Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Gentlemen,

What are all the changes involved in the ALT. scenarios of the Eckmuhl game besides stacking limits?

_________________
General de Division Thomas Moore
26ème Régiment de Chasseurs à Cheval
Brigade de Cavalerie Légère
4ème Corps d'Armée
La Grande Armée

The ALT scenarios use the same PDT files as the other scenarios. They are alternatives to historical situation.

Some of them use a different OB file but the scale is still battalions for infantry and regiments for squadrons.

Hope that answers your question, Thomas.

_________________


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,

Thank you for the explanation on the alt scenarios.

While I have your attention. I was wondering if you have thought about lowering stacking limits for our games to more historical limits like 1000- 1250 infantry and say 1/3 cavalry stacking ratio to infantry.

Also is there any game engine issues why an Alternative Melee Resolution option can't be added as in the Civil War games?

Tom

_________________
General de Division Thomas Moore
26ème Régiment de Chasseurs à Cheval
Brigade de Cavalerie Légère
4ème Corps d'Armée
La Grande Armée

For the Napoleonic series: at this point all of my PDT files are set in stone. IT would be a lot of work to go back and alter all of them.

For any scenario where you want to lower the stacking do the following:

1. Make a copy of the .scn and .pdt files and rename them.

2. Change the stacking values in the PDT file. Use the PDT Guide from Leipzig, 1814 or Bautzen if you have a question of which value to change.

3. in the .scn file change the PDT file name reference to your new PDT file.

Al Amos, myself and others have been coming up with modfications for years using either the editors or a text editor. None of us agrees 100% on how the games values should be.

I for one am against what you are suggesting and I wont go into why ... it has to do with the golden 2:1 odds you need in a melee in order to win and other reasons too.

For any changes to the main program contact the Support team.

_________________


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)

Hello Bill,

Thank you for the advice on changing the pdt. files. I have been using your method for awhile.

In regards to stacking limits my basic concern is that historical research into actual battle conditions shows that the deploying of 1800- 2000 infantry or 600 - 1000 cavalry in a 100m x 100m was wholly unrealistic. I believe this fact is born out by a fine article written by the H & R boys for their H & R scenarios. If you have not seen this article I will be glad to send you a copy.

This brings us to what I believe is one of the basic ideas of our games which is to create as closely as possible a realistic simulation of the Napoleonic battlefield.

Also, I'm not sure by what you mean by the " golden ratio of 2:1". In my experience in battles is that many melees are successful with far less than a 2:1 superiority. Leadership, quality of troops and angle of attack are equally important.

Furthermore, reduced stacking limits enables brigades and divisions greater frontages they can successfully defend and allows the creation of more defense in depth.

Lastly, since you are the major creator of our games for which we are all very great full. I am appealing to you to consider reducing stacking limits in future games.

Respectully,

_________________
General de Division Thomas Moore
26ème Régiment de Chasseurs à Cheval
Brigade de Cavalerie Légère
4ème Corps d'Armée
La Grande Armée

All valid reasons I am sure and that is why H&R is doing what they do.

However, I have played H&R, dont enjoy the format, and its more Seven Years War with firefights than it is Napoleonics.

As I said before, I wont argue this point. The combat system is set for strength vs. strength and not to where a 500 man Old Guard battalion can beat a 800 man Militia bn.

And I am not the main guy. I happen to have put out more titles than anyone but its time for someone else to carry the torch. I am just here to play, add in a scenario or two and just enjoy beating Frenchies more or less

_________________


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)

As Bill pointed out earlier.... Suggestions for improvements should go directly to JohnTiller games.

_________________

Tell that d'Erlon, there is a nice picture of Marcognet’s 3rd Division In Column of Battalions in the Waterloo Companion were roughly 4000 men were in an area of 120 to 75 meters, so stacking limits are even too low for the Waterloo game.
I mentioned it before, you can't simply take one idea from the H&R total conversion of the game and bring it here to fix something that can easily be solved by a houserule, especially when the idea brings up many other problems and goes way beyond what is intended to be fixed, it's simply like shooting a sparrow with a canon.
And I also mentioned that you need manual defensive fire or else it's highly likely that battalions simply move up without much interference and melee you, MDF is conducted at 100% while the AI fires only at 50% what has beyond the casualty numbers also a big impact on triggering moral checks that can stop an assault in its tracks.
Thinking all this can be solved by simply reducing the stacking limit is simply wrong, it may work out for H&R but in their scenario everything seems to be changed what is simply not the case in a stock scenario.

