Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Hello all,

I have been playing the HPS series for several months now. Initially I was having a blast with PBEM. Unfortunately, the longer I played, the more I discovered what I felt were serious flaws in simulating Napoleonic warfare.

My first major discovery was that lines cannot stop columns. This discovery lead to the realization that only one major infantry tactic seems necessary to win-the massive column battering lines through melee. The 2000 man column rarely loses. It inflicts heavy losses on any defender and the defenders fatigue is typically concentrated in one unit. The attackers fatigue is usually spread out amongst the multiple attackers. It is a devastating formation without a real counter except opposing 2000 man columns launching their own melees. The game seems almost a one tactic game which heavily leans toward the offense.

Then I noticed artillery is relatively useless in terms of moderate range bombardments. Also artillery will rarely stop a well planned charge either. Nice to have within the game but not really much more than a nuisance currently, IMO.

I reached the conclusion that both infantry and artillery lack the firepower to counter charging columns. I started experimenting with increasing the firepower of both infantry and artillery. I wanted both to have a significant bite without becoming overwhelming. I found what I felt were appropriate values in terms of casualties. But then I discovered that units weren't breaking. They typically fought until they were wiped out to the last man. So then I experimented with reducing morale values such that a good infantry volley or a solid hit by artillery would produce disruption, followed by possible routing. Ultimately I settled on an across-the-board reduction in morale of 2 levels. Units with morale of A became morale C and units with morale C moved to morale E. Now I had something which was producing results I felt were reasonable and accurate.

Next I looked at manpower levels per 100 meter hexes. 100 meters is not a large area for 2000 men. I confirmed Napoleonic infantry frontages as varying between 2-3 ft per man. So a line of infantry in 3 ranks with 2 feet per man would cover a frontage of 100 meters with approximately 490 men. A 2 rank line would cover the 100 meters with 330 men. So I reduced the frontage necessary for extended lines using a 2 ft per man frontage. Within a 100 square meter frontage, I felt it was reasonable to have 2 lines of infantry but not 4 lines. So I reduced total stacking to 1000 men per hex. I know the total is arguable when considering columns but I suspect the norm is much closer to 1000 men per 100 meters than 2000 men. In fact, I suspect the average was probably closer to 500 men. An interesting side effect of this change is the elimination of the panzerblitz tactic. To get a decent melee requires maxing out the stacking limit. Other units cannot pass through that stacked hex to continue a panzerblitz attack.

I also made changes to reduce the mobility of line. My objective was to give solid mobility advantages to columns to offset the now substantial firepower advantage of line. I also reduced the cost of an about face from 4 to 3 which again improves the mobility of the column, in particular when disrupted and withdrawing.

I have made other fine tuning changes to the PDF but these are the major changes. Firepower increased for line and artillery. Morale reduced by 2 levels. Mobility changes to line, column and artillery movement.

I have been testing this mod for the last couple of weeks with both Waterloo and Eckmuhl scenarios. I have been fairly happy with the results. These changes require a new set of tactics to be successful. The line is very useful when on defense due to its solid firepower hit. Although once disrupted it is in trouble. Extended lines are available to many more units including artillery which increases the area which can be covered by the weaker side. As the attacker, you really want an enemy line disrupted before approaching to point blank range. Artillery can now produce that necessary disruption or skirmishers firing into flanks or taking your chances, just move up and volley away with your own lines. Firefights usually result in disruption and defeat by one side or the other in 15-30 minutes. Whoever disrupts first is usually going to get hit hard either through melee or further devastating volleys if it doesn't withdraw or call up reserves.

It is a different game with this mod. I have been a student of Napoleonics for decades now and I feel it is pretty good simulation. I wanted to see firefights as desparate combats. I wanted a risk in moving up to an undisrupted line. I wanted to see artillery with a real punch such that I think twice before launching that attack. The mod produces a battle of artillery attrition followed by intense infantry combat and then typically the front line of one side or the other completely collapses. Then either the attacker or defender must have reserves to hold their army together until routers are rallied. It is a different game.

Some areas I couldn't really do much about such as artillery ammunition. Right now, artillery batteries can fire forever. I would really like to see artillery ammunition tied into individual batteries. Oh well.

