Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

My frustration with HPS combat just increases each time I play. I am currently in an Eckmuhl scenario in which the French are on the defense. After several turns I have reached the conclusion that it is really almost impossible to defend a position. With most of the games having the Allies on defense I do know why anyone in the Coalition Armies still play these games. In my current game I had a strong position manned by fresh troops in line broken in to pieces. The Austrians moved adjacent to my troops, endured limited defensive fire and then won at least three 1 to 1 odds melees. In one instance I had a line battalion with a skirmisher on top and 3 Austrian battalions moved adjacent and my skirmisher fired once. Then before the melee my line battalion of 600+ men fired and hit about 20 men. In another melee the enemy attacked with a strength of 950 to my 920 head on and the losses were 100+ for me and about 50 for them. We are playing with embedded melee so it is not panzer tactics that I am concerned with, it is the simple lack of any defensive power. It would seem that an attacker would need at least 3-2 odds to be successful.

I have tried everything I can think of to defend. I have used battalions in line adjacent to each other. I have tried them with a hex in between with a second line two hexes back. I have deployed skirmishers but they just get overrun by cavalry and have no firepower. And then there is the problem of the inability to disengage once you have deployed in line. In the current game I have no choice but to feed more troops into a losing fight because I can't withdraw with the limited movement of units in line. I would suggest that infantry in line be able to move at column cost backward even if it is unrealistic just for playability. Also a defender should automatically fire at any unit that moves adjacent.

Marechal Jonathan Thayer
Moyenne Garde
Duc de Saalfeld et Prince de Friedland
10/III
Armee du Nord




jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net

The massive bias in favor of the offensive is one of my main complaints about HPS as well, and believe me, it's still not quite as bad in the Nappy games as it is in the ACW games! At least here we have decent artillery that can really break up an attack, and it can withstand melee.

One solution may be playing in phases again, which strengthens the defensive fire.

Personally, I have discarded the notion of static defenses entirely and adopted the concept of fluid battle. If the enemy decides to attack any part of my position in strength, with the current stacking limits, he will always succeed; so I take that for granted and make sure I can hurt him more with my counterattack. Defence in depth and all that.

<center>
D.S. "Green Horse" Walter, Maréchal d'Empire
Duc des Pyramides, Comte de Normandie
Commandant la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3e Division Bavaroise[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/EdM_start.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

It is true that an effective defense is almost impossible to recreate and like Dierk I came to think that it is only by counter attacking that you can do some dammage to your opponent...

Is there any possibility to fix it?


<font color="green"> <b>Général de Division David Guégan Comte de Toulon, Duc de Nimes</b>
Co 11eme division
III Corps, AdN
Co Division d'Infanterie de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale


http://home.earthlink.net/~davidguegan/</font id="green">

I feel your pain.

From my expereince for games with the Austrian's, Commander Walter is on target, unless you can incorporate terrain into your defense and defend in depth -- 3-4 lines - you are better off playing offensively. Even better if you can gain a clever maneveur advantage. It is also critical that you maintain excellent command/control and be selective about which units do what - that can get you a local advantage even if outnumbered in total.

I also suspect that the really good players are adept at coordinating all three arms, but even here it is difficult to get the guns close enough to do damage yet not so close to become casualties. Similar thing with Cavalry, they can have a critical impact but if they get caught the points advantage is lost.

I also think the optional rules that are selected (even the house rules -- although they are not my preference) can go a long way to impacting the game.

As for playing the Coalition side, expereince does help. Like the adage says, if it doesn't kill you it makes you stronger. It also makes it clear why it is called "Art of War"!

Some of your recent experiences appear to be bad luck or perhaps nuances of the system.

In melees I think you need 2:1 for a 50-50 chance. But that is 2:1 counting all the modifiers and without the optional melee calculation rule there is more of an element of dice rolling in the results.




Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

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

Fix it?

C'mon guys. It is painfully clear that this game's strength is not it's combat model --and until that combat model gets a comprehensive and complete overhaul, this sort of frustration is going to happen.

Luckily for us, we will have a choice with <font color="orange"><b>Les Grognards</b></font id="orange"> and with <font color="orange"><b>BPW: Battles of Napoleon</b></font id="orange"> when they come out.

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


Vive l'Empereur!

<i>Luckily for us, we will have a choice with Les Grognards and with BPW: Battles of Napoleon when they come out.</i>

....................


Perhaps, future games will provide improvments, but it seems to me that the perfect historical wargame, in particular Napoleonic, is an illusive goal.

If I recall correctly the Sid Meier Napoleonic and ACW games were touted as the next generation prior to their release some years ago -- they seem to have disappeared.

