Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

<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>

It was an official position of Alexander. "I'll rather retreat up to the Urals [or up to Kamtchatka a bit later] but will not sign a peace until a single enemy soldier stays within Motherlalnd" Hope you will forgive my free transtlation. And please don't tell me you don't know that Moscow was not a capital of Russian Empireby that time.

You know the whole russian army from prince Bagration to the last invalide-soldier in the wagoon train believed we could beat the enemy at the gates of Smolensk. But do take into account that there were no means russian side could know the real strength of the enemy force. You know they couldn't just open the scenario and watch where, when and who arrives. It was known that initial strength was approximately 600 thousand men. Ok substract the flanking forces, substract the reserves of the second echelone. You'll have 300. At the very least. Who could expect that Nappy was so loosy in organising marches that his army lost about 75 thousand men within several weeks with no major fights? Now tell me would you risk two tired armies of 100 thousand men altogether (do not forget the 1st corps was already detached to defend the real capital) against the enemy you were expecting to be three times stronger?

About the conclusion of the campaign. The recent point of view is that Kutuzov was not intended to risk the victory he gained. why enter the battle if in case of loss enemy will just leave the country in order and Kutuzov won't be a saver any longer. And in case of win someone else Tchichagov, Wittgenshtein, Miloradovich, Tormasov or whoever will be the saver and the "svetleishii knyaz" but not Kutuzov. It was not about winning the war - the war was already won. It was about the distribution of awards and the awards were distributed in a "proper" way. That's it. Do not mix political motivation with quality estimation[:)]

About these polish lancers. The example was intended to show it's not enough to be from poland, bear a lance and be called a guardsman to be a good cavalryman. The regiment performed poorly all the time it was on the fronteer. About a week or two then cossacks attacked and it dispersed. The reason was that the unit was made of GREEN MEN with absolutely no war experience. When they got some in 13-14 they (remains of course) fought great as part of the 1st Blue polish lancers of the Guard. So I insist on evaluating the quality based on individual units performance in the past. Say one regiment was raised in 1807 fought in 1st Polish campaign, then it fought at Rachzine (near Warshaw in 1809) (forgive me I could never spell it right [:I]) and then entered Russia in 1812. I'm talking about polish 6th or 9th infantry regiment. It's rated C. It sounds ok a regular unit with some combat experience. Another say polish 17th infantry was raised in 1811 and never saw an action before crossing the Nieman. But it's still rated C. Why? At the same time on the other side we see Apsherons regiment rated as C too. But do not forget it's the one Suvorov has crossed the Alps with. The regiment he called the best in the whole army. The regiment that took part in every and all conflicts since 99! And still C!

We should not use singular successes as a measure of quality. I can't say better. Then please do forget about Talavera and stop treating all of the polish lancers as if they were elite of the elite! We need to rate the units basing on their earlier performance, experience and partially on their performance in the campaign in question. Individually. And try to avoid the problem of 20 ME of course.

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

Good points Anton on lack of 21 century information abilites and personal motivation of commanders. I have not thought about it this way.

I also think that unit quality rating should be based on historic performance. However this will create a crowd of displeased NWC members and never ending arguing like the one you have now on 6th polish lancers [;)]

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

That's why I'm dreaming about a formal procedure. BTW they are 3rd not 6th.

Please do understand my situation I have an exam comming tomorrow and one more on Wednesday with some more work "in between". I just physically can't type a two pages long message describing all of the aspects of such a procedure until the next weekend. [V]

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
commander of Little Russian grenadiers regiment</b></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 />That's why I'm dreaming about a formal procedure. BTW they are 3rd not 6th.

Please do understand my situation I have an exam comming tomorrow and one more on Wednesday with some more work "in between". I just physically can't type a two pages long message describing all of the aspects of such a procedure until the next weekend.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Anton,

I agree on the need for a more focused discussion. Towards that end, please allow me to share an evening's analysis of the "Historical_July_1812.oob" in NRC.

