Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

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

Alexey,
some of your statements are actually rather surprising.

<font color="yellow">(...) Again, if you do not like the historical way choose another one. HPS offers a plenty of such battles. (...)</font id="yellow">

That's the problem; the current game doesn't seem to depict the historical way. Made my choice some time ago already. I don't bother wasting time on playing NRC as it is now [:D]

<font color="yellow">(...) Obviously the intention of designers was to make historical battles as historical as possible.(...)</font id="yellow">

The designers obviously didn't manage to attain the objective.

<font color="yellow">(...) The question is weather you agree with existence of Russian Golden morale or not. That is where you start arguing. (...)</font id="yellow">

Nope, you're wrong. I've got nothing against the golden morale. Rather it's impact on the results of the battles.

<font color="yellow">(...) Deirk is obviously disagree with that and his opinion is based on “anecdotical evidenceâ€

Gents,

We won't get anywhere this way. Do stop discussing books you never held in hands, if you please. Russian accounts are generally as biased as western. And it's a really hard work to get more or less objective picture. We are not writing a new version of history here. We just argue that units qualities in the NRC seem to be "not correct". We all agreed the formal procedure is needed. And, Alexey, excuse me of course, but NIR New settings version does not satisfy me at all. What quality will you prescribe to the 3rd Polish Lancers regiment of the French Guard? A+? They were attacked by a cossack force twice smaller. They ran away and scattered. Examples are numerous. So let us discuss this formal procedure, and not accuse each other in using "wrong" souces.

No offense intended but if you need I could give a satisfaction. In NRC[;)] No really there are several home made scenarios rather balanced and with no golden morale at all[8D]

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

I have a comment on that, Anton.

I believe that singular outstanding occurrences--good or bad--should not count in determining the unit quality. The standard performance that could be expected from a certain type of unit--defined by its training, experience, etc.--should be used throughout. The rest will be taken care of by the game engine itself--sometimes an E quality unit will stand, sometimes an A+ will run, but usually it will be the other way round. Doing it any other way just results in inconsistencies like the 20th ME (I am sorry, it's ACW, but it's the archetypical example) being the only A unit in a brigade that's all D, although the units had all roughly the same background and experience. Just because the 20th ME stood on 2 July 1863 doesn't mean it could be expected to do so repeatedly under similar circumstances.
(Oh wait, here is an example from Waterloo: the Cumberland hussars are an E in an all C brigade, just because we knew they ran on 18 June. Well, I think we don't need to make *them* E just so *they* can run again in our games. Sometimes a C quality unit will run; not necessarily the Cumberland hussars, but then the moment we first move a unit we are changing history anyway.)

And definitely singular occurrences shouldn't count in favor, or against, a whole class of units. The standard, regular, repeatable performance should determine the quality of the class of units.

<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>

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

<font color="yellow">(...) What quality will you prescribe to the 3rd Polish Lancers regiment of the French Guard? A+? They were attacked by a cossack force twice smaller. They ran away and scattered. Examples are numerous. (...)</font id="yellow">

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

Anton,
if you give such good example, please do shed some light on the source!
Because until now I've been misled by several books, that:
1. the 3rd "Polish" Lancers were in fact Lithuanian,
2. this "Guard" regiment was formed in July 1812, consisting of young Lithuanian cadets and nobles arrived in Grodno October 5.th,
3. 500 men got surprised on October 19.th in Slonim at 3.am by General Czaplic (btw Polish traitor)
4. the Russian forces consisted of approx. 3-4.000 men ( 8 Hussard squadrons, 2 regiments of Cossacks, 4 Jaeger battaillons and 1 horse battery)
5. the "3rd Guard Lancer Regiment" got annihilated; only one squadron managed to break through.

On your request I can present my sources (Russian too!) on that "revelation".
I'd love to see more of "that kind" numerous examples.

Anyway, we can agree, that young and untrained troops, although organisationally belonging to the Guard shouldn't be A+ rated.

