Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

<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 Bill Peters</i>
Hmm, I have never seen this for say the Austrian or Prussian armies. Arent you generalizing a bit? The Prussians for instance preferred lines in 1806 and before. The concept of mixed order was mainly French but certainly if you read even the French commanders used a variety of formations.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's what I was saying, no? Even the French used the line together with the column; most others used *only* the line.

Ah, now I see ... you read "Napoleonic" as meaning *all* armies of the period. I meant Napoleon's army. Should have been evident from the next sentence though, "most <u>opposing</u> armies kept the line as regular combat formation".

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

Even Napoleon's army didnt use L'Ordre Mixed universally. Just look at the diagram that Bowden has in his 1809 book (if you have it). Conscripts were not trained to fight in that formation thus mainly in columns (ie MacDonald's square). Its broken up by period and commander. Again to generalize leaves you open for a (kind) response that all armies didnt use the line or column generally exept for the British. But yes, I saw where you were going.

For instance:

Prussian - Rev. Wars to 1806 - Line; Reforms - column with little use of the line. They thought like the French that a FORMATION was the answer when if fact it was timing, tactical usage and the ability to reinforce a given place on the line that meant victory.

Russian - columns mainly. Didnt use line as much as other nationalities. Relied more on shock than (pathetic) firepower.

Austrian - Rev. Wars to Charles' reforms colunms/line; Reform period was a wild mix. Jagers fought in Column at Wagram for instance when they were much more effective in Line. Grenzers in column as well despite them being probably the best skirmishers in Europe. Lines were out by then.

British - Lines. Columns were used to maneuver to new positions.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

<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 />Now that I read the original post again ... I don't quite agree with the remarks on artillery. They are but a nuisance (for the owner) in the ACW games. But they are quite potent in the Nappy games. When a French 12-pounder battery goes off, I wouldn't want to be within three hexes.

<center>

Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant de la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant [url="http://mikedavies122863.tripod.com/index.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

We had some good discussions on this too and I have toned down the artillery values as a result. We agreed that ONE battery didnt stop an attack. Even at Wagram with over 60 guns pounding his formations MacDonald advanced against such a battery.

I would agree that what is missing from our game engine is the ability of balls to carry into other hexes. We had this in miniature rules but not in the Tiller engines.

Which is why I agree with Ken on the stacking issue but do not agree on changing the values for fire. Then we get back to the old problem of too many losses. As it is we usually have way too many losses. Much more than what historically happened.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

Well, I said "preferred". My point was that the original post by General Zupancic ("As far I know most of Napoleon's battles were fought primarily with columns. Line vs. Line fighting was a fashion of 18th century warfare.") was too much of generalization, as many armies were still using the line in the Nappy wars. That's all. And I don't see any disagreement there.

<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 />Well, I said "preferred". My point was that the original post by General Zupancic ("As far I know most of Napoleon's battles were fought primarily with columns. Line vs. Line fighting was a fashion of 18th century warfare.") was too much of generalization, as many armies were still using the line in the Nappy wars. That's all. And I don't see any disagreement there.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Definitely agree with your views on Dejan's post. I dont think that he meant the British of course but even the French in the Peninsula would deploy into line on occaision.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

Hi Bill, I would certainly appreciate your testing the mod. I definitely need some independent outside observations from those that have played the series longer than I have. ATM, only two people are testing modded scenarios and they have just started an Eckmuhl PBEM. Myself, I have tested the changes in several scenarios over the last 2-3 weeks. Right now, I like the results but it more than likely could still use some tweaking based on more extensive testing-or maybe not.

Here are some thoughts on your comments below:

1. Stacking limits: while 2000 is probably now known to be too high I think that 1000 is too low as we have 1200 man Austrian columns. You cant add a leader to a hex that has a unit that has a size that is over the stacking limit. At least I think that this is still the rule.

