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

Command, Restraint, and Preservation – Thoughts on Hard PBEM
https://wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=17884		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Sandro Lasco [ Tue Feb 03, 2026 10:49 am ]
Post subject:  Command, Restraint, and Preservation – Thoughts on Hard PBEM
A Question for Fellow Napoleonic Commanders

Gentlemen,

I would like to open a discussion rather than post a simple opponent request.

Over time — through PBEM experience, historical reading, and many thoughtful exchanges here in Rhine Tavern — I have grown increasingly interested in a harder, more restrained way of playing WDS Napoleonic Battles. One that emphasizes command judgment, preservation of forces, and operational continuity, rather than constant action or mechanical optimisation.

In particular, several ideas discussed in this forum — including those found in the well-known House of Rules thread — struck me as both sensible and historically grounded. What follows is not meant as a personal invention, but rather as an attempt at synthesis: combining experience, history, and collective reflection into a coherent approach.

What Kind of Game Am I Talking About?

Not a “fast” PBEM.
Not a game fought to the last man.
And certainly not one driven by engine loopholes.

Rather:

a slow, deliberate game

where fatigue, morale, isolation, and command limits are accepted as decisive

where withdrawal is sometimes the correct decision

and where campaigns (not just isolated battles) are a real possibility

In short: a game played as a Napoleonic general would have understood it.

On Rules and Restraint

The idea would be to use a high-realism Optional Rules set (isolation, flank morale, threat disorder, strict LOS, realistic night effects, etc.), combined with a small number of house principles designed to encourage historical behaviour rather than enforce artificial balance.

One example — open for discussion — is an Army Preservation concept, based on the simple historical observation that Napoleonic armies were not normally expended beyond recovery:

Beyond a certain level of losses, offensive action becomes limited

Withdrawal and rearguard actions gain priority

Concession of the field, when appropriate, is considered honourable rather than a failure

The aim is not to “end games early”, but to avoid ahistorical annihilation battles when an army is already operationally broken.

Why I’m Posting This Here

I am not yet looking to post a formal Opponent Finder request.

I am first interested in hearing from others who:

have tried similar approaches

are curious about stricter, more historical PBEM play

or simply enjoy discussing how to push WDS closer to a true command simulation

If this resonates, I would be glad to exchange views — and perhaps, in time, to arrange a serious and demanding PBEM battle or campaign with the right opponent.

I look forward to your thoughts.

Battles are won by courage;
campaigns are won by judgment.
Author:  David Luna Pena [ Tue Feb 03, 2026 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Command, Restraint, and Preservation – Thoughts on Hard
Hello Sansdro.

I like to play with the most historical style that my knowledge and the game allows me.

I tend to play with the austrians and I like to play with the historical formations. For example: I form my two Treffen (lines) with my brigade batteries positioned between the batallions of the same brigade, I form my regiments with the 1st batallions always in the right and I don't separate the batallions of a regiment, and I fight with musket fire and linear formations before making any Melee assault, etc.

I really enjoy playing with an historical emphasis.
Author:  Marc Garcia [ Wed Feb 04, 2026 8:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Command, Restraint, and Preservation – Thoughts on Hard
Sandro,
Indeed, your approach is very interesting and realistic. I'm discovering, with some modesty, that Napoleonic battles are very complex. I've been researching them for a long time to understand the subtleties of the maneuvers and the specific use of each type of unit: Artillery, Cavalry, and Infantry. And even the latter has several different functions.
We can speak of the "art of war."

It's worth noting that since WDS took over HPS, there has been a significant improvement in the game mechanics and graphics, making the games increasingly realistic and engaging.
Author:  Alexey Tartyshev [ Thu Feb 05, 2026 5:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Command, Restraint, and Preservation – Thoughts on Hard
Two things that really bring in command judgment, preservation of forces, and operational continuity are: 1. larger battles and 2. campaigns.

The smaller the battle, the more mechanical it becomes as one lucky cavalry charge by a single regiment can decide the entire battle.

However, it is strongly recommended to grasp the tactical aspects first, before being overwhelmed by operational decisions.

Otherwise, when moving to large scenarios without understanding the mechanics, players are at risk of:
• being drowned in informational chaos
• selecting wrong positions and being defeated tactically across the line
• becoming demotivated and losing interest in the battle

Players morale and confidence are probably the most critical aspects of PBEM play. In my experience, many players’ morale cracks after tactical setbacks, and they quit the game or even lose interest in the series altogether. So tactical level engine knowledge is the foundation of gaining confidence - having an eye for terrain and visualising strong positions and proper deployments.

The competitive mindset of European-Western culture mostly drives players to play for the outcome of victory, with no focus on the process. As soon as they see no prospect of victory players tend to give up.

The other side of this is that most players will do everything possible to win. This means using whatever fatigued and depleted units they still have, finding engine loopholes and fighting to the death—or until their morale breaks (which is more common).

This competitive aspect of PBEM is the reason why house rules rarely survive. They tend to be broken at some point, or players start creating exceptions to suit their needs. A good indicator is that over the last 25 years of the engine’s history, no consistent set of house rules has really stuck.

Another issue is that at the lower tactical level the WDS engine remains largely an abstraction with a limitations of a turn-based system. This inevitably creates some unhistorical situations that are very hard to address through house rules. St the lower tactical level trying to position your troops in line, with what one player may believe as historical accuracy, may result in a disadvantage - as the engine treats all armies the same.

For me, it is also not fun to police myself and my opponents over house rules. From experience, there is always something that sits in a grey zone.

For these reasons, I gave up trying to enforce historical flow through house rules many years ago. In my view the engine has evolved dramatically over the last few years and at the grand tactical-Lower operational level is it a clear world winner in simulating Napoleonic warfare.

The only rule I still use consistently is forbidding artillery deployment in obstructed terrain. Deploying artillery batteries there has a massively negative impact on the grand-tactical flow of battles—and this rule is easy to follow.

For the same reasons, my general philosophy is to play within whatever the engine allows. Sometimes this results in ridiculous and unhistorical casualties, but the larger problem is that the engine does not directly simulate command delays. Players can march their entire army on turn one and engage across the whole line, which leads to accelerated pace of battles and appalling casualty rates. Luckily there are some engine drive settings in place to address this: do not ever use ZOC kills (cancel them via house rules) and use 15min turns (vs 10-min) - this will drive more historical flow of the battles

Fixing the command system and orders delay would require some kind of command-points system. House rules would be far too complex to handle it.

But this is just my opinion. There may well be players who enjoy house rules and can follow them consistently.
Author:  Sandro Lasco [ Thu Feb 05, 2026 6:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Command, Restraint, and Preservation – Thoughts on Hard
Mon General, I fully agree with you regarding morale and the trust between players in PBEM, and I have had a very recent personal example of this in a game I was involved in. It happens in boardgames as well as in 3D simulations; in both cases I have experienced situations where an opponent, after failing to win a tactical engagement he thought would be easy (due to a misjudgment of terrain, timing, or the intrinsic situation), simply gave up—blaming the rules, bad luck, poorly painted miniatures, the weather, UFOs, and so on.

I believe that the ‘gamey’ player is the worst possible opponent for someone who instead seeks historical research and simulation as close as possible to the reality of the period. I also believe that house rules, despite the limitations they may impose—and on this I agree with you—can act as a sort of filter for those who choose to start a battle or campaign in a conscious and informed way.

I am currently playing the dual scenario of Eylau (Pultusk–Golymin), and we are near the end at 02:00 at night, yet combat continues—something that historically should have been suspended with the onset of night and visibility reduced to one hex. Instead, the fighting goes on. In two other ongoing games, Kulm and Quatre Bras, I have informed my opponent that once visibility drops to one hex and it is night, I will suspend combat, allowing only maneuvering, resting exhausted units, and similar actions.

These are small details, but they make the experience more realistic and historically grounded, even if many players are primarily focused on entertainment and victory rather than deeper immersion.
For the rest, I agree with you that these are personal opinions and individual perspectives.

Thank you for your valuable contribution, rich in insights for reflection and analysis.

I remain, Sir,
with the highest respect,
Your obedient servant
Author:  Alexey Tartyshev [ Thu Feb 05, 2026 9:55 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Command, Restraint, and Preservation – Thoughts on Hard
Sandro Lasco wrote:
...-and we are near the end at 02:00 at night, yet combat continues—something that historically should have been suspended with the onset of night and visibility reduced to one hex. Instead, the fighting goes on. In two other ongoing games, Kulm and Quatre Bras, I have informed my opponent that once visibility drops to one hex and it is night, I will suspend combat, allowing only maneuvering, resting exhausted units, and similar actions.


There is an easy engine driven solution for this - just enable Night movement fatigue optional rule.
Any action under this optional rule will be unsustainable beyond a turn or two. Even movement is heavily penalised.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/