Forum Replies Created
Interesting read Bandit, thanks for posting.
How did you find the experience of being interviewed about a game that you have designed?
The battlefield and the game looks great Bandit.
One of the things I really like about ESR is that players get the opportunity to carry out a deployment, if they so wish. Its challenging and fun at the same time. It feels very Napoleonic…..and it looks very cool in the photos.
Looking forward to it! Not sure what to expect but I’m sure I’ll meet some interesting people. See you tomorrow.
Very good looking battle. I like the textured looking sea-scape. Thanks for sharing.
Can I ask what company are the ships from?
LOL I spotted the two Klenau’s as well! Very mysterious.
Thanks for the update Sparker, I’m looking forward to Blucher and the first shots look great.
Nice blog you have there. I really like your Napoleonic Austrians, and you have inspired me to pain up some Palatine Hussars of my own. I paint and game in 1/72 scale too, but my collection is entirely plastic.
As for the terrain issue, I use in my games what I call “ridgelines.” This is a line of flock or foliage or what have you. It represents gentle rolling hills. It has no effect on movement but blocks LOS across it. Tends to really break up that “battle of the 13th green” effect.
Sounds like a very good solution. Cheers!
I’ve always thought that as Napoleonic wargamers we leave our battlefield too open. Our battlefields resemble flat deserts more than they do a real life experience that a commander would have faced. In actuality, most of the enemy forces were likely to be hidden by terrain.
We’ve been concentrating on ridge-lines like the one at Waterloo, but really hidden deployment would have been an issue on many if not most battlefields of the Napoleonic wars. We are sometimes told that the countryside of Europe was not enclosed so there were few hedges obstructing views, but tree-lines are frequently present instead (taller than hedges). Also very relevant here too are the cornfields that obstructed views even on relatively flat battlefields (like Quatre Bras). And you don’t get flatter than the Low countries, and yet soldiers who participated in the campaigns in that region during the early years of the French revolutionary wars often referred to the landscape as “blind country”. It was flat, but even small tree-line, hedges and dyke embankments meant that opposing armies often failed to see parts of each other.
Really, a lot more of our historical games should involve “random” or “blind” fire IMHO.
I was having a very bad spelling episode right there, even for me.
I wrote; How do we model the effects on morale for either side? Perhaps using Blast-markers (cotton-wool is a favourite) that don’t necessarily indicate casualties, but represent changes to a unit morale and/or cohesion instead?
You wrote; Or just markers that some effect must be later determined against those targets should they ever become engaged?
Yep, thats it. Similar solution to McLaddie’s. Excellent idea IMO.
I agree with you that one of the major reasons for skirmishers was their ability to report back information. Its just that in the context of what we were talking about, i.e. ramdom fire (i like this phrase btw so i’m going to pilfer it from you and use it for the rest of the thread) over the crest of a ridge, would the knowledge passed on by the skirmishers be a great deal of help? I mean, it would help comfirm if the enemy was still present (which is pretty useful information), but would the guns be able to re-direct their fire effectively just from the info passed on by someone who had gone over the crest but is no longer there? Let me clarify; in WW2 a scout at the front-line could radio back to the teams operating the guns and tell the gunners in real time how far the guns need to re-direct and immediately clarify whether the changes in aim were having an effect. Obviously this couldn’t happen at Waterloo. A scout could report back to a battery and say that the guns had to fire 50 yards more to the right and 80 yards shorter for example, but essentially the gunners are still firing blind because the target could have moved by then or the scout could have mis-read the distances etc etc. Crucially, the scout is back within the French lines by now where he is no longer of any use!
I’ve always thought that the skirmishers could report back with very useful information about enemy numbers and the presence of enemy cavalry in dead-ground and that sort of thing, but they wouldn’t be that useful as eyes for directly pin-pointing where artillery should fire. I could be very wrong. It’s actually an interesting subject about which I would like to know more.
Fire could be laid against the unseen target, the die rolls being seen by the player with the targeted unit, but not the firer. [Blinds hiding die rolls aren’t new. Just leave the dice untouched until such time as the firing Player can see the target, then the unit is placed on the board with the any attendant damage.
Thats an interesting concept, I hadn’t thought of that.
Thanks guys, I will definitely contact him and keep you informed of any developments.
“To an extent, therefore, what the guns were actually firing at was not really the point, so long as they were seen to be firing in the general direction of the enemy!”
“The idea was to throw as much metal down field in the general direction of the enemy as possible.”
“Lets not conflate the material effect of artillery fire with its morale effect. And I’m don’t just mean morale effect on the enemy.”
“No, for Napoleon, their importance lay in the far greater volume of noise and shock they created! Particularly as the quality of his troops declined, he placed more and more value in having their assaults ‘fired in’ by 12 pounders to put heart into his young conscripts.”
Some very interesting posts gentlemen. And yet, whilst all these sorts of things are were so important in a Napoleonic battle, they are precisely the sort of considerations that are usually completely ignored in a Napoleonic war-game and most rule-sets.
