Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

You sure are entitled to your opinion, just like the rest of us are. This is a discussion after all....so everyone should take part. No one is denying you or anyone else that chance.... Carry On!

Salute!

Just want to say first of all that I'm glad to see so many members participating in the discussion of this thread - both long time members and some who are newer to the club.

I would like to address the issue of elections for the club Cabinet and army commanders, as very little has been said on the subject so far...

Am I correct in presuming that from the lack of general comment on this subject that most members are supportive of the idea of electing the positions which are important to the daily operations of the club and the respective armies?

For the record, I support the proposal to do so as it empowers the membership to have a greater say in how the club functions, and the path we will be following to improve the long term viability of our unique gaming community.

Just a general reminder folks, we have one week left for open discussion now. Maybe the AC's should send out a blast email to their members.....just a thought.

For those of you not able to find it; in this post

viewtopic.php?f=41&t=13807

you find the reasons that the Allied Coalition commander is not longer in the cabinet. It is also the reason that the 'club rules' as you are reading now are not official. It's just a piece of text of a group of people. They are finally approved up on by only 4 members of the cabinet, which has resulted in a unbalanced vote. Which is impossible following our own current club rules.
But also that seems to be possible with this cabinet. I wonder where the limits are?

On page 1 you will find my comments on chapter 3. At the end of page 2 you will find a summary of all the points that were simply ignored and not even properly discussed in the cabinet. On page 3 you will find the statements of the club president on my points. You can see for yourself that no proper discussion was even possible. After all the club presidents drafted all the text, thus he agrees upon them.

A good club president should lead a discussion, mediate and reach a consensus in which everybody can find himself. Unfortunately the club president is completely unable to do such a thing, now and in the past.

After these final messages from the club president I resigned my position.

You have noted for yourself that the same thing is happening right now. You can discuss and post messages what you want here, but mark my word that this piece of unofficial text will not be changed anyway and will become our new club rules. That is unless everybody votes against it, which will never happen.

So, even when 49% of the voters is against it no changes will be made, and the club cabinet will not even listening to you. Well, they will listen to you and state again and again that they are here for you etc etc. But in the mean time they just do the things they like.

Just one last remark: I am not against new club rules. I pushed the cabinet for years to finally start drawing them. Without me you were not even reading these posts. But I am against the absence of proper discussion, the completely unbalanced voting process in the cabinet were the club president write the rules and will always vote 'yes' for them and the strange feeling I have when I was really the only one in the cabinet that came with remarks anyway.

In the same way I do not like the 2 week period to give comments here (and no proper reaction to that as usual, by the president), the almost complete absence of answers by the cabinet on technical questions by the members in this post and the impossibility to make changes prior to the vote.

But I have the feeling that the cabinet will at least respond to this message!

Marco's interpretation of what transpired in the cabinet, and taking credit for the idea of rules is very different what I mine is as to what happened within the cabinet, that you can read for yourself from the cabinet minutes, which in this case is not my interpretation, but what is actually posted by each cabinet member.

The cabinet has 5 members, votes were cast on each section, 4 voted yes and 1 voted no, I believe that is the democratic process which I believe most of us would agree to you. And as some like to point out what has happened in the past, the vote of majority on an issue was implemented.

The final vote on all these sections is up to each individual member to decide. I know there is a lot to read, but please do so, read the rule changes, read the discussions, and then when the time to vote comes, please vote.

Battle On...

Al

_________________
Général David Guegan

3ème Régiment de Grenadiers - Bataillon d'élite du 3ème Légère
2ème Brigade
Grenadiers de la Réserve
Réserve
La Grande Armée
--------------------------
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step."
Napoléon Bonaparte

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

And I have to add... I don't understand why we have to vote on each section but discuss them all in one topic? It is not consistent.

_________________
Général David Guegan

3ème Régiment de Grenadiers - Bataillon d'élite du 3ème Légère
2ème Brigade
Grenadiers de la Réserve
Réserve
La Grande Armée
--------------------------
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step."
Napoléon Bonaparte

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

After reading this soooooooo looooooonnnnggg discussion I have decided to add my views.

I have been a member of the club for one year now and have enjoyed every minute of it.

I have had a time when due to my partners illness, work, children and looking after the home and finances as well as the multiple pets we seem to have gained, been unable to give the time needed and there may even be a time in the future that this may happen again, but why not leave it a year, if a member does not answer the muster any time in 1 year then they are to be posted to the respective reservists list, if this is what it is and maybe reduce it down to 6 months for officers of command positions. Like someone said what does it take to send an email, especially in this day and age.

The only gripe I have is the point system which I personally think is unfair and I know one or two other officers and not in the LGA have agreed as well on this. To loose a battle on points when your opponents army is totally annihilated is madness and I would like to see a change to this. I mean what happens if you have a majority of cavalry in your army than your opponent you have lost its as simple as that. Can we have a change in this ruling, I understand it may take some work but it would be fairer.

