OSG Report / February 2008

[kzucker]

In this issue ... 201st Anniversary of Eylau ...

OSG REPORT
February 7th, 2008

Contents:
Page 1) Announcing 3-vol. Study on 1807
Page 2) Double Issue for Wargame Design Magazine
Page 3) New Editor at Wargame Design
Page 4) Habit of Victory Replay
Page 5) Habit of Victory Questions
Page 6) A Question of Bridges
Page 7) Special Offers

Dear Grognard,
The Habit of Victory has just introduced some of the boldest new developments in the Campaigns Series ever. If you are not that into card-driven games, this is NOT a card driven game. The cards (they are modeled on Napoleon’s correspondence to his marshals) quicken flow of play while adding more historical detail and more excitement.
Below we offer FOUR new publications to provide all the historical background you could possibly want; the definitive history on this campaign in three Study volumes, and a DOUBLE issue of Wargame Design. We are working it—all we need is your pre-order now.
-Kevin

_ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ .
Operational Studies Group News February 7th, 2008 Page One
THREE NEW VOLUMES ON THE 1807 CAMPAIGN
Special Study Nr. 2: Pultusk-Golymin and the Pursuit after Jena-Auerstadt
Special Study Nr. 3: The Eylau Campaign, January-February 1807
Special Study Nr. 4: Friedland, the Fall of Danzig, and Tilsit

Each volume is 128 pages and is physically similar to the first Study published last year by OSG (8.5" x 11" full-color cover, perfect bound). Each will contain a day-by-day record of the campaign, supplemented with 88 maps and 100 pages of appendices (mostly OB). Altogether, over 200 consecutive days are narrated. Here you can discover all the background detail behind The Habit of Victory. Each volume is a $40 retail value; you can pre-order them separately for $28 per volume plus shipping. If you purchase all three volumes you can get them for $25 each—a $45 savings off the retail price. Look for these three books in April.

Sample: Excerpt from Special Study Nr. 3
7 February 1807: Preussische Eylau
Near the village of Serpallen, overlooking the whole scene, Bennigsen selected the highest point in the neighborhood to anchor his left. Behind his right, beyond the villages of Schloditten (Zagorodnoje) and Schmoditten (Riabinowka), forests of fir trees stretched to the horizon. Extensive birch woods spread through the valley behind Bennigsen’s center. A thicket of brambles covered the hills between Sausgarten (Oziornoje), Kutschitten (Znamienskoje) and Anklappen.
A young Russian officer took out his diary and rolled the pencil between the frozen fingers of his right hand:
We have just arrived. This is the first moment I have had since leaving Jonkendorf in which to bring my diary up to date. I am so numbed, mentally and physically, by hunger, cold, and exertion, that I hardly have the strength or the desire left to write this down. No army could suffer more than ours has done in these few days. ... For every mile between Jonkowo and this place the army has lost 1000 men who have not come within sight of the enemy. ... Bennigsen drives ahead in his carriage as usual, and the divisional generals follow their commander‘s example. General staff officers and column guides are seldom in their appointed places, consequently it often happens that all detachments of the army are marched off at the same moment and all try to take the same road. This results in the last divisions having to stand half a day or night in the sun with empty stomachs and wet feet. We left many dead and many sick men behind us on the road in this way. ... During a night-march through a wood or a defile the troops would be obliged to go in single file past some trifling object which blocked the way, because no one gave the order to remove the obstacle. ... We had hardly taken 20 to 30 paces before the order came: ‘Halt!’ ... This would go on for hours. ... The poor soldiers glide about like ghosts. You see them asleep on the march with their heads resting on their neighbors. I myself arrived half asleep and half awake, and the whole retreat seems more a dream than reality.
In our regiment (the Azov), which has not seen the enemy and was complete when it marched across the frontier, the companies are reduced to 26 or 30 men apiece. The grenadier battalion scarcely musters 300 men, and the other two are even weaker. Not all the regiments have lost so many, it is true, as they had fewer recruits. ... The French advanced guard dogs our army mercilessly day and night, and is at this moment driving the main body out of Eylau before our eyes. We have barely saved our heavy artillery. We marched off at Landsberg towards evening, and have been the whole night and all today on the road.


_ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ .
Operational Studies Group News February 7th, 2008 Page Two
DOUBLE ISSUE FOR WARGAME DESIGN
Now available for preorder from Operational Studies Group.

Wargame Design, Issue 11/12, is a double issue containing 48 pages of material on Habit of Victory, Four Lost Battles, etc. The price is $11 plus $7 postage and handling. If you reserve by snail mail and you live in the U.S. you can save $3 on postage, by sending a check or money order (only) for $15.00 to OSG (or send a payment including $7 postage via our store page).

