knox,
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur
La Jeune Garde
IIIe Corps ADN
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Hahaha One thing History does teach is that it repeats itself. This debate occured the last time I was in the club 6 years ago and probably a few times since. Myself, I love the era, it is my favorite era to game in miniatures and will try to fight historically. It is hard at times because there are advantages to be gained by non-traditional use of capabilities of the game engine. Generally though my infantry does not charge cavalry, my skirmishers tend to operate as screens rather then storm troops and although I might attack with a few squadrons of cavalry to feel out my enemy I will keep them massed and ready for the opportune moment for a charge. However I might borrow a page from Lord Wellington and keep them out of sight from French artillery no matter which army I am playing. Most important of all to me is I give my opponent a good fight and that we both have fun whether we win or lose. After all, gentlemen it is a game and we play games to have fun.

Fahnrich Jim Woods Jr
IR 15 Zach

I may not be the best source on this topic as I really only play one opponent regularly (Gen. Moss keeps me plenty busy), but I've always taken Dr. Griffith's attitude on this, viz., why would you play against someone who ONLY wants to win? Andy amd I chat regularly about victory conditions, rules, etc., and sort of puzzle through what seems "historical" what feels like "winning" and "losing" and how we did over against history.

And, may I note, I've yet to beat him...so this ain't conquest justifying its own actions.

Best,

Capt. Jim
8e Hussards

Gentlemen songsters off on a spree, damned from here to eternity, God have mercy on such as we... -- The Whiffenpoofs

First we have to look at history then determine if the game matches history order of battle is just part history. Second leaderships in the era we play are paramount. Third quality is next game and Armies. Forth and I believe last rules. Then the game would be fair.

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

Of course you know the French Cavalry was shattered many times under my command when trying to force the Great Redoubt and flank it. There are many good Russian Commanders who know that a few well placed Skirmishers will force the Cavalry to either halt or reroute.

I don't like poeple placing 150 man skirmish units out there in the path of 500 Horses especially when they are more than 4 or 5 hexes away from any friendly unit.

But it is the game, I play to have fun and sometimes I can be quite reckless with the Cavalry.

Lt. Col. Angelo Abruzzese
12eme Chasseur a cheval

Bar keep two kegs of rum all around here’s to the Red White and blue and may she be prettier next year then she was this year Yo ho! Mon ami if this game was played like gentleman this would not be a debate but look at this, interpretation when a div goes into another div zone of control weather to reinforce or to attack that should not happen. But I see it all the time how can you tell easy there’s a box up top that shows what belongs to what. You can’t have the 4/II with 56/ III fighting side by side maybe the 23/II yes. Now there’s the fact that up till 1813 the Allies were all Regimental armies not so in this game why to easy to be War Gods. Ok I said what I had to say more rum YO Ho back to the beach!

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

Agreed, there are issues with the way the game is played, but a fast reminder, that it's really bad form to say that those who don't play in a precise manner that you approve of don't "play like gentlemen"

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