_________________

Myself and others are testing Tom's limits and, while I think they may be a little low, we shall see. He and I are about 1/5 of the way through the Leipzig Day 1 Southern Front scenario with his modifications..

testing it is the only way to be sure!

_________________

Christian,

I don't think you get the point about stacking limits. It is not about how many men you can physically cram into a given space but about how many men could realistically be controlled in a 100m x 100m space.

I feel the H& R boys published a very convincing article showing how stacking limits of 2000 infantry and 1000 cavalry are just completely unrealistic and almost never used. I will send you the article in a separate e-mail so you can review it if you wish.

Your great example of using D'Erlon's attack at Waterloo to show how super dense attacking columns were used was a complete disaster. What D'Erlon did was to deviated from the standard column attack by deploying each battalion in line and then stacking each battalion closely behind the other in and attempt to improve the fire power of his attack. These stacks of troops were deployed in echelon over a 1000m arc.

As I'm sure you know D'Erlon's attack quickly feel into chaos when confronted by the English firing line. Casualties in the front rank could not be replaced easily because the troops behind were from a different battalion. Also since rear troops in the rear lines were too closely packed they could not maneuver to confront the English cavalry attacks. Thus panic quickly spread and whole formation collapsed.

D'Erlon's attack is a perfect example of why over crowding troops in a given space was a formula for disaster.

In regards to cavalry stacking the H&R article shows that cavalry did maneuver in dense formation but when charging they quickly increased the intervals between squadrons so that they could be controlled. If you stacked squadrons to close in a charge, the cavalry could become subject to the domino effect if horsemen broke down due to being shot, uneven terrain,dust in the face( causing loss of sight) thus causing chain reaction pile up. Therefore only about 300 cavalry could be effectively controlled in a 100m x 100m space in a charge

Since I believe one of the major purposes of our games is to recreate as best as possible the historical conditions on the field. I therefore feel the high stacking limits are a distortion of the historical battlefield.

Also, I do agree with you that phased play is the the best way to play our games but not just because of the increase in MDF fire power but because of the final melee phase which comes AFTER movement. This greatly reduces blitz tactics and gives the defense a much better chance to react to an assault. Until the powers to be give us an Optional Melee Resolution as in the Civil War games we are stuck with phased play and the necessity of to e- mails for each move.

Lastly, There are a lot of things about the H&R games I don't like but their advocacy of reduced stacking limits is right on. The changes in stacking limits I am proposing are easily accomplished by a few simple changes in existing pdt files as outlined by Bill Peters in a previous reply to this thread.

_________________
General de Division Thomas Moore
26ème Régiment de Chasseurs à Cheval
Brigade de Cavalerie Légère
4ème Corps d'Armée
La Grande Armée

Not advocating the group (I don't have an opinion of it without re-reading their stuff and this link might not be the only post that was made at GS).

http://forums.gamesquad.com/showthread. ... oject-1-01

Sure, the 100 meter hex is overcrowded with the current system. But how do you ever win a melee within 15-30 mins using reduced stacking with a melee table that is all about strength and 2:1 odds?

H&R has it all wrong. In the Napoleonic period units would move up, assault and win melees. Yes, firepower did stop attackers. But the Napoleonic period is not about Seven Years War linear combat.

Go back over the battles and the time scales. Entire areas werre decided in less than an hour of meleeing and it had nothing to do with the units stopping to fire.

We have already found out that artillery was not able to sufficiently soften up a defender. That goes clear up to WW2! So it wasnt this concept of "They would bombard the defenders and then attack." Try telling that to Napoleon at Austerliz. His men fought against Russians in short combats in a back and forth style.

Anytime the attacker stopped to fire for the most part .. they LOST.

British would fire on the French columns as they came up and over the slope. Front of French column would fold. French would return fire (weak). British would counter charge with grenadier column. French would rout.

All of this talk aboout a fresh enemy holding is ridiculous too .. that you had to wear them down. its all about matchups. Not strength and fatigue is not always an indicator either.

Here are the issues with the series:

1. We cant square prior to charges ...

2. Artillery vaporizes ...

3. Strength is more imporantant than morale. (this never made any sense to me from the git go)

4. In order to win a melee you need 2:1 odds.

5. No counter charge for cavalry.

Those are not going to be fixed.

