Hi Nico,

Regarding the limits of Command, I think you really understand the historical reason for that, since you give several examples. Unless Napoleon was present, his Marshals almost always failed to coordinate their attacks. Uncoordinated attacks are generally unsuccessful, since they give the enemy time to adjust. We could* make an exception to the rule about attacking a given force only once per turn, and allow those other forces near the enemy to attack separately, one after the other. That sometimes happened. By no means did the Marshals always march to the sound of the guns to help their comrades. One favorite example is Napoleon at Ligny: he forgot about Mouton's VI Corps, sitting some miles back down the road toward Charleroi. So he already had his hands full, and couldn't manage to control I Corps.

If it helps, try to imagine that the 'other' force sitting next to the enemy is making some kind of limited ineffective attacks, rather than just watching passively.

*Exceptions to major important rules create havoc and are to be avoided, in order to make the game comprehendible and somewhat playable.

If you want the real truth, there is no rule that cannot have numerous of exceptions for every historical event diverts somewhat. But nobody will play it!

What we are trying to do with the rules is to come up with some universals based on observations of hundreds of events. Probably each battle was a unique occurrence, and had its own 'logic,' and more differences than similarities. So what we are doing goes against reality in giving you only one CRT, and only one set of rules. Maybe the rules of war changed from day to day, or month to month, as the participants on both sides figured out what worked and what didn't. Napoleon's methods worked well in 1806 and 1806, not as well in 1807 and 1809, failed in 1812 and thereafter.

What is a correct use of the CRT? Could you give an example of a correct use and an example of an incorrect use?

Anyway the CRT is one thing the combat system is an other thing. I don't understand how a combat occurs if it involves several adjacent forces. I don't play everyday and it's frustrating to spend several hours playing a scenario just to test the combat system. It spoils any strategy I try to carry out and I don't see any link between battles in the game and real battles...

Mossbauer
 

"Kilmaine is in 2916, Wurmser and Davidovitch move to 2915. Masséna makes an initiative roll and moves to 3015 in forced march.* Wurmser in pitched battle attacks Masséna at 1-1 ratio and looses. So Masséna has to counterattack against both Wurmser and Davidovitch. At 1-2 he looses badly and retreat. Davidovitch attacks Kilmaine who sustains the same fate. Both sides had the same size in SP but the French had no chance to win because the counterattack is devastating for the defender most of the time. One could say that the Austrian cheated because he had to consolidate his forces and Davidovitch had to be subordinated to Wurmser. But in that case how can Wurmser attack 2 hexes with one force? Maybe Masséna should have moved to Kilmaine's hex but in that case combat is ..."

* You have Wurmser and Davidovitch in the same hex. According to a "correct" use of the combat rules, the two leaders must attack as one combined force and can make only one attack. You cannot have Wurmser attacking in one direction (3015) while Davidovitch attacks another (to 2916). In effect, Davidovitch's forces participated in two different combats. That is not how the game was intended to be played.

Hmm so Massena should (or must?) make with Kilmaine (I dont have BII so I dont know if he could) multi-hex force, so Austrians must attack both of them and then counterattacking would be with better odds.
Is that how it supposed to be?

I would also use 'optional rule' Forced March Into Battle - who knows if Massen would be there at 1st round of combat.

Actually, only the Phasing player (the one who is doing something) will create a force. The player who is being attacked never creates a force. His troops in two adjacent hexes may be attacked as one combined strength at the attacker's option if all the attackers are adjacent to all of the defenders. Or, he may treat the two hexes as two separate attacks. The defender has no control over how the attacker decides to set up his attacks.

During the counterattack, however, things are different, and the counterattacker can choose any ONE adjacent enemy hex to counterattack for each attack.

In that case Wurmser and Davidovitch would have to be on diffrent hexes as all adjacent enemy Forces must be attacked if the friendly Force is in an enemy Zone of Control.

Nico,

That's right. In order for there to be two attacks there have to be two attacking hexes.

That was exactly my question: how to play the game? You just repeated what I wrote so I don't have more informations. Anyway, I wrote a new combat system and I spent less time tuning a new one than understanding the official one...

Mossbauer,

"How do you play the game?" is a little bit vague. If you have questions, we are here to answer them. On the other hand, I have no objection to creating house rules that please you more than the published rules.

Some have questioned whether the odds-based combat results table in the Campaigns of Napoleon System is appropriate to the operational scale of Napoleonic warfare: that is, does it 'work,' producing historical outcomes, or would, say, a differential-based CRT work better?

Gamers are used to looking at the CRT to provide the key to victory; like a gambler looking for the unbeatable combination, they will, say, strive to make nothing but 3-1 attacks. With games that lack maneuver, where front lines are basically static, attaining the right combat odds is about the only area where there is any skill involved.

On the other hand, our Napoleonic games have lots of room for maneuver; they generally have only the sketchiest of front lines. The focus, then, is on maneuver. If the player can predict where the major battles will take place (and there will always be very few battles), and if you can arrange a preponderance of force at the critical battlefield, then you will increase your chances to win.

The Campaigns of Napoleon CRT was devised by collecting statistics on the strength engaged and manpower losses resulting from all the battles of the 1814 campaign.We analysed every battle from the 1814 campaign, comparing the forces engaged by both sides and the losses suffered by both, and we plugged in the historical result somewhere on the appropriate odds column. The table is designed to provide historical outputs. That way we were assured of achieving historical results.

In 1814, however, there were no big battles, such as Borodino, Wagram, and Waterloo. These massive battles took place over several hexes and lasted all day (unlike the little battles of 1814 that lasted 4-6 hours or less). So in space and time these big battles extended beyond the dimensions of the battles of 1814- encompassing more than one hex, and more than one round of combat (a round of battle could represent 2-3 hours of actual fighting). Instead of rolling one die, you have the battle of Ligny, for example, extending over 8 hexes- four separate combats- each with multiple rounds, for a total of 12 rolls on the CRT.

Even though the strength of the two sides, overall, at the battle of Ligny was about equal, 68,000 French vs 84,000 Prussians, the individual combats range from 1:2 to 3:1. And just as the Prussians did well on their flanks but saw their center smashed in (after many rounds of seesaw struggle), the same kind of variable outcomes are possible in the four battles that go to make up the game's version of the battle.