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 bobbreen</i>
<br />Second, even under FOW,unit information and even some data about their qualtiy should be available when they are close. In the ACW and I assume Nap Wars, opposing commanders could id units well before small arms range and knew if the units were good, average, or poor. I think we should know this as well. Perhaps the way it would work is tat at some distance you would get the Division ID and the average quality of ratings in that divison, when they get adjacent you would get more detail.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Bob,

Unit ID can be a chancy thing. For instance, I came across a wonderful little story about a Prussian cav rgt that came upon a bedraggled looking bn, in march column during the 1815 Campaign. Assuming they were some type of French Militia, they immediately charged, expecting to have some fun skewering green troops. To their amazement, the "militia" cooly dressed ranks, formed line, delivered a withering volley and then CHARGED with bayonets fixed[:0], routing the Prussian cav. It turned out that they had run into a bn of OG grenadiers in a very bad mood because their uniforms/baggage had not been delivered in time for their mobilization.[:p]

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Grande Duc d'Abrantes
Comte de Marseille

Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde
AdC - Ieré Corps de Armee</i>

<i>Bob,
Besides the bridge and victory flag problem, the kind of impossible information that I'm talking about is the information that comes from the ability to see from a hilltop without anyone ever going to the top of the hill. That and being able to see through the eyes of your enemy.

That is what I meant by too much information and such is the kind of information that belongs only in the realm of science fiction and not in the Napoleonic Era.

Cheers,
Rick

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko </i>
.............................................

Again, I'm relying more on ACW knowledge, but didn't these Napoleonic Commanders have good maps of the areas or send out engineers in advance to explore and document the terrain. So they would know where the good observation points were?

And Wellington had his "Corps of Guides" who were reading coded French correspondence on everything from strategic initiatives to troops strengths and deployment.

So, yes in a strict sense 20 Km battlefield LOS may not be historical, but the level of ingtelligence it portrays in the game, might have been. And we don't have to read all that background material!

In terms of interesting gaming technology to model this, there is a table top set of rules called Piquet. As you know in table top games you see just about everything. But the way the system works, on any given turn one set of units can move multiple times and the amount of territory they would cover is not historical within the scope of the game. However, the way you are to interpret the play is that where you see the enemy is where they were at the time of the last report, not where they may be at the moment this turn started. Now that would add an interesting twist to the strategic game on big maps in that, units you see at a distance are randomly in the location they occupied 0-4 turns ago (or whatever numbers make sense at various distances). With such a feature you might be able to play being able to see everything and avoid those non-historical deployments of small units great distants from the main body to coduct covert, insertion missions in the enemy rear!



Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commanding 71st Highlanders
Commandant, RMA

<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 />

Again, I'm relying more on ACW knowledge, but didn't these Napoleonic Commanders have good maps of the areas or send out engineers in advance to explore and document the terrain. So they would know where the good observation points were?.........

Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commanding 71st Highlanders
Commandant, RMA
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Sir,
The answer to your question is a clear and resounding no. I present Baron Antoine Henri de Jomini who served at the highest levels of both sides during the Napoleonic Era.

Jomini published in 1838 :

<font color="orange">"Besides the minister of war, the commanding general and his chief of staff should be afforded this information, under the penalty of cruel miscalculations in their plans, <font color="yellow"><b>as happens frequently in our day</b>,</font id="yellow"> despite the great strides civilized nations have taken in statistical, diplomatic, geographical, and topographical sciences. I will cite two examples of which I was cognizant. In 1796, Moreau's army, entering the Black Forest, expected to find terrible mountains, frightful defiles and forests, and was greatly surpised to discover, after climbing the declivities of the plateau that slope to the Rhine, that these, with their spurs, were the only mountains, and that the country, from the sources of the Danube to Donauwerth, was a rich and level plain."

"The second example was in 1813. Napoleon and his whole army supposed the interior of Bohemia to be very mountainous, --whereas there is no district in Europe more level, after the girdle of mountains surround it has been crossed which may be done in a single march."</font id="orange">

But wait, there's more.....

