Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

The Full Barrett can be stopped short of victory. It just takes some damn good play by the Allied commander. I do argue that the strategy is made possible only by the unleashed nature of the stock scenario -- no fixed units, the armies in close proximity, and the arrival times of the Prussians left to chance. Someone once put together a scenario that had the historical release and arrival times. If you want to really fight the battle of Waterloo, then play that scenario.

Cheers to General Barrett for having his strategy adopted at the L'Ecole de Mars. The RMA should write-up the defensive strategies to employ against this attack. Perhaps I'll write up something for the NWC Newsletter on the Muddy vs. Barrett match -- a classic.

FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, Household Cavalry
CO, Cavalry Corps
Allied CiC

Allies nagging about the Waterloo walkover....always funny...if everything worked (and as a player you get the chance to improve on history) Waterloo SHOULD HAVE BEEN a walkover....

Serieusly, I'm against certain playingstyles, but a battle demands what a battle needs. And we can talk all we want about moves and pantzer-blitzz and use of cav and skirm and how the engine treats them. You've got an army to command, use it. Same goes for the alies. Hold that ground !

Would any of you hold back the guard if you were about to break the Russians at Borodino...don't think so...You flatten those Russians....

And if you lose against the same tactics over and over..get wise and find a way to counter it.....

[8D]

I don't really think the issue is about winning or losing; it's more about the predictability of games which ultimately discourages some people from playing them.

Voltigeur, I didn't have a set strategy, I was more testing exactly the opposite of the full scale attack we're discussing - small attacks were made at different intervals during the first dozen turns. The actual deployment and movement of different elements could be entirely different. [:)]

<font color="orange">Majoor Peter Robinson
Commander I Corps
[url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie"]Koninklijke Militaire Academie[/url] Adjutant
3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards</font id="orange">

<b>I don't really think the issue is about winning or losing; it's more about the predictability of games which ultimately discourages some people from playing them.</b>

Yes, I think that this is really what most of us are saying. Speaking for the Austrian Akademie, I can tell you that we don't even bother training on TS games anymore. Every Kadett I've had since I became a trainer there has owned a copy of either Echkmuhl, Wagram, or NRC and it's the HPS engine that our Army is really interested in-and not just because the TS games (excluding the often biased NIR Project stuff) don't have any Austrian forces in them. It's too bad really, because HPS has never been able to match the lovely maps of the TS line. Waterloo is still a beauty to behhold. It's just not all the playable anymore.



Feldmarschall-Leutnant Philip Roubaud
Kommandant
Vienna Militärakademie
Imperial Armee of Austria

I can agree on the predicatability factor. Gave up on NIR long ago.

It just became way too predicatable when I noticed I was losing every time! [:D][:D]

BGW was impossible for me to win as the Allies. I never thought much of the variable arrival times for Blucher as being Historical.

If its a Historical fight then he should show up at the same time in every scenario if we are replaying that battle.

And that was the rub - in my games as Allies he would show up late. In my games as the French he showed up early!

When Rodney Dangerfield passed on he passed on his mantle to me![8D]

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

<font color="pink">Try being Barrett after all that. Yikes! Walk into the tavern for a quick pint and I'm being shot to pieces! British Marshals up in arms suggesting I need to visit the loo, [:(!] officers yelling at each other about how unfair war can be [B)]; thank goodness you don't really know what I look like! [8D]
First irony; I don't beleive, Jim, that you and I have ever had the pleasure of crossing swords, have we? Try me sometime. You've got the rank, hence the experience, to tackle me for good or ill. [}:)]
Irony two: as Muddy says, and indeed shown, a good Allied officer can absolutely give me a run for my money. I like to play, I like a challenge too, like anyone. To me, these games are like chess. Just a body of rules. Variations are infinite. If some strategy had not been developed, I would have continued to lose against the likes of Muddy, because he defends remarkably well. Just because Napoleon lost, why should I "follow history"?
Are you saying a French officer should not try hard? I doubt it. I have played many Allies, of course, and I think every one of them has had fun, whether clobbered, broken even, or victorious. [^]
Irony three: as for junior officers, well, they have to find their own path, and will explore their own methodologies. And I predict some Allied lieutenant or captain will stumble upon a reasonably decent counter-strategy. Frankly, I invited your War College to conquer ours with insight; the "Full Barrett" is a challenge to you - don't run from the challenge: confront it! You make it sound as if I have won for all time; and that's no fun. Might get me the coveted Legion of Honour, [:)] but it would not be as much fun. I am sorry that you feel that you can no longer find joy in the game.
Irony four: this is not war, it's a game. For fun. Consenting adults, and all that. If it was war, the real Napoleon would perhaps laugh at you, like he did the Austrian generals in Italy, fighting the "old fashioned way", and losing. Oh, how cruel. There should be a law against it [:p]
Success, sir, is it's own justification.
Finally, it is probably true that the scenario is weighted in favour of an aggressive Frenchman. But on the other hand, it is weighted against a hesitant Frenchman, too, and I think I simply made that observation public.
Now, buy me a drink, and I may suggest to you how to stop the Full Barrett. [;)]
</font id="pink">

