From elias at nordling.nu Tue May 5 19:24:58 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Tue May 5 19:56:48 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] New rules Message-ID: <4A00766A.7040901@nordling.nu> New rules with the new Straggler Mechanism, and new assault tables that are significantly less intimidating. Also, the rules are shorter than ever before. William, let me know if this file format works better. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NAoWTables Build 8.xls Type: application/vnd.ms-excel Size: 47616 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090505/3241104e/NAoWTablesBuild8-0001.xls -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Build019.doc Type: application/msword Size: 163840 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090505/3241104e/Build019-0001.doc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Optionalsbuild007.doc Type: application/msword Size: 50688 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090505/3241104e/Optionalsbuild007-0001.doc From michael.waters at navy.mil Fri May 8 21:10:46 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Fri May 8 21:11:04 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Hello Offier, I'd like to report a missing person ... In-Reply-To: <5E599A857C44334087964425586FCDF122631D4916@IOWAEVS07.iowa.uiowa.edu> References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu><005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b><49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu><49F8A877.6010906@nordling.nu> <5E599A857C44334087964425586FCDF122631D4916@IOWAEVS07.iowa.uiowa.edu> Message-ID: I was giving the rules a more thourough reading a few nights ago, and I finally looked at the C&C rules in detail. I hadn't noticed that the "No Orders" state had been removed, and that the "Defend In Place" order had subsumed both "No Orders" and "Default Defense". I can only imagine that this was an intentional change, rather than an oversight, and am wondering what the motivation is behind the change. Were the 3.0 rules considered too confusing? 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/20090508/8f25c365/smime.bin From elias at nordling.nu Fri May 8 21:36:35 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Fri May 8 21:36:44 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Hello Offier, I'd like to report a missing person ... In-Reply-To: References: <49F81105.2090006@nordling.nu><49F867DF.4010601@nordling.nu><005401c9c8fc$5f3eba30$da7abd50@your447023ae6b><49F8A4F9.80300@nordling.nu><49F8A877.6010906@nordling.nu> <5E599A857C44334087964425586FCDF122631D4916@IOWAEVS07.iowa.uiowa.edu> Message-ID: <4A0489C3.9070305@nordling.nu> Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2 skrev: > I was giving the rules a more thourough reading a few nights ago, and I finally looked at the C&C rules in detail. I hadn't noticed that the "No Orders" state had been removed, and that the "Defend In Place" order had subsumed both "No Orders" and "Default Defense". > > I can only imagine that this was an intentional change, rather than an oversight, and am wondering what the motivation is behind the change. Were the 3.0 rules considered too confusing? > It is very much intended. It helps in cutting down 25% of the Orders rules, removes a number of exceptions and special cases, and reduces the level of ambiguity in the Orders system to a minimum. The difference between No Orders and Defend in Place was the brainchild of Anders, and meant as a way to create reserves, but it always seemed like too much rules for too little gameplay to me. There is a modifier reducing preparation time for orders if you are some ways off from the enemy as a means of handling reserves in NapArt. From Olfezziwig at comcast.net Sat May 9 13:47:51 2009 From: Olfezziwig at comcast.net (Richard Crowe Jr) Date: Sat May 9 13:48:02 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] skirmishers Message-ID: <03E7AE68E059471A8B94EC1DDD870BD9@Richie> >>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 :-) Would some sort of "open order" status/ability be appropriate? Dean's got something of the sort in his Line of Battle update to RSS; it might bear looking into. RC -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090509/77f513ec/attachment.html From elias at nordling.nu Sat May 9 15:00:18 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Sat May 9 15:00:23 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] skirmishers In-Reply-To: <03E7AE68E059471A8B94EC1DDD870BD9@Richie> References: <03E7AE68E059471A8B94EC1DDD870BD9@Richie> Message-ID: <4A057E62.6080003@nordling.nu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090509/c1582637/attachment.htm From elias at nordling.nu Sun May 17 13:43:53 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Sun May 17 13:45:24 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Progress report Message-ID: <4A0FF879.7060405@nordling.nu> Just so you know what we are up to, Randy is currently test-driving Quatre Bras to see if the numbers in the tables make any sense. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't :-) Based on his feedback, here are the latest NapArt rules. From now on, major changes from the previous version are in red. Among the changes are a new algorithm to determine artillery fire, wrecked cavalry can now charge, and Line Backstep and Minimum Movement has been consolidated into one rule. Again, the rules are shorter than the last version, I'm starting to dream about a 20-page final rulebook. We'll do some more pre-alpha testing, and then we will look for volunteers to further test the series rules with Quatre Bras. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Build020.zip Type: application/x-zip-compressed Size: 77739 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090517/6526128f/Build020-0001.bin From alvinczy at gmail.com Sun May 17 15:01:46 2009 From: alvinczy at gmail.com (enrico acerbi) Date: Sun May 17 15:01:52 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Progress report In-Reply-To: <4A0FF879.7060405@nordling.nu> References: <4A0FF879.7060405@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <651b50430905170601t7fa2188o1e01419f983b2bc4@mail.gmail.com> Hi Elias & C. I am Enrico Acerbi (NoTurkeys! magazine if you know it). Thanks for the mail. I am very interested in yours project but two things do puzzle me: - the System is presented as simple/moderate but if compared with Jours de Gloire (Berg/Bey) regimental/battalion system it seems rather complex at first glance; - the use of step-lost markers only for infantry can overload hexes (I think battles like Wagram a.s.o) while getting markers to indicate formations could be a lighter affair (generally a whole stack in an hex assumes the same formation and facing apart guns). Good work Enrico 2009/5/17 Elias Nordling : > Just so you know what we are up to, Randy is currently test-driving Quatre > Bras to see if the numbers in the tables make any sense. Sometimes they do, > sometimes they don't :-) Based on his feedback, here are the latest NapArt > rules. From now on, major changes from the previous version are in red. > Among the changes are a new algorithm to determine artillery fire, wrecked > cavalry can now charge, and Line Backstep and Minimum Movement has been > consolidated into one rule. Again, the rules are shorter than the last > version, I'm starting to dream about a 20-page final rulebook. > > > We'll do some more pre-alpha testing, and then we will look for volunteers > to further test the series rules with Quatre Bras. > > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > > -- Enrico Acerbi alvinczy@gmail.com http://www.valgame.eu/ http://noturkeys.devil.it From elias at nordling.nu Sun May 17 15:20:53 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Sun May 17 15:20:55 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Progress report In-Reply-To: <651b50430905170601t7fa2188o1e01419f983b2bc4@mail.gmail.com> References: <4A0FF879.7060405@nordling.nu> <651b50430905170601t7fa2188o1e01419f983b2bc4@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4A100F35.3080608@nordling.nu> > I am Enrico Acerbi (NoTurkeys! magazine if you know it). Thanks for the mail. > Hello and welcome to the list! > I am very interested in yours project but two things do puzzle me: > - the System is presented as simple/moderate but if compared with > Jours de Gloire (Berg/Bey) regimental/battalion system it seems rather > complex at first glance; > I've never claimed the system is simple, we aim for moderate complexity, one step up from Jours de Gloire. We're aiming for 20-24 pages of rules, as compared to about 16 pages for Jours de Gloire. Personally, I think Jours de Gloire is rather unintuitive in many places, making it harder to play than it looks. I hope NapArt will be more intuitive, bridging the complexity gap a bit. > - the use of step-lost markers only for infantry can overload hexes (I > think battles like Wagram a.s.o) while getting markers to indicate > formations could be a lighter affair (generally a whole stack in an > hex assumes the same formation and facing apart guns). > Our combat model currently requires that infantry has more than two steps, thus the step markers. We are definitely keeping an eye on stacking and ways to reduce it, though. From alvinczy at gmail.com Sun May 17 16:02:44 2009 From: alvinczy at gmail.com (enrico acerbi) Date: Sun May 17 16:02:57 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Progress report In-Reply-To: <4A100F35.3080608@nordling.nu> References: <4A0FF879.7060405@nordling.nu> <651b50430905170601t7fa2188o1e01419f983b2bc4@mail.gmail.com> <4A100F35.3080608@nordling.nu> Message-ID: <651b50430905170702od8de85et9c7b2129b60a0d63@mail.gmail.com> Thanks again Elias 2009/5/17 Elias Nordling : > >> I am Enrico Acerbi (NoTurkeys! magazine if you know it). Thanks for the >> mail. >> > > Hello and welcome to the list! >> >> I am very interested in yours project but two things do puzzle me: >> - the System is presented as simple/moderate but if compared with >> Jours de Gloire (Berg/Bey) regimental/battalion system it seems rather >> complex at first glance; >> > > I've never claimed the system is simple, we aim for moderate complexity, one > step up from Jours de Gloire. We're aiming for 20-24 pages of rules, as > compared to about 16 pages for Jours de Gloire. Personally, I think Jours de > Gloire is rather unintuitive in many places, making it harder to play than > it looks. I hope NapArt will be more intuitive, bridging the complexity gap > a bit. >> >> - the use of step-lost markers only for infantry can overload hexes (I >> think battles like Wagram a.s.o) while getting markers to indicate >> formations could be a lighter affair (generally a whole stack in an >> hex assumes the same formation and facing apart guns). >> > > Our combat model currently requires that infantry has more than two steps, > thus the step markers. We are definitely keeping an eye on stacking and ways > to reduce it, though. > _______________________________________________ > Napgnomes mailing list > Napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > http://yxa.extundo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/napgnomes > -- Enrico Acerbi alvinczy@gmail.com http://www.valgame.eu/ http://noturkeys.devil.it From michael.waters at navy.mil Mon May 18 17:08:05 2009 From: michael.waters at navy.mil (Waters, Michael A. CIV NAVAIR AIR 4.3.2.2) Date: Tue May 19 13:42:43 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Progress report In-Reply-To: <4A0FF879.7060405@nordling.nu> References: <4A0FF879.7060405@nordling.nu> Message-ID: .Zip files are stripped off of all incoming emails, because the DoD in its infinite wisdom has determined that it's members are too stupid to be trusted NOT to open such files from unknown sources. Elias, could you send it to me without the .zip extension? 