Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Gentlemen!

Welcome to HISTORICITY & REALISM PROJECT
http://www.nwc.albom55.ru/hrp/

NEWS & CHANGES:
- Scenario "H&R 1.02 1805 Amstetten #1"
- Scenario "H&R 1.02 1805 Ulm Hypothetical #1"
- H&R FIRE POWER TABLE 1.02
- Regimental evaluation

_________________
General-Feldmarshal Alexander Zaytsev
Siberian Gr. Reg. / Guard: Preobragensky LG Reg.

1.02 changes:

PDT File
• Minor FP reduction for howitzers and unicorns

• Howitzers FP at 300m range is increased from 3 to 4.

• Artillery combat value is reduced from 40 to 30.

Scenario Files
• Allied artillery default fatigue is increased to 300. This would give -10% to allied artillery FP reflecting the superior training and skills of French gunners.

• Minor adjustment to Ulm scenario victory points and objectives.

OOB Files
• Some French Grenadier battalions from Oudinot division (1st Division, V Corps) are given “D” morale. These regiments were composed of soldiers from 58th, 81st Line and 31st, 15th Légère. The first two regiments saw only limited counter-insurgency action in 1793-1795 as they were operating against Chouans and Royalists and were not involved in any serious actions since 1795. 31st Légère was formed from ethnic Piedmontese who as of 1805 were not too eager to fight for Napoleon. 15th Légère saw some minor actions in Italy in 1796-1800 but was disgraced after they were deployed in the fortresses of Monte Cenis where soldiers got drunk at the very first night on 08.04.1800 and immediately after that the whole regiment was taken prisoner. Above all, only about one third part or half of each “Grenadier” battalion were made of Carabineer or Grenadier companies, with the rest being from Fusilier or Chasseur companies. Accordingly, Oudinot’s division was only nominally “elite” by its name but was not composed of truly elite companies.
Sources:
-Digby Smith. The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book, p.179
-Scott Bowden. The Glory Years. Napoleon and Austerlitz, p.22-23

• 10th Hussar Reg, 13th Chasseur Reg and 21st Chasseur Reg. are given “good regiment” status (20-33% of the strengths received morale “C”).

• French Horse artillery are given “B” morale.

• All Dragoon units are given ability to dismount

• For Ulm Scenario both French and Austrian artillery are given Howitzer sections within artillery batteries.

Optional Rules
• Flank Morale Modifier can be used to boost the morale.


Amstetten scenario has been added. It is H&R version of original scenario #09H HTH-Amstetten.scn with no changes to force ratio, or deployment. The only minor changes was around victory conditions which should make it easier for the French player to achieve a victory.

Austerlitz Historical scenario is being worked on now and the release is planned this month (February).

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps


(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)

It's my plesant duty to emphasise that we do not assess quality of units based on any formal schemes. It's truly individual approach. With french regiments histories were tracked down to individual batallions. For each of them a number of serving veterans and their experience were computed. The perfomance of each regiment in previous campaigns and the one of 1805 were also taken into account. Very similar work was done with Russian regiments. In some of the studies we had to fall down as low as histories of individual companies! So we have a unique experience of finely assessing the units qualities.

One may say "Wait! If you did so much work, why are the regiments valued essentially the same with only minor difference?" Because the HPS/JTS engine has it's own restrictions. Under these restrictions and with our conception of how units should be organised this is the only way to describe them and achieve what we call historical course and outcome of battle. We have in mind several alternations to testing routines of the engine that would be at the same time easy to introduce and very much improving quality. So if there is enough interest...

_________________

From:

OOB Files
• Some French Grenadier battalions from Oudinot division (1st Division, V Corps) are given “D” morale. These regiments were composed of soldiers from 58th, 81st Line and 31st, 15th Légère. The first two regiments saw only limited counter-insurgency action in 1793-1795 as they were operating against Chouans and Royalists and were not involved in any serious actions since 1795. 31st Légère was formed from ethnic Piedmontese who as of 1805 were not too eager to fight for Napoleon. 15th Légère saw some minor actions in Italy in 1796-1800 but was disgraced after they were deployed in the fortresses of Monte Cenis where soldiers got drunk at the very first night on 08.04.1800 and immediately after that the whole regiment was taken prisoner. Above all, only about one third part or half of each “Grenadier” battalion were made of Carabineer or Grenadier companies, with the rest being from Fusilier or Chasseur companies. Accordingly, Oudinot’s division was only nominally “elite” by its name but was not composed of truly elite companies.
Sources:
-Digby Smith. The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book, p.179
-Scott Bowden. The Glory Years. Napoleon and Austerlitz, p.22-23

