From elias at nordling.nu Wed Apr 15 22:19:50 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Wed Apr 15 22:19:57 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] test Message-ID: <49E64166.4070704@nordling.nu> test From wlewisiii at gmail.com Fri Apr 17 21:11:43 2009 From: wlewisiii at gmail.com (William Barnett-Lewis) Date: Fri Apr 17 21:11:55 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] So why are we gnomes? Message-ID: <4dd033e90904171211k2eb6827rc6956f7f8650171a@mail.gmail.com> Ok, as a test to see if I'm really signed up correctly, I'll take Elias' bait and ask why the list nickname is "Gnomes". I am curious about it as I associate gnomes with Swiss Bankers... :O William -- Live like you will never die, love like you've never been hurt, dance like no-one is watching. Alex White From stratdeveloper at gmail.com Sat Apr 18 04:07:06 2009 From: stratdeveloper at gmail.com (William Cooper) Date: Sat Apr 18 04:07:15 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] The developer's here :) Message-ID: Hi, all. BC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090417/fadab7f3/attachment.html From chris at snev.co.uk Sat Apr 18 13:47:09 2009 From: chris at snev.co.uk (Chris) Date: Sat Apr 18 13:51:19 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Trademarks etc Message-ID: <49E9BDBD.9040407@snev.co.uk> Good afternoon all I don't know anything about trademarking but thought it worth raising. Both Napoleon's Art of War and La Belle Alliance have been used previously by SPI. I assume that the rights to these would have transferred to Decision Games. Are they definitely available for use now? Chris From chris at snev.co.uk Sat Apr 18 13:51:51 2009 From: chris at snev.co.uk (Chris) Date: Sat Apr 18 13:55:53 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] What can I do to help? Message-ID: <49E9BED7.1050301@snev.co.uk> Hi Elias and list I don't get a huge amount of spare time but I am keen to help out if I can. I do spend two hours every day on a train so I have time for reading. And being a pedant I am quite good at proof-reading! Does it matter that I speak English English rather than American English? :-) Also happy to play test but as mentioned my time is limited. Cheers Chris From elias at nordling.nu Sat Apr 18 14:35:20 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Sat Apr 18 14:35:27 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] So why are we gnomes? In-Reply-To: <4dd033e90904171211k2eb6827rc6956f7f8650171a@mail.gmail.com> References: <4dd033e90904171211k2eb6827rc6956f7f8650171a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49E9C908.6020609@nordling.nu> William Barnett-Lewis skrev: > Ok, as a test to see if I'm really signed up correctly, I'll take > Elias' bait and ask why the list nickname is "Gnomes". I am curious > about it as I associate gnomes with Swiss Bankers... :O > If we only had a game about 1799 in the works, we'd be the Gnomes of Zurich :-) Way back when Dean Essig ran The Gamers and felt it was getting out of hand, he instituted the Honcho system. Essentially, he asked the fan base for volunteers. Based on the replies he got, he gave each series a head responsible, a honcho, together with a number of honcho helpers. I volunteered to help out with the Civil War Brigade and Tactical Combat Series systems as a honcho helper. Napoleonics was something that only marginally interested me at the time. But my friend Anders Fager became the Head Honcho for NBS, and he has a way of roping in people that he trusts. So somehow I ended up a NBS Honcho Helper. Anders is also responsible for our "game club" here in Stockholm, a rather informal thing with a cellar space with tables and racks for keeping games up. The cellar is a bit shabby, with the occasional mummified mouse being discovered in a dusty corner, and does the occasional nickname "the cave" justice. So here I was, with Anders in his cave busy doing Napoleonic games, and me one of his helpers. The image of Santa Claus in his toy factory, with the honcho helpers as his little gnomes assembling the toys, came readily to my mind. Anders liked the image, and named the e-mail list after it, and from there on the nickname stuck. To continue the story on how I ended up taking over Santa's role, one of the first tasks I took on was to "tidy up" the NBS rules a bit. Incorporate errata, remove inconsistencies, organize them a little better, that sort of stuff. It kind of grew from there... There was the little detail of cavalry charges not working quite right, and the attempts to fix it turned to monstrosities, and in the end the whole thing stalled until I picked up the ball and started writing the rules instead of just editing them. In the process, I read up on stuff, and as the journalist I am, I know how to get the information I need from people that knows more than me. So I built up a good grasp on how I felt Napoleonic Battles worked, and remodeled the combat model to fit that. In the end NBS 3.0 turned into my project as much as Anders'. Napoleon's art of War will be even more so, of course, though I still rely on people like you to find out how many men were in the Polish Dragoons the 13th October 1813 and stuff like that ;-) From elias at nordling.nu Sat Apr 18 15:00:17 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Sat Apr 18 15:00:20 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War Message-ID: <49E9CEE1.70507@nordling.nu> >If the scale is going to be 250m per hex, it's not that much of a shift from NBS - any reason why? It might not sound like much of a shift, but it actually makes a tremendous difference for maneuver space. The Waterloo Campaign was on an unworkable 8-9 maps on 200 m/hex, now it looks like we can fit it on 5 maps, an acceptable size for a monster. By the way, the plan is currently to back-print the maps with the individual battlefields, for one-map battle scenarios. Given the scale, we can probably even do it and give the battle-side bigger hexes for ease of play. I haven't measured it in detail, but by the same math, I believe we can make Wagram a 3-mapper. Leipzig also becomes a more manageable monster, perhaps 3 maps, and The whole of Jena-Auerstadt comes into the realm of the possible. For the smaller battles that already fit neatly onto one map, it allows us the choice between bigger hexes for playability and more maneuver room. >Also, is the battalion level system really on hold for now? Yes. >And how much of the legacy system do you expect to ditch? It depends. So far, I've managed to do a lot of streamlining with surprisingly little ditching of basic concepts. Interestingly, the biggest changes are currently in the orders system, which was the part I touched the least in NBS 3.0. Personally I think the new Orders rules are VERY cool, and I hope you will too. >I imagine the combination of the 5 tiered morale state AND the step loss ANDstragglers AND wrecked mechanic will get a makeover, which in turn plays into the fire resolution and dealing with skirmishers ... Currently, the only thing gone of those above is Bloodlust, which was always kind of bolted on to NBS 3.0 anyway. Wrecked is much simplified. Stragglers are the same, which bothers me a bit, but I haven't thought of a better way to handle them yet. Fran?ois, Randhall and I are in agreement that stragglers are an integral part of the design. I'll send the current draft of the rules to the list shortly. From elias at nordling.nu Wed Apr 22 11:06:16 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Wed Apr 22 11:06:25 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Double-subscriptions Message-ID: <49EEDE08.6020306@nordling.nu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090422/76d663fd/attachment.htm From clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org Wed Apr 22 14:22:05 2009 From: clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org (Clair Conzelman) Date: Wed Apr 22 14:22:57 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Double-subscriptions References: <49EEDE08.6020306@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080022638@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> Elias, I thought that I was, and it was intentional, but perhaps I am mistaken. Thanks, Clair Conzelman Louisville, KY -----Original Message----- From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com on behalf of Elias Nordling Sent: Wed 4/22/2009 5:06 AM To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com Subject: [Napgnomes] Double-subscriptions Checking through the member list, a couple of you are subscribed both for the normal list and for digest: Al Berke Nick Drochak olfezziwig Was that intentional, or do you want me to change your settings? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 2761 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090422/56b70e33/attachment.bin From elias at nordling.nu Wed Apr 22 20:39:04 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Wed Apr 22 20:44:29 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules Message-ID: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> Here you have the current draft of the rules, optional rules and tables for Napoleon's Art of War. No need to go into spellchecking and stuff at this stage, let's keep the discussion at the broad, conceptual level. Text in red are rules under supervision for further changing or simplification. The tables look horrible. If any volunteer would like to tidy them up into a format usable for playtesting, that would be nice. It doesn't have to look good, we'll do that later, just usable. any format is ok as long as it is editable and printable. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Build016.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 355584 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090422/2e52209b/Build016-0001.dot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NAoWTables Build 7.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 48640 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090422/2e52209b/NAoWTablesBuild7-0001.xls -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Optionalsbuild006.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 106985 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090422/2e52209b/Optionalsbuild006-0001.dot From adam.ant at mac.com Wed Apr 22 20:51:23 2009 From: adam.ant at mac.com (Adam Starkweather) Date: Wed Apr 22 20:52:09 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <32CC8492-86E4-4862-863E-598AE97EBDA5@mac.com> Looks great, Elias. Let Bill and I hang low till you are further along and have run some basic tests (too many cooks in the kitchen problem)...but very encouraging start to things. :) On Apr 22, 2009, at 2:39 PM, Elias Nordling wrote: > Here you have the current draft of the rules, optional rules and > tables for Napoleon's Art of War. No need to go into spellchecking > and stuff at this stage, let's keep the discussion at the broad, > conceptual level. > > Text in red are rules under supervision for further changing or > simplification. > > The tables look horrible. If any volunteer would like to tidy them > up into a format usable for playtesting, that would be nice. It > doesn't have to look good, we'll do that later, just usable. any > format is ok as long as it is editable and printable. > 7 > .xls > > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes From nick.drochak at gmail.com Wed Apr 22 23:15:32 2009 From: nick.drochak at gmail.com (Nick Drochak) Date: Wed Apr 22 23:15:38 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Double double Message-ID: I only want the digest, please. Thanks, Nick D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090423/ac767a90/attachment.html From michael.waters at navy.mil Thu Apr 23 18:52:57 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Thu Apr 23 18:55:28 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> Message-ID: To sum up ... d10 instead of d6 Steps are recorded via loss markers (stragglers and casualties) by default (no more C,B,A,AB etc. fire levels or loss sheets) Troop Morale is now a number (no more A-F troop qualities) No line extensions (at least I didn't see any rules for them) Leader ratings are now "Personality" types, with each type having its own disadvantages and (presumably) advantages. Command Points are now a fluctuating asset, and in part represent abstractions such as battlefield intel and pre-battle planning. Wrecked status determined by having taken half of you total strength as losses (round up or down?) So a unit will now consist of a counter (front side line/unlimbered/cav, back side column/limbered/blown), a step loss marker, a straggler loss marker, a morale state marker, and (possibly) a wrecked marker. First thoughts - Going to d10 is a good move. With the move to explicit size tracking, it might make sense to make a sequence of assault tables based on the size of the units engaged, rather than an if...then...else approach to modifying losses from the assault tables by increments (up or down) based on unit sizes. I really like the Commander Personality and fluctuating Command Point innovations. Could Command Points be "won" via scouting the enemy (remember the old OCS scouting rule?) or awarded based on achieving some sort of intermediate objective short of a sudden-death victory condition, etc.? Loosing extensions may make for more countersheets in the box. I wonder if stragglers and casualties shouldn't be handled by different mechanics, to reduce the stacking issue and the playability hit that results when you potentially have to update TWO loss markers after every combat as well as the morale state marker. I'll give it a more thorough read-through tonight. Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 14:39 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > Here you have the current draft of the rules, optional rules > and tables for Napoleon's Art of War. No need to go into > spellchecking and stuff at this stage, let's keep the > discussion at the broad, conceptual level. > > Text in red are rules under supervision for further changing > or simplification. > > The tables look horrible. If any volunteer would like to tidy > them up into a format usable for playtesting, that would be > nice. It doesn't have to look good, we'll do that later, just > usable. any format is ok as long as it is editable and printable. > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090423/d72b3c4c/smime.bin From elias at nordling.nu Thu Apr 23 20:30:28 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Thu Apr 23 20:30:33 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > To sum up ... > > Yes, that's a good summary. there is a little dirt in the process cleared up here and there. Cavalry are no longer blown, but DG instead (same effect, less rules) and a step was removed in the cavalry charge procedure (same result, one die-roll less). > With the move to explicit size tracking, it might make sense to make a > sequence of assault tables based on the size of the units engaged, rather > than an if...then...else approach to modifying losses from the assault > tables by increments (up or down) based on unit sizes. > > That's a definite possibility. Though one of the design parameters is to keep perceived complexity down, and a monstrosity of an assault table would be a bad thing in that respect. But with clever layout, it might work. > I really like the Commander Personality and fluctuating Command Point > innovations. Could Command Points be "won" via scouting the enemy (remember > the old OCS scouting rule?) or awarded based on achieving some sort of > intermediate objective short of a sudden-death victory condition, etc.? > Absolutely, this is deliberately left to the game designer, and I hope to see some creative stuff here. > Loosing extensions may make for more countersheets in the box. > Absolutely, the unit scale has been reduced. NBS was never particularily counter-intensive anyway, so if NapArt will turn a 1,5-countersheet 5-map game into a 2,5-countersheet, 5-map game, that shouldn't be a big disaster, I think. > I wonder if stragglers and casualties shouldn't be handled by different > mechanics, to reduce the stacking issue and the playability hit that results > when you potentially have to update TWO loss markers after every combat as > well as the morale state marker. > This is indeed my main concern, both from a fiddliness perspective, and from a stacking perspective. For stacking, there are some factors going the other way. Skirmishers are one-steppers so their backs can be used for shaken stacks with skirmishers on top, and artillery don't need step markers anymore. I have really pondered different solutions, but everything I've come up with has either caused undesirable side-effects, or just not solved the problem. One possibility is of course to just bake all losses into one and expand on the straggler recovery mechanism to get the desired effect, but I really don't want to go there if I can avoid it. Partly because I think the straggler/casualty separation is an important part of the simulation aspect, partly because it provides some great storytelling. But stacking is something to keep your eyes on. From clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org Thu Apr 23 21:33:39 2009 From: clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org (Clair Conzelman) Date: Thu Apr 23 21:33:54 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Tables In-Reply-To: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> References: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080010B78B4@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> Elias, Is this the kind of presentation you need? I can do the rest if you'd like. I did this in .ppt, and can give you either .ppt or .jpeg file, if they are helpful. Clair -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Preparation Time Table.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 42215 bytes Desc: Preparation Time Table.jpg Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090423/62eada91/PreparationTimeTable-0001.jpg From thomas.oestreicher at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 21:36:02 2009 From: thomas.oestreicher at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thomas_=D6streicher?=) Date: Thu Apr 23 21:36:12 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Tables In-Reply-To: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080010B78B4@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> References: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080010B78B4@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> Message-ID: If you send me the .ppt's I can make pdf's from them, if that would help. - thomas On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Clair Conzelman wrote: > Elias, > > Is this the kind of presentation you need? I can do the rest if you'd > like. I did this in .ppt, and can give you either .ppt or .jpeg file, if > they are helpful. > > Clair > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > From clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org Thu Apr 23 21:47:30 2009 From: clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org (Clair Conzelman) Date: Thu Apr 23 21:47:42 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Tables In-Reply-To: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> References: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080010B78B5@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> Sorry...here is the .jpeg with the X's and I's...I hadn't realized their import. Need to read the rules. Clair -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Preparation Time Table.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 42820 bytes Desc: Preparation Time Table.jpg Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090423/047d78a1/PreparationTimeTable-0001.jpg From clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org Thu Apr 23 22:02:56 2009 From: clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org (Clair Conzelman) Date: Thu Apr 23 22:03:06 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> References: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080010B78B7@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> Elias, Rather than a table to determine order preparation time, perhaps this would be a cool construct: Each Army commander has his command rating (e.g., "5") on his counter. Each Sub commander has his rating on the counter (e.g., "-2" or "+3")...this is an indication of competency. Each Sub commander could also have a personality letter...A for aggressive, C for cautious, F for erratic. For A commanders, if the 1d10 unmodified roll is "1" you get an "X" result. For C commanders, a "0" gives an "I" result. For F commanders, either result applies! This way, you can have competent aggressive commanders, and incompetent ones, etc. Orderlies (which I would call "Aides" for the period) would be assigned by scenario rules to each side's Army commander, and would reflect the competency of the army staff. Each Aide might have a different rating, roughly according to his "rank," although this is purely a construct and not real individuals...this allows you to have a "power staff" or a lame staff. Aide ratings are always additive, accounting for lack of "in person" variable. For example: French Army HQ at Austerlitz: Aide #1....+0 (as good as the Emperor in person!) Aide #2....+3 Aide #3....+5 Allied Army HQ at Austerlitz: Aide #1....+5 You can still have the nearness of enemy modifier of +2, and a nightime modifier of +10, perhaps. The above shows the difference in ability of getting orders out (French can issue three per turn plus one personal, Allies only one non-personal order per turn), the quality of those orders, and subordinate ratings would indicate the abilities of corps commanders to carry out orders. Preparation time = Army commander rating + Aide rating + subcommander rating + enemy/night modifier. Number equals prep time. No table, and most modifiers are right on the three counters involved in most orders. Clair From jeffrey.cherpeski at gmail.com Thu Apr 23 22:09:40 2009 From: jeffrey.cherpeski at gmail.com (Jeff Cherpeski) Date: Thu Apr 23 22:09:49 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080010B78B7@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> References: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080010B78B7@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> Message-ID: <7825e4f80904231309r408d58c0s87c6f262bac6059c@mail.gmail.com> I like this. Keeps the chart lookups to a minimum. Cheers, Jeff On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Clair Conzelman < clair.conzelman.humrro@ngitky.org> wrote: > Elias, > > Rather than a table to determine order preparation time, perhaps this > would be a cool construct: > > Each Army commander has his command rating (e.g., "5") on his counter. > > Each Sub commander has his rating on the counter (e.g., "-2" or > "+3")...this is an indication of competency. > Each Sub commander could also have a personality letter...A for > aggressive, C for cautious, F for erratic. For A commanders, if the 1d10 > unmodified roll is "1" you get an "X" result. For C commanders, a "0" > gives an "I" result. For F commanders, either result applies! This way, > you can have competent aggressive commanders, and incompetent ones, etc. > > Orderlies (which I would call "Aides" for the period) would be assigned > by scenario rules to each side's Army commander, and would reflect the > competency of the army staff. Each Aide might have a different rating, > roughly according to his "rank," although this is purely a construct and > not real individuals...this allows you to have a "power staff" or a lame > staff. Aide ratings are always additive, accounting for lack of "in > person" variable. For example: > > French Army HQ at Austerlitz: > > Aide #1....+0 (as good as the Emperor in person!) > Aide #2....+3 > Aide #3....+5 > > > Allied Army HQ at Austerlitz: > > Aide #1....+5 > > > You can still have the nearness of enemy modifier of +2, and a nightime > modifier of +10, perhaps. > > The above shows the difference in ability of getting orders out (French > can issue three per turn plus one personal, Allies only one non-personal > order per turn), the quality of those orders, and subordinate ratings > would indicate the abilities of corps commanders to carry out orders. > > Preparation time = Army commander rating + Aide rating + subcommander > rating + enemy/night modifier. Number equals prep time. > > No table, and most modifiers are right on the three counters involved in > most orders. > > Clair > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090423/75b96a4b/attachment.html From chris at snev.co.uk Thu Apr 23 22:12:50 2009 From: chris at snev.co.uk (Chris) Date: Thu Apr 23 22:18:33 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> Ok, first comment is that I think I must have missed something somewhere as this looks like NBS v4.0 which I thought was something that MMP wanted to avoid. Anyway setting that to one side I have a few comments based on a quick skim. The Play Book is a good idea. Improving accessibility to the series can only be a good thing. The new order delivery mechanism looks interesting. Not sure how often orders were captured on the Napoleonic battlefield in reality but this rule will definitely add some excitement to life if the oppositions cavalry outflanks and gets into your rear area. Michael mentioned marker stacking being a potential problem. Whilst removing one element of record-keeping can be a good thing I do echo his concerns particularly in a game such as Waterloo where the counter density will be high. Perhaps the larger hexes of the proposed battle maps will help alleviate this. Chris From michael.waters at navy.mil Thu Apr 23 23:23:06 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Thu Apr 23 23:24:23 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> Message-ID: > > I wonder if stragglers and casualties shouldn't be handled by > > different mechanics, to reduce the stacking issue and the > playability > > hit that results when you potentially have to update TWO > loss markers > > after every combat as well as the morale state marker. > > > This is indeed my main concern, both from a fiddliness > perspective, and from a stacking perspective. For stacking, > there are some factors going the other way. Skirmishers are > one-steppers so their backs can be used for shaken stacks > with skirmishers on top, and artillery don't need step > markers anymore. Any particular reason for making skirmishers 1 step? Are the number of skirmishers doubling? Are skirmishers more resilient? > I have really pondered different solutions, but everything > I've come up with has either caused undesirable side-effects, > or just not solved the problem. One possibility is of course > to just bake all losses into one and expand on the straggler > recovery mechanism to get the desired effect, but I really > don't want to go there if I can avoid it. Partly because I > think the straggler/casualty separation is an important part > of the simulation aspect, partly because it provides some > great storytelling. But stacking is something to keep your eyes on. I was imagining that stragglers would be an effect on a unit more analogous to Morale State rather than to step loss. There would be two levels of stragglers, represented by two sides of a marker. In order to acquire to increase a straggler marker a unit would have to fail a morale check (good troops straggle less, bad troops straggle more), and the check could be casued automaticly by either step loss or a drop in Morale State (maybe both?). The level of straggler would serve as a modifier on Assault/Charge combat, so it would be something you wouldn't want to have, and would want to recover as soon as possbile. And even though this would still require a separate marker in the stack, the straggler marker wouldn't have to be updated EVERY time a unit suffered losses, and a player wouldn't have to do the mental math of adding casualties and stragglers together and so that when Size - casualties - stragglers = 1/2 Size, the unit is wrecked (or = 0, in which case the unit is destroyed). Of course, stragglers could have more than two levels, or even explicitly combined with Morale State, so that Shaken = x% stragglers, DG = y% stragglers, and Route = z% stragglers. The other alternative I can see is combining casualties and stragglers together, and changing the recover mechansim, but that looses some of the narrative, as you pointed out. Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090423/b18ef41e/smime.bin From michael.waters at navy.mil Thu Apr 23 23:29:42 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Thu Apr 23 23:31:07 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> Message-ID: > Ok, first comment is that I think I must have missed > something somewhere as this looks like NBS v4.0 which I > thought was something that MMP wanted to avoid. I think they want to avoid the bad connotations of the name NBS, and the aspects of the rules (largely legacy of CWB) that made the NBS "un-napoleonic" in the eyes of the perceived untapped napoleonic customer base. The fact that it looks like NBS 4.0 is thus a good thing, since it means we take the best of NBS 3.0 and strip away the detritus that links us to CWB once and for all, backwards compatibility be damned. It's funny that OCS and CWB have had the fewest wholesale changes of the rules through the years, where as looking at TCS 1.0 and NBS 1.0 you can barely tell they are the origin of the lineage of TCS 4.0 and NBS 3.0/NaoW. Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090423/fe154575/smime-0001.bin From elias at nordling.nu Fri Apr 24 10:32:42 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Fri Apr 24 10:32:46 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F1792A.1090100@nordling.nu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090424/62affbc9/attachment.htm From elias at nordling.nu Fri Apr 24 10:36:02 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Fri Apr 24 10:36:06 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> Message-ID: <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090424/a521e02e/attachment.html From elias at nordling.nu Fri Apr 24 10:59:50 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Fri Apr 24 11:00:06 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> Message-ID: <49F17F86.1090602@nordling.nu> > Michael mentioned marker stacking being a potential problem. Whilst > removing one element of record-keeping can be a good thing I do echo > his concerns particularly in a game such as Waterloo where the counter > density will be high. Perhaps the larger hexes of the proposed battle > maps will help alleviate this. This is indeed something I will keep a close eye on at this stage. From elias at nordling.nu Fri Apr 24 11:19:10 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Fri Apr 24 11:19:25 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Tables In-Reply-To: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080010B78B5@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> References: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080010B78B5@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> Message-ID: <49F1840E.3010408@nordling.nu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090424/8ceedf57/attachment-0001.htm -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: image/jpeg Size: 42820 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090424/8ceedf57/attachment-0001.jpe From elias at nordling.nu Fri Apr 24 11:27:56 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Fri Apr 24 11:28:10 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080010B78B7@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> References: <49F0B3C4.1080703@nordling.nu> <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD8080010B78B7@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> Message-ID: <49F1861C.6070306@nordling.nu> Clair Conzelman skrev: > Elias, > > Rather than a table to determine order preparation time, perhaps this > would be a cool construct: > I'd like to have a greater spread of preparation time and ignore results than your suggestion allows for. Also, I felt the recipient commander should play a larger part than the Army commander in the preparation time. Even the most brilliant army commander couldn't get much out of an inept subordinate, and the brilliance of good army commanders partly lies in making sure your subordinates are good. But if we need to kill one more table, I'll work on your idea. > Orderlies (which I would call "Aides" for the period) would be assigned > by scenario rules to each side's Army commander, and would reflect the > competency of the army staff. That's the idea with the current rules. I didn't use Aide because Napoleon's Aides were used or much more than just delivering orders, and might show up in a different role in some games. From chris at snev.co.uk Fri Apr 24 21:50:12 2009 From: chris at snev.co.uk (Chris) Date: Fri Apr 24 21:56:14 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> Elias Nordling wrote: > That is spot on. In addition, the "design requirements" are somewhat > different for NBS and NapArt, in that it is important that NapArt will > not be perceived as a complex system. This means keeping the rules > length down and the tables clean. > Not sure what the etiquette or normal business practice is on this sort of thing but would it help us at all to see what the design brief is or at least the essential elements? Chris From elias at nordling.nu Fri Apr 24 22:59:56 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Fri Apr 24 23:00:00 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> Message-ID: <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> Chris skrev: > Elias Nordling wrote: >> That is spot on. In addition, the "design requirements" are somewhat >> different for NBS and NapArt, in that it is important that NapArt >> will not be perceived as a complex system. This means keeping the >> rules length down and the tables clean. >> > Not sure what the etiquette or normal business practice is on this > sort of thing but would it help us at all to see what the design brief > is or at least the essential elements? There is no such formal thing, just my way of putting what Adam Starkweather and I agreed on in a discussion on what we could do to improve sales over NBS. One factor is complexity. NBS was perceived as a complex system. I think this is partly because it LOOKS complex, with lots of tables and long rules (due to spacious layout and lots of examples). Since we're trying to affect the perception of people that most likely haven't tried the game or system, we have precious little to play with here. It is my personal opinion, from how I would reason myself, that if we want to convince people that the game is of medium complexity, the rules should be no longer than 24 pages. This is doable in layout with the current rules. The Play Book is a bit of a cheat, but I can honestly say that nothing in it will be required to play the game. Another design requirement that I've set up is that there should be as few "turn-offs" to certain segments of the gaming public as possible. Some people just hate having to keep written records in wargames. That's one reason I rewrote the orders rules, as the current system can actually be converted to a system with "objective counters" with minimal changes. I have such a system laid out, and these counters will be included in the game, but I'm waiting to write it down until the regular orders rules have stabilized, as I plan to have a complete replacement chapter for orders, with the difference in italics, in the play book. That's also why the roster sheets are replaced with counters. Some people prefer roster sheets, so we include them too. From michael.waters at navy.mil Fri Apr 24 23:15:56 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Fri Apr 24 23:16:27 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu><49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> Message-ID: Of the two, written orders and loss sheets, I think the loss sheets are BY FAR the more important to keep, due to the stacking issues I've already talked about. On a related note, if each unit now has half as many steps as before (since each step is twice as big as it used to be), the distinction between casualty and straggler, and hence the difference in behavior of good vs bad troops, may be lost. If the average unit now has 5 steps (where as before an "A" size unit had around 10 IIRC), distinguishing casualties from stragglers because much more ... quantum than it was before. Depending on how quickly hits accumulate, there may not be a "break in" period for a formation before it decides to withdraw and recover stragglers. Rather, after one fight, it's routed, wrecked, and destroyed by enemy cavalry before it has the option of taking a step back. Also, the onset of wrecked status becomes harder to manage because the accumulation of loses occurs in larger fractions at one time. Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2009 17:00 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > Chris skrev: > > Elias Nordling wrote: > >> That is spot on. In addition, the "design requirements" > are somewhat > >> different for NBS and NapArt, in that it is important that NapArt > >> will not be perceived as a complex system. This means keeping the > >> rules length down and the tables clean. > >> > > Not sure what the etiquette or normal business practice is on this > > sort of thing but would it help us at all to see what the > design brief > > is or at least the essential elements? > There is no such formal thing, just my way of putting what > Adam Starkweather and I agreed on in a discussion on what we > could do to improve sales over NBS. One factor is complexity. > NBS was perceived as a complex system. I think this is partly > because it LOOKS complex, with lots of tables and long rules > (due to spacious layout and lots of examples). > > Since we're trying to affect the perception of people that > most likely haven't tried the game or system, we have > precious little to play with here. It is my personal opinion, > from how I would reason myself, that if we want to convince > people that the game is of medium complexity, the rules > should be no longer than 24 pages. This is doable in layout > with the current rules. The Play Book is a bit of a cheat, > but I can honestly say that nothing in it will be required to > play the game. > > Another design requirement that I've set up is that there > should be as few "turn-offs" to certain segments of the > gaming public as possible. > Some people just hate having to keep written records in > wargames. That's one reason I rewrote the orders rules, as > the current system can actually be converted to a system with > "objective counters" with minimal changes. I have such a > system laid out, and these counters will be included in the > game, but I'm waiting to write it down until the regular > orders rules have stabilized, as I plan to have a complete > replacement chapter for orders, with the difference in > italics, in the play book. > That's also why the roster sheets are replaced with counters. > Some people prefer roster sheets, so we include them too. > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090424/b5c06b76/smime.bin From elias at nordling.nu Sat Apr 25 10:43:07 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Sat Apr 25 10:43:13 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu><49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > Of the two, written orders and loss sheets, I think the loss sheets are BY > FAR the more important to keep, due to the stacking issues I've already > talked about. > Yet there are players who refused to touch NBS because they hate tracking losses by loss sheets. As I said, we'll keep a close eye on stacking, and there are a couple of things that can be done to reduce stacking, if needed. > On a related note, if each unit now has half as many steps as before (since > each step is twice as big as it used to be), the distinction between > casualty and straggler, and hence the difference in behavior of good vs bad > troops, may be lost. I always felt the units in NBS had lesser granularity than needed. Combat results like 3(7) spoke for themselves. That said, testing will show if the granularity has gone too far. We can certainly go back to 250 man steps if that works better, though using step counters to track losses will be less fiddly the fewer steps there are. > Depending on > how quickly hits accumulate, there may not be a "break in" period for a > formation before it decides to withdraw and recover stragglers. Rather, > after one fight, it's routed, wrecked, and destroyed by enemy cavalry before > it has the option of taking a step back. Well, obviously casualties will be halved too. And the top unit no longer has to take all the hits, which gives you one more tool to manage your losses. But this is indeed THE most important thing to calibrate in the first rounds of playtesting. From chris at snev.co.uk Sat Apr 25 12:32:10 2009 From: chris at snev.co.uk (Chris) Date: Sat Apr 25 12:38:27 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu><49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> Elias Nordling wrote: > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: >> Of the two, written orders and loss sheets, I think the loss sheets >> are BY >> FAR the more important to keep, due to the stacking issues I've already >> talked about. >> > Yet there are players who refused to touch NBS because they hate > tracking losses by loss sheets. As I said, we'll keep a close eye on > stacking, and there are a couple of things that can be done to reduce > stacking, if needed. >> On a related note, if each unit now has half as many steps as before >> (since >> each step is twice as big as it used to be), the distinction between >> casualty and straggler, and hence the difference in behavior of good >> vs bad >> troops, may be lost. > I always felt the units in NBS had lesser granularity than needed. > Combat results like 3(7) spoke for themselves. That said, testing will > show if the granularity has gone too far. We can certainly go back to > 250 man steps if that works better, though using step counters to > track losses will be less fiddly the fewer steps there are. >> Depending on >> how quickly hits accumulate, there may not be a "break in" period for a >> formation before it decides to withdraw and recover stragglers. Rather, >> after one fight, it's routed, wrecked, and destroyed by enemy cavalry >> before >> it has the option of taking a step back. > Well, obviously casualties will be halved too. And the top unit no > longer has to take all the hits, which gives you one more tool to > manage your losses. But this is indeed THE most important thing to > calibrate in the first rounds of playtesting. > _______________________________________________ > Going in a slightly different direction, how about getting rid of the step markers altogether. Instead use both sides of the counter and have a lower strength replacement counter for each unit. To maintain the straggler feature, if the unit is currrently using the reverse side of the counter it can recover stragglers back to the front side of that counter but no further. Markers are then needed just to reflect current formation and morale state. Chris From chris at snev.co.uk Sat Apr 25 13:02:50 2009 From: chris at snev.co.uk (Chris) Date: Sat Apr 25 13:09:06 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu><49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> Message-ID: <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> > Going in a slightly different direction, how about getting rid of the > step markers altogether. Instead use both sides of the counter and > have a lower strength replacement counter for each unit. To maintain > the straggler feature, if the unit is currrently using the reverse > side of the counter it can recover stragglers back to the front side > of that counter but no further. Markers are then needed just to > reflect current formation and morale state. > Sorry, did that in a bit of a rush. To complete my thoughts, working with 4 step units the replacement counter nicely indicates that a unit is wrecked. And obviously the default formation for the unit type would not require a formation marker. On the whole I think this would also save on the number of counters required as there would be no separate loss and straggler markers. And you never end up with that annoying occurrence of having run out of a particular strength marker. Cheers Chris From adam.ant at mac.com Sat Apr 25 13:15:06 2009 From: adam.ant at mac.com (Adam Starkweather) Date: Sat Apr 25 13:15:19 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> Message-ID: <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> Replacement counters are a bit of a pain to work with for "Joe Gamer" - I do like the reduction of steps to maybe 4 (just having 1,2 and 3 step markers and the back of the counter the wrecked side)...be a nice nod to playability for sure. I do categorically disagree with Michael - the roster sheets are death for the system if you want more widespread appeal - the written orders are the hook to get that appeal. I would highlight the written orders at all costs to other aspects of the system personally. Elias and I do disagree on this point but anytime I have ever shown this system to a novice, the written orders have been the hallmark of the experience and the things like 30 charts and roster sheets have been the pain.... Just my two cents, Adam On Apr 25, 2009, at 7:02 AM, Chris wrote: > >> Going in a slightly different direction, how about getting rid of >> the step markers altogether. Instead use both sides of the counter >> and have a lower strength replacement counter for each unit. To >> maintain the straggler feature, if the unit is currrently using the >> reverse side of the counter it can recover stragglers back to the >> front side of that counter but no further. Markers are then needed >> just to reflect current formation and morale state. >> > Sorry, did that in a bit of a rush. To complete my thoughts, > working with 4 step units the replacement counter nicely indicates > that a unit is wrecked. And obviously the default formation for the > unit type would not require a formation marker. On the whole I > think this would also save on the number of counters required as > there would be no separate loss and straggler markers. And you > never end up with that annoying occurrence of having run out of a > particular strength marker. > > Cheers > Chris > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes From nick.drochak at gmail.com Sat Apr 25 14:24:33 2009 From: nick.drochak at gmail.com (Nick Drochak) Date: Sat Apr 25 14:24:43 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Loss sheets and written orders - a newbie's view Message-ID: As an honest to goodness newbie with NBS, I can give my opinion of the Loss Sheets and Written Orders. I must agree with Adam here. It was actually the written orders that fascinated me about the system and made me want to play it. Although it was difficult to imagine what kind of orders you would write and how you would actually follow them. But it was an positive aspect of the game before playing and during play. However, the loss sheets were not my favorite part. The main reason was it was difficult to look at the map & pieces and understand what you had there, strength-wise. You have to refer to the Loss Sheets to get that info and you have to be able to keep that information in your head when your focus returns back to the map. Maybe some people can remember that which units have taken a lot of hits and which ones have avoided damage, but I certainly can't, and that's just my own pieces. Forget about remembering what happened to the other player's units. And another related issue I found was that when it came time to refer to the charts, for combat for instance, you had to interpret the Loss Sheets to determine the proper way to look up the various value and results. Again, it just that the information was not "obvious". Frankly I did not pay much attention to those sheets when learning about the game, but once i started to play, I found that I struggled with them and the information they provided. I would find the game much easier to play, and I think to get others to play with me more easily, if there were a different way to track losses which made it easier to see all of that information right on the map with the unit counters. Related to this, I do agree with Michael in that dumping a bunch of counters on the map to track the state of the units should be avoided. But there must be a clever solution out there. Anyway, that's my 2 francs, Nick D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090425/36165ad8/attachment.html From elias at nordling.nu Sat Apr 25 15:12:41 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Sat Apr 25 15:12:44 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> Message-ID: <49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> Adam Starkweather skrev: > Replacement counters are a bit of a pain to work with for "Joe Gamer" Including me. I like the concept in theory, but in practice I find it a real pain. > - I do like the reduction of steps to maybe 4 (just having 1,2 and 3 > step markers and the back of the counter the wrecked side)...be a nice > nod to playability for sure. As long as we keep track of formation, that is by far the better use for the backs of the counters, to avoid having to fiddle with column markers. A it looks now, most units are 3-4 steps, with a few being 5-6 steps (though I haven't seen the Prussians yet). I was a bit concerned by that, but maybe it is actually a good thing. Cavalry units are often smaller, and don't have any special formation, so I was thinking their backs could be used for their strength when wrecked. > > I do categorically disagree with Michael - the roster sheets are death > for the system if you want more widespread appeal - the written orders > are the hook to get that appeal. I would highlight the written orders > at all costs to other aspects of the system personally. Elias and I > do disagree on this point but anytime I have ever shown this system to > a novice, the written orders have been the hallmark of the experience > and the things like 30 charts and roster sheets have been the pain.... Just to clarify, Adam thinks a dead simple system with written orders would sell great. I think that, for people that likes dead simple systems, written orders are not a selling point but a major turnoff, and that we should try to attract customers that wants something more meaty, but not La Bataille (because people who wants La Bataille detail will settle for nothing less than battalion level detail). > And another related issue I found was that when it came time to refer > to the charts, for combat for instance, you had to interpret the Loss > Sheets to determine the proper way to look up the various value and > results. Again, it just that the information was not "obvious". The switch to numeric values should take away a lot of this pain. From adam.ant at mac.com Sat Apr 25 15:20:32 2009 From: adam.ant at mac.com (Adam Starkweather) Date: Sat Apr 25 15:20:44 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> Message-ID: I know no one here will go for it but what the hell, let me throw it out there... Formation changes and all the attendant rules that go with them...are they really necessary? Can't you just assume formation by what they are doing? Moving along a road, must be in column; in battle, must be in line; charged by Cav, must be in square...and so on...the false game tension of rolling to form square is a well known realism faux pas ...but can't the concept be applied more broadly? Formation rules take up a tremendous amount of rules load... Anyway, thought I would try... :) Adam On Apr 25, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Elias Nordling wrote: > Adam Starkweather skrev: >> Replacement counters are a bit of a pain to work with for "Joe Gamer" > Including me. I like the concept in theory, but in practice I find > it a real pain. >> - I do like the reduction of steps to maybe 4 (just having 1,2 and >> 3 step markers and the back of the counter the wrecked side)...be a >> nice nod to playability for sure. > As long as we keep track of formation, that is by far the better use > for the backs of the counters, to avoid having to fiddle with column > markers. A it looks now, most units are 3-4 steps, with a few being > 5-6 steps (though I haven't seen the Prussians yet). I was a bit > concerned by that, but maybe it is actually a good thing. > > Cavalry units are often smaller, and don't have any special > formation, so I was thinking their backs could be used for their > strength when wrecked. >> >> I do categorically disagree with Michael - the roster sheets are >> death for the system if you want more widespread appeal - the >> written orders are the hook to get that appeal. I would highlight >> the written orders at all costs to other aspects of the system >> personally. Elias and I do disagree on this point but anytime I >> have ever shown this system to a novice, the written orders have >> been the hallmark of the experience and the things like 30 charts >> and roster sheets have been the pain.... > Just to clarify, Adam thinks a dead simple system with written > orders would sell great. I think that, for people that likes dead > simple systems, written orders are not a selling point but a major > turnoff, and that we should try to attract customers that wants > something more meaty, but not La Bataille (because people who wants > La Bataille detail will settle for nothing less than battalion level > detail). > >> And another related issue I found was that when it came time to >> refer to the charts, for combat for instance, you had to interpret >> the Loss Sheets to determine the proper way to look up the various >> value and results. Again, it just that the information was not >> "obvious". > The switch to numeric values should take away a lot of this pain. > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes From nick.drochak at gmail.com Sat Apr 25 15:46:31 2009 From: nick.drochak at gmail.com (Nick Drochak) Date: Sat Apr 25 15:46:40 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> Message-ID: Well, I rather like the column/line part because of the interesting decisions that you get to make after considering the the trade-offs and risks. However, maybe negative modifiers for a unit that was moving when attacked or attacking can be a substitute for making line/columns explicit. Maybe just a "moved" marker that can be removed at the start (or end) of each turn? Not too familiar with actual tactics from the time period, but did infantry *always* form square against a cavalry charge? Even when there was artillery close by? Would they even know there were cannons there? If they normally did, regardless of the threat of the artillery, then maybe yes, the rules/charts just give artillery the proper modifiers for firing on a unit that received a cavalry charge during the same turn? Or something like that. But I must say, all that formation stuff was another draw to the game, since it was unlike anything else I had played before (being as I never played any Napoleonic system before). It certainly seems to add to the flavor of the period. Nick D On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Adam Starkweather wrote: > I know no one here will go for it but what the hell, let me throw it out > there... > > Formation changes and all the attendant rules that go with them...are they > really necessary? Can't you just assume formation by what they are doing? > Moving along a road, must be in column; in battle, must be in line; charged > by Cav, must be in square...and so on...the false game tension of rolling to > form square is a well known realism faux pas ...but can't the concept be > applied more broadly? Formation rules take up a tremendous amount of rules > load... > > Anyway, thought I would try... > > :) > > Adam > > > > On Apr 25, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Elias Nordling wrote: > > Adam Starkweather skrev: >> >>> Replacement counters are a bit of a pain to work with for "Joe Gamer" >>> >> Including me. I like the concept in theory, but in practice I find it a >> real pain. >> >>> - I do like the reduction of steps to maybe 4 (just having 1,2 and 3 step >>> markers and the back of the counter the wrecked side)...be a nice nod to >>> playability for sure. >>> >> As long as we keep track of formation, that is by far the better use for >> the backs of the counters, to avoid having to fiddle with column markers. A >> it looks now, most units are 3-4 steps, with a few being 5-6 steps (though I >> haven't seen the Prussians yet). I was a bit concerned by that, but maybe it >> is actually a good thing. >> >> Cavalry units are often smaller, and don't have any special formation, so >> I was thinking their backs could be used for their strength when wrecked. >> >>> >>> I do categorically disagree with Michael - the roster sheets are death >>> for the system if you want more widespread appeal - the written orders are >>> the hook to get that appeal. I would highlight the written orders at all >>> costs to other aspects of the system personally. Elias and I do disagree on >>> this point but anytime I have ever shown this system to a novice, the >>> written orders have been the hallmark of the experience and the things like >>> 30 charts and roster sheets have been the pain.... >>> >> Just to clarify, Adam thinks a dead simple system with written orders >> would sell great. I think that, for people that likes dead simple systems, >> written orders are not a selling point but a major turnoff, and that we >> should try to attract customers that wants something more meaty, but not La >> Bataille (because people who wants La Bataille detail will settle for >> nothing less than battalion level detail). >> >> And another related issue I found was that when it came time to refer to >>> the charts, for combat for instance, you had to interpret the Loss Sheets to >>> determine the proper way to look up the various value and results. Again, >>> it just that the information was not "obvious". >>> >> The switch to numeric values should take away a lot of this pain. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Napgnomes mailing list >> Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com >> http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes >> > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090425/89410ac5/attachment.htm From adam.ant at mac.com Sat Apr 25 15:51:41 2009 From: adam.ant at mac.com (Adam Starkweather) Date: Sat Apr 25 15:51:54 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> Message-ID: The formation stuff is in all hardcore Nappy games... Anyway, I didn't expect you guys to agree...oh, who's your market? Who do you want to sell the game to? Adam On Apr 25, 2009, at 9:46 AM, Nick Drochak wrote: > Well, I rather like the column/line part because of the interesting > decisions that you get to make after considering the the trade-offs > and risks. However, maybe negative modifiers for a unit that was > moving when attacked or attacking can be a substitute for making > line/columns explicit. Maybe just a "moved" marker that can be > removed at the start (or end) of each turn? > > Not too familiar with actual tactics from the time period, but did > infantry *always* form square against a cavalry charge? Even when > there was artillery close by? Would they even know there were > cannons there? If they normally did, regardless of the threat of > the artillery, then maybe yes, the rules/charts just give artillery > the proper modifiers for firing on a unit that received a cavalry > charge during the same turn? > > Or something like that. But I must say, all that formation stuff > was another draw to the game, since it was unlike anything else I > had played before (being as I never played any Napoleonic system > before). It certainly seems to add to the flavor of the period. > > Nick D > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Adam Starkweather > wrote: > I know no one here will go for it but what the hell, let me throw it > out there... > > Formation changes and all the attendant rules that go with > them...are they really necessary? Can't you just assume formation > by what they are doing? Moving along a road, must be in column; in > battle, must be in line; charged by Cav, must be in square...and so > on...the false game tension of rolling to form square is a well > known realism faux pas ...but can't the concept be applied more > broadly? Formation rules take up a tremendous amount of rules load... > > Anyway, thought I would try... > > :) > > Adam > > > > On Apr 25, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Elias Nordling wrote: > > Adam Starkweather skrev: > Replacement counters are a bit of a pain to work with for "Joe Gamer" > Including me. I like the concept in theory, but in practice I find > it a real pain. > - I do like the reduction of steps to maybe 4 (just having 1,2 and 3 > step markers and the back of the counter the wrecked side)...be a > nice nod to playability for sure. > As long as we keep track of formation, that is by far the better use > for the backs of the counters, to avoid having to fiddle with column > markers. A it looks now, most units are 3-4 steps, with a few being > 5-6 steps (though I haven't seen the Prussians yet). I was a bit > concerned by that, but maybe it is actually a good thing. > > Cavalry units are often smaller, and don't have any special > formation, so I was thinking their backs could be used for their > strength when wrecked. > > I do categorically disagree with Michael - the roster sheets are > death for the system if you want more widespread appeal - the > written orders are the hook to get that appeal. I would highlight > the written orders at all costs to other aspects of the system > personally. Elias and I do disagree on this point but anytime I > have ever shown this system to a novice, the written orders have > been the hallmark of the experience and the things like 30 charts > and roster sheets have been the pain.... > Just to clarify, Adam thinks a dead simple system with written > orders would sell great. I think that, for people that likes dead > simple systems, written orders are not a selling point but a major > turnoff, and that we should try to attract customers that wants > something more meaty, but not La Bataille (because people who wants > La Bataille detail will settle for nothing less than battalion level > detail). > > And another related issue I found was that when it came time to > refer to the charts, for combat for instance, you had to interpret > the Loss Sheets to determine the proper way to look up the various > value and results. Again, it just that the information was not > "obvious". > The switch to numeric values should take away a lot of this pain. > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090425/de2f4bb8/attachment.html From elias at nordling.nu Sat Apr 25 15:52:26 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Sat Apr 25 15:52:30 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F3159A.4020908@nordling.nu> Adam Starkweather skrev: > I know no one here will go for it but what the hell, let me throw it > out there... > > Formation changes and all the attendant rules that go with them...are > they really necessary? Can't you just assume formation by what they > are doing? Moving along a road, must be in column; in battle, must be > in line; charged by Cav, must be in square...and so on...the false > game tension of rolling to form square is a well known realism faux > pas ...but can't the concept be applied more broadly? Formation rules > take up a tremendous amount of rules load... The formation rules themselves actually take about 600 words out of 17 000, and there is surprisingly little scattered elsewhere. For that you get, among other things: * Combined arms advantages for atillery with cavalry * Artillery deployment problems * The evolution of assault tactics during the period * The difference in tactics between the British and everyone else * The tactical dilemma of massing for assault vs spreading out for defense That's a tremendous amount of historical flavour for very little rules. We could implicitly build in most of the effects into other rules, but it would take a rule that in itself is logical and intuitive and turn it into dozens of little exceptions all over the rules. I don't think the rules would be simpler for it, nor would they look simpler. I'm not saying they formation rules can't be tidied up further, just that it's not the first place I would look if I wanted to reduce complexity. From adam.ant at mac.com Sat Apr 25 15:54:37 2009 From: adam.ant at mac.com (Adam Starkweather) Date: Sat Apr 25 15:54:48 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F3159A.4020908@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk> <49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> <49F3159A.4020908@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <202630DC-CC85-48B5-AAB6-069EFC11484B@mac.com> Not too bad at all at 600/17000...also there is time to manage in play to check - but a low enough rules load for sure. Adam On Apr 25, 2009, at 9:52 AM, Elias Nordling wrote: > Adam Starkweather skrev: >> I know no one here will go for it but what the hell, let me throw >> it out there... >> >> Formation changes and all the attendant rules that go with >> them...are they really necessary? Can't you just assume formation >> by what they are doing? Moving along a road, must be in column; in >> battle, must be in line; charged by Cav, must be in square...and so >> on...the false game tension of rolling to form square is a well >> known realism faux pas ...but can't the concept be applied more >> broadly? Formation rules take up a tremendous amount of rules >> load... > The formation rules themselves actually take about 600 words out of > 17 000, and there is surprisingly little scattered elsewhere. For > that you get, among other things: > * Combined arms advantages for atillery with cavalry > * Artillery deployment problems > * The evolution of assault tactics during the period > * The difference in tactics between the British and everyone else > * The tactical dilemma of massing for assault vs spreading out for > defense > > That's a tremendous amount of historical flavour for very little > rules. We could implicitly build in most of the effects into other > rules, but it would take a rule that in itself is logical and > intuitive and turn it into dozens of little exceptions all over the > rules. I don't think the rules would be simpler for it, nor would > they look simpler. > > I'm not saying they formation rules can't be tidied up further, just > that it's not the first place I would look if I wanted to reduce > complexity. > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes From elias at nordling.nu Sat Apr 25 15:55:49 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Sat Apr 25 15:55:54 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F31665.1060106@nordling.nu> Adam Starkweather skrev: > The formation stuff is in all hardcore Nappy games... > > Anyway, I didn't expect you guys to agree...oh, who's your market? > Who do you want to sell the game to? People who are willing to go a little beyond beer & pretzels to learn a lot about what Napoleonic Warfare was about. As I said, I think a simple game with written orders is unsellable. From adam.ant at mac.com Sat Apr 25 15:59:29 2009 From: adam.ant at mac.com (Adam Starkweather) Date: Sat Apr 25 15:59:43 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F31665.1060106@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> <49F31665.1060106@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <3B7A1E66-39EF-4FE4-A274-2AB979C3C503@mac.com> On Apr 25, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Elias Nordling wrote: > Adam Starkweather skrev: >> The formation stuff is in all hardcore Nappy games... >> >> Anyway, I didn't expect you guys to agree...oh, who's your market? >> Who do you want to sell the game to? > People who are willing to go a little beyond beer & pretzels to > learn a lot about what Napoleonic Warfare was about. As I said, I > think a simple game with written orders is unsellable. We disagree there but it doesn't really matter - it has to be a game you (Elias) want to play...that is the end that must be achieved...not worth doing if it isn't a game you want to play. And I would enjoy that more as well...so works for me. :) So OK, that is who we must get to buy the game...when we get to that point, we'll see how to do it. Adam > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes From mkirschenbaum at gmail.com Sat Apr 25 15:59:37 2009 From: mkirschenbaum at gmail.com (Matthew Kirschenbaum) Date: Sat Apr 25 16:00:03 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F31665.1060106@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> <49F31665.1060106@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <62f02aa20904250659p392f8627i44fb0de1c1cefe06@mail.gmail.com> What about Markus Stumptner's refit for the old Zucker NLB games? That uses a very simple written orders system: attack, probe, defend, etc. Basically just a step beyond the orders system in the Rob Markham quads. Markus's rules aren't a commercial product so I can't comment on "marketability" of that concept, but for a homebrew refit they have caught on quite well. Personally, I like the written orders. They really bring out the role-playing inherent in the personalities of the commanders of the age. For me, written orders are the heart of the system (and CWB). On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 9:55 AM, Elias Nordling wrote: > Adam Starkweather skrev: >> >> The formation stuff is in all hardcore Nappy games... >> >> Anyway, I didn't expect you guys to agree...oh, who's your market? ?Who do >> you want to sell the game to? > > People who are willing to go a little beyond beer & pretzels to learn a lot > about what Napoleonic Warfare was about. As I said, I think a simple game > with written orders is unsellable. > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > -- From nick.drochak at gmail.com Sat Apr 25 17:35:45 2009 From: nick.drochak at gmail.com (Nick Drochak) Date: Sat Apr 25 17:35:49 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <202630DC-CC85-48B5-AAB6-069EFC11484B@mac.com> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> <49F3159A.4020908@nordling.nu> <202630DC-CC85-48B5-AAB6-069EFC11484B@mac.com> Message-ID: Seems to me the problem is not so much in the rules as it is in indicating the formations on the map. Seems like a problem begging for a clever solution. Nick D On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:54 PM, Adam Starkweather wrote: > Not too bad at all at 600/17000...also there is time to manage in play to > check - but a low enough rules load for sure. > > Adam > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090426/8b3cecf8/attachment.htm From PDallas at waitrose.com Sun Apr 26 05:40:24 2009 From: PDallas at waitrose.com (Paul Dallas) Date: Sun Apr 26 05:40:41 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk><4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com><49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <005c01c9c620$bbd45e00$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> I would agree with this. At this scale, infantry formations are merely chrome. So for that matter are skirmishers. They can easily be abstracted out. As for the roster sheets, I can agree with both opinions. When I first saw a game with roster sheets (Bloody April) I was horrified and indeed the rosters did not work well. I was equally concerned when I opened up In Their Quiet Fields, but after just two games, I was hooked on the roster sheets. Why? 1. No more fiddling with counter stacks to find exactly how many casualties the 12e Legere has taken. 2. Fog of war (to both sides) - there are no tell-tale markers to indicate how badly an enemy (or froendly) unit has suffered. (Just exactly how many commanders took roll call in the middle of a firefight to find out how a unit was faring ::-) ) 3. Fewer markers to deal with and therefore smaller stacks. 4. No more "oh was that marker under 17e Ligne or the 21e Ligne?" 5. Easy representation of stragglers vs casualties In short, while I accept that rosters may put off newbies, I would be very unhappy not to see them included. as an option (must-have for some of us). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Starkweather" To: Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 2:20 PM Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules >I know no one here will go for it but what the hell, let me throw it out >there... > > Formation changes and all the attendant rules that go with them...are > they really necessary? Can't you just assume formation by what they are > doing? Moving along a road, must be in column; in battle, must be in > line; charged by Cav, must be in square...and so on...the false game > tension of rolling to form square is a well known realism faux pas ...but > can't the concept be applied more broadly? Formation rules take up a > tremendous amount of rules load... > > Anyway, thought I would try... > > :) > > Adam > > > On Apr 25, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Elias Nordling wrote: > >> Adam Starkweather skrev: >>> Replacement counters are a bit of a pain to work with for "Joe Gamer" >> Including me. I like the concept in theory, but in practice I find it a >> real pain. >>> - I do like the reduction of steps to maybe 4 (just having 1,2 and 3 >>> step markers and the back of the counter the wrecked side)...be a nice >>> nod to playability for sure. >> As long as we keep track of formation, that is by far the better use for >> the backs of the counters, to avoid having to fiddle with column >> markers. A it looks now, most units are 3-4 steps, with a few being 5-6 >> steps (though I haven't seen the Prussians yet). I was a bit concerned >> by that, but maybe it is actually a good thing. >> >> Cavalry units are often smaller, and don't have any special formation, >> so I was thinking their backs could be used for their strength when >> wrecked. >>> >>> I do categorically disagree with Michael - the roster sheets are death >>> for the system if you want more widespread appeal - the written orders >>> are the hook to get that appeal. I would highlight the written orders >>> at all costs to other aspects of the system personally. Elias and I do >>> disagree on this point but anytime I have ever shown this system to a >>> novice, the written orders have been the hallmark of the experience and >>> the things like 30 charts and roster sheets have been the pain.... >> Just to clarify, Adam thinks a dead simple system with written orders >> would sell great. I think that, for people that likes dead simple >> systems, written orders are not a selling point but a major turnoff, and >> that we should try to attract customers that wants something more meaty, >> but not La Bataille (because people who wants La Bataille detail will >> settle for nothing less than battalion level detail). >> >>> And another related issue I found was that when it came time to refer >>> to the charts, for combat for instance, you had to interpret the Loss >>> Sheets to determine the proper way to look up the various value and >>> results. Again, it just that the information was not "obvious". >> The switch to numeric values should take away a lot of this pain. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Napgnomes mailing list >> Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com >> http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > From chris at snev.co.uk Sun Apr 26 13:06:13 2009 From: chris at snev.co.uk (Chris) Date: Sun Apr 26 13:12:54 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <005c01c9c620$bbd45e00$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk><4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com><49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> <005c01c9c620$bbd45e00$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> Message-ID: <49F44025.9040608@snev.co.uk> Paul Dallas wrote: > I would agree with this. At this scale, infantry formations are merely > chrome. So for that matter are skirmishers. They can easily be > abstracted out. > I have never really worried about the definition of unit scales before but in this discussion it is becoming quite important to ensure that we all have a common understanding. I think Elias said in his outline of NAW that units would be regiments. To me, possibly with a Britain-centric view, that means each counter represents one or two batallions but I can only assume from comments made such as Paul's above that this is not the case. Could somebody clarify please? Thanks Chris From elias at nordling.nu Sun Apr 26 14:29:20 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Sun Apr 26 14:29:23 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F44025.9040608@snev.co.uk> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk><4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com><49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> <005c01c9c620$bbd45e00$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F44025.9040608@snev.co.uk> Message-ID: <49F453A0.3080500@nordling.nu> >> I have never really worried about the definition of unit scales >> before but in this discussion it is becoming quite important to >> ensure that we all have a common understanding. I think Elias said >> in his outline of NAW that units would be regiments. To me, possibly >> with a Britain-centric view, that means each counter represents one >> or two batallions but I can only assume from comments made such as >> Paul's above that this is not the case. Could somebody clarify please? Units are regiments, or, for regiments big enough to deploy in more than one hex, battalions. From elias at nordling.nu Sun Apr 26 18:32:05 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Sun Apr 26 18:35:49 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Updated rules Message-ID: <49F48C85.3040800@nordling.nu> Main differences: There are now actual stacking rules, and Abysmal commanders are now named Inept, so that each personality has its own letter (will ease readability of the counters as we can make the first letter big and bold) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Build017.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 359388 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090426/012cae67/Build017-0001.dot -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NAoWTables Build 8.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 48128 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090426/012cae67/NAoWTablesBuild8-0001.xls -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Optionalsbuild006.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 106985 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090426/012cae67/Optionalsbuild006-0001.dot From clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org Mon Apr 27 14:43:47 2009 From: clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org (Clair Conzelman) Date: Mon Apr 27 14:48:09 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk><4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com><49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> <005c01c9c620$bbd45e00$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F44025.9040608@snev.co.uk> <49F453A0.3080500@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD808002263D@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> My understanding is that by "regiments" Elias is using the French construct, not the British. We're talking about multi-battalion organizations generally..."brigade counters" in the modern vernacular, I think. Same as current NBS, right? Although I would not be adverse to considering two-counter brigades/regiments. It may simply how many step counters you would need, and this would portray the wonderful option of putting your brigade in two lines of battalions (one hex), or all your battalions on line (two hexes) for full firepower. Current NBS has the most wonderful construct of making the player choose to put his brigades in one hex, where they are more durable (represents two lines of battalions), or use extend markers to put a brigade in two hexes, where it can deal more damage and cover more ground, but also is quite fragile and can take double casualties in a turn, breaking rapidly. I wouldn't like to lose this "feel" to the game, however we end up constructing it. Clair ________________________________ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 4480 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090427/2de39587/attachment.bin From mike_b at ifs.org.uk Mon Apr 27 14:52:59 2009 From: mike_b at ifs.org.uk (Mike Brewer) Date: Mon Apr 27 14:53:31 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD808002263D@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk><4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com><49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> <005c01c9c620$bbd45e00$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F44025.9040608@snev.co.uk> <49F453A0.3080500@nordling.nu> <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD808002263D@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> Message-ID: <49F5AAAB.4050307@ifs.org.uk> I always found the process of forming and retracting Line Extensions in NBS to be a pain in the neck - especially the way in which they interact horribly with the terrain rules if you attempt this in any terrain other than open/clear. For example, forming extensions in a village is nigh-on impossible (because line+village=DG) yet it must have been possible to spread 3000 men (AAA) over more than 1 hex of a village. I therefore rarely used them. But that might reflect that Line Extensions were unimportant in the battles that NBS has covered to date? Mike Clair Conzelman wrote: > Current NBS has the most wonderful construct of making the player choose to put his brigades in one hex, where they are more durable (represents two lines of battalions), or use extend markers to put a brigade in two hexes, where it can deal more damage and cover more ground, but also is quite fragile and can take double casualties in a turn, breaking rapidly. > > I wouldn't like to lose this "feel" to the game, however we end up constructing it. ****************************************************************** The Institute for Fiscal Studies is registered in London, Company number 954616, limited by guarantee. Registered Office: 7 Ridgmount Street, London. WC1E 7AE IFS is a registered charity, number 258815 Please note that the IFS may monitor email traffic data as well as the content of email. ****************************************************************** From clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org Mon Apr 27 16:00:03 2009 From: clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org (Clair Conzelman) Date: Mon Apr 27 16:00:16 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk><4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com><49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> <005c01c9c620$bbd45e00$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F44025.9040608@snev.co.uk> <49F453A0.3080500@nordling.nu> <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD808002263D@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> <49F5AAAB.4050307@ifs.org.uk> Message-ID: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD808002263E@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> That's interesting, because I often used line extensions in my NBS games. I did it in two tactical situations: 1) when I wanted to maximize firepower with the units at hand...most brigades have two "As", but you can only fire one A out of a hex, so you are "wasting" an A if you don't form an extension (i.e., it is the second line of battalions, behind the first, and can't do anything). So you spread them out, and the brigade can fire twice as much...it also can be targeted twice as much, so is more "brittle," and won't last as long in combat. But you can really blow away a weaker enemy line, too...or... 2) as an economy of force measure, and I want to spread my thin line out, in order to concentrate more brigades somewhere else. Here I don't want a real attrition fight...just want a LONG line...lots of extensions, maybe even to B strength. I think these are realistic considerations for an Army level commander. Army leaders often dictated the brigade formations to be used in their orders, and usually Corps leaders told their division leaders how to form their brigades. It was rather the exception for division commanders to do whatever they wanted (did happen, but not the rule in all armies, I think). So NBS being an Army/Corps leader simulation, I think that this dilemma is accurate, and fun! Clair ________________________________ From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com on behalf of Mike Brewer Sent: Mon 4/27/2009 8:52 AM To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules I always found the process of forming and retracting Line Extensions in NBS to be a pain in the neck - especially the way in which they interact horribly with the terrain rules if you attempt this in any terrain other than open/clear. For example, forming extensions in a village is nigh-on impossible (because line+village=DG) yet it must have been possible to spread 3000 men (AAA) over more than 1 hex of a village. I therefore rarely used them. But that might reflect that Line Extensions were unimportant in the battles that NBS has covered to date? Mike -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 5700 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090427/4a3ea680/attachment.bin From michael.waters at navy.mil Mon Apr 27 16:53:53 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Mon Apr 27 16:54:07 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> Message-ID: Yes, but I've PLAYED with both types of systems, and roster sheets are by far the easier alternative. Any option which reduces the number of times I have to physically manipulate the counters is a good thing. Why can't you market the loss sheets as a bonus, rather than as a detriment? What is it that players object to - having to have a sharpened pencil? Having to have a piece of paper to keep track of? But then again, metric is much easier than English units - and how's that working out for us? FWIW, I sorta like Chris's suggestion of 2 counters per unit, the second being the wrecked indication, and 4 steps total. Of course, the problem there is we fix the unit sizes at 4 steps, which may not be a good thing. Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Adam > Starkweather > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 7:15 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > Replacement counters are a bit of a pain to work with for > "Joe Gamer" > - I do like the reduction of steps to maybe 4 (just having > 1,2 and 3 step markers and the back of the counter the > wrecked side)...be a nice nod to playability for sure. > > I do categorically disagree with Michael - the roster sheets > are death for the system if you want more widespread appeal - > the written orders are the hook to get that appeal. I would > highlight the written orders at all costs to other aspects of > the system personally. Elias and I do disagree on this point > but anytime I have ever shown this system to a novice, the > written orders have been the hallmark of the experience and > the things like 30 charts and roster sheets have been the pain.... > > Just my two cents, > > Adam > > > On Apr 25, 2009, at 7:02 AM, Chris wrote: > > > > >> Going in a slightly different direction, how about getting > rid of the > >> step markers altogether. Instead use both sides of the > counter and > >> have a lower strength replacement counter for each unit. > To maintain > >> the straggler feature, if the unit is currrently using the reverse > >> side of the counter it can recover stragglers back to the > front side > >> of that counter but no further. Markers are then needed just to > >> reflect current formation and morale state. > >> > > Sorry, did that in a bit of a rush. To complete my > thoughts, working > > with 4 step units the replacement counter nicely indicates > that a unit > > is wrecked. And obviously the default formation for the unit type > > would not require a formation marker. On the whole I think > this would > > also save on the number of counters required as there would be no > > separate loss and straggler markers. And you never end up > with that > > annoying occurrence of having run out of a particular > strength marker. > > > > Cheers > > Chris > > _______________________________________________ > > Napgnomes mailing list > > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090427/fd2cb8eb/smime-0001.bin From michael.waters at navy.mil Mon Apr 27 16:53:53 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Mon Apr 27 16:55:06 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk><4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com><49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> Message-ID: Because there are good reasons not to adopt the default formations in certain situations - not to mention that one of the great strengths of the French at this time was the use of columns in the assault, which other armies didn't clue into until relatively late in the wars. The whole point of Napoleonic tactics was the interplay of formation types - it's as integral to the topic as the differences between tanks and infantry and artillery in TCS (or any other WW2 tactical game). By comparison, by the ACW the tactical decisions asked of Federal and Confederate officers were of a much different variety and largely unconcerned with unit formations. So if the goal is to make formations generic, you might as well just make the game at a higher scale using SCS rules and be done with it, because it wouldn't be about tactics at all really. Which is not to say that wouldn't make for a good game (that's what Anders is working on, after all), but it wouldn't exactly be a study of Napoleonic tactics. Regarding loss markers, I think the issue is that as it has always stood, unit condition has been tracked in two different ways - how many troops are there, standing upright, and still holding their muskets (losses), and of those, how willing are they to get shot at (morale state)? I think the only way to address the stacking issue and the mental math required to coordinate casualty markers and straggler markers is to somehow come up with a new way of combining losses with morale state that doesn't loose the flavor and distinction of either. Here's what we want: good troops will stand and fight and suffer lots of casualties if asked; bad troops are reluctant to stand and fight and when they do, they disintegrate rapidly; there is a threshold of losses beyond which even a good unit with good morale is incapable of taking effective offensive action (although they can still defend); beyond simple losses, troops can get spooked and decide not to fight, or to do so with less than 100% effort, for reasons that don't necessarily have anything to do with combat or the enemy at all (morale state as decoupled from loss state). Anyone want to add to that list? Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Adam > Starkweather > Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 9:21 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > I know no one here will go for it but what the hell, let me > throw it out there... > > Formation changes and all the attendant rules that go with > them...are they really necessary? Can't you just assume > formation by what they are doing? Moving along a road, must > be in column; in battle, must be in line; charged by Cav, > must be in square...and so on...the false game tension of > rolling to form square is a well known realism faux pas > ...but can't the concept be applied more broadly? Formation > rules take up a tremendous amount of rules load... > > Anyway, thought I would try... > > :) > > Adam > > > On Apr 25, 2009, at 9:12 AM, Elias Nordling wrote: > > > Adam Starkweather skrev: > >> Replacement counters are a bit of a pain to work with for > "Joe Gamer" > > Including me. I like the concept in theory, but in practice > I find it > > a real pain. > >> - I do like the reduction of steps to maybe 4 (just having 1,2 and > >> 3 step markers and the back of the counter the wrecked > side)...be a > >> nice nod to playability for sure. > > As long as we keep track of formation, that is by far the > better use > > for the backs of the counters, to avoid having to fiddle > with column > > markers. A it looks now, most units are 3-4 steps, with a few being > > 5-6 steps (though I haven't seen the Prussians yet). I was a bit > > concerned by that, but maybe it is actually a good thing. > > > > Cavalry units are often smaller, and don't have any special > formation, > > so I was thinking their backs could be used for their strength when > > wrecked. > >> > >> I do categorically disagree with Michael - the roster sheets are > >> death for the system if you want more widespread appeal - > the written > >> orders are the hook to get that appeal. I would highlight the > >> written orders at all costs to other aspects of the system > >> personally. Elias and I do disagree on this point but > anytime I have > >> ever shown this system to a novice, the written orders > have been the > >> hallmark of the experience and the things like 30 charts > and roster > >> sheets have been the pain.... > > Just to clarify, Adam thinks a dead simple system with > written orders > > would sell great. I think that, for people that likes dead simple > > systems, written orders are not a selling point but a major > turnoff, > > and that we should try to attract customers that wants > something more > > meaty, but not La Bataille (because people who wants La Bataille > > detail will settle for nothing less than battalion level detail). > > > >> And another related issue I found was that when it came > time to refer > >> to the charts, for combat for instance, you had to > interpret the Loss > >> Sheets to determine the proper way to look up the various > value and > >> results. Again, it just that the information was not "obvious". > > The switch to numeric values should take away a lot of this pain. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Napgnomes mailing list > > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090427/e471ac35/smime.bin From clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org Mon Apr 27 17:28:18 2009 From: clair.conzelman.humrro at ngitky.org (Clair Conzelman) Date: Mon Apr 27 17:28:30 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk><4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com><49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> <005c01c9c620$bbd45e00$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F44025.9040608@snev.co.uk> <49F453A0.3080500@nordling.nu> <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD808002263D@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> <49F5AAAB.4050307@ifs.org.uk> <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD808002263E@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> Message-ID: <96CD53E362172643B8AE1C0229BD808002263F@mailserver.NGITKY.ORG> Goes back to what variables we want to portray in our NAOW rules on the brigade counters. The real argument is between formation indication, and step strength indication. You can't do both, I think...if you print formation, you use a step marker. If you print step, you use a formation marker. Either way, most every brigade will have an additional counter with it. The two ways around it are: 1) paper strength logs...then you print formations on the counters. 2) ConZ method...use a "side bar" step strength indicator...like a marker, but it is not a counter. Not practical in the way we publish our games...Avalon Hill, Milton Bradley, or other game companies that use plastic pieces could pull this off, though. As Mike worries, counter stacks can build up if you have an infantry brigade with marker, an artillery battalion, with step marker, and a morale state marker...that's five high, if you don't allow more stacking. Now my fingers are pretty nimble, and I like larger hexes and counters, so I can tolerate that better than having to refer to a strength log sheet. Besides the inconvenience of log sheets, especially in solitaire play where they are more burdensome than when playing a live opponent, I think there is value to "seeing" the state of units on the board. I color-code the sides of strength and morale markers in these kinds of games, so I get a graphic indication of the strengths and weaknesses of mine, and my enemy's, condition. This is realistic...there is no value to "hidden" strengths or morale when two lines are facing off against each other...THAT would be unrealistic. A commander knows by seeing the field, not by keeping log books during a battle. Given this choice, my personal preference is to have counters with formations printed, and step strength additional markers. But perhaps better, as I mentioned before, is to have each counter represent two infantry battalions, cavalry squadrons, or artillery batteries, and the number of counters in a brigade is equal to the number of battalions/squadrons/batteries it contains. I wouldn't treat these counters as individual units...I would give them all a generic brigade designation, disregarding any battatlion names/designations. I'd use them as "step" markers. If you printed them full and half steps on each side, and assume all are in line unless a "battle column" marker is on them, you have maximum reduction of stacks, I think, and can still form brigades into one or two lines. Note that a half step corrolates to a combat effective infantry battalion, cavalry squadron, or artillery battery. Most brigades in most armies will be in line, so no marker is required. Some French and later Allied units will have battle column markers on them...draw a pretty picture on the indicating marker to make them look "cool." March columns can be indicated by having units align their front sides with a hex side, rather than a corner. I think that is a good system. Clair -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 6272 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090427/20504c3c/attachment-0001.bin From elias at nordling.nu Mon Apr 27 21:30:53 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Mon Apr 27 21:31:06 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> Message-ID: <49F607ED.6020809@nordling.nu> Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > Yes, but I've PLAYED with both types of systems, and roster sheets are by > far the easier alternative. Any option which reduces the number of times I > have to physically manipulate the counters is a good thing. For me, going back and forth between map and an off-map record of strength is much more of a problem than manipulating counters. From what I've gathered, this is the majority opinion. > Why can't you market the loss sheets as a bonus, rather than as a detriment? It will be included as a bonus for those who prefer that. As I said, I want the system to have as few turnoffs as possible so that we don't chip away at the customer base. Having both loss sheets and step loss markers is an excellent way of catering to different tastes. But one rule has to be the standard rule and the other the optional rule. My impression is that loss markers are the preferred alternative, so that is the standard rule. > What is it that players object to - having to have a sharpened pencil? Having to have > a piece of paper to keep track of? > No, it is the fact that you have to find a unit on the map, read the ID, then find it again in a list while remembering where you were on the map, then remembering the number from the list while checking the tables etc, instead of having all the information in one place can be a major pain. For you, it obviously isn't a big issue. As someone who can't remember a phone number written on a piece of paper long enough to type it on the keypad, I can sympathize with those who think it is. > I think the only way to address the stacking issue and the mental math required to coordinate > casualty markers and straggler markers is to somehow come up with a new way > of combining losses with morale state that doesn't loose the flavor and > distinction of either. It is not the only way, but it is one possible way to go. > Here's what we want: > good troops will stand and fight and suffer lots of casualties if asked; > bad troops are reluctant to stand and fight and when they do, they > disintegrate rapidly; > there is a threshold of losses beyond which even a good unit with good > morale is incapable of taking effective offensive action (although they can > still defend); > beyond simple losses, troops can get spooked and decide not to fight, or to > do so with less than 100% effort, for reasons that don't necessarily have > anything to do with combat or the enemy at all (morale state as decoupled > from loss state). > > Anyone want to add to that list? There is also the temporal issue. A unit can rout and recover in decent time, but if it disintegrates into stragglers, it will take quite some time to recover. The beauty of the current system is that it is very intuitive and easy to visualize. As soon as you start to abstract and try to build the effects into, say, the unit ratings, you will get results that will have people scratching their heads if you don't explain the rationale. And I believe that intuitive rules are much more important than short rules for ease of play. From elias at mobil.se Mon Apr 27 21:31:58 2009 From: elias at mobil.se (Elias Nordling) Date: Mon Apr 27 21:32:52 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F46CF7.5070804@snev.co.uk> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk><4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com><49F30C49.2000006@nordling.nu> <005c01c9c620$bbd45e00$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F44025.9040608@snev.co.uk> <49F453A0.3080500@nordling.nu> <49F46CF7.5070804@snev.co.uk> Message-ID: <49F6082E.3030309@mobil.se> > Sorry to try and tie you down on this but does that therefore mean > that a single standard counter will represent, say, 2-3 battalions and > that this unit can then break down into 2 counters each representing > approximately one battalion? No breakdowns of units, units big enough to form line over more than one hex will be represented by more than one counter, and if they are to bunch up, they will stack. > My understanding is that by "regiments" Elias is using the French construct, not the British. We're talking about multi-battalion organizations generally..."brigade counters" in the modern vernacular, I think. Same as current NBS, right? No, units are a little bit smaller than in NBS, so when there are no regiments, they tent to veer towards battalions rather than brigades. > It may simply how many step counters you would need, and this would portray the wonderful option of putting your brigade in two lines of battalions (one hex), or all your battalions on line (two hexes) for full firepower. That is the idea. > Current NBS has the most wonderful construct of making the player choose to put his brigades in one hex, where they are more durable (represents two lines of battalions), or use extend markers to put a brigade in two hexes, where it can deal more damage and cover more ground, but also is quite fragile and can take double casualties in a turn, breaking rapidly. > I wouldn't like to lose this "feel" to the game, however we end up constructing it. The "feel" is currently in there, with separate counters. The extend marker rules created a ton of exceptions for just about every rule, and were really inelegant, so the idea is to have multiple counters for every unit that would have been able to use extensions in NBS. > I always found the process of forming and retracting Line Extensions > in NBS to be a pain in the neck - especially the way in which they > interact horribly with the terrain rules if you attempt this in any > terrain other than open/clear. Indeed. The rules are SO much cleaner when such units are simply 2-3 counters that stack up if needed. From michael.waters at navy.mil Mon Apr 27 22:02:33 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Mon Apr 27 22:03:02 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F607ED.6020809@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F607ED.6020809@nordling.nu> Message-ID: > For you, it > obviously isn't a big issue. As someone who can't remember a > phone number written on a piece of paper long enough to type > it on the keypad, I can sympathize with those who think it is. Fair enough :) > There is also the temporal issue. A unit can rout and recover > in decent time, but if it disintegrates into stragglers, it > will take quite some time to recover. So Sh -> DG -> R -> rally is usually a shorter cycle than losses + stragglers > wreck, recover stragglers. The difference being you CAN'T fight vs. you SHOULDN'T, and if you do, you aren't going to be as effective. > The beauty of the current system is that it is very intuitive > and easy to visualize. As soon as you start to abstract and > try to build the effects into, say, the unit ratings, you > will get results that will have people scratching their heads > if you don't explain the rationale. And I believe that > intuitive rules are much more important than short rules for > ease of play. I love the current system, and agree that a good rule is more important than a simple rule. And I suppose that if the system remains intact and we're left with shuffling casualty and straggler markers ad nauseum, maybe it will encourage players to use the roster sheets instead. What I REALLY worry is that in an effort to alleviate the shuffling problem, we'll change the system enough to make the roster sheets superfluous. OF course, that may make for a better system on the whole, in which case I'll shut up:) But if the system looses its depth and subtlety of play to alleviate shuffling, we'll have lost one of the two things that make the basic system so unique. Well, that, and I can only tolerate towering mega-stacks in one line of Gamers/MMP games, and last I checked this isn't OCS :) Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 15:31 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > Yes, but I've PLAYED with both types of systems, and roster > sheets are > > by far the easier alternative. Any option which reduces > the number of > > times I have to physically manipulate the counters is a good thing. > For me, going back and forth between map and an off-map > record of strength is much more of a problem than > manipulating counters. From what I've gathered, this is the > majority opinion. > > Why can't you market the loss sheets as a bonus, rather > than as a detriment? > It will be included as a bonus for those who prefer that. As > I said, I want the system to have as few turnoffs as possible > so that we don't chip away at the customer base. Having both > loss sheets and step loss markers is an excellent way of > catering to different tastes. But one rule has to be the > standard rule and the other the optional rule. My impression > is that loss markers are the preferred alternative, so that > is the standard rule. > > What is it that players object to - having to have a > sharpened pencil? > > Having to have a piece of paper to keep track of? > > > No, it is the fact that you have to find a unit on the map, > read the ID, then find it again in a list while remembering > where you were on the map, then remembering the number from > the list while checking the tables etc, instead of having all > the information in one place can be a major pain. For you, it > obviously isn't a big issue. As someone who can't remember a > phone number written on a piece of paper long enough to type > it on the keypad, I can sympathize with those who think it is. > > > I think the only way to address the stacking issue and the > mental math > > required to coordinate casualty markers and straggler markers is to > > somehow come up with a new way of combining losses with > morale state > > that doesn't loose the flavor and distinction of either. > It is not the only way, but it is one possible way to go. > > > Here's what we want: > > good troops will stand and fight and suffer lots of casualties if > > asked; bad troops are reluctant to stand and fight and when > they do, > > they disintegrate rapidly; there is a threshold of losses > beyond which > > even a good unit with good morale is incapable of taking effective > > offensive action (although they can still defend); beyond simple > > losses, troops can get spooked and decide not to fight, or to do so > > with less than 100% effort, for reasons that don't necessarily have > > anything to do with combat or the enemy at all (morale state as > > decoupled from loss state). > > > > Anyone want to add to that list? > There is also the temporal issue. A unit can rout and recover > in decent time, but if it disintegrates into stragglers, it > will take quite some time to recover. > > The beauty of the current system is that it is very intuitive > and easy to visualize. As soon as you start to abstract and > try to build the effects into, say, the unit ratings, you > will get results that will have people scratching their heads > if you don't explain the rationale. And I believe that > intuitive rules are much more important than short rules for > ease of play. > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090427/862a131d/smime.bin From stratdeveloper at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 03:17:55 2009 From: stratdeveloper at gmail.com (William Cooper) Date: Tue Apr 28 03:18:08 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F607ED.6020809@nordling.nu> Message-ID: Counters vs. Loss Sheets is a production decision more than a design decision. Keeping track of losses is a design decision; how that's done is less important until you know which losses you're going to track. BC On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 < michael.waters@navy.mil> wrote: > > For you, it > > obviously isn't a big issue. As someone who can't remember a > > phone number written on a piece of paper long enough to type > > it on the keypad, I can sympathize with those who think it is. > > Fair enough :) > > > There is also the temporal issue. A unit can rout and recover > > in decent time, but if it disintegrates into stragglers, it > > will take quite some time to recover. > > So > > Sh -> DG -> R -> rally > > is usually a shorter cycle than > > losses + stragglers > wreck, recover stragglers. > > The difference being you CAN'T fight vs. you SHOULDN'T, and if you do, you > aren't going to be as effective. > > > The beauty of the current system is that it is very intuitive > > and easy to visualize. As soon as you start to abstract and > > try to build the effects into, say, the unit ratings, you > > will get results that will have people scratching their heads > > if you don't explain the rationale. And I believe that > > intuitive rules are much more important than short rules for > > ease of play. > > I love the current system, and agree that a good rule is more important > than > a simple rule. And I suppose that if the system remains intact and we're > left with shuffling casualty and straggler markers ad nauseum, maybe it > will > encourage players to use the roster sheets instead. What I REALLY worry is > that in an effort to alleviate the shuffling problem, we'll change the > system enough to make the roster sheets superfluous. OF course, that may > make for a better system on the whole, in which case I'll shut up:) But if > the system looses its depth and subtlety of play to alleviate shuffling, > we'll have lost one of the two things that make the basic system so unique. > Well, that, and I can only tolerate towering mega-stacks in one line of > Gamers/MMP games, and last I checked this isn't OCS :) > > Michael Waters > NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 > Flight Vehicle Performance > Software Development Team > NAS Patuxent River > Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 > 301-757-0595 > 301-342-8597 (fax) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 15:31 > > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > > Yes, but I've PLAYED with both types of systems, and roster > > sheets are > > > by far the easier alternative. Any option which reduces > > the number of > > > times I have to physically manipulate the counters is a good thing. > > For me, going back and forth between map and an off-map > > record of strength is much more of a problem than > > manipulating counters. From what I've gathered, this is the > > majority opinion. > > > Why can't you market the loss sheets as a bonus, rather > > than as a detriment? > > It will be included as a bonus for those who prefer that. As > > I said, I want the system to have as few turnoffs as possible > > so that we don't chip away at the customer base. Having both > > loss sheets and step loss markers is an excellent way of > > catering to different tastes. But one rule has to be the > > standard rule and the other the optional rule. My impression > > is that loss markers are the preferred alternative, so that > > is the standard rule. > > > What is it that players object to - having to have a > > sharpened pencil? > > > Having to have a piece of paper to keep track of? > > > > > No, it is the fact that you have to find a unit on the map, > > read the ID, then find it again in a list while remembering > > where you were on the map, then remembering the number from > > the list while checking the tables etc, instead of having all > > the information in one place can be a major pain. For you, it > > obviously isn't a big issue. As someone who can't remember a > > phone number written on a piece of paper long enough to type > > it on the keypad, I can sympathize with those who think it is. > > > > > I think the only way to address the stacking issue and the > > mental math > > > required to coordinate casualty markers and straggler markers is to > > > somehow come up with a new way of combining losses with > > morale state > > > that doesn't loose the flavor and distinction of either. > > It is not the only way, but it is one possible way to go. > > > > > Here's what we want: > > > good troops will stand and fight and suffer lots of casualties if > > > asked; bad troops are reluctant to stand and fight and when > > they do, > > > they disintegrate rapidly; there is a threshold of losses > > beyond which > > > even a good unit with good morale is incapable of taking effective > > > offensive action (although they can still defend); beyond simple > > > losses, troops can get spooked and decide not to fight, or to do so > > > with less than 100% effort, for reasons that don't necessarily have > > > anything to do with combat or the enemy at all (morale state as > > > decoupled from loss state). > > > > > > Anyone want to add to that list? > > There is also the temporal issue. A unit can rout and recover > > in decent time, but if it disintegrates into stragglers, it > > will take quite some time to recover. > > > > The beauty of the current system is that it is very intuitive > > and easy to visualize. As soon as you start to abstract and > > try to build the effects into, say, the unit ratings, you > > will get results that will have people scratching their heads > > if you don't explain the rationale. And I believe that > > intuitive rules are much more important than short rules for > > ease of play. > > _______________________________________________ > > Napgnomes mailing list > > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090427/134aa93c/attachment-0001.html From elias at nordling.nu Tue Apr 28 14:27:05 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Tue Apr 28 14:27:19 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F607ED.6020809@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F6F619.30100@nordling.nu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090428/c64e334a/attachment.htm From thomas.oestreicher at gmail.com Tue Apr 28 16:42:06 2009 From: thomas.oestreicher at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Thomas_=D6streicher?=) Date: Tue Apr 28 16:42:17 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F6F619.30100@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk> <49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F607ED.6020809@nordling.nu> <49F6F619.30100@nordling.nu> Message-ID: Although I am a fan of loss sheets, I like your idea a lot. Sounds way better than 2 markers or leaving stragglers out of the equation. - thomas On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 2:27 PM, Elias Nordling wrote: > I usually get most of my ideas either in the sauna after workout, or when > I'm supposed to sleep. Yesterday, the sauna was out of order, so this idea > to reduce stacking while keeping a reasonably accurate track of stragglers > cost me an hour's night sleep (a precious commodity with a 11 month old in > the home): > > Loss markers come in two varieties: One for units without stragglers, and > one for units with stragglers. Both record the total strength of the stack, > the latter only indicates the fact that the unit has taken straggler losses. > > The total amount of stragglers are kept track of by corps (or other suitably > large body of troops, depending on the size of the game) using track > markers. These can be generic on their backs to avoid giving off too much > info to the enemy. > > Stragglers are lost as usual, and the strength of the unit reduced > accordingly (using the "with straggling" variety of th loss markers). > > When recovering stragglers, only units marked as having taken stragglers can > recover stragglers. Further, when a unit recovers a straggler, make a > die-roll check (probably an unmodified morale check). If the unit passes the > check, replace any remaining loss marker with a normal loss marker, > indicating that the unit cannot recover stragglers. Thus good morale units > are likely to only be able to recover one step of stragglers while poor > units can recover more, just as they lost more to begin with. > > This puts a level of uncertainty into straggler recovery, as there is a > possibility that there are stragglers left when no unit is able to recover > more. This actually solves a design problem for La Belle Alliance, namely > the 10 000 or so deserters after Ligny. The Prussians could get a modifier > to this straggler recovery roll, making sure fewer stagglers are recovered. > > How does this sound? > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > For you, it > obviously isn't a big issue. As someone who can't remember a > phone number written on a piece of paper long enough to type > it on the keypad, I can sympathize with those who think it is. > > > Fair enough :) > > > > There is also the temporal issue. A unit can rout and recover > in decent time, but if it disintegrates into stragglers, it > will take quite some time to recover. > > > So > > Sh -> DG -> R -> rally > > is usually a shorter cycle than > > losses + stragglers > wreck, recover stragglers. > > The difference being you CAN'T fight vs. you SHOULDN'T, and if you do, you > aren't going to be as effective. > > > > The beauty of the current system is that it is very intuitive > and easy to visualize. As soon as you start to abstract and > try to build the effects into, say, the unit ratings, you > will get results that will have people scratching their heads > if you don't explain the rationale. And I believe that > intuitive rules are much more important than short rules for > ease of play. > > > I love the current system, and agree that a good rule is more important than > a simple rule. And I suppose that if the system remains intact and we're > left with shuffling casualty and straggler markers ad nauseum, maybe it will > encourage players to use the roster sheets instead. What I REALLY worry is > that in an effort to alleviate the shuffling problem, we'll change the > system enough to make the roster sheets superfluous. OF course, that may > make for a better system on the whole, in which case I'll shut up:) But if > the system looses its depth and subtlety of play to alleviate shuffling, > we'll have lost one of the two things that make the basic system so unique. > Well, that, and I can only tolerate towering mega-stacks in one line of > Gamers/MMP games, and last I checked this isn't OCS :) > > Michael Waters > NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 > Flight Vehicle Performance > Software Development Team > NAS Patuxent River > Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 > 301-757-0595 > 301-342-8597 (fax) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 15:31 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > > Yes, but I've PLAYED with both types of systems, and roster > > > sheets are > > > by far the easier alternative. Any option which reduces > > > the number of > > > times I have to physically manipulate the counters is a good thing. > > > For me, going back and forth between map and an off-map > record of strength is much more of a problem than > manipulating counters. From what I've gathered, this is the > majority opinion. > > > Why can't you market the loss sheets as a bonus, rather > > > than as a detriment? > It will be included as a bonus for those who prefer that. As > I said, I want the system to have as few turnoffs as possible > so that we don't chip away at the customer base. Having both > loss sheets and step loss markers is an excellent way of > catering to different tastes. But one rule has to be the > standard rule and the other the optional rule. My impression > is that loss markers are the preferred alternative, so that > is the standard rule. > > > What is it that players object to - having to have a > > > sharpened pencil? > > > Having to have a piece of paper to keep track of? > > > > No, it is the fact that you have to find a unit on the map, > read the ID, then find it again in a list while remembering > where you were on the map, then remembering the number from > the list while checking the tables etc, instead of having all > the information in one place can be a major pain. For you, it > obviously isn't a big issue. As someone who can't remember a > phone number written on a piece of paper long enough to type > it on the keypad, I can sympathize with those who think it is. > > > > I think the only way to address the stacking issue and the > > > mental math > > > required to coordinate casualty markers and straggler markers is to > somehow come up with a new way of combining losses with > > > morale state > > > that doesn't loose the flavor and distinction of either. > > > It is not the only way, but it is one possible way to go. > > > > Here's what we want: > good troops will stand and fight and suffer lots of casualties if > asked; bad troops are reluctant to stand and fight and when > > > they do, > > > they disintegrate rapidly; there is a threshold of losses > > > beyond which > > > even a good unit with good morale is incapable of taking effective > offensive action (although they can still defend); beyond simple > losses, troops can get spooked and decide not to fight, or to do so > with less than 100% effort, for reasons that don't necessarily have > anything to do with combat or the enemy at all (morale state as > decoupled from loss state). > > Anyone want to add to that list? > > > There is also the temporal issue. A unit can rout and recover > in decent time, but if it disintegrates into stragglers, it > will take quite some time to recover. > > The beauty of the current system is that it is very intuitive > and easy to visualize. As soon as you start to abstract and > try to build the effects into, say, the unit ratings, you > will get results that will have people scratching their heads > if you don't explain the rationale. And I believe that > intuitive rules are much more important than short rules for > ease of play. > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > > > ________________________________ > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > From michael.waters at navy.mil Tue Apr 28 17:26:38 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Tue Apr 28 17:26:59 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F6F619.30100@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F607ED.6020809@nordling.nu> <49F6F619.30100@nordling.nu> Message-ID: I don't hate it - which for me is high praise. There's one thing that strikes me as highly counter-intuitive, though. Let me run this through ... Good troops, when they take losses, take more of those losses as caualties and less as stragglers. In some cases they take no stragglers, but not usually. And on the whole, they take fewer total losses in the first place. Bad troops, when they take losses, take more of those as stragglers and less as casualties. When a batallion/regiment takes losses, the sum of casaulties and stragglers is recorded with a step loss marker, and the straggler portion of those losses are added to the unit's parent Divison/Corps/Army straggler track (I think Division works best here). When a Divison/Corps/Army wants to recover stragglers, it rolls dice vs some table and gets to remove some losses from one or more of it's batallions/regiments that have actually taken stragglers (as indicated by the color of the loss marker). I'm with you so far - in fact, it's reminiscent of the method that the RSS uses to track stragglers and wreck status. But here's where I'm not so sure I like it as much. A player will want to recover as many stragglers as possible for his better units, but those units are unlikely to be able to recover stragglers more than once because they will PASS their morale check more easily than lower quality units when they recover stragglers. It's not that it's a bad idea - it does make perverse sense. But I'd worry about units suffering a peanlty of sorts for PASSING a morale check - that's the bit that's counter-intuitive to me. I think that at the least, you need to call it something else, or be prepared to have a sidebar/design note to explain why passing a check can be a bad thing. Also, to make matters simpler, I'd use the "can recover stragglers" type of loss marker EVERY time a unit takes new losses. First, it's a pain to have to fish out a different type of marker depeding on whether the unit has taken stragglers or not. Second, it means that a unit that "fails" its recovery roll and must replace it's "can recover stragglers" marker with a "can't recover stragglers" marker could, after engaging the enemy again, get to "reset" it's marker to the "can recover" side. The goal being to giving the good troops a bit more resiliency, especially as now that the total number of steps has dropped the threshold between step losses is a bit more steep than it was originally. One other idea that I'd add is that a unit can try to recover an additional step in a single recovery if they "fail" their morale check by exactly 1. It provides an opportunity for good troops to get back into the fight faster (since they're more likely to "fail" their morale check by exactly 1), and doesn't benefit the bad troops all that much. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it. And, it still allows the use of loss charts for those so inclined. Assuming, of course, that on-map "generic" straggler tracks aren't anathema to a different part of the game playing public than the loss sheets are. > Of course, that may > make for a better system on the whole, in which case I'll shut up:) Okay - I'll shut up for now. Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:27 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > I usually get most of my ideas either in the sauna after > workout, or when I'm supposed to sleep. Yesterday, the sauna > was out of order, so this idea to reduce stacking while > keeping a reasonably accurate track of stragglers cost me an > hour's night sleep (a precious commodity with a 11 month old > in the home): > > Loss markers come in two varieties: One for units without > stragglers, and one for units with stragglers. Both record > the total strength of the stack, the latter only indicates > the fact that the unit has taken straggler losses. > > The total amount of stragglers are kept track of by corps (or > other suitably large body of troops, depending on the size of > the game) using track markers. These can be generic on their > backs to avoid giving off too much info to the enemy. > > Stragglers are lost as usual, and the strength of the unit > reduced accordingly (using the "with straggling" variety of > th loss markers). > > When recovering stragglers, only units marked as having taken > stragglers can recover stragglers. Further, when a unit > recovers a straggler, make a die-roll check (probably an > unmodified morale check). If the unit passes the check, > replace any remaining loss marker with a normal loss marker, > indicating that the unit cannot recover stragglers. Thus good > morale units are likely to only be able to recover one step > of stragglers while poor units can recover more, just as they > lost more to begin with. > > This puts a level of uncertainty into straggler recovery, as > there is a possibility that there are stragglers left when no > unit is able to recover more. This actually solves a design > problem for La Belle Alliance, namely the 10 000 or so > deserters after Ligny. The Prussians could get a modifier to > this straggler recovery roll, making sure fewer stagglers are > recovered. > > How does this sound? > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > For you, it > obviously isn't a big issue. As someone who > can't remember a > phone number written on a piece of paper long > enough to type > it on the keypad, I can sympathize with those > who think it is. > > > > Fair enough :) > > > > There is also the temporal issue. A unit can > rout and recover > in decent time, but if it disintegrates into > stragglers, it > will take quite some time to recover. > > > > So > > Sh -> DG -> R -> rally > > is usually a shorter cycle than > > losses + stragglers > wreck, recover stragglers. > > The difference being you CAN'T fight vs. you SHOULDN'T, > and if you do, you > aren't going to be as effective. > > > > The beauty of the current system is that it is > very intuitive > and easy to visualize. As soon as you start to > abstract and > try to build the effects into, say, the unit > ratings, you > will get results that will have people > scratching their heads > if you don't explain the rationale. And I believe that > intuitive rules are much more important than > short rules for > ease of play. > > > > I love the current system, and agree that a good rule > is more important than > a simple rule. And I suppose that if the system > remains intact and we're > left with shuffling casualty and straggler markers ad > nauseum, maybe it will > encourage players to use the roster sheets instead. > What I REALLY worry is > that in an effort to alleviate the shuffling problem, > we'll change the > system enough to make the roster sheets superfluous. > OF course, that may > make for a better system on the whole, in which case > I'll shut up:) But if > the system looses its depth and subtlety of play to > alleviate shuffling, > we'll have lost one of the two things that make the > basic system so unique. > Well, that, and I can only tolerate towering > mega-stacks in one line of > Gamers/MMP games, and last I checked this isn't OCS :) > > Michael Waters > NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 > Flight Vehicle Performance > Software Development Team > NAS Patuxent River > Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 > 301-757-0595 > 301-342-8597 (fax) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On > Behalf Of Elias Nordling > Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 15:31 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > > Yes, but I've PLAYED with both types of > systems, and roster > > > sheets are > > > by far the easier alternative. Any > option which reduces > > > the number of > > > times I have to physically manipulate > the counters is a good thing. > > > For me, going back and forth between map and an off-map > record of strength is much more of a problem than > manipulating counters. From what I've gathered, > this is the > majority opinion. > > > Why can't you market the loss sheets as > a bonus, rather > > > than as a detriment? > It will be included as a bonus for those who > prefer that. As > I said, I want the system to have as few > turnoffs as possible > so that we don't chip away at the customer > base. Having both > loss sheets and step loss markers is an > excellent way of > catering to different tastes. But one rule has > to be the > standard rule and the other the optional rule. > My impression > is that loss markers are the preferred > alternative, so that > is the standard rule. > > > What is it that players object to - > having to have a > > > sharpened pencil? > > > Having to have a piece of paper to keep > track of? > > > > No, it is the fact that you have to find a unit > on the map, > read the ID, then find it again in a list while > remembering > where you were on the map, then remembering the > number from > the list while checking the tables etc, instead > of having all > the information in one place can be a major > pain. For you, it > obviously isn't a big issue. As someone who > can't remember a > phone number written on a piece of paper long > enough to type > it on the keypad, I can sympathize with those > who think it is. > > > > I think the only way to address the > stacking issue and the > > > mental math > > > required to coordinate casualty markers > and straggler markers is to > somehow come up with a new way of > combining losses with > > > morale state > > > that doesn't loose the flavor and > distinction of either. > > > It is not the only way, but it is one possible > way to go. > > > > Here's what we want: > good troops will stand and fight and > suffer lots of casualties if > asked; bad troops are reluctant to > stand and fight and when > > > they do, > > > they disintegrate rapidly; there is a > threshold of losses > > > beyond which > > > even a good unit with good morale is > incapable of taking effective > offensive action (although they can > still defend); beyond simple > losses, troops can get spooked and > decide not to fight, or to do so > with less than 100% effort, for reasons > that don't necessarily have > anything to do with combat or the enemy > at all (morale state as > decoupled from loss state). > > Anyone want to add to that list? > > > There is also the temporal issue. A unit can > rout and recover > in decent time, but if it disintegrates into > stragglers, it > will take quite some time to recover. > > The beauty of the current system is that it is > very intuitive > and easy to visualize. As soon as you start to > abstract and > try to build the effects into, say, the unit > ratings, you > will get results that will have people > scratching their heads > if you don't explain the rationale. And I believe that > intuitive rules are much more important than > short rules for > ease of play. > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > > > ________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090428/12283d8d/smime-0001.bin From elias at nordling.nu Tue Apr 28 17:59:16 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Tue Apr 28 17:59:28 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F607ED.6020809@nordling.nu> <49F6F619.30100@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F727D4.2070800@nordling.nu> > When a batallion/regiment takes losses, the sum of casaulties and stragglers > is recorded with a step loss marker, and the straggler portion of those > losses are added to the unit's parent Divison/Corps/Army straggler track (I > think Division works best here). > I prefer Corps, I don't want a ton of track record markers. > When a Divison/Corps/Army wants to recover stragglers, it rolls dice vs some > table and gets to remove some losses from one or more of it's > batallions/regiments that have actually taken stragglers (as indicated by > the color of the loss marker). > No table, no roll. It recovers a certain number of its total stragglers (between 1/4 and 1/6 depending on the commander personality) each hour turn that it fulfills the conditions. > A player will want to recover as many stragglers as > possible for his better units, but those units are unlikely to be able to > recover stragglers more than once because they will PASS their morale check > more easily than lower quality units when they recover stragglers. Exactly, But given that most units are 4-steppers, they are also less likely to have taken more than 1 straggler in the first place. > But I'd worry about units suffering a peanlty of sorts for PASSING a morale check - that's the > bit that's counter-intuitive to me. Oh yes, I won't call it passing a morale check, that's for sure! > Also, to make matters simpler, I'd use the "can recover stragglers" type of > loss marker EVERY time a unit takes new losses. First, it's a pain to have > to fish out a different type of marker depeding on whether the unit has > taken stragglers or not. Second, it means that a unit that "fails" its > recovery roll and must replace it's "can recover stragglers" marker with a > "can't recover stragglers" marker could, after engaging the enemy again, get > to "reset" it's marker to the "can recover" side. The goal being to giving > the good troops a bit more resiliency, especially as now that the total > number of steps has dropped the threshold between step losses is a bit more > steep than it was originally. > It's an interesting idea, but it introduces anothe rlayer of fuzziness, not to mention gaminess, as morale 8 units will rarely take stragglers, but will be the first to recover them. > One other idea that I'd add is that a unit can try to recover an additional > step in a single recovery if they "fail" their morale check by exactly 1. > It provides an opportunity for good troops to get back into the fight faster > (since they're more likely to "fail" their morale check by exactly 1), and > doesn't benefit the bad troops all that much. > I don't see how good troops would be more likely to fail by 1, but then again, I don't follow the rest of your argument either :-) > Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it. And, it still > allows the use of loss charts for those so inclined. Absolutely. The roll to see if no more recovery is allowed might be needed anyway, at least if we're going to use it to simulate things like Prussian desertion. > Assuming, of course, > that on-map "generic" straggler tracks aren't anathema to a different part > of the game playing public than the loss sheets are. > > It might be, which is why I want to keep it down to 6-7 per side. From michael.waters at navy.mil Tue Apr 28 18:29:04 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Tue Apr 28 18:29:21 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F727D4.2070800@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F607ED.6020809@nordling.nu> <49F6F619.30100@nordling.nu> <49F727D4.2070800@nordling.nu> Message-ID: > I prefer Corps, I don't want a ton of track record markers. I think it depends on the size of the formations involved. For the smaller battles, tracking by Divisions may not be too onerous. It's easy enough to make the details game specific. > No table, no roll. It recovers a certain number of its total > stragglers (between 1/4 and 1/6 depending on the commander > personality) each hour turn that it fulfills the conditions. When you say "it recovers" do you mean the batallion/regiement, or the Div/Corps? If the former, either 1/4 or 1/6 strikes me as too fine distinction for a unit which can have as few as 1 but only as many as 3 losses in the first place. If the latter, how do you apportion the recoverd steps amongst the batallions/regiemnts? Again, I really like the commander personality innovation. > I don't see how good troops would be more likely to fail by > 1, but then again, I don't follow the rest of your argument either :-) A good unit will fail a check on a roll of 8 or 9. A bad unit will fail a roll of 4 through 9. So using those numbers, a good unit will fail, when it fails, by exaclty 1 50% of the time. Again using those numbers, a bad unit will fail, when it fails, by exactly 1 only 16% of the time. Conversly, a good unit using those numbers will pass, when it passes, by exactly 1 only 12.5% of the time. The idea was to give good troops the chance to recover stagglers more quickly than lesser troops on the occasion that they can recover stragglers at all. But that idea is largely rendered moot if the number of recoverd steps is fixed by something other than a die roll. > It's an interesting idea, but it introduces anothe rlayer of > fuzziness, not to mention gaminess, as morale 8 units will > rarely take stragglers, but will be the first to recover them. An abstraction, but IMO not an unreasonable one. Think of it as "walking wounded". And it's not really gamey if it is equally useable by both players and/or reinforces the superiority of the really good troops over the not quite as good troops. Of course, you don't want the good troops to last forever, either, but as good troops won't generally recover stragglers in the first place, you'd have to send them back into harm's way to even get the chance to recover stragglers later anyway, assuming they even survive that long. Okay - so I didn't shut up:) But I'm getting to like this idea better the more I think about it. Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:59 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > > > When a batallion/regiment takes losses, the sum of casaulties and > > stragglers is recorded with a step loss marker, and the straggler > > portion of those losses are added to the unit's parent > > Divison/Corps/Army straggler track (I think Division works > best here). > > > I prefer Corps, I don't want a ton of track record markers. > > When a Divison/Corps/Army wants to recover stragglers, it > rolls dice > > vs some table and gets to remove some losses from one or > more of it's > > batallions/regiments that have actually taken stragglers > (as indicated > > by the color of the loss marker). > > > No table, no roll. It recovers a certain number of its total > stragglers (between 1/4 and 1/6 depending on the commander > personality) each hour turn that it fulfills the conditions. > > A player will want to recover as many stragglers as > possible for his > > better units, but those units are unlikely to be able to recover > > stragglers more than once because they will PASS their morale check > > more easily than lower quality units when they recover stragglers. > Exactly, But given that most units are 4-steppers, they are > also less likely to have taken more than 1 straggler in the > first place. > > But I'd worry about units suffering a peanlty of sorts for > PASSING a > > morale check - that's the bit that's counter-intuitive to me. > Oh yes, I won't call it passing a morale check, that's for sure! > > Also, to make matters simpler, I'd use the "can recover stragglers" > > type of loss marker EVERY time a unit takes new losses. > First, it's a > > pain to have to fish out a different type of marker depeding on > > whether the unit has taken stragglers or not. Second, it > means that a > > unit that "fails" its recovery roll and must replace it's > "can recover > > stragglers" marker with a "can't recover stragglers" marker could, > > after engaging the enemy again, get to "reset" it's marker > to the "can > > recover" side. The goal being to giving the good troops a bit more > > resiliency, especially as now that the total number of steps has > > dropped the threshold between step losses is a bit more > steep than it was originally. > > > It's an interesting idea, but it introduces anothe rlayer of > fuzziness, not to mention gaminess, as morale 8 units will > rarely take stragglers, but will be the first to recover them. > > One other idea that I'd add is that a unit can try to recover an > > additional step in a single recovery if they "fail" their > morale check by exactly 1. > > It provides an opportunity for good troops to get back into > the fight > > faster (since they're more likely to "fail" their morale check by > > exactly 1), and doesn't benefit the bad troops all that much. > > > I don't see how good troops would be more likely to fail by > 1, but then again, I don't follow the rest of your argument either :-) > > Actually, the more I think about it, the more I like it. And, it > > still allows the use of loss charts for those so inclined. > Absolutely. The roll to see if no more recovery is allowed > might be needed anyway, at least if we're going to use it to > simulate things like Prussian desertion. > > Assuming, of course, > > that on-map "generic" straggler tracks aren't anathema to a > different > > part of the game playing public than the loss sheets are. > > > > > It might be, which is why I want to keep it down to 6-7 per side. > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090428/07b43750/smime.bin From elias at nordling.nu Tue Apr 28 19:22:59 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Tue Apr 28 19:23:16 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F607ED.6020809@nordling.nu> <49F6F619.30100@nordling.nu> <49F727D4.2070800@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F73B73.6090707@nordling.nu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090428/3e91cbd8/attachment.html From michael.waters at navy.mil Tue Apr 28 19:34:31 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Tue Apr 28 19:34:52 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules In-Reply-To: <49F73B73.6090707@nordling.nu> References: <49EF6448.1040907@nordling.nu> <49F0CBC2.8000503@snev.co.uk><49F179F2.4010606@nordling.nu> <49F217F4.80302@snev.co.uk><49F2284C.4020501@nordling.nu><49F2CD1B.5090700@nordling.nu> <49F2E6AA.4030005@snev.co.uk><49F2EDDA.7040408@snev.co.uk> <4DC440DB-680E-4D71-B462-4B97C464CABA@mac.com> <49F607ED.6020809@nordling.nu> <49F6F619.30100@nordling.nu> <49F727D4.2070800@nordling.nu> <49F73B73.6090707@nordling.nu> Message-ID: > Oh, and you roll AFTER recovering a > straggler, so you can alwas recover at least one if eligible. That makes a big difference. In that case, my only real argument to using the "can recover" markers by default is purely an ease of play issue. I'll bring this up later if that issue becomes important. So when is this new rule going to be written? With only a 11th month old in the house, surely you have the copious free time available to bang this out tonite - say around 11pm or so? I mean, it's not like you've got a 5+ year old and a 2+ year old and a wife that want's to have at least on more ... Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 13:23 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > I prefer Corps, I don't want a ton of track > record markers. > > > > I think it depends on the size of the formations > involved. For the smaller > battles, tracking by Divisions may not be too onerous. > It's easy enough to > make the details game specific. > > > Absolutely! > > > > > > No table, no roll. It recovers a certain number > of its total > stragglers (between 1/4 and 1/6 depending on > the commander > personality) each hour turn that it fulfills > the conditions. > > > > When you say "it recovers" do you mean the > batallion/regiement, or the > Div/Corps? If the former, either 1/4 or 1/6 strikes me > as too fine > distinction for a unit which can have as few as 1 but > only as many as 3 > losses in the first place. If the latter, how do you > apportion the recoverd > steps amongst the batallions/regiemnts? > > > The latter. The player chooses among eligible units. > > > Again, I really like the commander personality innovation. > > > > Me too :-) Agressive commanders are among the worst to > recover stragglers, as they tended to run their troops into > the ground. > > > > > A good unit will fail a check on a roll of 8 or 9. A > bad unit will fail a > roll of 4 through 9. So using those numbers, a good > unit will fail, when it > fails, by exaclty 1 50% of the time. Again using those > numbers, a bad unit > will fail, when it fails, by exactly 1 only 16% of the > time. Conversly, a > good unit using those numbers will pass, when it > passes, by exactly 1 only > 12.5% of the time. The idea was to give good troops > the chance to recover > stagglers more quickly than lesser troops on the > occasion that they can > recover stragglers at all. But that idea is largely > rendered moot if the > number of recoverd steps is fixed by something other > than a die roll. > > > OK, I follow you now, I think.You could just as well say that > good units get to recover two steps (with a roll for each), > but I think that will take care of itself, as players will > assign their recovered stragglers to the good units first. > > > > but as good troops won't generally recover stragglers in > the first place, you'd have to send them back into > harm's way to even get > the chance to recover stragglers later anyway, assuming > they even survive > that long. > > > Sounds gamey to me. Oh, and you roll AFTER recovering a > straggler, so you can alwas recover at least one if eligible. > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090428/caf5b7d9/smime-0001.bin From stratdeveloper at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 03:22:15 2009 From: stratdeveloper at gmail.com (William Cooper) Date: Wed Apr 29 03:22:27 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses Message-ID: I'm changing the topic just so we have a record; we now have 50+ messages. If we were to go with the "Stragglers included"/"stragglers not included" loss markers, they should be flipsides of each other--the 1 SP loss (stragglers) should be on the obverse of the 1 SP loss (no stragglers) markers. That will make the game easier to play. This would be opposed to haveing 1 backed with 2, 3 with 4, etc, but in 2 sets. It doesn't reduce the number of markers, but it does make it easier to flip. AND...a loss result on a combat/march roll could be "S"--flip the loss marker from "No stragglers" to "stragllers" Or vice versa BC On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 1:34 PM, Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 < michael.waters@navy.mil> wrote: > > Oh, and you roll AFTER recovering a > > straggler, so you can alwas recover at least one if eligible. > > That makes a big difference. In that case, my only real argument to using > the "can recover" markers by default is purely an ease of play issue. I'll > bring this up later if that issue becomes important. > > So when is this new rule going to be written? With only a 11th month old > in > the house, surely you have the copious free time available to bang this out > tonite - say around 11pm or so? I mean, it's not like you've got a 5+ year > old and a 2+ year old and a wife that want's to have at least on more ... > > Michael Waters > NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 > Flight Vehicle Performance > Software Development Team > NAS Patuxent River > Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 > 301-757-0595 > 301-342-8597 (fax) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > > Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 13:23 > > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Napoleon's Art of War rules > > > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > > > I prefer Corps, I don't want a ton of track > > record markers. > > > > > > > > I think it depends on the size of the formations > > involved. For the smaller > > battles, tracking by Divisions may not be too onerous. > > It's easy enough to > > make the details game specific. > > > > > > Absolutely! > > > > > > > > > > > > No table, no roll. It recovers a certain number > > of its total > > stragglers (between 1/4 and 1/6 depending on > > the commander > > personality) each hour turn that it fulfills > > the conditions. > > > > > > > > When you say "it recovers" do you mean the > > batallion/regiement, or the > > Div/Corps? If the former, either 1/4 or 1/6 strikes me > > as too fine > > distinction for a unit which can have as few as 1 but > > only as many as 3 > > losses in the first place. If the latter, how do you > > apportion the recoverd > > steps amongst the batallions/regiemnts? > > > > > > The latter. The player chooses among eligible units. > > > > > > Again, I really like the commander personality innovation. > > > > > > > > Me too :-) Agressive commanders are among the worst to > > recover stragglers, as they tended to run their troops into > > the ground. > > > > > > > > > > A good unit will fail a check on a roll of 8 or 9. A > > bad unit will fail a > > roll of 4 through 9. So using those numbers, a good > > unit will fail, when it > > fails, by exaclty 1 50% of the time. Again using those > > numbers, a bad unit > > will fail, when it fails, by exactly 1 only 16% of the > > time. Conversly, a > > good unit using those numbers will pass, when it > > passes, by exactly 1 only > > 12.5% of the time. The idea was to give good troops > > the chance to recover > > stagglers more quickly than lesser troops on the > > occasion that they can > > recover stragglers at all. But that idea is largely > > rendered moot if the > > number of recoverd steps is fixed by something other > > than a die roll. > > > > > > OK, I follow you now, I think.You could just as well say that > > good units get to recover two steps (with a roll for each), > > but I think that will take care of itself, as players will > > assign their recovered stragglers to the good units first. > > > > > > > > but as good troops won't generally recover stragglers in > > the first place, you'd have to send them back into > > harm's way to even get > > the chance to recover stragglers later anyway, assuming > > they even survive > > that long. > > > > > > Sounds gamey to me. Oh, and you roll AFTER recovering a > > straggler, so you can alwas recover at least one if eligible. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090428/2bf9ea6f/attachment.html From elias at nordling.nu Wed Apr 29 10:34:13 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Wed Apr 29 10:34:24 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu> > > If we were to go with the "Stragglers included"/"stragglers not > included" loss markers, they should be flipsides of each other--the 1 > SP loss (stragglers) should be on the obverse of the 1 SP loss (no > stragglers) markers. That will make the game easier to play. Well, actually no (I thought about it). Since a straggler loss always means a reduction of strength, there is no situation where you would flip the marker while retaining the same strength. So better with two sets of loss markers. > AND...a loss result on a combat/march roll could be "S"--flip the loss > marker from "No stragglers" to "stragllers" > See above :-) From stratdeveloper at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 15:04:48 2009 From: stratdeveloper at gmail.com (William Cooper) Date: Wed Apr 29 15:05:00 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu> References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu> Message-ID: Well, then; let's make it one set but with two sides. Two sets of markers, even though only one is going to be on the map, is going to be clumsy. We'll have the same number of markers regardless. BC On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Elias Nordling wrote: > > >> If we were to go with the "Stragglers included"/"stragglers not included" >> loss markers, they should be flipsides of each other--the 1 SP loss >> (stragglers) should be on the obverse of the 1 SP loss (no stragglers) >> markers. That will make the game easier to play. >> > Well, actually no (I thought about it). Since a straggler loss always means > a reduction of strength, there is no situation where you would flip the > marker while retaining the same strength. So better with two sets of loss > markers. > >> AND...a loss result on a combat/march roll could be "S"--flip the loss >> marker from "No stragglers" to "stragllers" >> >> See above :-) > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/6d03a8e3/attachment.htm From michael.waters at navy.mil Wed Apr 29 15:50:51 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Wed Apr 29 15:51:19 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu> Message-ID: Actually, to make this (potentially) as easy as possible, and using "red" for "can't recover" stragglers and "green" for "can recover" stragglers, and "F" for front and "B" for back, the layout for the first set of markers could be ... F-1-red, B-2-green F-3-red, B-4-green F-5-red, B-6-green And for the second set would therefore be ... F-2-red, B-3-green F-4-red, B-5-green F-6-red, B-1-green So a regiment without stragglers that takes a straggler loss (but not a casualty loss as well) would just flip the marker. Likewise, a unit when recovering a single straggler that fails its recover roll would just flip the marker. Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of William Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:05 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses > > Well, then; let's make it one set but with two sides. Two > sets of markers, even though only one is going to be on the > map, is going to be clumsy. We'll have the same number of > markers regardless. > > BC > > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Elias Nordling > wrote: > > > > > If we were to go with the "Stragglers > included"/"stragglers not included" loss markers, they should > be flipsides of each other--the 1 SP loss (stragglers) should > be on the obverse of the 1 SP loss (no stragglers) markers. > That will make the game easier to play. > > > Well, actually no (I thought about it). Since a > straggler loss always means a reduction of strength, there is > no situation where you would flip the marker while retaining > the same strength. So better with two sets of loss markers. > > > AND...a loss result on a combat/march roll > could be "S"--flip the loss marker from "No stragglers" to > "stragllers" > > > > See above :-) > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/6abb20bb/smime.bin From elias at nordling.nu Wed Apr 29 16:44:47 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Wed Apr 29 16:44:55 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> William Cooper skrev: > Well, then; let's make it one set but with two sides. Two sets of > markers, even though only one is going to be on the map, is going to > be clumsy. We'll have the same number of markers regardless. Actually, that would ensure that it was clumsy, since there would be no situation where you could just flip the counter. Michael Waters suggestion is better, but in most cases, once you've taken stragglers, you only need to worry about the "with stragglers set", so by far the easiest would be to have two sets. Would probably save counters too, as we're going to need fewer of the "without stragglers" counters. Of course, one solution would be to "go pollard": One facing of the counter means without stragglers, the other without. Clearly marked on the counter, of course. From michael.waters at navy.mil Wed Apr 29 17:00:42 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Wed Apr 29 17:00:59 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: <49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu> <49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> Message-ID: Pollard makes a lot of sense, especially because you're designing for 4 step units, and with one side for stragglers and one side not, you could really cut down on countersheets. Even with the occasional 5+ step units, Pollard markers would still be a good idea, becase ideally you wouldn't need many of the larger 5-8 step markers. The markers in turn could be color coded to match the armies for a given game, with a nice catchy graphic to go in the center and/or a colored border to indicate straggler/no straggler status. I'm starting to like this idea more and more. Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:45 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses > > William Cooper skrev: > > Well, then; let's make it one set but with two sides. Two sets of > > markers, even though only one is going to be on the map, is > going to > > be clumsy. We'll have the same number of markers regardless. > Actually, that would ensure that it was clumsy, since there > would be no situation where you could just flip the counter. > Michael Waters suggestion is better, but in most cases, once > you've taken stragglers, you only need to worry about the > "with stragglers set", so by far the easiest would be to have > two sets. Would probably save counters too, as we're going to > need fewer of the "without stragglers" counters. > > Of course, one solution would be to "go pollard": One facing > of the counter means without stragglers, the other without. > Clearly marked on the counter, of course. > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/a46811a1/smime-0001.bin From stratdeveloper at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 17:59:48 2009 From: stratdeveloper at gmail.com (William Cooper) Date: Wed Apr 29 18:00:00 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu> <49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> Message-ID: I think you'll find that many, many people detest Pollards. Summer Storm has Pollards and roster sheets, and in my view works very very easily (and actually more easily )with the roster sheets. I know also that many, many people detest roster sheets. BC On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 wrote: > Pollard makes a lot of sense, especially because you're designing for 4 > step > units, and with one side for stragglers and one side not, you could really > cut down on countersheets. Even with the occasional 5+ step units, Pollard > markers would still be a good idea, becase ideally you wouldn't need many > of > the larger 5-8 step markers. > > The markers in turn could be color coded to match the armies for a given > game, with a nice catchy graphic to go in the center and/or a colored > border > to indicate straggler/no straggler status. > > I'm starting to like this idea more and more. > > Michael Waters > NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 > Flight Vehicle Performance > Software Development Team > NAS Patuxent River > Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 > 301-757-0595 > 301-342-8597 (fax) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:45 > > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses > > > > William Cooper skrev: > > > Well, then; let's make it one set but with two sides. Two sets of > > > markers, even though only one is going to be on the map, is > > going to > > > be clumsy. We'll have the same number of markers regardless. > > Actually, that would ensure that it was clumsy, since there > > would be no situation where you could just flip the counter. > > Michael Waters suggestion is better, but in most cases, once > > you've taken stragglers, you only need to worry about the > > "with stragglers set", so by far the easiest would be to have > > two sets. Would probably save counters too, as we're going to > > need fewer of the "without stragglers" counters. > > > > Of course, one solution would be to "go pollard": One facing > > of the counter means without stragglers, the other without. > > Clearly marked on the counter, of course. > > _______________________________________________ > > Napgnomes mailing list > > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/56e87941/attachment.html From jeffrey.cherpeski at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 18:15:44 2009 From: jeffrey.cherpeski at gmail.com (Jeff Cherpeski) Date: Wed Apr 29 18:15:54 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu> <49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <7825e4f80904290915y43c3a9a9u445070b264ee3fee@mail.gmail.com> Is there really a reason to worry about stragglers? Granted they happened, but a morale rating, that allows a unit to rally, recover losses, seems to be much easier. A unit can't rally to full strength, but if it has two or more losses, it could attempt to rally. This would be an abstract representation of straggler recovery, but without all the headache of tracking. I think that dealing with all the different markers would end up being as big a turn-off as roster sheets. Cheers, Jeff On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 8:59 AM, William Cooper wrote: > I think you'll find that many, many people detest Pollards. > > Summer Storm has Pollards and roster sheets, and in my view works very very > easily (and actually more easily )with the roster sheets. I know also that > many, many people detest roster sheets. > > BC > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 > wrote: > >> Pollard makes a lot of sense, especially because you're designing for 4 >> step >> units, and with one side for stragglers and one side not, you could really >> cut down on countersheets. Even with the occasional 5+ step units, >> Pollard >> markers would still be a good idea, becase ideally you wouldn't need many >> of >> the larger 5-8 step markers. >> >> The markers in turn could be color coded to match the armies for a given >> game, with a nice catchy graphic to go in the center and/or a colored >> border >> to indicate straggler/no straggler status. >> >> I'm starting to like this idea more and more. >> >> Michael Waters >> NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 >> Flight Vehicle Performance >> Software Development Team >> NAS Patuxent River >> Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 >> 301-757-0595 >> 301-342-8597 (fax) >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com >> > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling >> > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:45 >> > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com >> > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses >> > >> > William Cooper skrev: >> > > Well, then; let's make it one set but with two sides. Two sets of >> > > markers, even though only one is going to be on the map, is >> > going to >> > > be clumsy. We'll have the same number of markers regardless. >> > Actually, that would ensure that it was clumsy, since there >> > would be no situation where you could just flip the counter. >> > Michael Waters suggestion is better, but in most cases, once >> > you've taken stragglers, you only need to worry about the >> > "with stragglers set", so by far the easiest would be to have >> > two sets. Would probably save counters too, as we're going to >> > need fewer of the "without stragglers" counters. >> > >> > Of course, one solution would be to "go pollard": One facing >> > of the counter means without stragglers, the other without. >> > Clearly marked on the counter, of course. >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Napgnomes mailing list >> > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com >> > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Napgnomes mailing list >> Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com >> http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/e4a02f40/attachment.htm From wlewisiii at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 18:25:25 2009 From: wlewisiii at gmail.com (William Barnett-Lewis) Date: Wed Apr 29 18:25:37 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: <7825e4f80904290915y43c3a9a9u445070b264ee3fee@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu> <49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <7825e4f80904290915y43c3a9a9u445070b264ee3fee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4dd033e90904290925k3118e5aav2308396cd16a6989@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:15 AM, Jeff Cherpeski wrote: > Is there really a reason to worry about stragglers? Granted they happened, > but a morale rating, that allows a unit to rally, recover losses, seems to > be much easier. A unit can't rally to full strength, but if it has two or > more losses, it could attempt to rally. This would be an abstract > representation of straggler recovery, but without all the headache of > tracking. I think that dealing with all the different markers would end up > being as big a turn-off as roster sheets. > Cheers, > > Jeff I've been quietly following the discussion and I think I like this proposal the best. This is something that should be abstract at the level that this rule set attempts to portray. It seems to me that, perhaps, using a simpler 2 step system (front/back) and maybe a marker for those units with too many losses to try to recover might be an even simpler way to approach the problem. The ultimate question is how much detail should be represented and how much should be abstracted. Respectfully, I think that this is detail that can be abstracted away with no loss to play value. Thanks, William -- Live like you will never die, love like you've never been hurt, dance like no-one is watching. Alex White From elias at nordling.nu Wed Apr 29 18:32:15 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Wed Apr 29 18:32:21 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: <7825e4f80904290915y43c3a9a9u445070b264ee3fee@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu> <49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <7825e4f80904290915y43c3a9a9u445070b264ee3fee@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49F8810F.6070502@nordling.nu> Jeff Cherpeski skrev: > Is there really a reason to worry about stragglers? Granted they > happened, but a morale rating, that allows a unit to rally, recover > losses, seems to be much easier. A unit can't rally to full strength, > but if it has two or more losses, it could attempt to rally. This > would be an abstract representation of straggler recovery, but without > all the headache of tracking. I think that dealing with all the > different markers would end up being as big a turn-off as roster sheets. Keeping track of recoverable and non-recoverable losses separately solves a lot of design problems, yes, and greatly adds to the storytelling by showing how bad units run away, while good units die, etc. I don't totally rule out removing straggler recording, but I really don't want to go there if I can avoid it. People will think the game just "feels wrong" if good units take fewer casualties, but are less able to recover casualties than bad units. > I think you'll find that many, many people detest Pollards. I know. I was just thinking aloud, that perhaps "pollard light", with two facings of the counters, one indicating with stragglers, one without, might go by without anyone noticing. Anyway, I think we should try with different markers. I have a feeling that it will be less of a hassle in practice than in theory. Then, if the playtesters hate it, we'll try something else. From michael.waters at navy.mil Wed Apr 29 20:42:32 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Wed Apr 29 20:42:51 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> Message-ID: A fair number of people also detest loss markers, too. And even if you went to a two-step front/back unit, many would lament the loss of fidelity and period flavor (am I playing a beer-n-pretzels WW2 game, or a Napoleonic tactical game?). You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time :) And to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, the possibility of dislike of a thing by some is no argument against the thing itself. The bottom line is that there are two ways to track losses - written records and physical on-board manipulation. Since written records have been discouraged with extreme prejudice, that leaves us with devising a method to track losses via physical manipulation. Ideally, that method would preserve the effects of the previous system of written records as faithfully as possible. There are certainly benefits to going to a two-sided step loss system, but that only makes sense if we're willing to make each regiment a multi-counter unit - a battalion level system by fiat. That means more counter sheets per game (and no generic countersheets common to all games in the series). Thus, it drives cost. It also doesn't really play into the scale of the hexes or the duration of a turn in minutes. It's not just the HAVING of skirmishers and stragglers that set NBS apart - it was how they were portrayed and incorporated into the overall model. If NAoW losses that, then IMO it ceases to be a unique look at Napoleonic tactical warfare and starts to morph into something that, frankly, has already been done. And from a marketing standpoint, that's a path of diminishing returns. FWIW, I'm not a huge fan of Pollard markers either, but they have their uses (West End's "Air & Armor" comes to mind, to say nothing of the RSS), and I think they might be ideal for Elias's idea. BTW, in some ways this system is crying out for the end of generic skirmishers, since there won't be any loss tracks to record their deployment or reabsorption. Rather, regiment-specific skirmishers would allow for more fine tuning of skirmisher ratings on the counter, as opposed to in a scenario rulebook or the system's charts. Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of William Cooper > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 12:00 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses > > I think you'll find that many, many people detest Pollards. > > Summer Storm has Pollards and roster sheets, and in my view > works very very easily (and actually more easily )with the > roster sheets. I know also that many, many people detest > roster sheets. > > BC -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/3c191b2c/smime-0001.bin From PDallas at waitrose.com Wed Apr 29 20:57:40 2009 From: PDallas at waitrose.com (Paul Dallas) Date: Wed Apr 29 20:58:06 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> I dislike pollards. Especially when counter density is high and you can stack units. On numerous occasions, I or an opponemt has picked up a stack to examine it only to drop one (or more) of the counters. With pollaerds there's always an issue of exactly what value was uppermost and/or forward. I am not convinced that you need to record casualties/stragglers per unit. Consider this: Keep track of stragglers at division/corps, but only record total losses from each unit. No unit may regain full strength by recovering stragglers (good units have casualties - poor units don't fully recover) No unit may recover more than one straggler per round Stragglers must be recovered from the unit with greatest "losses" first in any round of recovery Thus if a Corps has eight units with losses: a) 4 b) 4(-1) c) 4(-2) d) 4(-2) e) 4(-3) f) 3(-1) g) 3(-2) h) 3(-3) and has 9 stragglers, then units c, d, e, g and h could recover on the first attempt but only e and h could recover a second step. Thus only 7 of 9 stragglers ould be recovered. If the same corps had only 3 stragglers, only h, e ang g would be allowed to recover them. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: William Cooper To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 4:59 PM Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses I think you'll find that many, many people detest Pollards. Summer Storm has Pollards and roster sheets, and in my view works very very easily (and actually more easily )with the roster sheets. I know also that many, many people detest roster sheets. BC On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 wrote: Pollard makes a lot of sense, especially because you're designing for 4 step units, and with one side for stragglers and one side not, you could really cut down on countersheets. Even with the occasional 5+ step units, Pollard markers would still be a good idea, becase ideally you wouldn't need many of the larger 5-8 step markers. The markers in turn could be color coded to match the armies for a given game, with a nice catchy graphic to go in the center and/or a colored border to indicate straggler/no straggler status. I'm starting to like this idea more and more. Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 10:45 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses > > William Cooper skrev: > > Well, then; let's make it one set but with two sides. Two sets of > > markers, even though only one is going to be on the map, is > going to > > be clumsy. We'll have the same number of markers regardless. > Actually, that would ensure that it was clumsy, since there > would be no situation where you could just flip the counter. > Michael Waters suggestion is better, but in most cases, once > you've taken stragglers, you only need to worry about the > "with stragglers set", so by far the easiest would be to have > two sets. Would probably save counters too, as we're going to > need fewer of the "without stragglers" counters. > > Of course, one solution would be to "go pollard": One facing > of the counter means without stragglers, the other without. > Clearly marked on the counter, of course. > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > _______________________________________________ Napgnomes mailing list Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Napgnomes mailing list Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/aca16431/attachment.html From elias at nordling.nu Wed Apr 29 21:05:29 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Wed Apr 29 21:05:39 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> Message-ID: <49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/98c53fa0/attachment.htm From michael.waters at navy.mil Wed Apr 29 21:10:56 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Wed Apr 29 21:11:00 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: <49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu> References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu> Message-ID: > As it happens, that is exactly what's happening in La Belle > Alliance :-) Hmmm ... I thought LBA was "on hold" for now? Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/6b5ded92/smime.bin From elias at nordling.nu Wed Apr 29 21:20:23 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Wed Apr 29 21:20:29 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <49F8A877.6010906@nordling.nu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/ee78fdf0/attachment-0001.htm From michael.waters at navy.mil Wed Apr 29 21:26:12 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Wed Apr 29 21:26:17 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: <49F8A877.6010906@nordling.nu> References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu> <49F8A877.6010906@nordling.nu> Message-ID: Okay - I'm now officially confused. Let me re-state ... I thought that the [MMP's battalion-scale Napoleonic game system] was on hold for now, and that the name of that system was La Belle Alliance. But apparently, the name of that system is something besides LBA, and presumably still on hold. The first game in the new NAoW series that we are designing is going to be called LBA Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 15:20 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > As it happens, that is exactly what's happening > in La Belle > Alliance :-) > > > > Hmmm ... I thought LBA was "on hold" for now? > > > No, La Belle Alliance is the game we are designing. > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/21888869/smime.bin From jeffrey.cherpeski at gmail.com Wed Apr 29 21:31:07 2009 From: jeffrey.cherpeski at gmail.com (Jeff Cherpeski) Date: Wed Apr 29 21:31:19 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: References: <49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu> <49F8A877.6010906@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <7825e4f80904291231x5ba3f44chdf3efbd03814b764@mail.gmail.com> NBS is on hold. LBA is the replacement for NBS. Cheers, Jeff On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 wrote: > Okay - I'm now officially confused. Let me re-state ... > > I thought that the [MMP's battalion-scale Napoleonic game system] was on > hold for now, and that the name of that system was La Belle Alliance. > > But apparently, the name of that system is something besides LBA, and > presumably still on hold. > > The first game in the new NAoW series that we are designing is going to be > called LBA > > Michael Waters > NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 > Flight Vehicle Performance > Software Development Team > NAS Patuxent River > Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 > 301-757-0595 > 301-342-8597 (fax) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Elias Nordling > > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 15:20 > > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses > > > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > > > As it happens, that is exactly what's happening > > in La Belle > > Alliance :-) > > > > > > > > Hmmm ... I thought LBA was "on hold" for now? > > > > > > No, La Belle Alliance is the game we are designing. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/3d6b2b51/attachment.htm From michael.waters at navy.mil Wed Apr 29 21:32:52 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Wed Apr 29 21:32:54 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu><49F8A877.6010906@nordling.nu> Message-ID: I hit by accident ... To continue, LBA is going to be about Waterloo, June 18th, if not also some combination of Ligny, QB, Wavre, and Genappe. Am I up to speed now? Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 15:26 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: RE: [Napgnomes] Marking losses > > Okay - I'm now officially confused. Let me re-state ... > > I thought that the [MMP's battalion-scale Napoleonic game > system] was on hold for now, and that the name of that system > was La Belle Alliance. > > But apparently, the name of that system is something besides > LBA, and presumably still on hold. > > The first game in the new NAoW series that we are designing > is going to be called LBA > > Michael Waters > NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 > Flight Vehicle Performance > Software Development Team > NAS Patuxent River > Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 > 301-757-0595 > 301-342-8597 (fax) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of > Elias Nordling > > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 15:20 > > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses > > > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > > > As it happens, that is exactly what's happening > in La Belle > > Alliance :-) > > > > > > > > Hmmm ... I thought LBA was "on hold" for now? > > > > > > No, La Belle Alliance is the game we are designing. > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 4954 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/28cca037/smime-0001.bin From randhall-yeates at uiowa.edu Wed Apr 29 21:37:21 2009 From: randhall-yeates at uiowa.edu (Yeates, Randhall R) Date: Wed Apr 29 21:37:34 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu><49F8A877.6010906@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <5E599A857C44334087964425586FCDF122631D4916@IOWAEVS07.iowa.uiowa.edu> It will cover QB, Ligny, Wavre, Waterloo and everything in between. Randy -----Original Message----- From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:33 PM To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com Subject: RE: [Napgnomes] Marking losses I hit by accident ... To continue, LBA is going to be about Waterloo, June 18th, if not also some combination of Ligny, QB, Wavre, and Genappe. Am I up to speed now? Michael Waters NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 Flight Vehicle Performance Software Development Team NAS Patuxent River Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 301-757-0595 301-342-8597 (fax) > -----Original Message----- > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 15:26 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: RE: [Napgnomes] Marking losses > > Okay - I'm now officially confused. Let me re-state ... > > I thought that the [MMP's battalion-scale Napoleonic game > system] was on hold for now, and that the name of that system > was La Belle Alliance. > > But apparently, the name of that system is something besides > LBA, and presumably still on hold. > > The first game in the new NAoW series that we are designing > is going to be called LBA > > Michael Waters > NAVAIR 4.3.2.2 > Flight Vehicle Performance > Software Development Team > NAS Patuxent River > Bldg 2187 Room 2A55B-01 > 301-757-0595 > 301-342-8597 (fax) > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com > > [mailto:napgnomes-bounces@yxa.extundo.com] On Behalf Of > Elias Nordling > > Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 15:20 > > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > > Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses > > > > Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > > > > As it happens, that is exactly what's happening > in La Belle > > Alliance :-) > > > > > > > > Hmmm ... I thought LBA was "on hold" for now? > > > > > > No, La Belle Alliance is the game we are designing. > > > > > From PDallas at waitrose.com Wed Apr 29 21:59:59 2009 From: PDallas at waitrose.com (Paul Dallas) Date: Wed Apr 29 22:00:23 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <006701c9c905$13f96260$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> It was intended to be, but it doesn't use different markers ----- Original Message ----- From: Elias Nordling To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:05 PM Subject: Re: [Napgnomes] Marking losses Consider this: Keep track of stragglers at division/corps, but only record total losses from each unit. No unit may regain full strength by recovering stragglers (good units have casualties - poor units don't fully recover) No unit may recover more than one straggler per round Stragglers must be recovered from the unit with greatest "losses" first in any round of recovery That is basically a variety of my suggestion. BTW, in some ways this system is crying out for the end of generic skirmishers, since there won't be any loss tracks to record their deployment or reabsorption. Rather, regiment-specific skirmishers would allow for more fine tuning of skirmisher ratings on the counter, as opposed to in a scenario rulebook or the system's charts.As it happens, that is exactly what's happening in La Belle Alliance :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Napgnomes mailing list Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090429/b9453fdd/attachment.htm From elias at nordling.nu Thu Apr 30 10:50:34 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Thu Apr 30 10:50:45 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: <006701c9c905$13f96260$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu> <006701c9c905$13f96260$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> Message-ID: <49F9665A.2030107@nordling.nu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090430/c0ed7a6b/attachment.htm From elias at nordling.nu Thu Apr 30 10:52:51 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Thu Apr 30 10:52:58 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Marking losses In-Reply-To: <7825e4f80904291231x5ba3f44chdf3efbd03814b764@mail.gmail.com> References: <49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu> <005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b> <49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu> <49F8A877.6010906@nordling.nu> <7825e4f80904291231x5ba3f44chdf3efbd03814b764@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49F966E3.3060209@nordling.nu> > NBS is on hold. LBA is the replacement for NBS. Napoleon's Art of War (NapArt) is the replacement for NBS, and LBA is the first NapArt game. Essentially, Adam Starkweather has given us the LBA name to use for our Waterloo Campaign game.