I ended up using 1253 for Eckmuhl due to the couple of 1250 man Austrian regiments. With 1253, a player could add up to 3 leaders to a 1250 man Austrian regiment. I haven't changed the Waterloo 1000 man limit but I don't recall any units larger than a 1000 men. Although I think it would be a great solution in general simply not to have leaders count for stacking purposes.

2. Cavalry - will this weaken cavalry? 1300 means that 650 cavalry can stack in a hex. 650 x 3 = 1950 men in a melee. Is this reasonable?

I reduced the cavalry stacking number from 2 to 1 which means you could have up to 1250 cavalry in an Eckmuhl 100 meter hex. This change was a very recent stopgap after I received feedback on leader stacking problems with the large cavalry regiments. However is it a bad thing in game terms to increase the proportion of cavalry per hex to infantry? In game terms, it might be a good thing. A charge of 1250 cavalrymen would guarantee a substantial defeat of infantry whether in line or column. Only a square would definitively survive a cavalry charge. This change is a stopgap and very recent. I haven't looked closely at the consequences. Although I have started researching cavalry frontages and what number of cavalry would fit realistically in a 100 meter square.

So far, I have found frontages per horse and can calculate the frontage per 2 rank line. 3-4 feet per horse were the numbers I have found. Which means cavalry in line would have a maximum of 110 cavalrymen per 100 meter front-more than likely closer to 82-95. So I think a double line of cavalry would have approximately 160-220 men per 100 yds

What I don't know is the distance between double lines of cavalry in column. Technically I think you could fit 1250 cavalry in column of squadrons into a 100 meter hex without too much difficulty. But did they really pack their lines in that close when stationary? Also I wonder how often French and Austrian cavalry charged in column during 1809.

Again in game terms, I have found I rarely use cavalry because they don't inflict enough losses to justify the point loss from their own casualties. As a defender, I like it when cavalry charges. I always gain on points unless they happen to catch me during an awkward moment. Just a thought but maybe cavalry should be more powerful in inflicting losses??

<b> Which is why I agree with Ken on the stacking issue but do not agree on changing the values for fire. Then we get back to the old problem of too many losses. </b>

That is exactly the results I had when I initially increased infantry and artillery firepower. A solution that seemed to solve the problem was to decrease morale. I did an across the board decrease in morale of two levels.

Currently I am doing a test of the Eckmuhl scenario "The Archduke Fights". After 11 turns, or almost 3 hours of steady fighting, the French have lost 3642 infantry of a total strength of 31,094. The Austrians have lost 3625 infantry of a total strength of 28,373. So in 3 hours, the losses have been about 11-12 percent.

The losses are less than what would be expected with the increased firepower due to a forced need to use different tactics. I am not moving into one hex range of infantry in line unless I have a definite advantage or willingness to accept the casualties. I also don't leave infantry stationary in front of artillery. I increased the average bombardment value of artillery at effective range from 2 to 3. That isn't an extreme increase but does make a difference. The greatest increase of artillery is within case/cannister range. In the mod, a 6lb battery puts out the equivalent firepower of a 600 man infantry battalion at one hex range. A 12 lb battery puts out the equivalent firepower of a 900 man infantry battalion. Usually you won't see artillery firing a cannister range except when defending (or aggressively using horse artillery). And because it is using defensive fire, it fires at half firepower. Off the top of my head, I would say an artillery battalion has a 20-40 percent chance of causing a disorder result on a charging infantry battalion. If it achieves disorder, the artillery will probably survive an infantry attack remembering the increase in artillery melee value. It isn't guaranteed but an infantry attack against artillery is more risky.

Now back to morale, the decreased morale ensures more disordered results when hit by defensive fire. A disordered result means practical failure of most attacks whether against infantry or artillery and often produces the need to retreat the unit till it recovers. And the mod produces far, far more disordered results than routs. With proper management of leaders, recovery from disorder doesn't take long.

The same is actually true with routs. I do not use the optional "rout limiting" rule. So from time to time, a complete brigade attacking or defending will take that crucial first rout and the entire formation heads for the rear. Knowing how to rally is very important. Usually it takes 3-4 turns for a brigade to recover when it completely routs. Of course, during that time frame, there is a big hole which needs to be filled or exploited.