My comments will, for now, be directed towards the Russian "line" cavalry, i.e, non-Guard, non-cossack cavalry formations. Both Guard and cossack units raise other considerations which should be considered separately to avoid further, unfocused discussions. For instance, the Lifeguard Dragoons & Lifeguard Uhlans (1st Bg/Gd Cav Dv/1st Cav Corps/1st West Army) were originally raised in 1803 as the Odessa Hussar Rgt. In 1805 the Odessa Hussars were transformed into the Grand Duke Constantine Uhlan Rgt. Finally, in 1809, they were transfered to the Russian Imperial Guard with 5 of its 10 sqds becoming the Lifeguard Dragoons and the rest the Lifeguard Uhlans. The questions raised by these various transformations (E.g., were remounts issued to the 5 sqds that became "Dragoons" in order to make them "heavy" cavalry?) deserve separate consideration.

Anyway, NRC's oob for the start of the campaign in July 1812, lists:

* 8 cuirassier rgts and 2 "converged" cuirassier rgts (4,325 men);

* 32 dragoon rgts, 8 "converged/combined" dragoon rgts & 1 detached dragoon sqd. (19,650 men);

* 11 hussar rgts & 1 combined huss. rgt (10,525 men);

* 5 Uhlan rgts. (4,625 men).

Total non-Guard, non-cossack cavalry: 39,125 men.

<font size="4"><font color="red">It should be noted that 3 dragoon rgts (Seruchov, Vladimir & Taganrog/24th Bg/8th Cav/Corps Cav/IX Corps/3rd West Army) were given, presumably inadvertently, a morale of "-5", e.g., the "golden morale" of the Russian infantry.</font id="red"></font id="size4">

It should also be noted that 4 Dragoon rgts. (Nijegorod, Narva, Kazan or Borisoglievsk) are curiously absent from the NRC's oob.

With the help of a spreadsheet, I calculated the following statistics:

* 61.28% of the Russian cavalry are rated as "heavy;"
* Dragoons constitute 50.22% of the line cav;
* As written, the oob gives "A" morale, or better, to 31.44% of the line cavalry. If the "golden morale" of the 24th Bg is discounted as a clerical error, 27.73% of the Russian line cavalry is still rated as an elite force.
* 40.59% of all dragoons are rated "A", or better. If the 24th Bg's "golden morale" is corrected, a third (33.21%) of all dragoons are still rated as "A", or better.
* ALL Hussar rgts were rated "B."

Looking at these statistics, two things jump out at me:

* With all due respect, the <i>sine qua non</i> for what constitutes "heavy" cavalry has always been whether the unit consists of "Big men, on big horses." How could the Russians find enough BIG horses and BIG men to make nearly 2/3 (61.28%) of their line cavalry "heavy"? I have no problem assuming that all cuirassiers, even the newly raised 6th sqds that made up the "converged" cuir. units, had the requisite large men and horses. They represent only 11% of the line cav. But how could they find enough mounts to make all dragoons (1/2 of the Russian line cav) "heavy"?

* Why would 1/3 of the dragoon rgts (40.59% if you include the "golden" 24th Bg) have a HIGHER morale than every single Hussar rgt? As has been acknowledged elsewhere, the dragoons received what was left over after the more prestigious cuir and hussar rgts had met their requirements. How are "leftovers" converted into the army's elite force?

Regards,

Paco



<i>Maréchal M. Francisco Palomo
Comte de Marseille
Duc d'Abrantes
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde</i>
AdC - <i>Ieré Corps de Armee</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by pacowork</i>
<br /><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 />That's why I'm dreaming about a formal procedure. BTW they are 3rd not 6th.

Please do understand my situation I have an exam comming tomorrow and one more on Wednesday with some more work "in between". I just physically can't type a two pages long message describing all of the aspects of such a procedure until the next weekend.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Anton,

I agree on the need for a more focused discussion. Towards that end, please allow me to share an evening's analysis of the "Historical_July_1812.oob" in NRC.

