Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I rarely play BG these days. For me the unrealistic and superhuman ability of skirmishers was always the biggest flaw in the old games and required complex house rules to make the games credible in this respect. Other than that though they were still good games in their own way. But right now I'm really enjoying the HPS games.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/Napoleonic/nap.htm"]Brigadier General 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>

The HPS games have so many improvements and new features - and continue to receive fresh enhancements - so it might seem that the BG games are now completely obsolete.

However, there are two very useful features of the BG engine that still haven't been carried across into the HPS engine, even for the multiphase mode defensive phase:

1./ Square-forming - the BG's multiphase mode may be more cumbersome and time-consuming than HPS single phase mode, but it does have real tactical advantages as far as square-forming is concerned. There's plenty of room for improvement in how square-forming is handled in the HPS engine - having to form square in the previous player turn is far from ideal.

2./ Cavalry counter-charge - I really miss this and would like to see a more sophisticated version introduced to the HPS single phase mode.

Both of these features have a significant tactical role and as long as they are absent from the HPS engine, the old BG engine will not be obsolete.

<b>In HPS single phase mode it should be feasible (something for a future upgrade) to allow players to "preset" (ie. flag in their own turn) units to either form square or counter charge should enemy cavalry approach within say 3 hexes.</b>

Do I still play the BG series? Rarely, but for the above 2 reasons I will continue to do so occasionally.

Do I oppose DYO scenarios? No, but it would be best to playtest them properly (eg. with a few friends to get some feedback) before releasing them to the general wargaming community.

Hi Gents
Until recently I decided like many not to play BG anymore. However when I looked at this site:

http://nap.phxsim.com/downloads/

I decided that that the breadth of games was just to good not to try it again. So I am playing Austerlitz with a famous allied officer at present.

For the veterans out there I realise this site is probably a rehash of old ones but for me it was one I could understand and use easily.

As for HPS vs BG my view is HPS is way superior. Here is my list of why [:D]

- The game engine calculates casualies in men not blocks of 25
- Skirmishers cannot kill huge numbers in HPS and their role is more realistic
- I don't really like the mass ZOC kills you can achieve in BG
- The single phase game makes for more regular gameplay and also brings a sense of the fog of war with unexpected things happening. (Try playing Jeka in NRC) [:D][:D]
- The recent introduction of Jena has shifted the balance of tactics more towards firepower than reliance on shock
- The artillery ammunition was too low in BG
- The huge maps in HPS mean you actually think at the full operational level (which can be extremely challenging)

The map graphics were better in TS but this is the only advantage I can see. For me square forming capability for infantry is offset by the lack of a cavalry charge phase in HPS.

Sorry about the book regards to all!




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

Ma Mon Ami its been five or more years since I installed a 32bit and I still can’t do it I get an error each time help a poor sponge head mesi!

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

I'm with Bill Peters. The graphics in BG were really beautiful and I loved playing the game (at the time) as it was essentially an adaptation of the board games I used to play, so was a good introduction for me to computer gaming. But as a PBEM game, the look of the game can't compare with a faster turnaround, so, for me, it's HPS every time.

Monsieur followed the install and my scenarios screen is blank try to reach them no luck if you will can you help moi??

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

Yes, all for playing BG.

No, not against DYO.

Additional comment: Prefer BG because allow more easy creation of DYO. Plus at $50 PER EACH HPS title, the BG with add-ons allow much more bang for buck. BG Add-ons allow FREE gaming across the entire Nappy era (1798 to 1815). Here is a site for FREE add-ons to BG

http://nap.phxsim.com/


Col. Dirk Smith
1e Bg, 16 Dv, V Corps
Armee du Rhin

One last thing. I completely disagree regarding the advantage in game quality by a "faster turn around". It's kind of a pet peeve, actually. I think the old BG phases captured the feel of Nap combat vastly better. HPS with its "quick turn-around" feels more like armored blitzkried warfare than the linear combat of the Nap period. If the reader doubts that, then why official tournament rules in NWC usually use "MOE3" special rules, etc. when playing HPS.

In particular, Nap era melee between columns and lines was actually much less than the average HPS game as practiced by my opponents. Read Clauswitz: often units would stand under fire for hours without melee. The fire was not that destructive, even artillery unless in grape shot range. HPS players seem to turn the game into one non-stop melee punch through the line. I guess this is okay if you like the game as "fun", but it doesn't seem that historical. This is due to many things like less penalty of fatigue or no counter-cav charge or inability to form reaction square in HPS, etc. It also is due to the way the HPS games allow continuing melee. Just didn't happen that way very often. Not many bayonet wounds in real Nap era combat. Most units would run away if lost nerve to stand an enemy charge. If unit did stand it's ground, rarely did the lines meet but the charging unit slowed, stopped and withdrew. In HPS, on the contrary, the units melee and bounce back often without routing ready for another melee attempt in the next "fast turnaround" move-fire-melee turn.

The BG games though slower by 3X in PBEM due to more phases, much more accurately reflect the feel of Nap era warfare. I suspect HPS new format with its quick turn around conforms to the temperment of our Western fast-food generation wanting quick turn around. Nap era was slow warfare even compared to WW1. Etc.


Col. Dirk Smith
1e Bg, 16 Dv, V Corps
Armee du Rhin

Dirk - the melee losses are similar for BOTH game series. In BG you end up with alot of losses either way for melees. They are much more than just firefights.

You may have a point about fire losses and I may decide to tone them down a bit. But I remember firing with Russian batteries in NIR and getting 250 losses! 150 was not uncommon. 50-75 was expected.

You dont see that many losses from the batteries in the HPS series. Even over the course of a turn. Unless you move one battalion after another across their path at 2 hex range.

We had TONS of house rules for NIR/BG. I remember that the skirmishers in particular were always a pain. And the panzer bush style of play frankly got old.

As for units standing for hours - yes, if all you do is fire at 2 hex range. Even so the units probably would disorder after an hour. I have never heard of units on the average standing for hours without disordering.

The Prussians at Jena are sometimes taken as the standard. It was a isolated incident and units didnt stand out in the open for hours trading shot at each other.

Most of the battles saw a brigade or two get committed at a time. We dont do that as a matter of course. Most folks see it as tossing a brigade away at a time. Even one division activated and put into combat doesnt always stand a chance. Most folks commit two divisions at a time along with 1-3 cavalry brigades.

But in BG/NIR I can remember the entire French army moving up on turn 1 (In Kutusov Turns to Fight - my favorite). Again neither game had any kind of army morale rule. I suppose you could use some sort of Brigade Combat Effectiveness rule.

Again, I remember just as many House Rules for NIR/BG as I have seen for HPS. And really with the new options we have added (mainly the No Melee Elimination rule) you dont see the entire line get creamed in one turn any more.

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]

Dirk
I agree HPS has flaws particularly the silly blitzkreig effect if you do not play embedded melee. Have you tried Jena? I find it much more realistic as column shock power is no where near as dominant and the shorter moves have reduced the blitz effect.

Also the phased game limits the ability to play large scenarios with lots of marching. Like the whole Jena campaign for example.

I think on balance both systems are flawed and its a matter of personal preference. But I have to disagree with BG being better in the melee stakes. As ZOC kills are so easy to make I usually do most of my attacking in BG by column as the results can be fairly quick and deadly.

I used to only play HPS with manual def fire but since the introduction of Jena and the No melee elimination rule I now prefer the turn based game.

IMHO these things said at the end of the day no game system can simulate warfare in the main because unit commanders have so much less to lose in a simulation than in real life. This is often the source of high casualties.

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

Both HPS and (especially) BG give players too much incentive to melee rather than rely mainly on firepower, although the "No Melee Elimination" optional rule and reduced stacking do now make this harder.

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

1./ Slightly increased fire factors at range 1

2./ The possibility of defensive fire "pinning" attacking units and preventing them from continuing to move or meleeing - but not from firing - that turn.

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 disrupted and/or highly fatigued units


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

Monsieurs I notice that the pictures at Eylau are massed up can that be me or is it the game can they be fixed. I'm now sold on the NIR prject so many new games to play mesi! Greetings from New France

Col de Art 6/3 II Corps AN Marbot CS

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by WillieD13</i>
<br />
How many of you still use BGW, and/or BG:NIR, and/or BG:PTW?
Those who do use BG, do you oppose DYO scenarios?


Ensign William Davis
23rd (Royal Welsh) Fusiliers

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

Late to the party as usual.

I still play the BG series games, I enjoy mods, add-ons, variants of all kinds. New scenarios, modified pdt files, revised oobs - you name it. But I like to see them before committing to a game and having the chance to discuss the rationale behind some of them. As someone else posted, I have come across some rather unbalanced scenarios in the past.

Regards

Mark

same as Mark - I answer late, and I am mainly & mostly a BG-engine ( classical wargame) player, owning all 3 BGW PTW & NIR.

Main difference with Mark, though, is that I have not "turncoated", having earned so much gold, bounty, titles & honors <i>au service de l'Empire</i>[;)][:D]

VIVE L'EMPEREUR !

Guillaume AYMONIER-AMELINE

Maréchal de France

Comte de Strasbourg
Duc de Ratisbonne

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />Both HPS and (especially) BG give players too much incentive to melee rather than rely mainly on firepower, although the "No Melee Elimination" optional rule and reduced stacking do now make this harder.

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

1./ Slightly increased fire factors at range 1
BP - The firepower is already pretty high. Losses of 70 men not uncommon. The key is not more losses. Its the melee effects. The defender should be able to come through a melee that he wins undisordered.

