Any consensus on F 14?

[Volcano Man]

Yes indeed. That is why I hoped that it would bridge the gap between the Napoleonic and the Panzer Campaigns series. I just wish more Napoleonic fans would try out FWWC --they would probably like it.

[Philippe]

And the best way to bridge that gap would be to come out with a game on the Franco-Prussian war.

But the map, of course, would have to be extended further east and south...

[Archijerej]

And the best way to bridge that gap would be to come out with a game on the Franco-Prussian war.

But the map, of course, would have to be extended further east and south...

I agree, Franco-Prussian war would be excellent. Imagine all those arts depicting uniforms of various formations and various german states. I was going to ask about this game myself. Is it possible to represent this conflict in Operational Campaigns scale? Tactical combat was still restricted to narrow battlefields and this could be a problem. Has this campaign been considered by the designers?

[jonnymacbrown]

"Yes indeed. That is why I hoped that it would bridge the gap between the Napoleonic and the Panzer Campaigns series. I just wish more Napoleonic fans would try out FWWC --they would probably like it."

Unfortunately there is no gap to bridge. F 14 is truly the only Napoleonic game in the HPS series. The games that are nominally entitled "Napoleonic" do not in the slightest degree accurately reflect the movements of Napoleonic armies. As ridiculous as it may seem to say, all the Napoleonic games consist of cavalry armies in which units are named infantry but in fact have all the capabilities of cavalry. What can be more effective or heart-warming for a French player than a 500 to 1000 yard Imperial Guard infantry charge blasting a hole in the enemy line panzerblitz style? Recent attempts to rectify this problem with house rules like "embedded melee phases" only show that the HPS Napoleonic engine doesn't work. My guess is most Napoleonic gamers have some difficulty with F 14 because the accurate Napoleonic pace of the game is quite foreign to the very rapid and absurd pace of the current Napoleonic engine.
Jonny :angry:

[Volcano Man]

Hmm, I was under the impression that the changes to the recently released Napoleonic titles were made to address this (by slowing everything down by 1/2). But yes, the original titles in the series had units moving quite fast. One could always tweak the old PDTs to be more like the new PDT movement rates and maybe that would help? But I digress. ;)

In regards to above, yes, it would certainly be nice to see a Franco-Prussian War and a Russo-Japanese War. Who knows what the future holds. :whis:

[jonnymacbrown]

"Hmm, I was under the impression that the changes to the recently released Napoleonic titles were made to address this (by slowing everything down by 1/2)."

That is very good news, if true! jonny ;)

---

"In regards to above, yes, it would certainly be nice to see a Franco-Prussian War and a Russo-Japanese War. Who knows what the future holds. :whis:"

What could be more exciting than the Brusilov Offensive? jonny :conf:

[Volcano Man]

Well, of course I mean exciting outside of WW1. ;)

Not sure if you have Waterloo, but in the latest update the movement values for units are about 1/2 of what they are in Eckmuhl and other early titles. I think the other "new" Nappy titles are in line with that change, although I must admit I haven't had time to play any of them lately. You could probably get confirmation on that from someone in the other forum (because I could be wrong).

[jonnymacbrown]

"So, to develop the discussion even further, I would say that the encouraged strategy is for the Allies to fall back immediately and then solidify north of the extremely valuable objectives with an eye towards attacking the German flank. Now whether or not the Allies can hold off the Germans from the valuable objectives for over 150 turns depends on the skill of both sides. Playing through the Charleroi scenario, I can hold off the Germans to the point where practically everything is apart, at which point - if it were a campaign - I know that I would have to take flight (when the scenario ends). The tricky point is: at what point are the Allies going to keep falling back under pressure and at what point are they going to dig in their heels for that one great battle? And at what point are they able to rest?"

I've been thinking about this, and I think you are right, that an immediate retreat is probably best: But how to do it? Let's face it, good wargamers are infinitely more aggressive than actual commanders for a lot of reasons; especially because we have perfectly accurate maps and because it is after all a game. However, how does one retreat in good order 150 K on foot against a ruthless attacking player? In the actual campaign there'd be a battle somewhere like at Mons, and then the Germans would let the enemy retreat and reassemble somewhere else. In one game I'm playing, my opponent never lets up; even attacking in disordered formation at night. He does not allow me to break contact. There is constant battle.

