Second game and questions!

Questions, chat, feedback and developments relating to REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE... Wargaming the wars of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Post Reply
wkeyser
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Second game and questions!

Post by wkeyser » Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:23 pm

Some questions and observations on our second game.

Issuing MPs? When you are issuing MPs to your units, there is a modifier if the unit is outside of the Brigade commanders range. However, when does the commander move? The question relates to what happens as the Brigade carries out exploitation moves, does the brigade commander move each time the brigade does (seems he only moves once). But what about individual units that move out of the range of the commander? Are they issued orders with the assumption that since they started in command range they will received MPs as if they are in command distance each time they use and individual action? Or as they move outside of the range of the commander they pay for that each time.

For example you move your brigade up, then you issue an individual order to one battalion it moves outside of the brigade commanders range, do you now pay for being out of range of the commander or could you move the brigade commander?

Formations.
A cavalry unit in column of squadrons, it is French so has three squadrons, is facing one direction, a threat moves onto its flank, can you react with just one squadron? This would mean that the unit would be facing two directions, perfectly acceptable for a cavalry unit but is it allowed?

Fire for Brits in line. Do they get the d3 mod for being vets and also the d3 mod for being British in line? We played it this way. Does not really model the ability of the British to hold fire until the enemy was very close and then let loose with one volley as this would imply that they are better shots at any range which was not the case. The way we plan to deal with this is that British infantry in line that when charged and it receives the stand and fire result of Point blank it would get the d3 two times, once for being vet, the next for being British in line and firing a point blank volley.

Close combat! When you figure out the number of dice for combat based on combat groups with all the modifiers is this to only determine the losses based on the Close Combat Casualty Table? So your only loses are based on that table?

Artillery, prolonging does this count as movement? This makes no sense for small moves as the battery would just be pushing the guns further up after each recoil and so should not interfere with the fire in any significant way.

Artillery I can not find a bounce through effects. Which means that a unit behind a front line unit that is being fired upon by a French 12pdr battery can move as close as it wants to the front line unit with out any danger? This seems to be the case, and again here we will tinker with the rules. What we are thinking about using is my artillery template that I use in my rules, this does two things it forces the units behind the front line to not get too close and since it is about 4 to 5 inches wide it would make attackers deploy their units at deployment distance.

Another thing we added is to mark the infantry columns so we can tell if they are formed on the right or left of the battalion, this means that when you move up towards the enemy and are stopped you better make sure you can deploy other wise you are going to be stuck in column without being able to form into column.

Over all we like the rules and are going to give them another go in a week or two.

Thanks
William
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Fri Mar 18, 2011 11:37 am

William, the Brigadier normally moves with his Brigade so if it makes a number of exploitation moves then he moves along with it. If any unit is outwith his command range at the start of the move then it has to be paid for as a single unit and that cost doubled for being out of command distance. If the unit then moves back into command distance then it operates the same as the rest of the Brigade. You could move your Brigadier up to a unit that is out of command distance but that would mean that the rest of your Brigade would be out of command distance in the next move. Another option that players often forget is that they can use their Division commanders to reorder troops that are out of command distance but you need to be careful not to move him too far out of his command distance otherwise the Brigades will be unable to change their Brigade orders as it's only the Division Commander or higher that can change Brigade orders.

Cavalry just fight as complete units although for smaller skirmish battles there is no reason why you couldn't adopt squadrons as your main tactical unit but you would have to make up your own rules about command and control for seperate squadrons. The rules are really written for much larger battles where cavalry regiments would normally all operate together.

Brits only get the d3 once for shooting and they don't have to be Vets to get this bonus drilled Brits also get this bonus. If you grade most of your Brits as Vets then they would be more likely to fire at point blank range which makes them more effective but I can see no great historical evidence to make it seem as if your Brits are using repeating rifles but if that is the effect you want in your games then go for it.