How could we go about including this sort of stuff? Are there any games that allow the players to carry out initial (and continuous) bombardments of the enemy, even if they cannot be seen? Should those enemy units be deployed as dummy blinds, some real and some fake, and shots are wasted against the fake units but the player who is shooting is none the wiser?
How do we model the effects on morale for either side? Perhaps using Blast-markers (cotton-wool is a favourite) that don’t necessarily indicate casualties, but represent changes to a unit morale and/or cohesion instead?
“Perhaps the dice for these shots should be rolled only after their first attacking unit arrives on the ridge and can see what is behind.” This is an interesting idea. I’ve always wondered about whether the Officers leading Regiments (or maybe the skirmishers) that had just gone over the crest could somehow report back with accurate information on the where-a-bouts of the enemy. Even if they didn’t have their hands full dealing with enemy units on the other side, I’m guessing that there was no way they could give useful information anyway.
I remember the account of the British soldier at Waterloo who said that he welcomed the French cavalry attacks because it gave his side a respite from the artillery bombardment. I’ll try to remember who said it and at what point it was during the battle (the timing could be important because it might mean that the artillery fire at that time wasn’t ‘blind’ anyway).
I don’t think blind fire over a ridgeline should ever lead to a direct panic check in the enemy. I just mean that slow attritional losses and the horrible experience of having shells come in your general direction all day must have had some sort of effect on the Allies. Why else would Napoleon have spent all day bombarding the enemy lines if it had no effect at all? The things that interest me are;
i) should we bother to show this sort of thing in a grand tactical game?
ii) how do we quantify it?
iii) if a Division (say at Waterloo) suffers some losses from blind fire, to which battalions do we even choose to assign the losses to?
I appreciate that these are not easy things to address in a wargame, which is probably why rules designers don’t generally adress such things. I just think we should try.
Good to have you on board.
Thankyou to both Mark and Mike.
Could it be one of those instances where the commanders of the Brigades had been replaced recently (for whatever reason), meaning that the names of some of the brigade commanders in the O-O-B and on the battlefield diagram don’t tally up?
If the *number* of brigades is the same on the O-O-B and the diagram, but its just the names that are different, that could be the reason.
The Allied lists for 1813 are a real head-ache……
I had a similar problem to Ferbs earlier today. I could post to every board except the Napoleonic sub-board. It said “you need to be logged in to be able to reply” and “you need to be logged in to post new topics”, even though I was clearly logged in, and was able to post to other boards.
I was about to e-mail you when I checked back and all was fine. Weird. Anyway, keep up the good work.
But Cider counts as one of your 5 a day……
Whilst we’re on the subject of beverages during games, can I ask if anybody has ever had any problems with people drinking too much and then being overly rough with your delicate and carefully painted figures? That would annoy the hell out me.
Its really fantastic to see so many names that I recognise from other places.
My name is James and I’m from Bristol. 34 years old, recently married just 20 days ago and feeling as happy as can be. Finding out that there is a new and exciting wargames forum on return from my honeymoon to Cuba has just made me even happier. I hope TWW goes from strength to strength, I love what I have seen of it so far.
Like Bandit, I got out of TMP during its bizarre implosion. It is my opinion that the TMP Editor can only blame himself for what he has done to his own site. Hopefully TMP’s loss will be TWW’s gain.
My primary interest is in Napoleonic gaming and folks from TMP might remember me as ‘TelesticWarrior’. Hopefully if there is anyone reading this that I have clashed with on the other site, we can start afresh given this great new opportunity. I am trying out the name of Marshal SinCere firstly as a poor pun on the name of my all-time favourite of Napoleon’s Marshals, St Cyr, as well as it being a sincere effort to behave myself here and maintain good conduct.
I have a large collection of Warhammer fantasy armies and a huge amount of 1/72 plastic Napoleonics. I don’t get to game too much but now that the wedding is done and dusted I’m hoping to join the Lincombe barn wargame group and also to maybe try and get a Napoleonic boardgame that I have designed into commercial production. The working title is “Revolution & Empire”, and I hope to make more posts on this in the future.
P.S. would it be possible for someone who still has a TMP supporting member account to contact some of the old guard from the Nap boards and invite them over here? I’m thinking that it could be a huge boost to TWW, especially as some of them have expressed an interest personally to me about finding a new site, but I can’t contact them anymore. If you could please give a heads up to Whirlwind, Gustav, Flecktarn, Edwulf and RAFSquadron for me, plus any others that you think might like it over here.
Sorry for the long post.
We don’t really eat pretzels where I’m from. A “cider & Pasties” game might be more in line.
I don’t have anything to add except to say Hi Bandit, and that it’s great to see so many folks that I know on this new forum.
James (Formerly TelesticWarrior, now trying out the name of Marshal SinCere).
I’m a big fan of simultaneous play. Games where all the players are potentially involved at all times during all turns is such a great concept. The problem with IGOUGO is that people do things at at different speeds, which can mean that some people can be stood around for ages not doing anything. Then their turn comes around, its over in a flash, and its back to the slower player again. Arrggggg!!!
I agree that simultaneousplay can be chaotic if the game is not designed well.