As for any changes in the rules, I don't have a really have a problem with them and on the whole they are well thought out and clear and I must congratulate the cabinet and others involved for the work done, a credit to you, but I think the majority of this discussion has revolved around the voting and discussion period, lets resolve this now and discuss what's important.

As for the club itself, there are quite a few changes I would like to see and having a voice in how the club runs will certainly go a long way towards seeing these happen, long live democracy and freedom.

Salute!

Mark Hornsby wrote: The only gripe I have is the point system which I personally think is unfair and I know one or two other officers and not in the LGA have agreed as well on this. To loose a battle on points when your opponents army is totally annihilated is madness and I would like to see a change to this. I mean what happens if you have a majority of cavalry in your army than your opponent you have lost its as simple as that. Can we have a change in this ruling, I understand it may take some work but it would be fairer.

What you are talking about here is the actual Victory Level conditions as provided by the games themselves.

I agree that there are often seemingly unfair conditions to be met - for example I suffered a Major Defeat in my first played game, although I had lost only 22% of my army compared to 44% of my opponent.

In the end, there are several creative ways to get around this: one is to mirror match the battle, and when both games are completed you can compare the actual VP totals to determine the victor; or you can establish your own criteria for victory with your opponent before beginning the battle.

Regards,

Looking at how victory/Defeat flows into the OBD points I don't think it matters too much how the result are in the end, of course if you're after Victory Points for medals etc. it looks not so unimportant.
An alternative would be to compare the game result with the historic result, as wargames usually repeat history the victory goes to the player that exceeds historic results.
I simple example would be WW2, if you can defeat the Third Reich xy weeks earlier the Victory goes to the Allies, if you need XY weeks more Victory goes to the Third Reich, results close to history give a draw.
But do the new rules prohibit that players can decided when there is a victory/loss and don't look at the points, I don''t see that so as long as both sides agree to victory conditions before the game starts anything should be fine.


But I have to admit that I too would have liked to see a different approach in the section 5 with the scoring system too.
Currently the number of turns or in-game minutes decides how many points are given, that totally ignores the complexity of a scenario, doing 10 turns on the Battle of Zahna(Leipzig) is very different compared to doing 10 turns in Battle of Leipzig.
I have already thought about a different system and have a basic idea of it but that is also not something for this thread.

Just look at the rules and if you don't fully agree simply vote NO and if enough player have similar concerns about a section it ends up on the drawing board again and that will be the time for open input by all members.

Salute!

I read with great interest the post above by David Guegan, and believe he raised some interesting points and concerns that I thought worthy of engaging further discussion.

I did this privately with David first, but he suggested that I post in this thread, and so I will.

I will address some of his questions and the PoV that I have of them...

My question is how this civilian cabinet is different from the armies leadership?

Excerpted from the proposed Rules:
Our club also includes a "civilian" cabinet led by a Club President who is elected by the membership. This provides a method to balance the military perspective of our club, while providing our members with a means to communicate complaints, suggestions and comments to a body of neutral leaders without any bias towards the particular armies in our club.

I think the above quote indicates clearly the reasons for the need for a neutral body to moderate the actions of the subordinate army commanders and their interactions with their members (as an example I would refer to the incident that occurred with a former LGA CiC who took it upon himself to expel a member (of LGA) from the club).

The CiC does not have such authority, which is why we have a cabinet to monitor and resolve such issues.

Maybe it would be better if the French corps commanders were also elected since they are the equivalents (in numbers at least) of the allied armies. It would put both sides at the same level.

I think that holding elections for LGA Corps commanders (and the individual Coalition armies) would unnecessarily generate too many elections.

Personally I believe that the LGA should elect its CiC, as would the Coalition armies, and the CiC's of both may then assign commanders to Corps (LGA) and the various Coalition Armies.

However, I am not entirely opposed to the idea that the LGA Corps and individual Coalition armies be allowed to elect their officers, I just feel it would overcomplicate things.

I am a supporter of the idea of elections for CiC and the entire Cabinet - as I don't think that a select group of members (not elected but bestowing this power upon themselves - which by the way is not official even under the current rules) can make these decisions by themselves for the rest of us.

If we really wanted to have a civilian Cabinet in my own opinion there should be NO CiC in it...

I have long thought that is a good idea myself - that members of the Cabinet should not be the CiC, as you are correct, that would make it more a civilian cabinet (as far a civilian can be had in a club entirely made up of officers).

But I think the role of CiC's on the Cabinet has served the purpose of officially representing the opposing armies at this level of the governance body for the club - the reason I feel that each such army (by which I mean LGA/Coalition as a whole) is duly represented as compared to a cabinet entirely made up of people elected by the membership as a whole is the fear (among some) that one army could end up dominating the cabinet and impose their will over everyone.


