Napoleonic Wargame Club
http://wargame.ch/board/nwc/

House Rules
http://wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=14978
Page 3 of 3

Author:  Christian Hecht [ Wed Oct 12, 2016 3:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rules

I have updated the initial post and have added some suggestions for house rules that I think still need more feedback to assure that they are justified and work the way they should.

Author:  Jonathan Thayer [ Thu Aug 30, 2018 9:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rules

I would like to hear ideas that would lead to these battles being more "fire combat" oriented. I an in my fourth battle against an opponent who completely shuns fire combat except for artillery. He never goes in line formation and has basically just battered me with constant melee attacks. I have often deployed in line but my fire power just will not stop these attacks. I have always envisioned these games to have forces trading musket fire until one side is worn down enough to then initiate melees. I'm looking for thoughts on these comments.

Author:  Christian Hecht [ Thu Aug 30, 2018 12:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rules

That's no job for a house rule.
The optional rule "Manual Defensive Fire" is the key, without it fire is random and only done at 50%.

Author:  Geoff McCarty [ Sat Sep 01, 2018 6:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rules

Jon; I'm new to NB multiplay but, constantly assaulting with columns should be more wasting to the attacker than the defender. I like a good orderly division sized musket battle line myself but, the game requires advancement of the attacker and so, many players will rush the guns. A competent defender (I assume) should be able to massacre them in the chaos though.

Author:  Geoff McCarty [ Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rules

How about instead of embedded melee at the end of a turn; a rule enforcing charges and melee only at the beginning of a turn. Therefore cavalry would have to prepare their charges. Infantry would need to start their turn adjacent to the enemy. Regular movement and firing orders could be processed afterwards. One 'problem' being the potential melee defender would have a turn to withdraw and could delay an advance much more effectively. Would definitely enforce linear combat to a greater extent than I've seen in any of my PBEMs. My games begin with the best of intentions towards historical conflict but, end with a bunch of scattered units zig zagging in columns.

Author:  Ralf Serena [ Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rules

I agree it's a bit "gamey" to have commanders riding about wherever they like.

The battlefield was never "empty", even if the game presents quite tidy army dispositions that are possible to ride through. You would have stragglers, foragers, messengers, deserters, wounded and all sorts of movement behind the lines, that would deter or prevent a commander from going too deep, even if they had an entire Brigade with them.

I'd suggest a commander should always be placed within command range of the majority of his command. If they want to send a cavalry regiment out to carry out reconnaissance, then that's up to them... but any "out of command" troops that get Disordered would have to return immediately back to their command radius by the shortest safe route, even if they re-order along the way.

Author:  Ralf Serena [ Fri Aug 07, 2020 10:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rules

Christian Hecht wrote:

"Units have to break down as far as possible into skirmishers when entering woods to do combat, this does not apply when the unit is only passing the wood on a pike, road or path. Skirmishers can move as usual while the parent unit can only move 1 hex."
Generally combat wasn't conducted in woods, certainly not in massive formations as it was done on the open fields, grasslands and open areas. This applies to infantry, cavalry and artillery, no matter whether they were linear, light, guard or any other unit type. Primeval forests, woods, copses, thickets, shrubs, etc. were a big problem and could even be a barrier for the movement such formations during the Napoleonic wars. They used roads, paths, gaps and glades to march into the forest but didn't march as a formed unit through such terrain.
Is the demand for a maximum breakdown and the slowing of the parent unit acceptable?
+++



Apart from I once hid an entire Division in a forest and ambushed my unsuspecting foe on the march, causing great consternation and slaughter.. :frenchcharge: "in the woods" seems to be out of era to me.

I'd allow formed infantry units, cavalry (if you must), artillery and baggage to venture into the first Hex of Woods/Forests and move or even fight in that margin. Infantry skirmishers should be allowed their usual +3 hexes further in (though I prefer a maximum +2 hex from parent distance rule for skirmishers) ... otherwise no units other than a routed unit (which would escape through whatever terrain it could) should enter a forest at all (unless on a road - and "one hex in" would mean from the road, in that case).

