AGEOD Forums

game version: NCP ver 3.04b
testbed campaign: 1813, player side French

AI Performance
I could easely win this campaign playing French side, against an estimated superior AI (Coalition) opponent: the fact suggest something is going wrong with AI.

AI has a great tendency to spread his Corps over map, while concetration of forces should better work for Coalition side, having men superiority.
AI misregards garrisoning valuable locations, as Prague & Berlin; goes after unvaluable cities in Poland and Prussia.
AI side offensive in Bavarian-Lower Rhein area is non sence: AI wasted time and mapower to capture secondary regions, while did not attempt to occupy Strasbough, a very evaluable and ungarrisoned strategic location.
AI has tendency to move Corps/Forces deep in enemy controlled territory, in out of friendly supply areas.....these forces suffer severe losses, being unsupplied and are usaly retired back some turns later.


Replacements
Replacement options should be slightly reworked to fix some troubles.
Support units, (pontooner, engeneer, supply train, Army HQ) have not replacements.
Replacing Heavy Calvary losses is a trouble too: only calvary replacement points seem to work for light calvary units only.
I know we cannot have the flexibily of replacement achieved in AACW, where a full production system works, hope to see options for mentioned unit kind added to NCP replacement option menu.


But the reported problems NCP ver 3.04b 1813 Camapign is a challenging game.
The large concentration of Forces for the two sides over a narrow area grants many strategic chances, to be explored.
I bit disappointing is the lack of the earlier phases of the historical 1813 campaign.

A positive note: I did not experience game bugs or crashes, although the plenty of units in the scenery.

JastaV

Thanks for your comments about NCP scenarios, they are always a pleasure to read


So far I have only played PW campaign on the french side, so I cannot comment this one. I have noticed too that the AI sometines moves deeply in enemy territory. To be honest this has happened to me too In one of my PW tries I lost an entire corps trying to take La Coruña (on northwertern Spain).

Perhaps the problem is not to infiltrate deeply (this can be human too), but not to realize at a given momment that it is a mistake, so better retreat not to lose all your force, instead of being idle as I have seen.


About expanding this scenario, it is a good idea. A good source of info is Osprey's book Lützen and Bautzen 1813 that explains 1813 spring campaign. If you look at the chronology, after disatrous 1812 russian campaign, french forces retire:

30 of december Convention of Tauroggen. Yorck's prussian corps defects french side

January 1813. East Prussia rise up vs Napoleon

3 February. King of Prussia calls men to arms

27 February. Treaty of Kalisch. Prussian joins Russia vs Napoleon

4 and 12 march. French abandon Berlin and Hamburg

17 march. Prussian declares war to France

5 april. Battle of Mockern

25 April. Napoleon arrives Erfurt

28 April. Wittgenstein replaces Kutusov (commander russian army)

2 May. B. of Lutzen

12 May. Von Thielemann (saxon army at Corbau) joins allies defecting french side

20-21 B. of Bautzen

26 B. of Hainau. Barclay de Tolly replaces Wittgenstein

4 june. Plaswitz armistice, end of spring campaign.



The scen right now starts on august. An updated scen could start on 17 march, what do you think, and Mr Thibaut? There could be two 1813 scens the short as it is right now and the expanded one?

We already studied the case....the problem is how to handle the armistice... also we need the OOB for March, which we do not have...

PhilThib wrote:We already studied the case....the problem is how to handle the armistice... also we need the OOB for March, which we do not have...

Errr... if I send you a pm will you ban me?


About the armistice, if there is a problem with that (no diplomatic engine), then no armistice at all

Ideally, I'd like to see the multi year expansion start from 1812. Give Nappy the chance to halt at Smolensk. Have rules concerning possible Prussian and Austrian turncoating. Generating these turncoat events may well be the problem for 1813, as well.

I'm still learning the game, and when I judge I have, I guess its on to (clunky) pbem.

PhilThib wrote:We already studied the case....the problem is how to handle the armistice... also we need the OOB for March, which we do not have...

Avalon Hill's Struggle of Armies, provides O.O.B.
Probably you should know that boardgame, that portraits 1813 Campaign at a strategic level very near to NCP.

Let me know if you need OOB from Struggle of Armies, I'l be pleased to send that you!

JastaV

jastaV wrote:Avalon Hill's Struggle of Armies, provides O.O.B.
Probably you should know that boardgame, that portraits 1813 Campaign at a strategic level very near to NCP.

Let me know if you need OOB from Struggle of Armies, I'l be pleased to send that you!

