Rules Queries and Clarifications

Good ideas Mike, I will have a think about those. I like them.

How about the commanders of both sides (and perhaps also any commanders of reinforcements/secondary forces) make out a battle plan based on what they know of the scenario (ie before they meet in TS/lobby).

They have to conform to that plan until there is reasonable reason (contact/scouting) for them to change their movement. This might also include what they initially do with their cavalry or reserves

I believe that is currently the way Martin wants the battle planning to go. All the strategic and tactical planning is done on the forums and then that is what must be followed when in battle.

The battle that we are talking about had pretty much no concrete planning done by the actual commander so we had to come up with a plan of our own when we were in TS.

I wonder if keeping the map we are using as a surprise would add a further exciting FOW aspect. A basic drawn map (but better for the familiar army/higher scouting ability) of the deployment area and basic terrain around, with more distant terrain such as important roads and rivers just sketched in.

That sounds good but Martin would have to be very careful about how accurate it is to the actual map of the battlefield otherwise it would be possible to find the full, in-game map in the files. Drawing simple icons that represent the most noticeable features in the terrain might be a good way to do it and could be quick to draw.

If a force is incurring fatigue from multiple reasons (force marching, cut supply, losing a battle, etc) will they suffer more than a 1 experience reduction?

Yep.

Is there any advantage to having the MA HQ closely located with its subordinate MCs?  A gain in experience if collocated, supply status, etc.?  Do you have some expectation of our behavior in this regard as the umpire?

I could only find the single reference to Napoleon's presence in the rules.

Thanks.

Army HQs can rally exhausted corps. That takes a whole turn stationary, in supply and not in combat.

Army HQs should always be with one of their subordinate corps unless road capacity circumstances make this impractical. When an army HQ is present in battle that commander with his SoW benefits is also present. If he's not there he'll either be AI controlled or player controlled but with a row of zeros for his stats.

I am considering being flexible with the rule that forces that lose a battle are exhausted. My intention with this rule originally was for battles where one side is pretty comprehensively defeated and the players call the battle. Battles involving significant losses.

We have had several 'non' battles so far and making the loser exhausted in these circumstances seems harsh. I am therefore thinking of a rule that gives the side that failed to secure its objectives (note the different terminology to actually losing) to be allowed to either accept exhaustion to the corps that took part or to elect to not be able to make an offensive move on the map the following turn.

Have a think about the ramifications of this please and comment.

Thanks.

I think that since you are the game master you should be able to access those things as you see fit. It does seem fair that if there is no full engagement that the Armies would fatigue as much as they would in an all out battle.


Maybe a boardroom modifier?
Thats was a joke!

The game was boring it was a chess match. I could imagine myself as a soldier sitting there watching the artillery getting all the blood and wanting to get into the battle and get some infantry glory.

Thanks Mike. It is understandable though that having given the players a written set of rules there may be alarm if I just override them. I know that umpires can do these things and that Kriegspiel is all about that but this still seems to be a new concept to some.

I should simply state here that the written set of rules is subject to change at the whim of the umpire without notice, even if results are directly contrary to what is written. Such ideas are common in the wargames world but may not be familiar to people more accustomed to computer gaming where by their very nature, rules cannot be changed.

There needs to be penalties for losing but they should not be crippling. While Jenas and Waterloos happened in reality such results would make for short and frustrating campaigns. Balance is important. On the other hand I do not want to see a rules atmosphere that encourages people to throw in spoiling attacks to tie down larger enemy forces but from which they suffer little adverse effects.

I confess this campaign was set up and started very quickly. The rules took me all of three hours to create and situations are occurring for which I had not planned. The OOBs are still an ongoing project and I know lack of information on these has caused concern to some players. For this I can only apologise and if your forces are currently weaker than you'd like I can only promise (and it is a promise) that as the spring advances both sides will grow in numbers.

Despite the major battles of Leutzen and Bautzen and a dozen lesser (corps sized) combats, the armies in the autumn were significantly stronger.

Thanks Mike. It is understandable though that having given the players a written set of rules there may be alarm if I just override them. I know that umpires can do these things and that Kriegspiel is all about that but this still seems to be a new concept to some.

I should simply state here that the written set of rules is subject to change at the whim of the umpire without notice, even if results are directly contrary to what is written. Such ideas are common in the wargames world but may not be familiar to people more accustomed to computer gaming where by their very nature, rules cannot be changed.

