Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Sirs, officers, shopkeepers, and Russian peasents,

I am trying to find out what optional rules does everyone play these days. This is the set I've been playing with:

VP for Leader Causulties
Isolation Rules
Melee Terrain Mod.
Column Pass through Fire
Target Density Mod
Weak ZOC
Line Movement Restriction
Flank Morale Mod.
Multiple Cavalry Melee
No Melee Eliminations (NME)

I play about half my games with NME on the rest with the embedded melee rules. I also usually have some form of skirmisher lease.

What say the club?

Vive Le Emperor!!!

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

Maréchal Hamilton,
Duc de Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

1er Regiment Garde
Fusiler-Grenadiers

You use exactly what I use.

Lt. General Sir Mark Nelms K.G.
1st Regiment of Foot Guards

Gentlemen,

I have some serious difficulties with the NME rule. While having battalions melt away immediately may be a little extreme there need to be some fixes before NME will be an acceptable remedy in my book. One thing that I find particularly bothersome is the ability of a single unrouted skirmisher to prevent the overrun of a stack of routed and isolated units. The skirmisher alone could be meleed and, if defeated, would be eliminted. Likewise the routed, isolated units without even the need for a fight, yet the combined stack can hold out for hours. At the very least a melee victory of this stack should result in its elimination.

And units that are hopelessly cut off die to the man after several turns of close range artillery and musketry rather than surrender?? In my opinion this goes too far the other way. I believe there should be an increased chance of rout after each consecutive turn of isolation. There also need to be further modifiers to the chance of routing for the following: 1) there should be some measure of the unit's strength versus the isolating force as a modifier (perhaps by using the threat value of the attacking forces exerted on the isolated force), 2) the losses incurred since the unit was isolated should also modify the rout chance. I have had isolated enemy battalions with literally thousands of my troops between them and friendly forces and outnumbered by 10 to 1 hold out for over an hour and sometimes fight to the death.

Also, melee attacks against forces that can't retreat due to isolation should result in some extra losses to the losing side.

Until something such as this is instituted I wont use it unless I have to.

Marechal Theron Lambert
Grande Duc de Montereau et Duc d'Angers
Cavalerie du VI Corps
Armee du Rhin
Commandant Grenadiers a Pied "les Grognards"

Hi Guys
I like the same rules as Rich H but without line move restriction ticked. Maybe I don't understand that rule properly but why would an elite btn moving in open ground, in line, have any chance of disorder.Is it not similar to a parade ground.

Salute!

General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde
CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

I am not much on LMD either. Play with it mostly but dont like it. Depends on the players. I like it OFF.

The NME rule may be a bit abusive. Lets give it some more time to develop. I know of one way to eliminate stacks faster. Basically keep artillery nearby and once you pocket them open up at 1 hex range. Takes an extra turn to unlimber them of course but sometimes I have used horse artillery in the rear hexes on the same turn.

Colonel 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]

Interesting discussion. I agree with Theron's comments but NME is a rule that needs tweaking, and I'd sooner have it ON than OFF.
Isolation Rule is my biggest bugbear. Especially as the Allies are more prone to having to suffer it with the crappy militias. Thousands of men quickly surrendering leads to unrealistically high losses IMO. And it does affect gameplay - with it on an opponent will aim to exploit the rule, with it off he will have a different style of play.
Column Pass Through Fire is a killer for an attacker. I've mixed feelings about that one too.
I have to admit [:I]that I have one set of preferences if I'm the attacker, and another set if I'm defending.
I feel Embedded Melee is well meaning but sometimes difficult to remember in the heat of battle in a large scenario, and has been superseded by the NME rule to a large degree.

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

My preferences:

ON:
VP for Leader Casualties
Isolation Rules
Melee Terrain Modifiers
Target Density Modifier
Weak Zone-Of-Control
Partial Retreats
Flank Morale Modifier
Multiple Cavalry Melees
Column Pass Through Fire
No melee elimination

OFF:
Manual Defensive Fire
No Retreat Overruns
Line Movement Restriction
Multiple Infantry Melees
No Opportunity Fire Against Skirmishers

ON/OFF:
Optional Fire Results
Optional Melee Results
Rout Limiting

I agree with Colin about LMR. Some games have a higher movement cost when in line. Isn't that enough of a penalty? A well drilled regular/elite battalion disordering when moving a couple of hexes forward, and then not recovering disorder because of the low command value of higher leaders is far too extreme in my opinion. The abstract command ratings are fine for simulating initiative at the higher level but they don't work well when they effect the basic drill, fighting ability or cohesion of individual battalions.

I find that even with NME I still feel the need for the embedded melee rule to give the battles a feel which for me simulates the tactical capabilities of the era better.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/Napoleonic/nap.htm"]Colonel Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Colin Knox</i>
I like the same rules as Rich H but without line move restriction ticked. Maybe I don't understand that rule properly but why would an elite btn moving in open ground, in line, have any chance of disorder. Is it not similar to a parade ground.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hi Colin,

Open ground represents a lot of different things...and most of it is not as simple to move on as a parade ground. While that is specifically leveled and maintained for ease of use, no standard field is.

Additionally there are modifiers applied based on a units quality. So there is a 10% chance a unit will become disordered with each movement, but an A quality unit has a 10% value subtracted from that probability, a B 5% and so on. So an A quality unit has very little chance of being disordered with each move, while a C is subject to a 90% chance - which is still pretty good.