It is hard to describe in words. But if someone plays a couple of scenarios with an open mind and thinks about the tactics being used...line, extended line, column, skirmishers, etc, the mod produces a very different and I think, more realistic tactical game.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jagger</i>
<br />Hi Bill, I would certainly appreciate your testing the mod. I definitely need some independent outside observations from those that have played the series longer than I have. ATM, only two people are testing modded scenarios and they have just started an Eckmuhl PBEM. Myself, I have tested the changes in several scenarios over the last 2-3 weeks. Right now, I like the results but it more than likely could still use some tweaking based on more extensive testing-or maybe not.

Here are some thoughts on your comments below:

1. Stacking limits: while 2000 is probably now known to be too high I think that 1000 is too low as we have 1200 man Austrian columns. You cant add a leader to a hex that has a unit that has a size that is over the stacking limit. At least I think that this is still the rule.

I ended up using 1253 for Eckmuhl due to the couple of 1250 man Austrian regiments. With 1253, a player could add up to 3 leaders to a 1250 man Austrian regiment. I haven't changed the Waterloo 1000 man limit but I don't recall any units larger than a 1000 men. Although I think it would be a great solution in general simply not to have leaders count for stacking purposes.

2. Cavalry - will this weaken cavalry? 1300 means that 650 cavalry can stack in a hex. 650 x 3 = 1950 men in a melee. Is this reasonable?

I reduced the cavalry stacking number from 2 to 1 which means you could have up to 1250 cavalry in an Eckmuhl 100 meter hex. This change was a very recent stopgap after I received feedback on leader stacking problems with the large cavalry regiments. However is it a bad thing in game terms to increase the proportion of cavalry per hex to infantry? In game terms, it might be a good thing. A charge of 1250 cavalrymen would guarantee a substantial defeat of infantry whether in line or column. Only a square would definitively survive a cavalry charge. This change is a stopgap and very recent. I haven't looked closely at the consequences. Although I have started researching cavalry frontages and what number of cavalry would fit realistically in a 100 meter square.

So far, I have found frontages per horse and can calculate the frontage per 2 rank line. 3-4 feet per horse were the numbers I have found. Which means cavalry in line would have a maximum of 110 cavalrymen per 100 meter front-more than likely closer to 82-95. So I think a double line of cavalry would have approximately 160-220 men per 100 yds

What I don't know is the distance between double lines of cavalry in column. Technically I think you could fit 1250 cavalry in column of squadrons into a 100 meter hex without too much difficulty. But did they really pack their lines in that close when stationary? Also I wonder how often French and Austrian cavalry charged in column during 1809.

Again in game terms, I have found I rarely use cavalry because they don't inflict enough losses to justify the point loss from their own casualties. As a defender, I like it when cavalry charges. I always gain on points unless they happen to catch me during an awkward moment. Just a thought but maybe cavalry should be more powerful in inflicting losses??

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

On #2 - its too bad we cant use fractions. Really its more like 1:3 believe it or not. A horse and rider didnt stand in place - the horse's legs would knot up - the rider had to have some room to be able to walk his horse a tad.

A horse and rider takes up MUCH more than 2 men do. So I am sure that John Tiller and the BGW guys (where these fractions come from) had to do something to make cavalry more potent - hence the 1:2 ratio.

I have the files and will check them out a bit. Will probably play you in a scenario real soon.

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

Bill,

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bill Peters

On #2 - its too bad we cant use fractions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the code restricted to single digit numbers? If not you can get whatever fraction you want, for example if you want 11/32 you simply enter 11:32.