Author:  Christian Hecht [ Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rules

Ralf Serena wrote:
I agree it's a bit "gamey" to have commanders riding about wherever they like.

The battlefield was never "empty", even if the game presents quite tidy army dispositions that are possible to ride through. You would have stragglers, foragers, messengers, deserters, wounded and all sorts of movement behind the lines, that would deter or prevent a commander from going too deep, even if they had an entire Brigade with them.

I'd suggest a commander should always be placed within command range of the majority of his command. If they want to send a cavalry regiment out to carry out reconnaissance, then that's up to them... but any "out of command" troops that get Disordered would have to return immediately back to their command radius by the shortest safe route, even if they re-order along the way.


Well the new No Detached Melee OR would make sure that most leader won't venture away from their command, that leaves the reserve leaders you sometimes have but on lower levels they would be better to support melee(like regimental colonels should do instead of the brigade leader) and give the leader bonus, while on higher levels they could act as support to stop routed units(like Aid de Camps or other staff officers should instead of army leaders hunting after such units).

Author:  Christian Hecht [ Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:23 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rules

Ralf Serena wrote:
Apart from I once hid an entire Division in a forest and ambushed my unsuspecting foe on the march, causing great consternation and slaughter.. :frenchcharge: "in the woods" seems to be out of era to me.

I'd allow formed infantry units, cavalry (if you must), artillery and baggage to venture into the first Hex of Woods/Forests and move or even fight in that margin. Infantry skirmishers should be allowed their usual +3 hexes further in (though I prefer a maximum +2 hex from parent distance rule for skirmishers) ... otherwise no units other than a routed unit (which would escape through whatever terrain it could) should enter a forest at all (unless on a road - and "one hex in" would mean from the road, in that case).


It is indeed a bit restricting and this first hex idea seems good. For forest melees currently I only remember Teugn Hausen 1809 were several elements of French legere regiments went through the woods rather formed but that seems to come from the rather light nature of these woods. Too bad that we ain't have light & heavy forest, besides the fact that almost every terrain counts as obstructed terrain in the Nappy series what makes it hard to say what is truly a problem for formed infantry.

Author:  Al Amos [ Fri Oct 02, 2020 12:28 am ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rules

Jonathan Thayer wrote:
I would like to hear ideas that would lead to these battles being more "fire combat" oriented. I an in my fourth battle against an opponent who completely shuns fire combat except for artillery. He never goes in line formation and has basically just battered me with constant melee attacks. I have often deployed in line but my fire power just will not stop these attacks. I have always envisioned these games to have forces trading musket fire until one side is worn down enough to then initiate melees. I'm looking for thoughts on these comments.


JTS Seven Years War

Author:  Christian Hecht [ Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:26 am ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rules

Fire combat has now improved, auto defensive fire triggered by melee is now done at 100% and not 50%. That is hardcoded and not optional rule like it's in the CW series.
Besides that you should always punish any stacking/massing attempts by the attacker, so the optional rules "Column Pass Through Fire" and "Target Density Modifier" are mandatory. At the same time pimping the defender is also mandatory with the optional rule "Melee Terrain Modifiers" so that the defender gets the benefit of the terrain that he has chosen to defend.
Ultimately I strongly suggest to play in phases to have full control over the defense.

If I find the time I want to finally test out how often the auto DF is triggered now. But first I have to build a scenario for it with at least 1k units per side and then register each result and maybe even run it multiple times to have a statistically significant size to be sure. There was talk at the Blitz that the frequency of it was raised, but nothing was in the changelogs. But it would be interesting if turn gameplay is now an option to consider.

PS: The new OR "Movement Threat Disorder" seems interesting but for now it seems to trigger not only too often, but has also some strange fallouts like threat being exerted by limbered artillery or threat nullified by hexsides.

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/