My comments will, for now, be directed towards the Russian "line" cavalry, i.e, non-Guard, non-cossack cavalry formations. Both Guard and cossack units raise other considerations which should be considered separately to avoid further, unfocused discussions. For instance, the Lifeguard Dragoons & Lifeguard Uhlans (1st Bg/Gd Cav Dv/1st Cav Corps/1st West Army) were originally raised in 1803 as the Odessa Hussar Rgt. In 1805 the Odessa Hussars were transformed into the Grand Duke Constantine Uhlan Rgt. Finally, in 1809, they were transfered to the Russian Imperial Guard with 5 of its 10 sqds becoming the Lifeguard Dragoons and the rest the Lifeguard Uhlans. The questions raised by these various transformations (E.g., were remounts issued to the 5 sqds that became "Dragoons" in order to make them "heavy" cavalry?) deserve separate consideration.

Anyway, NRC's oob for the start of the campaign in July 1812, lists:

* 8 cuirassier rgts and 2 "converged" cuirassier rgts (4,325 men);

* 32 dragoon rgts, 8 "converged/combined" dragoon rgts & 1 detached dragoon sqd. (19,650 men);

* 11 hussar rgts & 1 combined huss. rgt (10,525 men);

* 5 Uhlan rgts. (4,625 men).

Total non-Guard, non-cossack cavalry: 39,125 men.

<font size="4"><font color="red">It should be noted that 3 dragoon rgts (Seruchov, Vladimir & Taganrog/24th Bg/8th Cav/Corps Cav/IX Corps/3rd West Army) were given, presumably inadvertently, a morale of "-5", e.g., the "golden morale" of the Russian infantry.</font id="red"></font id="size4">

It should also be noted that 4 Dragoon rgts. (Nijegorod, Narva, Kazan or Borisoglievsk) are curiously absent from the NRC's oob.

With the help of a spreadsheet, I calculated the following statistics:

* 61.28% of the Russian cavalry are rated as "heavy;"
* Dragoons constitute 50.22% of the line cav;
* As written, the oob gives "A" morale, or better, to 31.44% of the line cavalry. If the "golden morale" of the 24th Bg is discounted as a clerical error, 27.73% of the Russian line cavalry is still rated as an elite force.
* 40.59% of all dragoons are rated "A", or better. If the 24th Bg's "golden morale" is corrected, a third (33.21%) of all dragoons are still rated as "A", or better.
* ALL Hussar rgts were rated "B."

Looking at these statistics, two things jump out at me:

* With all due respect, the <i>sine qua non</i> for what constitutes "heavy" cavalry has always been whether the unit consists of "Big men, on big horses." How could the Russians find enough BIG horses and BIG men to make nearly 2/3 (61.28%) of their line cavalry "heavy"? I have no problem assuming that all cuirassiers, even the newly raised 6th sqds that made up the "converged" cuir. units, had the requisite large men and horses. They represent only 11% of the line cav. But how could they find enough mounts to make all dragoons (1/2 of the Russian line cav) "heavy"?

* Why would 1/3 of the dragoon rgts (40.59% if you include the "golden" 24th Bg) have a HIGHER morale than every single Hussar rgt? As has been acknowledged elsewhere, the dragoons received what was left over after the more prestigious cuir and hussar rgts had met their requirements. How are "leftovers" converted into the army's elite force?

Regards,

Paco



<i>Maréchal M. Francisco Palomo
Comte de Marseille
Duc d'Abrantes
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde</i>
AdC - <i>Ieré Corps de Armee</i>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Big men on big horses is not what I have read.

It was big horses, men with some sort of armor protection (front AND back can be debated over just front ie. Austrians).

Thus a big dude that is a hussar on a big horse is NOT heavy cavalry.

And the hussars sometimes scrounged a big horse now and then. But that wouldnt make them heavies.

