Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Thanks Paco actually I agree I have also noticed that units reform quicker when moved back from threat, but my experience is much less than yours so I had not really noticed the morale pattern. I shall certainly keep it in mind though!

regards
Colin

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

No doubt there's a lot of things in these games that are not sufficiently documented in the user manual. Very interesting.

<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>

I am contacting John on this for an official answer.

The undisordering of units probably is not influenced by the Threat Value. On the other hand the rallying of units may be influenced by the Threat Value.

If either one is the case I am going to ask John to update the manual in that regard.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 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]

Official answer guys in answer to:

Rich and John,

Paco noted in a recent thread that in the Napoleonic series that the
Threat value effects ralling of units. Another player also thought that
it impacted the recovery of units from Disorder (ie. affects the die
roll of the unit just like the bonuses do after the results of the
Command check).

Does the Threat value affect both rallying of units as well as disorder
recovery? Its not documented in the manual if that is so. The section on
Morale and the section on Movement (where it mentions the Threat Value)
has nothing to say about it affecting the Morale test or undisorder attempt.

If either one is affected we should update the manual to note that. If
not then I will let the guys know.

Regards,

Bill

Response:

Bill,

No, Threat only affects changes in formation of the unit, not rally or
recovery from disorder. The intent is that it should motivate the player to
get into square early, as it may be much harder once a cavalry threat is
obvious.

John

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 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]

To all - some of my original thoughts I sent Steve (clarification of things from earlier email in parens). I much prefer the Embedded Melee House rules from MOE III Tourney. They avoid the blitzkrieg problem inherent with the original system, allow fighting withdraws, and avoid having 300 disordered soildiers hold up a division in open terrain for 2 hours...

"There have been two solutions in the HPS system to this problem (blitz attacks that wipe out an entire enemy line in a turn). 1) The embedded melee system (EMS) and 2) Non-melee elimination optional rule (NME). Both have there pluses and minus vs the original system. Both drastically reduce the number of ZOC kills, and make it almost impossible to get ZOC kills against a formed line of troops (not the case in the two I just killed, nor the one last turn (see Steve's starting comment)). Your line you formed in the north this turn could not be ZOC killed under the rules we were playing. I withdrew primarily because one of the lead battalions routed and disordered enough of the rest to make an effective advance impossible. I have played the games using all three rules set (1 & 2 above plus neither). Without the above two options the game can get very, very bloody for a defender that isn’t very good in choice of terrain and set-up. Against good opponents it tends to be a back and forth free-for-all that is also very bloody and usually goes with whomever has the most resources – also under the old rules artillery is VERY vulnerable to the point of not being very useful. EMS is how we play and still allows for ZOC kills but slows down the play and makes a cascading round of ZOC kills impossible since all the melees need to be made at the same time. This also avoids a lot of the blitzkrieg type attacks. NME still allows lots of penetration and surrounding of units, but they don’t die. You must rout and isolate a unit to kill it. From my experience it highlights the advantages of high-quality troops, very much helps the defense, and makes rapid advances tough. I played with both EMS and NME with Andy Moss in a QB scenario and I had a devil of a time advancing since I couldn’t kill anyone. With a stack of high-quality troops (the Brunswick Guards stacked with some cavalry) they held out even surrounded and isolated for 6 turns until his reinforcements could cut a hole into them to evacuate the commanders and get them out. I couldn’t get them all routed at the same time! NME does emphasize the idea of routing your enemy off the field as opposed to killing him – greatly reduces the losses in a game. But if time is not on your side it hurts you."

My basic point is that in many ways we have three very different games depending on the selection of which way of these three to play. You will deploy your troops very differently under each system, especially if defending. With both EMS and NME a brigade can defend a much wider area and have artillery closer to the front. But with NME on you can expect a much better ability to slow/stop the enemy even if your enitire front line is surronded and isolated. To be honest I be honest I think the NME rewards poor play (ie not keeping your troops together in coherent formations at the brigade/division level). That's my two cents on the topic.

One last comment in response to cavalry charges. Unsupported cavalry charges that somehow get behind and enemy line, should be crushed. Against and opponent who deploys the proper reserves unsupported cavalry will never "reform in the enemies rear", but will be surronded, isolated and slaughtered (the British Cavalry Charges - The Greys? - at Waterloo come quickly to mind). Combined arms is the key.

As a last note - I look at how realistic this game is on the effects at the Brigade/Division level over an hour of game time. Not what happens on any single given turn.

Marechal Doug Fuller
Duc de Montmorail et Comte de Hainaut
2e' Grenadiers a' Pied de la Vielle Garde
I Corp Commander
AdN

I think that no matter how we cut it the game will always have some quirk that you can point to that will render it unhistorical.

NME and EMS all have their good points IF added into the mix but when looked at alone they fail in part.

EMS allows you to move after you attack which is good but I think personally that NME cuts way back on the amount of ZOC'ing that we saw.

Here is how you eliminate the stacks you isolate:

1. Surround them with cavalry or infantry in column.
2. Have infantry in line ready to move adjacent to replace the columns.
3. Bring up guns as well and fire at 3 hex range.

The entire process might take you 3 turns (45 mins. for most of the series/30 mins. for Jena) but you can pretty much wipe out a big stack using this technique.

I have always viewed these battles not so much as a process of elimination but more of domination. The army that routed the other one won the day. The ensuing cavalry pursuit would usually take care of the rest of the action. That is why I like to use large maps for the battles if I can do so.

Thus it was rare to see a division wiped out (ZOC'd) but you could see it shattered (rendered hors de combat via losses).

At TC2 the idea of reverting to phases was discussed and John was in favor of having something like this:

1. Action phase - you can move and fire in this phase to include charging and changing of formation.
2. Melee phase - all melee is done here.

I asked that if he and the others were intent on this to add in a second action phase (repeat of #1) only that any unit that fired and moved in #1 could not do so again. Or put another way - basically the EMS.

I dont know where this stands but if the game goes in this direction you could stack up 2 skirmishers on a road and halt the advance of a division. This is why I prefer the current one phase system.

Thus I recommended that he modify the existing phases form of play to use this format and leave the single phase alone.

I agree much like Dean does that ZOC'ing was ugly. In a recent game with Dean I was able to surround alot of Ney's corps (maneuver battle of Karlsburg from the Jena game) and perform the old ZOC kill on a few stacks. I note that it took me alot of time but using lines and guns it didnt take that long and frankly neither of us found it totally distasteful or unhistorical being that Dean did allow his men to get surrounded. I note that some of his stacks lasted 5 turns before I was able to capture the units. By then they were reduced quite a bit.

As was mentioned it is important to rout/isolate the units and not all of them will rout together but the units that do rout will suffer more losses as a result. Remember that NME has an additional casualty figure that isnt always reported using the ON-MAP form of casualty report.

Anyway, it was enjoyable seeing the ZOC kills go bye-bye. I dont miss them one bit. Fall-back style of defense is back.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 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 prefer NME, not because it's perfect, but I dislike the idea of enforcing a "house rule" with all the attendant confusions on players. How much "allowance" is made, for example, if I forget a specific melee during the phase? Even if the one in question is in a different section of the front and gains no advantage from being at a different time? Am I going to have a rules lawyer breathing down my neck?

Personally, I hope that the discussions at TC II bear fruit, and we see a hardwired Melee Phase, as John seemed quite amenable to the idea (in fact, it was first broached at the ACW discussion, and HE'S the one who mentioned it in the Naps).

EDIT: Here's the original thread discussing the TC II discussions: http://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9014

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

Bill, at TC, the point was specifically made that if this change was done, there would have to be some things done in regards to skirmishers, along the line of allowing units to displace them (at an MP cost).


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
[amount of ZOC'ing that we saw.

I
At TC2 the idea of reverting to phases was discussed and John was in favor of having something like this:

1. Action phase - you can move and fire in this phase to include charging and changing of formation.
2. Melee phase - all melee is done here.

I asked that if he and the others were intent on this to add in a second action phase (repeat of #1) only that any unit that fired and moved in #1 could not do so again. Or put another way - basically the EMS.

