Optional Rules- what are your thoughts?

[Gary McClellan]

One of the interesting things about these games is that you can do a great deal of customizing by your selection of optional rules. What I'd like to do in this thread is to see what people like, and don't like, in terms of optional rules. Maybe when I'm awake I'll go through the whole list and give my thoughts, but after a very long (good, but long) day, I'll just focus on one.

Column Pass-through fire.

When this option first came along, I was one of its fans, but I've had second thoughts. Honestly, the idea is right, but it may create worse problems than it fixes.

To wit. Imagine that the French are trying to put 1050 men into a hex to create an assault force. Likely, they are going to assemble 3 battalions to create that force (average 350 men each). Then, if a enemy battery fires at them, then they take (on average) 3x standard losses.

On the other hand, if the Austrians form a 1050 man force, it's entirely possible that they can do it with 1 battalion (they have some monsters in Wagram). So, the exact same force, the exact same number of men in a hex, but they'll only take "standard" losses, and expect to take 1/3 the losses that the French do.

So, it sounds like a slam-dunk to shut off this option, right? (Unless of course you are an inveterate hater of all things French). I'm not convinced of that either. It does stand to reason that a hex with more troops in it should take more losses from artillery fire, and this rule tends to do that.

In the end, turning it on, and turning it off creates problems.

[rahamy]

Here's the set I prefer to play with:

http://www.hc-llc.net/games/images/optrules-nap.jpg

As for the Austrians gaining an advantage with the column pass-through rule, I guess that can be true to an extent, but the larger battalion will suffer more losses than a smaller one, so while less, its not a 1/3 loss I don't think. But also not all their battalions are that huge - and that also doesn't apply to all the games. So my vote is to use it rather than not. :cool:

[Sgt_Rock]

Rich - as you know I used to be a big proponent FOR Rout Limiting.
Now I am not sure.

I dont like it for the Allies for obvious reasons. Mostly because of their morale issues (not counting Russians). The French dont suffer ANYWHERE near as bad as the Allies do when this rule is OFF.

However, if you DESIGN the scenario with this in mind and give the Allies some command bonuses (higher command ratings) you will RECOVER your guys from disordered status faster.

The issue is for me that without RL ON you get alot of routs that I feel were not historical. The units run willy-nilly all over and disorder everything in sight.

Were you to play the Allies in the NWC you might not like RL OFF as much as you do.

Anyway, my two cents on that one.

The rest of them more or less are what you use. I have yet to see the Partial Retreats help units that are ZOCd so that one has no value for me.

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

I also usually question whether to use rout limiting or not. I think that it sometimes causes an unhistorical amount of routing then what should be the case. I generally end up keeping it off though and I generally use all the other optional rules that rhamy uses.

[FM WarB]

I play with opportunity fire against skirms allowed. There is plenty of ammo for both arty and infantry and I found it unrealistic for skirms to get in alot of free cracks.