Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I particularly like the flexible action point system of the WW2/Modern series and wonder whether it would be useful to see this carried over into the earlier series.

There are clearly a number of problems with the current system, for instance:

1./ Surely if a unit doesn't move, or only uses up a part of its movement allowance, it should have more time left for firing? In other words there should be a direct trade off between movement & firing, because if a unit's not moving it can be spending the time reloading and firing additional volleys.

2./ Isn't it rather illogical that a unit should be able to use its <i>full</i> movement allowance and then fire, but can't fire and then fall back, or perhaps move, fire and then move again. A completely stationary unit ought to be able to get off several (perhaps three offensive volleys a turn, plus additional defensive volleys?) volleys because it's not spending the time moving about.

Consequently, incorporating an action point system that linked movement & firing would be a significant improvement to the game engine.


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

Rich

I agree 110%

Mark
VII Corps

Frankly I agree as well....

Next patch :> ???

Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee

Richard, it's a brilliant idea.

However I wouldn't expect it ever comes with a patch. If such bug with "2-rear-hex-elimination" can't be fixed I wouldn't hope for more ...[V]

<center>Maréchal T. Nowacki
<b>V KORPUS ARMII RENU</b>

Comte de Liege
Duc de la Moskova

Chasseurs a Cheval de la Vieille Garde</center>

Rich,

Actually the current system already accounts for the issues you raised, albeit in a different manner than you suggest:

1) The current engine applies a NEGATIVE modifier to units that fire after moving. In other words, for a unit to fire at 100% effectiveness it <b>must</b> remain stationary.[8D]

2) Since Offensive Fire is supposed to represent the multiple volleys that a unit could discharge in 15 mins, a unit firing during the Offensive Phase fires at 100% effectiveness, less any negative modifiers for the target's cover and its own movement (See above). Defensive Fire, on the other hand, is executed at 33% effectiveness if the ADF (Single-phase) option is used on the assumption that a unit, particularly artillery, will fire 3-4 times under ADF.

Regards,

Paco

<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>

Paco,

I'm aware of how the game engine handles offensive/defensive fire effectiveness, but I'm afraid I don't really understand your arguement that

<i>"the current system already accounts for the issues you raised".</i>

since the game engine doesn't permit a unit to fire and then move, nor does it allow a unit to substitute movement for firepower or vice versa. Also melees are handled quite differently in an action point system.

If you take a look at how the WW2/Modern engine with its action point system functions then you'd realize that the Nappy engine doesn't handle this in an equivalent manner. In fact the Nappy, EAW & ACW engine is far less flexible as a result.

I suppose some people might argue that a pre-1900 engine shouldn't use an action point system because it's inappropriate for the era, but surely if each turn is 15 minutes then there's only a certain amount that a unit can do in that space of time. Yet there's no reason why a pre-1900 unit (any more than a post-1900 unit) has to carry out different actions - moving, firing, melee - in a set sequence that can't be changed.

Anyway, why should a unit be able to move (up to its full movement allowance, moreover without gaining fatigue), fire (at full effectiveness, albeit without a small bonus for not moving) and then melee (again without a fairly modest non-firing bonus). Yet, the same unit can't fire and then retreat .... no, not even a single hex. Is this logical? Is this equivalent to a flexible action point system? Of course not!

If you could ask Wellington or Napoleon whether such a system, where a unit could march & then fire but not fire and then fall back, made any sense, what sort of reply do you think you'd get? I very much doubt either of them would understand the reasoning behind the current system.

I sort of understand your line of argument, but I can't agree that the current system is equivalent, because there's just so much that doesn't compare and there's so much more that can be done in a flexible action point system which is completely impossible with what we've got right now.

Hmmmm, I must say I like Richard's ideas. Except, maybe, one thing - IMO this ability to "exchange movement for volleys" could make the defence even stronger (defender will move less = have stronger offensive fire + defensive fire), rather de-motivating players from aggressive movement/attacks ...

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

A good point, Baron.

I'm not sure exactly how it would work. Maybe, as in the WW2 engine, a unit that's completely stationary would be able to fire three times offensively (perhaps 3 times defensively too).

But maybe the triple offensive fire might (ie. altogether) only be say 1.5 times (or at most twice, rather than thrice) as effective as the single offensive fire of the current system?

Of course this would discourage players from being as aggressive as they are at the moment and it would encourage players to soften up the defenders with artillery fire first, so that they're disrupted and fatigued, or else try to outflank the position rather than launch a direct head-on attack. Perhaps this would be a good thing?

If we get an action point system, the effectiveness of firepower will need to be considered and play-tested carefully - the current fire factors would probably be too high. Fortunately, this can be easily modified in the pdt file.

Richard,

Paco was pointing out that the current engine trades movement and firepower by deducting 50% of the firepower if you move. It may not be a perfect solution, but it does that.

In the horse & musket era once troops started firing it was difficult to get them moving again. Perhaps, the current engine models that without the need for high quality troops may start moving after a volley, etc, etc.



Colonel (ret) Al Amos
1er Dragoons
AdN

Al,

As far as I can see it, what the current system does is encourage blitzkrieg tactics, allowing the attacker to move his troops their maximum movement allowance, then fire (albeit not as effectively as if stationary) and melee too <i>all in the same turn</i>. I wonder why this system wasn't used for the WW2/Modern games, it would seem a suitable choice.

Moreover, the engine makes it additionally awkward for a retreating force attempting to break off contact, or avoid getting drawn into a melee. Units can't fire and then fall back (surely skirmishers would want to do this often enough) and disrupted units can't exchange their ability to fire for a bit of extra movement (which they could in a flexible action point system).

The WW2 engine however, with its action point system makes it hard for units (certainly infantry) to melee unless they start close to the enemy. The action point system also means that if units use up their full movement allowance they don't have enough points left to fire even once. Doesn't this seem more logical than our current system?

So, in a nutshell, do you actually find the current system works perfectly well, or would you actually prefer an action point system if this could be carried over from the WW2 series. Perhaps neither system is perfect - you admit yourself that <i>"It may not be a perfect solution"</i> - but maybe one is better than the other. I agree that the system we've got works tolerably well, but I don't feel we should necessarily blindly defend the current system if there's a better choice available that could be ported over from another series. Of course, I don't necessarily know what's best, but I'm alway hoping to discover something that might improve the game system, which is why I threw out this idea for everyone to chew over.

Richard,

The only reason I posted was in response to your post of Paco's comments.

He pointed out the engine does address the trade of firepower for movement.

You indicated in your response to him, that you did not understand how he make that assertion.

I was merely trying to elaberate, to help clarify.

The system does have a mechanism in place that offers players a choice to move and lose firepower, or not move and retain firepower.

So the engine already does address the issue which you have brought up for discussion. Your lead post implies it does not. Perhaps there are better ways to model the issue, but the engine does model it.

It doesn't matter if it is a good method or not, or if I like it, or you like it, it exists. I think THAT was Paco's point.

Colonel (ret) Al Amos
1er Dragoons
AdN

Al, Paco,

I think I sort of understand the line of argument now - It seems we weren't looking at the issue from the same perspective. From what I gather, Paco was saying that if a unit doesn't move it gets a fire bonus - is it really as high as 50%? But I was wondering whether an action point system would benefit the game engine.

But, Al, you still haven't actually told me what you think of an action point system - do you feel it would be more practical and/or flexible than the current system?