Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Considering using generic strength than I'd suggest setting the units to 2400 men. That way they lose twice as many to begin with and realistically when degenerated in half would receive half as much casualties from fire. After proofing the equation firepower 4 muskets are good. A weather fire mod of 67% is perfect. It allows similar strength units 10% losses for the first turn of closed range full attack. The density mod is a key feature of combat simulation and should never be scripted out. Great thing about much higher strength units is that fatigue actually would start to work. Fatigue is way to high to record combat fatigue sustained over several turns of brutal volley fire. Higher strength would assist the units against disorder/rout for low to moderate casualty damage as well.

Followup to criticism of the 'one attacker per adjacent hex in melee' house rule is that it allows for a frontage consideration of who may actually advance to close combat with the attacked hex. If there is only one lane or hex to advance from than realistically there should be half as much potential of getting combatants there than a defender open to two hexes of attack. If the units are in echelon than that is covered by using MIM and allowing the echeloned unit attacking from the same hex to followup the advance on the defender should the first echelon fail to break in. Each lane of assault is a 60° sector triangulating equilaterally on approach. The attacked position allows only a single formation larger than an infantry peloton to realistically line up, advance, return fire and engage by wedging into that sector of the enemy formation during a single action.

My classic problem with the rule was never with infantry which is obviously more realistic and better in game theory but, cavalry versus cavalry melee. To make multiple melees against the defending cavalry the problem with high melee casualties only gets compounded. Perhaps mean defender casualties could be increased towards 0.1/attacker (in parity with the defense average) through a weather melee mod of up to +67%. Melee terrain modifier could also be switched off representing both units being in close quarters without disimilar terrain obstruction. So, at least there is more regulation of casualties even if they are a flawed high amount. This would also increase the vulnerability of disorganized units at the frontlines. Though I'm more inclined to increase melee defense>attack just to further spoil that ahistorical game exploitation out of spite. I think it is a great rule that is easy to implement but, a couple kinks that need further solution without over complication.

Gentlemen,

I've added a Waterloo scenario: basically a corrected version of "The Ridge", with Van Bijlandt's brigade, the Grand Battery and Lobau's corps deployed in their proper positions (to name the most notable changes). You can check it out .

_________________
1e Luitenant Hans Boersma (Rtd.)
Former Commandant 1e Brigade
2e Nederlandsche Divisie
I Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
(2001-2004)

Very good, the community will surely appreciate it that someone finally corrects the scenarios.

Thanks Christian!

_________________
1e Luitenant Hans Boersma (Rtd.)
Former Commandant 1e Brigade
2e Nederlandsche Divisie
I Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
(2001-2004)

1e Luitenant Boersma,
I see on your webpage that your work continues.
Mind dropping some infos here?

_________________
1e Luitenant Hans Boersma (Rtd.)
Former Commandant 1e Brigade
2e Nederlandsche Divisie
I Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
(2001-2004)

Hans,

Downloaded your packet. Looks impressive. Nice work.

_________________
Général de Brigade Amos
1ère Brigade
Cavalerie, 3ème Division de Dragons,
Réserve de Cavalerie, La Grande Armée

“Ask Before Activating Al”

_________________
1e Luitenant Hans Boersma (Rtd.)
Former Commandant 1e Brigade
2e Nederlandsche Divisie
I Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
(2001-2004)

Great work!

I've just had a look at The Ridge and it's a lot more sensible than the original.

One question - 4 of the Hanoverian Landweher battalions which are Restricted, have a skirmisher company deployed. Is that accidental or by design?

Ah, caught red-handed! By design — more or less. I guess I just needed skirmishers to establish the skirmisher line. And I probably read this in mr. De Wit's study about these troops deploying skirmishers:
https://www.waterloo-campaign.nl/bestan ... irst.2.pdf
Bottom of page 5, top of page 6. Of course one might instead deploy skirmishers from other units (the Dutch 27e Jagers, or 79th Cameron), or thin out the skirmisher line.

& Thanks!

_________________
1e Luitenant Hans Boersma (Rtd.)
Former Commandant 1e Brigade
2e Nederlandsche Divisie
I Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
(2001-2004)

Interesting! Thanks.

Not sure why this has gone unnoticed but now all the scenarios from the Expansion Pack by Hans Boersma are in the scenario db. Games can be officially registered for them.
Thanks to Général de Brigade Bursch for bringing this to my attention.

Looking forward to add more(a full Waterloo would be wonderful).

Yes, I second all that !

Bill Peters just requested support for the "Battle of Ligny" for the next Campaign Waterloo Update.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=16294
Maybe Luitenant Boersma has something to contribute to?

Alas, my knowledge about Ligny is sketchy at best. I would however argue that presenting Quatre Bras and Ligny on one map would make sense — like the "twin battle" setup of the old Talonsoft game.

_________________
1e Luitenant Hans Boersma (Rtd.)
Former Commandant 1e Brigade
2e Nederlandsche Divisie
I Corps
Anglo-Allied Army
(2001-2004)