Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)
https://wargame.ch/board/nwc/

Game Engine Ideas
https://wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10705		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  Bill Peters [ Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Game Engine Ideas
Ok - use this thread from anything from changing the morale die roll from a d6 to d10 to whether you want a special exemption for Wellington as a field commander. Fill this up with as diverse of comments as you want. When I have time I will check it.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club
Image
Author:  Antony Barlow [ Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
Separate formations for attack column and march column would be great, although I realise this would maybe be a big thing to program and would involve extra graphics.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/nwc/nwc_personal_record.htm"]Brigadier General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/Brit.html"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Cavalry Division, II Corps, Anglo-Allied Army[/url] ~
----------
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/BritGuardHorse.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
Image</center>
Author:  John Corbin [ Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
Automatic Cavalry Counter charge and auto square formation

<center>Image
</center>
<center>Image
[img]</center>
<center>Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Chief of Staff - La Grande Armee
Grande Duc de Piave et Comte de Beauvais
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde
NWC President</center>
Author:  Antony Barlow [ Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:44 pm ]
Post subject: 
When a stack consisting of formed units and skirmishers amounting to more than 1/8 maximum stacking receives defensive fire and a skirmisher takes the hit, then this skirmisher should take full losses rather than the reduced losses based on the -75% fire modifier against skirmishers. This is how the manual suggests it is handled but I'm not sure it actually works like that. It always seems to me that the skirmisher is getting the modifier benefit despite exceeding the stacking threshold for this modifier and this encourages the gamey use of stacking with a skirmisher to reduce losses. I could be wrong but this is how it seems.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/nwc/nwc_personal_record.htm"]Brigadier General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/Brit.html"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Cavalry Division, II Corps, Anglo-Allied Army[/url] ~
----------
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/BritGuardHorse.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
Image</center>
Author:  Ed Blackburn [ Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:26 am ]
Post subject: 
All French units are fixed for the entire game.[:)][:D]

Lieutenant General
Ed Blackburn
Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
Image
Author:  Jonathan Thayer [ Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:10 am ]
Post subject: 
I have no idea of how this might work but I would like to see something that would reflect the historical way that parts of armies would collapse after they had suffered a heavy amount of damage. I think something along the lines of contagous routing. Along this train of thought I think that units who have max fatigue should have very restricted abilities to conduct activities. These thoughts come from the "to the death" manner in which our games are played. I think with the general move away from zoc kills there must be some method for one side to gain a decisive stroke to win as opposed to the simple attrition battles that seem to often occur. I am currently playing Bautzen from Jena with Ed Blackburn. This is one of the most fun battles I have engaged in ever. Both sides are engaged in offnsive action on the flanks and both sides are very hard pressed in each area. But I do believe that if this were a real battle both our flanks would have collapsed.

If I recall correctly, "Wellington's Victory" had a feature where routed units moved to the rear each movment phase unit they were rallied. This might be a little heavy but perhaps it could apply to units with red fatigue.

Marechal Jonathan Thayer
Duc de Saalfeld et Prince de Friedland
1/10/III
Armee du Nord




jonathanthayer@bellsouth.net
Author:  Ed Blackburn [ Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:41 am ]
Post subject: 
Just to piggy back on Jon's comments, I think some sort of a programmed rule enforced by the game engine such thatonce the casualties reach a certain percent of one or the other sides total forces invloved the game ends with the OTHER side winning. That percent should be put in the situation briefing for each side so that players are aware going in to the battle that just attriting a smaller forec to death may not win them the game. The larger side could be set to lose at a lesser total percent than the smaller. This is similar to what the old Horse and Musket Engine enforced.

Lieutenant General
Ed Blackburn
Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
Image
Author:  Bill Peters [ Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:46 am ]
Post subject: 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Antony Barlow</i>
<br />When a stack consisting of formed units and skirmishers amounting to more than 1/8 maximum stacking receives defensive fire and a skirmisher takes the hit, then this skirmisher should take full losses rather than the reduced losses based on the -75% fire modifier against skirmishers. This is how the manual suggests it is handled but I'm not sure it actually works like that. It always seems to me that the skirmisher is getting the modifier benefit despite exceeding the stacking threshold for this modifier and this encourages the gamey use of stacking with a skirmisher to reduce losses. I could be wrong but this is how it seems.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/nwc/nwc_personal_record.htm"]Brigadier General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/Brit.html"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Cavalry Division, II Corps, Anglo-Allied Army[/url] ~
----------
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/BritGuardHorse.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
Image</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually if you were to test this in a scenario (test scenario) you will find that the fire must be through a hex containing a skirmisher separate from the one containing the target. Thus people can stack skirmishers in the same hex all they want it will NOT reduce the fire at them.