Excerpted from the Revised Rules:
2. Maintains a Registered Game in Play at All Times.

Army, or Club, Command may request a copy of the email and game file exchanges between opponents at any time a question arises as to whether or not a game is actually in play.

David asks: It has been pointed out by some member that it was a little bit intrusive. If we have doubts that a game is going on, just ask his opponent if he is playing or believe him, because at the end we are all honest members.

It is my impression that this rule is designed not that the Cabinet is suspicious of each and every game, but if there is suspicion that there are some members of this club who hold multiple memberships, within multiple armies, receiving the records of registered games can help prove validity of said games and memberships.

In the past there was an attempt by Mark Jones to get the Cabinet to agree that new recruits to our club provide a specifically used email account/provider that allows for more of a background verification (as opposed to Hotmail for example) - after which the member if accepted as proven real could use whatever server he wishes.

The Cabinet as it was composed at that time denied this proposal - which frankly should make one wonder why anyone would not want the club to be able to verify the validity of it's membership - going forward....?

Also note that it is a request not a demand.

Who will monitor that officers are participating in the forum and have informative and/or entertaining posts? (how do we recognize those posts?). As a member I come to the forum to have fun (good discussions, etc.) Would I need as Corps commander to report on my officers to be sure that they participate appropriately?

This is a method by which the army commanders/Cabinet can help determine if a member is active or not, period.
For example, in the current muster process, when we have officers who fail to muster consistently (not even replying at all... for multiple musters) we are trying to determine their status as best we can.

We have officers who have not mustered for literally years and who do not respond to any email queries.

Cabinet members (but not you or I) have access to the complete battle game records of the club members.

This is how they can tell if a member has played a registered game in what span of time.

The cabinet also has access to every member's record of logging in to the forums - which is another step in trying to verify what a member is up to who has not responded to a muster for a long time, nor had a game registered for a long time - they are simply using tools available to them to try and figure out what to do with members who are not communicating for often years on end.

There come's a point where you need to clear the muster rolls of such members. They simply are taking up space.

The wording informative and/or entertaining posts is used to separate the uselessness of someone simply posting in the forum "Hi how are you".

If I understand well* a regular officer (not in the chain of command) who has an active game (or any other activity) and doesn't reply to the muster he is still considered active. So why do the musters?

Taken in context of the factors for determining active membership, you are correct - mustering is not necessary - therefore you reasonably ask why perform musters at all.

I would say the value of the muster going forward will be to generate levels of interaction with our officers, to encourage them to report battle records, and thereby enable the commanders to provide promotions and medals - you might be surprised how many officers languish in their responsibilities of registering start and end of games played - requiring extra work for the President and CiC's. Not to mention how this affects the record of the officers who have done so, but their opponent has not.

As the muster will hopefully increase interaction among officers this will then serve as another means of generating esprit de corps.

I don't agree with the cabinet being the governing body of our club. It shouldn't have more power than the armies. It should be a consultative body like the " consultative committees" run by the actual president of the club I have been involved in when cheating has been detected/reported.

At the End the CiC should be the ultimate authority of his organization. If we don't like him we elect another one. And to keep them in balance we could have CiC elections every year while the cabinet members could be elected for 2 years.

I believe that there needs to be a neutral body governing the club that is separate from the individual armies - comprised of members from the armies - as every club member is an officer in the armies.

If the Cabinet is to serve as the body which resolves issues of cheating, multiple fake memberships, and unfair treatment of officers by commanders, it must by higher than the individual armies in the governing hierarchy.

If the Cabinet is not at the top, then an individual CiC can do whatever he wants to any officer subordinate to him without that officer having recourse to appeal.

I would refer you again to the action I used as an example above when a former CiC took it upon himself to try and expel an officer from the club - not just the LGA - and I would point out that the CiC cannot simply decree that any officer he has a problem with is expelled from the LGA without that officer having an appeal process.

This is why we have to have the Cabinet as the highest authority in the club - in my opinion.

Regards,

_________________
Marechal Jeff Bardon
Duc de Castiglione et Prince de Wagram
Commandant de la Garde Imperiale

With regards to the CiC, I agree with David that they should be the decision maker in the army, or at least the French which presently has only 1 army as opposed to the 2 that were in place years ago. I still wonder about the coalition as the individual CoA's should have a high degree of autonomy.

They should be able to assign the duties of command officers in their army, determine the form and frequency of musters and generally run things the way the see fit. If you want to put in an appeals process to prevent expulsion, then fine, let's discuss that

I disagree with having the cabinet above the CiC or vice versa. Neither can replace the other, so they should be the highest authorities within their respective areas.

_________________
Marechal Jeff Bardon
Duc de Castiglione et Prince de Wagram
Commandant de la Garde Imperiale