nwg

GrosPaul and Moopere are marching to the drums as of this afternoon in an offline agreement.

GrosPaul will play as Austrians, Moopere has chosen Spain (awaiting GrosPauls acceptance).

Looks like war right across Europe eh chaps? From the North there is a Swedish-Russian War as well as an Ottoman-Russian, right down to the South in an Austrian-Spanish conflict.

Good luck and good gaming GrosPaul, I look forward to the oncoming campaign.

Best regards, Moopere

Spain versus Austria, I accept immediately. I admire your temerity, having read all the reports from Gunner24 about the "performances" of Spanish. Hehehe ... I already feel optimistic .

Good luck to you as well and thank you to meet me.

Best regards, gp.

Gunner certainly plays a fine game, and beats the heck out of me more often than not...however, we play a very different style of game. I am at home playing Russians, but, its a bit boring to always play the same faction eh? So, I have found over time that the Spanish tend to play a better game than the Russians do in many respects. Not quite so melee focussed, excellent artillery choices and good overall troops, though not a high performance musket faction thats for sure. I'm hoping they perform reasonably well for me.




Always good to start a new campaign with high Esprit de corps.

What rules shall we use GP? I am fond of MRS ... Do you have any favourites?

http://nwg.freeforums.org/lets-list-the-known-ntw2-community-rules-t427.html

Whilst we are talking of rules. Have you got any interest in trying something thats a bit different? For all of time NTW2 has been played with "Restrict Camera" turned on, but I wonder, particularly for multiplayer games where a single player per side gets nominated as the field commander whether it would be a lot easier if there was no restriction on the camera?

I know it sounds pretty strange but it might give the game a more 'miniatures' feel to be able to whizz around the field without the strange restrictions of the RTW camera.

I'd be interested in playing out this campaign with no restriction on the camera view just to see how it plays. I think it may be a real benefit, but we won't know if we don't try it out.

M.

I have checked the means of MRS, RS and others.
I observe I allways use RS.
To summarize, with MRS one could snip a general and the first model may not be a "general" (how a fault!).
Anyway I allways chose in first the "general".

I agree with MRS and will be more cautious with my general.

I agree also with no restriction on the camera view.

GP.

Yes. The General is part of a unit which is quite strong in CB. At 25 models this unit represents about 1.5-2 squadrons of light cavalry and should not be ignored.

You will know also that artillery on auto-fire setting will target and kill the enemy general. So, given these things I think its not a reasonable thing to expect that your General can't be shot at, though it is still quite dishonourable to do so (in my view).




Again correct. Its certainly been the fashion for the longest time to have the Army General attached to the General unit. However, Gunner and I played a campaign a while ago where we used straight NWG rules (only one rule - no shooting blocks) and I had occasion to defend as Russia with a very tiny force indeed, around 8000 florins as I recall. I just couldn't afford to spend the florins on a useless unit, so I took my chances and plonked the General in with an Artillery unit (my only one!).

There are significant dangers in doing this, but to my mind I'd rather have the choice.




I tend to do this as well. But I also tend to -use- my General for his morale qualities, so having him mounted and easy to move about can really help.




I don't find any benefit in purposely targeting a General. There are almost always much better targets to attract my attention, so, your General is likely to be fairly safe with me as an opponent. Having said that though, if a stray ball takes your General off his horse, or if mine gets a howitzer shell in the face, its good to know that we don't have to have a discussion about it ... its war after all (hehehe).



Thanks for that. I think it could be interesting. We should note our thoughts on this here at the NWG once we've played a game or two so that others may benefit from the experience. Who knows, maybe we'll start a trend

M

It is a bit funny. I realize we agree to play with MRS and in fact we will play RS rule .

Me neither target the general. I prefer counter-battery first then troop (if my honorable opponent haven't already demolish my guns ).

Cheers,
gp.

Is this a wiki game OR a game you have arranged between yourselves in another format ?.......do you need wiki pages constructing ?.

We have proposed a campaign of Austrians versus Spanish. If you would be so kind as to construct a wiki page for this purpose that would be great.

Cheers, M.

Sure, I will get onto it later, it should be all done and ready to go with 24-48 hours - with a little luck.

Small hold up chaps, sorry....all the pages are done EXCEPT the map page.

It will be finished tomorrow - hopefully.....when it is done you can PM me your deployment, then I'll update the map and you two guys can check all is ok......if your happy all correct, off you go - enjoy the game, sorry about the delay.

Thank you G24. Take your time, I read you did some excess, hehehe.

"An adult the evening, a little boy in the morning" said my mother

Thanks for your efforts so far Gunner.

I was wondering, its probably not really essential to game enjoyment to have an infinite number of maps available or to semi-randomly create them at the start of each campaign. I would have thought that 3-4-5 campaign maps would be more than sufficient, at least for 6-12 months anyway. Any time/effort savings to be had in storing maps away as unlinked wiki pages which you can then really easily copy and paste into new pages as new campaigns begin?

Regards, M.

That sounds like a good idea BUT each new map page HAS to be a new page.....there is a problem with the COPY page, if I use a copy of the page NONE of the graphics copy correctly, they have to be re-selected from the upload and brought into each new page.....bit of a pain but not a major problem.....at least this way you always get a different map.

It will be ready later today - after a visit to the golf course.

Map page now complete, OOB by PM please, whenever your ready.

After the map is updated with the deployment, you may start when your happy I have placed your forces correctly.

http://ntw2.wikispaces.com/G9_MvGP_MAP

Good luck to M and GP, have fun gents
I was interested in your discussion on game rules, and the fact that neither of you think targeting the gen is worth while
M and myself had a discussion on arty sniping of gen with the conclusion that its not an honourable thing to do, i absolutely stand by that and I'm sure all you guys do to.
Just out of curiosity i was wondering what the technical effect of losing a gen in battle is I.E. how serious an effect it has on your troops morale.
My experience says it can be quite a devastating event.
In mine and Guns last battle for example, after taking out my gen with a sneak cav attack, Gun was able to cause an unstoppable chain rout of my still substantial force using 3 units of lights that had run out of ammo.
What I'm thinking is that for players interested only in winning that targeting the gen would be a very worth while tactic indeed.
As i said, no problem at all for the four players currently involved with the wiki but interesting