If it could be told most of the French cavalry in 1812 is NOT heavy. Even the heavies are debatable by Borodino and Smolensk as being heavy cavalry if the term BIG horse is taken into consideration. Horses by the time of Smolensk were getting weaker due to the rigors of the Russian campaign. I am not saying that they could barely move but if you are looking for big horse AND big men with the former being in healthy shape for a battle then the French cavalry at Borodino is not much in the way of heavy cavalry.

Yes, the Russian dragoons are not heavy cavalry.

Here are some sample lines from the borodino.oob file:

U 425 6 H S 50 6 Kargopol Dragoons

I would rate them as 5 morale and L and not H.

Dragoons got the worse mounts along with the Hussars in the army. Cossacks may have had better horses than the Dragoons.

The Russian campaign bites both ways. However, sufficient sources exist to prove that the Russian dragoons were line cavalry at best. NOT heavies.

Here is another example:

U 425 5 L S 122 7 Soum Hussars

This is correct. The dragoons should be identical to this regiment.

Some rate the Hussars as awful as far as training and mounts go. I cant go 100 percent with them. 5 morale plus a leader means that under a normal morale check you dont disorder or rout. That means that these guys wont break unless they get up to 300 points fatigue or are shot on from the flank. etc.

Note that I also believe that French dragoons should not be heavies:

U 300 6 H S 30 15 7th Dragoons

And certainly not 6 morale. More like 5.

I would even be happy to downgrade the cossacks to 2 and 3 rather than 3 and 4. Lower the dragoons of both sides to 4. I am adopting this method in my next title. Our team has discussed this and dragoons were a line cavalry and certainly do not deserve a 6 morale.

If they were well mounted and had armor then make them heavies. But for the most part the dragoons didnt get the heavy horses of the cuirassiers.

Which is why Napoleon was furious with Jerome for building a Westphalian cuirassier regiment. Note that he never berated him or a German prince/king from building a DRAGOON regiment because they didnt require the large horses (and plentry of remounts).

So dragoons shouldnt be rated as heavies on EITHER side, cossacks with less morale would not do as well in action (with lance) against the French and with lower morales the cavalry will be less likely to hang around and die to a man.



Bill Peters
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

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

<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 />

<font color="yellow">(...) However this will create a crowd of displeased NWC members and never ending arguing like the one you have now on 6th polish lancers [;)] (...)</font id="yellow">
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Alexey: displeased only about that kind of manipulation reg. well known facts, which need to be rectified.

Therefore I won't comment too much on such kind of innuendo:

<font color="yellow">"The example was intended to show it's not enough to be from poland, bear a lance and be called a guardsman to be a good cavalryman"</font id="yellow">.

<b>An example based on a lie doesn't speak well for the debater or his good intensions! </b>[}:)]

As you probably know, the Polish troops were the 2.nd largest force within the Grand Armee and generally at least as much motivated as the Russian. Do you see any Golden (or in that case Silver) Morale for the Poles? After all Napoleon called it the 2.nd Polish Campaign in order to revive the Kingdom of Poland in it's origin borders and to recreate a natural barrier for the Western Europe from growing Russian Empire. Based on the enthusiasm, erruption of patriotic feelings and lust for avenging the lost campaign of 1794 and Suvorov's genocide on civil population of Warsaw, Poland raised a huge army despite it's totally devastated economy caused by partitions and outsourcing. Oh well, enough!... If Napoleon only had had listened to Poniatowski for wintering in Smolensk [;)] Back to the topic.

Anton & other Russian friends,
you seem to mix the political and strategical aspects with the tactical ones. Let's focus on the merits again.

<font color="yellow">"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."</font id="yellow">

According to Anton's own words it's the best statement, proving the game isn't well balanced.

As an example: a few weeks ago Paco and I challenged two of the best Russian players Jeka Gulyaev and Pavel Stafa. The forces were huge but almost equal. No house rules were agreed decreasing the blitzkrieg effects. After approx. 25 turns or so the battle was over. The Russian (besides excellent skilled players due to their golden morale, cossacks crushing cuirassiers, Russian artillery totally overwhelming the French in fire strenght etc. etc. combined with blitzkrieg) gave us no chance in the frontal confrontation. The French troops lost their cohesion. Routed or disordered had no more chance to withstand continuous assaults. We gave our swords to our opponents and agreed on a rematch at the fields of Eckmuhl (Hunting Davout scn.) Result? So far, after approx. 30 turns still a draw, with good chances to win for both sides. That's what you can call a well balanced game.

