"PBEM 1814 Campaign Vacancy" Topic

The first phase of the Bavarian invasion of Southern France has ended in a victory for General Wrede at the battle of Montbelliard. The French commander, Marshal Marmont, has resigned his command.

So there is a command vacancy for the next phase of the campaign, which will be to take and hold the town of Clerval.

At the start of the next phase the French Army of five corps will be at full strength, as will the Bavarian Army.

The campaign is very user friendly and does not require a lot of time or experience.

The aim of the campaign is to provide battles for my wife and I to wargame
The next phase should last no longer than two or three months
Players are required to write orders about once per week
Writing orders should take no more than half an hour after the initial learning period
I am told that they are fun to take part in and allow players to experience the command and fog of war problems encountered by a Napoleonic commander

Full information about the campaign is contained in the Campaign Diary Blog here
link

If you would like to take on the role of Marmont you need to join the campaign Yahoo forum here
link

I didn't get past the part of "…provides battles for my wife and I to wargame." My marriage wouldn't last past turn 3.

So the guy lost one battle and quit.

Typical.

Wish you luck finding a replacement.

To be fair he has taken part in the campaign for a few months, and he did leave at the end of a phase (or mini campaign). So he did not just pack it in because he had lost a battle. And he did write and let me know he was no longer taking part. So I think it might be unfair to say he quite because he lost one battle.

Mind there have been players who have done just that in the past. And not bothered to even let me know that they were leaving.

That is the major problem with long running PBEM.

There are twelve command posts in the campaign, and I have managed to keep them filled so far.

On the other hand this one is still vacant.

So if anyone would like to take part you will be very welcome

So the guy lost one battle and quit.

Typical.

Yes I have some sympathy with this mysterious character too, having taken part in one of TB2s campaigns…I was bemused by his view of the value of the defence – broadly speaking, defending against 2-1 odds whilst holding a built up area is suicide apparently, let alone 3-1 odds!

Well, as TB2 fairly states, the campaigns are designed to provide battles for he & his wife to wargame- the campaign is by design crafted as it goes to provide a fair contest, in the interest of providing more even progressive overall battle opportunities for the 2 tabletop players. TB2 has made this clear in previous threads. That is an umpire's design choice. It is not designed to provide the PBEM general with a 'simulation' or 'realistic' experience, or one that could ever result in a rapid operational victory, and it isn't billed as such. The map, house tactical rules and terrain are simple, and wouldn't really support the detail required for a more 'sophisticated' conflict simulation, if you seek combat results within a broader factual spectrum.

and wouldn't really support the detail required for a more 'sophisticated' conflict simulation, if you seek combat results within a broader factual spectrum.

Hmm…not sure thats right – are you conflating authenticity with granularity perhaps?

You don't have to add to the complexity of the system by allowing the commonly held view that defending from a town, as opposed to attacking from outside it, could, say, entirely arbitrarily for the sake of simplicity, double or triple the defending unit's combat value…

You would then improve the authenticity of the combat outcome manyfold, at a negligible increase in complexity…

But as you say, TB2's campaign, RB2's rules, and good luck to him!

I'm enjoying it; I also attacked a town at 2:1 and lost…..:)

Oh – well perhaps he's had a change of heart about the defensive value of built up areas? I proposed to defend a city with one Division against 2 attacking divisions and had the Army commander demanding my resignation for throwing my division away in a futile gesture!

I think you both experienced the house rules just as they, er…are :)

The campaign has changed considerably since Sparker took part. Each player is now an army commander, rather than a divisional commander, and has much more freedom of choice.

The campaign is run to provide interesting wargames. I have found that wargames, as opposed to historical battles, at odds of two to one tend to be very one sided. Having fought a number I wanted to avoid having to do so again.

I have now changed the campaign rules to allow for uneven battles, but they are decided by a dice throw rather than fought as a wargame. In keeping with both the campaign and wargame rules the mechanism is designed to be simple.

The odds are strongly in favour of the larger side. However if a one is rolled on the D6 both sides suffer low casualties. The higher the roll the more casualties for the weaker side.

I'm playing as the Spanish, so have had to bear that particular cross, however had a great first campaign against the French, winning a couple of victories but then being out manouvered.

I'm in it again against the same opponent. I am not a Napoleonics player and it is not a period that particularly interests me, however what i like about this game is it does not particularly matter. The crux is on Army command, and positioning your various Corps to enable the tactical component to be fought in your favour. Supply is also critical and must be considered.

In this regard, my lack of interest in Napoleonic gaming is irrelevant; I thoroughly enjoy the level I am playing at and am content to rely on my minions to act out the tactical part. I can order Corps not to engage in tactical battles and direct them how to respond if attacked.

It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I do thoroughly recommend it,

cheers
Jon.

I would love to play in a campaign that has players with commitment.

The campaign has been running non stop for about four years, and at least one player has taken part in it since the start. Each campaign phase is about three to four months long, and most of the twelve players have taken part in more than one phase. So I would say that we do not lack commitment.

The post of Marmont has been filled, so I do not have a command vacancy at present. However players often take a break at the end of a phase, so I have a permanent need to find replacement commanders.

If you would like to take part you should join the campaign forum here

link

Let me know that you would like to take part in the campaign when you apply, and I will send you details of what is involved.

I look forward to hearing from you

I am about to start a new phase in the Pyerenees, and need two players to take on the role of Wellington and Soult.
After a long and hard battle, lasting 38 days, Soult has driven Wellington back into northern Spain. Wellington has rallied his army at Vitoria and the French are advancing to drive them even further south.

The command roles are easy to manage. No previous experience is necessary, nor any great knowledge of the Napoleonic Wars. Common sense is sufficient to grasp the role, and as joint umpire and chief of staff I make sure that no one makes too many mistakes.

Each command phase lasts about three to four months. During that time you will be asked to write orders once a week. There is no need for complicated record keeping, as I do all of that. When a battle is fought my wife and I wargame it, and I post a battle report with a photo of each move on the campaign diary blog.

The campaign has been running since June 2013, and it would be a shame for it to have to end due to lack of commanders. So if you would like to take part you will be very welcome.

If you would like to take part you need to join the campaign forum. This is a notice board for the campaign, and I post explanations of the rules and reminders when anything is posted on the campaign diary blog. You will find the forum here

link