More important to the topic at hand I'd like to say that this idea of changing stacking, adjusting firepower, etc. has a great deal of value and will definitley increase the liklihood of me buying additional HPS games. Would it be possible to have a maximum frontage for lines in a hex? It's a bit annoying to have 2 small battalions of 150-250 or so each which could conceivably form line side by side and only be able to use one because the other is assumed to be behind it. (Yes, I know that there were spaces between units in line adjacent to one another, but when you have smaller battalions to work with if you put each in an individual hex your line becomes too fragile and becomes artifically extended because the spacing is based on full hex increments -- it would be better if hex line firepower were capped at say 500. If that is one battalion fine, if it's two or one half that's OK, too). This would have the added benefit of forcing large battalions to form extended line to get the firepower of the whole battalion. It might even become less essential to change the stacking if the maximum firepower that could emanate from a hex was capped at the maximum realistic line frontage -- the desire to get the firepower would push players toward forming extended line where appropriate.

I do think that the strength of cavalry will have to be increased as they are spread thinner -- perhaps 4:1? Or maybe heavy cavalry at 4:1 and light cavalry remaining at 3:1. This would encourage using light cavalry more for scouting and maybe running down routing units when the battle is won.

General Theron Lambert
Comte d'Angers et Duc de Montereau
3rd Brigade, 3rd Division
VI Corps
Armee du Rhin
Commandant de la Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde

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

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Bill Peters

On #2 - its too bad we cant use fractions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is the code restricted to single digit numbers? If not you can get whatever fraction you want, for example if you want 11/32 you simply enter 11:32.

More important to the topic at hand I'd like to say that this idea of changing stacking, adjusting firepower, etc. has a great deal of value and will definitley increase the liklihood of me buying additional HPS games. Would it be possible to have a maximum frontage for lines in a hex? It's a bit annoying to have 2 small battalions of 150-250 or so each which could conceivably form line side by side and only be able to use one because the other is assumed to be behind it. (Yes, I know that there were spaces between units in line adjacent to one another, but when you have smaller battalions to work with if you put each in an individual hex your line becomes too fragile and becomes artifically extended because the spacing is based on full hex increments -- it would be better if hex line firepower were capped at say 500. If that is one battalion fine, if it's two or one half that's OK, too). This would have the added benefit of forcing large battalions to form extended line to get the firepower of the whole battalion. It might even become less essential to change the stacking if the maximum firepower that could emanate from a hex was capped at the maximum realistic line frontage -- the desire to get the firepower would push players toward forming extended line where appropriate.

I do think that the strength of cavalry will have to be increased as they are spread thinner -- perhaps 4:1? Or maybe heavy cavalry at 4:1 and light cavalry remaining at 3:1. This would encourage using light cavalry more for scouting and maybe running down routing units when the battle is won.

General Theron Lambert
Comte d'Angers et Duc de Montereau
3rd Brigade, 3rd Division
VI Corps
Armee du Rhin
Commandant de la Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde

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

One thought was to use a different ratio for manpower. Thus 1 factor in the game would be say 3 men. OR 1 factor in the game would be .33 men. Something like that.

I am against it as it makes the series non-standard. We already have different MP rates in the games (I still contend that mine work better as they give the Roads and Pikes a different feel).

About the only thing I am thinking on now is to reduce the stacking limit to 1400. That would make cavalry 700. A good move probably.

Ken and I did a test game - after about 8 turns I realized just how lethal the firepower for muskets was and asked to end the game. The stock value in my PDT file takes into account that losses in melee were from fire combat. I dont think that Ken sees this yet - I hope he does. Melees were firefights for the most part. Hence the fact that the Attacker usually will take more losses than the defender. Add in Ken's idea for stacking and you would have two French 700 man columns attacking one 1250 man Austrian Line and basically you would see large losses for the French as the system usually rewards those attacks that are at 2:1 odds or greater. Its not a perfect system by far.

Artillery had the same fire ability but the Austrians were cut too far back in range. For instance:

French 12lb - 18 hex range
Austrian 12lb - 10 hex range

That is far too much of a separation.

Austrian 6lb - 7 hex range. I was hardly able to hit anything before the French would have swarmed my guns.