We can go on and discuss all the units and their quality, but analysing the whole Russian campaign from the strategical and political points of view is completely abbreviated from the merits: <b>the single battle</b>. In the game terms it's clear: you get more vp's - you win. You force the Russian to retreat (no matter whether the single battle is a part of an superior strategical plan), you gain the ground, get more opponent troops eliminated than your own lost - you still win the single engagement. The problem is, the current (strategically determined) settings (vulgo: golden morale) spoil the balance of separate battles. Kind of quadrature of a circle. Thus I don't think it's possible at all to get a reasonable result within a framework of HPS games.

As Dierk already has stated, I think the best we can do is to agree that we apparently can not agree. Let's differ from each other, but in a good and friendly manner.


<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>

Bill,

I agree in part and disagree in part with your comments.

<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>

Big men on big horses is not what I have read.

It was big horses, men with some sort of armor protection (front AND back can be debated over just front ie. Austrians).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Armor clearly cut down on casualties, but it did not determine whether the unit in question functioned as "heavy." The French Carabiniers were, clearly, "heavy" cavalry long before Napoleon made them don cuirasses after the 1809 Campaign. The same can be said of the British and KGL "heavy" dragoon rgts that never wore armor or the Prussian, post-1812 Dragoon rgts.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Yes, the Russian dragoons are not heavy cavalry.

Here are some sample lines from the borodino.oob file:

U 425 6 H S 50 6 Kargopol Dragoons

I would rate them as 5 morale and L and not H.

Dragoons got the worse mounts along with the Hussars in the army. Cossacks may have had better horses than the Dragoons.

The Russian campaign bites both ways. However, sufficient sources exist to prove that the Russian dragoons were line cavalry at best. NOT heavies.

Here is another example:

U 425 5 L S 122 7 Soum Hussars

This is correct. The dragoons should be identical to this regiment.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Agreed [:D]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Note that I also believe that French dragoons should not be heavies:

U 300 6 H S 30 15 7th Dragoons

And certainly not 6 morale. More like 5.

I would even be happy to downgrade the cossacks to 2 and 3 rather than 3 and 4. Lower the dragoons of both sides to 4. I am adopting this method in my next title. Our team has discussed this and dragoons were a line cavalry and certainly do not deserve a 6 morale.

If they were well mounted and had armor then make them heavies. But for the most part the dragoons didnt get the heavy horses of the cuirassiers.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I also agree with this, and would remind you that I was one of the members of your team that argued for it. [;)]

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal M. Francisco Palomo
Comte de Marseille
Duc d'Abrantes
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde</i>
AdC - <i>Ieré Corps de Armee</i>

<i>I think the best we can do is to agree that we apparently can not agree</i>.

Gentlemen some of you ignore the start of the discussion:

Statement:
<i>1. At Borodino they barely managed to hold their own
2. At Maloyaroslavets, the whole Russian army barely managed to contain a single Italian corps
3. At Krasnoe, half a Russian army ran before the Young Guard
4. At the Berezina, a charge by 2000 cuirassiers very nearly routed a Russian army</i>

Conclusion:
<i>Russian performance in 1812 battlefields is poor.</i>

Aplying to NRC:

Statement- cause: <i>poor historical performance but Russians never seem to rout</i>

In NRC

Effect: <i>unplayable and unhistorical NRC</i>

Challenging the statement you can ask: did they actually they barely managed to hold and nearly routed?

