Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Guys - just a rehash on campaign strategies and would like to hear if you like the approach:

1. First branch of situation would be for you to choose your operational march route.

2. Second branch (if you make contact) will be for you to deploy your troops. I plan on giving you tons of options to include where each corps will be placed that is already near the battlefield. Reinforcements will be given a set of routes as well as part of the option. Thus look for about 6-8 different choices for most battles of medium to large size.

3. Aftermath of the battle - you will be given a choice of pursuit or to hold your victorious troops or as the defender a choice of retreat routes.

4. Operational situations will give you march distances. Thus you will KNOW how far you can expect your men to be able to march in a week or day's time - etc.

Some surprises will occur. Leaders that are acting on their own MAY NOT do as you expect. Reinforcements are going to vary in arrival time.

Releases - some units will be fixed but this will not be severe. Release times will be REASONABLE. My playtest group is after me to release troops sooner than the times I have posted and thus I am going to go with the player's choice rather than historical times.

You get down to the old "do we allow the player to do better with his troops or do we hamper him with poor command decisions?" Probably a mix of both!

Thus while I will have fixed units in many cases the army's decisions will still be in the hands of the players.

As said before I plan on using a "Flow Thru" branch style. Thus as is listed above in the first branch/situation you will choose how your army moves. Then you will either be told that you have met the enemy and move on to another branch OR you will be told that you hit nothing but air and will move on to the next operational choice.

For instance:

Lets say we are talking about 1809 - the second phase - retreat/advance on to Vienna. Lets say that the French decided to NOT attack at Ebelsburg. And the Austrians decide to retreat. Thus you would move on to the next branch. And so on.

However, if you DID decide to fight at Ebelsberg as the French but the Austrians decide to retreat then you would be fighting a rearguard action as the Austrians. And if as the Austrians you chose to rest your forces near the city then you would be fighting the historical fight.

Thus a battle branch would then be given to you for you to deploy your forces, assign flanking columns, etc. Thus two branches for one action.

I do plan on updating the Wagram camapign file at a later date with this kind of branching. In particular the French are still grumbling about the Ebelsberg situation. Its a mix between headstrong historical commanders and pleasing the customer. How do you draw the line? Well I would say give you guys some more options and if the commanders are headstrong when in an independent role in the scenario - hey, that's history but at least give you guys a choice in the matter.

Thus still look for some situations where the subordinate may have made a poor choice of attack but look for more options where you can CONCENTRATE the army and avoid those kinds of situations.

Oberst-Lt Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Austrian Army

Bill,
sounds fine.
But point 4 :
<u><b>Why do we have still fixed units ?[?]</b></u>
As player (of any side) WE are the Chief Commander so WE should decide when we would use each of our units still present on the battlefield.
I had a situation in NRC battle of Borodino - original alignement : some of my units were within 2 hex far from the enemy and still fixed on the next turn. I don't dezcribe you the result ...[xx(]
I think it is not logical [V]
<i>(Maybe have I not understood the philosophy yet [:I])</i>

<font color="orange">2d Lieutenant Valère Bernard
Bataillon de Ligne Nº 7
[url="http://home.planet.nl/~boe01171/HQ/1Brig.htm"]1e Brigade[/url]
2e Nederlandsche Divisie
I Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
</font id="orange">

Fixed units are a neccessity as nowhere in military annals of this period was the entire army on the move all at once. How we play and how history played out are two entire things and its for this reason:

1. YOU are not EVERY commander. You are Napoleon, Charles, Wellington, Bluchter, etc. YOU are not the brigade commander getting his troops ready.

2. Attacks rarely started on time. And even when they did they were rarely coordinated properly. The brigade was the main element of maneuver for the French with the other nationalities going from the individual battalian up to regiment and finally brigade. Somewhere in between is found where each of the Allies coordinated attacks.

Thus you see Charles leading a group of battalians at Aspern-Essling while other troops did nothing. Or at Wagram where even with the large formations you find that the attacks were formed of brigades - not the entire corps!

Bothersome, yes! History, yes.

Thus my reason to go with Fixed units.

2. Leaders rarely showed up when they were expected.

With Davout and Blucher some notable exceptions unless you have a MP Umpire game, a battle like Bautzen where Ney shows up and attacks in a different direction than where Napoleon wanted him to attack cannot work in our games. We have the satelite TV screen of all knowing intelligence. Thus my inclination to go with variable arrival times in many cases.

Question: was your unit in LOS AND also 2 hexes away? I thought that NRC had the new Fixed units Release fix where its a 5 or 9 hex range for Fixed units - if within that range and in LOS then the units release?

You will not have this problem in my next game. No fixed unit will be open for being mauled.

Thus, yes, you may have missed some text from the above post. I state that:

"Release times will be REASONABLE. My playtest group is after me to release troops sooner than the times I have posted and thus I am going to go with the player's choice rather than historical times."

That pretty much states my intention.

