Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

This is mainly for new members but also applies to old members alike.

When you put up a challenge on this forum remember to address the following when you discuss the game with your opponents (all of this does NOT have to appear in your initial challenge posting):

1. Exact game title & file/scenario title to be played. Or if you like "Any scenario" if you are open for anything.
(reason for file name - some of the games have titles that are used more than once ...) If the scenario was not part of the original game then let your opponents know how to get the files. Some of them use alternate artwork as new units were added.

2. The weekly turn rate that you hope to achieve. (1-2, 3-4 files a week or even 1 file a day)

3. House Rules if any.

4. The Options you want to use as shown in the Options Dialog window. (some use abbreviations for them like RL for Rout Limiting, etc)

5. Your NWC signature MUST appear so that your opponent knows what army/side of club you are in. You dont have to use a fancy image but at least "Joe Smith - French Army" or "Bill Peters - Allied Coalition" would be appreciated.

6. Side you want to play in the scenario.

7. If you dont want to stipulate any particular scenario then use the following suggested items in your Challenge:

a. Name of game or just "any title from the JTS/HPS Napoleonic series."
b. Size of scenario (small, medium, large). Small means a low amount of troops to move and really has nothing to do with the map size. A Small sized scenario has 5k to 30k forces per side. Medium means something like 30k per side up to about 70k. Large is anything above that.
c. Number of turns. Remember that the 10 minute move scenarios use more turns. Our recent MP game we are just starting up is using the 15 minute turn format to reduce the amount of turns. I prefer the 10 min. move format but suggested for sake of game length we use the older format. Something to consider for MP games that go longer than a day.
d. Side you want to play.

For people accepting the challenge:

1. You should currently own the game. Please do not accept a challenge and then tell your opponent that in 2 mos. you will own the game. If you are getting the game in one week let them know. I don't know many players that wont accommodate you. But get the game. Don't leave your opponents hanging.

2. You should keep to the agreed terms. If you promised to do 1-2 files a week then please keep to that. Continued slow return rates are really not good for game morale. If you expect to go on vacation or have a large workload please let your opponent know.

3. Please recon the scenario - yes, many like to play them blind but really both players have a better experience if both players have some idea of how the troops are setup. If the scenario has alternate reinforcement arrival locations, that is one thing, but for most standard scenarios you should not suddenly comment to your opponent "I had no idea that that many troops arrive on my flank." Well "duh" ... why say that if you are one of those that wants to play a scenario "blind." If you want to play "blind" don't say things like that to your opponent. You chose to play blind. If you really insist on that don't burden your opponents with those kinds of comments. Are they supposed to feel guilty about it?

4. Note the filename and title of the scenario. Check it out. Make sure you have it before you accept the challenge. It might use alternate graphics or OB files you don't have.

The Challenge post sets the tone for the game. If the posting member wants to just say "Looking for an NRC game" then really that allows the player accepting the challenge to pick something large like "Twin Peaks."

Obviously the player can refuse to play that but remember if you say "any" that the other player might have a particular, unique, scenario in mind. Use the "size" choices when you pick "any scenario, any title" to let them know which ones to pick from.

I probably forgot something here so I might "edit" this original posting from time to time. Hoping that this can become a "Sticky" to help out the new troops!

Some more tips:

1. Before you mark the Challenge as "Closed" do an email "comms check." Why? Because your email server may reject your new opponent's email address. Make sure you can send emails to each other or barring that come up with some other way to send the game files to each other.

2. Open up the game after you get the first game file from the person who started up the scenario in the game - check that:
a. The scenario is the one you wanted to play.
b. The Options are those you both agreed on.

Discuss with your opponent if any of the above are not correct.

3. Make sure BOTH players have the latest version of the game. If one player is playing using the HPS version of the game while the other is using the JTS version just be sure that you both have the latest versions from the company site that applies to your game. If for some reason you can't get the files to work contact the Tech Support folks. This is another item that should be done before you close the Challenge .... if you cant get the game to work using your opponent's first file, and nothing works to correct this issue, then really you don't have a "game in progress."

4. During the game:
a. If the game file will not work correctly after you have played some turns get help from members here that know how to deal with this kind of problem. It might be a technical problem. Some players have issues with Winzip so try sending the file unzipped. Many other issues can come up here too numerous to list.

b. House Rules issues - dont argue about them. If it happens work it out. If you cant come to an agreement or if your opponent doesn't care or is flaunting the rules, don't play them again. Finish the game and just move on. Or just take the loss and move on if you don't want to continue the game.

c. Cheating - per the club guidelines. Please do not post notes on the forum alluding to your game that you are playing someone that you think is cheating. This always leads to hard feelings. Best thing to do is dont play them again and if they show up in a Tournament contact the director to have you NOT play that opponent if possible. Just realize if you both advance that you may have to eventually play them. If for some reason cheating could be established let the club leaders deal with it. Some people just feel that they have to redo turns to make sure that they get the best melee results or whatever. I hope we don't have anyone in the club like that ... Bottom line: if you think someone is cheating keep it private with your commander or other club leader that you contact during the process. Don't get emotional about it. Its just a game. Don't stoop to the other person's level. And by the way ... some things happen in the game that are either accidental or based on a problem with code or are just a misconception about what went on. Dont jump to conclusions.

