Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gabriel Rodríguez</i>
<br />Hi Le Tondu
If we play one thing exist the risk of that this club will start die, like happened until that HPS deliver the new software.
In fact my Division had reached only 1 officer in the worst time.
We must open more options but of our warfare certainly.......

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

Hi Gabriel,

I am certainly for our club having more than one sponsored game.

I just think that there should be some sort of minimal standards --like being major bug free and the designer showing a commitment for future support. Also, a method might be needed to convert the game's victory levels into our promotional system. (As we all can see, Bill is working hard on that.) [:)]

I want our club to survive and thrive. With the steps President Bill Peters is taking, I believe that it will. [:)]
Rick

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

Several questions:

If Bill says that other games can be supported by our club if "we" want them, under what mechanism will that knowledge be known?

Will it be a voting system like that used for the election of the club President?

Will the statistics be open and available for all to see?

I see this as a very important issue.

Cheers,
Rick [:)]

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

Gents
I am all for adding new games with the proviso that it doesnt dilute the Club into none existance.
How many individual clubs support ALL one periods games, answer NONE.
Officers with long memories (or was that mammaries[:I]) can remember the problems with HPS scoring against Battleground.

Even if some officers dont own the games being discussed "you dont have to be a chicken to know when an egg is bad"
One game at a time please, a points system that is equitable and lots of discussion.[;)]

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"

I will answer each in order:

Jim - right - we dont want to add some obscure game or take the club down too wide of a path. This game is all about the period and so far I like it. Combat is not emphasized as much as a battle game of course but its more than made up in the amount of detail the game offers. And the points system has to fit. Remember the HPS vs. BG debate very well. Single phase vs. multi phase. More turns done faster in a HPS game.

Rick - I think that we should consider an election on games. This is not the end all to that but if we get only 2 percent of the club wanting a game we should go with the 98 percent that dont want it. We need to figure out a level that fits too. 51 percent? I dont know. Need to hear from you guys on this. Stats will be WIDE open for all to see. Nothing about this should be kept secret. We should NOT limit the amount of games we can add in. What if a GREAT game comes out that we all love but we have already met the quota for games we can add in? I wouldnt like that for one. And a big thanks for the vote of confidence! Its a group effort - that was my campaign thing. There are alot of folks making this thing go. And I am getting good suggestions from folks like Pierre, Ken and Paco too. Guys that used to be leaders in the club on a larger scale. There experience is still with us guys.



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]

edited by me - to include an update)
Hello
Here is my proposition (????)
A product of mixing Bill's (also known as "Bill 3,5 the terrible") proposition and my considerations :

1/ - Divide the countries in 2 separate groups. it is unfait to have France and Turkey in the same category :
GROUP A : major countries :
ENGLAND
FRANCE
AUSTRIA
RUSSIA
GROUP B : minor countries (this is here where some will shout after me) :
PRUSSIA
SPAIN
SWEDEN
TURKEY

Therefore, players can hope to win even while playing a minor country.

2/ Don't wait untill the end of a scenario to count the victories. CoG is a strategic game. Fortune of war can change during a scenario.
Let's count the points EVERY TWO YEARS (or three or four, or a more complex system, I am not a fanatic about biannual things)

3/ Count the VP every two years for each group like Bill suggested.
1st player : major Victor
2nd player : minor victor
3rd, 4th player : draw.

Therefore, a major victor after two years would win 24 + 3 points = 27 points (basis austrian armee point system)

4/ some special bonuses could be awarded :
+ points for a minor country of Group B acheiving more points than a major country of Group A,
+ points for reaching political goals
etc .

wha da ya think ?

Yours
Stephane


Austrian Army
6th husaren Blankenstein
finally figured out how to have the signature inserted in the post

Hi .
Ok All Countrys in the game have Political Goals,Could the points be done on this,each 2 years in the game,

You could be at the bottom of the leader board but have got one of your Political Goals,
And the rest may not have got any,Then the country with the Political goal should get the points,

What do you think would this be a better way for point.

<font color="red">Marechal</font id="red">
<font color="red">BEECHAM</font id="red"> Commandant
1ème Division de Cuirassiers,
1 Corps Res Cav,ADN.

"Toujours féroce,jamais étourdi"

While I have enough trouble mastering the current titles, the topic is one I would like to see in other clubs and so I will put forth a suggestion. I would also enjoy a strategic title to play.

Rather then having a process of study, voting, etc. why not establish a process in which someone can porpose a new game to be officially sanctioned by being the advocate for a trial period.