Thus at the VERY beginning of a major battle you will NOT be able to move either sides deep reserves like the French Imperial Guard. By something like 10am but not at 6am.

And that if they are well accompanied of course. If they are with say just one corps then they would start the battle NOT fixed.

Oberst-Lt Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Austrian Army

Thanks Bill for this detailed explanation.
I understand better the philosophy now.[:)]

In NRC, you're right for the LOS : there were a line of forest between the opponents, although joining friendly units were seing that enemy.

Many thanks for the accurate job you're doing too. [8D][;)]

<font color="orange">2d Lieutenant Valère Bernard
Bataillon de Ligne Nº 7
[url="http://home.planet.nl/~boe01171/HQ/1Brig.htm"]1e Brigade[/url]
2e Nederlandsche Divisie
I Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
</font id="orange">

Bill,
I like the idea of ones strategic choices flowing down to the operational and then the tactical level in a campaign, this will be a welcome change. I also am going to like being able to direct at least the general deployment of units at a battle but how about an option where all the units on the battlefield that start fixed can be released by a courier or a leader higher in the chain of command entering the hex of the brigade commander? Could this be portrayed without an engine change? This would not be ahistorical with the unit capable of self defense if attacked otherwise they would await orders probably written ones. Or at least maybe you could add the extra leader units to the oob to allow a player agreed rule to represent this option.

Marshal Drew Stone
Comte de Garonne
AdC II Corps, ADN
Cmdr. 1ere Division de Infanterie la Jeune Garde

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by drewstone</i>
<br />Bill,
I like the idea of ones strategic choices flowing down to the operational and then the tactical level in a campaign, this will be a welcome change. I also am going to like being able to direct at least the general deployment of units at a battle but how about an option where all the units on the battlefield that start fixed can be released by a courier or a leader higher in the chain of command entering the hex of the brigade commander? Could this be portrayed without an engine change? This would not be ahistorical with the unit capable of self defense if attacked otherwise they would await orders probably written ones. Or at least maybe you could add the extra leader units to the oob to allow a player agreed rule to represent this option.

Marshal Drew Stone
Comte de Garonne
AdC II Corps, ADN
Cmdr. 1ere Division de Infanterie la Jeune Garde

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

Drew - this can be factored in with the strategy you pick.

For instance: lets say that you choose to hit the enemy's right flank with a wide flanking move by Davout on the Marchfeld. Thus because Davout is a "trusted" commander you can then pretty much assure yourself that he will get moving on time.

However, if you had entrusted the job to Massena, who was not at his best in the campaign, then the units might have a 60 percent release possiblity.

Again, couriers ARE part of the release process. And yes, with Napoleon nearby you dont want a 5 percent chance of release and call it historical.

Again, what happens all too often in our game is that small groups of "Radio-armed" horsemen from the other side come down the road, find you and immediately he knows all about your force. That is why I intend on limiting the released forces a bit at the start of any game - to give the guy making the flank move a chance to get to his start line. Or just factor it in and start the battle later with less movement from the players .... but that leads to cries of "That is not where I would have put them."

To which I answer:

"Tell that to Napoleon and see how he answers you for Freidland where the French won a close battle despite an initial deployment that stunk, Linz - where Bernadotte didnt follow orders and could have lost his corps if the Austrians had attacked on time, Ebelsberg - where the French went fanatical, charging into one of the most defensible positions, taking beaucoup losses etc, and also Eckmuhl where Massena was slow to act, Berthier almost threw away the game and from the Austrian point of view Charles had an inept left flank commander in Hiller."

And of course I left out Bernadotte at Jena-Auerstedt, Oudinot in 1813 at Gross Beeren, Jerome in 1812 not being agressive enough and bungling instead of helping bag the Russians.

I am merely pointing out that what we want in the game is often just not history.

Even at Austerlitz Bernadotte was not exactly doing his duty.

There has to be some form of historical action on the part of the designer to limit the foolishness that goes on by the players.

That is why I have gotten John to extend the Release Range of units to 9 hexes. It really helped in alot of scenarios in Eckmuhl and Wagram. No longer can you waltz around the enemy. Its very hard to ambush a fixed formation in the open these days.

But I get your drift - unfortunately we are just about ready to submit our Update Document to John and this was not on the list - couriers that is.

Oberst-Lt Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Austrian Army

Sounds great. I have been encumbering these pages for a while about the need to get a better link between the strategic and tactical situations. Any clues as to when this one might be released?

Capitaine Neville Worland
7ème Régiment de Dragons
Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
Army du Nord

Bill,

One new feature I'd like to see (but probably as an optional rule) is the possibility of troops <i>becoming</i> temporarily fixed mid game. Surely this would be a good means of representing the lack of co-ordination between different formations?

Individual units out of command radius would have a greater chance of freezing, while disrupted units and those high on fatigue would be more likely to freeze.

Also leaders (and the troops under them) would have a chance of temporarily freezing - probably just for a single turn - depending on their quality.