You must place the skirmisher in its own hex. If the LOS interesects the skirmisher hex then the fire to the unit behind it (or 2 hexes distant or more) will receive the -10 defensive bonus.

Frankly I have never liked anything like that. The units of the period did not practice aimed fire. So if the fire hits the target hex the shako of a skirmisher is not going to deflect the shot.

And IMHO BOTH the skirmisher and the target in that case should take losses. If the fire goes through a skirmisher hex there should be a chance that it hits the skirmisher too.

Same with ball from cannons. It should be able to "skip" if the weather is DRY. Thus it should be able to carry on to other hexes. This is how MacDonald's famous "Square" formation at Wagram was decimated.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club
Image
Author:  Bill Peters [ Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:53 am ]
Post subject: 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />All French units are fixed for the entire game.[:)][:D]

Lieutenant General
Ed Blackburn
Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
Image



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

Quite, but we must first figure out how we will handle the Allied armies as in all of my future games they will remained fixed for the duration of the game. If anyone has a sensible idea on how to release them (send gorillas in their midst) let me know! [;)]

I am still considering the "Mad King Ludwig" leader for any Prussian armies I have in my games. This leader has a Leadership rating of 6 but a command rating of 1. He wont get you back into order (he shakes up the Tavern alot) but he sure can inspire you! [:D]

The FM McClellan leader for the Austrians would be able to handle 2-3 Korps at a time (Gary will understand this one!). Well that 3rd one is a bit trying. And dont forget those summer camps, right Gary?

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club
Image
Author:  Bill Peters [ Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:05 am ]
Post subject: 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i>
<br />Just to piggy back on Jon's comments, I think some sort of a programmed rule enforced by the game engine such thatonce the casualties reach a certain percent of one or the other sides total forces invloved the game ends with the OTHER side winning. That percent should be put in the situation briefing for each side so that players are aware going in to the battle that just attriting a smaller forec to death may not win them the game. The larger side could be set to lose at a lesser total percent than the smaller. This is similar to what the old Horse and Musket Engine enforced.

Lieutenant General
Ed Blackburn
Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
Image



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

I like Army Morale levels. Wellington's Victory by SPI was the first one I played that had this. You couldn't just toss your army away each game.

One thing that is important to note: most of the battles I play in see my opponent engaging with almost everything right away. in WV you would run up your Army Morale count doing that.

I just re-read about Bessieres' death in 1813. He was loved by Napoleon but not by the army as he held back the Guard at Borodino where alot of folks feel that they could have won the battle.

In the end they were needed for the Retreat more. One wonders if a total victory at Borodino would have caused the Russians to cave in anyway. I doubt it. And how total would it have been. Also makes you wonder how you could ever win at NIR/NRC at Borodino scenarios WITHOUT the Guard! In any game I have ever played you need every man you can get as the French player.

But my point is that for each formation you activate your army morale starts falling. Not by alot but by a small amount. As they suffer losses it falls by more.

I also advocate BCE - Brigade Combat Effectiveness. I actually played a Little Round Top scenario in the ACWGC using BCE on our own sheets. It was very interesting to say the least.

I may add in a spreadsheet/PDF to my next game that has these for the formations. It would be optional and the players would have to run it on their own but it would add in a level of realism.

Once you get to 30 percent losses your brigade can no longer melee. Once you get to 50 percent losses its done for the battle and must rest. These numbers could be adjusted.

It would be great if there was an option for this in the Optional Rules Dialog of course. Then a Menu item for it under VIEW. View-BCE or something like that. You would see in a table/chart type setting how your units were doing. Or perhaps in the View -> Strengths menu item. Just have the units that have broken BCE in Red or something like that.

And for a brigade that goes over 60 percent it is hors de combat and routs off the field.

I would advocate that higher morale units should be able to absorb more losses but nothing idiotic like 90 percent. "The Old Guard never surrenders ..." was a rare occurrence in this period.

I would also like to see a Surrender rule whereby if an infantry unit is OUT of AMMO and surrounded it surrenders.

Even at some battles if the unit was out in the open and confronted by infantry it would toss down its muskets. Noone wants to be fired on and not be able to reply in kind.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club
Image
Author:  Antony Barlow [ Fri Jan 08, 2010 7:06 am ]
Post subject: 
<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>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Antony Barlow</i>
<br />When a stack consisting of formed units and skirmishers amounting to more than 1/8 maximum stacking receives defensive fire and a skirmisher takes the hit, then this skirmisher should take full losses rather than the reduced losses based on the -75% fire modifier against skirmishers. This is how the manual suggests it is handled but I'm not sure it actually works like that. It always seems to me that the skirmisher is getting the modifier benefit despite exceeding the stacking threshold for this modifier and this encourages the gamey use of stacking with a skirmisher to reduce losses. I could be wrong but this is how it seems.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/nwc/nwc_personal_record.htm"]Brigadier General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/Brit.html"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Cavalry Division, II Corps, Anglo-Allied Army[/url] ~
----------
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/BritGuardHorse.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
Image</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually if you were to test this in a scenario (test scenario) you will find that the fire must be through a hex containing a skirmisher separate from the one containing the target. Thus people can stack skirmishers in the same hex all they want it will NOT reduce the fire at them.