Reply: This is a weak set of sources to cite as your basis for doing this. I read the pages referenced and nothing is listed there to back up your claim. You say nothing about the camps on the coast where the units were drilled and nothing about the fact that the men of 1793-95 had long been replaced in part by new men who had nothing to do with the war record of those dates. If anything Bowden cites on those pages that these men were probably right up there with the Guard in quality.

If you want to nitpick right down to the company level how about some sort of rule that when a Russian officer dies the entire battalion Disorders and stands around like panicked children due to the loss of their "father" figure. That I can find in plentiful amounts from the period.

The Old Ingermanland regiment fired one shot at a French regiment and ran like chickens for the rear running right past the Czar. At least I think that was the regiment that Robert Goetz cited. They were disgraced from that moment on. Does that mean that under different circumstances they would not have held up under fire? No. It was the moment and they lost heart. Happens to even the BEST regiments.

Why I went away from this form of unique morale rating for the most part was to give some level of consistency to the armies. The Austrian regiments for instance had a varied record in combat and for that I under much concern and not really wanting to do it, I reduced morales for some units and raised them for others. But the problem is that, while we do not want generic armies, you end up with a lot of unit differentiation and frankly too much. The best units in the army have bad days and the worst have great days.

I prefer to use a system whereby the army has a basic level of morale for a certain type and let the dice tell the story of how they performed. Yes, the 57th Ligne has a better morale than the rest but I keep down the amount of differentiation as much as possible.

The Elizabethgrad Hussars probably have better morale than I gave them but did they perform up to it at the battle? I do not think so.

But I also point out without hesitating that Napoleon at Austerlitz knew his opponents, the Allied high command was divided and hey, it was at the battle too. Better downgrade those command ratings guys! I mean, lets be honest and historical right? How about some Fs for the high command ... Probably the entire army with some exception. If an Allied unit disordered at the battle it was unlikely that Kutusov was really going to be able to help him while sitting up on the Pratzen ...

_________________


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,

we are talking almost about the same things.

Look. We agree with your want for a dice roll to decide which regiment runs and which stands. What we really did is that good regiments have, figures artificial, 50% chance to stay and poor 40%. And very good, the guards, have even 60%!

Next, when they become disordered the good regiments have 60% chance to reorder and poor regiments about 35-40%. These figures are real. On the average the French have 55% to reorder while Allies have 45%. That's for average units. For good it's about 10-15% higher and for poor 10-15% lower. What I'm talking about as an improvement is the ability to set this level at 37 or 43 percent if you really think it's needed. Having 4 units with chanc to rout 43% is not the same as having 3 with 40% and one with 50%. That's what we need to do now in order to have ON AVERAGE 43%.

And even more! When regimental commander becomes casualty it's substituted with Anonimus with lower command rating. For most of the regiments it means that they will recover at even lesser rate. About 25-30%. BUT! It applies not only to Russians but to all of the armies. Because, frankly speakin, I have met no example exactly like those your "dumb chickens" and "frightened kids". Not a single case. I've read quite a few accounts of those junior officers being with their companies/platoons. BTW if you could give one in form "This officer rank and name was killed/wounded and regiment stood as a dumb horde of frightened chickens" I'd be very grateful. What I did meet numerous time is that any unit from any side loosing it's commander often remained ineffective until the end of the day. That's what we have done.

And yes. Some of the top commanders have Fs. Not only on Allied side. For example I always insist to rate Murat as F due to his "specific" "troops management". But taking into account his personal ability to rally troops around him, he has Leadership A. Not sure these "personal settings" would be included, but I personally like them.

But even more. No matter how good the leader is he won't pass down his bonuses is subordinates are out of his command range. We decreased these ranges significantly. So Napoleon would be able to "inspire" only two corps at a time, others being left for themselves. That's exactly what could be inferred from detailed descriptions of battles.

_________________

1. It's rather strange to see within 24 hour comments like "Russians are unfairly dealt with in the literature"
and "Russians acted as chicken/skared childred" coming from one man. Could you be more plain? We do not need your praise, but if you could keep these "Bush legs" legs with yourself... Please stay polite and you won't be pursued for offended national feelings.

2. Speaking of New Ingermanland regiment. (those Swedes give such awful names to their provincies!!!) It was a happy chance you called this one. Becuase online a regimental history of it is stored. Here:
http://chigirin.narod.ru/book18.html
The regiment was fighting for Telnitz and has nothing to do with that case on Stary Winohrady. The book shows a picture of very different kind. Long hard fighting, at leas one mass rout during the day and stubborn resistance later on when the regiment was left as rear guard. They've lost 232 men KIA and MIA with more than 200 WIA. Out of initial strength of 1771 it's almost 30% loses. Add in those leaving ranks by any reason. Under our settings it's the limit or slightly beyond the limit of what average regiment could possibly bear. That's why we are happy with them.

3. The one on Stary Winohrady was Little Russian Grenadiers. But before blaming the regiment and calling them names, maybe it's worth considering the odds? Three batallions deployed and met with a whole division f 8 batallions. Take into account that French two batallions were approximately just as strong as Russian three. Outflanked on both flank, pressed from the front, with zero visibility. If you simply put these conditions into our game you'd have a clear ansver - they will most probably rout away. No matter what color of uniform they have. Let us be honest with ourself. That is NORMAL behaviour of unit in those particular conditions. Let us call it norm and calibrate the engine accordingly. And be respectful of course.

4. Damn! The idea has gone.

_________________

The action I am thinking of (cannot find it in Goetz' book yet) was not with the grenadier regiment. It was a Russian line regiment that ran away at the blast of musket fire. And yes, that did happen to the Little Russians but it was not the account I was thinking of.

Units rout too easily in the H&R system. After testing with it a bit I just could not play with those reduced morales. Too many routed men running around. If that happened on a regular basis in battles they never could have formed up for second and third assault. Repulsed does not mean routed.

_________________


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)

Do you mind disclosing what “a bit of testing" means and expressing “too many routed” in figures / percentages ?

Our experience is based on 8 or so tests numbering already around 250+ PBEM turns and surely we know what we mean by “normal routing”.

Repulsed does not ALWAYS mean routed but the game only understands the language of “Ordered” “Disordered” or “Routed”. In reality there was a condition between routed and disordered – that’s when men would be repulsed and retreat in disorder but without an order and without actually RUNNING to the rear. Since we cannot possibly simulate this with the engine, "routing" is the best way to describe it in engine terms.

PS. I might find some time to provide quotes with some descriptions of battles which would have this behaviour described….

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps


(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)

"On 30 brumaire an XII (22 November 1803), First Consul Bonaparte decided to create a new division of elite troops for the invasion of England. Two months later, in January 1804, Bonaparte fixed the division's establishment at 12 battalions formed into six regiments, each regiment of two battalions. Each of these battalions was composed of six companies, three of which were Grenadiers or Carabiniers, and three companies of Fusiliers or Chasseurs - the designation depending on whether the companies were drawn from line or light regiments. In March of 1805, Napoleon revised the organization of this special division now known as the Grenadiers de la Reserve. Two battalions, consisting of (p.23) Grenadiers and Fusiliers drawn from the 28th and 30th Regiments of the Line, were broken up and the companies that comprised these battalions were returned to their parent regiments. ..."

Have you missed this paragpraph along with all other stuff on page 22-23 ?

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps


(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)

I decided not to sit here and argue with folks that have their information wrong but write Scott Bowden directly. Here was my question concerning the paragraph quoted and how he responded:

BP - Was there anything in this paragraph that suggests that the Grenadiers and Fusiliers of the 28th/30th Regiments were substandard and returned to their units due to poor performance?

SB - You are correct in that the break up of the two battalions was due to admin purposes (cost, number of available officers, etc.), not quality of soldiers.

There you go. Puts the argument to rest. Under no circumstances were those companies substandard as you guys are suggesting. So change the morale ratings please - er, to keep that "Historical" part of your title.

Here was my question concerning the 15th Legere:

BP - Also: did you ever know the 15th Legere to be considered a poor unit of substandard quality when compared to the regular Legere regiments of La Grande Armee of 1805? All I have ever read on them was that they were excellent soldiers. A fine part of the III Corps.

