Subject: Re: Battles of Napoleon
From: Joe Kussey <kusseyj@psn.net>

Ed Durkin wrote:

> Been a while since I last saw a post by you;  probably
> in the days of EF.  Other side question to ask of you
> on BON:  in regards to C&C, do you think BON well
> captures the different capabilities of the command
> structures for the differing nations' armies?  That is,
> would a BON scenario of Austerlitz show a marked
> C&C difference of the French from the Austro-Russians?
>

Ed,

I reply to posts from time to time, but I can't devote as much time as I would
like to wargames, etc.....life has a funny way of interrupting my historical
adventures!!!!

I have been tinkering with the BON game quite a bit lately, though.  After quite
a bit of reading and so forth, I have found that even in BON, there are going to
be some problems of reality that you just have to fudge.  For example, the
Austrians and Russians both had 2 battalion guns with each infantry battalion
that isn't represented in the CRT, nor the movement aspects of the game.  I
suppose it would be difficult to simulate these guns, and it is questionable if
they had a major effect in combat (the French got rid of their 4 lbers for that
reason...also more effective in groups as opposed to penny packets.  Two-thirds
of the cannons at Austerlitz were battalion guns).  I have read some after
action reports were the French do mention them (battalion guns) as having an
effective in a particular action, so they were not transparent.

As to command control.  One thing I like about BON in this aspect is that you
can see all the charts to get the feel of the effect of any given item that
might effect an individual unit.  I like that, because sometimes, a grognard
like myself might have access to better research, etc., on a subject, and might
dispute a designers take on a function in a game.

In BON, morale is based on efficiency - fatigue.  These terms are hopefully
self-explanatory, but you can see that a more efficient French battalion will
have more staying power in combat than an Austrian unit, because of better
efficiency (training).

Command control points are given to each manuever element based on distance from
the leader, the leader bonuses, and other historical items.  These points
directly effect the amount of movement/fire that a unit can undertake in the
next turn.  So the effects of command control are more realistic.  A Corp with a
bad leader (Buxhowden, for the Russian 1,2,3 Columns at Austerlitz, for example,
was drunk the whole battle) will inadvertently effect the number of points the
battalions will receive each turn, so it will become quite evident the effects
of good leaders have on each side.  Also, leaders will effect readiness,
disruption, and recovery.  Leaders do have a major role in this game besides
directing fire and unrouting units (and doing reconnaissance by some
unscrupulous players!) in Battleground Waterloo.   So to answer your question,
yes, it will become evident that the French CC is able to do more with less
troops available.  This is not only due to the superior troops, which will
generally do better in melee and fire combat, but due to superior leaders that
allow the French units to react better to Austrian/Russian manuevers.

Of course, the system isn't perfect.  Even with the worst leaders in command of
your units, the game player is still going to make do with the operation points
that he gets.  It is unlikely that an experienced game player will march and
countermarch corps around the battlefield, like D'Erlon did between Ligny and
Quatre Bras....This would be something that many game players do not want to
see, because you then can't micromanage all of your units.  But the BON system
is pretty good.

Another interesting system is based on the Clash of Arms games.
www.grognardsims.com is making the Eylau port to computer next year.  The game
looks to be very detailed and realistic, just like the Clash of Arms games, of
course.

Well, got to go.  Doing some designing myself on a part of the Austerlitz
battlefield (fighting at Tellnitz), and it is an interesting, small game.

Joe Kussey

Subject: Re: Battles of Napoleon
From: Joe Kussey <kusseyj@psn.net>

Ed Durkin wrote:

> Very detailed info, Joe.  Sorry for the late response, but
> thanks for following up on this.

Ed,

Thanks.  Just got done playing Jena with BON.  I am going to have to adjust the
infantry in square firepower, as they hardly do anything.  Artillery doesn't do
much against cavalry either.  But I will not tweak them too much.  You can
change the combat % to adjust for either attacker or defender in square.  I
think if a unit does pass a morale check and changes to square, it should not
take too many losses from sabre cavalry.

Another thing I found was infantry in column is a bit too weak also.  After
reading quite a bit, infantry in column were relatively resistant to cavalry,
assuming the flankers turned outward, and the formation didn't falter.  A
standard column front for a battalion sized unit would be two companies, so you
are almost looking at a square formation.  Just got to watch those flanks.
Infantry vs. infantry feels right.

The above examples show the flexibility of this game.  I would like to see this
game modernized a bit.  The only thing missing that would be nice to see (and
show the quality of the French command control in the first half of the
Napoleonic period) would be something called "out-of-command" movement.  Units
out of command radius would have a chance of moving in a direction that the
player may not necessarily desire.  Of course, this takes away a little control,
but it would add more flavor and show the true superiority of the French up to
1807 at least.

Nice talking to you again.

Joe Kussey