Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Perhaps the engine could be modified to not allow this tactic or at least inflict more fatigue or something on disordered troops that initate melee's ?

Thoughts ?

Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Duc de Paive
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Jeune Garde
NWC President

The half strength melee is disincentive enough for most. It's not a good idea in general to melee with disordered troops, but it is something that should be allowed.



Jeff Bardon
Duc de Castiglione
Prince de Wagram
Commandant de la Vieille Garde
Marechal de l'Empire
CiC- La Grande Armee

John was posting in regards to a particular scenario from the HPS Waterloo Campaign that encompasses the the "Twin Battles" of Ligny and QB. Most of the Prussian Army is fixed and the French are conducting an attack which is basically racing around isolated pockets of Prussian troops and conducting continual melees often with huge stacks of previously disordered troops to get ZOC kills. It's really a function of whether the tactics being used are gamey or unfair in regards to the larger fact that so much of the Prussian army is fixed. It's turned into a complete slaughter that is both frustrating and not much fun. I threw in the towel as I was the Prussian commander and was not interested in continuing while my army was destroyed piece meal. This not a slur on John or his partner in our MP game. It was just not something I was not interested in participating in. I think the point is do players have a "moral or ethical" responsibility to not take advanatge of unbalanced or unfair aspects of a scenario or the game engine. Personally, I do not take advantage of things which I feel are unfair to my opponent, but having played with a lot of different opponents I know that what I think is fair is not always the same as others definitions. Some guys are more interested in winning and to them analyzing an imbalance and exploitng it to advantage is just good tactics and all part of the game. Anyway it is not my place to judge what is fair or not but I do have the choice of choosing opponents who have more similar views as mine. So no hard feelings here just an unemotional statement of an opinion.[B)]

Brigadier Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

I think the attack strength for disordered troops in HPS games is 1/3 (defending strength 2/3), not 1/2.

And Ed, the rank is Brigadier General. "Brigadier" is an invention of the late interwar British Army in the 20th century. They first abolished the rank entirely, then they reintroduced it as a field officer, rather than general officer grade, and hence they dropped the "general". For the Nappy time, it's still a general officer rank. [:)]

<center>
D.S. "Green Horse" Walter, Maréchal d'Empire
Duc des Pyramides, Comte de Normandie
Commandant la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3e Division Bavaroise[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/EdM_start.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

eh, eh, thanks Dierk. [;)]

Brigadier General Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

Congrats on your promotion though, General. [8D]

<center>
D.S. "Green Horse" Walter, Maréchal d'Empire
Duc des Pyramides, Comte de Normandie
Commandant la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3e Division Bavaroise[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/EdM_start.htm"]L'Ecole de Mars[/url], L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

While I can think of cases to allow it, my main argument against it would be to cut down the attacker's advantage in the combat system.

The question of destroying fixed units has always been out there, so I wonder if it is possible to have units "woken up" not only by fire but by enemy units either approaching within a certain number of hexes or crossing a certain line? Or if they unfix if they have any type of threat modifier (if that's what it's called -- it's too late and I'm too lazy to look it up [|)], but the modifiers you get from enemy units that affect your ability to change formation).

Lt Sean Turner
1er Dragons
2ème Division de Dragons
Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie
l'Armee du Nord

Disordered troops probably get too many penalties already. It would be useful if there could be various levels of disruption (maybe 10) with troops with low disruption able to melee with little disadvantage, eg at 3/4 normal strength, and units with medium disruption similar to now, eg at 1/2 effect, and those with high disruption, say levels 7+, unable to melee at all (like in the ACW & EAW engines) and with severe fire penalties as well. But I'd recommend getting rid of any movement penalty for disruption, especially for retreating troops.

The possibility of units getting "pinned" by enemy fire might also be useful. Such pinned units wouldn't necessarily get disrupted and would still be able to fire, but would lose any further movement.


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

I feel that units should be allowed to melee while disordered, but reduced as currently allowed by the rules. I stronly agree with changing the manner in which Fixed units are unfrozen. The PzC series unfixes any unit that begins it's turn with an enemy unit spotted by the Fixed unit. I would recommend this be taken a step further, in all of the series, by "awakening" a fixed unit if it has a friendly unit in its LOS that has spotted an enemy unit. It just seems to make sense that the regt. on picket duty at the top of the hill that spots the advanceing enemy is going to alert other units of it's army that it is in contact with. This then could have a ripple effect in succeeding turns. This the general idea and could be refined to be more historically accurate.

