Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Not my favorite rule, but I have played it with several of you.

I think there are benefits to it and drawbacks.

anyway, I'm playing Wagram and I accidentally made it a rule, and we didn't notice it for 30 turns or so. The person I'm playing with hasn't played it before and doesn't really understand how to get his units undetached so they can attack.

All I know to do is keep a very controlled command control over them. But I know sometimes it seems it doesn't matter.

any suggestions?

any comments on Detached units?

_________________
2ème Brigade, 1ère Division, 1er Corps d'Armee
Général de Brigade

I have not played against an opponent here yet and only becoming familiar with the system generally. However, last night, whilst playing against the Allied AI start scn in "The Final Struggle" I attacked La Haye Sainte and eventually took it, so 1 Objective Hex secured. I then consolidated there and then struck in the centre and flanked on the right, pushing hard and fast. I was conscious of the need to maintain Command Control and which I thought I had done. Having pushed him (AI) away from the Centre OBJ Hex and effectively isolated it, I was lined up with several Btns to assault until I got the dreaded "cannot assault with detached units" message. I had several hours put into it at that stage so saved out and preparing to return to salvage what I can before I am perhaps overwhelmed.

My view from a wargaming point of view (not specificially Nap Battles) and at the level at which we play these games I think that good Command Control is necessary to truly reflect the job that leaders do (Chain of Command) and the absolute necessity of effective CC, where possible. It also deters and indeed limits, if not prohibits, those wild and random escapades of a flanking manoeuvre with little or indeed no thought given to either the effectiveness of such forces or their usefulness generally and, quite rightly punishes those so inclined IMHO. At the operational level it forces the player to consider not only CC but also Command Integrity. It would be easy and even nice not to have to consider such mundane matters but does it truly reflect a how a unit/s might react in such circumstance or indeed a Bde HQ miles to the rear with no idea where it's units are or any idea of their situation/condition. The overall picture and plan is lost, or at very least disrupted, and tactical command as opposed to operational command may limit the effectiveness of the "Detached Force" in fulfilling it's objective. This has to be seen and viewed having regard to what we, as gamers, can see on the table/screen as opposed to what a low level commander might see and/or be aware of within the confines of his unit and without guidance/orders/direction from a higher command.

A total newbie to JTS/WDS Nap Battles but my "tuppence worth" on the subject. I, personally, like the constraint of maintaining CC in providing a richer and more immersive experience.

_________________
Sous-Lieutenant Karl McEntegart
3ème Compagnie du 2ème Régiment d'Artillerie à Cheval(Demi-Batterie),
Artillerie Divisionnaire,
4ème Division de Dragons,
3ème Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


WDS Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg, Corinth, Chancellorsville, Chickamauga, Petersburg, Overland, Atlanta, Shiloh, Peninsula
Eckmuhl, Wagram, Russia, Leipzig, Bautzen, 1814, Bonparte's Peninsular
Scheldt 44, Bulge 44, The First Blitzkrieg, Wolfpack, Midway, PB North Africa 1941, SB Red Victory

For keeping them attached you need to be in the command range of the leader of the formation that the unit is part of. Classically a battalion is part of a brigade so you need to be in the command range of that brigade leader.
You can highlight the command range and by that can easily see what falls into it, and if a unit isn't in you have to move it back.

I find the rule also good, but still a bit too "unpolished". Because even if Napoleon would be with that battalion it would not assault unless in command range if its direct superior.
That is a little too much, but the rule is new and we have to see if it gets some adjustment.

_________________

I was unaware this was a "new rule" , hence my view in a game environment may be ill advised. Your point regarding Napoleon is well taken

_________________
Sous-Lieutenant Karl McEntegart
3ème Compagnie du 2ème Régiment d'Artillerie à Cheval(Demi-Batterie),
Artillerie Divisionnaire,
4ème Division de Dragons,
3ème Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


WDS Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg, Corinth, Chancellorsville, Chickamauga, Petersburg, Overland, Atlanta, Shiloh, Peninsula
Eckmuhl, Wagram, Russia, Leipzig, Bautzen, 1814, Bonparte's Peninsular
Scheldt 44, Bulge 44, The First Blitzkrieg, Wolfpack, Midway, PB North Africa 1941, SB Red Victory

Over the course of the years optional rules got added to the Napoleonic series, and the no detached melee was one of the more recent additions. So "New" means in that case maybe in the last 2-3 years.

_________________

Thank you....everyday is a school day !

_________________
Sous-Lieutenant Karl McEntegart
3ème Compagnie du 2ème Régiment d'Artillerie à Cheval(Demi-Batterie),
Artillerie Divisionnaire,
4ème Division de Dragons,
3ème Corps d'Armée,
La Grande Armée


WDS Gettysburg, Antietam, Vicksburg, Corinth, Chancellorsville, Chickamauga, Petersburg, Overland, Atlanta, Shiloh, Peninsula
Eckmuhl, Wagram, Russia, Leipzig, Bautzen, 1814, Bonparte's Peninsular
Scheldt 44, Bulge 44, The First Blitzkrieg, Wolfpack, Midway, PB North Africa 1941, SB Red Victory

Being prior service myself, I can attest to the fact that even today with all the modern technology available that command and control is still an issue in today’s military. We have gotten better, by allowing flexibility in the command structure especially in combat situation’s and giving more responsibility to young officers and noncommissioned officers alike. Also, all missions in a combat theater are briefed to every member of a unit. That way, the overall goal of the mission if communications were to break down with command could still be achieved.

