Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

In this scenario you will find Russian infantry stacked with cavalry on the Pratzen Heights and BOTH are disordered to begin the battle. The reason is that the cavalry came up on the infantry suddenly during the maneuver over the Pratzen and caused confusion in the ranks. Thus the Russians are going to have to recover from the Disorder before they will be able to change formation, march at full speed, etc.

It was intentional and please do not contact Rich Hamilton about this issue.

I am adding in some text in the Scenario Description (but that doesn't mean that someone is still going to ask about it as half the players dont read it according to feedback) for the next update.

Just know that this was my take on how the interaction between the columns played out. Its in Goetz' book and just about every other text I have read on the battle. If you do not like how it is modeled then you can open up the Scenario Editor, copy the file and change it to be how you like it. Its not a thing of "Bill doesn't like the Russians" but more of something I saw that needed to be there.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

Bill knowing the history of this battle well and having read numerous texts on it including Goetz I thought this was an excellent way to simulate the collission of columns that occurred in the poor visisbility of the morning.

It is most often referred to as the 'resulting disorder' so I think it's historically accurate. The units quickly reform so it's really not an issue at all I don't think.

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Yes Colin, it really is no big deal as by the time the units are separated and on their way again they should be able to be back to normal order.

One thing I did struggle with though was WHEN to have the scenario start. I probably should have version that starts with the French kicked out of Tellnitz and the Russian columns well on their way with only one column still left on the Pratzen as was historically the case. Something like near 9am. Because really the French also should be stuck to some form of the historical version and having the French show some losses along with the Russians is far better than having the scenario start earlier and give BOTH sides more options than they had (with a HEAVY emphasis on a boon for the Allies here).

The version we have is not really the Historical version in that the Russians can decide to NOT attack the village and just "stay at home" on the heights. The historical version we play should be an ALTERNATE version. I am considering this for the next update. And hey, folks can still play the Alternate version if they want, sort of like our old favorite, "Kutusov Turns to Fight" from NIR.

But if we are to be accurate the Allies had a plan and so did the French. And really if you go with orders in our games it would help all to have a better time. For instance if we do play the "Alternate" version with the Allies still on the heights, with that fog that was in the valleys that morning the moves according to orders (1st Column attacks Tellnitz, 2nd Column attacks Sokolnitz, while Napoleon's orders are for St. Hilaire to do this or that and so on) would produce less "oh, I see the Russians doing this or that." Once the fog lifts orders would still be used for divisions/columns.

Frankly it would be nice to have a mouse click format where we place division orders and the units move there and the only way we can alter it is if:

1. We run into an enemy.
2. Our command system allows us to alter orders.
3. We reach the location where the formation was ordered to go.

Some of you may have played Empire III by Scott Bowden where you had to wait a certain amount of rounds to alter your orders. This would be similar.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

Get thee behind me, Satanus! I still shudder at the mention of EIII and Scott Bowden. Initially everyone in my local club enthused about the wonderful innovations of EIII & EIV. After 3 years of slogging through bloodbaths where, no matter what orders were issued, the battle ALWAYS became a frontal assault meatgrinder, we concluded that they were completely useless!

Regards,

Paco

_________________
Maréchal M. Francisco Palomo
Prince d'Essling et Duc d'Abrantes
Commandant en Chef du 1er Corps d'Armée

Wow, Paco, I would have to disagree with you concerning Empire IV. In all my years in HMGS-Mid South, we had a lot of great games with that system. We tried all of the other systems too, but Empire IV was always one of my favorites. I remember one game when I was commanding the bulk of the cavalry with orders not to allow the enemy to cross a certain road. My CO was the Club President, Bill Harting, in that game. I was the VP. He kept pushing his units forward and seemed to be getting impatient that I would not attack across the road and advance along his flank. The problem was that my orders clearly stated that I was to defend against the crossing of the road by the enemy. The enemy opposite the road never moved, and neither did I. Man was Bill mad! He thought I was the worst excuse for a player he had ever seen that day. I thought I had carried by orders out to perfection. Not one single enemy soldier made it across the road that day.

Of course, had Bill ever ordered me to attack....

Mark,

You hit the nail on the head as to Empire IV's weakness, it did not protect players from themselves. hehehe.... We, for the most part don't know how to follow orders. We all think of all the exceptions in history where someone took the initiative, disobeyed orders and won the day. Many of us want that glory, and prove we're geniuses.

Good for you for standing put! Had you moved off and someone crossed the road, I bet your President would've had your head on a platter.

BTW, check out the HPS naval wargame club. Last time I played (several years ago) multi-player games were the order of the day, and each player was given his own division, or so, of ships and EXPECTED to follow the fleet orders during the battle. Since you've shown the willingness to follow orders, I think you'd have fun in that team environment.

