Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

There's still too much incentive for players to conduct melees rather than rely mainly on firepower, although the "No Melee Elimination" optional rule and reduced stacking do now make this harder.

So I'd recommend adding the following features to the HPS engine to make meleeing less viable:

1./ Slightly increased fire factors at range 1 (of course this isn't an engine change, just a minor pdt alteration)

2./ The possibility of defensive fire "pinning" attacking units and preventing them from continuing to move or meleeing - but not from firing - that turn. (Perhaps like the Squad battles system?)

3./ For units - especially cavalry and units in line - to exert a movement penalty ZOC on enemy units moving in proximity to their front hexes (something similar to the ACW skirmisher effect, but without the enhanced visibility element)

4./ For frontal infantry v infantry melees to be possible only against <b>disrupted</b> and/or highly fatigued units


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

Anything that swings the advantage to the defender is fine by me

FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, Household Cavalry

I will handle your request in order:

1. This gets batted around alot. I favor higher values but its no guarentee that the unit WILL fire. And when they do its at half value. What I would like to see is less DF but at full value. That you could set the ranges you want to fire at just like in the EF/WF series. The new rule for the ACW series for point blank fire is a step in the right direction.

2. This happens when they disorder. Pretty much slows them down. What we should be seeing in the ACW series for sure and probably here is this:

a. Unit moves up.
b. Unit takes fire.
c. Unit checks to see if it continues to advance.
d. If it fails it stops and fires back at the defender. Automatically.
e. If it passes then it can move.

3 and 4 - sorry Rich but I dont agree on this. I might see where cavalry should cause an attacker to not come near it but then folks just put a squadron in the way to stop infantry from moving period. For #4 I dont agree because first, units DID attack units that were fresh (at Austerlitz for instance where the fresh Guard Chevaliers ran into the almost fresh French Guard cavalry). What you are saying is that we have to pound each other with artillery fire first, mandatory, soften up the other side and THEN attack. Try finding that exclusive to ALL engagements in the period. No way - this is TOTALLY unhistorical to suggest and I wouldnt even waste my breathe asking John Tiller to do this. What about the bridge at Lodi where fresh French grenadiers/infantry under Oudinot attacked fresh Austrians on the other side of the bridge. The folks here that play gamey would have a field day with this rule. You want to hold a position? Just keep rotating fresh battalions in and out of the VP location. The other side will never take it with this mentality.

The answer is not in the engine. Its HOW the guys are playing the system. I suggest you find someone in the club or elsewhere that likes to play your formula and stick to them as opponents. Its not John's job to patrol with code changes the issues that come up because folks dont play what you would consider historical.

I play a mix of both to be honest. There are times when I know that the game cannot model something and in order to win I am going to have to change my view in order to accomplish my mission. While I dont like it we dont have much choice. John is not going to make a major overhaul of this older code and unless a better game comes out this is what we have. I suggest finding a group of guys that doesnt play like some of the blitz guys here and go with that as your standard.

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]

I agree with most of what you wrote.

1) Yes, to increasing fire at point blank range prior to a melee. Not necessarily a permanent change to the pdt at a range of 1 hex, but I think increasing def fire prior to a melee is valid.

2) I have long felt that both the attacker and defender should undergo pre-melee morale checks. That would simulate the effect of an attack stalling at a fence line or the wavering of a defender when faced with the advancing Garde.

3) I favor increasing the movement cost when moving within 2 hexes of infantry or 3 hexes of cavalry and artillery, depending on terrain, los and other factors. I think that would reflect the greater care paid to maintaining formation when in proximity to an enemy force.

4) Not one I advocate. It is generally a bad idea to melee an undisordered unit from the front, but it is not something I would prohibit. I have less of an issue with melee than the fact that units recover so quickly from a melee. That is not to say recovery from disorder. This is more about unit cohesion, the one piece of battle that has yet to be properly simulated. The rout/disorder/fatigue/morale is an attempt but falls short when applied to the army as a whole or really any formation above the battalion.

We do not have higher level morale or elan or whatever term that you would use to show how units in a given brigade behave when it has lost 25% of it's number but one battalion is still at full strength. In reality, that weighs on the full strength unit and impacts its combat ability. If commanders had to rest units or pull whole formations into a resrve position to properly recover their elan, then I think we would see less reliance on shock tactics.

Regards,





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

Good points, Bill, especially your idea for no.2. - players will always take advantage of the game engine to use gamey tactics. So you're right about no.4, although I'm probably still in favour of some version of no.3., possibly depending on the relative size of the units.

Jeff, I like your suggestion of a pre-melee morale check - the attackers would test first and then, if they pass, the defenders. Perhaps if the defenders fell back, losses for both sides would be reduced by say 50%

Hi Guys
What do you think of this idea.

New Morale adjustments:

When taking fire from artillery while frontally assaulting -2
When taking fire from Infantry in line while frontally assaulting -1
When casualties taken from fire exceed 25% of unit strength -1
When casualties taken from fire exceed 50% of unit strength -2

Ideally units that disorder could then not melee but from what Bill says this may require a major engine change.

These rules would mean if a infantry btn tried to frontally assault say a battery and took heavy casualties it would virtually prevent melee. The overall simulation would improve greatly.

Also perhaps units that fail by 2 or more in the attacking phase actually rout as oppossed to disorder.

Just some thoughts. Bill I realise fundamental changes are hard but without knowing the code I am not sure what is easy and what is not.

Best regards









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

Interesting topic.

With regard to 1 & 2 I could deal with them. I especially like Jeff's idea of adding morale checks prior to melee.

Don't much care for 3. If all morale grades and nationalities weren't all treated the same with regard to movement I could deal with it, better. For example, I don't think the Guard would slow there advance much for a landwehr battalion -- they were trained and adept enough that they maintained formation well under all but the most adverse circumstances and would probably accomplish such an attack at a higher advance rate than the landwehr could achieve maneuvering across a field unopposed.