You must place the skirmisher in its own hex. If the LOS interesects the skirmisher hex then the fire to the unit behind it (or 2 hexes distant or more) will receive the -10 defensive bonus.

Frankly I have never liked anything like that. The units of the period did not practice aimed fire. So if the fire hits the target hex the shako of a skirmisher is not going to deflect the shot.

And IMHO BOTH the skirmisher and the target in that case should take losses. If the fire goes through a skirmisher hex there should be a chance that it hits the skirmisher too.

Same with ball from cannons. It should be able to "skip" if the weather is DRY. Thus it should be able to carry on to other hexes. This is how MacDonald's famous "Square" formation at Wagram was decimated.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Bill, I'm not talking about the modifier for shooting through a hex containing skirmishers to a target in a hex behind them. I'm talking about the modifier -75% for fire AT skirmishers which takes into account their open order and therefore reduces their casualties. This modifier should only apply if there is less than the 1/8 max stacking in the hex, but it seems to me that a skirmisher stacked with formed units still gets this protection if he takes a hit, despite the 1/8 max stacking being exceeded. The skirmisher should receive full strength fire due to stacking density in the hex.

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/nwc/nwc_personal_record.htm"]Brigadier General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/Brit.html"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Cavalry Division, II Corps, Anglo-Allied Army[/url] ~
----------
~ [url="http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/AAA/BritGuardHorse.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
Image</center>
Author:  chomski [ Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:03 am ]
Post subject: 
Although not engaged in any game with any general on this forum and considering myself as "newbie" I would propose one improvement:

In Direct play mode there is an option to play as commander in command structure and not to see movement of your friendly units which are under command of other players. It might be called as Friendly Fog of War.

We are currently playing massive multiplayer 1815 campaing and I would very appreciate if Blucher did not see Wellington´s movements
Author:  Jeff Mathes [ Fri Jan 08, 2010 10:22 am ]
Post subject: 
Ditto Marechal Corbin's comment on cavalry counter-charges and automatic square forming by charged infantry battalions that are not disordered or routed.

Jeff Mathes
Colonel
3. Ligne Regiment
1. Brigade 16. Division
V Corps
L'Armée du Rhin
Author:  Chuck Jensen [ Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:10 am ]
Post subject: 
<font face="Book Antiqua"></font id="Book Antiqua">

I have always been disappointed that game design has weakened the historically stronger line formation to the advantage of the column formation. It seems to me that this could be corrected, or at least made better for use of line formations.

1. By geometrical definition, a line should have a front of 180 degrees. The games give them only a 120 degree front. At least multiple units should be able to have fronts of various directions to cover the flanks without disorder. And to prevent being flanked in some postions that estimate a straight front line.

2. Multiple units in line can only fire one or one at a time. In the case of the latter, the second and on having a half strength fire power. This gives one unit of 600 much more fire power than 3 200 man units. Realistically, if you had 3 200 man units, they should be shoulder to shoulder presenting much the same front as one 600 man unit would in the same space, and not one behind the other. One unit behind the other is actually the formation of a column.

There could be a lower maximum strength per hex for units in line, but they should all get their best shot, even smaller units stacked.

3. There should be no multiple hits by pass-through cannon balls through stacked line units. Units formed one behind the other formed a column and historically, it was the column that took more casualties from artillery because of its denser formation. If anything, the columns should get more punishment from artillery fire.

4. There should be some provision for l'ordre mixte, the formation used by Napoleon with a line formation leading and colunm formations protecting the flanks and providing punch when needed. Maybe a specific formula of strengths per hex, and/or command control.

5. Firepower is a very important factor and it varied greatly. Elite or veteran units could fire more rounds per minute so had better results. I see that the difference in the quality of units affects their routing or rallying. It should affect their firepower too.

Thanks for the opportunity to voice my views regarding game engines. I wonder if anyone agrees?


Marechal C. Jensen
Author:  Bill Peters [ Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:07 pm ]
Post subject: 
Good comments guys. Send me emails if you have anything further to discuss. I am signing off of this forum for good.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club
Image
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/