Where this really comes into play is lower quality units that did not have the same amount of training. An F quality unit suffers a 30% penalty, and so its very unlikely that an entire brigade of F quality troops will be able to transverse 500 meters in a single turn without one or two of them getting out of order which I think is pretty realistic.

Troops that suffer this, assuming they are in good CiC, generally return to good order on the following turn.

With as much grumbling people have shared about the "speed" of armies in this engine I would think everyone would use this, as it forces players to move a bit slower and more methodically...


Maréchal Hamilton,
Duc de Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

1er Regiment Garde
Fusiler-Grenadiers

I would say . mines is the sames as Rich. But sometimes change for the other player i am fighting. If he dos not like them.


<font color="red">Maréchal</font id="red">
<font color="red">BEECHAM</font id="red">
La Commandeur, II Corps
ADN

Prince d` Istria et Comte d` Arles La Jeune Garde

"Toujours féroce,jamais étourdi"

I use basically what Rich checked. I am starting to question the realism of Column Pass Through Fire. The effect of this option to me is to multiply the strength of artillery fire. What should be the effect to me would be the distribution of that fire between all the units in the hex. The strength of the fire should be increased by greater density not the number of units. (Obviously I am currently playing Borodino)

I also believe that there need to be some tweaks with NME. I am find that with this on that many players, myself included, are much more free with unsupported cavalry attacks. Just send them in and if they get surrounded they will occupy several battalions for several turns in the attempt to shoot them down all the while these units are unavailable for the fight on the main front. In other words cavalry can be used to occupy a position which I think is very unhistorical. I think that with NME on perhaps a unit should be immune to a ZOC kill the first turn it is cut off but on the second turn the benefit goes. I have seen several games with NME on turn into free for alls with no lines and melees made by any unit eligable. And then blitzkreg actions are still there. Charge and push a unit out of the way and the gap is still exploited.

Marechal Jonathan Thayer
Commandante Moyenne Garde
Duc de Saalfeld et Prince de Friedland
1/10/III
Armee du Nord




jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

Marechal Thayer,

I would go for that change to the NME rule. Make it so isolated units can be melee eliminated. Gives you a turn to rescue them. Yet avoids the brigade vaporizations that all complained about.

I would not play with both NME on and the embedded melee phase. You will find that it makes the defense just too strong. I did it once at Quatra Bras and it took hours killing off the isolated Brits. I literally had a third of my force tied down for hours on pocket clean-up. And I really needed those troops facing the Brits pouring in from the west and North....

And Rich I agree with your reasoning on the line movement restrictions. There would be plenty of obstacles, dead bodies and crying wounded men and horses, etc that could trip up even the best trained units occaisionally (remember they are getting shot at, smoke everywhere, cannons fireing (sometimes AT you) and the general chaos of the battlefield. So I feel its pretty realistic.


Vive Le Emperor

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

I used to be a big fan of Column Pass Through, but any more I find it to be an awful rule.

The basic idea is good, but the practical effects are horrific.

Imagine for a moment, that you have one of the big Austrian Battalions, 1100 men in a hex.

Then imagine, that you have 1 400 man, and 2 350 man French columns in another hex.

1 column vs 3

Same overall strength.

Yet, if they get fired at by equal arty, the French will get mauled to a far greater extent than the Austrians.

the rule penalizes smaller units.

NME I'm fine with on the other hand

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

Rules I prefer on:

VP's for Leaders
Rout Limiting
Isolation
Melee Terrain Modifiers
Column Pass Through (except in Eckmuhl and Wagram for the same reasons Gary pointed out, though my preference has always been a proportional distribution of casualties to all units in the hex)
Target Density Mod
No Retreat Overruns
Weak ZOC
Partial retreats
Flank Morale mod
Multiple Cavalry Melees
No Opportunity Fire vs. Skirms
No Melee Eliminations

I dislike immensely the line movement restriction rule. Lines already move slower than columns, so the ability to move a few hundred yards and dress ranks to maintain order is fine with me. With auto defensive fire, there is always the possibility of casualties inducing disorder. Besides, the only terrain you can move through is clear terrain without disordering. I find it odd that a unit can not cross a stone wall and reform in line, can't even advance 5 feet over the span of 10-15 minutes?

That is one aspect of the game that I disagree with; disorder is used to represent both the status of the formation and a unit's fighting ability. I lean more towards looking at disorder as a wearing down of a unit's cohesion, more closely tied to elan, morale and internal command at the company level by the junior officers and NCO's. In that respect, I would prefer going in the opposite direction with lines able to move in and across covered terrain without disordering, albeit at an extremely high cost in MP's.





Maréchal Jeff Bardon
1ere Division de Cavalerie Legere
I Corps, AdN

I usually play with all optional rules toggled on with the exception of Manual Defensive Fire, Rout Limiting and Multiple Infantry Melees.

I like the Line Movement Restriction rule. I believe it parallels the formation change percentage based on Threat Value.

As an ACW reenactor I know how hard it is to maintain an advancing company line much less a brigade line, especially over uneven terrain. And this is without being shot at and taking casualties. The unit's quality is factored into the chance for disorder which I like as well, since units that were well trained and combat veterans typically performed better under these very stressful conditions.



Jeff Mathes
Colonel
3. Ligne Regiment
1. Brigade 16. Division
V Corps
L'Armée du Rhin