SB - Now, I am going from memory here without looking at a copy of Napoleon's Finest, but I seem to recall that the 15th Legere, in 1804-05, had a large number of conscripts in the ranks (please see after-action reports in Napoleon's Finest to confirm this aspect), and I also seem to recall that they fought very well during the Austerlitz campaign (they had some excellent officers). Was the 15th Legere as good a unit in 1805 as, say, the 13th Legere? No way. You would not get the comments as were made by the senior officers praising the young soldiers of the 15th for their conduct if they had been on par with the other regiments of the 3rd Corps that had many more veterans in the ranks. Since the performance of the 15th was laudatory, I would not use a label as "substandard" to the 15th Legere in 1805. For if folks were to use the negative term "substandard" to describe the 15th, they would have to qualify the negative term by whose, or what, standards; and if it was in a pre- or post-combat sense, or compared to others in 3rd Corps that incidentally were the best in the army. I believe you can see how quickly such an unfair connotation can color perception.

(I have the book, "Napoleon's Finest" that he references. When I get a chance I will find the excerpt and try and post part of it here)

-----

Ok, so he agrees with you that there was a large number of conscripts in the unit. However, he agrees with me (and another club member that emailed me about them) that they "fought very well" during this period of time.

I will not sit here and argue about what an author said and your interpretation of it. I will go right to the source to show you wrong on this. I pretty much knew that the paragraph had nothing to do with quality but you persisted in trying to make it read something different. In the future maybe you should write the author or go the Napoleon Series forum and get the facts straight before you low-rate a unit.

_________________


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)

I'm reading now Bogdanovich on war of 1813. At Goldberg happens the following episode:

"Regretfully - poorly armed, having no baptism of fire, battalions of landwerh were all put together on the left flank - one of the most dangerous places of the position. Loss of many officers, and among them of LtCol Hrumbkov kommanding the landwerh struck the young soldiers with horror. At this very moment French cavalry of 12 squadrons charged the disordered batallions; all officers efforts to regain order were in wain..." etc.

A usual example of what happens when commander of unexperienced units becomes casualties.

_________________

Bill,
Attention to details. Not sure if went to download the scenario files for 1.02. If you had you could see that only a few units of Oudinot division were downgraded to morale “D” [3].

To be precise: the average morale rating in that division is 3.76
For comparison – Dupont's division average morale is 3.33

In such a way Oudinot units are still above average formation of the Grande armee due to having a HIGHER proportion of Grenadier/Carabineer companies. However, this units were not ENTIRELY made from the elite companies. Furthermore, as you went a step further to prove that “our information is wrong” you found out that yes we are correct that there was a large number of conscripts in these units. Nevertheless, we still gave them a lot higher morale than line units (3.76 vs 3.33).

As for actual combat performance – reading the H&R document you can see that units morale is made of a few parameters: e.g base morale (which reflects the training / physical / discipline parameters) which is adjusted by three factors: regiment’s past performance, number of veterans, and actual combat performance in the campaign. This approach allows to take into account ALL RELEVANT factors rather than to judge by one isolated incident.

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps


(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)

Whatever. You still do not get it. Even the author disagrees with your logic. They performed much better than conscripts. Anyway, enjoy your project.

_________________


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)

The author disagrees with your Bill statement, which intentionally formulated for him to disagree. But the question was not designed to disprove that Oudinot division should not be given 3.76 morale.

Did the author disagree that Oudinot division should be 3.76 morale as opposed to 3.33 line division morale? I am afraid not.
Did the author say that these divisions were not entirely made of elite companies? Yes.
Does the author believes that this was above average formation? Yes.
Was this formation given a higher morale rating in H&R? Yes.


You say they performed much better than conscripts. We say – fine - - hence they get 3.76 morale – A LOT higher than line units. But the average for division is not 4 . Why ? Because not all of them as per author were made of Elite companies of grenadiers and carabineers.

_________________
General-Leytenant Alexey Tartyshev
Leib-Guard Preobrazhensky Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
1st Brigade
Guard Infantry Division
5th Guard Corps


(I don't play with with ZOC kills and Rout limiting ON)

No. Scott Bowden said that I was CORRECT. Read it again. I think that perhaps the language barrier is the problem. He said that while they were conscripts they did NOT perform like that during the campaign. We are not talking aboud dice rolls. We are talking about the degree of leadership that they had which lead them to do better than the average conscript unit.

_________________


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)