I dont know where this stands but if the game goes in this direction you could stack up 2 skirmishers on a road and halt the advance of a division. This is why I prefer the current one phase system.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 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]


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

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

Doing a 2 phase system would be going back in time. Keep it as it is. [:(!]

<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"

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
<br />Official answer guys in answer to:

Rich and John,

Paco noted in a recent thread that in the Napoleonic series that the
Threat value effects ralling of units. Another player also thought that
it impacted the recovery of units from Disorder (ie. affects the die
roll of the unit just like the bonuses do after the results of the
Command check).

Does the Threat value affect both rallying of units as well as disorder
recovery? Its not documented in the manual if that is so. The section on
Morale and the section on Movement (where it mentions the Threat Value)
has nothing to say about it affecting the Morale test or undisorder attempt.

If either one is affected we should update the manual to note that. If
not then I will let the guys know.

Regards,

Bill

Response:

Bill,

No, Threat only affects changes in formation of the unit, not rally or
recovery from disorder. The intent is that it should motivate the player to
get into square early, as it may be much harder once a cavalry threat is
obvious.

John
<b></b>
Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 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]


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

I like the comment about

<font color="teal"><b>"The intent is that it should motivate the player to get into square early, as it may be much harder once a cavalry threat is obvious."</b></font id="teal">

Seems to me that if there was auto-sqaure formation capability, this would be a moot point.

The only way a multiphase system would work ( assuming HPS is thinking of this ) is if we had the same phaseing capabiliuties that existed in the BG games.

<center>
[img]</center>
<center>
[img]</center>
<center>Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Commanding L'Armee du Rhin
Grande Duc de Piave et Comte de Beauvais
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde
NWC President</center>

Please don't go back to a multi-phase turn like the old BG games. I very much enjoy them but they take a LONG time and I will never play a multi-player BG again. The two-phases per turn alows games to be completed in a realistic time not year long marathons.

I know some get tired of my comments on this, but the beauty of the system is not at the battalion/squadron/battery level but at the brigade/division level. I always try to think how they action would have sounded if written in one of the historical books. For example the action Steve started talking would sound something like this (I am at work so the Division numbers arn't correct and I'm not Nafsiger) from the French perspective:

At noon the Austrian 3rd division pushed into the woods North of the Austrian mainline of defence east of Abensburg. They quickly encountered the 2nd brigade of the still tired and battered French First Infantry Division which recoiled in good order from the fresh Austrians. Napoleon himself road in from Abensburg to rally some troops who's movement to the rear had gotten a little too disorderly. In the meantime Gen Friant shifted the 1st and 2nd brigades northwest to cover his flank and face the slowly advancing Austrians. Marechal Nansounty and his Heavy Cavalry Divsion also left the Abensburg to Eckmuhl Pike to fall on the Austrian 3rd division as it pushed out of the woods trying to turn the French left. In moments the tide had turned as Gen Friant at the head of his troops led a frantic charge into the woods. Nansounty, headstrong as usual, saw the advancing French troops and the exposed right flank of the Austrians and ordered a charge. Minutes later, just as a messenger was telling the Archduke that the French had been routed out of the woods, the Archduke could see the bulk of his 3rd Division running for their lives out of the woods. Many seemed to stop at the edge, drop their weapons and raise their hands. Soon French battleflags came bounding out towards the Austrian right. The Archduke ordered his reserve artillery to fire on the insolant Frenchman. The fire from the artilleryman and the Austrain 2nd Divisions muskets drove the French back into the woody darkness. A sharp skirmish had ended with the Austrian 3rd Division shattered with over a thousand prisoners taken. But the day was still young...

Try your next game. Write a synopsis of the battle at each hour of what just happened. Never mention anything smaller than a brigade unless very significant (like Le Haye Saint). It will give you a better feel for the game.

Marechal Doug Fuller
Duc de Montmorail et Comte de Hainaut
2e' Grenadiers a' Pied de la Vielle Garde
I Corp Commander
AdN

Doug.

A nice read. and a good idea .[;)]

<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"

Doug - no, the concept that John or myself are talking of is still single phase oriented. It would still use ADF.

