Napoleonic Wargame Club
http://wargame.ch/board/nwc/

edit: scn 014
http://wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=16086
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Geoff McCarty [ Thu Oct 04, 2018 4:30 pm ]
Post subject:  edit: scn 014

Scenario description: "...Scenario length is longer to allow for the developing counterattack by the Allies."
The scenario is 54 turns like all other Jemappes battles. I generally don't like fixed or fixing units in a battle space. Certainly, can't figure out why units would stop in their tracks mid game forcing the player to commit gamey tactics to keep them engaged.

Author:  John Corbin [ Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: scn 54

Maybe to simulate, or try to, what happened in the real battle?

Author:  Geoff McCarty [ Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: scn 54

This is an alternate scenario which features an Austrian reinforcement. There should be more turns appended to the scenario to allow the Austrians to counter-attack. The fixing of units just seems ludicrous to me. I believe the player should be the overall commander and if he wants to stall an attack on one wing to draw the enemy reserve than let him do so. Attempting to enforce historical delays with an unrealistic engine in an alternate history scenario doesn't seem like a good idea.

Author:  Bill Peters [ Mon Oct 08, 2018 10:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: scn 54

Reply:

1. First, this is 054. The Battle of Tournay which is the HISTORICAL Battle of Tournay. Its not an Alternate (which I call Variants now). Did you make a typo here?

2. Second, the Allies have fixed units to portray their lack of command ability to instantly get their army moving on turn one, engage in combat right from the "git go" and thus cause unrealistic losses in these games. We have been using Fixed units for years. In none of my scenarios that I know of can you "jump" these fixed units. This is the historical battle scenario so naturally its going to have units that won't move right away.

Were you referring to another scenario perhaps?

The fixing of units allows the French attack to develop. Have you actually played this battle? I doubt it. You are just reviewing it by looking at the setup. Paco and I playtested this one and others did too. Paco was able to cross in the north with the main force ONLY because of the fixed unit situation which was my intent based on what I read. The Hanoverians reinforce the Austrians and its a real good fight on the right flank.

When the French arrive on the western board edge they are outnumbered. If I had had ALL of the Allies released on turn 1 then the French right wing doesnt stand a chance. The fixing of units allow the French to develop their attack there too.

Again, if there is an error in the scenario, missing leader, artillery arrives as a reinforcement in an unlimbered formation then let me know. That is what this forum is all about.

In order to tell me that a scenario is unbalanced I need for people to play the scenario and show me their results.

No, I dont believe that the player should have total control over their units. We play as Napoleon, Blucher, Wellington or whoever the army commander is. There were many things that happened that were out of the control of the commander. Ney's decision to attack the immediate flank of the Allied army at Bautzen instead of making a wider flank move which would have trapped their army comes to mind.

What has happened is that people have become "control freaks" wanting to micromanage every aspect of a game. That just isn't what a battle was all about.

So if some things are out of our control then that is just life.

I have tried playing with the Command Control feature. Its not exactly great but its different. "Oops, the AI moved my unit to the wrong hex. ..." Oh well, welcome to command.

Author:  Geoff McCarty [ Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:50 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: scn 54

Ahh yes I meant "014. Jemappes: More Austrians/Brunswick Arrives". The main issue was that there were 54 turns in the scenario despite the description saying more turns were alotted for an Austrian counter-attack. I started single playing this scenario in order to wargame a better French victory. The delays force a piecemeal French attack which I cannot see going anywhere. Perhaps your playtest group are too experienced and willing to work with game exploits during attack which most would not.

Fixing is besides the point but, I'd rather play scenarios without fixed units. If the player is the overall battlefield commander than it should be left to him to reserve formations or commit them. Designing scenarios which may give an advantage to one side given starting positions and reinforcements without fixed units should affect the VP locations and totaling. I find alot of scenarios without valuable enough OBJs to warrant the assault and greater loss of my attacking forces. It probably has to do more with my unwillingness to assault all out and zig zag around artillery and cavalry charge lanes. Playing "realistically" (stupidly?) means a 2:1 attacker loss ratio given twice as much initial attack strength I've found. So despite the attacker left with a 100 VP OBJ he's wasted a brigade during a divisional attack and only killed off an enemy regiment.

Author:  Bill Peters [ Tue Oct 09, 2018 9:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: edit: scn 014

Unfix the French and its over. Who wants to play a lopsided game like that? It would be like telling the designers of the old Battleground Antietam that they were wrong to fix the Union side and have the forces release in a historical manner. Lee's army is crushed in like 40 moves in that one.

There are some times when an "Unleashed" scenario works but not in the case of lopsided events like Fleurus, Jemappes and also Tournay.

You can always copy the scenario, edit it to have no fixed units and try it out that way. There is no "lock" on the .scn files. You can do what you like with copies of those files. The DoR allows for "Custom" scenarios.

NIR - Napoleon in Russia - the Historical Borodino battle had a lot of fixed units that could be ambushed. The "Kutusov Turns to Fight" scenario was more popular because it had no fixed units but at the same time it is really not a "historical" scenario because it fails to recognize the fact that Barclay de Tolly was having command issues with Kutusov. Davout wanted to do a flank attack with all of his III Corps .... that is covered in the NRC game.

However, your comment about the turn length is "spot on" and I will add in more turns to the scenario for the next update. It should have had 66 turns IMHO. Appreciate your comments on that. Longer?

I playtested Jemappes several times. Always an interesting fight. The terrain seems very open but there are places where the Austrians can make a stand.

Author:  Geoff McCarty [ Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: edit: scn 014

I estimate that the trailing footsoldiers will be at the nearest objective area around turn 50 if the French don't interrupt them. So, 66 sounds good for a decisive counter-attack on the French right.

Author:  Bill Peters [ Wed Oct 10, 2018 11:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: edit: scn 014

Ok. I will go with that.

Author:  Bill Peters [ Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: edit: scn 014

Update: I also changed the turn length for scenario #013 to be 66 turns. That is the longest we can use for this scenario as the Dawn hour is 0600 and Night begins at 1700. That is a total of 11 hours of combat allowed unless we want night fighting which we don't.

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/