Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I agree with William, and the points made by others before.

Disordered units should be allowed to melee, as Paco points out, in normal circumstances it is a sure-fire way to self-destruct your army.

The ability to attack and eliminate fixed units is not a question of disordered units, it would be just as unacceptable to the owner of those fixed units if all the attacking units were in good order.

It should not be possible for this to happen if the scenario design is correct. Either have 100% release before this can happen, or, if the timing is critical for the flow of the game, have the units deployed further back from this position, or, have fixed enemy units but ensure that the release times are all mutually compatible to prevent this.

It takes a lot of thought, but is well worth the effort to prevent the unpleasant experience that Ed and most of the rest of us have probably experienced at some time or another.

Scenario designers or more probably play-testers, should add this to their check-lists when evaluating scenarios.

My 0.02$

Mark

I think the current 1/3 strength value is sufficient penalty for attacking with disordered troops - and don't forget the greater likelihood of rout and higher fatigue if the assault is not a success. While a disordered unit is basically a mob and therefore not very effective, it are still under command and able to follow its officers, so it should be able to participate in an assault.

Lt Colonel Neville Worland
2nd Régiment de Dragons
Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
Army du Nord

With regards to melee with disrupted units I agree that the current penalty is sufficient although if it was added for maximum fatigue units only I could accept it.

With regard to cavalry charges and the attacking units therefore being disrupted (reduced in strength by 1/3) and tripled for charging (thus full strength), does anyone else feel that they should be a bit stronger than just face value? Take into account that there is probably an element of surprise/greater than ordinary unpreparedness by the unit that was formerly behind the lines and is now subject to a cavalry charge. I can see some loss of effectiveness during secondary charges, but a three fold reduction in this case seems too steep. Since cavalry can't initiate a charge when disordered, I would like to see a 25-50% reduction to melee strength of cavalry rather than 67%.

With regard to Bill's comment on units with no ammo surrendering, if anything like that is added it would have to be tied to morale -- i.e. militia who run out throw in the towel automatically, the Guard probably just fixes bayonets, while line troops may go either way. The best way to do that would probably be with a morale check -- if the unit passes, it stands; if it fails, it surrenders.



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

The problem with leaving it as an either/or situation is that it can go on indefinately, which creates an artificial situation. In reality, a unit with no ammo is going to surrender, not just stand there and get shot to pieces, until they are all dead. Change it such that they have 1, maybe 2 turns where they can attempt to attack (melee) to break out. If they do not, then they automatically surrender. The main reason for this is that since a unit otherwise remains they tie up an inordinate number of troops keeping them isolated. In the case of high moral units (Grenadiers, Guards, etc), they may resist melee for several turns, again, tying up a lot of troops. You can't ignore them and move on, or they become functional again. Also, if an isolated unit routs due to fire or melee, that should be an automatic surrender, unless there are other, unrouted units in the hex with them, in which case moral checks all around, with appropriate negative modifiers.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> With regard to Bill's comment on units with no ammo surrendering, if anything like that is added it would have to be tied to morale -- i.e. militia who run out throw in the towel automatically, the Guard probably just fixes bayonets, while line troops may go either way. The best way to do that would probably be with a morale check -- if the unit passes, it stands; if it fails, it surrenders.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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

Ensign Davis,

As I read Bill's post regarding no ammo units surrendering "if adjacent to a defender" I assumed that this was separate from the isolated unit situation addressed in the rest of this thread since isolated units are almost by definition adjacent to a defending unit.

I agree that an isolated unit without ammo would be more likely to surrender than otherwise -- this could be handled by increasing the modifier for out of ammo each turn the unit remains isolated until they automatically fail.

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

I like the ability for disordered units to melee...the player can then pay a price for their tactics. Is it really worth it to make that melee??

Regarding scenario design...for "historical" battles it is necessary to use fixed units to try and keep the framework of what historically happened in place. Looking at the historical scenario for the twin battles the release times are set to very reasonable values, I think. By turn 3 over half the Prussian force is free to move. By turn 5 only a scattering of troops are still fixed, with the bulk of them having clear LOS to the advancing French forces. By turn 8 only the 10th Infantry Brigade is still fixed for the Prussians and by turn 9 they are free, with 27 turns left in the scenario. If the French force could totaly overrun the Prussians in the above situation, then I would question how that French force was being handled...because maintaining any sense of unit integrity & fighting on the way would not make it possible, I wouldn't think...

There's also three other vaiants of this pair of battles to choose from...


Regards,
Rich


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

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

Rich - I was noting that the Prussians outnumber the French anyway. Any fixed units for the Prussian are offset by the fixed VI Corps. So guys - there is no big deal if a unit may get sniped in this scenario. Just move someone over to the right or left flank to cover the roads.

The French have 61,191 men to start the game and then get some of 1st Corps at 3pm and 6pm (approx. times).

The Prussians have 84,086 men to start with.

If the Prussians cant win this one there is something wrong with the plan they used in the game.

There is an exit hex for the French that says "-2" - this causes a 1 VP to be credited to the French right away.