Thus for future games I am going to use:

1. Cavalry is now squadrons as per the Sacile squadron version of the stock scenario. Each squadron breaks down into 2 platoons (idea per Al Amos) - correctly models the period - now French cuirassiers and Austrian dragoons would have the correct amount of sub-units (squadrons) instead a universal number. Breakdown value is 2. Allows for vedettes.

2. Stacking is 1400. Cavalry is 700. Guns are 7/10 of current value.

3. Time is 10 minutes. Our playtest team loves the 10 minute moves. Really gives the defender time to react.

I think that this will return the series to the days when you could set up a good defense (in say NIR) and give them a better chance at victory.

It allows the large Austrian battalians to stack with a leader. Kills the 2000 killer stack usage. Makes folks want to wear down the other guy more. More chance for artillery fires gives them more potency at medium ranges where they were best suited for hurting the enemy.

Comments? (let 'em fly guys)

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

Bill,

With a stacking strength of 1400 is there any chance that two French 500 man battalions can form line and both fire from the hex since 1200 Austrians will be able to? Again the smaller French battalions restrict the amount of firepower that can be concentrated against the larger volume of return fire, whereas in reality the volume of fire generated from a given frontage would be relatively equal (assuming both sides are using 3 rank lines). Lowering the stacking strength in half measures like this prevents the French from being able to mass as many columns as before to go after the walking battery that an Austrian battalion becomes, and we can't use lines either because half of the troops are considered behind the others if they're wearing blue but they fit in line much tighter when wearing white. I still feel that the engine needs to allow a certain amount of fire out of a hex regardless of how many units make up said line -- if 1200 Austrinas can line up and shoot I need to be able to deploy 1200 French in the same space to shoot back.

The cavalry changes sound good, although I'd still like to see more differentiation between light and heavy than the current settings provide. The lights should maybe even have an extra couple of movement points.

General Theron Lambert
Comte d'Angers et Duc de Montereau
3rd Brigade, 3rd Division
VI Corps
Armee du Rhin
Commandant de la Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde

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

With a stacking strength of 1400 is there any chance that two French 500 man battalions can form line and both fire from the hex since 1200 Austrians will be able to? Again the smaller French battalions restrict the amount of firepower that can be concentrated against the larger volume of return fire, whereas in reality the volume of fire generated from a given frontage would be relatively equal (assuming both sides are using 3 rank lines). Lowering the stacking strength in half measures like this prevents the French from being able to mass as many columns as before to go after the walking battery that an Austrian battalion becomes, and we can't use lines either because half of the troops are considered behind the others if they're wearing blue but they fit in line much tighter when wearing white. I still feel that the engine needs to allow a certain amount of fire out of a hex regardless of how many units make up said line -- if 1200 Austrinas can line up and shoot I need to be able to deploy 1200 French in the same space to shoot back.

The cavalry changes sound good, although I'd still like to see more differentiation between light and heavy than the current settings provide. The lights should maybe even have an extra couple of movement points.

General Theron Lambert
Comte d'Angers et Duc de Montereau
3rd Brigade, 3rd Division
VI Corps
Armee du Rhin
Commandant de la Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde

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

This is a feature that I would have to have added. Not sure that its really a big problem as all you have to do is adjust the stacking order of the stack and they can fire. No, they wont fire via ADF. Small tradeoff that has to be made.


Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

Of course if players would play properly and use extended line for formations over 480 men in 3 rank, then the problem wouldn't be so bad.

Colonel (ret) Al Amos
1er Dragoons
AdN

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Al Amos</i>
<br />Of course if players would play properly and use extended line for formations over 480 men in 3 rank, then the problem wouldn't be so bad.

Colonel (ret) Al Amos
1er Dragoons
AdN
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I would definitely agree. Dont you also think that the large stack mentality is due in part to how the players view success which is based on how you must pile up troops in order to take an objective?

The best players I know dont have to use large stacks. They wear you down and then wipe you out (sounds like a march cadence!).

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Bill Peters</i>
This is a feature that I would have to have added. Not sure that its really a big problem as all you have to do is adjust the stacking order of the stack and they can fire.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

But all but the first fire at half strength for having expended MP. So 900 Austrians in a hex (one bn.) fire as 900, while 900 French (three bns.) fire as 300+150+150=600.