If you disprove the initial statement the conclusions would not be relevant anymore. I tried to do this in my topic of Jan 19 2006: 10:55:08 PM

I have not received any comments on that apart from:

“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 Frenchâ€

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

We can go on and discuss all the units and their quality, but analysing the whole Russian campaign from the strategical and political points of view is completely abbreviated from the merits: <b>the single battle</b>. In the game terms it's clear: you get more vp's - you win. You force the Russian to retreat (no matter whether the single battle is a part of an superior strategical plan), you gain the ground, get more opponent troops eliminated than your own lost - you still win the single engagement. The problem is, the current (strategically determined) settings (vulgo: golden morale) spoil the balance of separate battles. Kind of quadrature of a circle. Thus I don't think it's possible at all to get a reasonable result within a framework of HPS games.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Tomasz,

I disagree with your conclusion that the "golden morale" fatally flaws NRC and makes it impossible to have a balanced game. NIR had an even larger morale bonus for the Russians, but, after some very neccessary corrections were made to the Borodino oob, it proved to be a reasonably balanced game.

In my posts I am trying to focus the discussion on the flaws in the oob which, if corrected, will dramatically improve both the accuracy of the simulation AND the "play balance." For instance, our Twin Peaks game vs. Jeka & Pavel was NOT determined by the "golden morale" of the Russian infantry; they had been engaged for only a few turns before the battle ended. The decisive factor was the fact that the French cavalry was literally washed away by wave upon wave of unrealistically aggressive cossacks and "A" morale, "heavy" dragoons[B)]!

Yes, the "golden morale" converts the Russian infantry into indomitable defenders. It does not enhance, however, their OFFENSIVE capabilities. Moreover, the Russian infantry DID display, across the board, a fierce tenacity in defense of the <i>Rodina</i> which SHOULD be reflected in the game if it wishes to lay claim to historical verisimilitude.

If we can reach consensus on what factors should be changed in the oob and/or pdt (<i>Inter alia</i> you have made a compelling case for raising the morale of the Polish troops), I am fully confident that the end result will be both an enjoyable and historically accurate game.

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et
Comte de Marseille
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde </i>

Fascinating discussion.

I am not going to get into the discussion of strategy, individual unit performance etc as these are, for me, non-issues regarding play-ability of the games.

Golden Morale has been a problem since the days of NIR. While it is right to have a factor to represent the Russian tenacity in the game, it can be too great an effect and have an impact on players' tactics to overcome it. This can affect what I will term playability and, as a consequence, a player's enjoyment of the game.

Some suggestions for balancing the Golden Morale:

1. Make Russian units one quality level lower than the corresponding French unit, then use Golden Morale to make them one higher, (not necessarily all units, but a general rule).

2. Give the units the same quality, Golden Morale increases Russian morale by 1. Then adapt the weapons table, giving the French forces a slight edge in musketry / artillery, or reducing slightly the effectiveness of the Russian units. This to reflect, where appropriate, better training, discipline or experience.

3. Remove the charge bonus for Cossacks, and possibly their lance bonus. These should never be able to go up against a formed cavalry regiment. Over-running skirmishers, harrassing supply lines, capturing routed units etc is all fine, but with the bonuses they tend to be used as another element of the line cavalry.

4. I don't know if it still applies but, Golden Morale in NIR used to render the Russian units immune to the effects of isolation. I would lift this also, though it possibly has less of an effect on the game than the other aspects of the Golden Morale.

I'm not particularly advocating any of the above, just suggesting their consideration to help balance the effect that the Golden Morale seems to be having on the playability of the game.

Regards

Mark

First of all. Tomasz, May I ask you to look through the article "The Imperial Guard and Polish Nationalism: 1812-1814" by Paul Dawson on the www.napoleon-series.org It's the place where I've read about these newly raised polish (actually lithunian) guard regiments. The idea of their poor performance was a simple combination of facts taken from various sources considering campaign in Volynia. May I hope I won't have to wait for your appologies for too long?[}:)]

Paco, well, I don't actually know how to start. Probably with the most simple thing. These four dragoons regiment you mentioned were used on the other fronts. Kazan's was on the Caucasus that's for sure. 18 squadrons were left in the Wallachian army and so on.