<font color="orange">"Let us return to the necessity of knowing well the military geography and statistics of an empire. These sciences are not set forth in treatises , and are yet to be developed. Lloyd, who wrote an essay upon then, in describing the frontiers of the great states of Europe, was not fortunate in his maxims and predictions. He saw obstacles everywhere ; <b><i><font color="red">he represents as impregnable</font id="red"></i></b> the Austrian frontier on the Inn, between the Tyrol and Passau, where Napoleon and Moreau maneuvered and triumphed with armies of one hundred and fifty thousand men in 1800, 1805, and 1809."</font id="orange">

Sure spies spied, but Jomini comments on them as well :

<font color="orange">"....Returning to our subject, I must state that the use of spies has been neglected to a remarkable degree in many modern armies. In 1813 the staff of Prince Schwarzenberg had not a single sou for expenditure for such services , and the Emperor Alexander was obliged to furnish the staff officers with funds from his own private purse to enable to send agents into Lusatia for the purpose of finding out Napoleon's whereabouts. General Mack at Ulm, and the Duke of Brunswick in 1806, were no better informed and the French generals in Spain often suffered severely, because it was impossible to obtain spies and get information as to what was going on around them."</font id="orange">

These sciences were at best in their infancies, so knowing where ALL the best observation points are is more than a bit of a stretch.

Some nations spied better than others. Some spied a lot worse than.

Naturally, if you saw the tallest hill on your side of the line, you would most likely go there (or send some ADCs) to get the best view that can be had, but you would <i><font color="yellow"><b>never, ever</b></font id="yellow"></i> see the best view that your enemy had.

Rick

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

FZM Gary,
It stops with LOS from only your own units, bridges, and victory hexes -period.

As for Napoleon or Wellington or Blucher controlling skirmishers 220 hexes away, I see (us the players) as role playing. Role playing not just the army commander, but also the commanders at <font color="orange"><b>all</b></font id="orange"> levels. The army moves with one mind. Ours.

As for realism, only so much can be done with any turn based system and a more realistic LOS system certainly has to be one of them.

Cheers,
Rick

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Agreed, however no matter how much we may try to historically roleplay a commander, that skirmisher 220 hexes away, does provide intelligence. How many times have you had a brigade "sneaking" around a flank, behind the hill, but some unit at the opposite end of the board, just happens to have LOS to one of the hexes. There is no intent, but you do see it. To me, adding a feature that limits viewed hexes to 25-30 hexes. If you have something visible, then limit what is seen to at most, a non nationality colored ? (pink maybe?).

Ensign William Davis
23rd (Royal Welsh) Fusiliers
4th British Brigade
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 WillieD13</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

FZM Gary,
It stops with LOS from only your own units, bridges, and victory hexes -period.

As for Napoleon or Wellington or Blucher controlling skirmishers 220 hexes away, I see (us the players) as role playing. Role playing not just the army commander, but also the commanders at <font color="orange"><b>all</b></font id="orange"> levels. The army moves with one mind. Ours.

As for realism, only so much can be done with any turn based system and a more realistic LOS system certainly has to be one of them.

Cheers,
Rick

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Agreed, however no matter how much we may try to historically roleplay a commander, that skirmisher 220 hexes away, does provide intelligence. How many times have you had a brigade "sneaking" around a flank, behind the hill, but some unit at the opposite end of the board, just happens to have LOS to one of the hexes. There is no intent, but you do see it. To me, adding a feature that limits viewed hexes to 25-30 hexes. If you have something visible, then limit what is seen to at most, a non nationality colored ? (pink maybe?).

Ensign William Davis
23rd (Royal Welsh) Fusiliers
4th British Brigade
Anglo-Allied Army
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The only issue I see with colouring something different if it is not yours is that unless it is not your colour then it must be the bad guys..

ONe method I thouught is kind of a combo of various suggestions made here:

1 - Do not allow View hexs wher the hex is occupied by an enemy unit
or at least have the logic include an error in view.

you click on a hex that has enemy arty on it to get an idea of what area it can see. when the program displays the "visible hexs" there are errors. hexs that are shown as safe are in fact not and vis versa.. or a hex is not marked in away at all.

2 - How far could the average grunt in the army of the day see with
accuaracy ?

Lets say for simplicity of disscussion 2 hexs. when you click on youir hex ( that has a friendly unit in it ) you see onbly the next 2 hesx or so...

3 - Did officers have scopes ? Maybe officers can see farther ?


