Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I'm new to the game and have scanned this board for an answer with no luck. At the risk of opening up a can of worms, the question is: What are deemed the most historical game option settings?

Thanks

While we're at it... somebody also add in what additional House Rules would do the same (i.e. add the most historical realism without introducing undue complications in managing games).

Thanks.

Lt. Tim Cavallin, AdR

Geez, if it were that easy ... we'd all use them. It isn't. [xx(]

<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 l'Ecole de Mars, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

What do you mean by historical? Historical outcome? Period tactics? Realistic unit performance? Typical casualty levels?

The biggest influence on any of these is play style, rather than the Optional Rules, although the Optional Rules can be set to favour one play style over another.

Probably doesn't help you much, but that's about it!

Regards

Mark
VII Corps

Hi Mark,

By "historical", I would say "period tactics", "realistic unit performance", and to a lesser degree "realistic casualty levels" (which is more a function of the first two I believe).

For example, the Embedded Melee is generally recognized as a great house rule in order to prevent blitzkreig through "hole punching & exploiting".

Another good one is skirmisher (and infantry) movement in the vicinity of cavalry.

Another good one is a skimisher leash (3 hexes?) from formed friendly infantry, with a requirement to retreat if in a hex alone and an enemy formed battalion moves next to the skirmisher.

A more debatable one is breaking down "light" units into skirmishers. Some people like to use an arbitrary 50% maximum breakdown rule. Others say that some formations (esp. French legere) would very often TOTALLY breakdown into skirmisher formation. I kind of lean towards this latter rule for two reasons:

1. Probably more historical on the balance
2. The HPS engine really cuts down on the effectiveness of skirmisher "heaven", as skimisher lines can either be pushed back without penalty using Embedded Melee rules and/or cavalry can easily overrun.

Just some thoughts. Mark, I always respect your opinions on these matters.

Lt. Tim Cavallin, AdR

Of the optional rules, I think the most realistic is probably Line Movement. Melee Terrain is also quite realistic.

I used to be a huge fan of column pass through, but I'm less convinced, I think the entire artillery subroutine needs to be rethought. It makes sense, you pack more men into a hex, they are more vunerable to artillery. However, why should 3 300 man battalions get off much WORSE than a single 1100 man Austrian battalion?

FML Gary McClellan
Generalissimus
Imperial Austrian Army

FWIW, these are the rules I prefer to play with:



Regards,

Gen. Hamilton, Baron d'Barbancon
21st Division
VII Corps, ADR

Saxon Leib-Garde, de la Jeune Garde, Garde Impériale

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
...However, why should 3 300 man battalions get off much WORSE than a single 1100 man Austrian battalion?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's a vey good question Gary!

Mark
VII Corps

You'd think it would be a simple fix to based the "density modifier" strictly on the # of men (in column) in a hex...

Lt. Tim Cavallin, AdR

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tim Cavallin</i>
By "historical", I would say "period tactics", "realistic unit performance", and to a lesser degree "realistic casualty levels" (which is more a function of the first two I believe).<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">For example, the Embedded Melee is generally recognized as a great house rule in order to prevent blitzkreig through "hole punching & exploiting".<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm still stuck in the BG era but have followed the discussions on this and agree that it seems to help address the problem of the catastrophic break-through attack.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Another good one is skirmisher (and infantry) movement in the vicinity of cavalry.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree, it's necessary to provide some protection to cavalry that have charged otherwise, each time you charge you may as well kiss them all goodbye.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Another good one is a skimisher leash (3 hexes?) from formed friendly infantry, with a requirement to retreat if in a hex alone and an enemy formed battalion moves next to the skirmisher.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Here I am less inclined to agree. If the skirmisher can wait until an enemy formed unit moves adjacent to it before it withdraws it has already delayed the enemy move by the amount that it could have moved the previous turn after contact. If I am the enemy unit, I am not going to wait for the skirmisher to be withdrawn next turn, in case the opponent decides to step up with a battalion instead and unleash his potentially more effective offensive phase fire at my battalion, (does the skirmisher have to withdraw if a parent battalion moves into its hex to support it? is the skirmisher in a hex with a column or above a battalion in line in the same hex still allowed to fire under this rule? I don't know).

For me, my battalion moves adjacent to the skirmisher, a company is detached to the flank of the skirmisher (if move and terrain allows), and I am going to melee it. Why? The skirmisher should take at least as many casualties as me, I will win the melee, putting the skirmisher up 3 fatigue points and more likely than not routed because of the flank element of the attack; unless the skirmisher was in obstructed terrain, my battalion will be up 1 fatigue point max.; and my battalion will still be in good order.

Some question how a skirmisher can inflict a seemingly disproportionate level of casualties on a formed battalion that outnumbers them so heavily. First, I don't accept that melee (except for cavalry, reflects hand to hand combat, which was pretty rare in the Napoleonic wars. One side broke before bayonets were crossed. So, my perception of what is termed by the game to be melee against the skirmisher, is a skirmish screen being withdrawn as the battalion advances, (it's a shame that it is not dynamic with a possible movement penalty to the attacking unit, but we have to live with that), under these circumstances the skirmishers are going to inflict more casualties firing at a mass of men, than the front row of the column, are going to inflict firing at the few dispersed men withdrawing before them.

But I am not convinced that skirmishers should have to be withdrawn. If a player wants to leave them there I am going to beat up on them mercilessly [B)][}:)]

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A more debatable one is breaking down "light" units into skirmishers. Some people like to use an arbitrary 50% maximum breakdown rule. Others say that some formations (esp. French legere) would very often TOTALLY breakdown into skirmisher formation. I kind of lean towards this latter rule for two reasons:

1. Probably more historical on the balance
2. The HPS engine really cuts down on the effectiveness of skirmisher "heaven", as skimisher lines can either be pushed back without penalty using Embedded Melee rules and/or cavalry can easily overrun.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree that it is wrong to restrict the number of skirmishers that a unit deploys but, I usually impose this restriction !!

Man for man, the skirmihser in terms of musketry is the most potent unit on the battlefield. Firing against cavalry with the bonuses at close range they are particularly effective. This means that some players, (and before they jump down my throat I am not criticising them, it is a perfectly valid tactic / strategy to win the game, it just doesn't fit my image of Napoleonic warfare), will march a light infantry or guard battalion (or several), adjacent to cavalry, deploy
the maximum number of skirmishers in the same hex, so they are not acting as skirmishers but as a battalion firing as companies, and proceed to shoot up the cavalry. Similarly, I have seen the same done against infantry, where, in effect we are saying that Guard and Light battalions can fire as companies, but Line battalions can not. Can that be right?

So I usually limit the deployment to prevent skirmisher domination of the game. That said, perhaps the answer is not to restrict the total number that can be deployed from a battalion but the total number of skirmishers that can be in a hex, to two or three. Either way, for me, I like to see some restriction to stop these stacks of 7 skirmishers and a battalion roaming the map adversely affecting the balance of the game.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Just some thoughts. Mark, I always respect your opinions on these matters.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Good to hear from you Tim, hope all's well with you. Regarding my opinions, remember, that's all that they are! I'm sure that there are many out there would tell you that I should keep most of them to myself as they are utter c*$p [}:)][:p][:p]

And they're probably right [:D][:D]

Regards

Mark
VII Corps

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
I used to be a huge fan of column pass through, but I'm less convinced, I think the entire artillery subroutine needs to be rethought. It makes sense, you pack more men into a hex, they are more vunerable to artillery. However, why should 3 300 man battalions get off much WORSE than a single 1100 man Austrian battalion?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Are you sure it is so? I always thought that the *number* of casualties were solely determined by the fire tables die roll (and density, if the optional rule is on), while column passthrough affects only the *distribution* of casualties - all columns instead of only one.

What bothers *me* is the ranged fire from lines stacked in a hex rule. Unless you circumvent it by changing the stacking order (works in the HPS one-phase turn) you have the odd phenomenon that out of 900 men in a hex, only 300 can fire if it's 3 battalions à 300 men, but all 900 if it's 1 battalion of 900. As if the frontage of a battalion would be determined by its very existence in a hex rather than its strength. Three small battalions cover the same physical space *in line* as one big one of the same size.

<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 l'Ecole de Mars, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

Dierk,
Test it... you'll see a stack of 3 columns eating 250-300 losses where one column will only eat 80-100 [xx(]

As to your other point... I agree.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
As a matter of course, the game assumes that multiple units in line are "stacked" one behind another, and so the units behind are not able to fire. Now, in game, it's easy enough to rotate all units into the firing position, by successively firing units, and then using the "to top of stack" command. I've questioned that in the past, but on further reflection, it's a usable abstraction. It means that all the units in the hex can fire, but only the "top" unit can fire at full power (assuming that it didn't move into position... in that case it's also half power). Now, this does a nice job of representing the way that stuffing too many troops into an area will limit the fire. The classic example is the chaos in Blenheim village. It also opens up more opportunites for ADF, as every "rotation" opens 2 chances for ADF to trigger (the move to the top, and the firing itself).

However, where it hits a brick wall is in the old bugaboo of relative unit sizes. This makes the big battalion far more effective than multiple small.

Assume 2 "stacks"

Stack one consists of a single 900 man battalion.

Stack two consists of 3 battalions of 300 men each.

Assuming that they haven't moved in this turn, and there are no disruption issues, this is the way the fire plays out.

Stack One fires with a strength of 900 musketeers.

Stack two fires with a strength of 600 musketeers (full value for the first bn to fire, 1/2 value for the following two)

Stack one triggers one ADF check (when they fire)

Stack 2 triggers 5 ADF checks (b1 fire, b2 to top, b2 fire, b3 to top, b3 fire)

So, assuming the randomizer is working in an "ordinary" manner, the stack of 3 battalions will inflict 2/3 the losses, and theoretically take 500% of the losses of the stack of a single battalion.

Now, you could claim this fits, as these units are jogging back and forth to "uncover" one another in the course of this 15 minute turn. However, that is simply because of the game assumption that lines are always "stacked". If a 900 man battalion is assumed to be able to fully deploy within a hex, there should be room for 3 300 man battalions to deploy not "stacked" but side by side.

(Of course, this assumes one phase play. If it is phased play, you don't have quite the incoming fire from the ADF checks, but on the other hand, you are then limited to 1/3 the outbound firepower.)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

FML Gary McClellan
Generalissimus
Imperial Austrian Army

<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>
What bothers *me* is the ranged fire from lines stacked in a hex rule. Unless you circumvent it by changing the stacking order (works in the HPS one-phase turn) you have the odd phenomenon that out of 900 men in a hex, only 300 can fire if it's 3 battalions à 300 men, but all 900 if it's 1 battalion of 900. As if the frontage of a battalion would be determined by its very existence in a hex rather than its strength. Three small battalions cover the same physical space *in line* as one big one of the same size.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Dierk

There are other similar anomolies that can only be addressed by normalising the size of battalions, cavalry regiments, and batteries. The trouble with this is that it ceases t obe an accurate reflection of the forces present.

Of course the better representation of the 3 x 300 man battalions in line against the 1 x 900 man battalion, is for the 300 man battalions to be deployed in adjacent hexes, all able to fire at the one 900 man battalion. Then the question becomes, why are the three battalions able to inflict more fatigue on the 900 man battalion, why can the 3 x 300 man battalions absorb more fatigue than the 1 x 900 man battalion, why can each 300 man battalion fire at the 900 man battalion but it can only fire at one of them and aaaggghhhh!!!!

What is the solution [:(][:(][:(]

Normailising sizes of formations is a way to achieve this, but is it the right way?

Regards

Mark
VII Corps

Mark--

I just don't see why the three battalions should be stacked behind one another when in the same hex, while a single battalion of the same size can squeeze the same total of man into a single firing line?

Fatigue (in the HPS games) is a function of casualties taken relative to total strength, so 3 x 300 men or 1 x 900 men doesn't matter. Defensive fire in the one-phase format however, as Gary pointed out, is a problem (for the force with the smaller battalions), unless they can all fire from the same hex at the same time.

If they could, there would really be no difference whatsoever between 3 x 300 men and 1 x 900. (OK, the 3 x 300 would take three different morale checks and would have to pass all three to not have one rout and the rest disrupt.)

<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 l'Ecole de Mars, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

<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>
I just don't see why the three battalions should be stacked behind one another when in the same hex, while a single battalion of the same size can squeeze the same total of man into a single firing line?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Surely the error is not with the 3 x 300 men but with the 900 man battalion occupying a single hex. A 3-rank battalion in line formation would have a frontage of about some 200 metres, not 100 metres. The answer seems to me to be that the hex on at least one side of the 900 man battalion should be left empty, alternatively, edit the oob and make it two 450 man battalions to resolve the problem. Three 300 man battalions in line formation can not all fire out of the same 100m frontage, each having a frontage of about 80+ metres.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Fatigue (in the HPS games) is a function of casualties taken relative to total strength, so 3 x 300 men or 1 x 900 men doesn't matter.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ok, I understand. I'm not certain that they are the same on average, but they will be close enough. The principal difference though is that the chance of rout, or disorder applies to only 1/3rd of the 300 man battalions, whereas the chance applies to the entire 900 man battalion.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> Defensive fire in the one-phase format however, as Gary pointed out, is a problem (for the force with the smaller battalions), unless they can all fire from the same hex at the same time.

If they could, there would really be no difference whatsoever between 3 x 300 men and 1 x 900. (OK, the 3 x 300 would take three different morale checks and would have to pass all three to not have one rout and the rest disrupt.)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I disagree. As above the problem is with the 900 man battalion occupying a single hex, not the three battalions. If the three battalions were in three adjacent hexes with the 900 man battalion advancing against them, all three battalions could fire.

The problem stems from the reduced ground spaced occupied by the 900 man battalion rather than the 300 men battalions.

The thought of multiple battalions in line formation firing out of a hex is something that I fervently believe would be very wrong for the game.

Regards

Mark
VII Corps