In the miniatures and board gaming arena even after, what is it 100 years, there are still problems with the rules and game mechanics -- at least there is no shortage of new games/rules each year.

I recently found my notes on an circa 1800 Napoleonic game. It consisted of 4 figures - a french cavalry unit and three opposing infantry units. It was played on a 14 "hex" battlefield. It was in a scientific journal where the analysis suggested it was a "fair game", either side could win. It was unclear whether like tic-tac-toe there was a sequence of moves which always guaranteed a draw. Supposedly used by Napoleon as a training aid. Perhaps it was the perfect wargame!



Brigadier Sir Bob Breen KT

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

LOL [:D]. Why Marechal Thayer, how nice of you to notice the challenge of playing defensively and to express sympathy for the Allied player's tactical handicap. Yes, we Allied are almost always on the defensive. And it does require one to practice the "art of war" to be even a moderately successful Allied player. But that is also why you will find the best players in the Allied ranks. It doesn't take genius when you have the superhuman French Armee at your service. [;)]

FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, Household Cavalry

<sigh> I can attest to Sir Muddy's ability to conduct a good defense...he stopped me cold in our last Waterloo game.

There's many factors that go into it, but I have been conducting successful defenses in the engine for some time as well.

But, with that said, we've continued to make tweaks to give the defender and advantage. For example:

Disordered attackers melee at 1/3 strength, while disordered defenders melee at 2/3 strength.

In the 1.01 pat I reduced the movement point costs for an about face movement, to make it easier for disordered troops to retreat a hex and then form up a new line. Eventually this will be rolled into NRC as well.

I do not suggest playing with the Multiple Infantry Melee optional rule.

Then there's a defense in depth, which will stop break throughs from advancing and surrounding, etc.

All-in-all I think it's very possible, but does in large part depend on the style of the players involved. The less historically minded a player is, the greater the chance you won't be pleased with the results.

Regards,
Rich

Maréchal Hamilton, Baron d'Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

Saxon Leib-Garde, de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rich Hamilton</i>
The less historically minded a player is, the greater the chance you won't be pleased with the results.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Rich,

You've hit the nail on the head. No matter the simplicity or sophistication of the game engine; players will, given time, find ways to exploit it to gain an advantage, leading to moves that may or may not be historically (or humanly [;)]) possible.

On the whole, I think the game engine(s) work(s) reasonably well, enabling a rapid resolution of the interactions between the forces.

If greater detail is added to the game, (the third unit to go up a hill suffers a movement penalty because it has been raining and it is now a muddy slope, type of addition); actually adds nothing to the game, except an advantage to those who can be bothered to wade through a 578 page manual before moving each unit.

Part of the beauty of the games is their relative simplicity.

My recommendation is to find opponents who are not looking to exploit facets of the game engine and are prepared to conduct the battle in reasonably historic fashion, otherwise, get reading the manual and look for those loopholes to exploit!

Regards

Mark

Interesting that Mr. Walter found the defense harder in ACW. I find the opposite. I am getting killed trying to defend in these Napoleonic games. Paco is handing me my head every turn. Thankfully, Muddy is trying to help me. I am not a bad player but I am getting killed coming into the HPS system after being away for a couple of years. I too have seen melees almost always win, even at low odds. One huge imporvement seen in ACW is that there is no cost to retreat which helps alot. Auto defensive fire is way too low. Seems to have been improved in the HPS Shiloh game and improvement is needed here. With the current system there is no way in hell to do a fighting retreat. Attacker moves columes up road at high movement rates and defender trys to back up at reduced (+1) cost and disrupted. I have lost 5500 infantry just trying to slow down the french advance in the grand waterloo scenario and failed miserably. We are fighting a huge battle on the 15th of June just before Quatre Bras! How unhistorical is that?

To fix:
First,we MUST elimnate attack columns able to move along roads. There must be movement costs to change from road to attack columns. These are VERY different formations, as different as lines and columns. These are not tanks moving from road to the attack (which where the mechanics of this road movement in our game systems comes from, WWII games). You move along roads at maybe four men across. You attack in column with at least 100 men across. Very different formations and should be treated that way. We have squares, columns and lines, we need to have two types of columns. Why not add the change.

Second, Defender needs to be able to fire and then move. Attacker gets to do it full move and then fire. VERY unfair to defender. Perhaps firing should cost X number of movement points.

Third, Automated defensive fire has to be much stonger, make that very much stronger. You cannot move a column next to a fully formed line and not expect to get slaughtered! Yet it is so easy to do it is compeletely unhistorical. Think how the french lost against British lines and you see the problem.

Michael W. Gjerde
NWC Prussian Army, 13th Regiment, IV Brigade, I Korps

ACW Col. M. W. Gjerde 2/1/V AoP, USA.

M. W. Gjerde 93rd Sutherland Highlanders, British Army, Living History

The defense has suffered much since the single phase system came out and the ability to square up, go into Line, unlimber/limber guns, counter charge was taken out in a engine change to Eckmuhl about midway through. No doubt about it. As a Allied member in the NWC I would seek out those scenarios that offered the Allies an opportunity to attack. My form of defense breaks down most every time.

What I have done is use the "trade space for time" method more than usual. I keep out of charge range. My gun lines are well back from the front lines. I settle for less losses from guns and more small shots in hopes of causing disorder (which from what I have read was the goal of artillery anyway). I also allow the attacker to move up and take some big time losses for a turn while I toss some troops (squares) in the way in hopes he will lose alot of men from fire.

I also would like to see:

1. Full defender fire. Enough is enough. Why are muskets and cannon balls suddenly lowered in ability to hit targets. Especially on the defense! We already have the attacker halved when he has moved and THEN fires so we dont need to halve the attacker and there would be a backlash on this if we did.
2. From 3-5 shots max from a defender. Probably 3 but the idea of an uncertain amount assigned to each player's units as he ENDS his player phase (as the phasing player). Thus some number would be added to the unit line in the game file which would be anywhere from 3-5 and it would NOT show up on the counter so that the phasing player would see it. Here is a sample of what I mean:

1 2.3.2.2.7 1 1 1100 0 0 270336 16 7 (currently)

1 2.3.2.2.7 1 1 1100 0 0 270336 16 7 4

(the 4 is the value assigned at the end of the player's phase - this then becomes the value for the amount of defensive shots he can take for the upcoming phase - it would change every time the player ends his OWN phase - with encryption neither player would know how many shots he has - sound good?)

Somewhere along the way the melee routine may have been changed.

I can remember folks really hot about losing a 500 to 25 melee. Cant you? Happened way too often so what has happened is that melees now are a bit easier to win BUT you now are disordered and thus open for attack.

In NIR it too at least 2:1 to make sure that you had some form of chance of winning. Yet wouldnt a French Gd. bn. be able to whip up on a Russian line battalian that is larger? I do. In clear terrain, no fleche, both with leaders, no flank. French Gd should win.

Napoleon said that morale was 3:1 in combat but even he was wrong as the Prussian Ldw beat up on his Young Gd at Waterloo. Thus in some cases numbers do make sense but where do you draw the line? We have heard the argument go back and forth on this.

I am not here to defend the game engine from the usual attacks of guys like Rick. I will say that many of us continue to work for improvements and do so on our own time and energies. Often these have lead to some serious disagreements between us on the teams.

Ken is a huge proponent for the defense and no wonder. As an Allied officer he has to defend most of the time (except at Aspern-Essling for instance). He is sensitive to the needs of the defensive player. For this reason and others he is on my team. He stands against the tide of players on our team that favor the attack.

And we needle him incessantly in our playtest team for being the defender of the defense.

However, lately, guys like Paco, known for his lightning cavalry attacks, have come out in favor of defensive abilities too. And noone really wants a blitzkrieg BUT what we are trying to avoid is a return to the days of NIR when 25 men could stop 500.

These kinds of things take TIME to TEST out. As Glenn Saunders points out you cant just put out a mod just because someone wants it that way. Rich on our design team is the guy that vetos my ideas and I also have the same ability. If either of us dont think that it will work then it doesnt get to see the light of day. And this is hard as it often happens when we cant even test out if it will work or not. Its just a gut instinct from having played so many games.

So to answer the issue here. I will put together a scenario with alot of 1:1 melees BUT remember - I am not really excited about ODDS. I truly believe that 800 militia will lose to 500 French Gd. any day of the week. I will then let you know what I find out.

On the other hand the Young Gd. lost to the Pr. Landwehr of 1815.

How do you model melees guys cause no game I have ever played really does it as accurate as a resurrected Marshall Davout would think it REALLY happened.

Rick is groping for straws here. The Doubleshot product is probably a very good game and it had better be. Its designers had the Tiller/BG/HPS engine and others to work with. It should draw on the good things that happened. Also a good memory is in order. John worked for Jim Rose who saw things in games that you and I dont agree with. I wont go there in detail but I am glad I didnt work for Talonsoft.

If a future design is NOT better than its predecesor's then it doesnt deserve to be bought. HPS games dont always come out better in EVERY category but over all they are an improvement on what came before. Otherwise you wouldnt be buying them. There are always features we will want added in but for lack of time we cant do that.