The issue includes major articles on the Habit of Victory design and development by Mark Herman and Kevin Zucker, Q&A, after-action reports, playtest reports, Random Force Tables for 4LB, an article on the evolution of the Campaigns of Napoleon System rules by Dick Vohlers, plus our regular features.

OVERSEAS READERS: If you live outside the U.S. you can order Wargame Design Nr. 11/12 directly at our website for $11. $7 will be added for airmail postage anywhere in the world. Click on "Wargame Design Mag issue 11/12" at http://www.napoleongames.com/store.html

CURRENT SUBSCRIBERS: If you have a current subscription, you do not need to reserve your copy as you will be sent one automatically. This issue will complete all remaining subscriptions. Subs are no longer available.

PRINT RUN: We print to order and will soon have to specify the quantity to be printed. Make sure you have a copy reserved in your name.

BACK ISSUES: We have copies of Issue Nr. 8 and Nr. 10 for sale $5.50 each.

_ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ .
Operational Studies Group News February 7th, 2008 Page Three
NEW EDITOR AT WARGAME DESIGN

We welcome our new editor Michael Haggett, a publishing industry pro who has been working as an OSG copy editor for the last year. We are all looking forward to a great new series of publications under his guidance. Mike writes:

I have been a wargamer since the late 70s. I have a wide variety of historical interests including, of course, Napoleonics. Mostly a player, I have also playtested for a few companies, done some editing, and wrote a few articles for Operations. My most recent games on the table have been: Habit of Victory; 1914: Twilight in the East; Hannibal; and Here I Stand. I look forward to maintaining the high quality standards set by Dave Demko.

_ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _

[kzucker]

_ _ ... _ .
Operational Studies Group News February 7th, 2008 Page Four
HABIT OF VICTORY REPLAY

From Barrie Pollock

The campaign is proceeding slowly (turn 3) but well. It looks like a brew up is coming near the river crossings SW of Poltusk.

I’m a bit confused over bridge demo and repair as the sequence of play seems to imply that these things happen at the end of the player movement phase while the discussion on CSW seems to say that it happens during movement. (See Q&A on page 5).

Unrelated, but also about bridges – Friant had just repaired one of the bridges when Barclay waltzed in and burnt it again effectively removing himself from a ZOC. The rules seem to allow this, whereas a repair in similar circumstances would not be allowed.

Lastly, Osterman put Galitzin with a full cavalry corpsunder his command. I’m sure this is okay, but it just feels odd since Galitzin has a portrait and Osterman doesn’t.

It’s all great fun.

The coalition replacements for Turn 10 look odd. It doesn't seem possible for the Prussians to ever use 3 cav pts.

With supplies desperately low on both sides, my campaign is at a lull. Things are so bad, Napoleon has gone back to motivate the quartermasters.

When the Russians decided to move their supply source from the SW there didn't seem to be any reason not to go all the way to Koenigsburg. There isn't anything to prevent this that I can see.

Question re, "hanging around" vp's for the Russians. Paragraph 178 says that Allenstein doesn't become operative until 1807. Does this mean that they can score VPs on Turn One or is Turn Ten (Jan.2) considered to be 1806?

A) Coalition can get the points for Allenstein on turn 20 and on, they just miss them on turn 10.

Here is something I would like to see you address on CSW or your own site. I understand that a corps can be incorporated onto the track of another leader, in which case the corp's own leader "stands down". What I don't understand is how a cantankerous old republican like Augereau (sub 3) can be transformed into a cooperative subordinate (sub 2) by this process. In NAC we just decided not to allow it, but the many individualized division leaders (which I love, incidentally) make that impossible in HOV. Any insights?

Lastly, in my own campaign, the Russians played two Approach Marches in one turn to facilitate the fall back to the Allenstein area. With French supplies already low, switching the S/S to Warsaw and the appearance of the Countess, the French have given them a week's head start. At the Jan. 2 interphase we are entering a new phase indeed.

Cavalry probes have revealed Buxhowden and Barclay to be drawn up at Neidenburg. This appears to be a very strong position with woods in front and a swamp to protect the left flank and is a crucial location on the road net. Bennigsen has also been located, off road and behind a river covering the other road north (as the Russian I shuffled Ben, an inf. Div and two vedettes and placed them in four locations the group could have reached but a probe located Ben right away). Not wanting another bloodbath, Napoleon is trying to work his way between the two forces, using secondary roads.

