Napoleon in Russia Project

[jonnymacbrown]

I think we need to be a bit more tactful here guys.

The historical scenario is in black & white Al. Take a look at the Prussian line of march. It is, as presented in the historical scenario, completely made up; it has no semblance to the reality of June 18th, 1815. Yet people are playing this, and have been playing this for years, as an historical simulation; which it isn't. Sorry to have to bring this up again, but nothing is ever done. Warren Bajan and I created a campaign scenario that we called 4 Days in June but it is no longer available to download here, I don't know what happened to it and I lost it when he died. Charlie Crutshall isn't involved anymore and he let everybody down. There is an elephant in the room and what's the sense of making believe it isn't there? jonny

[agmoss99]

I have those files. The oob needs editing as the icons are all out of kilter with the latest patch. Clearly a lot of research and work was put into this.

[jonnymacbrown]

I have those files. The oob needs editing as the icons are all out of kilter with the latest patch. Clearly a lot of research and work was put into this.

Great news. Thank you so much Al! Warren and I worked on that campaign scenario for two years and played it twice. It does need more work and I could use some help with it but I can tell you it will really be worth it. Thank you for preserving Warren's legacy! jonny

[BigDuke66]

Well what now, first you point to the The Waterloo Companion and then you ignore the info in that book yourself.
The Companion notes that the IG is still arriving at 11:30(p 161) and the 4th division was still not in position what simply means they are still marching at 11:30(p. 162).

Don't get me wrong, it looks like that scenario needs some adjustment but still calling it and the whole game "fantasy" is not only too harsh but simply way beyond any reason.

PS I not sure the expansion pack gives any improvements but maybe one should install that too to make sure he gets anything that is available.
Download here:
http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Updates/up_...NapBat.asp

[jonnymacbrown]

Well what now, first you point to the The Waterloo Companion and then you ignore the info in that book yourself. The Companion notes that the IG is still arriving at 11:30(p 161) and the 4th division was still not in position what simply means they are still marching at 11:30(p. 162). Don't get me wrong, it looks like that scenario needs some adjustment but still calling it and the whole game "fantasy" is not only too harsh but simply way beyond any reason. PS I not sure the expansion pack gives any improvements but maybe one should install that too to make sure he gets anything that is available.
Download here:
http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/Updates/up_...NapBat.asp

The reason I call it fantasy is because it is not possible play the wargame as a simulation of the actual battle. Having to begin the battle by attacking Hugomont with the 5th Division instead of the 6th & 9th because they are completely out of position means the game designer was fantasizing about the course of the battle and didn't actually know what happened! Every battle map that I have ever seen has the 4th Division in place to the right of the 3rd @ 1130. Maybe I'm wrong. The IG spent the night at Rossomme and deployed a few thousand yards from there so where else were they coming from so that they might arrive so late? Those fellows were not stragglers. Armee du Nord was an efficient military machine and was in position to fight when Napoleon issued his orders @ 1100. jonny

[-72-]

Fwiw, this happens to be Mr Egan's pet topic here at the Blitz as he has been posting the same thing for years now.

I will give him credit though, as it has me thinking of adding a blog post about research, citations, multiple sources, and reconciling accounts, as well as tracing sources ... one source using another source isn't really a multiple source.

Page notations, account comparisons, digesting material and -like I said above reconciling differences (which are not always cut and dried anyway), interpreting missing data, also sometimes the requirement to add in subjective assumptions (and provide the basis for the rationale of having done so).

I don't know Charlie Cutshall, never met him -think he was long gone before I ever became involved in anything... but the thing is I also don't know what he did and what he didn't and really there is a scenario editor, and I think that the PDT's can be altered ...

I can say that if I were actually that bothered by a scenario (or scenarios), I think I might actually try to do something about it to see if I could make it work. Actually, I guess that I have before - that is the reason that I have done some graphic work because I want to know what if.

Otoh I could just sit around and complain about how this that or the other thing could have been done -and that it is not my responsibility to fix, etc, etc, etc --- whatever ... I do think that if something really bugged me for that long of a period of time, I would do something about it for my own sake, if for nothing else.

And obviously mileage varies ... however as a note to the community -none of this is particularly new... I just accidented on the same material from 2010 here (and I am pretty sure there is older material than that.).