The process might be something like:

-if you want to propose a new game you find another club member(s) to play teh first game -- after you finish you give the cabinet a report and request to be put on the trial list of games
-you agree to be the point of contact for all who want to play the game - you do the sign up for their matches and record their results, comments, etc.
-after one year, if the game is played some minimal number of times it becomes a candidate for inclusion -
-the advocate prepares a summary of who and how often the game was played - a proposal for scoring club points is also presented.
-the cabinet votes -- if accepted the players get their points retroactively and the game in now included in the club scoring system
-if rejected the advocate can come back again (in 12 months and re-petiton)

-we keep a "sticky" on this board with the current status of all trial games, the advocate, date for next cabinet action, etc.

Some other "details" that should be considered.

-have to think about whether the club will "train" on the new titles. It's conceivable other groups of players will want to join

-those doing the games registration and points process ought to have a major voice in whatever is done

-the advocate can be expected to "advertise" the game

-would we set up separate tavern(s) for new game discussion or use this one.

-are their any restrictions other then being Napoleonic and playable via email and/or on-line?

-the points topic is a non starter for me, but there could be some guidlines here as well.



Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commandant, RMA

maybe some bonus points for reaching political goals ?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dean beecham</i>
<br />Hi .
Ok All Countrys in the game have Political Goals,Could the points be done on this,each 2 years in the game,

You could be at the bottom of the leader board but have got one of your Political Goals,
And the rest may not have got any,Then the country with the Political goal should get the points,

What do you think would this be a better way for point.

<font color="red">Marechal</font id="red">
<font color="red">BEECHAM</font id="red"> Commandant
1ème Division de Cuirassiers,
1 Corps Res Cav,ADN.

"Toujours féroce,jamais étourdi"

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

Austrian Army
6th husaren Blankenstein
finally figured out how to have the signature inserted in the post

Bob
remember that in introducing new games, we can also introduce NEW MEMBERS, who might be attracted by playing other games (HPS, battleground) too
yours

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by bobbreen</i>
<br />While I have enough trouble mastering the current titles, the topic is one I would like to see in other clubs and so I will put forth a suggestion. I would also enjoy a strategic title to play.

Rather then having a process of study, voting, etc. why not establish a process in which someone can porpose a new game to be officially sanctioned by being the advocate for a trial period.

The process might be something like:

-if you want to propose a new game you find another club member(s) to play teh first game -- after you finish you give the cabinet a report and request to be put on the trial list of games
-you agree to be the point of contact for all who want to play the game - you do the sign up for their matches and record their results, comments, etc.
-after one year, if the game is played some minimal number of times it becomes a candidate for inclusion -
-the advocate prepares a summary of who and how often the game was played - a proposal for scoring club points is also presented.
-the cabinet votes -- if accepted the players get their points retroactively and the game in now included in the club scoring system
-if rejected the advocate can come back again (in 12 months and re-petiton)

-we keep a "sticky" on this board with the current status of all trial games, the advocate, date for next cabinet action, etc.

Some other "details" that should be considered.

-have to think about whether the club will "train" on the new titles. It's conceivable other groups of players will want to join

-those doing the games registration and points process ought to have a major voice in whatever is done

-the advocate can be expected to "advertise" the game

-would we set up separate tavern(s) for new game discussion or use this one.

-are their any restrictions other then being Napoleonic and playable via email and/or on-line?

-the points topic is a non starter for me, but there could be some guidlines here as well.



Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commandant, RMA


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

Austrian Army
6th husaren Blankenstein
finally figured out how to have the signature inserted in the post

<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>
<br />I will answer each in order:

Jim - right - we dont want to add some obscure game or take the club down too wide of a path. This game is all about the period and so far I like it. Combat is not emphasized as much as a battle game of course but its more than made up in the amount of detail the game offers. And the points system has to fit. Remember the HPS vs. BG debate very well. Single phase vs. multi phase. More turns done faster in a HPS game.

Rick - I think that we should consider an election on games. This is not the end all to that but if we get only 2 percent of the club wanting a game we should go with the 98 percent that dont want it. We need to figure out a level that fits too. 51 percent? I dont know. Need to hear from you guys on this. Stats will be WIDE open for all to see. Nothing about this should be kept secret. We should NOT limit the amount of games we can add in. What if a GREAT game comes out that we all love but we have already met the quota for games we can add in? I wouldnt like that for one. And a big thanks for the vote of confidence! Its a group effort - that was my campaign thing. There are alot of folks making this thing go. And I am getting good suggestions from folks like Pierre, Ken and Paco too. Guys that used to be leaders in the club on a larger scale. There experience is still with us guys.



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]

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

1. Voting on the game is the way to go. [8D] Afterall, <font color="red"><b>if we as individual members can vote on a President, why not a game???</b></font id="red">

2. Bill you bring up an interesting point. We actually do have more than a single game right now. The HPS games and the BG games. Yes, they're <u>very</u> similar but they're different enough for us to say that pleurality already exists! (They're also different enough for me not to play the older BG ones.)