JastaV

Try this site for OOBs of early April 1813, but for Prussian and Russian armies only...

http://home.arcor.de/hemmann/zf/index_e.html

I tried 1813 Campaign a second time!

game version: NCP ver 3.04b
1813 campaign, player side French

The plan
I left some Corps to "passively" defend the Dresden-Glorau front-line, while I moved main Forces northway to gain control and secure Berlin-Hamburg-Macleburg Sector: control of these 3 cities are worth a mess of VP/NM points. As part of the plan coalition Forces in the Berlin-Hamburg-Macleburg Sector should be engaged and wiped out.
I expected Coalition launched a major offensive in the South: Dresden-Glorau front-line. French forces in the sector were commanded to delay the advance and retreat, till major French Forces operating in the North Sector could be moved South: at that time Coalition forces could be engaged and hopefully defeated in the Saxony-Silesia region too.

Plan execution
Action in the North Sector leaded to some victorious major engagements: Berlin and Hambourg regions. Coalition Army of the North was shattered; Berlin, Hamburg, Macleburg were secured; field victories and Berlin occupation provided French side with a boost in NM, while Coalition NM dropped.

None of the expected Coalition Offensives in Silesia & Saxony were carried out.
Coalition launched assaults in the east to secure fortresses and cities in Poland and Eastern Prussia: The defeat of Coalition at Danzig provided French side with NM Victory points level. Campaign did not end with a French major, Morale Victory probably because of a bug!

see:
http://www.ageod-forum.com/showthread.php?t=9598

An unopposed Coalition offensive in Bavaria and Lower Rhein sector leaded Austrian and Russian forces to occupy Strasbourg and Metz.
I was Forced to move a couple of Corps from Saxony to liberate Strasbourg by Campaign end.


It was only by late October that Coalition Forces advances in Silesia to besiege Glorau.
At that time the NM balance was more 100 points in favour of French sides, giving player a great field superiority.
The Major French forces could be moved south, where they successfully engaged Coalition Silesian Army at Glorau and pushed south to Breslau.
Prague was stormed by a quite smal French Force and occupied too.


Campaign conclusion & observations
At campaign end most Strategic Cities were French controlled, with a French NM far beyond the max. NM value.

Coalition, (AI side) performed very bad.
Coalition Armies/Forces did not concentrate or coordinate their actions.
They could be engaged one at a time, by French side superior forces.
Coalition could & should take advantage of starting manpower superiority, leaving few troops to besiege cities in the east and concentrating armies in Saxony and Silesia in the early weeks of the campaign.
AI is moved to gain control of plenty of Strategic cities, but fails to presidiate controlled ones: Berlin, Breaslau, Prague,....Strabough, after coalition oppupation too.
AI does not look at enemy Forces in the field, its moves are aimed to Strategic cities control rahter that engaging enemy armies.


Soon, I'll go after 1813 Campaign playing the Coalition side.
I suspect NPC could be unbalanced in favour of French side......

In comparison to AACW Grandcampaign, NCP Campaigns are far less challenging!

JastaV

Plenty of informations here:

http://www.napoleon-online.com/html/sitemap.html

Unfortunately, for me, most in German Language!

THE NAFZIGER COLLECTION:
http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/OBS.HTML
Designed for the wargamer, this collection is an extensive collection of military history and orders of battle..........
....not for free!

Do you have any informations about the first Swedes that landed in Swedish pomerania early 1813(declaration of war is january 7). It seems that a first contingent of 10000 men landed or a division ?

Avalon Hill's Struggle of Armies provides O.O.B. at divisional level.
There are 3 starting dates for the Germany 1813 campaign, any with own OOB: Spring 1813, Dresden battle, Leipzig battle.
Comparing the OOBs at the three dates and having the full OOB for Danzig-Leipzig campaigns may ba possible to have a working OOB for Spring 1813!.

Historical notes added to the game booklet add plenty of interesting information as regard French Corps composition in spring 1813!

jastaV wrote:game version: NCP ver 3.04b
testbed campaign: 1813, player side French



Replacements
Replacement options should be slightly reworked to fix some troubles.
Support units, (pontooner, engeneer, supply train, Army HQ) have not replacements.
Replacing Heavy Calvary losses is a trouble too: only calvary replacement points seem to work for light calvary units only.
I know we cannot have the flexibily of replacement achieved in AACW, where a full production system works, hope to see options for mentioned unit kind added to NCP replacement option menu.




JastaV

Cavalry shortage was a big problem for the French in this campaign. In past years, many of their heavy cavalry trained horses were raised in Saxony, which by this time had deseted to the Coalition.
I'd think that there would also have been problems raising certain specialist types.

Saxony deserted the French side in October 1813.
The French shortage of Horses comes from the fall of Poland in February 1813 as well as the raids in Hanover(Hamburg) by the Tetteborn's Cossacks who prevented the french to get horses there until Davout retook Hamburg.

jastaV wrote:THE NAFZIGER COLLECTION:
http://home.fuse.net/nafziger/OBS.HTML
Designed for the wargamer, this collection is an extensive collection of military history and orders of battle..........
....not for free!

