Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Game designers use great effort in their games, They try to get each campaign or battle to mimic History or rather that the command choices mimic History. In the past(prior internet) the results generally were-its a good game and people bought it or it was not and people did not buy it. Actual discourse was relegated to a few magazines, House rules were needed to provide inhanced realism or balance.

Now we have the internet and instead of abreviated opinions of tens we have hundreds of exstensive analysis.I think more is better and stronger accurate evaluations emerge. More concurrance??? ... well not really.

While inhanced realism is still a province of house rules I think balance can be achieved by "bid". I offer forth a proposal that the clubs establish a system that in each scenerio players can "bid" points for which side they desire, Thus the players determine their own ideas of balance and live(or die) with the results,

I dont think this will be a popular proposal so to portend furthur discourse-what is it in gamers that preclude this?

Tony I didn't get it[:I] Could you please extend your idea. Do players "bid" the victory levels? Or do they agree on a number of points which they use for assimling the force they desire? Or.... Well my imagination let's me down[:I]

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

I'm not sure if it is something that "precludes" it, but in the case of this club, it is at least "in part" a role playing club. That is something that would be utterly lost if we were to go to that sort of a "bid" system. A large part of the role-playing is that we generally take "our own side". Including MOE games, I can count the number of games I've played with the French on one hand, and that's over a 4 1/2 year period.

I'm not sure how a bid idea would go over at SZO or the Blitz, so I won't comment on that here.

FZM Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Battallion
Allied Coalition C-in-C

Anton,

I've seen this system before in other games. The essential idea would be this.

<i>
Bill: Hey! Let's play Wagram!
Rich: Cool... I want to be French, and I'll bid 100 VP for it!
Bill: No, I'll bid 250!
Rich: 400!
Bill: Fine, fine, you play France, and bid 400.

</i>


Then, that would mean that you subtract 400 French VP from the ingame total to determine the victor.

Hm, now that I think about it, that would also be at least a minor problem in playing campaigns.



<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 />Tony I didn't get it[:I] Could you please extend your idea. Do players "bid" the victory levels? Or do they agree on a number of points which they use for assimling the force they desire? Or.... Well my imagination let's me down[:I]

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

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

FZM Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Battallion
Allied Coalition C-in-C

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

I've seen this system before in other games. The essential idea would be this.

<i>
Bill: Hey! Let's play Wagram!
Rich: Cool... I want to be French, and I'll bid 100 VP for it!
Bill: No, I'll bid 250!
Rich: 400!
Bill: Fine, fine, you play France, and bid 400.

</i>


Then, that would mean that you subtract 400 French VP from the ingame total to determine the victor.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I still don't understand it. What would it be good for?

<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>

It's a way of trying to balance games. The theory is that both players would want to play the side with the better chance of winning, so by bidding away VP, it brings the game back into balance. Never used it myself, but I've seen the idea back as far as the early 80's, in the old <i>Avalon Hill General</i>

FZM Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Battallion
Allied Coalition C-in-C

Thanks--I see it now.

Too complicated for my taste.

<i>Green Horse</i>

Gary is correct on two points.
1, Yes, bidding is done by points
2. Yes it does lesson Army fielty

The latter point has become a wee bit of a point of contention but assuming that there is room for both camps( ie. the Army loyalists and the neutral gamers) This bidding proposition would apply to those that would like to play either side but wish the battle to be even as to the chances of winning. Since it might be impossible for both sides to agree as to which has the edge then bidding becomes a part of the process.

Examples1; NIR- I think the French has the edge Player X thinks the Russians have the edge or vice versa,-there is no reason to bid.

Example two. We both feel that the Russians have the edge, I think they have the advantage by 500 points, Player X thinks the Russians have the advantage by 600 points, He gets to play the Russians but as the French I get 600 extra points,

Bidding should be between two players and not involve the club. The guys can report the game however they agree anyway.

For campaigns: with a bit of text editing the victory levels can be modified in the .cpf file. Just email me if you want instructions. That way when the game ends it uses YOUR victory levels and not the designers.

However, as Gary says, campaign situations are not always cut and dried. For instance, you have no idea how many troops for the other guy are coming on and thus you cant say right away if a situation is balanced or not.

Here is another problem: campaign losses. After each game the engine recoups losses but sometimes you still end up with a unit of little value. This is hard from the design point as I do my best to try and level the playing field but face it - history is not fair.

Thus messing with the victory levels should only be done with situations where the players are well acquainted with the campaign scenario. Landshut would be a good example of this. Or Ebelsberg.

Perhaps you dont like the levels I put in for Teugn-Hausen. Or some of the Eckmuhl situations.

I want to point out - if you modify the .cpf file it doesnt mess up your other games in progress. If you want to modify a .scn file then save it as something else and then change its values. That way you dont get a problem if you play it with someone else.

Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

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

Ufffff..... What for? I will fight russian side whatever the odds are. If I need a balanced fight I'll try to find an opponent of equal skill and offer him a balanced scenario. If I face a weaker guy I'll offer him a onesided scenario in attempt to compensate the difference with the numbers. If I face a stronger opponent...... Well when I found one some much stronger I'll have to invent something too[^] What for all these games, as if it's victory we are here for?[:I]

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

[quote]<i>Originally posted by Kosyanenko</i>
<br />Ufffff..... What for? I will fight russian side whatever the odds are. If I need a balanced fight I'll try to find an opponent of equal skill and offer him a balanced scenario. If I face a weaker guy I'll offer him a onesided scenario in attempt to compensate the difference with the numbers. If I face a stronger opponent...... Well when I found one some much stronger I'll have to invent something too[^] What for all these games, as if it's victory we are here for?

So- If I want to fight an unbalanced scenerio(NIR?) I have to find a weaker opponent if I wish to win as the French?
If we dont fight for victory but only to simulate what actually happened why not just read a book?

I am all for recreating History in that we should be given the same factors as the original commanders. Thus, if the Russians were stalwart at Borodino-make them so. All designers( or players) have to do is then factor that into the Victory conditions, You dont have to make the Russians whimps just alter the VP for balance( or if you dont want to redesign the game-BID!!),