There is no bounce through rule for artillery fire because that is factored into the shooting rules and you have to remember that all the troops are based covering distances that are much larger than they would take up on the battlefield. Realining guns after firing does not count as moving it's only if you manhandle you guns to face a different direction that is classed as moving and this can only be done with lighter guns.

There is an arguement that only horse artillery should be able to move and fire because we have now found in a number of recent games that batteries are being refaced with the players happily accepting the minus. This could be my fault as I pointed out the moving and firing rule during one of our battles and this has now become accepted as the norm but people forget that iit is not just the guns that is having to be realined but all the limbers etc that goes with them. Perhaps Barry should clarify that what he intended and he can blame me for making field artillery to flexible.

Hope this answers your questions? but you seem to be happy making your own ammendments.
Cheers
Dave
wkeyser
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Post by wkeyser » Fri Mar 18, 2011 5:47 pm

Thanks for the response, and yes I am very quick to tinker with rules but the "engine" you have is excellent.

The British fire power questions is one of those old time wargame myths like the French always attack in column. However, through out the period of the fighting in the peninsular the Brits excelled at two things one levelling their muskets, not the same as aiming but this did have a great effect on fire effectiveness when you are on a hill as most recruits would aim too high which is the tendency when aiming down hill, but the NCOs seem to have realized this and made them aim low. The other is the ability to hold their fire until the enemy was very close (under 50m) and fire one or two volleys followed often by a quick counter charge. At other ranges and other situations they fired just like every one else with similar training.

So no I do not think the British fire power should be over powering but the chance of that extra fire is why I will use the second d3 for fire when they roll point blank on the close to fire distance. The option for a quick counter charge is already in the rules.

As to artillery this I am going to have disagree with you. Being any where close behind a unit that was being fired at by a 12pdr battery was a very dangerous palce indeed. So we will use my template, as I stated earlier this does two things well, it forces the second line to keep some distance, which many documents of the period say was between 200 to 300 meters behind the first line, and also make the units manoeuvre at deployment distance, with the added detail of indicating if the column is lead by the right hand or left hand companies. This makes for a detailed look at the column formations and how they where used on the battlefield. This is one of the great strengths of the rules, other “big” battalion rules just have lots of figures in a battalion for its own sake but here they seem to serve a purpose. Well done!

Thanks for the answerers, as you mentioned I am always willing to change rules to fit my views of the period. However, it is always helpful to get to the intent of the Designer.

William
davidsharpe
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:18 am
Location: FRANCE

Post by davidsharpe » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:28 am

William

I agree with what you said about British fire.
They fired low, waited until Point blank range, fired together in diciplinated volley fire and fired one more shot per minute than other nationalities (apart imperial guard perhaps).
So Rules british fire treatment looks like an understatement.
My RTE house rules try to pay attention to this historical particularity in some ways:

1 A +2 modifier to stand and fire test for british defensive fire, and a +2 for guard units, with a maximum cumulated modifiers of +3.
So a brit drilled is +2, a brit veteran is +3 and a brit guard is +3 too, giving them respectively
4/6 , 5/6 and 5/6 chances of getting point blank fire.
A french drilled would get 2/6 chances, a french guard 4/6.
A spanish recruit 1/6.

2 Then, there is the british line, 50% longer because deployed in two ranks.
I materialize a Brit 500 men batallion in 6 blocks of 6 figurines, (24 on the paper but 36 models on tab le).
So this line fire 9 dice (combats groups) instead of 6.
But at Waterloo they were in Double line when they deployed in “line”, so it would not be necessary.

3 I dont like the D3 concept, because it s not proportionnal.
A half strengh batallion get a D3 like a big British guard batallion.
Maths and probablilities are important in miniature gaming , i think.
So i HIT on 3+ for good shots (british and most veterans other nations units), 5+ for recruits, and 4+ (RTE standart) for others.
That means a Brit in line, firing point blank, gets nine 3+ good shots !
6 potential Hits !
A lone french batallion 24 strengh would be automatically disordered !