Next. Dragoons of that time should be considered heavies. Three reasons:
1. They were armed with heavy cavalry sword - yje fact I already mentioned and, if I understand the manual right, it's the reason for this 25% modifier for heavy cavalry in melee
2. Both cuirassiers and dragoons in russian army were using "german" saddle unlike hussars and uhlans who were using "hungrian" and cossacks who were using all kinds of native saddles which, as they say, did not differ from "hungrian" much. To be honest I know nothing about the saddles but can't help mentioning. Maybe for someone more experienced in horseback riding it will tell a lot.
3. By the regulations dragoons horses were rather tall. Not less than 156 cm as I already mentioned. And I read complaints that horses couldn't be bought at the prices set but the regulations, about difficulties to put new, sometimes completely wild, horses into the line. But I never saw an account where officer would complain about lack of tall horses. So I suppose it was not a problem.

I hope you will agree that quality we should discuss separately.

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
commander of Little Russian grenadiers regiment</b></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 />First of all. Tomasz, May I ask you to look through the article "The Imperial Guard and Polish Nationalism: 1812-1814" by Paul Dawson on the www.napoleon-series.org It's the place where I've read about these newly raised polish (actually lithunian) guard regiments. The idea of their poor performance was a simple combination of facts taken from various sources considering campaign in Volynia. May I hope I won't have to wait for your appologies for too long?[}:)]<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Now, Anton, it's getting really ridiculous!!! [}:)][:(!][V]
Repeating Kafka's "Der Prozess"? Pure surrealism, pure nonsense...
Alhough I feel like I'm getting tired of discussing it with you that way, let's summarize:

1. First of all, we're discussing the balance of the game with focus on the Russian golden morale.

2. You strike back questioning the quality, morale etc. of the Polish troops (due to lack of arguments?).

3. Following that you give a false example.
- not Polish (in fact Lithuanian),
- not beaten by lone Cossacks (in fact hussards, cossacks, jaegers with artillery),
- not twice as small (in fact approx. 6 times bigger force),
- not run away (in fact, although surprised, fighting for the village and retaking it 3 times!)
- the regiment was in organisation stage, thus could not have taken part in any prior engagements in Volynia.

4. After I've proved the example's a lie, you start using rather insulting and offensive formulations like <font color="yellow">"(...)it's not enough to be from <b>p</b>oland, bear a lance and be called a guardsman to be a good cavalryman (...)"</font id="yellow">.

5. You finally come with a link to an internet article (sic!), which absolutely is not any excuse! The article is shallow and full of inaccurate formulations (I won't put any comment on it, as it would require more time). The only description of the engagement are those two sentences:
"On 19 October, the regiment was suddenly attacked in Slonim by Russian forces under General Chaplitz and was completely destroyed. General Konopka, 13 officers, and 253 men were captured. The only survivors came from its depot".
Where did you find the information: <font color="yellow">"They were attacked by a cossack force twice smaller. They ran away and scattered"</font id="yellow">??? I pressume it's your free imagination...[:(]

6. For your information, here are some of the Russian sources on this event:
- Chichagov do Kutuzova 20.Oct. <i>(Otiech. wojna XX 22-3)</i>
- Arnoldi u Wojenskiego <i>(Otiech. wojna w zapiskach sowremennikow, Petersburg 1911, 16-8)</i>
- Czaplic, <i>(Otiech. wojna w rozkazach..., Russk. Star. 1896, II 501-2)</i>

7. And finally, after it's been proven your arguments weren't based on reliable sources and you started using offensive formulations, you expect my apologies. I'm afraid you'll have to wait too long, cause now I got really tired of it! [}:)]



<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>

Tomasz!

They were not outnumbered 6:1. These odds would be only if you count the whole Chaplic detachement. But he attacked Slonim only with 6 hussars squadrons (about 700 men), 5 cossack sotnyas (493 men) and 4 guns. Guns and some cavalry were not in the fight since they were blocking the Minsk road. Do not forget there were three lithuanian infantry regiments forming at Slonim by that time. So the odds shoud be rather 1:6. But I understand they were raw recruits and had little value. So let us discuss only cavalry.

