HOLF Players' Guild Forum

I have only recently joined the Guild...as a player in NWOL3. How many of the topics previously discussed have been incorporated thus far into the newest permutation of NWOL? There appears to be a good number of points which could serve to improve the simulation from previous game experiences - some I would (from strictly an outside observer's perspective) agree with and others that seem a bit out of hand. But that is from my own philosophical bend, not yet having been involved as a commander, nor other participant in this gaming experience. With the onset of the new game just around the corner, it is with all probability much too late to make any further changes. However, with even a slim notion of chance I'd like to but my pittance into the basket: Victory Conditions 1. Have the game end only if France achieves hegemony or if the Revolution is overthrown. France achieves hegemony by vanquishing all 4 continental majors PR/AU/SP/RU, or Britain and any two of the other four. I like it - but for the purposes of geo-politics, Austria would have to be vanquished as well as a condition. Commercially speaking, the English were the power-house, but geographically and in terms of manpower, Austria was the greater threat (despite its ethic issues). Remember, that while Prussia's eyes were on the German States, so too were Austria's, but unlike Prussia, Northern Italy was a prize for the Austrian monarchy. While Britain may have had leverage in the Continental Lowlands, as well as Portugal, and therefore the means to exploit an invasion into the Continent - neither area lent itself well to avoiding a land blockade. Unless those areas were to become de facto colonial possessions, the Brits were in no better (or no worse) a condition than the Austrians in Northern Italy, nor the Prussians in the German States (or Greater Poland for that matter). So I would lend a bit more weight to Austria and its defeat and subsequent dismemberment. In other words, if France can vanquish both Britain and Austria, the game is over; or if Britain OR Austria is vanquished, then hegemony exists if Spain, Prussia, and Russia are likewise defeated. Russia then becomes the wild card it really was...permanent removal from future support of Britain, Austria and/or Prussia. Therefore it does become a matter of isolation for Britain or Austria. And the chances of a Franco-English alliance becomes that much more untenable. New States 1. Only allow France to create new fragmented states; all such governments are revolutionary, and would match the starting states, ie, there would be a Saxon government and France could create a Revolutionary Saxon government. Yes, this is the time of revolution against the monarchical system and the major powers were hell-bent to ensure that their system was the one that prevailed. As the other points to follow indicate, the monarchies did not just evaporate into history. Despite decapitation, the Bourbon Lineage lived on. And so it has been with all such dynastic entities...even the most remote of family lines have proven capable of ascending a throne in times of need or political machination. My thoughts are that there could (and should be at the very least) be 2 governments in operation AT ALL TIMES. One represents the Conservative nature of the Monarchy - the other the Leftist nature of Revolution - and perhaps even a third which represents Opposition to whomever is in power (ie: Parliament vs. the Crown) without attempting to "break" the current system (just its players). The erection of a government (and the subsequent flight of the previous regime) is not too difficult to portray, but the implications of a government in exile may create some difficulty should the design team really wish to play out the possibilities (intrigue, assassination, diplomacy, bank/financial/commercial holdings, etc). For the purposes of the game, the ouster takes over per the existing rules. The oustee on the otherhand travels as if they were an Army HQ (with none of the other attributes). It must make its way to either an Allied or Neutral State at which point it may reinstitute its standing as a government. Should that be the case, the "host" state is immediately at war with the nation which deposed the "guest" nation. The ability to "set up shop" is completely at the behest of the "host" state, and should it deny the "guest" a formal status, the government in exile must move on to the next available state, etc., etc., etc. 2. Create the Bourbons as a dependent of one of the other nations See above 3. Keep the cities in Germany and Italy permanently associated with their original owners. Only the Saxon and Revolutionary Saxon governments could raise rebellions in Saxon cities. 4. Monarchical governments of German and Italian states can never be destroyed, but revolutionary (French-created) governments would cease to exist if they lost their last city Yup, it makes very good sense 5. Required holding at least half the cities of a frag before being allowed to create a Revolutionary state there. I'm not so sure that half is a necessary threshold, especially as some cities were more (or less) significant in terms of culture, ethnic-orientation, commercial/economic strength, political power, and military significance. Although a bit more work intensive, it would probably be better served to identify the key cities aforehand (especially as contemporaries of the period would know these facts as well). Geography and economics have always played a crucial role in the development of civilization and the territorial composition of states. I don't think the installation of any government (puppet or legitimate) should (or can) be limited to the total (or in this case 1/2) capitulation of the incumbent government. This concept goes hand in hand with the matters displayed above as well as the final point listed immediately below: 6. Also allow France to also create revolutionary governments in minor states. Most absolutely! In fact, commensurate with the Declaration of War, whether it be against a fragmented or minor state (or even a Major Power, but that would require some exceptional rules), a nominal (at the very least) government would need to have been organized, if not planned. Otherwise - provost marshals would be the rule - not to say that they were not, but an enlightened despot - no matter the nationality or political bend - knew that too rule it needed organization of its power. Be that through the arms of war, police, or townships - it was necessary in order to keep order and thus commerce and industry. Commerce and industry were (and are) the true sinews of war. Without them and a good logistical apparatus, men-at-arms become looters, pillagers and worse - a very bad image as invader instead of liberator. Map 1. Put the Austrian Netherlands under Austrian control rather than Dutch. Give Holland a financial bonus to represent Indonesian colonies and/or compensate for the loss of Belgium. Is there an historical precedent for this? 2. Poland should be a state of 11 cities (1793 borders). If it were to be considered a Fractured State, that would be a very cool move - especially if it is further held in various parts by the Austrians, Prussians and Russians. Certainly it would lead to very historical underpinnings of intrigue and suspicion between the 3 powers versus France (and even Great Britain). Remember, the Grand Duchy of Poland was "resurrected" by Napolean and there should be no reason to exempt that from recurring or alternatively, from being a fait de accompli! Moot points aside, no one ever really held the Polish Slavs or their Teutonic/Rus overlords in check for long - they just changed the names by virtue (read as vice) of murder, rape and pilferage. Hey, that sounds alot like the Irish plight .no? In the end, Poland as an entity should probably be a matter of conquest/liberation - especially in accordance with the points made above. Diplomacy 1. No active alliance between France and another major until the other major has been vanquished, and the VQ can be conceded but France must have held at least one city in the other major's territory to permit a subsequent active alliance. Not a good idea as it strips France of potential leverage against the other Majors who may be jockeying for positions of power against their older foes. As repugnant as the French Revolution was to the other aristocracies, their own petty as well as grand fears/larcenies against the other Monarchies could never be totally swept aside. Rather than an alliance, the other powers chose neutrality - which in effect became nothing more than a negative alliance. Perhaps instead of allowing France to ally, the more pointed mechanism should be to block others from allying with other states - major and minor. Although it seems too messy, I'd say it's worth exploring - if not now in this late hour, then at least for the following NWOL4. If any of you have gotten this far, thanks for reading. I'd like to hear any and all thoughts - in the forum or at my personal address - bmb631@hotmail.com. Cheers, Bernard (Red Top) Bryant

