Napoleonic Battles - Optional Rules Guide 1.4(4.06)

[LarkinVB]

Nice list, few remarks:

1. You name the Confederates in 'Auto Defensive Fire'. Shortage of ammo should not be a big factor for them with ADF set to medium range. For my PBEM games Auto Defensive fire with Manual Defensive Fire is my way to play. The triggered defensive fire is very unreliable.

2. Supply waggons are no longer affected by 'Movement Threat Disorder' with WDS v4.0. With v4.01 the chance to get disrupted is halved compared to previous iterations and limbered artillery won't provide any threat.

3. Hexside obstruction is consistant, not sure why you have mixed results regarding this.

[BigDuke66]

Updated to 1.2

[The_General]

Optional Melee Resolution - ON is recommended

As this rule prevents the so called "Blitzkrieg tactics" in turn gameplay, that were a problem since the release of the series, it is highly recommended.


This rule works fine in ACW series but IMHO it is not suitable for Napoleonic games due to skirmishers units which  can effectively block access to the line of defense.

[BigDuke66]

Update to 1.3 covering the new OR Column Movement Restriction.

[BigDuke66]

Update to 1.4 covering the new OR Strict line of Sight.

[KerbalGandalf]

Optional Fire Results - OFF is recommended
Using this OR makes two fire calculations and takes the average of them, this ensures to have overall more average results then results below or above.
From a historical perspective the less predictable results would fit better as the turn length is usual 10 minutes so rather short. Besides there are example out of the Napoleonic Wars that even under good circumstances the fire delivered could sometimes be almost ineffective and sometimes the opposite of it. But everyone who wants it more predictable can turn this on.

Optional Melee Results - OFF is recommended
Using this OR makes two melee calculations and takes the average of them, this ensures to have overall more average results then results below or above.
From a historical perspective the less predictable results would fit better as a melee was a rather uncertain action and a highly psychological situation that could turn this or the other way even when looking promising. But everyone who wants it more predictable can turn this on.

OK, a little probability and statistics lesson. If you are going to make recommendations about probabilities you should understand these things. Averaging the results (normal distribution, options "On") is not just "to make things more predictable", does NOT remove uncertainty, and does NOT make extreme results impossible. One roll (a flat distribution, options "Off") makes all points on the spectra equal in probability to any other point on the spectra, a situation that does not reflect reality for most things and definitely not for combat. The 'less predictable' (flat-distribution) results would in no way reflect reality better then a normally distributed one. In fact, a normal distribution would be a better model in every respect. 

The effect of averaging multiple results is to convert a flat distribution (all results are equally probable; very, very ahistoric) to something more like a normal distribution (average results are more common but extremes are still possible. From a historical perspective, reality). If someone is trying to simulate the results of fire combat between large groups of men, a flat distribution really makes no sense. Your likelihood of results should not be worst = average = best. If you repeatedly measured the outcome of 400 men opening up on another 400 men, the distribution of numbers of casualties would not be flat, it just wouldn't. Not even close. So, using the normal distribution from a historical perspective, things are certainly uncertain but, measuring outcomes, you would find some results (ones closer to 'average') are more likely then others. Add to all the above, the distribution of measured averages of a numeric variable are usually a normal distribution and _never_ a flat one (that's actually a key to most statistics working). And yes, this should be treated as a measured average since we are modeling the average effect of 400 men over time, not the effect of one unit in one instant. I find you saying you should only choose these options for 'predictability' insulting and, frankly, wrong. Yes, by using a normal distribution the average results are more predictably close to a certain value, but that is not why a designer would typically choose a normal distribution over a flat one, nor why I would recommend using these options. It is a question on how the values should be modeled and a normal distribution is far more realistic in every respect for these two outcomes than a flat one.

"...the fire delivered could sometimes be almost ineffective and sometimes the opposite of it." is still true in a normally distributed probability without making those extremes the usual outcomes, which they most certainly were not. Of course there were extremes, but they get commented on precisely because they are exceptional. People don't talk about average experiences much, because everyone has those! And just because there are examples of some extreme event happening on the battlefield does not mean it should be modeled in a game!! At Antietam, the 132nd PA was disrupted assaulting the sunken lane when they wandered into a swarm of angry bees. Should all tactical ACW games include bee-disruption probabilities? The Cagey Bees [should be the rule name if fighting for the USSR!]? It happened, we have an example! Of course we shouldn't, not even for a solely Antietam game ("A Gleam of Bayonets" had rules for this; more shit to remember, more die to roll, more a one-time anecdote happens all over the battlefield)! Please, always remember the plural of anecdote is NOT data! (I truly wish >1% of the population would appreciate that!) Rare events should not occur with the same probability as common events, so we shouldn't make extremes as likely as the mundane.