If you are willing to investigate more into OOBs, Nafziger's docs are cheap and Ageod team already bought some of them for VGN (for example).

Ask Pocus or PhilThib if you want them to buy some of the files. It always be appreciated to have an help about construction of more accurate OOBs for NCP.

In the first turn there is an event "in red", the convention of Tauroggen

[ATTACH]3234[/ATTACH]


But this happened the 30 December 1812, so even for the napoleonic times it would be old news in middle august, when the campaign start. The prussians are already in the coalition side when the scen starts

I think that this would make sense if the campaign started in early january, with the french retreating from Russia.

Or perhaps it happens at the end of the russian campaign, I am not sure as I have not played it yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_of_Tauroggen

Yes, the event is way before the scenario start....in all senses it should be disabled...we just kept it for the flavor.

PhilThib wrote:Yes, the event is way before the scenario start....in all senses it should be disabled...we just kept it for the flavor.

LOL, were you answering when I was still typing!?


Well, I cannot say anything against that, in fact it adds flavour. I like a lot those events in red

But better a new scen. from early january

it is version 1.04b by the way, not 3.04b

Pocus wrote:it is version 1.04b by the way, not 3.04b

apy:
Right!

For starters I have played Napoleonic miniature and boardgaming for 20 years, this is by far the best I have tried on a pc - congrats to the designteam.

Tried the 1813 campaign with almost exactly same outcome as Jasta. Beat up the allied Army og the North while it moved towards Hamburg leaving Berlin undefended - I also would have expected an offensive towards Dresden, but it never materialized as the allies were running around in Bavaria and poland. I gor a major victory despite having only around 130 NM - I thought you needed the enemy to bottom outbefore achieving major victory.

I also tried the 1814 twice and can beat up the allies pretty badly by advancing into switzerland and attcaking shwarzenberg as he is quite uncoordinated. On the other hand the allies seems to be quite unwilling to advance inot france with anything more than a corps, the AI never tries a proper invasion, but just runs up and down the home side of the rhine.

Some comments on gameplay:

In general forced tend to stay in the fight for too long. It makes you spend an unhistorically long time mobbing up. Very often a force is smashed up with more than 75% losses and still is able to move around on the will of the player. You have to spend several weeks attacking it (your effectivity is also down because of the victories) giving it small losses every time - it-s silly for 20.000 attacking 1500 several times, when both forces started at 30.000. You need to spend all this time on the smaller forces because leaving it alone, it will simply start penetrating deeper into your territory. I would suggest that a force that suffers 50% or more casualties is placed upon obligatory retreat to closest friendly fort/depot, the road being blocked it surrenders!

It seems that fort are too easy to storm compared to historical results. In the game there does not seem to be any need for siege artillery or breaches - just get 3:1 and storm.

Forces seem to pass each other to often without fighting even if I set mine on attack mode - I try to target the enemy corps as the object for my forces but 90% of the time they only take the region as objective.

When the larger rivers freeze it should allow forces to cross not stand on the rivers. I had a lot of the allied AI forces standing on rivers at the end of 1813 - not very historical.

Some questions:

Why can´t I get a force of two trains to make a depot (the button is not activated)?

What is sentry mode and how do i put troops in it (saw it in another tread).

How do I keep a besieged force locked up, I´ve had some situations where they just ran away while I was standing around watching.

Suggestion:

Scenarioes should show unlocking conditions for troops - I guess most is locked untill attacked but some times inavasion of territory should be enough (Bavaria and Naples 1813) - By the way should Naples also be locked ín 1814.

The whole campaign of 1813 shoul only have the armistice as an option if french NM did not rize fast enough, you could the just have reinforcments coming along and Austrian intervention after a similar scheme (The armistice was after all his greatest mistake).

sparta wrote:Some questions:

Why can´t I get a force of two trains to make a depot (the button is not activated)?

It seems like we cannot built up forts from two depleted trains: we need 2 train units with four trains each.

What is sentry mode and how do i put troops in it (saw it in another tread).

Can you post link?
.....Think sentry mode is result of Postures and ROE Buttons selection.....
Active posture means sentry mode,....perhaps!

How do I keep a besieged force locked up, I´ve had some situations where they just ran away while I was standing around watching.

That's true.
Besigied forces are sometimes able to sweep away.
Guess sieges are mostly aimed to conquer fortress rather then to anhilate besiged troops.

About forces not meeting, have you tried reducing the 'Engagment Delay' to 0 in the option? The game will be less fluid.

Thanks for the praise by the way, on behalf of all the Team.

Your welcome

Have you any thoughts on some of the other questions, specifically

How to keep besieged forces locked up

Thoughts on reducing the need for mooping up operations

The difficulty with targeting enemy stacks instead of regions