Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I like the idea of having an optional rule "No frontal melee against undisrupted infantry"

This would reduce player over-reliance on melee.

It also seems more realistic - it was normally only when the defender was disrupted and fatigued (ie. "softened up") that the attacker would attempt to assault their position.

Currently, it's possible to max stack with units in column and overrun the defender by sheer weight of numbers, without bothering to soften them up first.


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

Yes, this is true, but what if the unit just wont disorder?

Perhaps this lays more weight to my concept of a 10 min. turn as you would have more fire phases.

Works fine perhaps in the EAW series with its 5 min. turns but I can see in a short scenario where this wont work.

I also disagree that units were not attacked when undisordered. Examples:

Prussian cavalry swooping down on French infantry which were only just a few seconds ago in road column in 1813.

Murat's cavalry charge at Eyalu in a blinding snowstorm into fresh Russian columns.

Davout's attack on the Fleche's at Borodino (multiple attacks).

I disagree that it was only when units were disordered that melee would take place. Countless examples of the French attacking reverse slope defenders for example.

Large stacks are now a curse at times due to the Column Fire Through and Stack Density rules. Place some artillery to where they can fire on them as they advance. Put your infantry in Line so that it falls back facing the front. All good ways to deter the large stack concept which has another disadvantage: you get to watch 3 to 5 times the amount of battalians disorder from melee. Next turn - hit them with a good cavalry charge(s) (if using the multiple cavalry charge option hit them again and again).

Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, 5ème Division, 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 don't like it either. The main disadvantage being it does need some work from JT and if it comes to that I would much more prefer marching fatigue.

Next, as Bill correctly pointed out there were numerous cases when fresh in-line troops were assaulted from the front. So the decision should be not in terms of making any "artificial" rules but in term of tactical adjustments. We just need to have massive attacks in colomn too costy to be used in general.

And why don't we just decrease Max stacking so that such a tactics will loose it's potential?

And finallyall of these things are already done at jena and defending infantry is MUCH more stable. This should be played out a lot before we ask for new changes.

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

I also don't like this concept. On the tabletop we manage this a better way I think - units have to take a morale check to charge home (or advance to contact). Also we do not allow skirmishers to melee formed units in the open.

Regards

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

Hiya,

Firstly let me quote from "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napolion" (Rory Muir, Yale University Press, 2000).

"Infantry in formed bodies almost never fought each other with bayonets on open ground: either one side would break before contact was made, or the attack would falter and the troops woulds begin firing while still some yarsd apart" (p86). An excellent book and should be standard reading for all wargamers. Numerous other in-depth studies, first hand accounts and medical research support this fact.

Now I can happily live with the melee attack in the game as it is in regards casualties (I consider them dead, wounded, pow and flee)and outcome, especially in a 15 minute turn.

What I have issue with is, as has been pointed out, the stacking to swamp troops <u>IN THE OPEN</u>. At times smaller steady units were capable of repulsing or at least holding larger numbers becuase of their steadiness and order (often combined with advantagous tactical posn), in the game currently they cannot. No matter what quality.

I am only now getting a good feel for the 10min turn and I find this a big improvement in regards fire, melee and battle flow.[:)]

All close country, build up areas and fortifications did see a lot of hand to hand struggles, thats a given due to the terrain. Yes there were numerous instances of actual hand to hand combat <u>IN THE OPEN</u> but they were not the norm and were brief with limited casualties and with a very quick resolution. One side or other being surprised was usually the case.

Bill I think your examples are cases in poit:

<i>Prussian cavalry swooping down on French infantry which were only just a few seconds ago in road column in 1813.</i>
Just a few seconds ago in road column, thus unprepared and to the attacking cav they had them surprised!

<i>Murat's cavalry charge at Eyalu in a blinding snowstorm into fresh Russian columns.</i>
Into a blinding snowstorm - they were surprised and not aware/ready.

<i>Davout's attack on the Fleche's at Borodino (multiple attacks).</i>
The Fleches are a fortification - different concept and for some reason men will attack a fortification more readily than "cross swords" with steady inf in the open.

<i>I disagree that it was only when units were disordered that melee would take place. Countless examples of the French attacking reverse slope defenders for example.</i>
Again the attackers were surprised and in most cases driven off becuase of it.

Bill your tactical counter though cannot be fualted [8D].

Anton I agree the simple fix would be to see a reduction in hex stacking. See the realities as posted by Clifton Sweeny under the Pyrrhic Victory over Hp systems victory post. Info readily available from dozens of sources.

Colin yes I would like to see the attacker have to test to charge home as well!

So a good fix would be to reduce hex stacking numbers ( don't forget the numbers able to attack into the hex should equate to the target hex not the six surrounding ones! The ) combined with a moral check for both defender (prior to firing) and attackers (if the defenders stand). How possible is that we need to know?

Lt Col Mike Ellwood
Konig Regt
1 Bde, 22 Div
VII Saxon Corps, ADR

First, I admit my historical knowledge to be very weak. I'm more of a gamer (though I don't do gamey tactics). If you reduce the ability to stack in hexes it will be almost impossible to generate a 1:1 vs the big battalions. Just the way the stacking will work out for the smaller (on average) French battalions. In Eckmuhl I am defending as the Austrians with 900-1000 man battalions. If you dropped stacking to say 1000 men/hex, the French 600-700 man units would never be able to attack the bigger battalions (2 French units exceeding the stacking limit). Considering the huge vulnerability of HPS artillery in close (under 5 squares of an enemy) this makes it very difficult to actually wear them down - especially high morale troops. You need you hex stacking to be roughly twice the biggest battalion size (roughly 1000 in the games I have, so 2000/hex works well).
My real complaint is that the advantage of hitting units in the flank/rear is not that great. Everything I have read and common sense tell me that a 500-man battalion in good order hitting the flank of an even larger unit in line should role it up without any problems. I would double the attackers strength of all units meleeing into the flank or rear of a unit (except skirmishers). Plus give the -2 morale to ALL units hit in the flank and rear not just units in line (melee or fire).

Lastly, any changes like this will have a major effect on play balance of existing scenarios. Some scenarios change radically now with the selection of optional/house rules so this should be a consideration (some scenarios are un-winnable without house rules or specific choices in optional rules). My two cents

I would also like a Club wide list of balanced scenarios or at least rating the scenarios as favoring the French/Allies. I offered to accomplish this with the French last year but got a very little input. I hate starting a new scenario and finding out its lopsided one way or the other - though I'm pretty good at figuring that out before the game.

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

Just a point on this debate - the Jena engine with its 10min moves and reduced stacking meets some of these needs does it not?
regards

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

If the principles Rich and Mike are describing met with a general consensus and were to be implemented in the games I don't think reducing stacking would be the ideal solution. Doug gives some good examples why not.

Surely a better idea would be a simple negative melee modifier for attackers when attacking good order low fatigue defenders from the front, perhaps with the relative quality modifiers adjusted slightly too. This would encourage preliminary softening up, but would still offer the chance of success in melee, especially against poorer quality defenders. There should always be the chance of the unlikely or difficult happening.

Another idea is to have a pre-melee morale check for attacker and defender, with big bonuses for the superior quality 'steady' defender in good order with low fatigue. All these ideas could be included as an optional setting if not everyone agreed.

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

Yes Antony I think those are good options if able to be implemented.

I also agree that the unlikely or difficult should be possibilities, however slight.

Lt Col Mike Ellwood
ADR