What I would hope to find here are some folks that would be interested in testing this mod and providing an outside perspective on the mod before I post it somewhere. I have modded scenarios for both Eckmuhl and Waterloo. The scenario files are all new files and will not overwrite any of your existing files. You unzip the files into your main folder. They then will show up when you go to the scenario menu. The modded scenarios simply have "mod" added to the scenario name.

I don't know if there is much demand for a mod but if any are interested, let me know here and I will send you either Eckmuhl or Waterloo scenarios. Or drop me an email at klltalley@msn.com. I would definitely like to get some feedback.

I welcome any comments or thoughts.

PS: Here are some general notes I made while making changes and impacton tactics:

-Max stacking infantry reduced to 1000. (1250 for Eckmuhl)
-reduced stacking makes it harder to panzerblitz as less units are required to create overstacking.
-Also more than 125 skirmishers in a hex now results in loss of
skirmisher advantages.

-Extended Line Values: 100 meters equals 328 ft. When each man has a 2 ft frontage, 164 men will fit in 100 meters in a single rank. If you use three feet per man, you end up with 109 men in a single rank. I went with the tighter formation as a large regiment would fit into the 2 hex extended
line.
2 man line extended reduced to 330
3 man line extended reduced to 490

-Line disorder values increased: Brits now: 15 percent, French 18 percent and Prussians 20 percent. (Eckmuhl both 18)

-Increased line movement values in certain terrain such as clear. Increased some artillery movement values as well in various non-clear terrain or elevations.

-reduced about face costs for infantry to 3. Allows columns more mobility when withdrawing.

-firepower enfilade modifier increased to 25 percent.

-column firepower modifier changed to 33 percent except British which remain at 20.

-artillery combat factors changed
-melee equal 40: 6 gun battery equal to 240 men and 8 gun battery equal to 320 men in melee. If the artillery can disorder charging infantry battalions, the artillery very well may give infantry a bloody nose in melee.
-firepower remains same in both Eckmuhl and Waterloo

-All artillery values examined for case and effective fire. Ensured
definitive change in effectiveness when entering case range. Also slightly bumped fire above case ranges. Also looked at effective vs maximum ranges.

-Infantry fire effectiveness increased by approximately 33 percent.

The tactics required for success are substantially different from the
standard game.

Lines are powerful but slow and clumsy. Columns assaulting a non-disordered line often may end up with a bloody nose and the losing side of a melee. Unless desperate, wait till a line is disordered before meleeing.

Many more units will be eligible for extended line with the new manpower density values.

Units break more often with the lower morale values. Disordered units are very vulnerable to routing and taking other units with them. Reserves are absolutely essential and should be far enough to the rear that routing units don't disrupt their formations. Must know the rallying rules for routed units.

Artillery will disorder and break units even with moderate ranged
bombardments if given enough time. Close range case fire from artillery can be devastating. The increased melee value of artillery means disordered infantry may very likely lose a melee with artillery. The lower stacking hex density also impacts artillery. Often it may be useful to put artillery into extended line which will allow you to add infantry into the same hex with artillery.

Skirmishers are a more fragile due to the stronger firepower of lines. Because skirmishers have a morale reduction for being skirmishers, they will break easier when hit by heavy firepower with the lower morale. So don't move skirmishers to point blank range of a line without a good reason. I am using them to fire into flanks or protect my own flanks, cover advances or plug emergency holes. I will move to point blank range of a line if the skirmishers have a protective terrian advantage. Skirmishers are also harder to rally once routed...so I don't risk them needlessly.

I would like to answer some of your concerns. Can you identify yourself so I can properly address you?

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

Hi Ken
Is very reasonable you proposals. Congratulations for this exquisite topic

http://www.venezuela-emb.org.au/images/flag.jpg

As far I know most of Napoleon's battles were fought primarily with columns. Line vs. Line fighting was a fashion of 18th century warfare.
But you have a point about unit’s ability to stand punishment from enemy musket and artillery fire for many turns. In Battleground games I had to rotate troops every few hours to prevent collapse of my frontline.