Konopka detached 4 officers and 250 men to guard the cash train. This force was followed by 50 russian cossacks and "a sotnya" of hussars. 150 men strong altogether. The enemy prepared to attack but "nerves let them down" and they set on running. "On this run I was able to take 2 officers, about 200 men and the cash train"- capt. Arnoldi. That's what I mean while saying they were attacked by a smaller cossacks force. Were they not. Of course the force was mixed and consisted only partially of cossacks. A terrible lie, isn't it?

Konopka's own force was attacked by Chaplic himself. I caqn say nothing about the course of the fight. I just know russian casualties in it were 1 man killed and 6 wounded. Far too little for a really bold fight.

Now, I was using Vasiliev's "Several loud strikes on the tigers tail", which in this part is just a combination of quotations from Arnoldi and Chaplic. These very sources you mentioned "just for me to know".

So now I do not understand where is my lie hidden? In using secondary sources that literally follow the eyewithness? Or maybe in counting only the troops that actually took part in the fight and letting out the ones several miles away? Or maybe in calling the loss of 1 general, 1 colonel 2 chefs d'escadron, 10 more junior officers with 217 men only as prisoners as a "poor performance"? Or what? No, you must tell me! Because if you accuse me in lie in public I have either to appologise and then I must know for what or accuse you. [}:)]

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

Anton,
it looks like you forward new arguments based on new sources. Why did you come first with the internet article as the general source you used for the prior statements and better sources first now? Looks like you're trying to defend a lost cause for every cost.
BTW, those sources I've mentioned are only Russian and differ from the Polish (Kalinowski, Barb. Dabrowska, Gorayski, Zaluski etc.). I won't get into details, but where did you get the information about 3 inf. regiments forming in Slonim on 19.th Oct. from???

No matter; in my previous post I've described the general problem. Using a rather insignificant and doubtful example (I think we can agree on that!) you tried to discredit the quality of Polish troops (in conjecture: en masse). „Calomniez, calomniez, il en restera toujours quelque chose!â€

Tomasz,

It's simple. I was writing "by memory" and didn't get right what you meant. Since I knew there was only one english source I just mentioned it as soon as it was requested. To find that Vasiliev's book I had to put all the house on the ears today. Didn't think you are acquainted with russian sources[:)]

From Chaplic "...I managed to destroy 4 forming enemy regiments in one day...." - about 5th October (old style). One being these chevauxlegers, 3 are left for the infantry. It's also stated everywhere that Slonim was one of the depots for Lithuanian recruits. The exact numbers I do not know, of course, so did not extend on that. And do not now.

Yes, probably the example is not the best one. But you got me wrong here. No intension to discredit Polish forces. Quite the opposite I do want to name the veterans units that fought well veterans while calling militia or recruits only units militia.

The question is not about the Polish troops or Russian. The question is about the system that does allows double standarts. BTW why I started with poles. Because they are the closest to Russian force in terms of culture. Most of the statements about stoicism, fanaticism and so on and so forth of Russian soldier can be applied to them literally. I started to think why so often our officers claim poles ran away with no honor. That's simple becuase every time it happened opponents were just a mere militia, auxiliary troops. Did Russians have something like that? Sure - "zapasnye" batallions and squadrons, opolchenie, invalides teams. All of them never could stand the attack of a formed unit so they either ran away or surrendered. Or they fought to the last man - there were examples, specially invalides who are actually the hardy veterans with dozens of campaigns behind.

That's what I'm talking about all this time. Let's call recruit recruit and veteran a veteran and assign quality accordingly. Instead of calling one russians with C but golden morale, other poles just with C while french should be all As or Bs as it's widely offered in here. It's the best way to forget the real heroes under the mask of national superiority. There are heroes and cowards in every army.

Sure, let's leave it as it is now. I consider the problem solved.

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