Monsieur le Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee
NWC Cabinet Member

<font color="pink">Ah, John, just my thinking exactly. The general thrust of the commentaries of the period of which I am aware concur that the field of vision of any one unit was pretty limited. So, I would respectfully suggest allowing a fixed line of site to "grunt" battalions, (maybe 5 hexes of clear terrain, for argument's sake, since we allow our skirmishers a 3 hex leash at this point, and we wouldn't send them out if we couldn't see that far) skirmishers only 1, say; then, Generals of Brigade can add, say 2 hexes to that, and Generals of Division can add 4 hexes, etc. until the Napoleon (or the wannabe unit on the Allied side) who can view, whatever, 8 units out,say. There is no "physical" logic to this, ie Wellington admitted his eyes were not as keen as Young Haig's, but since we allow a game engine to give the leaders rout modifiers, I could see stretching the point. So, if you want to know what's over those ridgelines, you'd best expose a suitably ranked officer, upon the principal that the Leader would not properly act on any information unless it came from good authority. Right? In reality, a whole battalion of Ltn. Sharpe's might know exactly where the bad guys are hiding, but so what? They are too junior to convince the Gods of War. Recce information has to trickle up to the top. So, in the game, leaders would become far more valuable as intelligence units. It would prompt their greater exposure to danger, which would be realistic, I think. </font id="pink">

General Barrett,
Duc de Ligny, Comte de Brienne,
Commander, VI (Bavarian) Corps, Army of the Rhine,
and
la 1er Compagnie d'Artillerie de la Vieille Garde

Well hopefully this European history of terrain ignorance does not extend to its modern armies.

I guess I gave them too much credit. Was probably overly influenced by the fact that the Brits new the details of the terrain at the Battle of Long Island and Brandywine better then the Patriots. However, at one battle the Patriots did build a wall of straw to hide the movements of troops from the British observation point, so they had some idea of what the Brits could see. But this was all in 1776-77 in North America which appears to be about 75 years ahead of European technology[:)]

..and to think I just posted something about great places to watch the French at the Coalition board.



Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

1st (The King's) Dragoon Guards
Commanding 71st Highlanders
Commandant, RMA

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

......1 - Do not allow View hexs where the hex is occupied by an enemy unit or at least have the logic include an error in view.

you click on a hex that has enemy arty on it to get an idea of what area it can see. When the program displays the "visible hexs" there are errors. hexs that are shown as safe are in fact not and vis versa.. or a hex is not marked in away at all......


Monsieur le Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee
NWC Cabinet Member
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Now that is a very nice idea. [8D]

Rick

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
ONe method I thouught is kind of a combo of various suggestions made here:

1 - Do not allow View hexs wher the hex is occupied by an enemy unit
or at least have the logic include an error in view.

you click on a hex that has enemy arty on it to get an idea of what area it can see. when the program displays the "visible hexs" there are errors. hexs that are shown as safe are in fact not and vis versa.. or a hex is not marked in away at all.

2 - How far could the average grunt in the army of the day see with
accuaracy ?

Lets say for simplicity of disscussion 2 hexs. when you click on youir hex ( that has a friendly unit in it ) you see onbly the next 2 hesx or so...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Okay, so it becomes a matter of what is an appropriate range. I'm thinking a minimum of 5 since that is the range of rifles. Presumably an average grunt can reasonably see and ID enemy uniforms at 500yards. Arty units perhaps as much as 18-20, since the same principle applies to them, if they shoot as something 18 hexes away, presumably they know what/who their target is. Also, yes, they did have telescopes, certainly not coated lens TASCOS or ZEISS, but something of the sort.

Ensign William Davis
23rd (Royal Welsh) Fusiliers
4th British Brigade
Anglo-Allied Army

My view (pun) on all of this is that if you are not in the hex then you shouldnt be able to run a line of sight on the hex either.

However, since the scenario editor allows you to do just that at any point on the map for the designer (and this should never go away for reasons such as placing gun batteries or making sure that fixed units have a LOS to help them release if "jumped") players can still circumvent that anyway.

The best thing to do is have a house rule that says:

1. No looking at bridges unless you are within x hexes and have a LOS to the bridge.

2. No checking LOS of a hex of which you dont have a unit which occupies that location.

The LOS of a unit is a hard thing to judge. Dont even want to advocate something like that to John and would resist it to the hilt if it comes across my way from John as an idea.

Sorry guys but you open up Pandora's Box with this kind of stuff.