GdD Dejan Zupancic, Comte de St. Pol
Saxon Division de Cavalerie
Armee du Rhin

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dejan Zupancic</i>
<br />As far I know most of Napoleon's battles were fought primarily with columns. Line vs. Line fighting was a fashion of 18th century warfare.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't think it's that easy. For one thing, the preferred tactical formation for the Napoleonic armies was l'ordre mixte, lines in the center with columns on the flanks. For another, most opposing armies kept the line as regular combat formation. Also, many instances where the French apparantely attacked in column are in fact cases where the columns didn't manage to deploy into line for instance because they were surprised. So lines figured very prominently in Napoleonic warfare, even though the column of attack was probably more important in this era than in any other major war in the 19th century save 1866.

<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>

Gentlemen,

I find that with the generally smaller battalions of the French it is usually a very bad idea to get into a firefight (this apples to BG as well as HPS) at any range as the opposing side will hit back with a lot more than you can throw at them. This does lead to an excessive reliance on columns -- reducing the stacking strength would definitely cause me to use lines much more often. I tend to agree with most of the points brought out in this, although the morale reduction may be a little high. Of course, cavalry concentrations would need to be correspondingly reduced.

Another point on skirmisher morale -- since the skirmisher/light companies were typically 'elite' companies within the battalion does it really make sense to lower their morale when detached?

General Theron Lambert
Comte d'Angers et Duc de Montereau
3rd Brigade, 3rd Division
VI Corps
Armee du Rhin
Commandant de la Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Theron Lambert</i>
Another point on skirmisher morale -- since the skirmisher/light companies were typically 'elite' companies within the battalion does it really make sense to lower their morale when detached?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I believe the justification is in their open order, giving less cohesion and thus less shoulder-to-shoulder morale.

Also, often the skirmishers were just a token "elite" in that somebody *had* to be elite in every 600 or 800 men. In the French army, the lights were the most agile men, but not necessarily the most experienced / able soldiers, which on the contrary were to be put in the grenadier company.

In the Prussian army, one battalion per regiment plus one-third of the other two battalions (the third rank) were to be trained as light infantry and were thus also considered "elite" on paper, but as has been rightly pointed out, "an elite of five-ninth (1/3 + 1/9 + 1/9) is a contradiction in terms". [:)]

<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>

Jagger,

Go out to Rich Hamilton's SDC website, and you will find two packets of scenario mods with modified OOB and PDT files along the lines of your presentation.

I made them a few years back. They are the top two packets in the Eckmuhl section.

Colonel (ret) Al Amos
1er Dragoons
AdN

Thanks for the comments. Here are some quick, time limited thoughts on the use of line.

During the Napoleonic timeframe, armies were often conscripted mass armies with poor or little training. A column is a simple formation requiring little training by men or officers to use effectively. Columns had definite advantages such as more control and greater mobility in both clear terrain and the very common broken terrain encountered in Napoleonic battlefields.

Columns can be very effective as a combat formation if the fight has already been knocked out of the enemy formations by steady losses due to artillery bombardment or skirmishers. Just the sight of fresh, eager, rapidly advancing columns could cause enemy troops to decide to leave the field of battle if they needed a reason.

However a column advancing against a well formed line determined to fight was in a lot of trouble. The firepower alone of a line usually sent a column, regardless of size, quickly to the rear once they entered the lines effective fire zone. The Brits demonstrated this result over and over.

All armies definitely had and used lines for their firepower. Consider the firepower. A reasonable rate of fire might be 3 rounds a minute. Thus a 600 man battalion could get off 1800 rounds a minute. Or, ideally, produce 27,000 rounds every 15 minutes of HPS game time. That is a lot of firepower.

However there are drawbacks. A 600 man battalion with a 150-200 yd front is much more difficult to control than a column. The line is clumsy in movement whether in clear terrain or rough terrain such as woods and brush and hills. The line requires much more training to effectively move about a battlefield than a column. I think most of the massed, poorly trained Napoleonic armies could form a line. However I suspect many couldn't maneuver effectively in line. The line is a great formation used often to put out massed firepower but very clumsy to maneuver regardless of training.

The line is ideal as a static defensive formation or when you have approached an enemy that refuses to retreat. The column is fast and can be used effectively by raw recruits with minimal training. Often just the sight of determined, advancing columns was enough to send an enemy to the rear especially if they no longer wanted to fight. IMO, the column on the battlefield was more of a mobile morale weapon. If the enemy wanted to run, they would run. I see the line as more of a static, concrete firepower weapon used when both sides were determined to fight.