<center>
Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant de la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, 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 de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

Dierk, to sum this all up:

1. I was speaking of the ability to fire. Not the lethality which I agree is less

AND

2. If I had my way I would like to see it where the 3 rank line figure (currently 900) would be the max. number of men that could fire from a hex. Thus if two lines were stacked together, their total was 900 or less then both could fire. If they add up to < 900 then one is behind the other and cant fire. For instance a 800 and 700 man battalians are in the same hex.

AND

3. If you want to change the stacking order then one of the units spends 4 MPs (not half) to go to the fore, both units are disordered, and the new unit on top fires at 1/4 value (disoredered and moved).

SO

4. Do you really want me to promote this to John?

Now lets look at what we have in the game:

1. You can have up to 8 units in a hex. Thus you could have up to 8 lines in a hex.

AND

2. Each time they fire they can cause a leader loss. Yes, this case is pretty rare but its quite possible that one of the eight shots would inflict a leader loss.

BUT

3. Each time the units below the top change order they fire at half. And each time they fire they get shot at. And other units in the stack take the losses sometimes. Which means that you now have 8 chances or more of losing a leader!

BUT

4. They do get to fire - which is unhistorical for more than say 900 men from one stack. Unless they crash through and disorder one another. Which doesnt happen currently which is a bonus to us (but not historical).

THUS

5. House Rule for Lines should be that only up to 900 men can fire from a hex that has multiple lines in it. If the first unit that fired is worth 700 men and then other units are 300, 100 and 500 then only the 300 OR 100 man unit could come to the top and fire.

BUT

6. I am not for any more House Rules than you are for that matter.

THUS

7. Lets leave well enough alone. If you want me to go to bat for the concept of full firepower for multiple lines in a hex you surely will get LESS firepower in the long run. Maybe less casualties though.

Which would you prefer? Historical or what we have - gamism?

Example:

Current:

4 x 500 man battalians.

One fires at full value. The other three at 1/2 thus 2.5 factor.

Now apply this to the above concept I would bring before John:

One fires at full value. None of the others could fire at full value as they cant line up along the front as the frontage wont allow for that many men to fire. So lets say that all three of them crash through.

You would have 1/4 for each. That is 3/4 total fire power or 1.75 or going by the historical approach you lose .75 firepower.

I would like to go the historical route if we change the game. How do the rest of you feel about this?

If we had the game changed then the numbers of the men in line starting from the top would be in a different color to show that they can fire at full value - they line the frontage of the hex.

Others would be the normal color.

The top guy(s) could fire and then the others could crash through and fire (not likely).

Now what about columns? The frontages varied. I would say that the fractional amount (1/3 for French, 1/6 for Austrians for instance) would dictate how many men would fire.

For instance:

600 man French column - fraction for French is 3 lets say. That means that only 200 men actually are firing from the column. (or 2 companies wide by 3 deep)

200 men would leave 700 men that could still fire from other columns using the fraction method.

Thus the frontage concept is retained.

For the Austrians who use 1/6 (one company wide by six deep) it would be:

hex has 3 columns - each are 600 men.

Total firepower per hex is 300 men. Thus another 700 men theoretically could fire but of course that would overstake the hex.

Only 200 more men would be able to fire from the hex (or stack in the hex as well). Or 1/6 would equal 33 men.

And for the French: lets say you had three battalians of 600 men. That's 1800 men and with the current stacking of 2000 they still have room for 200 more men.

Each battalian can fire for the effect of 200 men. However, not all of the battalians could not fire from the same hex.

Six companies per battalian each at 100 men (3 ranks). Two companies wide (3 factor), each company would take up 66 - 99 feet depending on spacing and company gaps.

(to be continued - it got too late!)

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army
[url="http://www.acwgc.org/acwgc_members/burr/Austrian%20Army/Bill_Peters.htm"]Officer Battle Dossier[/url]