If someone is going to look at a hex for LOS or check out the strength of a bridge then they are going to do it unless you all agree to avoid such practices.

I have advocated a good deal of changes in the game but this is one I thought out about four years ago and there was no adequate way of doing it.

For instance: how about you not being able to see your own units that are out of LOS of the CinC and the A/I moves them for you? That is very historical.

In the game you are Napoleon or Blucher. You dont get to see everything. Put in a great set of Command Control code so that orders can be given to units, set back and watch units come and go.

Then as they slip out of LOS you lose sight of them. As you ride around the battlefield OR the A/I gives you quick glimpses of action you then would get to see details of your units and the enemy.

Thus the concept of putting your leader on a high hill.

Frankly I have yet to see a game that can accurately do the fog of war either. The A/I has to be top notch, the scope of play and level has to be of a higher level.

Face it guys - you like to micromanage your troops and ANY A/I really doesnt do history justice.

My favorite command/control game is Combat Mission yet the units have to be adjusted now and then. No A/I is that good. Even CM.

When you come down to it a real Napoleonic battle would dissappoint us. Leaders wouldnt follow orders as we would like. Units would rout and take more men with them.

The sad part is that I had to up the morales for the Allies in particular as the command model of the French army is such that they stick around more often. Playtesting showed that the Allies were off to the races far too often. Thus the unrealistic tweak.

Turn Rout Limiting OFF and the French STILL dont run away!

What I am saying is that this issue cannot be remedied at the level of play that the Nap series models.

Other ideas I had:

1. Reinforcements are not listed. Instead you see them come on as ??? units with a neutral color. Only when they get close do they show up as French or Allied. They can even shoot at you if they dont ID you!

2. Friendly fire: units in woods had this happen and in villages too. Also the famous Saxon incident at Wagram Village on the 5th of July (white uniforms). Thus you could code the OB to have certain units more prone to fire on the wrong guy or be targets of friendly fire (white coated Saxons) or be mistaken for friendlies and not fired on at all! (yes, Austrians seeing Saxons in the mist or blue coated Prussians showing up at Waterloo - Blucher or Grouchy? Only Wellington knew for sure from what I remember.)

3. Command paralysis: units have 1/2 MPs for a turn. Can even happen to the French!

The Wellington's Victory method of army morale was interesting. Commitment levels and so on.

Lots of ideas but some of them are going to be nightmarish to test out so they stay on the drawing board.

Bill Peters

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by WillieD13</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
ONe method I thouught is kind of a combo of various suggestions made here:

1 - Do not allow View hexs wher the hex is occupied by an enemy unit
or at least have the logic include an error in view.

you click on a hex that has enemy arty on it to get an idea of what area it can see. when the program displays the "visible hexs" there are errors. hexs that are shown as safe are in fact not and vis versa.. or a hex is not marked in away at all.

2 - How far could the average grunt in the army of the day see with
accuaracy ?

Lets say for simplicity of disscussion 2 hexs. when you click on youir hex ( that has a friendly unit in it ) you see onbly the next 2 hesx or so...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Okay, so it becomes a matter of what is an appropriate range. I'm thinking a minimum of 5 since that is the range of rifles. Presumably an average grunt can reasonably see and ID enemy uniforms at 500yards. Arty units perhaps as much as 18-20, since the same principle applies to them, if they shoot as something 18 hexes away, presumably they know what/who their target is. Also, yes, they did have telescopes, certainly not coated lens TASCOS or ZEISS, but something of the sort.

Ensign William Davis
23rd (Royal Welsh) Fusiliers
4th British Brigade
Anglo-Allied Army
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually Willie I think you and I may be after different things...

When I mentioned that the average grunt could only see ( as an example ) 2 or so hexes I meant the grunt itself....

Your response seems to suggest that arty grunts can see farther than musket grunts. in fact you may have been talking about the range of the cannon themselves .. No ?

If the cannon has a range of 15 hexes then the grunts running the cannons must also have a range of 15 hexes...


However they had maps so they could reasonably look at a map and say...

"We can get better sight from that hill over yonder... ".. I recall that most warfare of the period meant taking and securing high ground...

I think my original idea works best...

- No using Visible hexes function from any unit that is not your own.
- No using visible hexes function from empty hexes.
- Introduce some fuzzy logic that creates uncertainty in the visible hexes function...