I completely agree with Mike.  You are running this campaign, and players need to trust you to make these sort of calls.

In our face to face k/spiels we never publish the rules we use for a particular game.  We want the participants to play the situation and not the rules.

Maybe as the online side of things develops, we can adopt the same policy?  It would certainly make life easier for those running the games/campaigns .

Martin (J)

I do like knowing implications of what I do, and having some rules posted up. I do try to avoid being "gamey" but it creeps up sometimes. I fully support the GM being able to make fiat decisions about battle outcomes, and adjusting the rules as he sees fit. I trust that in the rare situation where this could totally stuff up a players whole plan there will probably be some short term mitigation thrown in. LONG LIVE THE LIVING RULESET!

There is a lot of inventive interpretation of the severed LoCS rules being undertaken these days of 8th to 11th May. To clarify, an out-of-communications force must retrace its steps directly down the severed LoCS (or remain halted); it may not march off in opportunistic alternate routes that may still be the same length.

I *may* allow alternate march routes to *some* commanders if these routes cover places already within that army's area of control. Routes that head off to places no friendly force has visited are not allowed.

I am considering allowing a force personally led by Napoleon to still advance but less one movement node to represent the skill and resourcefulness of this individual, but will not apply that change this turn.

Always keeping it fresh Martin!!!!!


IS there any chance of Napoleon having a heart attack or stroke during our campaign or if everyone pledges blind allegiance to the Tzar can he get a shortmans modifier?

In my defense, I think the sentence in concern in the rules was not as clear as it could be:

Game rules wrote:Such forces may move back along their cut LoCS normally but may no longer advance further from their base of supply.

This would be very clear to me and is also more concise:

my suggestion wrote:Such forces may only move back their cut LoCS.

To me the extra wording makes it more confusing as though you wanted to give a specific rule for when those forces wish to move back to their base of supply using a different route.

"may move back" means they have the choice not to move. They *may* move, but if they do it is back along their cut LoCS. I don't think I could make it clearer whilst leaving in the suggestion that not moving at all is an option.

Your sentence says they *must* move back, which is not my intention at all.

My sentence nowhere gives any hint that an alternative route is an option. That is something you are thinking into the wording yourself.

I don't agree that it indicates that they must move back but maybe this is a bit better:

Such forces may move but only back their cut LoCS.

I was confused by "...but may no longer advance further from their base of supply", because it sounds as if it only applies to marching further from the base of supply and not marching back to it on a different road.

Being easily confused is unfortunately the side effect of speaking in a non-native language.  I was convinced earlier about the right thing but something at some point switched off in my head.

Martin,

Would you consider a rule such as:

"In support of shifting direction of operations, commanders may request reroute of their LOCs through a new supply depot/node.  Commander must be in supply to request reroute.  Request will take two(?) game turns to implement."

Below is a drawing to illustrate.  Suppose my supplies originate from (A) through (S) to my forces (F) along the green line.  But I know I will be moving south along the black arrows.  Could I request that my LOCs be shifted from (S) to a new path (N). 



Thanks,
Al

That happens already. An LoCS runs from your base of support/supply to a corps' current location via the shortest route. As a corps marches the supply wagons and other communications switch roads to maintain the most direct route.

Perfect. Thanks.

(Now I have to go back and figure out where my base of support/supply is )

One more reminder because players still seem to be working on the assumption that announcing your intentions on the two private HQ discussion forums is sufficient...

Troops will ONLY move on the map in response to a PM sent to me from either their respective corps commander, if there is one, or their army commander. No PM, no marching!

Again, the reason for this is that corps and divisions move in the sequence their orders are received.

Thanks all.

Is the campaign dead, because it sure feels like it?

It's still going strong, Martin just hasn't been able to finish the battles started and start a new turn because of his PC.

The coalition's forum is fairly active but I guess the french one isn't as much. Both sides will have to decide on the next turns that will happen when the truce is agreed upon so I urge everyone to do that while we still have some time.

Your excellency General Lauriston, the campaign us very much alive and as others have said the Allied forum is extremely active with several posts per day.

The French forum is completely dead. It always is. I don't know why. Perhaps because that team is run by a dictator and everyone waits to hear what he says next

My PC will be fixed Monday but then I'll need to do lots of reinstalls so look for a Grautzsch Day II scenario being set up by midweek (if I get SoW running ).