<center>Maréchal T. Nowacki
<b>V KORPUS ARMII RENU</b>

Comte de Liege
Duc de la Moskova

Chasseurs a Cheval de la Vieille Garde</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I believe that singular outstanding occurrences--good or bad--should not count in determining the unit quality. The standard performance that could be expected from a certain type of unit--defined by its training, experience, etc.--should be used throughout. The rest will be taken care of by the game engine itself--sometimes an E quality unit will stand, sometimes an A+ will run, but usually it will be the other way round. Doing it any other way just results in inconsistencies like the 20th ME (I am sorry, it's ACW, but it's the archetypical example) being the only A unit in a brigade that's all D, although the units had all roughly the same background and experience. Just because the 20th ME stood on 2 July 1863 doesn't mean it could be expected to do so repeatedly under similar circumstances.
(Oh wait, here is an example from Waterloo: the Cumberland hussars are an E in an all C brigade, just because we knew they ran on 18 June. Well, I think we don't need to make *them* E just so *they* can run again in our games. Sometimes a C quality unit will run; not necessarily the Cumberland hussars, but then the moment we first move a unit we are changing history anyway.)

And definitely singular occurrences shouldn't count in favor, or against, a whole class of units. The standard, regular, repeatable performance should determine the quality of the class of units.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I could not have written this better.

I could not agree with you more.

Mark

Deirk, Tomasz:

I think that your impression on Russian army performance at 1812 is negative because it is based on different strategic criteria than I have.
If you expected Russians armies to give a decisive battle on 24 June and fight with courage for Motherland, England, private and public property so when you are right they did pretty bad.
So based on this criteria you can say that : Russians were running away from napoleon losing every battle and then just humbly following Napoleon on his opposite way still loosing every battle and being defeated by inferior force, as Deirk pointed out at Maloyaroslavets, Krasnoe, Berezina

Originally posted by Tomasz:
<i>More reading and proper interpretation of the facts strongly recommended</i>

I followed the recommendation of the respected marshal. That’s what I arrived at:

A decisive battle before Smolensk would be a suicide. So the best, Russians could achieve is to join two armies. They did it. The best Napoleon could do is to separate them and destroy them or at least one of them. He failed. This all is a direct result of :

1. Battle of Saltanovka. Insignificant superiority on russinan side.
Tactical result - French: 2,500 losses Russians: 3,500 losses. No side is on the run.
Strategic result- Russians: 2nd army of the West joins the 1st Army
French: failed to separate two Russian armies and destroy them one by one.
2. Skilled Maneuvering of Barclay and Bagration included delaying actions at Osrtovmo and Krasnii. The purpose of both actions was to delay the French. In both cases Russians acted as alive shield and fought against forces a few times superior to them.

Battle of Smolensk:
From strategic point of view is another delaying action to win time for two Russian armies to join. Russians achieved their goal. They held the city until it was no longer necessary from military point of view.
From tactical: During all July 16 Napoleon failed to capture the city despite that it was defended by singe 7th Inf. Corps.
On July 17 same story. Single Inf. Corps (now 6th) against Grand army.
Tactical performance: Napoleon claimed to inflict 12,000 casualties to Russians
With regard to French losses I could find figures from 9,000-to 10,000. No side is on the run and Russians retreated in perfect order.
Would you call this French victory??? Nominally you can. They got some burning rubbles as a prize.

A decisive battle before Borodino would be highly risky as superiority in numbers was still on French side. So I believe it is better to sacrifice some private and public property (actually insignificant for the size of Russia) and preserve the army for better day.
Battle of Valutina Gora: one more delaying acion Superiority on the French side.
Russian losses: 7,000
French losses: 8,000


At Borodino the task of Kutuzov is to stand the ground for one day with out being destroyed in order to make a tick for the Tsar and the public that there was a battle. He succeeded. The aim of Napoleon is to destroy the Russian army or at least make it run. He failed.
(I think that Borodino was another unnecessary sacrifice for Russians. Thewy actually could give up Moscow with out a fight and win the war with less casualties. But of course there were other considerations like public opinion.

Shevardino: delaying action to win time for preparation. Russians hold out whole day. According to Kolenkur: “it was impossible to understand why the battle lasted so long while the forces were so unequal (French were outnumbering Russians 3 to1).“
Losses: estimated figure of French losses is 4,000-5,000 Russian: 6,000

After Borodino up to the time of Napoleon retreat from Moscow Kutuzov task is to stall the time and make Napoleon to remain in Moscow as long as possible. He used all possible tricks including Cossacks playing personal footside with Murat. Napoleons task is to make piece. He failed.

