Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Does anyone out there like to play these games like I do?

That is - you are not into ZOC kills?

I prefer to play a dynamic form of Napoleonics but not so much where the total elmination of the enemy is my goal.

I think that because we dont have a surrender system that the concept of a ZOC kills appeals so much to many of us. It happened to us, we learn the concept and thus we reciprocate.

How much do you think it has altered your playstyle? Were you like me - you picked it up as you went along - or did you see it right away?

I must admit - I loathe this style now.

Whereas it would be nice to find an opponent who didnt try and sneak a 32 man Moscow militia unit around your flank to take your wagons or spy on your entire army and then radio it back to HQ - the concept of ZOC killing the #$#$# appeals highly to me IF folks are going to play like that.

I have a good friend who helps me with history now and then. He and his friend are not into the win at all costs method of play. I have looked at their games and its incredible - they look just like the battles of history! No blitz style of play, etc.

So how do we playtest our scenarios for future titles? By blitzing cause that is how the vast majority are playing? Or do we play a classical style - as per miniatures, etc.

One thing I liked about miniatures - you didnt get ZOC locks. However, you still had rules lawyers.

Some say "If the game allows it I do it." For that reason I had James Dobbins on my playtest team. If something could be found in the game series to exploit he could do it.

Trying to plug the loopholes is very hard. No game I have ever played is without them (ok, chess and checkers).

Anyone ever looking to pick up a classical (non club) opponent - shoot me an email. I enjoy a good game now and then.

I can honestly say that one game I had going with Al Amos in Wagram was going to prove to be enjoyable because we both hashed out some things that we abhored in the games. Al is a good opponent for this style of play. If you havent played him before check him out. He usually has room for one more game.

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]

It depends on the ZOC kill. Capturing an isolated unit or two which are encountered far from the main enemy line (eg. your sneaky little 32 man Moscow militia unit) is very different from using gamey elimination tactics to conduct a series of melees in a carefully co-ordinated sequence so as to set up ZOC kills. Unfortunately, it's hard to avoid such tactics if one's opponent persists in using them.

Reducing the movement allowance of troops when in proximity to the enemy (say 5 hexes) might help a bit and make it harder to move troops round the flanks quite so easily. Something similar to the ACW skirmisher effect, but working for all troops and with additional movement penalties for infantry near cavalry.

A cavalry counter-charge system might also be useful, as this could allow cavalry to guard an exposed flank more effectively.

Preventing further movement after a player has conducted his first melee might be worth considering, but even this wouldn't actually prevent ZOC eliminations.

So probably the only real solution to the ZOC kill tactic would be to replace the traditional turn based system with a "We-Plot, We-Go" simultaneous movement system, as this would prevent players getting the chance to set up a series of co-ordinated ZOC melees.

The use of small units for spying purposes is more problematic. Perhaps restricting the movement of units away from their line of command might be a possible solution? For example, getting the game engine to restrict skirmisher sub-units from moving beyond 3 hexes of their parent unit and any other unit (including light infantry skirmishers) from moving more than 5 hexes (perhaps 7 or 8 hexes if light cavalry) from its brigade leader. Similarly, each brigade leader must remain within 15 hexes (or 20 hexes if light cavalry) of the divisional leader. Perhaps divisions too might need to operate within 25 or 30 hexes of the corps leader, but presumably this should depend on the actual battle being simulated as it may be too restrictive. Such a system - preferably modifiable in the pdt file and with the possibility of different ranges for each army - wouldn't of course prevent spying, but it would make it harder to detach individual units for this purpose.


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

I think I am a fence-sitter here.

On the one hand, I am not a big fan of ZOC kills. I'd like my attacks in neatly ordered lines or dense columns smashing into the flank, but not individual battalions all over the place facing everywhere at once so to achieve isolation and elimination.

On the other hand, I use ZOC kills quite effectively (learned them the hard way from Mike Cox [;)]) in my actual battles.

And evidently, units *did* surrender when finding themselves cut off. At the Berezina, an entire division just quit when stumbling on a Russian camp in their line of retreat.