General Barrett,
Duc de Ligny, Comte de Brienne,
Commander, VI (Bavarian) Corps, Army of the Rhine,
and
la 1er Compagnie d'Artillerie de la Vieille Garde

Where is Paul Harris when you need him?

Paul was one of our best Allied players and knowing him the "Barrett what's its face" wouldnt stand a chance.

I am not one to offer up a remedy nor will I try out a game of Waterloo and come up with a cure.

But old Paul knew how to teach these Frenchmen how to fight!

One of his favorite tactics ... dare I go on? [:0] ... was to put a line into extended line - get two shots - then put it back into line and then square all in one turn! Thus he would blast those Frenchies and then hunker down for the expected cavalry charge.

He had other tricks he would do too. I didnt know anyone that had as many different ways to beat the frogs as Paul did.

Has anyone heard from him btw?

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Barrett, of the Vth</i>
<br /><font color="pink">
Success, sir, is it's own justification.
Finally, it is probably true that the scenario is weighted in favour of an aggressive Frenchman. But on the other hand, it is weighted against a hesitant Frenchman, too, and I think I simply made that observation public.
Now, buy me a drink, and I may suggest to you how to stop the Full Barrett. [;)]
</font id="pink">

General Barrett,
Duc de Ligny, Comte de Brienne,
Commander, VI (Bavarian) Corps, Army of the Rhine,
and
la 1er Compagnie d'Artillerie de la Vieille Garde

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sir,
I fully support you. You know the English aren't what they used to be[:D]. They used to fight (didn't they?)... Now they complain as old ladies...[;)][^][:D]


<font color="green"> <b>Général de Division David Guégan Comte de Toulon, Duc de Nimes</b>
Co 11eme division
III Corps, AdN
Co Division d'Infanterie de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale


http://home.earthlink.net/~davidguegan/</font id="green">

General Barrett,
Duc de Ligny, Comte de Brienne

Honored Sir,

I toast you and your insightful tactics! The War College benefits from your knowledge. Perhaps the opponents of France will develop a defense or perhaps not...we shall see.

Until then, may I have the honor of buying you a drink?

<hr noshade size="1"><center>[url="mtdavies@msn.com"]Major Michael "Zettlemyer" Davies[/url]
Commandeur 2 é Brigade der Kavallerie
VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
[image]http://mikedavies122863.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/konig.jpg[/image]
Librarian & Archivist
[url="http://mikedavies122863.tripod.com/college_imperial_du_mars/College_Imperial_du_Mars.htm"]Collège Impérial de Mars[/url]
</center><center>[url="http://mikedavies122863.tripod.com/index.htm"]Ecole de Mars[/url]</center>

Gentlemen
Nice to see an active topic on The Board again.[:D]
Looks as though The Frogs may have broken a couple of pencils over their replies[;)]

Field Marshal Sir "Lucky" Jim (K.G.)
Commander
Divisie Nederlandsche Kavallerie, 1st. Corps
Allied/Dutch Army

"And let my sword not sleep in my hand"

Mssrs.,

Although it began as a broadside against the "robotization" of the French army, this thread has raised three separate issues which, by your leave, I would like to address:

<font color="red"><font size="4">I. Lack of originality amongst junior French officers</font id="size4"></font id="red">

Assuming, <i>arguendo</i>, the accuracy of this observation, I fail to understand why it should be an issue. Junior officers are not supposed to be original[:D]. Rather, they are expected to adhere to their army's tactical doctrine until they have accumulated sufficient experience upon which they can base INFORMED decisions on their own. IMHO, the more intriguing question is why a senior, experienced Allied commander would be bested by a freshly minted <i>sous-lieutenant</i> relying upon a widely known, canned, battle plan[:p].