[jonnymacbrown]

Fwiw, this happens to be Mr Egan's pet topic here at the Blitz as he has been posting the same thing for years now.

I will give him credit though, as it has me thinking of adding a blog post about research, citations, multiple sources, and reconciling accounts, as well as tracing sources ... one source using another source isn't really a multiple source.

Page notations, account comparisons, digesting material and -like I said above reconciling differences (which are not always cut and dried anyway), interpreting missing data, also sometimes the requirement to add in subjective assumptions (and provide the basis for the rationale of having done so).

I don't know Charlie Cutshall, never met him -think he was long gone before I ever became involved in anything... but the thing is I also don't know what he did and what he didn't and really there is a scenario editor, and I think that the PDT's can be altered ...

I can say that if I were actually that bothered by a scenario (or scenarios), I think I might actually try to do something about it to see if I could make it work. Actually, I guess that I have before - that is the reason that I have done some graphic work because I want to know what if.

Otoh I could just sit around and complain about how this that or the other thing could have been done -and that it is not my responsibility to fix, etc, etc, etc --- whatever ... I do think that if something really bugged me for that long of a period of time, I would do something about it for my own sake, if for nothing else.

And obviously mileage varies ... however as a note to the community -none of this is particularly new... I just accidented on the same material from 2010 here (and I am pretty sure there is older material than that.).

It is still the stock historical scenario and anyone who buys the game thinks it is an historical simulation; it isn't. It's not about me: I've played Waterloo 100 times, from Avalon Hill, to Wellington's Victory, to BG to HPS. I keep bringing it up for the people who buy the game expecting historical accuracy and who aren't getting it. I am doing something about it by bringing up the issue every few years hoping that the stock scenario will be corrected; pretty easy to do with any update. I'd be happy to if anyone would ask me to. jonny

[BigDuke66]

First, I think this is the wrong place to point to the problem, no offensive to the Blitz oh lord for sure not but this is neither the developers forum nor that of a club specifically dedicated to this games series.
And second, by yearly pointing to the problem you don't get anywhere unless your target is to keep the people from buying it, but by that you simply cut yourself because with less people that could participate in any future endeavor you will just make work on this specific scenario harder if not unbearable.

Now If you want to do something good, find a place with enough dedicated people that can join a project to rework this scenario, with enough concentrated historical research but also dedicated playtesting you surely could achieve a better version of this stock scenario and that version might even end up in the next patch.

And that something has to be done is for sure because its obvious that there are some discrepancies on the French left for sure because if you look at the company level scenario for Hougoumont the French line is much further ahead compared to the Historical Waterloo scenario.
What is also strange is that there is a complete Waterloo scenario also at company level but there again it resembles the French line of the Historical Waterloo scenario.

Now besides the placement of some French units, is there something wrong with the British lines or the map itself?

[agmoss99]

Well mercifully I'm the only person to have those old files of Jonny/Warren. Jonny has now been sent them.

I certainly agree that any project should start with a careful analysis of all available published material. After that a scenario can be modified easily enough. Playtested by a group. A consensus reached on historicity and playability. And finally submitted to Rich H for possible inclusion in a future patch, or else available for download at the SDC.

They are great games, but of course there is always room for improvement. And Tiller does update them.

I think the reason the company-level scenarios are enlarged versions of the stock game is simply for the sake of continuity - imagine trying to play the company level game with units in different places to the main game!

[jonnymacbrown]

Well mercifully I'm the only person to have those old files of Jonny/Warren. Jonny has now been sent them.

I certainly agree that any project should start with a careful analysis of all available published material. After that a scenario can be modified easily enough. Playtested by a group. A consensus reached on historicity and playability. And finally submitted to Rich H for possible inclusion in a future patch, or else available for download at the SDC.

They are great games, but of course there is always room for improvement. And Tiller does update them.

I think the reason the company-level scenarios are enlarged versions of the stock game is simply for the sake of continuity - imagine trying to play the company level game with units in different places to the main game!

Andrew, thank you so much for saving all this work. I had become so disillusioned with the Waterloo game that I deleted it and all the files, but then when Warren died, I never thought about all those scenario files until then and thought now they were gone. But you saved them! I just forwarded them to Bill Peters so they are saved! The Campaign (4 Days in June) is a good one and the both times Warren and I play tested it, we ended up fighting it out at the Waterloo battlefield! Thanks for everything jonny