H&R brings us the Early American War way of fighting. Stacking limits are low. In order to wipe out a unit you have to Rout-Isolate it. That is how I would do it in EAW games. I got used to it.

So who wants to fight Seven Years War in the Nap series, have a ton of counters blocking movement paths, and be unable to take a position because all the defender has to do is shove a new unit into a defensive position to keep the Golden 1:1 or worse Odds Disparity.

SNORE YAWN, I just fell asleep ...

I have played H&R several times. Too many counters to contend with. Trying to rearrange the troops was a nightmare.

_________________


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 surely get the point, it's mainly about melee and we had that topic already and I haven't changed my opinion about it, your suggestion has impact on the whole gameplay and not just melee.

All what you say about d'Erlon is already in the game, moral checks get triggered on a unit in a hex and surrounding units if a unit routs, casualties by fire are very high because of column pass through fire and because of the density modifier, the point is that the player will be at least partially able to re conduct d'Erlons attack with the current limits, with stacking limit below 1000 men it simply won't work and the means denying the player what was done in reality.

The whole concept of hexes and turns is a distortion of the battlefield that is why the high stacking limit is there but also why it is high, because it makes no sense that a single battalion blocks an area of 100x100 meters, this leads to brigades taking up much more ground than it did, not to speak of trouble of moving battalions between battalions as there wouldn't have been the need to form a corridor to move them or moving more skirmishers past such battalions.

Let's face it, if the problem could have been solved by simply lowering the stacking limit I'm sure that some one would have done it already long long ago and that Bill likely would have done it from the start at least in his later games.
What works for H&R doesn't mean it works here, they have a totally different approach to handle things inside the frame that the engine sets starting with how big the units are in their games.

_________________

Fwiw, I remember the post that I linked to; it was (is) pretty involved, and I remember that I had some issues with it all.

Seeing my post in the thread it was partly about the loss assumptions, but my opinion of those statements have evolved over time where I more able to talk to those points in more detail now than I was then. The disclaimer being that my experience is in coding withing the Musket and Pike series which has some additional OOB codes that mean you can have modifiers on every unit.


Edited: from reading through the first few paragraphs of the article, the group is getting confused between the concepts of engine and scenario design philosophy. If the engine did not allow something, then they wouldn't have been able to change it.

They also have some misunderstandings about the losses in the engines, however those can also be addressed so I am not really sure that they were not actually doing some of that. I still have not completed reading it; there is a lot still to go.

That being said, it is a big effort and the series definitely allows for it.

Bill,
That, in my opinion, is your most crisp and clear comment on your differences with the H&R approach. I agree with Bill (and, I think Tom) that the H&R clutters it up too much (I have played around with a few of their scenarios) and removes the dynamic element from the game. I agree with Bill about the primacy of shock over fire but most of the time it did not come to hand to hand fighting so I think that it is best to see melee as an abstraction. See my comment 3 below..

Stephen-I think that some of the comments are trying to use the pdt's to make up for the perceived shortcomings of the engine, although you may be right about some confusion.

To me, there are four main issues that make these games less fun for me and, possibly (I am no expert) less historical:

1. movement rates---I have been playing a lot of Waterloo and Eckmuhl in 2015 after a few years away from those games and it can devolve too much into blitz tactics and isolate and destroy. I like the movement rates of the 10 minute games. I think those movement rates combined with the no melee eliminations rule really removes most of the blitzing.

2 and 3. stacking (a pdt controlled element) and melee losses (hard coded)---I do not have a problem with the 2 to 1 "golden rule" in absence of stronger morale bonuses/penalties, but as designed in these games a fresh, 600 man battalion that is not disordered can be meleed frontally by a massive infantry and take heavy losses as it losses. The need to protect from this shrinks historical frontages and sees us sending a division to take a village that in history a regiment was used.

4. Disruption of attackers (hard coded for the most part)--it is too easy to melee and defensive fire, however strong, rarely disrupts the attacker. So in Waterloo, the French can march a 2000 man stack of 6 battalions, take a defensive shot from artillery that knocks out a total of 200 men, and then melee no problem.

To me, because the disruption/routing system favors the aggressor, we end up with a-historical frontages and deployments.

I know that Bill experimented in lower stacking in Jena for a while (and even though I only vaguely remember this, I read it on the internet so it MUST be true!), but I think for the games with smaller battalions moving it down a bit makes melee a little more risky

_________________