But a “normal” player would systematically attack a brit batallion with Two units, dividing the brit fire in two.
The rules doesn t simulate the “stopping power” of british volley fire)
(Apart the automatic disorder for 25% losses on one defensive fire phase, difficult to obtain when you have Two units charging)
I think some resolve modifier should be done, when charging with infantry and receiving brit defensive fire:
-1 if getting 2 losses
-2 if getting 3 or 4 losses
-3 if getting 5+ losses
These modifier couldn t make a charging unit retreat or rout, just waver.

My pleasure is to feel the historicity in the miniatures counterpart, british infantry is not a russian or an austrian with a D3 bonus.

Friendly yours William

(Your comments about Artillery bounce fire are interesting.)

D
"British infantry ? In Duel, it s the Devil !"
Général Foy to Napoléon in the morning of june the 18th, 1815.
wkeyser
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Post by wkeyser » Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:48 am

Hi D
I like your ideas and will probably use some of them. I do like your idea about the d3 your are correct it does not represent the proportianal aspect of the size of the unit.

As to firing more rounds per minute than other nations this I don’t agree with, the tactic of the British line when attacked was to fire one or two controlled battalion volleys then a counter charge, then after sending the attacker on their way they would fall back to where they started. There is no proof that they fired faster than any one else given the same training and experience.

The mater of all two ranks firing is an issue I think, and I like the idea of the 50% bonus in fire dice. However, I would only give the fire bonus that is represented by the d3 if the unit manages to get a result of point blank fire in a charge. Normal shooting they should not in my opinion do any better then other troops.

The other issue is when you see multiple French battalions attack a line is that this was a rare occurrence, as in most of the attacks the French intended to form line prior to charging. This was debated long and hard in the now out of print magazine Empires Eagles and Lions. This matter was also dealt with when various modern authors disproved the mistakes Oman made in his description of Maida in 1806 in which he stated that the French where in column, while in fact the French stated that they where in line. This mistake was carried over to the peninsula discussion and has coloured our views of the fighting in Spain ever since. The French for the most part wanted to attack in line, not column. This is the issue I try to address in forcing the players to indicate how the column is deployed, either on the right or left of the line. This means that they might not be able to form into line if they are stopped. I will probably put in a modifier for a column that has been stopped although the waiver result is probably good enough.
William
davidsharpe
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:18 am
Location: FRANCE

Post by davidsharpe » Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:26 pm

Good evening William

You are true, French columns go fast to close with the enemy, provoque its retreat, if not, try to deploy in line.
But seeing british infantry suddenly too close, french columns are caught in defensive fire, unable to deploy in line because when rear ranks try to deploy they take defensive fire and stop deploying.

Need for Speed explain attack column use by french, particularly when terrain is somewhat difficult.
In Central Europe, large utilisation of artillery and cavalry by french made a british like linear tactics very hazardous, but in remote difficult terrain like iberic peninsular or rough Italy (Maida) Artillery and cavalry were uneasy to get and use.
That s were the british infantry tactics could be successful.
The Walcheren mediocre performance and the Belgian 1815 campaign were another experience for the british.
We think of Waterloo as a logical british victory, it wasn t.
Facing for the first time a "real" french imperial army, with plenty lethal artillery, outstanding cavalry (lancers and cuirrassiers) and the imperial guard, anglo allied were close to disaster.
Quatre bras would have been one if Ney had logically attacked soon in the morning.
Waterloo was a near run thing, the french attacking defensive terrain with an inferiority in numbers because of the VI corps and nearly half of the Guard frozen by Prussian flanking attack, but close to breach the anglo allied line twice.
Wellington had never seen such a dangerous army, it wasn t anymore the pathetic french armies in Spain and Portugal.
The british infantry could not deploy in line, the skirmishers could not prevail, the cavalry after the Heavy brigade heroic charge and disaster following disappeared in second line, to prevent infantry running away, the artillery left progressively the battlefield.
Staying in square and wait prussians was all anglo allied could do.

Too many french command errors saved the day for Wellington, in a battle which should normally have been a french victory, even with prussian arrival.