I can see that from the initial set up, the French can get out of there if they crank up V Armee from the get go, leave some rearguards in forts and bunkers to hold the crossings and pull immediately out of the Ardennes too with 9 & 11 Corps on the left with the rest on the right to follow in echelon. But is it practicable? Has anyone actually moved French V Armee and the BEF, as well as IV & III Armee from the environs of Charleroi/Sedan to somewhere near Paris/Chalons on the Marne and formed a new line? You can't just run: you are going to be overwhelmed somewhere if you do. Has anyone actually been able to do it? The retreat toward Moscow in 1941 in much easier done because there is a constant stream of well placed reinforcements as well as units already in place along the line of retreat. In F 14 there is none of that. The units that are on the front line in very awkward positions must extricate themselves and reform 100 miles to the rear and there are no Siberians to the rescue. jonny :conf:

[Mr Grumpy]

In one game I'm playing, my opponent never lets up; even attacking in disordered formation at night. He does not allow me to break contact. There is constant battle.

Well i have not played the main CG yet but i did play the large 1914_0906_02s: The Juggernaut Exposed scenario in which i had to withdraw the 1.AOK and elements of the 2.AOK north in the face of a determined Allied advance, i found that the night movement disruption rule was invaluable to my breaking contact as advancing units are forced to stick to roads/rail lines or end up disrupted which of course reduces their MP allowance, any player moving large amounts of units off road at night (or more than the 2500 road stacking limit) will have a mass of disrupted units at daybreak and that seemed to be enough of a deterrent to prevent the 24/7 PzC fighting we are used to. The trick seemed to be to organise strong rearguards of cavalry on the roads/ rail lines to prevent your opponent sneaking along them at night and then scoot away in the morning.

Another factor is that units moving at night really do gain lumps of fatigue which means they are often in yellow fatigue even before the fighting starts, although this effects both sides once the attacker gets into high yellow/red fatigue the advance just grinds to a halt, attacking in F14 is so much more difficult that PzC that fatigue management seems to me to be a game in itself!

[Volcano Man]

Yes, I agree with Foul. Most of it has to do with retreating along roads at night, while covering with rear guards of cavalry and field guns at important crossroads.

The other technique for breaking contact is to bloody the enemy. Just as an example, when the German 1.Armee was hounding the BEF's withdrawal, part of the BEF was forced to stand and fight because they had no choice (the enemy was following too close). So, they stood and fought for a day at Le Cateau, both sides suffering heavily, but the attackers (1.Armee) was forced to rest the next day while the exhausted defenders withdrew. Of course the BEF units that held were exhausted, but the rest of the BEF was allowed to escape and rest. The units that held at Le Cateau kept withdrawing regardless of the fatigue until they were beyond the other elements of the BEF. Naturally the German 1.Armee had to be cautious after they were bloodied, or else a constant attack after being exhausted would have ended up doing little good. A similar situation occurred near Villers-Cotterets. The small scenario in the game doesn't show the scope of it but the British were conducting a rear guard to cover the rest of the BEF's retreat.

As for the French, the same thing was done with the Ve Armee at Charleroi, and also at Guise, and with the fighting in the Ardennes. At Guise, Joffre ordered the Ve Armee to counter attack to buy some time. In the Ardennes, the French put up such a fight that the German armies voluntarily decided to rest for a day or so, while the French withdrew. Of course all of this assumes that one would be able to judge the moment in which they have bloodied the enemy and need to withdraw, and not stick around longer than they should and themselves get trapped in a situation they cannot retreat from. As said though, it depends on the attacker's actions as well. If the attacking player is very aggressive and chooses not to rest, well, you just have to manufacture a situation where you make him pay for that heavily and my guess is he will be more cautious after that.

I would caution that as the Allies, an immediate withdrawal on turn 1 is probably not the best choice. I feel that it has to be something along the historical lines of making a stand along the front for the first day (in the Ardennes and Charleroi), see what they do an Mons (hold for a day after contact is made if possible) -- essentially a brief resistance and then a retreat. Once engaged and the enemy is bloodied, maneuver your units to get ready for a retreat and then use rear guards at the roads to cover a night retreat. On the next day, you should be doing more of the same and containing the retreat with the rest. Rest the furthest rearward units when able and launch limited counter attacks where the enemy gets too close. Chances are, if you do this, the enemy will be resting his exhausted forces and will not be perusing with as many forces as would otherwise be the case.

It is certainly very tricky though. Everything mentioned here depends on your partner's actions and is more about acting and reacting. I think in some situations the Allies have to be willing to sacrifice some divisions, brigades etc. for the greater good of pulling back to a more manageable situation.