Battle of Tarutino:
Was unnecessary from strategic point of view for the Russians. It is likely that Napoleon would remain in Moscow longer if this battle would not happen.
Tactical: French retreated with losses of 2,500 and 36 guns. Russian: 1200. Superiority on the Russian side.

After retreat from Moscow the Napoleon task is to get to the southern western road, in other words to take Maloyaroslavets. The task of Kutuzov is not to allow this. In my opinion this is probably the most important point of the war. This is the only place during all 1812 where Kutuzov was ready to fight to the end. From his point of view majority of the battles were unnecessary including Borodino. He achieved his goal.

Napoleon failed to push through, refused to give a battle and had to use already destroyed Smolensk road and all this with roughly equal force. Both armies were about 100,000. So how do you call this?? Napoleon’s strategic or tactical victory? Neither. Failure from both perspectives and note it was the Russian army who he had to blame, not winter, hunger or sunta-claus.
In numbers Slight advantage to the Frecnch
Losses: French 4,000 Russian: 3,000

Originally posted by D.S. Walter:
<i>Historically, on average inferior armies avoid battle; superior armies seek it. Now if the Russian armies were both numerically at least the equal, after Moscow definitely superior to the Grande Armée</i>,

After this battle, I ll repeat myself again, Kutuzov’s objective is too AVOID battles. He was using expression “show the doorâ€

<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>
Originally posted by D.S. Walter:
<i>*and* they were also of better quality (as per Poruchik Alexey Tartyshev's claim),</i>

I do not claim that Russians were better quality. My opinion is that they were better motivated. HPS and NIR simulate it perfectly through morale bonus. Note that melee and fire algorithms are the same for all armies; Russians do not fire or melee better than anyone.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In theory. But in the game higher morale does play out as significantly increased battle efficiency: less routs => less disorder => more frontline strength; full fire, movement and melee strength for units in good order, as compared to half fire, half movement and one-third (offensive) / two thirds (defensive) melee for disordered units. Routing and disordering affects an army infinitely more than the combat effects of unit quality, which are in the 10-20% range.

<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>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br /><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>
Originally posted by D.S. Walter:
<i>*and* they were also of better quality (as per Poruchik Alexey Tartyshev's claim),</i>

I do not claim that Russians were better quality. My opinion is that they were better motivated. HPS and NIR simulate it perfectly through morale bonus. Note that melee and fire algorithms are the same for all armies; Russians do not fire or melee better than anyone.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

In theory. But in the game higher morale does play out as significantly increased battle efficiency: less routs => less disorder => more frontline strength; full fire, movement and melee strength for units in good order, as compared to half fire, half movement and one-third (offensive) / two thirds (defensive) melee for disordered units. Routing and disordering affects an army infinitely more than the combat effects of unit quality, which are in the 10-20% range.

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

Deirk, what can you offer?
Alexey gave good argued answer to You an Tomash. But You again deny and not bring forth no offers.

And, don't forget french leaders in game more efficient both in qualifications and distances of the command radius. What my playing experience in NRC shows (In practice [:)]), running french troops by leaps and bounds regain consciousness (as contrasted with russian troop). That wholly compensate russian "gold morale" if you do not wish to take blitzkrieg in scenario.

General Konstantin Koryakov,
8 Infantry Corps,
Life Guards Litovskii regiment,
Russian Imperial Army
[url="http://www.komikor.narod.ru"][/url]

I dont find a problem with NRC one way or the other.

And I have won and lost as the Russians against good and bad players.

The Russians usually do NOT have the infantry advantage. Its in the cavalry dept. that they usually outnumber the French. Or the guns.

And with the cavalry its numbers of Cossacks that give them the edge. And they rout very nicely.

I find it harder to defend as the Austrians than the Russians. I have come to enjoy smaller battalians as I play this system. More maneuver elements.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

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

Deirk,

morale bonus is IRRELEVANT in disorder/undisorder calculation. It takes affect only for the purpose of routing.

Manual, Combat result section:

"When Morale Checks are applicable, they are determined based on a probability using the given loss as:
loss / (loss + base)
where base = strength-of-unit / 10 but limited to be no lower than 25.
Thus a unit of 250 men that takes a loss of 25 men has a 50% chance of requiring a morale check and a unit of 1000 men that takes a loss of 25 men has an 20% chance of requiring a morale check."

So now it would intresting to know if you still think that Russians are unhistoricly overrated?

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

<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 />Deirk,

morale bonus is IRRELEVANT in disorder/undisorder calculation. It takes affect only for the purpose of routing.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Routing results in disordered units. Not only the unit itself, once it rallies, but also all the ones around it.

<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>

And btw, if you choose to address me with my christian name rather than my name (which I would much prefer), I would appreciate if you get it right. My first name is Dierk.

Originally posted by D.S. Walter:
<i>Routing results in disordered units. Not only the unit itself, once it rallies, but also all the ones around it.</i>


Agree.Thats the feature of all HPS napoleonic games. Does this seem unhistorical to you?

Is that what you actually state:

1. You disagree with morale bonus and feel that Russians should not have it as it is not historical.
2. You disagree with morale bonus and feel that Russians should not have it as it is effects playability.

P.S. Appology for misspelling your name.

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

<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 />
Originally posted by D.S. Walter:
<i>Routing results in disordered units. Not only the unit itself, once it rallies, but also all the ones around it.</i>

Agree.Thats the feature of all HPS napoleonic games. Does this seem unhistorical to you?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No. It just means that routing affects overall combat readiness = efficiency, in terms of a more disordered force. So a morale modifier does have combat effects beyond the absence of routing, in terms of a less disordered force with more combat efficiency. In other words, "golden morale" is a significant overall efficiency boost for the Russians.

You said that much yourself: "If you make up a hypothetical battle with absolutely equal force and opponents I agree the Russian player has more chances to win. This is purely due to golden morale bonus." (Jan 18 2006 : 8:13:59 PM)

I find myself unable to regard this increased overall efficiency as an accurate representation of the actual capabilities of the Russian armies in the 1812 campaign. It doesn't sit well with the fact that they preferred the devastation of their country and the destruction of their capital to just whipping the French. In NRC, combine both Russian armies at Smolensk and you have a chance much better than 50%, in my opinion, to end the war there and then. If that works in the game, but didn't in reality, then what does that say about the accuracy of the representation of reality in the game?

And as for "showing them the door" after Maloyaroslavets, doesn't it sound very much like post festum rationalization? The Russian armies paid the price for the failure to stop Nappy at the Berezina with tens of thousands more casualties to the Nyemen (because Russians don't respond to malnutrition at -30 R. any better than Frenchmen or Germans) and many more in two more years of war until Paris 1814.

But after all is said (and I believe it is about, now) we probably will have to agree to disagree. Thank you for your comments.

<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>

So basically it just disadvantage to the French because they rout more often and therefore disorder more often. On the other hand as pointed out by General Konstantin Koryakov it is balanced by better quality and range of French leaders.

<i>It doesn't sit well with the fact that they preferred the devastation of their country and the destruction of their capital to just whipping the French.</i>

- Just my opinion on this. Its not just wiping out the French, but defending the country from, at that time, the biggest invasion force in history, with military genius in command and experienced and determined soldiers (at least the majority of them). In my point of view Russian commanders outplayed them strategically while sacrificing some of their ground.

<i>what does that say about the accuracy of the representation of reality in the game? </i>

- it tells me that strategic aspects are much harder to simulate.

<i>And as for "showing them the door" after Maloyaroslavets, doesn't it sound very much like post festum rationalization? The Russian armies paid the price for the failure to stop Nappy at the Berezina with tens of thousands more casualties to the Nyemen (because Russians don't respond to malnutrition at -30 R. any better than Frenchmen or Germans) and many more in two more years of war until Paris 1814.</i>

- I agree with you on this. In my opinion Kutuzov could make some effort to catch him after Smolensk – before Berezina when Grand army barely existed. But who knows what other considerations Kutuzov had and what kind of conversations he had with Tsar on 1813.

Well, it was an interesting discussion and finally we reached some common ground.



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