Example... at night you should not be allowed to use this function at all...

Monsieur le Marechal John Corbin
Chief of Staff
La Grande Armee
NWC Cabinet Member

<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 />My view (pun) on all of this is that if you are not in the hex then you shouldnt be able to run a line of sight on the hex either.

However, since the scenario editor allows you to do just that at any point on the map for the designer (and this should never go away for reasons such as placing gun batteries or making sure that fixed units have a LOS to help them release if "jumped") players can still circumvent that anyway.

The best thing to do is have a house rule that says:

1. No looking at bridges unless you are within x hexes and have a LOS to the bridge.

2. No checking LOS of a hex of which you dont have a unit which occupies that location.

The LOS of a unit is a hard thing to judge. Dont even want to advocate something like that to John and would resist it to the hilt if it comes across my way from John as an idea.

Sorry guys but you open up Pandora's Box with this kind of stuff.

If someone is going to look at a hex for LOS or check out the strength of a bridge then they are going to do it unless you all agree to avoid such practices..........<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No sir, we didn't open a Pandora's Box. It was opened by the designer who put this crazy stuff in the game.

<font color="yellow"><i>It already existed.</i></font id="yellow"> <u>We are closing it.</u>

As for <b><font size="5"><font color="red">yet another</font id="red"></font id="size5"></b> house rule, that is just silly as they would be absolutely impossible to enforce. Besides that Bill, if you read one of my earlier postings to this thread, you would have seen that John has already made the fix for Bridge FOW issue. He said it would be out with the next update.

I said it before and I'll say it again. The next generation of Napoleonic games will coming out relatively soon. No matter how much you resist anything Bill, this engine has to improve a lot or it might just be left behind -and that's something we both don't want to see.

Talking about more house rules instead of fixing this crazy stuff is like listening to the Captain of the Titanic tell you how good his ship is.

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br /><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 />My view (pun) on all of this is that if you are not in the hex then you shouldnt be able to run a line of sight on the hex either.

However, since the scenario editor allows you to do just that at any point on the map for the designer (and this should never go away for reasons such as placing gun batteries or making sure that fixed units have a LOS to help them release if "jumped") players can still circumvent that anyway.

The best thing to do is have a house rule that says:

1. No looking at bridges unless you are within x hexes and have a LOS to the bridge.

2. No checking LOS of a hex of which you dont have a unit which occupies that location.

The LOS of a unit is a hard thing to judge. Dont even want to advocate something like that to John and would resist it to the hilt if it comes across my way from John as an idea.

Sorry guys but you open up Pandora's Box with this kind of stuff.

If someone is going to look at a hex for LOS or check out the strength of a bridge then they are going to do it unless you all agree to avoid such practices..........<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No sir, we didn't open a Pandora's Box. It was opened by the designer who put this crazy stuff in the game.

<font color="yellow"><i>It already existed.</i></font id="yellow"> <u>We are closing it.</u>

As for <b><font size="5"><font color="red">yet another</font id="red"></font id="size5"></b> house rule, that is just silly as they would be absolutely impossible to enforce. Besides that Bill, if you read one of my earlier postings to this thread, you would have seen that John has already made the fix for Bridge FOW issue. He said it would be out with the next update.

I said it before and I'll say it again. The next generation of Napoleonic games will coming out relatively soon. No matter how much you resist anything Bill, this engine has to improve a lot or it might just be left behind -and that's something we both don't want to see.

Talking about more house rules instead of fixing this crazy stuff is like listening to the Captain of the Titanic tell you how good his ship is.

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hey, my bad, didnt see your note amidst the forest of answers and glad that you were able to get John to fix this.

Maybe you can get the A/I corrected soon too! [:D]

Bill Peters

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill,
My bad for coming on so strong.

I just want <font color="orange">the best</font id="orange"> Napoleonic Wargaming experience for all of us. That's all.

Rick

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

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br />Bill,
My bad for coming on so strong.

I just want <font color="orange">the best</font id="orange"> Napoleonic Wargaming experience for all of us. That's all.

Rick

Lieutenant Colonel Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I cant kick the guy (you) that pays the bucks and wants to see the best possible engine we can give the gamer. Thanks a bunch for your efforts and I am hoping that we can deliver a title to you guys that will be something you feel that you got your money's worth.

Bill Peters

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]