Another Idea;

NWOL1 had states coming up against the limits of manpower and/or treasury. The problem was that there were too many units.

NWOL2 had most states coming to the limits of treasury and had huge manpower reserves. This is true because currency was reduced but not the manpower pools.

Thus, for NWOL3… both pools can be adjusted proportionately from their initial position. Thus if we reduce income to 20% below NWOL1, reduce the manpower to 20% percent below NWOL1. This then represents that earlier in the war states had manpower reserves but did not need to tap the total potential and thus they are not seen as manpower available. As the war progressed the need to find more manpower to replace losses grew. The present model with the replacement system can then represent this well. It will tend to fill up manpower to theoretical limits; but only if a state is not always at war. This should thus help make both pools relevant.

Robert

I cannot see voting on rules as an individual event but as how each rule affects the other existing rules and each other.

Victory Conditions
1. Have the game end only if France achieves hegemony or if the Revolution is overthrown. France achieves hegemony by vanquishing all 4 continental majors PR/AU/SP/RU, or Britain and any two of the other four.

The primary thrust of this rule and other similar rules is to reduce the overall strength of France in relation to the other majors. I can see upgrading Spain to be a major as she is oversized as a minor. This will give France a new direction to attack/defend and thus will reduce her strength. In conjunction with the latest existing RAR rules that the other majors do not need 3 vq’s to win; this will evolve into completely new directions for diplomacy once players understand the implications. Adding more rules may be too much at once.

I have also come to understand Jim Voege’s reasoning for making France stronger. The trend in diplomacy is to go for France first as until now either France wins or everyone else loses. With the latest version of majors not needing 3 VQ’s for a win, there is more wiggle room for the others to finish first. However, France is weak initially against a coalition of majors and this weakness is magnified with the inclusion of Spain as a major. Thus, as Jim has previously stated, France needs to be more powerful. This, I presently see as an initial advantage that disappears over time. To this regard I see that initial French strength should be pumped up by adding about 10 points experience as a variable from 5-12, and a morale increase but not parameter increase of 7-15. Both variable will make France initially stronger but she will lose them during the course of the game. Morale would be gone during the course of 1 or 2 seasons and experience will even out after 1 or 2 war campaigns. These can be different time periods but in the way we have been playing they are essentially the same seasons.

Land Combat
1. Reduce the odds of shattering and increase the odds of routing, so that units fleeing lost battles are more likely to retain their coherence.
2. Reduce the fatigue penalty for routing from 5 to 3.
3. Allow shattered units to come back faster and with greater strength; recover in 1-2 turns if you have S/C and 3-4 turns if you don't.
4. In any tac phase that an Army has received % losses of a certain portion of the initial strength in a Strat. square, units have a possibility of involuntary rout

OK…. But especially in the last point (4) as much as practical all units should retreat in the same direction except for those who cannot do so for having that exit route blocked. Thus it would seem that retreat direction for forces in a square should be established before combat begins and units that retreat, rout try to move in that direction and only deviate when movement is blocked.