I believe that in an actual battle it would be hard to draw a line between legitimate, let's say "accidental" isolation of a unit, and ZOC kills "on purpose". Evidently, the more unsupported an individual enemy unit, the more likely it would surrender when being isolated, so the more legitimate the ZOC kill. With the comparative immobility of ACW or EAW infantry, this problem occurs rarely, if at all. In the Nappy games, with the increased mobility of columns compared to lines and especially the enormous power and reach of cavalry charges, it's hard to ban surround or penetration attacks. Now penetration, especially with costly horse, is useless without some prize for the cost, i.e. the elimination of some enemy units. And there it all starts ...

I believe the problem could be solved to a large degree by requiring a complete surrounding of a unit (six occupied hexes) before it can be taken out. As it is, in certain situations it's nearly impossible to *avoid* the ZOC kill.

Then again, I wonder if we shouldn't be careful where we get to when taking away the clever use of brigade-level tactics as a battle winner. I am not sure I would be in favor of a style of play where numerical superiority wins every time.

<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 Grenadiers de la Moyenne Garde
</center>

Bill,
thanks for raising this topic.
I'm glad you finally have gotten angry (tired/frustrated/pissed off?...[:D]) about the blitzkrieg tactics too. Hope, it's caused a bit by our present playtest game, too [;)]

After all, don't you think, that it's exactly how it should be with playtesting? We don't only check any inaccuracies reg. scn, troops, balance etc. but do point possible engine weaknesses out as well.

I've always been against blitzkrieg tactics ZOC kills, which mainly is due to the "2-rear-hex-bug". Players get attracted and tempted by easy pickings which lead to victory. If the game engine allows such unhistorical actions, don't expect that the players in the heat of the battle won't take advantage of it. Therefore, don't blame the players! There're other people responsible for it!

<center>Maréchal T. Nowacki
<b>V KORPUS ARMII RENU</b>

Comte de Liege
Duc de la Moskova

Chasseurs a Cheval de la Vieille Garde</center>

I have to say that I have moved from being a ZOC-kill maniac to really hating it now. Having an isolated/lone unit cut off and "forced to surrender" seems fine. The problem for me comes with the blitzkreig tactic of rolling up a line, killing stacks as you go. I've started playing as much as possible with the "embedded melee" house rule, which at least helps. HPS games are definitely a step forward, but I learned the hard way that units still cannot retreat to their frontal facing into a ZOC.

So...I would second Maréchal Walter's suggestion of needing all 6 hexes to be occupied (with formed units/not skirms), and indeed was going to post this suggestion on the ACW site. The second thought would be if there was a way to prevent infantry units from voluntarily leaving command range, or having units that start a turn outside of command range (the engine already determines if leaders are "detached") being given movement penalties.

But for playtesting, you'll need a "blitzer" and a "classicist" on board, and I don't envy you at all! A scenario balanced for one style may completely unbalance the other. And of course the reality is that people enjoy playing both ways...

Some time ago there was a suggestion about reducing the time scale, which reduces the movement rates, which reduces the ability to ZOC...at the expense of doubling the scenario length. Decisions, decisions...


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

The company level waterloo scenarios with 5 minute turns, reduced stacking limits, longer ranges and high close range fire factors encourages fire over melee tactics and should make it harder to rely on ZOC elimination tactics. But of course this game engine (unlike the EAW one) wasn't primarily designed for this scale and of course it's awkward trying to fight a large battle at the company level.

However, as every experienced player already knows, in the standard battalion level scenarios, the best way to win is clearly to use max stacking column melee tactics - basically the game engine pretty much prevents effective linear defensive tactics when faced by players who rely on ZOC melees. This is a serious flaw in the game engine and really needs fixing to restore the balance of play. I've already made some suggestions that <i>might</i> help in my previous post. Expecting players to discipline themselves and avoid ZOC melee tactics isn't really the answer, especially since - as Dierk's pointed out - it's often hard to distinguish between legitimate ZOC captures and gamey tactics.