2nd Lt. Bill Spitz
1/27th Regiment of Foot (The Inniskillings)
10th Brigade, 6th Division
Anglo-Allied Army

Mssrs.,

In the BG games disordered units defend at 100% and attack at 50%. The current version of the HPS engine changed this to 2/3 on defense and 1/3 on offense. Initiating assaults with units at 1/3 strength will, in short order, completely wreck an army and should be avoided in all but desperate straits.

"Fixed" units were released under the BG engine when they were fired upon and/or meleed. In the initial release of the HPS engine, units were also released when an enemy unit was within 3-5 (I forget the precise number) hexes AND in LOS to the "fixed unit. The recent patches increased the release range to either 9 or 10 hexes, but they still have to be in the LOS of the fixed unit. With few exceptions, such as enemy units advancing through woods, this expanded range means that "fixed" units are no longer the staked, sacrificial lambs they once were.

Regards,

Paco

<i>Maréchal</i> M. Francisco Palomo
<i>Prince d'Essling, Grande Duc d'Abrantes et
Comte de Marseille
Commandant - Division de Cavalerie de la Vieille Garde </i>

This could always be an optional rule. I would not discount the possibility of such a rule but I stress the word OPTIONAL.

Question: how about Charging Cavalry - they disorder after the first combat - if they win they wouldnt be able to follow up under such a rule.

Bill Peters
Former NWC President, Club Founder, Prussian and Austrian Army Founder, Stefan Reuter's hunting buddy. HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

I support the reasons of Paco and Bill

http://www.venezuela-emb.org.au/images/flag.jpg

Bill..

Optional rule would be nice.... and you raise an interesting point about infantry that is surrounded. Not sure what to do about that. Perha[s in that case they could melee... ???

as for cav... Perhaps we could exempt them ????

Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin
Duc de Paive
Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Jeune Garde
NWC President

I think you raise way too many exemptions for John to consider.

What you need to do before you raise these issues is sit down, think them over, figure out as many angles as possible, think it over some more, then voice it.

Right now I wouldnt even dream of suggesting it as you are raising more exemptions than answering questions. Exemptions lead to new avenues of problems.

For instance: the guy that is trying to wipe out a set of units now finds that his disordered units cannot attack while the isolated defenders can.

I am much more in favor of No Ammo units surrendering if adjacent to a defender than asking John to add this in as an Optional rule at this point.

Think it over and answer in the email I sent out to all of the guys on the playtest team. I think you will find that we can handle this one within the group and then present our findings and cover the issue easier than trying to follow it here.

Bill Peters
Former NWC President, Club Founder, Prussian and Austrian Army Founder, Stefan Reuter's hunting buddy. HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Sometimes it is more a matter of fixing the scenario, rather than the game engine. I have created several scenarios myself, and when play testing them came across an opponent who did something radically different from the ordinary, and brought up a glaring problem with the scenario. (Example: A Dutch-Belgian division defending the ridgeline by the stream, east of Quatre-Bras. When designing the scenario it is early morning, so I had the D-B units fixed for the first 2 hours, with a 25% chance of unfixing, using the assumption that they would get unfixed anyway, as soon as the French started expending gunpowder. My play test opponent quickly took advantage of them being fixed, didn't attack at all, and simply took a stroll through the woods to the north, and approached QB from the NE, leaving my fixed units where they were, until they unfixed piecemeal. This was a scenario design flaw, not a game engine flaw.)

<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 />John was posting in regards to a particular scenario from the HPS Waterloo Campaign that encompasses the the "Twin Battles" of Ligny and QB. Most of the Prussian Army is fixed and the French are conducting an attack which is basically racing around isolated pockets of Prussian troops and conducting continual melees often with huge stacks of previously disordered troops to get ZOC kills. It's really a function of whether the tactics being used are gamey or unfair in regards to the larger fact that so much of the Prussian army is fixed. It's turned into a complete slaughter that is both frustrating and not much fun. B)]

Brigadier Ed Blackburn
Commanding 6th Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Ensign William Davis
23rd (Royal Welsh) Fusiliers
4th British Brigade
Anglo-Allied Army