We have yet to see the Doubleshot game. Once it comes out it too will have its own set of critics. Folks will gripe about leadership ratings, graphics, combat model, etc.

No computer game is perfect nor do I ever expect to see one that would pass inspection by Marshall Davout either.

I will see what I can do about testing out some melees. Maybe we went too much in the wrong direction but I NEVER want to see 25 men stop 500 ever again. Meaning in the open, with a flank attack, a leader attached to the attack, etc - it happened to me so much in NIR I almost quit playing the game too. I am sure glad I didnt as otherwise no Eckmuhl or Wagram! Well ok, maybe someone would have worked with John instead of me and some of you would have liked to have seen that I am sure. Maybe you would have had a better product. I am thinking that I did what I could and am not done with Eckmuhl or Wagram. There are things I am doing with my current projects that I will add in to Eckmuhl and Wagram to make them that much better.

But soon we will have Doubleshot Design to throw stones at.

I am going out to get my own special bag of stones. My stones will be made of foam rubber as that is how I plan on addressing Tim and co. about their product. Its good to have been on the receiving end of criticism as I better understand what Tim will soon face.

Rick, you would do as well to get some foam stones too. Or go out and put your own game together and show it to us. Perhaps we can get some ideas and someday put out the perfect computer game but I highly doubt it.

I like HPS games but they are not perfect. That is why I still like boardgames to some extent or other companies products.

I am currently trying out Matrix Games War in the Pacific. I really like the idea of a computer game for the Pacific and want to study this one out alot. I liked what they did in Uncommon Valor.

Many of you once or still played Age of Rifles. I might be looking at playing that one too if it will work on my XP64 PC. If not I will try using the laptop. There are some things in the game that folks have pointed out that should be in our HPS series.

Look for a follow up message. I will try and put up some figures so you can see what happened in the melees. I am hoping that the game actually portrays 1:1 melees well. Will even do some 3:2, 2:1 and 3:1 melees for comparison.

Bill Peters
Former NWC President, Club Founder, Prussian and Austrian Army Founder

[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 bobbreen</i>
<br /><i>Luckily for us, we will have a choice with Les Grognards and with BPW: Battles of Napoleon when they come out.</i>

....................


Perhaps, future games will provide improvments, but it seems to me that the perfect historical wargame, in particular Napoleonic, is an illusive goal.........

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">

I've never felt that there was anything wrong with keeping hope alive.

Progressively moving along even if they are relatively small steps seems better to me than just sitting in one place. We will just have to wait and see.

The faults of the current system are well known and an honest assessment of these new games is a certainty. Who knows? Those small steps just might end up being big steps.

It just seems crazy to me for any club to not adopt them ---should they prove to be an improvement.

Cheers,
Rick

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


Vive l'Empereur!

I had a experience against Yann Lamezec in the MOE III, with a few of units I had reached stop the advance of my brave and noble opponent (in excess of men and courage), so that the engine of HPS works very well,the detail is as Bill said in this topic: play combine forces with the time and the space so that you can´t think that the war is only struggle between men. I don`t see the problem.[:)]
PS Almost forget give my secret formule to calculate casualties:
Please take note is better than the Bill
2*3.5/4/1000[25]=<[:D]; or
2*25-1000/30=>[:(!];


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

Jon,
Try the new company level scenarios for Waterloo. They force a little more attention to details but allow for the full gamut of Napoleonic formations (mixed order and squares) and with the reduced stacking levels and movement rates also sufficent time to react and change formations. There is no blitzkreig in these games I have actually been able to rotate units out of the front line to recover fatigue with. The smaller units also eliminate the 68 casualties with a single artillery shot or volley and with only 25 men the skirmishers are relegated to their historical roles of delay and scouting. The cavalry are limited to one squadron per 30m hex so attacks must be in line or column of lines much more historical. The increased scale of the map prevents the overcrowding that was prevalent in earlier company scenarios for the HPS engine.

Maréchal Drew Stone
Duc d'Hanau et Prince d'Abensberg
Commandant de la Garde Impériale

"Toujours qui s'avance et à audace"

I am interested in trying the company level games and I hope to do so once I can find time. Also in response to the various comments about Sir Muddy's defensive ability, to me there is no doubt that Ken is the best opponent I have faced and he conducts a masterful defense. He did so with the BG games and now with HPS so I know first hand it can be done I just can seem to do it.

Marechal Jonathan Thayer
Moyenne Garde
Duc de Saalfeld et Prince de Friedland
10/III
Armee du Nord




jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net