In Archduke Charle's manual of 1807 target practice was encouraged by encouraged by the issue of 10 practice rounds annually per man and 23 rounds for the two corporals and 12 privates designated as sharpshooters in each company. This certainly didn't guarantee any marksmanship.

Marksmanship was still subjugated to volley-fire, delivered by rank or by 'division' or company, producing the traditional 'rolling volley' along the front of a battalion. For charging, the line was considered 'the proper formation for infantry, permitting the best use of its weapons, that is the musket musket for fighting at long range and the bayonnet for close-in'.

Archduke Charles preferred the infantry to be formed in lines. However, such formalions proved to be extremely difficult and slow to maneuver and maintain in order to come to grips with a more mobile adversary. Additionally, tradilional highly compact squares seemed to be too vulnerable enemy arlillery. Also, the transformation from column or line into square often proved to be a perilous maneuver when confronted with agile enemy cavalry who could pounce on infantry before completing their evolutions. Therefore, Charles invented lhe "ballalion masse" and the "division masse", both of which could engage infantry as well as maneuver in lhe face of cavalry. Of all of Charles' reforms, the "baltalion masse" proved to be the most lasting.

NOTE: the text was gathered at http://uniform-evolution.0catch.com/austria_index.html I stongly recommend everyone to read that pages, it's a great piece.

GdD Dejan Zupancic, Comte de St. Pol
Saxon Division de Cavalerie
Armee du Rhin

I have done similar changes to the BG games, for similar reasons. I got tired of seeing two armies slug it out for 2 hours, after which both sides are exhausted and have 10,000 casualties each. I also adjusted the unit size to 5 man increments instead of 25, which allows for a much more varied result. Those skirmishers no longer take out 25 men at a pop, getting mostly 5-10 losses, yet large units can still drop 30- 75 at a turn (Now Maitland, now's your time). Another big change was elimination of fatigue from fire, and melee. It now occurs only from taking casualties (which generally occur during melee, and happen more often with the 5 man increment). I also broke out the howitzers from the batteries, and have them listed as seperate guns, generally shorter ranged, and not so effective beyond 2 hexes, but you don't want to stand in front of them at 1 hex. Grape and cannister are viscous out of those big bores.

Cadet William Davis
Royal Military Academy

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Dejan Zupancic</i>
<br />As far I know most of Napoleon's battles were fought primarily with columns. Line vs. Line fighting was a fashion of 18th century warfare.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I don't think it's that easy. For one thing, the preferred tactical formation for the Napoleonic armies was l'ordre mixte, lines in the center with columns on the flanks. For another, most opposing armies kept the line as regular combat formation. Also, many instances where the French apparantely attacked in column are in fact cases where the columns didn't manage to deploy into line for instance because they were surprised. So lines figured very prominently in Napoleonic warfare, even though the column of attack was probably more important in this era than in any other major war in the 19th century save 1866.

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

Hmm, I have never seen this for say the Austrian or Prussian armies. Arent you generalizing a bit? The Prussians for instance preferred lines in 1806 and before. The concept of mixed order was mainly French but certainly if you read even the French commanders used a variety of formations.

Thus its not kosher to generalize on this.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
Hmm, I have never seen this for say the Austrian or Prussian armies. Arent you generalizing a bit? The Prussians for instance preferred lines in 1806 and before. The concept of mixed order was mainly French but certainly if you read even the French commanders used a variety of formations.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's what I was saying, no? Even the French used the line together with the column; most others used *only* the line.

Ah, now I see ... you read "Napoleonic" as meaning *all* armies of the period. I meant Napoleon's army. Should have been evident from the next sentence though, "most <u>opposing</u> armies kept the line as regular combat formation".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jagger</i>
<br />Hello all,

I have been playing the HPS series for several months now. Initially I was having a blast with PBEM. Unfortunately, the longer I played, the more I discovered what I felt were serious flaws in simulating Napoleonic warfare.

<b>BP - Ken, yes, there are flaws. The game does its best to simulate the period. The Scenario Designers and I for the series have been working with John Tiller steadily to get things changed. What you have now is a far cry from the release version of Eckmuhl. Its a MUCH better engine. I will not agree with serious flaws. I will agree that any game can never totally depict any form of combat perfectly. That is as close to agreeing with you that I will get concerning the term "serious". Flaws, yes, but for over ten years we have played Napoleonics using a Tiller engine. If it was serious most of us would have quit by now. (but read on please - you made good points)</b>

My first major discovery was that lines cannot stop columns. This discovery lead to the realization that only one major infantry tactic seems necessary to win-the massive column battering lines through melee. The 2000 man column rarely loses. It inflicts heavy losses on any defender and the defenders fatigue is typically concentrated in one unit. The attackers fatigue is usually spread out amongst the multiple attackers. It is a devastating formation without a real counter except opposing 2000 man columns launching their own melees. The game seems almost a one tactic game which heavily leans toward the offense.

<b>BP - Ken, sure, four columns of 500 men should be able to overwhelm 500 men in line. Right? Provided you have that kind of change to toss around. The downside is this:

1. Units in big stacks take more losses - thus if you fire on one of those columns (or should I say the A/I) then they will take more losses. And if artillery fires on them then EACH battalian takes losses. Statistically it comes out that the attacker loses the fight if he plays like this. I just turned Ernie Sands 2000 man stacks into pulp. Just ask him. Its on the next turn that you wipe them out with well aimed fire and then watch them go bye-bye. This simulates the counterattack of the defender abstractly.

2. The French usually have smaller columns and this is often the only way that they can take a position. We went down this road long ago. I have suggestions into John Tiller for a revised melee procedure that would be more authentic but hey, when you tinker with the system you have to be careful.

3. I know what you are saying and fully agree - historically those four columns would be two abreast and two behind. Thus if you were to disorder the front ranks of the two lead columns then the others wouldnt factor in. As a matter a fact they would cause more issues as the guys trying to break from the front would pile into the ones in the rear - result - big bottleneck.

4. I would prefer to see a rule where only one unit from a hex could attack. Thus its a MORALE test basically. The guys on the TOP of the stack would be the attacker. The guys in behind would be available to EXPLOIT the attack but wouldnt add in any strength. The attacker would be fired on, check morale and then if he fails his pre-melee morale test would just stop and fire (common during the period). If he passes his morale test then the defender would check morale. ONCE per melee not per successful unit. Subtract 1 for each flank attacker. Hammer and anvil tactics. Add in 1 for each morale grade over 4. That means that good units will NORMALLY hold and fight. If they fail the test then casualties would be assessed heavily on the defender with about 1/4 for the attacker. If they pass then casualties would be assessed on the attacker heavily with the defender taking about 1/4 the losses.

A cursory read of Nosworthy's "With Musket, Cannon and Sword" shows that it wasnt the firepower that stopped the French columns in the Peninsular by British/Allied lines. It was the counterattack by the British that caused them to run! Same goes for the European theater. The Prussian fire was the exception in 1806 perhaps but even so once those lines had been eroded by fatigue then they were not able to stop the French. And I thought that most of us agreed that the firepower of a line was mostly psychological anyway.</b>

Then I noticed artillery is relatively useless in terms of moderate range bombardments. Also artillery will rarely stop a well planned charge either. Nice to have within the game but not really much more than a nuisance currently, IMO.

<b>This was discussed at length. Artillery could blow holes in formations but normally was not counted on to STOP an attack merely break it up so that the defender could counter attack. One battery would not be sufficient to stop an attack. The supporting troops would attack the dazed or shaken defeneders or intercept before the battery would be overrun. In our game you have to put your guns where they cant be taken. Unhistorical in some cases but we dont have the ability to have supporting troops intervene against an attacker. Thus we keep our guns at arms length.</b>

I reached the conclusion that both infantry and artillery lack the firepower to counter charging columns. I started experimenting with increasing the firepower of both infantry and artillery. I wanted both to have a significant bite without becoming overwhelming. I found what I felt were appropriate values in terms of casualties. But then I discovered that units weren't breaking. They typically fought until they were wiped out to the last man. So then I experimented with reducing morale values such that a good infantry volley or a solid hit by artillery would produce disruption, followed by possible routing. Ultimately I settled on an across-the-board reduction in morale of 2 levels. Units with morale of A became morale C and units with morale C moved to morale E. Now I had something which was producing results I felt were reasonable and accurate.