To the west, the Prussians couldn’t wait for your feedback and marched 2/3 of the dubious cavalry replacements off on foot to replace Lestock’s losses after a sanguinary affair beating off Ney’s only attempt to force something in that sector. Ney has retreated to Thorn where he has met X Corps units and Bessieres who was sent over from the main force to at least get St.Cyr into action.

Napoleon has outflanked the Neidenburg position and is driving on Allenstein in severe weather, using cards to mitigate attrition effects.

He has caught the Russian rear gurad - Sacken, I think and is about to launch an attack with I, VII, Gd and a small cavalry corps led by Grouchy.

Turn 19 in the snow (historical weather this first playing). Using six cards to gain every advantage possible (one was intercepted), Napoleon attacked Allenstein. On the left wing, using the Guard, IV, VII, Murat and Rivaud (21 sp + 1 a) the Emperor drove Bagration (8 sp+1a) out of the blazing town. Murat failed to pursue. Losses were 3 Ru, 2 Fr, but amazingly, it went over big in Paris. On the eastern side of the large battlefield Bennigsen (11 sp+2a) handily threw back the cross-river attack of Lannes and Bernadotte (9 sp +1a). However, because Bennigsen eschewed pursuit and because the I Corps gunners were superb, losses were 2 Ru, 1 Fr.
_ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ .
Operational Studies Group News February 7th, 2008 Page Five
HABIT OF VICTORY QUESTIONS

From Barrie Pollock

(1) Now, here's a stunt the wily Corsican has pulled two turns in a row and I want to make sure it's legal. Nap begins the turn stacked with Bernadotte (2x2 inf, 1 art). He makes Bern. unemployed adding his 2 1/2 sub, pts to his own chart for the turn. Otherwise he wouldn't be able to command Bernadotte in the anticipated battle. Bernadotte comes along for free and is available to take over his corps again next turn. A bit gamey, no?

A) I am sure that is not legal.

(2) It is somewhat related to my earlier query regarding subordinating difficult personalities. I still hope you can address that one too, though it may be more design philosophy than rules.

(3) What if a raid falls on an unneeded depot? In my game, the French repaired the bridge at Plock (1547), allowing a unit or two to rejoin the main army. Later, the Cossacks raided Plock. The town did not form part of the LOC chain, nor was anyone depending on it for supply. Can it still be raided?
A) Yes.

(4) There seems to be discrepancy between card #F30 and the notes sheet. Is it the MG's initiative (card) or span (notes) which is increased? If the former, can the card be given to a MG not in dispatch distance?
A) Normally since this is a MC already an increase in Initiative is meaningless...

(5) The admin point table has a gap from Feb-Mar for the French and March for the Russians. What should we do?

A) French and Russians up through and including April" means, for the Russians, only March and April. For the French it includes Feb., Mar., April.

(6) if you activate a MG who then fails his initiative, can he be immediately reabsorbed or doe he become insubordinate? A) You can only "absorb" like that during the Command Phase. Somewhere it says that Consolidation can take place at the end of any phase. However, Consolidation is not as widely interpreted as you are thinking. It refers to taking away stacked leaders onto the Organization Display, but not the other activities of the Command Phase.

(7) Am I the only one who has noticed how good the leadership is in this game? Are we to conclude that both armies are at their peak and operating at an optimum size.?
A) I'd say near their peak. The French peak must have been 1805-06. Many of these same warriors were still at it in 1812-1813, but they were winding down by then.

(8) Because there was no pursuit, the smoldering town is unoccupied. It would seem that the rules would allow Bennigsen, if he passes initiative (he is adjacent to Napoleon), to move in and not have to attack because it is a fortified town. Since the French have just pushed Bagration out it doesn’t seem right.

A) That is right.


From Theodor Bauer

After having received my copy of HoV last week I immediately started testing it. Congratulations for the design and the card-system ! Fine as always.

Looking into the rules I have a few questions:

1. About the set-up of "Forces Off-map at Start":
In Paragraph 161 of the Exclusive rules there is a caption "Off-Map at start" but the rules don't say anything about how to bring forces that are in this condition (like Sedmaratzki in Campaign scenario # 2) into the game (neither whre nor when nor under which conditions). Could You comment this problem ?

A) The rules are not well-arranged on this point. You have to read para 161 and then 154. Sedmaratzki was actually east of Johannisberg, in Goniondz.

2. What does "Alt. Reinforcment see PET" concerning "Dumonceau" and "Grandjean" mean ?

A) "Friendly Reinforcements" is one of the outcomes on the Pursuit Events Table. If you read this item on the back cover of the Exclusive Rules you will see the answer.