4) I agree with the arguments already advanced in this regard. Another problem not yet mentioned is how to know when the opponent is highly fatigued.

I agree with Colin that casualty rates ought to be taken into account with respect to morale to a greater extent than current. A battalion of 800-900 could be at max fatigue at half strength even if not involved in melee. I've seen such battalions remain on the field to the last man, however. I believe there needs to be some cumulative effect beyond the current max that would eventually result in the unit not being able to recover. At the very least unable to move toward enemy forces until rested back to "green" fatigue, although becoming totally ineffective is probably more accurate than effective only at defense.

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

Any of you that have read With Musket, Cannon and Sword by Brent Nosworthy knows how he dealt with melees. Especially how the British defeated the French.

Basically:

1. Attacking columns would come up to the British lines deployed on the reverse slope.

2. Defenders would fire.

3. More than likely the Attacker would stop and fire.

4. British line would counterattack and drive the confused French columns back down the hill.

Nosworthy felt that the Celtic ferocity of the Brits made them a fearsome opponent in combat. The French on the other hand would not be as ferocious and would back down from them. Thus he basically debunked the myth of British firepower. After all who can miss at something like 30 paces or less?

What this translates to in game terms is this:

1. The Attacker would march up.

2. They would come upon a defender.

3. If the fire didnt stop them from continuing the advance then there would be the mutual morale check. If the defender fell back it was usually in disorder. The attacker would NOT disorder (this is something we should get fixed in the game series - especially cavalry after the first attack - shouldnt always disorder) if they continued to follow. It was still in a march of formation.

4. If the attacker halted to fire then it was a fire melee. We had those in miniature rules I played. It was not the normal fire. It was a close in fire duel and it was costly. Units would NOT stand for two hours at this range and fire at each other. It was over in a matter of minutes as one side or the other would want to get out of Dodge so to speak.

5. If the Defender held his ground and the attacker disordered then usually some form of counter attack would develop unless the defender was very low on numbers or holding a static position (village).

In either case our model in the engine leaves alot to be desired and minute changes are not going to remedy the problem.

Thus I dont agree with Jeff that we need to increase the MP rate when you move closer to units. I cant find that in the books. I dont think it would simulate anything I can remember. I do know that some units talked of having lead in their legs when trying to move in combat and they were not even in contact or near the enemy!

Bottom line: the pre-morale checks are not a bad idea. I am thinking Jeff that you think that they should take place AFTER you press the Resolve Melee button on the toolbar (or via the Melee menu). This is an interesting idea.

However, they dont offer us much of a solution in the long run. The Nosworthy melee model is really the best format. One could say that its modelled in an abstract form in the current engine but how do you model the British countercharge? It would NOT be part of the next movement phase (as meleed units are disorderd - who wanted to attack three French columns with one disordered British bn.?) as one of John Tiller's sources referenced. It happened as PART of the melee!

In the end: play miniatures or get a programmer and put a new game together! Basically we could try tweaking some more but time is running out for alot of us in the develpment end of things. John has new projects to get on to and frankly I wont have much more time past these two projects I am doing to petition him for more changes. I have pretty much advocated putting more "umph" into the new engines he is working on and spending less time with this one. Its a dollars and cents (sense) thing.

So unless something that is concrete arises that is going to solve the dilemnas we face I suggest we just find folks we enjoy playing with, use some common sense and avoid gamey type moves. I am about halfway there. I wont go with the ultra historical crowd (Jason Crawley and others) nor will I use the "whatever works use it" approach. Most of the people I play are good about this.

Suggested guys to play that keep a close watch on gamey moves: Dean Beecham, Bill Peterson, Ken Jones, Gary McClellan, Colin Gaskell. There are MANY others and I dont want to offend anyone by leaving them off of this list. These names just come to mind as I close out a busy weekend!

As GMT Games says: "Enjoy the games!"



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]

Fair comments Bill agree with most of what you said. Is the new engine Mssr Tiller is working on a Napoleonic one?

Regards

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 didnt say there was a new engine. I said:

"I have pretty much advocated putting more "umph" into the new engines he is working on and spending less time with this one. Its a dollars and cents (sense) thing."

This means that he has contracts with the govt. which would give him more revenue than the Napoleonic side of things. Face it, these are rough times for most of us and its best that John put the most he can into the govt. side of things which means more modern subjects.

Not like I am against a new engine but I dont look for that to happen unless John decides to do it on his own.

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]

OK thanks Bill agree more re $ and cents.
At the end of the day Napoleonics is a niche interest.
regards

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

A niche market perhaps, but we are a passionate crowd. [8D]

Anyway, this discussion highlights the variety of opinions that exist, even in a relatively small group of consumers.

Looking at movement for example, there are varied movement rates amongst the Napoleonic titles. IMHO Jena has the best pace, but NRC and Waterloo allow roads to be used to rapidly advance around the field. While my comment was made in a general way, it was driven more by the road movement in these two games.





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

I agree about those road movement rates Jeff. I prefer Jena over the alternates as well.

regards

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

Guys - would you be in favor of a PDT file I could put on my website that you guys could use for Waterloo/NRC?

Basically until Rich changes it (doubtful) I could put up a set of scenarios and PDT files that adopt the new method. Wouldnt be too hard to do ...

Let me know if you are interested. I would NOT change the TIMES in the scenarios to be 10 min. vice 15 except for converting the LENGTH of the scenario by 1.5.

Thus I WILL change the scenario length from say 20 turns to 35 but I wont go into every reinforcement group and release time and make it conform to a 10 min. format.

Would this help?

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]

I would like that Bill.[;)]

<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"