"Napoleonic Command - Questions about Play" Topic

Everyone:

So I received my copy of 'Napoleonic Command' from Skyking20. After reading them a couple of times and having a few 'what?' moments, I was ready to try them.

First, I grab one of my boardgames that I was just starting to play, 'Medellin 1809' from the Alea Magazine and decided to use 'NC' with that boardgame. Which by the way worked very well. I had 3 Spanish divisions attacking 2 French divisions.

Here are my questions, I hope someone will be able to answer them:

1. When required to retreat and the retreat takes you into & through a friendly unit, so there any effect on the friendly unit? (My first line of Spanish got 'doubled up' (& not the good kind<G>) and need to retreat. The second line was a couple of bounds away behind them in support.)

2. When a divison is 'doubled up' and looses a unit and retreats, does it also receive any disorders?

3. About disorders. The rules state that anytime a division has disruptions against it, the division will receive a disorder. Couldn't this lead to a single artillery battery at long range putting a whole 8 unit divison out of action over the course of 3 to 5 turns. Assuming the nothing else happened to the division.

I'll post a longer email later but I really do like these rules. They are like NOTHING I've ever played and seem to capture the 'Napoleonic Flavor' very well.

DaleWill

From the top of my head:

1. You can't retreat through friendly units – the retreating unit has to stop with its rear to the enemy … not good.

2. Are you playing with the optional Disorder/Fatigue points? If not, then no, there is no other effect. But remember the other cases where units can be lost in a retreat, such as being contacted on two flanks. If playing the optional rules, then I believe it is 1 Fatigue regardless (my house rules are a bit different, I think, but they were the inspiration for the current Fatigue rules). The loss of the unit is itself a permanent loss of Cohesion.

3. I think there is a clause that states the Threat has to either be half or equal to the Cohesion of the formation (at least that made it into the ACW version if I remember correctly). Otherwise, you're right, a single battery could "plink" the division – but on the other hand, a major source of inspiration for the Fatigue rules was inserting the possibility for "preparatory bombardment" of some sort. Also, the recovery rules might balance this to a certain extent, allowing recovery of "easy to inflict" Fatigue if the formation isn't too threatened.

Glad you're liking them. I've been a long-time fan, and it's great to see them getting some long overdue attention.

Cheers,

Christopher

Can't help you with the answers but like you I'm very, very intrigued. Funny how something from 10 years ago can still feel so far ahead of its time!

Christopher:

I'm using version 2.2

1. Rules 6.8 states that 'A retreating unit which contacts a friendly unit must stop, UNLESS ITS MOVEMENT ALLOWANCE WOULD ALLOW IT TO MOVE BEYOUND THE UNIT CONTACTED. Sort of confusion. It implies that you can retreat through a unit (that's how I read it).

2. Yes, I'm using the disorder rules.

3. I see what you are talking about. I was so caught up in the rule that I missed the exception where if the total disruption points with the worst possible modifer (-5) can't cause a loss of tactial initative, then no disorder occurs.

Like I said earlier, I'll post more later but it is a great game. Basically one chart is used and the only part of the rules I keep looking at is the 2 & half page section on the Initiative Test. (The Meat of the rules.)

Hi, DaleWill.

I might be considered an authority of sorts, since I'm the author.

For the first question, see section 5.8. "A retreating unit which contacts a friendly unit must stop, unless its movement allowance would allow it to move beyond the unit contacted."

Secondly, Christopher is correct. There is no additional Disorder inflicted aside from the original one, plus the permanent loss of Cohesion represented by the removal of the most threatened unit.

As for the third question, the 1st Edition made no provision for this situation; but, if I recall correctly, Skyking20 was going to send you a playtest copy of the (as yet unreleased) 2nd Edition with your purchase of the 1st. If so, see section 6.4 of the 2nd Edition:

"6.4 Disorder. Each time a Brigade has disruption points assessed against it, a disorder marker is placed with it. These can be simple markers or single figures based individually.
(Exception: If the total of all the disruption points assessed against the Brigade is low enough that no loss of tactical initiative would occur, even if the defending Brigade's commander rolled the worst possible result (-5), then no Disorder marker is placed.)"

This should help. Feel free to let me know if you have any further questions.

Regards,

Jeff

DaleWill,

I see you got it sorted out. Your post at 12:49 didn't
show up until after I had posted my answer to the previous one.

As for the first question, again; you have interpreted it correctly. The ability of a unit to retreat past friendly units if the contact occurs early in the retreat represents the ability of a broken unit to flow around and reform in the rear; if this happens too late in the retreat move (ie, if the unit supporting from the rear was too far away for the retreating unit to move completely through it), then the retreating unit will stop when it contacts the friendly unit, with its rear still facing the enemy that caused the retreat.

This is intended to have the effect of causing the player to keep a second line within proper supporting distance of the first line.

I'm glad to hear you got 2.2.

Enjoy.

Jeff

Strange….

I just got my copy this week also and it is not version 2.2 as far as I can tell. First of all there is no Rule 6.8 in my book. The rules section Assessment ends at 5.9 and what follows are the appendices. It is a small booklet with a green card stock cover dated 1997.

Any chance I could get the new version as well? E-mail would be fine….