<b> "wiped out to the last man" ??? I have yet to see that happen on a broad scale. Usually the scenario ends or the units are wiped out by a good attack. There is some discussion that morale grades should be lowered to allow for more routs. I would like to prune down the French morales to balance alot of the games I did. They generally have more units to push around and if a allied unit routs its much more of a concern than if the French have a column rout. But would that be the fair thing to do? Muddy Jones would say yes. My gut instinct is that it would curb the French desire to just attack, attack, attack. This is something I am going to test out in the game I am putting together at present.</b>

Next I looked at manpower levels per 100 meter hexes. 100 meters is not a large area for 2000 men. I confirmed Napoleonic infantry frontages as varying between 2-3 ft per man. So a line of infantry in 3 ranks with 2 feet per man would cover a frontage of 100 meters with approximately 490 men. A 2 rank line would cover the 100 meters with 330 men. So I reduced the frontage necessary for extended lines using a 2 ft per man frontage. Within a 100 square meter frontage, I felt it was reasonable to have 2 lines of infantry but not 4 lines. So I reduced total stacking to 1000 men per hex. I know the total is arguable when considering columns but I suspect the norm is much closer to 1000 men per 100 meters than 2000 men. In fact, I suspect the average was probably closer to 500 men. An interesting side effect of this change is the elimination of the panzerblitz tactic. To get a decent melee requires maxing out the stacking limit. Other units cannot pass through that stacked hex to continue a panzerblitz attack.

I also made changes to reduce the mobility of line. My objective was to give solid mobility advantages to columns to offset the now substantial firepower advantage of line. I also reduced the cost of an about face from 4 to 3 which again improves the mobility of the column, in particular when disrupted and withdrawing.

I have made other fine tuning changes to the PDF but these are the major changes. Firepower increased for line and artillery. Morale reduced by 2 levels. Mobility changes to line, column and artillery movement.

I have been testing this mod for the last couple of weeks with both Waterloo and Eckmuhl scenarios. I have been fairly happy with the results. These changes require a new set of tactics to be successful. The line is very useful when on defense due to its solid firepower hit. Although once disrupted it is in trouble. Extended lines are available to many more units including artillery which increases the area which can be covered by the weaker side. As the attacker, you really want an enemy line disrupted before approaching to point blank range. Artillery can now produce that necessary disruption or skirmishers firing into flanks or taking your chances, just move up and volley away with your own lines. Firefights usually result in disruption and defeat by one side or the other in 15-30 minutes. Whoever disrupts first is usually going to get hit hard either through melee or further devastating volleys if it doesn't withdraw or call up reserves.

It is a different game with this mod. I have been a student of Napoleonics for decades now and I feel it is pretty good simulation. I wanted to see firefights as desparate combats. I wanted a risk in moving up to an undisrupted line. I wanted to see artillery with a real punch such that I think twice before launching that attack. The mod produces a battle of artillery attrition followed by intense infantry combat and then typically the front line of one side or the other completely collapses. Then either the attacker or defender must have reserves to hold their army together until routers are rallied. It is a different game.

Some areas I couldn't really do much about such as artillery ammunition. Right now, artillery batteries can fire forever. I would really like to see artillery ammunition tied into individual batteries. Oh well.

What I would hope to find here are some folks that would be interested in testing this mod and providing an outside perspective on the mod before I post it somewhere. I have modded scenarios for both Eckmuhl and Waterloo. The scenario files are all new files and will not overwrite any of your existing files. You unzip the files into your main folder. They then will show up when you go to the scenario menu. The modded scenarios simply have "mod" added to the scenario name.

I don't know if there is much demand for a mod but if any are interested, let me know here and I will send you either Eckmuhl or Waterloo scenarios. Or drop me an email at klltalley@msn.com. I would definitely like to get some feedback.

I welcome any comments or thoughts.

PS: Here are some general notes I made while making changes and impacton tactics:

-Max stacking infantry reduced to 1000. (1250 for Eckmuhl)
-reduced stacking makes it harder to panzerblitz as less units are required to create overstacking.
-Also more than 125 skirmishers in a hex now results in loss of
skirmisher advantages.