An increase in the negative number for an exit hex does NOT increase the VPs - except by the difference between any number other than -1 and -1. Thus if you make the exit hex -5 you will note that the player who is assigned the exit hex has 4 VPs credited to his side.

Thus if the French are the first player (as in Ligny #8 in Waterloo) and have an exit hex that is listed as -2 then they have 1 VP to start with.

If on the other hand the Allies have a exit hex in this scenario listed as -4 then they will have 3 VPs listed to their credit.

Thus if the first side had a exit hex of -6 and the second player had an exit hex of -2 then you would have the first player listed as 4 VPs to start the game.

Another thing that can happen to cause odd VP counts at the beginning of a game is to change the 12th line in a .scn file. Here is the default line value:

0 0 0 0 0 0

However, if the line is:

0 0 0 0 0 1

then the Allies have 1 gun missing at the beginning of the game.

This happened in the Sacile scenarios. The Allies were starting off with one gun listed as lost but no guns were missing from any of the batteries.

This line gets modified as the game progresses (see the PBEM lines in the .btl file).

The values are:

French inf - Allied inf - French cav - Allied cav - French Arty - Allied Arty.

Thus if the losses were:

French:
Inf: 10,004
Cav: 2,108
Arty: 22

Allies:
Inf: 2,010
Cav: 200
Arty: 12

(these are typical losses when Ken plays the Allies and Paco plays the French by the way)

then you would see this value in the game file (unencrypted mind you):

10004 2010 2108 200 22 12

Just some FYI in case you spot a scenario that has VP losses to start it off and there are no exit hexes or you have exit hexes and they have the right value (-1).

Bill Peters
Former NWC President, Club Founder, Prussian and Austrian Army Founder, Stefan Reuter's hunting buddy. HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

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

Just to reiterate since Rich and Bill seem interested in this. The problem from my point of view was not with the scenario design. The problem was also NOT with the French surrounding the fixed units. The problem was with the French racing around the unfixed but forward deployed Prussina units while a large part of the rest of the Prussian Army was still fixed. The French forces repeatetly meleed the surrounded units often with huge stacks of already disordered units and eliminanted . As the Prussian Korps released one at a time they received the same treatment. I just went ahead and surrendered at that point. The game seemed more reminiscent of WW2 Poland that Waterloo.

Brigadier General Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />Just to reiterate since Rich and Bill seem interested in this. The problem from my point of view was not with the scenario design. The problem was also NOT with the French surrounding the fixed units. The problem was with the French racing around the unfixed but forward deployed Prussina units while a large part of the rest of the Prussian Army was still fixed. The French forces repeatetly meleed the surrounded units often with huge stacks of already disordered units and eliminanted . As the Prussian Korps released one at a time they received the same treatment. I just went ahead and surrendered at that point. The game seemed more reminiscent of WW2 Poland that Waterloo.

Brigadier General Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Would you send me a few game files and a password? I would like to see how the French did this.

I looked at the scenario and enough Prussians are on the loose to prevent this. I am not doubting your ability as a commander. I just would like to see how it was done and if its repeatable despite a guy like Paco playing the Prussians. Can it happen over and over again?

From my vantage point I saw that the French are mainly released but so are the forward Prussian elements.

There are fixed Prussians to the rear but all the Prussians have to do is move some of their forward elements over to cut off the road that leads into their right flank. By the time that the French fight through the road block the other elements should be coming loose.

Email me at wmp3662@yahoo.com - I would like to see what happened.

Bill Peters
Former NWC President, Club Founder, Prussian and Austrian Army Founder, Stefan Reuter's hunting buddy. HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

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

I'm a terrible commander but that's beside the point.[:D]I'll see if I have the last turn for you to look at but to sum up. All the action happened in Ligny and St. Armand. My opponent was very skilled and moving and breaking through here and there and moving through the holes and surrounding other units. Using an embedded melee house rule would have solved this problem but we were not using it as it was MP game. There was no sweep arouind the Prussian right, in fact he didn't send any troops into Wagonlee. I'm not knocking the guy he is a very skilled player it just doesn't play historically at all when those tactics are used. I'm sure there other many scenarios where I could have been crushed just as badly by these tactics.[B)]

Brigadier General Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />I'm a terrible commander but that's beside the point.[:D]I'll see if I have the last turn for you to look at but to sum up. All the action happened in Ligny and St. Armand. My opponent was very skilled and moving and breaking through here and there and moving through the holes and surrounding other units. Using an embedded melee house rule would have solved this problem but we were not using it as it was MP game. There was no sweep arouind the Prussian right, in fact he didn't send any troops into Wagonlee. I'm not knocking the guy he is a very skilled player it just doesn't play historically at all when those tactics are used. I'm sure there other many scenarios where I could have been crushed just as badly by these tactics.[B)]

Brigadier General Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lousy dirty rat player!!! Oops - that was my pet cat you played!!! Sorry! [:D]

Never try and beat a cat at Napoleonics. Le chat est fantastique!

