Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

As a new player, I have acquired an immediate dislike of the isolation rule as it is. Especially as the defender, you might get isolated without a chance of setting it straight. What are the chances of modifying the rule so it would only start at the second turn of isolation? To me, this seems much more realistic and balanced.

Am I just a whiner, or do others have issues with the isolation rules?

_________________

I don't like Isolation either. Poor quality units with poor leadership are especially vulnerable (mainly the allies). It only really works for 1813 where both sides are poor quality.

Units did not surrender en masse after 15 minutes - I had one Waterloo campaign game where I lost some 3000 Prussians to killings and some 30,000 due to isolation in barely 4 hours. It's unrealistic.

It does cause gamey play - an opponent plays a game quite differently if the rule is off.

As for what you suggest. No there is no option to do that, it would have to be an engine change. And that is very unlikely. There was some experimentation with a Surrender rule where units could surrender and be eliminated with no points given to the attacker, but that was never implemented.

I see this rule mainly as a way to force the player to care for his flanks and his back, I doubt that historically any leader just shrug his shoulders when the enemy came up behind him.
In detail it might be too aggressive but you should not even take the risk of running into such situation.

_________________

...you know in thinking about this one, it would seem to be more of a tweak of an existing optional rule and not a full on engine change; for example like changing the facing from hex spine to hex side (like from NB to CWB style ... or vice versa), I don't know that it would be an automatic 'no'.

More to the point is that engine changes are going to be related to a title in development at some point so there are limited opportunities for this to happen.

The issue becomes one of presenting the benefits of a proposed change or tweak, and how it would benefit prior as well as future titles in a given series.

This is an interesting proposal; one which has me realizing that I need to do more reading on all of the optional rules in the series.

Would be interesting to see the situations that this really takes a bigger effect because I haven't seen it this way except from time to time a unit that was somehow cut off and encircled and there the rule seem appropriate.

_________________

After having a read of the Isolation optional rules (admittedly for M&P) I am not sure I would really mess with the rule -it seems most entirely geared towards lower level situations like when your line gets blown and you are trapped. Supposedly only your defensive melee strengths are impacted (which I took to mean offensive melee strengths of isolated units are not impacted).

What it looks like is that it is also designed to 'encourage' a player to mind their flanks. There is an exception in that a scenario designer can add Supply Sources wherever you want -I guess typically that might be to some areas that are supposed to be especially tough to take- maybe a chateau -maybe a village, whatever... but I guess the bottom line is if it is an issue or a player feels that it will be misused- just leave it off.

Totally agree with the status quo. If you don't like it turn it off.

It makes you protect the flanks and stops small unit/formation delaying tactics for too long. Weight of numbers and flanks meant something in this era and I believe the Isolation rule is fine. I've been on both sides of the encirclement and ladies if your in the middle, suk it up!

Now I have slightly more experience, I notice that the isolation rules actually work as I suggested. As the honourable S_Trauth mentioned, it only impacts defensive strength, which means that you do get a one turn grace period before you are the defender again.

I still do not particularly like it however, especially in campaign games where it encourages gamey behaviour. This is a snapshot from my current campaign game.

The curassiers are mine (just having chased away some light cavalry), being surrounded by hussars. To me, the hussars are in a worse position, on the wrong end of heavy cavalry. However, I am isolated and the hussars are apparently happy to be in a position like this.

In a campaign game, I do not want to have to fiddle with exact hex placement to avoid being isolated. I just want to get moving until the big battle. As suggested, for lower level games it is probably a good rule. In future, I won't use them for larger battles anymore.

_________________

Hi Eltjo,

And there lies the issue,

It is your strategic choice on how and where you deploy your forces and your tactical choice on how they are engaged.

If the enemy deploy more troops and can maneuver around you and you choose to confront them in battle and do not consider the tactical placement of your troops you will make life difficult for yourself.

You state "In a campaign game, I do not want to have to fiddle with exact hex placement to avoid being isolated. I just want to get moving until the big battle." However as the player you are in fact everything from the Coy/Sqn/Bn/Bty/ Regt/Bde/Div/Corps/Wing/Army Commander! It IS your interest to fiddle with exact hex and unit placement in order to give your troops the best possible opportunities to inflict damage and to protect themselves and the adjacent forces. If you do not have enough troops in location to effectively counter the enemy then you have to sacrifice some for the time to concentrate enough to, as you get to as you say "the big battle" you are seeking.

If the enemy whittle away your troops before that then all power to them and I would suggest your plan did not take into account the enemy. These were and are the real decisions all commanders must make. It is a chess game with chance and such a range of options that each can turn a battle.

The detail that the players must go to in order to win is part of what I like about these games and is something unique to the style of game and engine. A campaign is a big undertaking, attention to detail from your strategic concept to your tactical positioning are all important. Flexibility is even more so when the enemy has options as well.

Onward

Indeed at the end a battle is still a battle and I don't see why you should turn that rule off from a particular scenario size on.

For the situation mentioned, I don't see much detail but when your cavalry is surrounded it's simply in trouble.
But I think you could still attack through the surrounding units next turn because only your defensive strength is lowered, isolation doesn't seem to have impact on your attacking strength.

_________________

If you are not disordered, you can also try and charge your way out if possible. As you mention, the long campaign scenarios have their own set of challenges. Not only do you need a good plan but you have to pay attention to detail all the way through. Some of the other games (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Austerlitz, 1814) have campaigns that model each of the small actions as separate linked scenarios. The outcome of each battle influences the choices available at the next scenario. This allows for operational and strategic choices without 50 turns of micro-managing your marching...

_________________

And please, go easy on Eltjo, he is facing human opponents for the first time. In my first PBEM of NiR, I was beaten so bad, in part because I did not understand the strong zone of control in Talonsoft, that I did not try again for more than a year...

_________________

Sure, I know very well that the first game against a human opponent can shake your moral.
I had to reconsider the rules I wanted to use to make sure the game plays out in a more historical way but I also had to gain more knowledge about the combat on a tactical level in the Napoleonic Wars, this will also open your eyes how and why some things are the way they are in the game.

_________________

Yep for sure the game AI and the real player opponent are like chalk and cheese. My first few games I scrapped through on professional knowledge which sent me back to the drawing board to re-read the game parameters and seek advice .

Its a steep and bloody learning curve when you first start against real opponents.

Persistence, drink and dogged denial of defeat also help

Indeed. As one about to rejoin the fray after some years in retirement, I look forward to lessons!

_________________
Brigadier Sellick Davies,
III (Peninsular Corps),
6th. Div.,
10th. Br. Bde.,
40th.(2nd. Somersetshire) Regt. of Foot