Unmentioned rules
Some proposed changes were missed by this review and yet would not engender much code change.

Seasons – Winter. I cannot see having a winter turn in the game. There are those who argue that as campaigns have occurred in winter there should be a winter campaign. However, when there is no weather in NWOL a winter season is not winter but summer. Having 4 summer campaigns in one year is too damaging to RAR and other segments. It increases the probability of the Total War Mentality of many players. Thus this season should be dropped and made a mandatory, Peace/Truce season.

Moving money between states – In conjunction with the above there should be no treasury transfers between states in a war season. Although it is possible to move money in a war season, it is not instantaneous as we do transfers. It took time to negotiate a money transfer and then move the money and this mandated a troop escort which costs money none of which is reflected in the game. Thus it is better to have no war campaign treasury transfers so as to make alliances more fragile. As it is still permissible to build supply/stores and ship it to war allied states, in this sense wartime money transfers still exist. It is just not possible to prop up a weak ally whose treasury is not sufficient to go campaign after campaign in war.

Robert

Comments at @@@

Map
1. Put the Austrian Netherlands under Austrian control rather than Dutch. Give Holland a financial bonus to represent Indonesian colonies and/or compensate for the loss of Belgium.
2. Poland should be a state of 11 cities (1793 borders).

@@@ These smack of change for the sake of change.

Scoring
1. Instead of 200 VPs for city capture in battle and 100 for transfer, make it 100 and 75 for foreign cities, but 200 and 150 for one's own cities so that gaining a foreign city but losing a home city is a net loss. Also scale
them according to the level of the city.

@@@ Anything that de-emphasizes cities is a good thing so that only cities of military importance are real targets. Which level are you referring to? Defence, economic or both? I like the idea and I suggest it be both.

Land Combat
1. Reduce the odds of shattering and increase the odds of routing, so that units fleeing lost battles are more likely to retain their coherence.
2. Reduce the fatigue penalty for routing from 5 to 3.
3. Allow shattered units to come back faster and with greater strength; recover in 1-2 turns if you have S/C and 3-4 turns if you don't.
4. In any tac phase that an Army has received % losses of a certain portion of the initial strength in a Strat. square, units have a possibility of involuntary rout

@@@ I would be concerned that a loss of decisiveness would not be historically accurate. In this era while defeated armies were able to reconstitute it was typically only far to the rear of their present position with usually much loss of territory. These proposed rule changes would typically scatter a defeated army in all directions (routing is not directionally intelligent) and thus leave the victor surrounded by a "cloud" of beaten but still potent enemy units. It is not very historical and it could make battles pointless. This is still intended to be a war game is it not?

Other
1. Make the morale consequences of city capture or battle losses more distance-dependent for allies

@@@ Oh yes please.

2. Track ammunition separately, and only allow building ammunition in home nation cities.

@@@ Don't get this one. Ammunition is largely fungible, like food. Captured enemy ammunition can be used even if it has to be re-cast -- it is one of the advantages of a soft metal like lead. Powder, of course, is powder wherever it is found.

3. The longer a unit has been out of supplies, the higher the losses are.

@@@ I have real concerns with this one. One the one hand the sense of the proposal is self-evidence. On the other hand it was essentially French doctrine to avoid the encumbrances of a normal supply train -- a doctrine that failed to work only in poor country such as Spain and Russia, but elsewhere provided the French armies with a considerable advantage in speed and flexibility. The game should reflect this. It is the single thing that made the Napoleonic era of war, at least as practiced by the French, different from all that had preceded it.

4. A nation's units that are outside its nation's borders should receive reinforcements via transfer only, no automatic rebuild (weaker version;
this applies only when the unit does not have supply and command)

@@@ I continue to believe that in reality reinforcements arrive at units throughout a campaign, in a steady flow. The fact that we choose, for convenience, to represent this steady flow by a once-per-campaign reinforcement en masse is merely a simulation and not problematic. It seems to me that restrictions such as those proposed should only occur where it can be conclusively shown that no flow of reinforcements is possible at any time during the preceding campaign.

6. Raise incomes and troop levels to something between the NWOL-1 and NWOL-2 levels

@@@ I would be surprised if anyone didn't agree with this one.

7. Pay CRs when a militia rebellion fails, and if a militia raise is unsuccessful, another cannot be attempted until the following campaign.

@@@ I saw Matt's objection to this and, with the greatest of respect, must disagree. If you take Northern Italy for example, I think you will find that city garrisons typically numbered in the hundreds, not thousands, and in response to a rebellion reinforcements of no more than a small brigade were generally sufficient. Once put down a rebellion typically lost its leadership and had to be reconstituted from scratch. So I like these rules as being historical (in most cases) bearing in mind that a continuation of an 8000 garrison rule is still very onerous for the occupier. It will also help move us away from unhistorical city-centric operations.

Jim