This would mean that no player can expect all his troops to be capable of being moved exactly where he wants them every turn.

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

While we're at wish lists ... night fatigue, maybe even fatigue for permanent marching. Straggling, even? On the really huge maps like Eckmuhl-Bavaria, you can easily march days and nights on end, and quite unhistorically, there is no penalty whatsoever on doing so.

Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin

<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 />While we're at wish lists ... night fatigue, maybe even fatigue for permanent marching. Straggling, even? On the really huge maps like Eckmuhl-Bavaria, you can easily march days and nights on end, and quite unhistorically, there is no penalty whatsoever on doing so.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The concept of Fatigue in these games is psychological fatigue, not physical fatigue. That is why fatigue increases when units are shot at.

There is a good case for introducing a separate for physical fatigue as the distances units can move (about 75km / 24 hours) is excessive, but that should not affect the psychological fatigue of the units. The two must be kept separate.

A physically fatigued unit would be more likely to throw down their weapons and surrender than rout.

A psychologically fatigued unit would more likely rout, unless of course they were also physically fatigued.

My 0.02$

Regards

Mark

Mark and Dierk - this is something we can continue to discuss. My game is not due out any time soon as I like to let other Napoleonic titles have their day in the sun.

Thus this is a good topic. I see both sides of the issue.

I liked what Rich White suggested but only for night turns - I dont want to penalize a player who is trying to retreat by having his command suddenly fix Rich - we already have too many problems with fall-back defenses in this system - much harder in the Napoleonic system than in the ACW system and the easiest system to pull one off is the Panzer Campaigns engine.

Thus if I as a Designer put in a Fixed Units dialog for the units at say 2100 that would mean that the units would have to rest for the night. On the other hand I would want a variable percentage attached to it so that the players wont know exactly which turn the units fix.

I do think that fatigue is more than just psych factor in battle.

I do point out that troops that have arrived in Napoleonic battles after long marches have not shown much wear and tear and I give some examples:

1. Desaix (sp?) at Marengo - his division arrived after a LONG days march and was one of the keys to victory (along with Kellerman's charge).

2. L'Estoq at Eylau - the Prussians were obviously one of the keys to victory at this battle as otherwise Davout was caving in the Russian left. And Davout had marched to the battle as well!

3. Davout at Austerlitz. I have yet to read that the effects of a minor march effected his men. I do know that by the time the battle was over they were bushed and unable to participate in any kind of a pursuit. Well neither were the rest of the cavalry for that matter.

4. Blucher at Waterloo - again, a moderate march but the Prussians fought with vigor. Not really showing much wear and tear from their march.

Could it be that we fail to comprehend the ability of adreniline to erase some of what we could consider high fatigue from marching?

Oberst-Lt Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Austrian Army

That is true, and one could add the Confederate I Corps at Gettysburg which almost took LRT in spite of a forced march in the July heat.

I would think that in a forced march to battle straggling would be a more adequate penalty than actual fatigue. Those who actually arrive on the field are probably the hardiest lot, and yes, adrenaline would do the rest.

On the other hand, fatigue after a forced march plus battle would probably more severe and longer lasting than after only the battle, so in the net result, maybe it should still add up.

In any case, one way or another of preventing or at least discouraging players from marching day and night, day and night, for five days (Eckmuhl) would be welcome. There's still a difference between one night march or forced march to battle, and 100 or more hours of continuous marching. There are limits to man's endurance.

Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin

Dierk - you hit on a couple of points: units that fight in a battle are often too tired to pursue. We should take that into consideration when we design scenarios. A Fixed routine would help with variable percentage of the unit fixing each night.

Also - the straggler issue is a good idea. Thus units might lose a man or two that fall out during a turn's move.

No fatigue for horse artillery or guns - that would be too severe. The fixing of the units would solve the problem of them moving way into the morning hours.

Oberst-Lt Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Austrian Army

Wouldn't there be any other way to reflect difficulties to coordinate army coprs in a battle than fixing units?

In a historical way of setting scenarios, Bernadotte (in Austerlitz or Auerstadt or in the <i>Campagne de Pologne</i>) should be allowed to move at will but only <u>away</u> from the battlefield!! [:D]

More seriously, my opinion on the "fixing of units solution" to create a more historic game just annoys the average gamer (like myself) and doesn't really add to the historical realism like it was meant to.

What could we consider instead?
- Ability to manoeuver without attacking?
- Broken chain of command (I would hesitate to set an attack knowing that my leaders wouldn't help reform troops after the onslaught)?
- Being able to move at will but never closer to the ennemy?
- Restricted movement points?
- Reinforcements arriving exhausted from the wrong side of the battle?

What else could there be to eliminate this annoying "fixing of units" solution? I am sure something else could be thought of!!

[url="mailto:pyguinard@hotmail.com"]Lt Pierre-Yves Guinard[/url],
6e Division, II Corp

AdN