Two additional features that might reduce ZOC melees would be:
1./ Automatic defensive fire at 100% strength prior to melee with an increased chance of disrupting the attacker.
2./ "Pinning" fire that doesn't disrupt, but prevents units from continuing moving or meleeing but still allows them to fire. (This would be an additional possible result of an attacking unit coming under fire - ie. the unit would check to see if enemy fire causes disruption and ALSO check to see if it gets pinned)

Basically, the main aim would be to make it harder for an attacker to organize coordinated melees, especially direct frontal melee assaults.

Another possibility worth considering might be to carry over the <b>Action Point </b>system from the WW2 engine, since bizarrely this actually discourages the sort of blitzkrieg tactics that the current engine - where a unit can use up its full movement allowance, then fire and then melee too - encourages. With an action point system, infantry would need to start close to the enemy (ie. within two or three hexes) in order to have sufficient action points to move forward AND melee in the same turn. Also, the attacker wouldn't have enough action points to move & fire as well as melee.

Personally, I feel that the action point system would go a long way to solving this ZOC melee issue. It would also strengthen the defence and allow units to retreat a few hexes <i>after</i> firing instead of the current ridiculous and illogical system which permits full movement <i>prior</i> to firing yet prevents any subsequent movement whatsoever.

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

A couple of guys have mentioned the possibilities of restricted movement outside of command range. This has been tested by myself against both Don Adams and Jon Thayer in BGG, There were a few basic rules but the primary rule was if a unit is outside command range it could only move one hex. Since it was a house rule we had to monitor this ourselves but it did not prove to be difficult. Both Don and Jon agreed with me in that it inhanced the "feel" of the battle. If I were to do again I think I would make it even strict ie. NO moving outside command range. I know the scenerio VP`s are not geared for this but it will really change the tactics and I think it creates more realistic play without too many situational rules.This is in the BG system, I just don`t have near the experience to predict how it would work in Napoleonics.

Lest I become branded a Blitzkrieging ZOC'er and find it hard to get a good game, I just want to point out that in general I opposed to gamey tactics as outlined above (slipping units through the line, etc, etc).

However, once your line is broken, I have no qualms about reducing a pocket of men by ZOC elimination. (And that task may yake several turns). As long as I maintain my cohesion and protect my own flanks from your counter attacks, I see no problem squaring that with the historical record.

And I second this sentiment: <i>"Then again, I wonder if we shouldn't be careful where we get to when taking away the clever use of brigade-level tactics as a battle winner. I am not sure I would be in favor of a style of play where numerical superiority wins every time."</i>

I too would like to see: "1./ Automatic defensive fire at 100% strength prior to melee with an increased chance of disrupting the attacker. "

<b>Général de Division Michael Cox</b>
<font size="4"><i>Principe <font size="1">della </font id="size1">Toscana</i></font id="size4">
Comte de Moselle

<i><font size="4">Armée du Rhin</font id="size4">
<font size="2">2e battallion, 1er Regiment de Chasseurs a Pied, Inf. de l'V. Gde.</i></font id="size2">
<center></center>

As anyone who has ever played me will have noted, I really dislike ZOC kills. I don't mind them so much when you surround a unit, and then finish the job in later turns, or when you destroy isolated units. However, I dislike creating a ZOC situation and killing the units all within one turn.

Probably one of the reasons I'm one of the worst players in the club.

I don't really know what kind of "fix" you could make though, short of returning to phased play AND using Soft ZOCs.

FZM Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Battallion
Allied Coalition C-in-C

I have always wanted to see a mod where a surrounded unit, isolated or not, that is defeated in melee, gets to perform a melee of its own, (at half strength due to disorder from initial melee), against the weakest of the units surrounding it as it tries to break out rather than be eliminated. This would limit the value of skirmishers as surrounding units.

My own preference for ZoC eliminations and melee in general (excepting cavalry charges), is only to melee isolated, routed, units for the free elimination (capture) of the routed units. I much prefer to fight the battles with musketry and artillery.

Mark

I too use to have great satisfaction in capturing thousands of the enemy in carefully executed zoc kills. It certainly requires ability to be successful at it.

On the other hand it's a case of the biter bit and I'm now inclined to the view the concept dominates gamestyle for most players.

Dean Beecham and I have discussed this. In our games enemy units well behind the main battle line are elegible for zoc kills.