<font color="red"><font size="4">II. Ethical implications of aggressive French tactics in BGW</font id="size4"></font id="red">

With all due deference, the last time I checked we were all members of the Napoleonic War<font color="red"><u>game</u></font id="red"> Club. There are a host of reasons why I play these games, but not least amongst them is the desire to WIN the games I play[:o)]. So long as the agreed upon rules of engagement are adhered to (Be they "house rules" or the implict requirement that neither player hack the program in some fashion), as the saying goes, "all's fair." There are many officers with whom I have readily agreed, in the spirit of enhancing the historicity of the game, to adhere to special rules, such as the "embedded melee" rules for HPS games, but these are matters to be settled upon before the game begins, not after someone's Right Flank has been destroyed by an unforseen attack.

More importantly, I take issue with the implication that an aggressive, all-out attack by the French in BGW is somehow unethical. The lackadaisical deployment and engagement of <i>l'Armee du Nord</i> on June 18, 1815, was based on Napoleon's mistaken assumption that the Prussian Army would not be reinforcing Wellington. Moreover, the fact that the Prussians ARE coming informs and shapes the Allied defense in BGW, with the Allied player invariably pushing to the front the units Wellington deployed to secure his line of retreat in case the Prussians did not arrive. Why is it then unethical for the French player to likewise re-shape his plans based on the knowledge that the Prussians ARE coming? The French army arrived at La Belle Alliance on the 17th and, muddy fields be damned, could easily have begun its attack by 10 AM on the 18th. Is it seriously proposed that the French players should put blinders on and pretend that they don't know the Prussians are coming[:(!]?

<font color="red"><font size="4">III. Limitations of BGW</font id="size4"></font id="red">

For me, the larger issue in this thread are the inherent limitations of BGW. The graphics are gorgeous, particularly the hand-painted map with its numerous, little "Easter eggs." Pretermitting the various issues with the BG game engine, the battle scenarios have a finite number of possibilities for the French player: attack Left, Center or Right[xx(]! I, for one, am eagerly anticipating the release of HPS' Waterloo so that I can once again play this most famous of battles without sleepwalking through my moves[:o)]. No meaningful, grand-tactical maneuvers are possible in BGW. At best the player can re-deploy his forces from one flank to another, thereby shifting the focal point of the attack, but invariably the battle degenerates into yet another meatgrinder[B)].

Regards,

<i>Maréchal M. Francisco Palomo
Comte de Marseille
Duc d'Abrantes
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde</i>
CO - <i>Iere Corps de Armee</i>

I agree entirely with that.

Even when I played the AI years ago I adopted an all out attack. There simply is no other choice. Play historically you lose historically as French. It's a game and played to win. In fact I'm not sure why Barrett has been associated with a technique everybody has tried. It used to be called the "bum's rush" prior to this. I too await the new Waterloo from HPS.

<font color="pink">So not only am I full of "cr**", but I am synonomous with the "bum's rush". Next, I shall be accused of verbal diarrhea! [;)]

My Emperor, do you see what I have done for you and the cause of the Great Empire?
They tremble at my mere name! They hurl bad names at me in the tavern, but
they walk not happily upon my battlefield.
The Austrian says I "wouldn't have a chance" against a "lost" officer, one Harris.
[sigh]
What more must I do? They have nothing left to offer me but their fantasies!
Shall we not say then, that Waterloo is rightly a French Victory, and leave it at that?
To summarize after pages of your rationalizations, the word you Allies are all struggling for, is "uncle".
You can say it, I know you want to. Come on.

Vive l'Empereur!
</font id="pink">

General Barrett,
Duc de Ligny, Comte de Brienne,
Commander, VI (Bavarian) Corps, Army of the Rhine,
and
la 1er Compagnie d'Artillerie de la Vieille Garde

General Barrett
Duc de Ligny,
Comte de Brienne,
Commander, VI (Bavarian) Corps,
Army of the Rhine, and
la 1er Compagnie d'Artillerie de la Vieille Garde

(My what a long title!)[:)]

"not only am I full of "cr**"

Sir,

You may or may not be, but it was the maneuver and not the individual that our esteemed leader referred to.

Personally I think you are probably a "Zerg"[:D]


2nd Lt. Jon Graswich
<font color="red">11th Light Dragoons
4th Cavalry Brigade
Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps
H.Q. Staff</font id="red">


<i>Treu und Fest</i>
<i>Staunch and Steadfast</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jon Graswich</i>
<i>Treu und Fest</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

"Faithful and solid"? Nice motto. [8D]

Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde