Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Which club members still play the BG games? Do you just play BG or a mixture of both BG & HPS?

Which games do you have?

1./ NIR
2./ BGW
3./ PTW
4./ Eckmuhl
5./ Wagram
6./ NRC
7./ HPS Waterloo

Do you tend to play more BG or HPS games? Why?

Is there any particular reason why you might prefer the BG games? For instance:

1./ The nice hand-drawn maps
2./ The ability to form square or change formation in the defensive phase
3./ The Cavalry counter-charge optional rule
4./ Some other reason

Do you feel that there are any useful features present in the BG engine that have since disappeared from the HPS engine? Is the absence of these features from the HPS engine a significant reason for your continued preference for the BG games?

Also if these features could be retro-fitted into the HPS engine would this make you more likely to switch over and play less BG and more HPS games?


Capt Rich White
4th Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps
Anglo-Allied Army

I own all games, BG and HPS. I play exclusively HPS for the simple reason that I suck at BG. Never learned it properly, and now I can no longer see a reason to. [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>

I own all BG games, and all HPS games except Waterloo Campaign. I play either or, makes no difference, I like them all, but I will say I like the campaign idea in the HPS games.

Maréchal Tony R.Malone, Comte d'Auvergne et Duc de Vauchamps: Division d'Infanterie de la Moyenne Garde; CDR III Corps Armee Du Nord
"The Guard may die, But it never surrenders".

I have all the BG games but I don't play NIR (my last game, which was six months ago, ended at turn three - the turns are just too long for my tiny mind).

I have no intention of buying any HPS titles - there are still BG scenarios I haven't played and new tactics to play in the ones I have. Besides I can't be arsed to learn a new game engine. [;)]

<font color="orange">Majoor Peter Robinson
Commander I Corps
[url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie"]Koninklijke Militaire Academie[/url] Adjutant
3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards</font id="orange">

I have every BG titles but no HPS. The reasons you listed are in the same order.

1- Although I would like the idea of a campaign game I am disgusted at how the HPS maps look eventhough the artwork, symbols and uniforms is of lesser importance to me; I just have to get the impression that I was on the battlefield that day, redoing history.

2- Having the possibility to decide when to form square or how to limber/unlimber creates the essence of Napoleonic Warfare otherwise, WWII would be much more interesting

3- Same as above

Voilà mes deux centimes! [:)]


[url="mailto:pyguinard@hotmail.com"]Chef de Bataillon Py Guinard[/url],
6e Division, II Corp
AdN

Richard

I own all (Napoleonic) BG games and HPS Campaign Eckmuhl.

I play exclusively the BG games, principal reasons as follows:-

I was initially put off the single phase system when one battery fired at 7 independent targets in its defensive phase and, even allowing for a 50% reduction in fire this was 3.5 times more effective than a battery firing in the move / offensive fire phase.

I tried the manual defensive phase, and found I could not adjust to the loss of ability to change formation (especially square). I read a post recently in which a player indicated that he rarely bothers to square battalions. I can understand why as, under these circumstances of having to decide to square early) a player just threatens with cavalry then uses ranged fire against a battalion that squares up. But, for me, this is a gross distortion of Napoleonic warfare as commanders were so concerned by the threat of cavalry that there were occasions when units even marched onto battlefields in square.

Finally, for me, having come from table-top wargaming (all those years ago), rather than boardgames, I prefer using the 3d views. Sure, I use the 2d for the big picture but I conduct all movement and action with the 3d. So this is, for me, a very important aspect of the game.


The detail of the terrain in the Eckmuhl game disappointed me compared to the Battleground games. It struck me as being all plain or wooded with a few fields or orchards around the villages and some streams. This provided little or nothing to work with at the level that you can in the BG games. When generating the map, throw in some variation to add interest. Occasional marsh hexes along a stream, (especially near the source), hedges alongside roads, (actually in Europe they plant trees alongside to give shade, not strictly a hedge but enough to provide some shelter or disrupt a cavalry charge at an inappropriate angle, embankments for ditches, ponds / lakes near villages, some rough ground - there must be some rocky outcrops around those hills. Anything - please. It doesn't need to be real, or necessarily accurate. It needs to be there to provide interest, something to fight over and gain an advantage.

The Battleground games, particularly BGW and PTW, looked like somewhere people lived and worked; Eckmuhl didn't, it looked like a boardgame map. That's not intended as an offence t oBill and any others who worked on it. They did a bloody good job and it is understandable that for the first game the focus was probably on the new engine.

I have not seen any of the HPS titles other than Eckmuhl, so the maps for others may be more to my liking. As I say it is a personal preference born of a miniatures rather than a boardgame background.

That would be the step improvement that I would like to see.

If all these factors were engineered into the HPS games would I change? That depends what else came out / was on the horizon. My dream is for a campaign game complete with political and economic factors with supply and logistical support for the military, interfaced with a reasonable game for the battles. Something of mind-blowingly sickening complexity. If that was available, or on the horizon, before a retro-fit to the HPS titles, I would not switch to HPS. If it wasn't, I would try another title for sure - but I don't know which!

Mark
VII Corps

I own all the BG games and HPS Eckmulh. Just started playing the HPS games with MOE III. I doubt I will play them without the embedded melee house rule.

I am playing both - have 8 games going 5 HPS 3 BG.

I agree with the comments below about the lack of infantry squares. Against an opponent with artillery its not really an option to form square. You become too static.

Big advantages of HPS - Fast play, large maps, lots of manuevering room, less emphasis on zoc kills.

Big disadvantages of HPS - Squares become useless, artillery very vulnerable, artillery kill a lot less than historically, almost impossible to form a defense or a retreat under attack (offense has huge advantages - even with embedded melee), boring maps.

I will probably swing back to more BG games once this current crop of games are complete - but I plan to pick up HPS Waterloo when I can.

General de Division Doug Fuller
Comte de Hainaut et Duc de Lutzen
CO Brigade de Voltigeurs de La Jeune Guard
I Corp CO
AdN

At one time, I owned all of the BG & HPS games. Currently, I still own NIR, but Campaign: Waterloo is the only one that I keep on my hard drive.

In Campaign: Waterloo, I like the faster play, the bigger maps & the more numerous optional rules. I especially like the new way of showing combat results on the screen instead of that window that popped up. The Campaign system is a definite plus.

I respect that some like the BG games, but once HPS started publishing, I just couldn't play the BG games anymore. In my opinion, it would've been like going back to elementary school after starting junior high school. For me, it was that great of a difference.

Instead of retro-fitting the older games, I think it would be far better for a complete re-write of the gaming engine with a super intense focus on making it a comprehensive Napoleonic simulation, based upon the different campaigns.

I'd sure like a full OOB & map editor too.

Cheers,
Rick

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br />
Instead of retro-fitting the older games, I think it would be far better for a complete re-write of the gaming engine with a super intense focus on making it a comprehensive Napoleonic simulation, based upon the different campaigns.

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

Wasn't Tim Cavalin working on a new Napoleonic Simulation? What happened to it[?]

[url="mailto:pyguinard@hotmail.com"]Chef de Bataillon Py Guinard[/url],
6e Division, II Corp
AdN

I own all Bg and HPS games. The advantages of Bg are the graphics and indeed the chance to form square and countercharge. Balanced against that are the advantages of HPS with soft zoc and several issues with skirmishers I had with Bg. I'd like to see the embedded melee rule somehow encoded into the HPS game, trying to remember what to do during a big game is a problem for me, especially when several opponents want different things. I went from die hard Bg fan to big HPS fan. Now I've mixed feelings and play both.

Generalissimo
Opolchenie Korpus
Russian Army

I have all from both BG & HPS to the exception of latest HPS waterloo.
I strongly prefer BG game when it goes to graphics (maps, units, "faces") as I view the HPS ones as especilly poor - no offense whatsoever but I came from table-wargaming & I need to "feel" my units, not just only have a nice 2D overview over a pile of NATO-coded (!!) units stacks;
The sole exception came from adds-ons (notabley thos from the cobexlaw website collection), which have truly great art credits & with which I feel totally in line.

One positive point of HPS being the automatic defense option which greatlyu speeds-up games, although rate of fire issue has yet to be solved.

definitive answer being BG, then

Guillaume AYMONIER-AMELINE
Comte de Strasbourg
Duc de Ratisbonne

Maréchal de France

1er Rgt de Grenadiers à Cheval
VIEILLE GARDE

1ère Brig./ 3ème Div° Cavalerie Légère
IIIeme Corps d'Armée
AdN

I have all BG and HPS titles and play both. Each system has it's good points and bad points, but I like playing, so play within any engine limitations. I think the graphics are fine in both systems and don't let little things bother me. Generally, I like to play HPS titles, due to the phase system.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
GdB,1er Brig,1eme Div,VI Corps,AdR
President, Colonial Campaign Club
</b></font id="gold">

I have BGW, PTW, NIR, HPS Eckmuhl and HPS Waterloo.

I only got into the HPS games within the last year and am currently enjoying them very much, especially the quicker one phase play and the auto-defensive fire. I'm just playing the one battleground game (Eylau) at the moment but still enjoying that too. On balance I probably prefer the HPS games and I look forward to further engine enhancements (and titles!) but battleground isn't dead either because of it's few advantages already mentioned by others.

<center>Major Antony Barlow
~ 2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps ~
~ 4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards ~
</center>

<b><font color="blue">I have all 3 Napoleonic BGs (as well as all the ACW, & WWII). Also have War of 1812 (which in my mind should be considered as part of the Napoleonic Wars. I understand that it was seperate from them, but did cause a minor distraction for the Brits)
Mostly I focus on PTW, though generally because of the TB maps being so much larger, and thus lending itself to a greater variety of DYO scenario setups. Otherwise QB & Waterloo are my main focus. I do want to get both Wagram and Eckmuhl, but the local commander has vetoed that in favor of new tires, brakes, food, college tuition, and sundry other misc bills. Ah but Father's day is coming. One can only hope. </font id="blue"></b>

Cadet William Davis
Royal Military Academy

William,

If big maps are a thing you like check out Campaign's Waterloo and Eckmuhl. Both include huge ones. I made a specific effort to add in a lot of detail to the Waterloo map so that all portions of it could be used by DYO designers using the sub-map feature.

Regards,
Rich

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

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