I like the idea of all 6 surrounding hexes needing to be occupied by formed units to achieve a zoc kill. That would make the situation more difficult for an opponent to achieve and would be more "historical". It's also vexing that as few as 1 man units can be classed as "formed" and thus participate.

What happened to isolated units during a battle? Clearly those isolated at the end were likely to surrender but units isolated for 15 minutes or so????? In fact during the general chaos would the troops even know they had been isolated? A unit may disintegrate and thus lose it's cohesion but would probably result in a mass of fugitives rather than prisoners. Maybe a unit meleed in zoc should be able to "flop" on an enemy unit if enemy unit is of low strength. Neither unit however is actually eliminated.

Generalissimo
Opolchenie Korpus
Russian Army

Rich W - I agree - smallish units should be open to ZOC kills. Especially Moscow Militia!

Dierk - agree with you on the SURRENDER issue - I think the 2 rear hex issue is mainly to blame. Not sure that ALL six hexes are needed. I DO believe that units that are NO AMMO should be 1/2 in a melee UNLESS they are fanatic.

Tomasz - the ZOC Kill is not something we need to test - we know it works. However, I know what you are saying. I am not mad at players here but at the system. I prefer to think that the majority of players are going to play as per Dierk's style, a little bit of ZOC'ing now and then.

Sean - our new game uses 10 minute turns. Movement is REALLY cut down but the ZOC kills happen in those tight fights anyway. In the end I believe that only with all around facing can you stop the ZOC kills. I am wanting to get adjacent friendlies to supply a way of escape. Probably will play with the Partial Retreat ON from now on. That might allow units to retreat to adjacent hexes. And we do have a mix of players. Some will ZOC you and others like Dean and Gary will not.

I am thinking that less successful melees might be the answer. But then that opens its own can of worms.

Also - stacking is now 1600 men. Cavalry are 1/3 the stacking value - 530 men per hex. We now can set the charge modifier in the PDT file. Right now we have it at 6. After two melees cavalry should not advance further. Of course it depends on the target but even with disordered lines/columns the second and third melees can fail. Even with max cav stacks.


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]

Movement points, same as used in Panzer and Modern Cpg. Games would go a long way in solving this issue but this is probably not possible due to system architecture.

Other thing is why eliminate units without retreat hexes at all? They could just hold their ground and the penalty for them would be negative rout modifiers so the units loosing a ZOC melee have greater chance of routing. And routed units could be ZOC killed.


GdD Dejan Zupancic, Comte de St. Pol
Saxon Division de Cavalerie
Armee du Rhin

Reading this thread I came to the rule I'd be happy to see one day:

So a unit or stack of units loses a melee:
1. If unit has a possible retreat path that is not in enemy ZOC it just follows it.
2. If it is ZOC'ed but still there is at least one hex free of enemy units and in enemy ZOC it will have to pass a test. With a small probability, say 10% it will just surrender. Quality, fatigue, state (routed/disordered/isolated) modifiers should be applied to this value. And with probability of 90% it will retreat. But while retreating it will suffer additional casualties because it will have to get off the pocket. Or enemy units in adjacent hexes will fire with 100% effectiveness at them or anything else.
3. If there is no retreat path clear of enemy units. First of all the same check as above is performed but with higher probability. Next, if it does not surrender it will be allowed to cause a melee against enemy stack closing the way. Provided enemy strength is less than the retreating stack. All the modifiers are applied just like in "casual" melee. If melee is successful and the destination hex is in enemy ZOC the unit will suffer additional casualties as described in 2. If all the enemy units/stacks are stronger than our retreating unit/stack or if the melee failed it will suffer casualties. Something like Panzer campaigns.

A bit complicated I know but....[:I] It saves a possibility of ZOC kill. It makes the result based on the result of several probability tests which makes the result hard to predict. And it really was/is almost impossible to predict how will the encircled unit behave. And ZOC kills, though still possible, are much less probable. What would you say?

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Mayor Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
commander of Little Russian grenadiers regiment</b></center>

In the WW2 engine, isolated defenders can lose a melee but not necessarily get completely wiped out - ie. the attacker wins the melee but doesn't occupy the defender's hex. So perhaps it might be worthwhile carrying over into this engine?