Yeah, Al, it was never really a perfect world. We had guys try to disregard orders also, but as I ran a lot of the games for the club, I pretty well made them tow the line. You also had to be careful to control the "Rules Lawyers" so that everyone could enjoy the game rather than constantly bicker. I remember one time when a tree was placed on the tabletop for decorative purposes and one of the players got really upset that his opponent shot him while his whole battalion was hiding behind the lone tree. I remember another time I was playing French when the Austrian opposite me would always perform three impulses per turn to my normal two, despite the fact that I had a heavy modifier to my d6 die roll and he had a penalty. He was obviously cheating, but that happens too. Not a perfect world.

I have played a lot of naval minatures as well. Actually, I have played a lot of everything in my gaming career. I am dedicating my limited time to the Napoleonics for now and, even so, Colin is reading this post and thinking, "Where is my game turn?"

Does HPS have any naval games that are PBEM? That is pretty much the only way I can play nowadays as I cannot dedicate specific times to be available. Too many other real world commitments.

BTW, Bill, speaking of Austerlitz, is there any way we can get orchard symbols placed in hexes (131,62) and (132,61)? They look deceptively clear on my map.

Mark re: Orchard hexes - they are showing up fine on my map. You would need to send me a screenshot (or just post it here for us to see) for me to see what you are seeing. Here is my view:

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

Mark,

We had a much different experience in my club. For one, even after using the rules for 3 years, we could never get through a battle without at least one major disagreement about how one of the overly complicated rules should be interpreted.

A more fundamental problem, however, was the schizoid nature of the rules themselves. On the one hand the Empire rules were meant to simulate Napoleonic battles at the "Grand Tactical" level, i.e., battles between armies containing multiple corps, with each player assuming command of an entire corps. On the other, each player was expected to function as the Regimental Sargeant Major for each batallion/cavalry regiment under his command. The two roles are simply incompatible and led to players focusing on the formation and/or alignment of batallions rather than the overall tactical situation.

Finally, although intriguing at first, the hyper movement possible during the "Grand-Tactical" phase made a hash of ANY attempt at a flanking or enveloping movement. The opposing side could invariably respond with a lightning re-deployment, turning every battle I ever played into meatgrinder, frontal assaults.

After 3 years, we gave up and switched to the Napoleon's Battles system when it was originally published by Avalon Hill (1984?). I have been happily using NB ever since.

Regards,

Paco

_________________
Maréchal M. Francisco Palomo
Prince d'Essling et Duc d'Abrantes
Commandant en Chef du 1er Corps d'Armée

Actually when played properly it was almost impossible to react to a good move by your opponent because your orders locked you in to making certain moves. Thus wide flanking moves on an opponent that was attacking were very good and especially against those nations whose order system did not allow them the time to react and change their orders.

I am not sure how your guys, Paco, interpreted the rules but it was pretty plain that if the Austrian V Corps was attacking to its front and Davout was attacking its flank that to get them an order that would allow them to react properly was nigh well impossible.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

"A more fundamental problem, however, was the schizoid nature of the rules themselves. On the one hand the Empire rules were meant to simulate Napoleonic battles at the "Grand Tactical" level, i.e., battles between armies containing multiple corps, with each player assuming command of an entire corps. On the other, each player was expected to function as the Regimental Sargeant Major for each batallion/cavalry regiment under his command. The two roles are simply incompatible and led to players focusing on the formation and/or alignment of batallions rather than the overall tactical situation." - Paco


Hey Paco, couldn't we say the same thing of our beloved HPS Nap games by JT?

Al,

You're absolutely correct! That IS one of the weaknesses of Tiller's system, or rather that the AI is so wretched that the "command" system, in which the player only issues orders to Dv/Corps, is completely useless.

Regards,

Paco

_________________
Maréchal M. Francisco Palomo
Prince d'Essling et Duc d'Abrantes
Commandant en Chef du 1er Corps d'Armée

Paco,

Right you are. I wish JT was able to program some national standard battle drills at the brigade and divisional level so one could just issue orders to Corps or Divisions, and be able to watch the lower level units behave in a predictable, realistic manner.

No matter how you program it the units would not react the way that we like them to. I would prefer a regimental system and frankly its quite possible given the ability to change the scale of a unit. Using the regiment as the basic unit would reduce the amount of units to have to move each turn. Just merge in the independent units into one comb. regiment. Do not allow skirmishers and have cavalry fight in one unit.

I for one would not want the AI handling my units in battle. ANY AI for that matter. I have yet to see one that can do the job right.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

Bill I hope if this was done you would retain the btn and sqd option though as these were the core tactical formations of the Napoleonic wars. Not the regimient.

I for one like moving my toy soldiers around and I know there are lots of others who do. The idea of a moronic Ai doing for me is not appealing at all.

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"