3. The voting should be a clear majority (51.1%+) of the <font color="orange"><b>active members</b></font id="orange"> that choose to participate in the voting. One vote per member's name. List the members and the individual vote they made on a website to keep it above board -if possible. Have the vote happen over a period of a month, so no one can claim that they couldn't vote because the were on vacation for a week. Use a sticky thread to remind folks to vote in all applicable locations during the voting month.

4. The vote is final. No whining by anyone, ---even me. [;)]

5. Quotas for the number of games that the club can accept is just <u>not acceptable</u>. Its our club. If we vote it in, then its in.

6. The concept of "dilluting down our club" is utter nonsense. The Blitz Wargaming Club supports <font color="orange">eight</font id="orange"> different WWII games and it is thriving. People have said in the past that our hobby was dying. In light of that, I say that having five or even ten Napoleonic Era games is what we're after. Promoting our hobby has got to be a good thing. We all benefit when we do.

7. This voting process can work in reverse. If a game is no longer played, then we the active members vote it out.

8. <font color="red"><b>Somehow hack in (try to place more than one vote) and you lose membership in the club for ever. No appeal.</b> </font id="red">

9. The nominating procedure is self-apparent. <font color="orange">Crown of Glory</font id="orange"> has indeed generated interest. If one wants to offer a game for the process, just offer it here at the Rhine Tavern in a nominating thread. If less than 6 people support it (over a period of two weeks) with a post, then it is tabled and another thread is needed. I don't need to dare to say that if a good Napoleonic game comes out, it will be obvious to us all.

How much more simple can it get?

Cheers,
Rick


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

I suspect membership voting on topics as games to include is somewhat risky. What percentage fo the active membership voted in the recent election? I assume game inclusion voting would be even less. In particular if the title was relatively new.

I think any process has to have some time element to it. Certainly months nor weeks after availabilty. I think it is a major accomplishment of the BG design that after 10 years some people in this club only play those games. I think SSI Nap titles came out around that same period. Are they still actively played?

While Crown of Glory certainly has its supporters, I would think other new titles would have appeal. How about ADC modules of the GMT board games? If the criteria is a half dozen supporters in a few weeks in order to have a vote, I suspect an ADC title could make the criteria. I don't however think that is a sufficient hurdle for a vote.

I do think this club as well as the sister clubs should consider more then just the BG/HPS titles. But it ought to be done is a way that is good for the long term.

And I will repeat a couple of earlier comments:

-those that do the registration and points application ought to have a major voice in any process -- after all their work is impacted significantly

-if new games are accepted how (and by whom) is ongoing information regarding updates, scenarios, etc communicated.

-do we commit to train new people who only have the new title - I agree with the obsevation that new titles can bring in new members who may also enjoy the HPS titles, so supporting them makes sense, but again by who?

This is off the topic, but recently we had a person sign up who thought we provided the games for them to play. The person sent to the HPS site. However, if we do become a club for playing a number of games and we do train people on these games, is it possible to have some free HPS demo software that a person can download for a Nap gaming experience? That would certainly open up our potential audience for "cadets".




Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commandant, RMA

"What percentage fo the active membership voted in the recent election? I assume game inclusion voting would be even less."

You guys need a life.[:D]

Hearing about a new game is more important to most of us than someone having an elected position in a club.

I still say, drop the club, drop the cabinet, drop all rules but two "Be Polite, and use your real name", drop the opposing armies and points. Just be a wargame club where people come to find opponents and talk about things.

Then people can play whatever games they want, if they find someone to play with.

Colonel Al Amos

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
..........You guys need a life.[:D].............

Colonel Al Amos

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

It sure must be nice being the only one who doesn't. [:D]

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

Status on this: Sent a form to Stephane today for him to complete. He is welcome to have some of the guys that are playing in both games to help him out. The more that look this over the better.

As with all new games the form that is sent to us will be carefully reviewed by all major club contributers such as Admin folks, commanders, Cabinet, etc. prior to it being added to the club.

Please continue to voice your opinion on this game series. The topic will remain as a Sticky as long as needed.

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 Al Amos</i>
<br />"What percentage fo the active membership voted in the recent election? I assume game inclusion voting would be even less."

You guys need a life.[:D]

Hearing about a new game is more important to most of us than someone having an elected position in a club.

I still say, drop the club, drop the cabinet, drop all rules but two "Be Polite, and use your real name", drop the opposing armies and points. Just be a wargame club where people come to find opponents and talk about things.

Then people can play whatever games they want, if they find someone to play with.

Colonel Al Amos

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Al you are absolutley right. But that club is called the blitzkrieg, I personally think its rubbish, devoid of all personality and if what you are suggesting is true, we would be all over there now.[;)]

General de Division Stuart Wilson
Comte de Montpelier.
I Corps D'Artillerie
Reserve .
3e Régiment Chasseurs à Pied de la Moyenne Garde.