 |
|
Waterloo Bicentenary Project - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Black Powder & Cold Steel (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=163) +---- Forum: The Napoleonic Wars (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=165) +---- Thread: Waterloo Bicentenary Project (/showthread.php?tid=68172) |
Waterloo Bicentenary Project - BigDuke66 - 07-01-2015 Waterloo Bicentenary Project Goal: Rework the historical scenarios of the HPS/JTS Waterloo game I have checked the first 50 scenarios(the others are hypothetical or at company level) and what I tracked down as historical(or supposed to be) scenarios are these: Starting on 15th June 1815: "The Waterloo Campaign, June 1815" 006.Large_fixed.scn "The Waterloo Campaign, June 1815" 007.Large_historical.scn "Rearguard Action at Soleilmont" 028.Soleilmont_h.scn Both campaign scenarios are multi day scenario that can likely at best just provide a historical start but of course that can't guarantee a historical course of the campaign. Starting on 16th June 1815: "The Battle of Ligny_h, June 1815" 008.Ligny_h.scn "The Battle of Ligny_v1, June 1815" 009.Ligny_v1.scn "The Combined Battle of Quatre Bras & Ligny - Historical, June 16, 1815" 018.QB_Ligny_h.scn "The Battle of Quatre Bras - Historical, June 16, 1815" 022.Quatre_Bras_h.scn I'm not sure which of the both Ligny scenarios is considered the or the more historical scenario that has to be checked. I guess if a rework is necessary for these battles too any changes could simply be added to the combined battles scenario. Starting on 18th June 1815: "The Battle for Plancenoit" 015.Plancenoit_v1.scn "The Battle for Plancenoit" 017.Plancenoit_v3.scn "The Ridge - D'Erlon's Attack - Phase 1" 032.The_Ridge_v1.scn "The Ridge - D'Erlon's Attack - Phase 2" 033.The_Ridge_v2.scn "Waterloo - Historical" 037.Waterloo_h.scn "Waterloo_Wavre Historical" 043.Waterloo_Wavre_h.scn "The Battle of Wavre, June 18 & 19 1815" 047.Wavre_h.scn The Plancenoit and Ridge scenarios are just part of the Waterloo battle and if that scenario gets reworked it has to be seen if changes get necessary to these scenarios too. Here again any changes to the single battle scenarios could flow into the combined battle scenario. The single historical battles/actions that have to be researched are just 5: - Combat at Gilly - Battle of Ligny - Battle of Quatre Bras - Battle of Wavre - Battle of Waterloo Now if this is supposed to be a serious project I guess it needs a name, my idea would be simply to orientate at what we now have, so I suggest to call it the "Waterloo Bicentenary Project" or short WBP. RE: Waterloo Bicentenary Project - BigDuke66 - 07-01-2015 I have looked at the first one scenario "Combat at Gilly" and that seems even worse than what has to be fixed at Waterloo. The French troop composition doesn't nearly fit and the map may have to get some rework too as it misses some terrain features. Makes one wonder what sources if any at all were used if not even Général Louis-Michel Letort de Lorville and the Empress’s Dragoons are in this scenario. ![[Image: empress-dragoons.jpg]](https://wargamerabbit.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/empress-dragoons.jpg) I found a nice little article about that action around Gilly, check the attachment. RE: Waterloo Bicentenary Project - jim pfleck - 07-02-2015 I would also love 10 minute turn versions of these scenarios, with the movement and fire rates based on those in Leipzig. I mean, why you are at it! RE: Waterloo Bicentenary Project - BigDuke66 - 07-02-2015 Good idea, is there any special reason for using Leipzig? I think all the late war if not all the 10 minutes Napi games by Bill Peters should be similar. RE: Waterloo Bicentenary Project - jim pfleck - 07-02-2015 No particular reason, but I had to pick one of Bill's 10 minute games and I like how Leipzig plays RE: Napoleon in Russia Project - -72- - 07-12-2015 You know the funny thing about this all is that I had a look at Bernard Cornwell's recent book on Waterloo -and his maps show the French deployment pretty nearly exactly as is shown in the Campaign Waterloo's historical scenario. I mean, seriously say whatever you want about the historicity -but you have to now include Cornwell in your complaint. Citation: Waterloo: The History of Four Days, Three Armies, and Three Battles (2014) - page 104 The point being I seriously doubt Bernard Cornwell referenced a game, which is pretty much to say I find the personal criticism heretofore to have been unwarranted, and unfair. If I have anything more to say on this it will be to post a screenshot of the map in question. RE: Napoleon in Russia Project - jonnymacbrown - 07-13-2015 (07-12-2015, 07:25 PM)trauth116 Wrote: You know the funny thing about this all is that I had a look at Bernard Cornwell's recent book on Waterloo -and his maps show the French deployment pretty nearly exactly as is shown in the Campaign Waterloo's historical scenario. Prince Jerome's Division began the battle at 1130 with a cannonade and direct assault. It's placement in the historical setup precludes that. If Cornwell has Jerome ensconced in a wood @ 1130 more than 1000 yards away from Hugomont then he's wrong. Jonny 
RE: Napoleon in Russia Project - -72- - 07-13-2015 The alignment is the same, but they are further back -they should be about 500 meters from the wall of Hougomont. I was only going by what units were next to which other units in looking at it. Cornwell's map does not have a time on it -just says deployments as in the morning of 18th June 1815. Although that could be addressed by adding 1 or 2 turns to the front end of the scenario. Edit: However, that is just the French left flank, Cornwell has Durette's division pretty much in the exact same place. To be fair, Chandler has it directly adjacent to Marcognet's division; although the point is again -slagging a designer personally when clearly there are other sources available (not to mention also having had a go at the testers in earlier posts), is ott and unfair. The point I am making is not that Cornwell is the source, as much as it is - Cornwell would have used a source -and it almost certainly was not the scenario (namely because it does not match exactly). Stating 'that Cornwell is wrong', is a statement -lot's of statements ... not so many actual references demonstrating how it is wrong ( actually to be entirely accurate I did not see any -I saw a book title or two, but that is not the same thing as a reference citation.). Granted neither is my adding in a map citation although my point here was to demonstrate that the narrative was flawed. I suppose it would have been pretty easy to have played the man instead of the topic in demonstrating this. |
){kind=link}