Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

It is almost automatic now. You agree to engage an opponent and before play starts the first question is, “what house rules are we using?â€

Sir,
I see your point of view, but just can't agree on it. Why? Becouse:
1. of the game features, where making tons of skirmies will let you block all difficult terrain SO easily, gives you significantly more "active units" & lets you use those super-cheap units to recon area, let's you operate on enemy's rear/objectives, etc.
2. yes, in reality we saw some examples of forward-deployed fully dispersed formations (especially in french revolutionary army), but as the war advanced, armies grew massed, massive and effective use of such formations was scarcely seen. And with BG/HPS games simulating 1809+ era IMO we could accept such skirmie using as an exception, but not as a basic and overall RULE.
Therefore I would always vote at least for limiting of distance-of-opetration in the open ...

GL. Pavel Stafa
Russian Army Chief-of-staff
Leib-gvardii Preobrazhenskiy polk
Kommanduyuschiy Korpusom Rezerva
2-oy Zapadnoy armii EIV

Ummmmm. I'm sort of new here. What is the "Embedded Melee Rule?"

Ensign CE Trog
2/35th Foot
6th Brigade
II Corps
His Majesty's Army

Malcom,

Bravo! I salute you sir.

“50% limitation on how many companies may deploy as skirmishers?â€

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Chris Trog</i>
<br />Ummmmm. I'm sort of new here. What is the "Embedded Melee Rule?"
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To prevent excessive exploitation of alternating moves with melees in the one-phase format of the HPS games, under this rule all melees have to be executed in a row, with no movement interspersed.

There are some variations, such as
- applying the rule to individual unconnected parts of the field in succession rather than execute all melees on the entire field at once;
- exempting melee against skirmishers (generally or up to a certain overall strength per hex) from the rule;
- allowing charging cavalry a certain number of melees outside the embedded phase, or (more simple) not counting cavalry continuation moves ("can continue") as movement, so that it can occur during the embedded melee phase.

<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>

Ummmmm. I'm sort of new here. What is the "Embedded Melee Rule?"

The problem with HPS as it stands is that it allows sequences of melee, move melee, move etc. for as long as movement points are available. This results in a melee free-for-all with a disproportionate number of ZOC kills. For example, you melee against one or two battalions in a defensive line, this creates a gap through which others pour to execute new ZOC melee kills. This sort of thing is unrealistic, because it does not pay regard to the time scale of the game. Whilst the first wave moves forward and melees, the second wave stands waiting, but time should also pass for them. So there should not be enough time in the move for them to stand waiting, move forward and melee. So embedded melee works this way. You move, fire etc then execute your melees. Any units that did not melee may then move if they can in what I call the "exploitation phase" but these units may not execute further melees. In other words, a melee phase is "embedded" in the player's turn; hence "embedded melee." Players usually apply this rule sequentially to localized areas of the battlefield, particularly where large maps are in use. This makes it easier to keep track of things and wen both players understand the spirit and function of the rule this works well. So at Waterloo the phasing player make his move, melee, exploitation, for units around Hougoumont, then do the same around La Haye Saint, then at Plancenoit and so on. I do not apply embedded melee to skirmishers in uncovered terrain, for the reasons stated before. It also does not apply to units using the cavalry/infantry multiple melee optional rule, or to charging cavalry executing further melees in the charge.

Hope that explains it.

Général de Brigade Malcolm Cumberlidge
"Vigueur et Honneur"
Chef d'Etat-Major
1er Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
Armée du Nord

I have read the comments regarding embedded melee and I do already use and recommend the refinements suggested, as shown in my second posting. So to sum up:

1) Use embedded melee to each localised area of a large map as this makes it easier to keep track of things. As long as you opponent can see that you are not unfairly exploiting a melee there is not a problem.

2) Do not apply embedded melee to skirmishers in uncovered hexes, wagons, leaders or limbered artilery. i.e. units that can be easily overun.

3) Do not apply embedded melee to charging cavalry executing multiple further melees, or to cavalry/infantry using the multiple melee optional rule.

I recommend embedded melee to anyone who has not used it. It works well and adds to the game, whilst being easy to use.

And do not bother with skirmisher restrictions in HPS games.

Général de Brigade Malcolm Cumberlidge
"Vigueur et Honneur"
Chef d'Etat-Major
1er Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
Armée du Nord

Ah, where is my good man Gary McClellan. He always handles these House Rules issues very well.

Face it - no one rule accruately does it for any of us. We can all cite times where skirmishers did odd ball things.

Right now we do the best we can. And frankly you probably bring up a good reason why I am not for trying to do anything in the engine to eliminate the need for a House Rule on skirmishers - folks differ in their opinion as to how to play the games.

So we leave it to the players in this case.

Gary is probably out with the folks on the church grounds eating hot dogs today! Maybe he can add something that wasnt said here.