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: Sunday, May 17, 2009 7:44 > To: napgnomes@yxa.extundo.com > Subject: [Napgnomes] Progress report > > Just so you know what we are up to, Randy is currently > test-driving Quatre Bras to see if the numbers in the tables > make any sense. > Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't :-) Based on his > feedback, here are the latest NapArt rules. From now on, > major changes from the previous version are in red. Among the > changes are a new algorithm to determine artillery fire, > wrecked cavalry can now charge, and Line Backstep and Minimum > Movement has been consolidated into one rule. > Again, the rules are shorter than the last version, I'm > starting to dream about a 20-page final rulebook. > > > We'll do some more pre-alpha testing, and then we will look > for volunteers to further test the series rules with Quatre Bras. > -------------- 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/20090518/e5994513/smime.bin From lemperor at twcny.rr.com Fri May 22 05:16:44 2009 From: lemperor at twcny.rr.com (L'Emperor) Date: Fri May 22 05:17:05 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Formations Message-ID: Hi all, I am new to this group but have been playing napoleonics for decades. I have to admit, I never played NBS. I was turned off by one aspect after a simple look at the game: brigades / regiments changing formation. These were manuevers performed by battalions and squadrons not larger formations. It was very much a lower level decision, not one generally made by division commanders or higher. This is a game that is trying to recreate 'Grand Tactics' not the details of batallion maneuver. The decision re: skirmishers is, if anything, an ever lower level decision than formations. These types of decisions should, with one possible exception (see below), be abstracted into the system. You will find that; 1) fidelity to the level of command you are trying to model improves 2) the rules are simpler 3) the abuses which result from such units as skirmishers will disappear 4) you will need fewer counters or could change these counters to some other bit of chrome (i.e. hypothetical OOBs, etc.) I know many feel that there has to be formations to be a Napoleonic game for flavor, but I obviously disagree with this. I think reflecting the capabilities of the forces with the system and the stats would be a better alternative. The ability to be in the 'correct' formation is a factor of many things. Training and low level leadership can easily be reflected in the stats on a unit. Higher level leaders could also influence a local situation by attaching to a unit and adding a bonus at the cost of command/control and the prospect of tacking a bullet in the ol' tophat. National doctrine can also be reflected in different ways (i.e. a bonus for the English after ~1800 for better skirmish doctrine while the non-Jager Russians suffer, or slower movement rates for earlier "non-linear" troops except in road column, etc.). Local and random factors are for terrain effects and die rolls. This subgame of "Rock - Paper - Scissors" is not for the commanders of armies, corps, or divisons so should be left out. To head off one more argument I see coming: Chandler's "line vs column". This is, IMHO, generally horsehockey. For the most part the French really did not intend to hurl columns against lines. The idea was rapid maneuver to the enemy, deploy, then attack. They were foiled by the vastly superior skirmish line the Brits put out and the reverse slope defense. There are numerous accounts by the French breaking the "English Line" only to find a second one. What really happened was the English skirmish line was so strong they mistook it for a battleline then were surprised by the real line. Even if this was as Chandler describes it, it was a systematic difference so is best modeled in the system not by player decisions. D'Erlon's monstrosity at Waterloo is not the typical 'attack column' and would need special rules anyway. I mentioned one possible exception and that would be squares. Try as I would, I think leaving these out could be a problem. Certainly some units would be ready to receive cavalry and have a better chance than hasty squares. One could assume that good order infantry is prepared and the chance of catching the infantry out of formation goes up with worsening morale states. That would not be unreasonable. I know some will point to the occasional cavalry success against good ordered troops, but these are actually remarkable because of the rarity. Model rare results into a game and they become common. Unfortunately, one has to then take into account the target squares are present to the enemy artillery. Here is the one area where it is a game of "Rock - Paper - Scissors" (Artillery - Cavalry - Squares). One final thing: squares could and did move pretty quickly on the field, probably at a better rate than line formation. That they did not do so often was a prudent precaution against getting too close to infantry and (esp.) artillery, not a lack of ability. Jim Sexton -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090521/346e9d23/attachment.html From elias at nordling.nu Fri May 22 14:10:12 2009 From: elias at nordling.nu (Elias Nordling) Date: Fri May 22 14:10:17 2009 Subject: [Napgnomes] Formations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4A169624.7030305@nordling.nu> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://yxa.extundo.com/pipermail/napgnomes/attachments/20090522/823fd89a/attachment.html