However, being that it’s still a struggle today, back in a Napoleonic era it would have been a larger struggle. I’ve read many books and listen to historical podcasts in which certain marshals wouldn’t even move armies unless Napoleon (or insert other generals name here) had issued an order. Some of his marshals didn’t move Troops even if they were ordered to Many leaders, I assume, feared reprimand or a revoking of leadership if working on their own initiative.

I Personally like the Rule. But as Christian mentioned, if it can be reworked to allow for a higher commander to be present to toggle a unit back to attached, that would be a more accurate representation of a leader rallying his troops for an assault. The problem lies with command range. Higher leadership would have to either have a secondary “melee effect” command range or the ability only unlocked if in the stack or adjacent to a unit assaulting.

Certainly something worth pondering.

_________________
Mayor Joshua Jansen
Chief of Staff
Imperial Russian Corps

Interesting that this has been brought up, I was thinking about starting a similar thread myself.

I understand the reasoning behind the rule and was initially in favour, but after 20 odd games, big, small and in between, I dislike it.

I especially dislike that detached cavalry can not melee. Detached skirmishers can shoot at cavalry but detached cavalry can't fight back. That makes less than zero sense to me.

Any officer can command any unit within his command, and only his command, to melee.

Every unit has an officer, therefore every unit can melee.

Using that logic, for multiple units to melee together, they require a higher level officer to co-ordinate them to fight together. A brigade commander can combine units from his brigade in a single melee, division commanders any unit in his division etc.

Issuing orders to subordinate commanders is different to controlling units in an assault. Napoleon ordered the Guard where and when to attack at Waterloo but didn't control how they did it. The officers on the spot did that.

The commanding officer therefore needs to be stacked with at least one of the melee units, or maybe must be within 1-2 hexes of the melee in question.

Just an idea. Feel free to poke holes in it.

_________________
Général de Brigade Dean Webster
1ère Brigade
1ère Division
4ème Corps d'Armée
La Grande Armée

-------------------------------------------------------
"I have a plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel"
Blackadder

I found out in my Campaign Leipzig game that if you lose a brigade leader that brigade is considered detached for the next turn. Just so you know why your brigade shows detached when that happens. Nothing you can do about it for a turn. Its been a part of the series for a long time. I never noticed it until the new "NDM" rule was added in.

I am 50/50 on the rule. I dont like how units cannot try and escape isolation. I can see where it will cause players to think more about their chain of command.

My fav. of the new rules is the MOP rule - Mixed Organization Penalty. Means you need to attack with units in the same brigade or else suffer a penalty.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

First off, I suppose y'all can blame me. I'm the one that really pushed for the rule to be included in Seven Years War, and then it was decided to port it over (which I had nothing to do with, I've not been involved in the NAP projects since being one of Bill's playtesters a decade ago.) This is all my opinion, not "official" especially in regards to the NAP games.

I do think understanding it in SYW helps see where it's coming from. These armies are considerably more rigid than our gameplay shows, (and linear armies even more so. The drill was really inflexible.) The rule was intended as a way of putting some rigidity into the way players use their units.

There are certainly edge cases where it could use some work (like the skirms hassling horsemen.) On the other hand, I'll say that a fair number of the complaints have gotten me in an ill temper. (At least personally, leashing wide roving cav was one of the major goals.)

I do like the idea of allowing the senior commanders to have a "bubble" around then where no unit is considered detached. I can think of cases where a senior general took command of disorganized troops. I think I'm going to swipe that and try to pass it on

_________________
Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
IR44
Portner Grenadier Battalion
Austrian Army

Scenario Designer:
JTS Midway
JTS Seven Years War

Thanks for that!

_________________

Thanks for flagging this Garrett. I know it has impacted us both in a couple of games.

On balance I'm coming down in favour, although I do think that Dean's point about the impact on cavalry is a good one. Historically there are plenty of examples of units not 'doing what they should have'. loss of command and control is a big factor, as is the general chaos and confusion on the Napoleonic battlefield.

Always learning

_________________
Field Marshal Sir Michael Davies, 1st Earl of Glamorgan K.T.
23rd Regiment of Light Dragoons
3rd British Cavalry Brigade
Cavalry Corps

Dum vivimus vivamus

It's a good rule. These wars were fought before radios. Regiments and Brigades could not function properly dispersed as they do now.

I believe the issue many players who don't like the rule is the scenarios weren't built for the Optional Rule. They were assembled before this rule was put in place therefore it doesn't work for them. The scenarios themselves need revision. Edited, where possible, so players can start with, or easily collect, units under Brigade control. Now with 10k plus scenarios in the entire series is it possible, not really. could it happen, maybe, but don't hold your breath.

What could be a solution would be to edit the major historical scenarios in each title to ensure the Optional Rule could be used with them without betraying the historical situation of course.

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

“Ask Before Activating Al”

And what should be adjusted?
Personally I don't see a reason to adjust anything, not even the command range as the differences were made purposely. Sure do they now play out stronger but that is the point when using the OR. The differences in the armies are better reflected, and that is good so because it is sometimes not nearly enough to depict the real ranking of the armies.

_________________

There are scenarios where the units have been scattered outside of command range which makes them defenseless in the case of cavalry. I do not suggest a change in pdt files, just the scenario placement.

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

“Ask Before Activating Al”