2./ The possibility of defensive fire "pinning" attacking units and preventing them from continuing to move or meleeing - but not from firing - that turn. BP - Yes, as long as its not going to happen when a skirmisher hits a column for 1 man. But I am not about to haggle with John to get this in the engine. Its just too iffy on what he will put in and how it will effect the game.

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). BP - Here is one thought - the Threat Zone could exert some influence and cause disorder to the unit as it approaches those kinds of units. For instance if infantry moves on cavalry then from 4 hexes in it has to check for each hex entered. This would stop infantry from advancing on cavalry. Again would bring in gamey things like folks putting one squadron in the way just to slow up an advance of an entire division.

4./ For frontal infantry v infantry melees to be possible only against disrupted and/or highly fatigued units. BP - I disagree. The units that defended at Aspern-Essling were relatively fresh and were hit by Charles and his grenadiers. How many times have we seen cavalry charge fresh cavalry and that also was accurate historically? No, I disagree that you have to attack disordered or high fatigue infantry. The penalty for not doing so is built into the melee equation already. Attacking fresh infantry has its penalties.


Lt.Col. Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Rich - my responses to each of your items is included next to the text.

Additionally - what you really are proposing is for the game engine to handle everything and no house rules be needed. I have yet to find a game, any game, that doesnt need house rules except maybe for chess and checkers and the game of Life! Monopoly has been around for ages yet has House Rules.

In the end its WHO you play with more than WHAT you are playing. In the days of miniatures I had three groups of guys I could play with. One was into historical realism, the other was into gaminess, and still another was into the flavor of the period. I could blend in with all three quite easily but dont get the guys together under the same roof! A donnybrook would result!

The main thing is to realize that John doesnt have the time anymore to do extensive revisions to this series. While a chance here and there will be forthcoming the main thing is to find an opponent that thinks like you and play that person or persons.

I enjoy playing Ernie because he doesnt try and blitz all over you. Other guys like Gary M. also are enjoyable to play if that is what you want. If you want to find out how weak your game is then you play Tomasz but even he has limits to the old adage "everything goes" and we routinely will add in a caveat to our game.

Bill Peterson is a tough opponent but he likes the Embedded Melee System (EMS).

Everyone has a blend of rules and not all will agree on which ones to use. Options prior to the start also have their fans and those that hate certain rules.

Much as I would love to see more things added to the games the additions will probably move down to 3-4 things per new title and nothing in between. And probably really simple things that we think that John can do in a relatively short amount of time.

Note: one morning of coding for this series costs him government time. While he has been REALLY fast at turning around work the testing usually finds something which causes him to go back and redo the work in part. Frankly very few series I have ever seen have gotten this much attention. Which is why so many folks love to play this series as it just keeps on getting better.

For instance: Advocating the Double Phase system for the Single Phase mode of play much like what you now see in the ACW series. Adding in the Melee phase AFTER all firing and movement have happened may solve SOME of the problems we see. Unfortunately what is going to happen is that folks will push a skirmisher in the way on a woods road or put out a screen of skirmishers to block the way and its NIR all over again.

Glad to see this topic get attention again. With Matrix doing up the BG series again this hopefully will add in new folks to the club. I am for continuing to play BOTH series in this club even though I dont play BG anymore. There are just too many folks that still like the game and yes, I would like to see a Square feature that you could do MANUALLY but continue to be against an auto square feature for the simple fact that .. well it would add in more House Rules! Your opponent charges with one squadron, your infantry (flagged) go into square and he attacks you with his infantry which are positioned adjacent. You rarely saw hammer and anvil attacks in this period. Thus house rule would say: If you charge infantry and they go into square you cannot attack them other than with the charging cavalry. Sigh!

As to the countercharge rule this is similar. Yes, you can flag them (one of my ideas many years back) but still its the old bait and switch tactics. Folks doing gamey things to draw out your cavalry, et al, etc.

One thing about House Rules is that they give you some latitude that the engine cannot allow. For instance in the EMS you can allow for infantry to melee infantry out of the way during the first movement portion of the phase. Then continue moving. A cavalry unit could then run down the skirmisher later on if you like but if no cavalry are available you are not stuck with a "wall" of skirmishers blocking your way.

But with a Double Phase system (see above) such as what was presented to John at TC2 you could not melee those same skirmishers until the Melee Phase.

BTW - I played the Double Phase system alot in the ACW club recently and frankly the firepower is way too high.

One thing that is being left out about melees is that the attacker often would just stop to fire. They would not disorder and neither would the defender. Thus your Pin idea is sound but mainly the idea of a stop and fire result is better. It basically would say "Stop and Fire - 33 men lost" or something like that in the dialog box. That would pretty much stop the gamey tactic of advancing up to do a cheap melee to disorder the defenders so you could later charge them at reduced value.

Anyway, far too long .. sorry for that! [:D]

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]