Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

This is a petition for a revised OOB to incorporate some useful new features into the game engine.

The current HPS OOB for the Nappy series has changed very little since the BG engine. In fact, I believe it may actually still be possible to use an old BG oob with the latest HPS engine.

In contrast, the WW2 OOB is much more sophisticated and contains the following:

1./ The ability to assign victory point values on a unit by unit basis in the oob - this would be a great way of distinguishing militia from grenadiers, etc. For instance, a 500 strong C quality line unit could be worth 10pts, whereas a 500 man militia unit might be only worth 8pts and an A quality grenadier unit 12pts. This would give Boney greater incentive for keeping the Old Guard in reserve for the decisive moment.

2./ The movement, fire and melee capabilities of individual units can also be modified as required, in the oob. This could be potentially useful for the Nappy engine to distinguish different march rates - eg. French columns marching 6 hexes a turn, but Austrians & Prussians just 5 hexes. There are no doubt other potential benefits from such a system, for instance reducing the melee ability of militia and slightly increasing the ability of grenadiers (normally big men) and other elite units. Perhaps light infantry might be give slightly better fire factors too. Anyway, it would certainly give scenario designers a lot more flexibility.

3./ The WW2 engine also distinguishes between hard & soft target - probably not something really needed for the Nappy series, although I can probably find a good use for it.


Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army


Petition names:

Rich White
August Dean
D.S. Walter
John Corbin
Sean Turner
Le Tondu (alias Rick Motko)
Phillip Chimara
SLudwig
Anton Kosyanenko
Andy Moss
Theron Lambert
Paco
Tomasz Nowacki
Stefan Reuter
Valère Bernard
Dean Beecham
Christian Rizo
Glyn Hargreaves
David Guegan
Yann Lamezec
Sergey Adashinskiy
Georgy Pronin
Lord Jim
Jim Pfluecke

Hope this petition will get somewhere.

I beg to add this to the list

4. Increased artillery firepower

5. More sophisticated melee and fire reports

6. Possibility to disable save (more handy way than present to work for big battles)

7. Increased defensive fire.

8. Possibility to disable gamey recon by saving a game and moving your units to the contact and getting info on units as you meet them. (By the way it is part of the BG engine).


Poruchik Alexey Tartyshev
Moscow Grenadiers Regiment
2nd Grenadier Division
8th Infantry Corps
2nd Army of the West (NWC)

Thanks for your support - I'll add your name to the list. Other engine changes would of course be useful - and I could add some of my own additional requests if this were a "wish list" - but I think this thread needs to focus on a single issue, ie. getting a revised OOB incorporating useful features from the WW2 one.

I am for it. Not the features highest up on my personal list to be sure, but still, of course I am in favor.

<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 Grenadiers de la Moyenne Garde
</center>

Please add my name as well

Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Duc de Paive
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Jeune Garde
NWC President

Add mine too -- with the realisation that it may be a lot of work for somebody. Many thanks to the job already being done in the games!!

Lt Sean Turner
1er Dragons
2ème Division de Dragons
Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
l'Armee du Nord

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by August Dean</i>
<br />
I beg to add this to the list

4. Increased artillery firepower

...

6. Possibility to disable save (more handy way than present to work for big battles)

....

8. Possibility to disable gamey recon by saving a game and moving your units to the contact and getting info on units as you meet them. (By the way it is part of the BG engine).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Poruchik Tartyshev,

Three of the things you request are already available and could be implemented with your opponent(s)' consent:

Increased Firepower for Artillery - The effectiveness of any unit is regulated by the values of the "pdt" file used by a given scenario. You can readily open up any of the pdt files with a text editor, change the values to suit your views and then save the pdt file under a different name. To use this new pdt file, simply open up a scenario using the scenario editor, assign this new pdt file to that scenario, then save the scenario (Again, using a diferent name to preserve the original). When you begin this new scenario, your revised pdt file will be automatically used[:D].

Disabling Autosave - Simply go to the "Settings" menu and untoggle autosave.

Disabling Partial Saves - Go to the "Setting" menu and toggle ON the option which prevents a pbem game from being saved without first advancing the phase.

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal M. Francisco Palomo
Comte de Marseille
Duc d'Abrantes
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde</i>
AdC - <i>Ieré Corps de Armee</i>

Well before you all jump on the bandwagon on this who has done the math?

The older scenarios are based on a set system for points. They were balanced with this in mind.

While I am all for this I am for it for NEW games. Going back to do over 150 scenarios for Eckmuhl and 120 for Wagram to rebalance the equation would be alot of work.

And the OB work alone would take some time as well.

Its not that I am against it but its easy to add in new values without counting the cost for someone.

So I would be for it for new games but make it an optional value for the older ones. That way folks could design new scenarios if they like and it leaves it up to the Scenario Designer whether his old work would be revamped or not.

I would be happy to go through the OB files and add in default VP values as per the current ones just so you guys could later make up your own versions. I would not be for updating each and every scenario.

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]

Bill, Paco, do you want your names added to the list?

Bill,

Of course, realistically this could only be for new games. No one could expect you to go through all the Eckmuhl & Wagram scenarios and redo them. But, as you point out, it would mean that players could decide to modify individual scenarios using the editor so as to take account of any OOB changes. For players to revise a single scenario prior to playing a game - and then hopefully sharing it with the wider community - wouldn't be too much work considering how much gaming time will be spent actually playing the scenario. And perhaps you'd have time to revise a few of the more popular scenarios yourself.


Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
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 pacowork</i>
Three of the things you request are already available and could be implemented with your opponent(s)' consent:

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
4. Thank you sir. It is a useful info. Just found myself kind of lost after opening the PDT file[:D]. Anyway, it would be easier to have standardized files. Plus I don’t think my judgment on this matter is objective.

6. What I meant in point 6 is to prevent a player from replaying a turn and thereby obtaining an advantage. It is possible now by clicking “PBEM File No Saveâ€

Please add my enthusiastic support for your suggestions Rich. Numbers one and two are very long overdue, IMO.

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


Vive l'Empereur!

I agree with points 1 and 2.
Please add my name as well [;)]

<hr noshade size="1">

GFM - Phillip Chimara
Russian Army

I agree with it. Add my name. [:D]

But I agree with Bill, new games first and then old ones if possible.

<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>

Rich!

I like the two first points. If the third means "units may have defensive factors that may decrease the effectiveness of enemy fire and melee. And these factors may be altered by the scenario designer as well" I'm for it with both my hands. Count me in anyway![8D]

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
commander of Little Russian grenadiers regiment</b></center>

Point 3./ the distinction between hard and soft targets is part of the WW2 OOB, but probably wouldn't be of much use to the Nappy engine. However, I feel that it might as well be incorporated at the same time as points 1./ and 2./ just in case it proves useful in some way. As I've already mentioned in my initial post, I'm sure I'll be able to find a use for it. One possible idea might be that stationary skirmishers in certain difficult terrain - eg. chateaux, villages, building, or behind a stone wall or fort hexside - will count as a "hard" target. Perhaps also line infantry behind a wall. Basically, it would effectively work as a "dug in" or "defensive" formation for certain troops in some difficult terrain types without having to actually create a new formation.

Anyway, I'm sure it would be more convenient to just have point 3./ included along with the other points straight away instead of having to specifically ask for it at a later point.