Bill Peters
Former NWC President, Club Founder, Prussian and Austrian Army Founder, Stefan Reuter's hunting buddy. HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

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

I still think scenario design may be somewhat to blame, not from the actual scenario setup, but from game mechanics. The fact that in a game like this, both sides have historical knowledge, that provides them with intelligence they would not have in reality, thus allowing them to do things they might not otherwise do. In this case, the French Commander, knows that a lot of the Prussian units are fixed and knows he can risk this sort of tactic, with little fear of serious repurcussion. If he had not known what the Prussian army's disposition was, would he have still tried that tactic? Probably not, for fear of his own units becoming surrounded and isolated. As another example: I am playing a Waterloo scenario. The French Commander knows that it will be the Prussians showing up on his flank, not Grouchy's reinforcements. He just doesn't know exactly which units (although he does have some general idea based on historical knowledge) or exactly when. Knowing this allows him to take certain risks early in the game, then reposition his forces to counter the Prussians, even before they arrive. I am not sure how you can counter this, short of using DYO scenarios, so neither side has historical knowledge.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />Just to reiterate since Rich and Bill seem interested in this. The problem from my point of view was not with the scenario design. The problem was also NOT with the French surrounding the fixed units. The problem was with the French racing around the unfixed but forward deployed Prussina units while a large part of the rest of the Prussian Army was still fixed. The French forces repeatetly meleed the surrounded units often with huge stacks of already disordered units and eliminanted . As the Prussian Korps released one at a time they received the same treatment. I just went ahead and surrendered at that point. The game seemed more reminiscent of WW2 Poland that Waterloo.

Brigadier General Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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 zinkyusa</i>
<br />I'm a terrible commander but that's beside the point.[:D]I'll see if I have the last turn for you to look at but to sum up. All the action happened in Ligny and St. Armand. My opponent was very skilled and moving and breaking through here and there and moving through the holes and surrounding other units. Using an embedded melee house rule would have solved this problem but we were not using it as it was MP game. There was no sweep arouind the Prussian right, in fact he didn't send any troops into Wagonlee. I'm not knocking the guy he is a very skilled player it just doesn't play historically at all when those tactics are used. I'm sure there other many scenarios where I could have been crushed just as badly by these tactics.[B)]

Brigadier General Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you want historic play you have to insist on it, and stick to it. [:)] I found most people in this club do not play historically at all and even shy away from it. We have historic rules at the 1NWCG and we use them and their ok for their needs. We even have members who insist on nothing but very historic play in which I agree on a lot of the times. I think you would see a different type of battle from it. But you have to find people interested in it and insist on it and stick to the rules. Or come join us at the 1NWCG. [:D] I'll find folks for ya over there to play. [:p]

<center>--------------------------------------------------------



Herr Windbagenführer General der Infanterie Scott Prinz Ludwig von Saxe-Weimar
Aide-du-Kamp and Webmaster
Heer am Niederrhein

[url="http://www.prussianarmy.com/"]Königliche Preußische Armee[/url]

[url="http://www.networkforgood.org"]Network for Good[/url]

[url="http://napoleonicwargaming.com"]Napoleonic Wargaming - 1NWCG[/url]</center>

<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 />I still think scenario design may be somewhat to blame, not from the actual scenario setup, but from game mechanics. The fact that in a game like this, both sides have historical knowledge, that provides them with intelligence they would not have in reality, thus allowing them to do things they might not otherwise do. In this case, the French Commander, knows that a lot of the Prussian units are fixed and knows he can risk this sort of tactic, with little fear of serious repurcussion. If he had not known what the Prussian army's disposition was, would he have still tried that tactic? Probably not, for fear of his own units becoming surrounded and isolated. As another example: I am playing a Waterloo scenario. The French Commander knows that it will be the Prussians showing up on his flank, not Grouchy's reinforcements. He just doesn't know exactly which units (although he does have some general idea based on historical knowledge) or exactly when. Knowing this allows him to take certain risks early in the game, then reposition his forces to counter the Prussians, even before they arrive. I am not sure how you can counter this, short of using DYO scenarios, so neither side has historical knowledge.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />Just to reiterate since Rich and Bill seem interested in this. The problem from my point of view was not with the scenario design. The problem was also NOT with the French surrounding the fixed units. The problem was with the French racing around the unfixed but forward deployed Prussina units while a large part of the rest of the Prussian Army was still fixed. The French forces repeatetly meleed the surrounded units often with huge stacks of already disordered units and eliminanted . As the Prussian Korps released one at a time they received the same treatment. I just went ahead and surrendered at that point. The game seemed more reminiscent of WW2 Poland that Waterloo.

Brigadier General Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

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">

I would suggest having earlier release times and have them variable. Thus if a unit historically moved at 2pm then have it have a release time of 1pm and have it set at 33 percent. This will keep the French guessing if it will release sooner than expected.

Another trick is to NOT move the unit when it releases and thus sucker in the French player. They come at you thinking that they can waltz around your flank and you in turn flank them.

If the French player is going to play this way then I would ask that you play a modified version of the battle where the Prussians are released but cannot move until the historical time UNLESS the French make an offensive move against them.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

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