Mark "Extra Crispy" Severin
Owner, Scale Creep Miniatures
scalecreep.com

And check out the new rules directory!
DeepFriedHappyMice.com/html/rulesdirectory.html

Aha – I actually have 2.2 around here somewhere. Okay, so if it doesn't have enough movement to retreat all the way, then it gets stuck as I described, otherwise it passes through. I'm just a cruel GM and don't allow it. Still, you'll see that in NapCom these little things come out in the wash, since if your overall handling of the formation isn't solid, you're toast anyway. Letting them "go through" is one way to allow for a close second line without confusing rules for how retreats are traced.

Here's a trick to streamline play. Make one set of movement sticks with the various movement distances written on them – infantry line, column, etc. Then, make another set with the Threat values written on them – mine have infantry on one face, artillery on another, and cavalry on another (use a bit thicker sticks). Then, instead of referencing charts, you just need to use the stick to measure Threat, and as you know the Cohesion rules are dead simple to memorize.

Let us know how it goes!

Cheers

And … Jeff already cleared all that up! Hi Jeff!

Mark,

I've contacted Skyking20 about it.

Thanks.

Jeff

Jeff:

So are my green covered pages version 1? version 2?

Thanks,

Mark

Mark,

Here is my understanding;

The green covered version published by Crusader is Version 1 and is designed for divisional level play.

The additional copy that you will be reserving is an ubound set of rules that has either the Divison (2 stand per battalion) or Brigade (4 stands per battalion) and the additional fatigue rules is the Version 2.2. This is the one that is undergoing development at present.

With due apologies to Jeff for jumping in here.

Hope this helps

Elliott

I sent out version 2.0 which is what I had. I still have everyones info from Paypal so I will email you 2.2 as soon as I get it from War Artisan or dig it out.

Sorry for the error!

Lance

Hi Skyking – did you get my mail? I payed you on paypal, could you also send med the rules please.

I got mine recently. Many thanks.

I was surprised by the brevity. It all seems rather vague to me; about 6 pages of rules, and the rest is basically left to the referee. And I'm not crazy about hand-writing orders and then having players and referees rationalize what they may or may not mean, given changed circumstances since they were written. That always meant, in all the games that did that, that players basically do whatever they want, at all times, anyway, and the orders-writing is just a waste of time.

But it does contain some interesting ideas. I like the concept of moving only straight-ahead or obliquely, and then getting a free facing change after all movement. That must speed things up a lot.

I understand that the lack of any combat system is because combat is *understood* to be happening once units get close. Although I'm not sure I understand *why* we'd want to get rid of the combat system. Isn't that a lot of the fun, and the reason that we play wargames?

I guess I should understand this as more of a Kriegsspiel-type thing, where there isn't much chance, and where it will ideally be handled by one or two referees. (I note that the author calls it a "study," and not a "game.")

Soup,

Here's what we do in when play with Jeff's "ATF Group" in the Twin Cities; we have an umpire who sets a tactical problem – frequently rather unbalanced. The umpire shows us the table and then a map of the the battlefield. We show our dispositions and our directions of march and defensive positions to be held if any. The Umprie then takes the other side away and briefs them in the same way. If you need to change orders – you talk to the umpire.

If say I'm a corp commander I cannot talk to my Divisional commander about disposition of the troops or conduct of the battle unless I move my command stand next to his. If I need to change the oders then I have to talk to the Umpire amend the map and he'll brief the Divisional Commander.

Mind you, I like the idea of giving players and the umpire written orders, that would be historically accurate and the opportunity for confusuin would increase considerably. Bad hand writing, unclear thoughts, etc. would give great opportunites for confusion. The umpire, is of course obliged to stread rather clear any confusuion ;-) True take from a later war but the classic example of this must be "Lord Raglan wishes the cavalry to advance rapidly to the front, follow the enemy, and try to prevent the enemy carrying away the guns. Horse artillery may accompany. French cavalry is on your left. Immediate."

What drew me to the rule was their simplicity and the lack of mechanisms. As a Corp or Divisional Commander you concentrate on the grand tactical aspects of the situations. As the rules state – chance is a minor factor, bad dice will not abolitely damn you or good dice save you (as the do in some sets of rules). Success or failure is much more dependant on the skill of the players. I also do like the fact I don't get bogged down in details; as a Corp or Divisional Commander I don't need to worry about things that would, historically, be the responisblity of the regimental officer.

I'd actually say that this is closer to Kriegsspiel than any other set of rules; the combination of comabt and morale and restrictions on movement make the game flow very quickly – IF we did nothing but play and we could probably manage to move a Corp in close to real time. Since we're a social lot we probably take 30 minutes to do a 15 minute turn.

The combat system isn't "gone", Soup; it's just moved up a level. True, you don't roll "x" dice for "y" figures in each battalion and remove the casualties and check the battalion's morale, but when you're playing a game with that style of combat mechanics you don't roll for each private's musket shot, and check where each enemy target is injured, either.

In a system like Napoleonic Command, where you play the role of a divisional or corps level commander, combat is resolved at the brigade level. The shooting still happens, but you're not the one yelling "fire!" (that's a job for a mere Lieutenant or Major); you're the one making sure that your regiments and brigades get to where they'll do the most good, in a timely fashion, and in a condition in which they'll be able to do their job.

As for "what's fun?" and "why we play wargames" . . . man, there's a whole 'nother can of worms. That subject deserves an entire book, if and when I ever really understand it myself. Speaking for myself, though, the fun of a wargame is solving a tactical problem, making decisions based on that solution, and implementing them as best I can.

Oh yeah, and sharing some fine Irish Single Malt, a good cigar, and some laughs with the Gentlemen Wargamers.

Regards,

Jeff