Lastly - turn in the New Game Form" once you have played a few turns. Some games come to a halt due to several issues. Why go to the trouble of turning in a game form if the game doesn't get "out of the gate" so to speak?

_________________


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)

Would like to voice my concerns regarding point 3:
"3. Please recon the scenario - yes, many like to play them blind but really both players have a better experience if both players have some idea of how the troops are setup. If the scenario has alternate reinforcement arrival locations, that is one thing, but for most standard scenarios you should not suddenly comment to your opponent "I had no idea that that many troops arrive on my flank." Well "duh" ... why say that if you are one of those that wants to play a scenario "blind." If you want to play "blind" don't say things like that to your opponent. You chose to play blind. If you really insist on that don't burden your opponents with those kinds of comments. Are they supposed to feel guilty about it?"

It sounds like it is fine to examine a scenario in all its details, including the other side. That is way too much for my taste.
I usually only do this:
1. Read the scenario description, be it in-game or in an externally in a pdf.
2. Read the prelude to the battle, usually a wikipedia article is a good entry point for this to understand how the battle came to happen.
3. Start the scenario like you will do in the real game, that means from the side you take with fog-of-war and all other ORs you will use. Here you can make yourself familiar with your forces, reinforcements and/or withdrawals, and the map. This is basically only what you would also normally do in the first turn.

By this you go into the game more or less like the commanding officer did back then, and that is what we all want, be in the same situation but trying to do it better.
Doing more seems to spoil not only myself but also spoil an entertaining course of the game.
Just an example for this:
In a game at the ACWGC I came to realize that my opponent must have studied the scenario in detail from both sides likely down to the Union schedule for reinforcements and unfixing of units. His movements carefully avoided all my strong positions while he showed up were I was vulnerable, not to recon but to cause damage. Unlike me who was sending out cavalry to recon he seemed to be aware where he can show up and where not. If he would have been unaware of my positions he would have moved his cavalry to recon especially the objectives, instead he dashed out to cover ground where I was not and his main infantry column marched without much recon too. Cream on the cake was that he ran past between my 2 divisions just to show up at the opposite map corner of his starting position just to grab 3 Union supply units with which he altered the outcome of the scenario drastically very early in the game.

The problem with all this is that the scenario played out very different from what was intended. Fighting such a player is just impossible, he was aware of what he could & couldn't do just like he knew what his opponent was capable to do and not do, that strongly shifted the outcome of the scenario in his favor and completely denied the chance that this would play out historically.

Overall I felt pretty fooled after the game as such behavior doesn't make sense to me. At least I do not spoil myself by wanting to view/read a crime movie/novel but then decide to check out who the killer is, what is the point of then viewing/reading it at all?

_________________

<Salute> Sir,

I come late to this matter I regret as I came upon it purely by chance.

It is, in my estimation, a quite outstanding and pointed post. I have to totally agree with every point you raised as the very issues and circumstances you highlighted have previously arisen in my case also and as you noted, left me feeling very deflated and fooled too. It is I fear, in my opinion, a matter of winning at all costs, amassing points and by any and every means possible notwithstanding the historical basis for using them. It is a game and, whilst we all want to win and indeed like to do so, it should be tempered with some of the realities of the situation as they applied at the time if approached as you did and as indeed I would have too. There is little point in pursuing the matter further though as I believe you summed it up most eloquently, "fighting such a player is just impossible". We can but hopefully identify such in the future and avoid.......at all hazards, I suggest.

I note with interest and indeed no little disappointment that aside from my response herein, nearly some two years after your original post, there were no replies, comments or indeed observations upon the points you raised !

My thanks Sir, a most excellent post, then and even now.

_________________
Sous-Lieutenant Karl McEntegart
3ème Compagnie du 2ème Régiment d'Artillerie à Cheval(Demi-Batterie),
Artillerie Divisionnaire,
4ème Division de Dragons,
3ème Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


WDS Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg, Corinth, Chancellorsville, Chickamauga, Petersburg, Overland, Atlanta, Shiloh, Peninsula
Eckmuhl, Wagram, Russia, Leipzig, Bautzen, 1814, Bonparte's Peninsular
Scheldt 44, Bulge 44, The First Blitzkrieg, Wolfpack, Midway, PB North Africa 1941, SB Red Victory