Here is the synopsis:

1. You move or fire any units you want.
2. You then melee.

This is what John drew from the comments from TC2.

I added in:

3. You can move or fire any units that didnt move or fire in #1.

See? There is only ONE file to send to your opponent. Not two, three, four, fourteen, etc., ad nosium.

In other words - Embedded Melee System but embedded in the engine. No having to play a House Rule (EMS) any more.

My call is to get it to replace the Manual Defense Phase option. I dont know of too many gamers that play that method of play. Just call it Multi-Phase. instead and get rid of the MDP option. That will leave the Single Phase/Single Step format that we currently have alone for those that may not like the new idea.

Frankly I have some problems with playing with the new format (either John's or John's with my suggestion for a #3 phase) as outlined above. The concept of the skirmishers getting in the way again bothers me. I wish that you could move into a skirmisher hex and thus "evict" them by expending MPs rather than having to melee them. It would draw and auto-DF from them so you WOULD take losses in moving into the hex but they couldnt be placed one behind each other on roads in woods in order to take advantage of John's/guys at TC2's suggested form of play.

To recap: if we go with John's/guys at TC2 idea add in my #3 suggestion but also allow for MP expenditure to enter a skirmisher hex (non-chateau).

However, said player could also put weak bns. on a woods road as well to stop the army from advancing.

In short, I prefer to use the current system as is ....

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 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]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />Bill, at TC, the point was specifically made that if this change was done, there would have to be some things done in regards to skirmishers, along the line of allowing units to displace them (at an MP cost).


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
[amount of ZOC'ing that we saw.

I
At TC2 the idea of reverting to phases was discussed and John was in favor of having something like this:

1. Action phase - you can move and fire in this phase to include charging and changing of formation.
2. Melee phase - all melee is done here.

I asked that if he and the others were intent on this to add in a second action phase (repeat of #1) only that any unit that fired and moved in #1 could not do so again. Or put another way - basically the EMS.

I dont know where this stands but if the game goes in this direction you could stack up 2 skirmishers on a road and halt the advance of a division. This is why I prefer the current one phase system.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 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]


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

Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Bn
Allied Coalition C-in-C
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Good to hear this Gary. Frankly I am for it only being added in as an option and not a replacement for the current Single Phase system.

Remove the defunct Manual Defense Phase option. Replace it with this Multi-phase option. Keep the Single Phase as is for those of us that like it now that NME has ended the days of brigades dissappearing in one turn.

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 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]

Any changes to the current system will impact cavalry as well as skirmishers. How would cavalry follow-up movement and additional melees be handled?

There's also the issue of square forming and the lack of cavalry counter-charges - features that were handled better in the old BG engine than in HPS single phase mode (while, regrettably, HPS multiphase mode fails to retain these useful features for the defensive phase, thus effectively destroying any benefits of playing in multiphase mode)

Square forming - shouldn't this really be in response to a cavalry charge? This is how the BG system handled it, and this worked rather well. But in the HPS engine, it's necessary to form square in the <i>previous</i> player turn, thus allowing the enemy the opportunity of attacking with infantry instead. Consequently, it's rarely worthwhile bothering to form square.

Surely there should be some way in which infantry can <i>automatically</i> form square in response to a cavalry charge (instead of just firing defensively).

Cavalry counter-charge - a useful option in the BG engine but sadly lacking from the HPS engine, including multiphase mode. For single phase, maybe a player should be able to "pre-set" (in his own previous turn) his cavalry to counter-charge (during the opponent's following turn) if nearby enemy cavalry decide to charge? <b>This will mean that cavalry aren't entirely useless in the non-player turn.</b> Currently, cavalry can't counter-charge, can't retreat before advancing enemy troops - even advancing infantry - and can't even fire defensively (although this last is technically possible, if desired). Consequently, a (pre-set) cavalry counter-charge option would make the game more realistic and more tactically interesting. No longer would a player be confident that the enemy cavalry would sit passively waiting to be attacked, or would be unable to counter-attack in response to an outflanking movement or in defence of a battery.


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