GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!
7,890 Supporters
$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
21 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Napoleon's Last Battles» Forums » Variants

Subject: Artillery, Stacking rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
John Griffey
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
SPI's 1971 "Napoleon at Waterloo" used units of the same brigade size as NLB. Its hexes represented smaller patches of ground than NLB's. No scale was given in the rules, but I estimate that each hex in NAW was 270 meters. Despite the more detailed scale, NAW allowed three-high stacking of brigades. So the attack/defense frontage in NAW was much much smaller than in NLB.

A modest variant for NLB:

Three-High Infantry Stacking
Three infantry brigades, all of the same corps, or all British, may stack in a clear terrain hex.

The cost of moving into a hex to make the third infantry in a stack is +1 movement point. The cost of moving the first infantry off of a three-high stack of infantry is +1 movement point.

If three-high infantry attack a forest, town, or chateaux hex only two of the three infantry may use their attack strength. The third infantry is affected by any combat result.

If a three-high infantry stack is attacking two hexes, only one of the two hexes need be a clear terrain hex.

If accompanied by their officer, two units of a three-high stack may advance after combat.

If a three-high stack of Infantry is forced to retreat, +1 is added to the Demoralization number of the corps (or the Anglo-Allied Army).

Long Range Artillery Fire May Target a Single Enemy Unit
It doesn't make sense that artillery fire into a densely packed stack of enemy would be less effective than artillery fire at a single unit.

Artillery firing at a range of two may pick a single enemy unit as its target in the fired-upon stack. This technique may be used only if there are not friendly units adjacent to and attacking the enemy stack. In that case, the enemy stack must be attacked as a single, combined strength, as usual.

+1 Column Odds When Artillery Targets Cavalry
Cavalry cannot hide in swales, in tall grass, and behind objects as well as infantry, making it more visible and vulnerable to artillery. It is also vulnerable to artillery when attacking. In the game, players will often face off with cavalry stacked with infantry up on the front line to take advantage of the combined arms bonus. This strikes me as a bit unrealistic.

Apply a +1 column odds shift when artillery, alone, is targeting a pure cavalry unit or units. This shift does not apply when artillery combines its attack strength with infantry or cavalry.

Defensive Artillery Fire
After the attacker has moved and announced all his attacks, the defender may fire artillery units defensively at a distance of two from an attacking hex.

Defensive Combined Arms
A Defensive Combined Arms bonus, shifting the column odds -1, is applied when there is long range defensive artillery fire into any attacking unit(s), when the attack is against a defending hex or hexes which contain both defending cavalry and defending infantry.

If two or more defending hexes are attacked by a single hex, and the defending hexes include artillery, infantry and cavalry units, the defenders enjoy a Combined Arms bonus.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Meints
United States
Waterloo
Iowa
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Scale for NAW is 400 yards to the hex(In the Introduction to Basic game) so that already sort of kills the idea.

And with 3 high Infantry stacking would this also allow for a Cav and Artillery unit to be stacked with them?

If so then this makes for Juggernaught killer stacks and turns the game into something much more deadly then intended..

I can't see in anyway how Combined Arms stack would benefit from a artillery int firing in the defensive fire on them.They would be bigger targets with more mass to hit having the Cavalry mixed in with a Infantry unit.Combined arms for attacking yes(as per the rules),

I can see a defensive benefit for a Combined Arms stack if attacked by normal combat(Cavalry would be there to attack any penetration of the Infantry line or charge out to disrupt the attacking force.

But for artillery firing on it-No .
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
Should be noted that in the follow up game, Napoleon at Leipzig, that one could have 3 units stacking if they were part of the same higher formation - which does make for 'killer' stacks - but at a risk - you can wreck a Corps fast that way if things go wrong as one dead stack of three units from the same formation hurts.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Griffey
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
jackiesavon wrote:
Scale for NAW is 400 yards to the hex(In the Introduction to Basic game) so that already sort of kills the idea.

And with 3 high Infantry stacking would this also allow for a Cav and Artillery unit to be stacked with them?

If so then this makes for Juggernaught killer stacks and turns the game into something much more deadly then intended..

I can't see in anyway how Combined Arms stack would benefit from a artillery int firing in the defensive fire on them.They would be bigger targets with more mass to hit having the Cavalry mixed in with a Infantry unit.Combined arms for attacking yes(as per the rules),

I can see a defensive benefit for a Combined Arms stack if attacked by normal combat(Cavalry would be there to attack any penetration of the Infantry line or charge out to disrupt the attacking force.

But for artillery firing on it-No .


In answer to your objections and questions:

1. If as you say a NAW hex is 400 yards wide, and as a yard is 0.915 meters, a NAW hex is 366 meters wide, still far less wide than the 480 meter wide hexes NLB. Yet, 3-high stacks were allowed in NAW but not in NLB. That is paradoxical.

2. A three-high infantry stack could not stack with cavalry or artillery.

3. I don't believe three-high infantry would be more deadly except in the special circumstance of attacking a clear terrain hex, the only type of terrain against which I would allow a three-high infantry attack. The idea is that the infantry is attacking in massed columns, as at Wagram and at Waterloo. It is a risky tactic as the attackers may be surrounded by EZOCs and counter-attacked using combined arms. Three-high infantry won't make for much higher-odds attacks-certainly it would have no more and probably less effect than the combined arms rule.

4. I don't understand your objection about using combined arms on the defense. Combined arms was probably more effective on the defense than on the attack, yet the game only allows it on the attack, which is strange. My variant allows the defender to adjust the column odds by -1 in his favor, if the defender fired an Artillery shot at a hex which is attacking a defending infantry and cavalry.



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Griffey
United States
Houston
Texas
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Wilhammer wrote:
Should be noted that in the follow up game, Napoleon at Leipzig, that one could have 3 units stacking if they were part of the same higher formation - which does make for 'killer' stacks - but at a risk - you can wreck a Corps fast that way if things go wrong as one dead stack of three units from the same formation hurts.


Exactly. I allow three-high Infantry stacks only if they are part of the same corps, or are all-British.

Also, they have a cumbersome 1 movement point penalty to assemble or to disassemble. Also, if they retreat they cost an extra Demoralization Level point.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kim Meints
United States
Waterloo
Iowa
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I missed read the Defender atillery firing on an attacker.I was thinking if a Attacking artillery was firing on a combined armes defender.

Gave you a Thumbs Up for the variant.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.