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

I dislike house rules. Yes, I understand why they are there, but the problem is enforcing them, or sometimes just remembering which ones you agreed to use. If you want to play with house rules, and both players are agreeable, fine, do so, however if one player does not want them, then don't argue about it. You all know how the game engine operates, keep that in mind when you move. It is still balanced for both/all players, the object is to play the GAME, not debate the realism. If you don't like your opponents tactics, too bad, no one ever said war was fair. A commander has to deal with what is in front of him, like it or not, fair or not (and in this case, realistic/historical or not), and adjust his tactics as the situation dictates. I don't like the stupid ZOC limitations either, but I know about them, so I have to make a choice, do I want to do that attack and risk the ZOC losses, or do I sit back and risk nothing? Am I willing to risk losing the melee because my troops are disordered/fatigued, or do I let the enemy have the advantage because my boy are tired? Yes, that cloud of skirmishers can be a real pain, but I'll just do the same thing back. If you want to debate changing something worth changing, debate the leadership values or morale values. How accurate are they?

Cadet William Davis
Royal Military Academy

Indeed. My sentiments exactly. If an opponent requests certain rules I try and oblige but my preference is for Big Boys Rules.

Generalissimo
Opolchenie Korpus
Russian Army

Some house rules are good some are bad. All in all it should be agreed upon between the two players as many of you have said.

Rick--I like you version of embedded melee, on the areas of the map, I may use that when I start picking up new games.

<center>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com"]<b>General der Infanterie Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]

Kommandeur
3. Infanterie-Brigade and Aide-du-Camp
I. Armee Korps
Heer am Niederrhein
[url="http://www.prussianarmy.com"]Preußische Armee[/url]

Kommandeur
Garde-Artillerie
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/NWC/Prussia/Garde.htm"]Preußische Armee Garde-Brigade[/url]



Prinz von Saxe-Weimar
(Prince of Saxe-Weimar)
</center>

My reasons for always insisting on a skirmisher leash is to prevent the use of skirmisher's as special SAS like commando's roaming the rear areas scooping up leaders and supply wagons, blocking movement of columns of much large units, sniping at artillery and cavalry from woods and buildings etc. I don't really care if they stay that close to their parent units as long as they are near a formed unit. Also, in certain cases I think it is ok to leave them as rear guards in victory hexes, chateau's etc. as long as they don't move around.

I don't care for embedded melee rules either as they are difficult to track and in my opinion more unrealistic than allowing melee's to occur at any time during the turn. I prefer to allow the melee's to occur anytime but not use the mutliple melee rules. I think those rules can lead to unrealistic blitzkreig attacks opening huge holes and destroying masses of artillery in a single turn. This is particuarly applicable to the masses of French super cavalry in Echmuhl.If embedded melee's are to be used I think the idea suggested by Rick to do it by areas is the best.







Major Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
I prefer to allow the melee's to occur anytime but not use the mutliple melee rules. I think those rules can lead to unrealistic blitzkreig attacks opening huge holes and destroying masses of artillery in a single turn. This is particuarly applicable to the masses of French super cavalry in Echmuhl.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I believe you are referring to our recently concluded Eckmuhl game, no?
All the "masses" of cavalry that you had to contend with in this game were one brigade of light cavalry (three regiments of hussars and chasseurs, total 2000 men) that faced Hohenzollern on the Au-Abensberg pike, and one brigade of heavies (two regiments of cuirassiers, about 1600 men) that did that final charge against your IV and VI Corps on my right. It's just that I took care never to penetrate too deeply so that I was able to extract the cavalry, reorder, and charge again, that may have created the impression of a larger force here. The only other cavalry that you ever met (briefly) was the one regiment of chasseurs that snatched your IV Corps wagons from your rear, and the other brigade of heavies that was mauled by your infantry on the road before it could ever charge. And that, plus one light brigade on outpost duty, was about all the cavalry I had

So, no "masses". I will look it up in the game file if you agree, but I am fairly confident your cavalry outnumbered me badly, seeing how I had only one corps on the map, discouting the remnants of my underrated Bavarians. Likewise, the Austrian cavalry is of excellent quality just as well, so no French advantage there either.
But if you really think so, why not just accept my offer of the same game with sides reversed? You could check out if the French horse can really do miracles. I would be looking forward to it.

Regarding the multiple melees rule, I don't think it will do anything to check deep penetrations, unless in unlucky circumstances. It does not prevent multiple melees *by* the same unit (i.e. charging horse) but rather multiple melees *against* the same unit. So all it prevents is running down the same single unit with repeated melees. As long as the melee loser retreats out of my way, I will go on; or if it retreats into a hex that contains even a single unit that has not yet been meleed I will also go on. What the rule does do is sometimes create a highly annoying situation where a single skirmisher that retreats from a melee the wrong way will stop cold a much larger force because it cannot be meleed again and that, I submit, is not very realistic.

<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 [url="http://mikedavies122863.tripod.com/index.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

Hi Dierk. Yes I was referring to our game in part. You may be correct in the numbers total if you add in the Austrian Heavy cavalry division which never got into the action. My cavalry was always outnumbered when we fought. This merely was testimony to your fine generalship. What I was mostly referring to when I said super cavalry was the destruction of huge stacks of Austrian infantry by charging French cavalry and sometimes infantry which appeared to be meleed repeatatly. I'll admit the action went by so fast it was hard to say for sure. If you didn't melee multiple times on the same units imagine the effects if you did? Anyway it's just an opinion. [8D]


Major Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards