Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I am not an active NWC member but I was hoping someone could answer some questions on how well the Turn based (combined movement and combat) system works for the Napoleonic games specifically for HPS's Waterloo.

In HPS's Civil War games which I am more familiar with it stinks. This is due to their halving all defensive fire, the units firing at long ranges rather than holding fire to adjacent, and a fire AI that really lousy. I am hoping that Napoleonic version with their shorter gun ranges, more ammo so excessive firing isn't as big a problem, and fire not being as critical a part of combat, will work. Also, I haven't found anything saying the fire is halved like in the CW games.

Any comments? Is the defensive fire halved? Does the AI blast away at maximum ranges and use up the allowed auto fire attempts? How about artillery handling?

Also noticed it has a skirmish opportunity fire options. What is the affect of this?

Ken Whitehead
III Corps, AoM, CSA
ACWGC

Pretty much the same as the ACW series. 1/2 defensive fire. A/I directed fire. Units dont always fire on targets you would like.

I have experimented with the multi-phase system a bit lately and if the option for the defender to change formation during the Defense Phase could be added in then that mode of play would be more viable.

I did enjoy the multi-phase system regardless in my few plays. And its only one file per player turn unlike the old BG days of six files.

Multi-phase in the ACW system is the only way I play for the most part.

I note using the Single Phase system is not as big of a deal as long as you use the Embedded Melee system where:

1. Player A moves his units and fires as he likes.
2. Player A then does ALL melees together at one time.
3. Player A can then move and fire any units that are still available to move and fire. He cannot do any more melees.

You can use the above system to help stop the blitz tactics of the single phase system. We use the "Front" system as much as possible - if you are playing a huge battle its easier to work with. Thus you do #1-3 above for each "Front".



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

Actually although the engine is the same, defensive fire is rather brutal in the Nappy games. Especially Russian artillery. [}:)]

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

One big difference of course, is that in the Nap games, there are very, very, very few units that have rifles, so most infantry units have range 2. Which means that when DF does go off,it tends to be rather... stouter.



FML Gary McClellan
1st Jäger Bn
Chief of Staff Imperial Austrian Army

Adding to what Dierk said: it depends on the game. Some of the games have stronger artillery values than others. The debate goes on but the problem also lies in the fact that ball doesnt roll into other hexes. Thus with dry ground ball would effect more than one hex. Also you dont have risidual losses from musket fire either. The balls had to go somewhere. If not at the target then most of the time into the ground but also others were hit by fire that was meant for others.

Here is another set of points:

1. Artillery fire was rarely used for firing at the enemy once the friendly troops closed to 1000m or less. Thus we have alot of fire from offensive artillery that is un-historical.

2. LOS - the LOS in the series needs to be updated. It allows you to fire on the enemy when your troops normally would obscure the target (firing overhead for the most part).

3. Visibility - this new weather feature will really make games interesting. Rich has already added in Smoke for the middle to end portion of Waterloo. Despite the fact that it obscures ALL of the battlefield is still an issue but it helps. The drawback of course is that ambushes are very much possible where otherwise they wouldnt occur. We still need a smoke-generator code to add smoke on the field with wind and additional cannon/musket fire affecting the current level.

4. Command Control - Units in deep smoke would be prone to be harder to command. Not sure how to portray this. 1/2 MPs is stiff and probably not realistic. Recovery from disorder more difficult is probably a sure thing.

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

I wish they hadn't halved the DF, the attacker has to many advantages as is. The CW games seemed to limit the Opportunity Fire to about two shots per unit so they usually got wasted at long range. The Nap units still have a two hex range that is a waste of fire. If the AI tends to fire at two hex and not at one hex it will be bad.

But Turn based would speed up the PBEM considerably so I will give it a try.

Anyone know what the affect of the Skirmisher Opportunity Fire options is?

Ken Whitehead
ACWGC

Bill,

Is there any possibility that - for playing in multiphase mode - HPS will <i><b>restore</b></i> the extremely useful BG features:

1./ The ability for units to change formation or form square in the defensive phase

2./ Cavalry counter-charging

These are such useful features that it's rather surprising that they've disappeared from the HPS engine. Their absence is perhaps the main reason why the BG games remain popular and why some club members are reluctant to play the HPS games.

..................

Regarding Ken's comparision of the ACW & Nappy ADF, I've created some experimental 1870 scenarios using the Eckmuhl engine and, as Dierk points out, the Nappy ADF is far more effective. I played a Froschwiller scenario with Daniel Claude and found that his French chassepot fire was so effective that my Prussians were finding it difficult to get within range of their needleguns (ie. within 6 hexes). If I'd used the Corinth engine instead, I reckon my troops would have easily carried the French position at the point of the bayonet! That's how much faith I have in the ineffective ADF of the ACW engine!

Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

I used to agree, but I have come to miss both (squaring and countercharging in defensive phase) less and less. I just had to learn to think more in turns and more ahead. If there's cavalry within charging distance *and* it has a reason to charge, well, then I form square if I think I must, and, more importantly, move my own cavalry up so that it can slaughter the bad horsey boys *in my turn*. Yes, it means I have to suffer the charge first, then can retaliate, rather than simply spoil it with a countercharge, but actually the retaliation tends to be more decisive than the mere spoiling. I can live with it.

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

Well, the real problem is the fact that we've got a traditional "turn-based" system rather than a more realistic simultaneous plot & move system. Perhaps eventually we'll see HPS move over to this system, but I doubt it'll be anytime soon.

Of course, with both player's moves taking place simultaneously there'll be less ZOC melee eliminations and everyone will need to rethink their strategy. No longer will players be able to plan their move like a game of chess in the sure knowledge that the enemy will obligingly stay still and wait as patiently as Mack to be surrounded and eliminated.

But while we're still using a turn-based system, I'd recommend introducing a house rule that forbids ZOC melee eliminations unless the troops are already isolated. Of course this is more of a BG issue, but it's still a favourite trick of some players and perhaps a rather gamey exploitation of the turn-based system, since it relies on the inactive player's forces staying put as enemy forces close in relentlessly from all directions. It's almost as if they want to get captured!

I find that I rarely form square with the HPS engine, especially if there are any enemy guns or infantry nearby. However, if playing a BG game my infantry would form square whenever they were threatened by cavalry. The inability to form square in the defensive phase is no doubt the main reason why many players rarely use it. As Dierk points out, from a gaming perspective, it's better to let - nay rather <i>encourage</i> - the cavalry charge and then deal with them afterwards.

As for cavalry counter-charging, I tended to suffer from this far more than I actually made use of it. But I still miss it and feel that it adds a worthwhile extra dimension to gameplay.

Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Richard</i>
<br />Well, the real problem is the fact that we've got a traditional "turn-based" system rather than a more realistic simultaneous plot & move system. Perhaps eventually we'll see HPS move over to this system, but I doubt it'll be anytime soon.

Of course, with both player's moves taking place simultaneously there'll be less ZOC melee eliminations and everyone will need to rethink their strategy. No longer will players be able to plan their move like a game of chess in the sure knowledge that the enemy will obligingly stay still and wait as patiently as Mack to be surrounded and eliminated................................

Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army


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

Richard,

Since you've brought it up.....

Actually, there is hope on the horizon from Frank Hunter and Double Shot Design through Matrix Games: http://www.doubleshotdesign.com/index.htm

I've been keeping a keen eye on their progress. Matrix Games will be putting it out. There is a lot of information that can be accessed through their discussion boards (old & new.)

It will be very similar to the way we are used to having with our JT games (ie. 2D, 100m hex, 10 minute turn,etc...) but they will be <font color="yellow"><font size="4"><b>we-go!</b></font id="size4"> </font id="yellow">

There might a little time before we see it, but it looks promising. I have a feeling that it <u>might</u> be the first real challenge to what we've been used to. We'll have to wait to be sure.

Respectfully,
Rick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
<font color="orange"><b>Black Powder Wars: Battles of Napoleon </b></font id="orange">
BPW: Battles of Napoleon covers tactical combat in the age of Napoleon.

Features include:

- PBEM, solitaire and hotseat capability
- 2D maps and unit counters
- Full editor
- 100 meter hexes at 10 minutes a turn
- Challenging AI
- Detailed combat, movement, morale and C2

Battles of Napoleon will ship with over a dozen scenarios and a FULL EDITOR. <b><font color="red">The user will have the ability to recreate any battle of the period. The editor will include the ability to create orders of battle, maps, scenarios, and even incorporate new graphics. </font id="red"></b>

The initial release of Battles of Napoleon will be followed by downloadable scenarios offering professionally designed scenarios for the entire period. Battles of Napoleon is expected to be released in the Summer of 2005 and will be available as an electronic download.

<font color="orange"><b>Campaigns of Napoleon </b></font id="orange">
Why play a single battle? Why not a campaign game? Well, the answer is in the next offering by DSD, Campaigns of Napoleon . Campaigns of Napoleon (CoN) is the next project on the horizon following the release of the tactical game. CoN will allow the user to play at the operational level and seamlessly transition into a tactical battle. The results will then be incorporated back into the campaign engine.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>