-Extended Line Values: 100 meters equals 328 ft. When each man has a 2 ft frontage, 164 men will fit in 100 meters in a single rank. If you use three feet per man, you end up with 109 men in a single rank. I went with the tighter formation as a large regiment would fit into the 2 hex extended
line.
2 man line extended reduced to 330
3 man line extended reduced to 490

-Line disorder values increased: Brits now: 15 percent, French 18 percent and Prussians 20 percent. (Eckmuhl both 18)

-Increased line movement values in certain terrain such as clear. Increased some artillery movement values as well in various non-clear terrain or elevations.

-reduced about face costs for infantry to 3. Allows columns more mobility when withdrawing.

-firepower enfilade modifier increased to 25 percent.

-column firepower modifier changed to 33 percent except British which remain at 20.

-artillery combat factors changed
-melee equal 40: 6 gun battery equal to 240 men and 8 gun battery equal to 320 men in melee. If the artillery can disorder charging infantry battalions, the artillery very well may give infantry a bloody nose in melee.
-firepower remains same in both Eckmuhl and Waterloo

-All artillery values examined for case and effective fire. Ensured
definitive change in effectiveness when entering case range. Also slightly bumped fire above case ranges. Also looked at effective vs maximum ranges.

-Infantry fire effectiveness increased by approximately 33 percent.

The tactics required for success are substantially different from the
standard game.

Lines are powerful but slow and clumsy. Columns assaulting a non-disordered line often may end up with a bloody nose and the losing side of a melee. Unless desperate, wait till a line is disordered before meleeing.

Many more units will be eligible for extended line with the new manpower density values.

Units break more often with the lower morale values. Disordered units are very vulnerable to routing and taking other units with them. Reserves are absolutely essential and should be far enough to the rear that routing units don't disrupt their formations. Must know the rallying rules for routed units.

Artillery will disorder and break units even with moderate ranged
bombardments if given enough time. Close range case fire from artillery can be devastating. The increased melee value of artillery means disordered infantry may very likely lose a melee with artillery. The lower stacking hex density also impacts artillery. Often it may be useful to put artillery into extended line which will allow you to add infantry into the same hex with artillery.

Skirmishers are a more fragile due to the stronger firepower of lines. Because skirmishers have a morale reduction for being skirmishers, they will break easier when hit by heavy firepower with the lower morale. So don't move skirmishers to point blank range of a line without a good reason. I am using them to fire into flanks or protect my own flanks, cover advances or plug emergency holes. I will move to point blank range of a line if the skirmishers have a protective terrian advantage. Skirmishers are also harder to rally once routed...so I don't risk them needlessly.

<b> BP - Ken, outstanding notes. We have discussed this for some time on these forums. In the ACWGC a guy by the name of Jess Norris put together a set of modules that used a similar system and it was very popular with those that sought for a more realistic simulation.

QUESTION TO THE MEMBERS:

1. Stacking limits: while 2000 is probably now known to be too high I think that 1000 is too low as we have 1200 man Austrian columns. You cant add a leader to a hex that has a unit that has a size that is over the stacking limit. At least I think that this is still the rule.

What say I reduce the stacking to 1300? This will conform to what Ken has brought up here. It will help the Allies defender better and make the scenarios more balanced where its a French runaway.

2. Cavalry - will this weaken cavalry? 1300 means that 650 cavalry can stack in a hex. 650 x 3 = 1950 men in a melee. Is this reasonable?

If I get John to allow leaders to stack for free then the issue is solved and we could use Ken's suggestions. The problem is: now we have 500 cav 3x to 1500. So now we have 1500 x .2 or 1800 vs. say 1000 men in column. This is NOT 2:1 and that is the golden odds you usually need to succeed. Add in that the Austrians have columns that are up to 1200 men in strength. How does the French ever win against one of these monsters that is not in square but not disordered either?

Would we assume that the cavalry wouldnt charge a fresh defender? That historically when they did it failed?

Can I ask that a couple of you test this out with Ken? I will volunteer too.

Ken - I will email you for your files. This is definitely something that will change the games ALOT. At first I want to see how its received by the gamers. If well received then its a go.</b>


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

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

Now that I read the original post again ... I don't quite agree with the remarks on artillery. They are but a nuisance (for the owner) in the ACW games. But they are quite potent in the Nappy games. When a French 12-pounder battery goes off, I wouldn't want to be within three hexes.

<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>