3. What happens to the reinforcements brought later on into the game with Marshall Lannes "Reserve-Counter" if it might happen that his original counter is still in play ?

A) There can only be one Marshal Lannes, so you will have to choose which one to keep. Replace the other one with a Replacement Leader or any leader counter that is not in play.

[kzucker]

_ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ .
Operational Studies Group News February 7th, 2008 Page Six
A QUESTION OF BRIDGES

The bridging rules have NEVER had a complete dusting like this in 30 years. That is because our goal as rules writers is only to get you into play of the game. As always, the best way to understand these questions is to visualize what is going on physically, as a time and motion study.

Peter Perla - Jan 2, 2008
Q) Paragraph [155] says that a force "must be moving under the appropriate enabling card to affect a bridge." What does that mean? I assume that it means that the force has been activated by an MC or has succeeded in initiative. Surely there are not special cards that enable you to "affect" a bridge?
A) Correct.
Q) As I read the table, infantry forces can damage a primary bridge with no cost in MPs, but must end their move adjacent to such a bridge to repair it. [156] says that "a damaged bridge does not exist until it is repaired." This implies that once one force repairs the bridge a force moving later in the movement phase may cross it. Is that what you intend?
A) Because of the 3-day turns a force should be able to cross (and then stop) in the same turn as the repair.
Q) For pontoons, [158] does not say that you cannot lay a pontoon across a hexside whose other end is occupied by the enemy. Is this what you intend?
A) No. That is exactly what the French did at Okunin in December.
Q) Also, what does it mean to "damage" a pontoon? the bridging table lists this as an allowable action by infantry forces. But [158] says that a train "cannot be destroyed, damaged, or repaired." I assume the table is simply in error here, correct?
A) No. A bridge train is NOT a pontoon.
Q) Although [158] says that a train may only move as part of a force containing infantry, it does not say that you must have infantry with it to emplace it. the bridging table does not indicate that all-cav forces are prohibited from deploying the bridge. Does this mean that once you move the bridge train to a hex using an infantry force, you can allow a cavalry force to deploy it?
A) No. The assumption is that infantry would have some few sappers and a few tools with them that the cavalry would not have. There were also specialized pontonnier companies but these were not always available.
Q) The note in the summary table concerning enemy adjacent does not actually state what the enemy units must be adjacent to in order to prevent repair. I believe that [157] clearly states that the hex must be the one on the other side of the river from the friendly force trying to repair the bridge. But just to be clear, a force may still repair a bridge if adjacent to enemy forces that are not actually across the bridge hexside, correct?
A) Yes.

Mark Herman - Jan 3, 2008
To repair a secondary river bridge the force needs to cross the secondary River at the non-bridge cost (terrain plus 1 mp if memory serves) and then the bridge is repaired. The logic is the tactic when applied to a secondary river is to slow down the opponent, which this interpretation captures.

Peter Perla - Jan 3, 2008
I still am not sure that I understand all the bridging rules. Just out of curiosity, though, why is it that you cannot repair a damaged bridge with enemy forces opposite, but you can lay a pontoon bridge in those circumstances? I'm not disputing this, you understand, just trying to follow your rationale.
My query about repairs of primary bridges elicited this response
As to question 1, because of the 3-day turns a force should be able to cross (and then stop) in the same turn as the repair.
I had interpreted the table to indicate that Stop meant that you had to stop in the hex before you crossed the damaged bridge. Apparently what it meant was that you could repair the bridge and cross it, but then must stop. I wonder how many other players grasped this. It makes a lot of sense, and is consistent with the restriction that if the enemy is in the opposite hex you cannot repair.

Q) If a force meets all the conditions for repairing a bridge, may it do so without receiving a command (or obtaining Initiative)? Can a force repair a bridge and move over it during the same (Movement) phase? Can another force move over a bridge repaired (earlier) in the same movement phase?
A) I think that the rules text makes it clear that a force must be moving under a legitimate command to make such a repair.
Q) If I move a force into a hex with a damaged primary bridge but with no enemy force on the opposite bank, I can repair the bridge at no cost in MPs and then cross it (assuming I have sufficient MPs to do so), but must stop immediately after crossing.
A) Right!

Q) Friendly forces moving later in the phase may cross the newly repaired bridge with no penalty (though I must admit that this does not seem right).*
A) This is NOT right. The stopped force is in the way.

Q)You may lay a pontoon bridge across a hexside into in an enemy occupied hex by expending a MP and may then attack across the bridge.
A) Yes!

