Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

It seems to me that the way limbering and unlimbering costs are figured (50% of base movement, rounded down) penalizes horse artillery. They were more mobile and trained and equipped to limber and unlimber rapidly yet in the game they use more movement points than foot units to do so. Methinks this doesn't make sense... I would think that their limbering/unlimbering costs ought to be about 6 rather than the current 10 or even the 8 of foot artillery.

And while we're on things that perhaps ought to be changed slightly, sappers ought to provide some sort of bonus when assaulting units in cover such as villages, chateaus, etc. Their addition to the game to provide for repairing bridges was a great step forward, but they did more than that.

What say you gentlemen?

Regards,

_________________
Maréchal d'Empire Theron Lambert
Grand-duc de Montereau et Duc d'Angers

I agree, but getting those changes implemented is an entirely different thing altogether. I have seen many very good suggestions passed up. As far as I know, there is no interest by JTS to implement any further changes to the game engine.

I don't have an issue with the horse artillery as it seems to be at about the right balance with movement and unlimbering plus firing. The key is balance, where the horse artillery does not become the all powerful hammer and anvil on the battlefield.

Some miniature Napoleonic rules sets do give a bonus to the attacker if a sapper company is attached to the battalion. In addition to this, however, it would also be historically accurate for sappers to increase bridge destruction rates as that was another aspect of their expertise and training.

But, as pointed out, the likelihood of any additional changes being made are remote at this point in time.

_________________
Feldmarschall Jeff Freiherr Mathes von Krain
50th (Stein) Infantry Regiment
Dritte Brigade
Austrian Korps

Salute!

This is a great topic that has a lot of interest with many players of the games.
Being a luddite when it comes to this kind of tech information, I want to ask a couple of questions.

I understand that there are some files that can be modified within the games.
For example, I know that some players modify the games in order to add unit types: such as regimental standard bearers, and extra staff officers: aide de camps, etc.

I also know that some players modify the VPs that units are worth.
This is where I have a question: in the file that VPs for units are located, are the VPs listed for each sub-type of unit (Guard, Line Bn, Lt Bn, Militia, Heavy Cav, Light Cav, Cossack, etc), or only for the main unit type (infantry, cavalry and artillery)?

If they are found for each sub-type then it is possible to modify the VP value for the sub-type units, which is something many players seem interested in having (Guard units being worth more than militia units for example).

My next question would revolve around capabilities of sub-units.
There must be a breakdown by unit type for these units, as different sub-units have different capabilities: such as heavy cavalry vs light cavalry, lancers vs regular cavalry, etc.

If these files can be modified, then I would think that for Sappers a bonus could be added for attacking in villages, chateaus, etc.

Just food for thought.

Regards,

VPs can be designated only for the 3 main troops types - infantry, cavalry, artillery, and supply.

I have argued that it would be great to grant VPs for unit quality -- as it is, you earn the same points for destroying a Guard battalion as you do for a militia battalion.

_________________
FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, 1st Squadron, Household Cavalry
1st Duke of Uxbridge & Anglesey K.G.

And that is an important design flaw in my opinion, as it allows the player with the greater number of Guard units to willfully sacrifice them to the very last man. When surrounded, the Guard units will also never give up, whereas the Conscripts will surrender in droves for the same amount of VPs.

I actually don't agree with this. The VP's are an abstract reflection of defeating the enemy. Under this approach you might have crushed your opponent but lost some higher quality units in the process and the VP's award him the victory. It could create some very odd tactics.

And before the allied players go on about the French guard I will point out the later titles such as Bautzen feature large conscript French armies as well now days. I am playing Bautzen at the moment and would not want this rule. Despite the fact it would favour me.

I think it over complicates things.

Just my opinion

_________________
Marechal Knox

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

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

Historically, all rulers were very careful in their commitment of their Guard units because they were the core representation of their ruling power, and damnably hard to replace. Having these units cost more to lose in our games than the much more 'expendable' Conscripts would be a step toward more historical play. As it now stands, Guard units are wantonly committed to battle because they are infinitely superior to the Conscripts they face, and the electronic versions are very easy to replace.

As nothing will likely ever be changed in this regard, the point is moot. You may wish all you want.

Hi Mark
We will agree to disagree on this one . Bear in their are many unhistorical aspects to the game and this might only be one of them if you wanted to address this one then we should address others. Also its arguable.

I like using the low quality units to attack as well as the guard as high morale is really better for defense.

Many armies on the defensive or back foot used their guards liberally.

Napoleon in 1813, 14 and 15 used the guard extensively in every way really
Before that the Russian guard saw action at places like Austerlitz, Borodino and others
The Austrians really did not have a guard but used their powerful Grenadier btns liberally
The Prussian guard fought in 1806 as did their grenadier btns
The various confederation of the Rhine guard units fought extensively in Russia in 1812
The British guard fought at Waterloo

As always using the unhistorical argument is in my view open to endless debate. Anyhow no worries mate!

_________________
Marechal Knox

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

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"

I have no problem whatsoever with simply agreeing to disagree. No one ever agrees all of the time anyway. An inseparable aspect of human society.

...back to the original topic of this thread, I have seen it stated that once they arrived at a certain spot, foot artillery unlimbered and were ready to fire faster than horse artillery because they had less horses to deal with. Which leads me to think foot as well as horse artillery should be able to move and fire on the same turn.

Then there is could be advance and retire by prologe, an artillery capture rule....I know, not going to happen.

Warren, glad to see you are still fogging a mirror!

_________________
Feldmarschall Jeff Freiherr Mathes von Krain
50th (Stein) Infantry Regiment
Dritte Brigade
Austrian Korps

likewise, to the man who brought Blucher back to Paris in an Iron Cage!

Touche. It seemed like the right thing to do at the time. Now that I've shifted over to the Allies, one can hope memories are short

_________________
Feldmarschall Jeff Freiherr Mathes von Krain
50th (Stein) Infantry Regiment
Dritte Brigade
Austrian Korps

Salute!

VPs can be designated only for the 3 main troops types - infantry, cavalry, artillery...

A follow up question or two...

Is it possible using the editor program to add sub units to this part of the game files?
I know that OoB can be edited to include units that did not exist within the program before (such as Aide de Camps, staff officers, standard bearers, etc).

Also, for the idea of giving a bonus to melee combat involving Pioneer units in obstructed terrain, is it possible to edit the combat data files where this kind of information is located?

For example, the files presumably indicate for melee combat the bonus awarded for a leader unit being present.

Could not a similar bonus be awarded for a pioneer in obstructed terrain only?

Thanks for considering the questions posed by a luddite.

Regards,