Q) Once a pontoon bridge is laid, other moving forces may cross the bridge in the same movement phase with no penalty.
A) No! Only one force may cross a Pontoon on the turn it is built.

Q) For secondary bridges, it appears that simply moving adjacent is enough to damage or repair them, with no MPs expended, and no prohibition on cavalry-only forces. This sounds to me like there is essentially no effect for damaging secondary bridges at all, so one can simply ignore it. What am I missing? I suppose that you cannot repair them if the opposite bank is occupied by an enemy force—is that it? But in that case, you can't march across the bridge anyway. Thus, it seems that there is no occasion when using a bridge damaged marker on a secondary bridge is actually necessary.*
Based on my reading of the bridging table, cavalry is not prohibited from repairing secondary bridges and there is no MP cost either to damage or repair them. If that reading is correct, then secondary bridges have no effect on play and there is no need to mark them as damaged because any moving force can repair them without cost as they move. I cannot beleive that this is the case, so I must be missing something. Can you tell me what it is?
A) The reason that you have more flexibility with pontoons is that the pontoons can actually be used as assault boats. Although there could never be any question of a directly-opposed landing, like D-Day, but at our operational level the assumption is that the boats could find a bit of shoreline that wasn't actually occupied. At Okunin, the French made a demonstration upstream by burning some straw and that distracted the Russians from the actual landing point.

Mark Herman - Jan 3, 2008
To repair a secondary river bridge the force needs to cross the secondary River at the non-bridge cost (terrain plus 0.5 MP) and then the bridge is repaired.
Applying 'intelligent design' as a useful concept...what is intended, a force needs a bridge to cross a primary river and is advantaged in crossing a secondary river at a bridge. A useful and historical tactic to delay the enemy is to wreck bridges.
Historically you cannot easily fix a bridge if someone is shooting at you (remember, infantry SPs include artillery [cavalry include horse artillery], artillery SPs are more akin to Grand Batteries). Pontoon Bridges require expertise and tools to deploy (and capture, as you need expertise to take them apart) and due to their design in a pinch were used as assault boats.
With this as background, the way I have been playing and interpreting the rules are:
A Primary River Bridge cannot be repaired if the far end of the bridge is occupied by an enemy force (those would be the guys shooting at you, see above). Only Infantry SPs can fix a primary bridge as it is assumed that the specialized sappers (plus tools, read anything on Berezina) are not resident in the cavalry SPs and a primary river bridge is a significant structure. A primary river can be crossed by deploying a pontoon bridge (1mp) and then attacking across (attacking across a primary or secondary river is affecting terrain, Excl. para 38).
To damage a primary river bridge a force (with some infantry) must be at one end of the bridge (presumably the player will remember which end of the bridge to be on when they do this) and declare they are damaging the bridge (0 mp impact) place damaged marker and continue movement. To repair a primary river bridge a force must end its movement at the damaged bridge (only one side is relevant as you cannot cross until the bridge is repaired) with no enemy force on the other end (see the shooting thing above).
To damage a secondary river bridge any force (all cav included) must be adjacent to the bridge, declare the bridge is damaged (0mp) and then continue movement. To repair a secondary bridge, any force (all cav included) must cross the damaged bridge paying the cost of the terrain on the far side of the bridge plus .5mp for the secondary river and declare the bridge repaired, continue moving.
I think that covers all of the basic situations.

[kzucker]

_ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ . _ _ _ ... _ .
Operational Studies Group News February 7th, 2008 Page Seven
SPECIAL OFFERS

1. THE HABIT OF VICTORY
Order The Habit of Victory at 20%-off. This offer is not listed at our website; it is only available by email. Hit "Reply" and send your request with your name and address to:
habitofvictory@gmail.com*
You will receive a paypal invoice for $65 plus appropriate postage.

2. 2x SERIES GAMES
Order The Habit of Victory at 30%-off and get Napoleon at the Crossroads at 20%-off.
Click here> http://www.napoleongames.com/store.html#summer

3. WARGAME DESIGN NR. 11/12
If you pre-order by snail mail and you live in the U.S. you can save $3 on postage, by sending a check or money order (only) for $15.00 to OSG (or send a payment including $7 postage via our store page).

4. A TRIO OF SPECIAL STUDIES ON 1807
Order at http://www.napoleongames.com/store.html#SS
Overseas customers: please add overseas $10 at our store page before proceeding to paypal checkout.

OSG REPORT
OPERATIONAL STUDIES GROUP
PO Box 50207
Baltimore, MD 21211 USA
www.Napoleongames.com

--
Kevin

1(410)367-4004