The I corps attack in divisional massed column of lines gave firepower equality, with more reserves, was on the verge of smashing the british left wing, if a cavalry support would have been close enough.
The final guard attack had two opportunities to break the allied line on a one against two odds, one more guard brigade, a fresh reserve cavalry good cavalry, and Waterloo would have been named Belle Alliance.

The british luck was to fight on rough terrain in european external lines, in infantry batlefield, and not on central Europe all arms battlefield against the "Grande Armée".

About gaming
Players will optimize their units utilisation, they will bang two french batallions on each british one.
They dont care about distance between batallions needed by space deployment in line necessity.
The rules dont simulate last time deployment in line.

About british fire you are true, defensive fire is often a single point blank volley fire followed by a bayonet countercharge.
But if close action becomes a firefight, like in Albuera, british better fire discipline give them abut one more shot per minute.

Friendly yours William

D
"British infantry ? In Duel, it s the Devil !"
Général Foy to Napoléon in the morning of june the 18th, 1815.
wkeyser
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Post by wkeyser » Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:19 pm

Whoa that is a lot of French love.

I think that when a battle is lost; it does not matter if the French made mistakes or the Brits and Prussian did nothing but fall into the victory , which I think is dead wrong, it is still a lost battle. I do agree that Wellington would have been hard pressed to hold if the Prussians did not show up. However, the French made huge mistakes after Ligny and Grouchy did not really live up to his reputation.

As to the French army being a good one I disagree. It was I believe incredibly fragile. Most of the Generals had had enough after 20+years of almost constant war. The desertion by the French general at the beginning of the campaign and the fear that more would do the same hung over the French. Ney was a ghost of himself, Soult not the right man for the job. D Elrons deployment a huge mistake.

So no I don’t think the French where that great at Waterloo it was no where near what it had been in the Glory days!

As to the deployment of the British I think once again Wellington showed a great grasp of terrain and used it to the disadvantage of the French and to his advantage. And the British did deploy into line although not in two ranks. But enough to hold elements of the Guard at bay.

As to the terrain being one of "central Europe" for combined arms! I think this was always the case with the English deployment; it was Wellingtons brilliance to understand the strengths and weakness of his army and deployed accordingly.

As to out shooting again one instance really proves nothing, and the way the English fought had a lot to do with the fact it was a small and professional army with lots of training and experience. The fact that they used lines was what all armies of the period understood to be the best method for all combat both attack and defences, but the vast number of conscripts and lack of training after 1809 in the Eastern theatres meant that the only way to employ them was usually in column, as they did not have the training to do anything else.

All the Nations knew that you defend in line with a controlled battalion volley when the attackers got close, even the Russians at Eylau are deploying their front lines in line formation with the second line in column of companies in support.

Having said the above I must still proclaim my Francophile-ness for all, as I still love the French, and really don’t play the English at all, I have multiple armies of the period in 1-60 in 5mm and 15mm but not one painted English soldier for that little side show called the Peninsular. :shock:

William
davidsharpe
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 52
Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2011 7:18 am
Location: FRANCE

Post by davidsharpe » Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:13 pm

Thanks for your reply William

Of course a lost battle is a lost one, you are right about the higher french officers, good ones were gone, Ney was just a good front line fighter.
I wanted to say that the french military machine with Napoleon, Huge artillery, specialist cavalry (lancers and Cuirrassiers) and Imperial guard was still a deadly one. Wellington had never encounter such a fighting force and was close to disaster even with a superiority in numbers.

In Spain it was not the same army types, and the terrain favored infantry battles.
Read Barbero, he propose another look to the Waterloo battle, far from the anglo saxon tendancies to see their victory as a normal thing, Napoleon encountering for the first time his masters Wellington and british army.
That s a "à posteriori" analysis, a rationalisation.
Wellington said himself just at the end of the battle that he was close to disaster, this battle being the most difficult in his career.
Then, contaminated by the overall opinion, forgot this evidence and begun to think he was victorious because he was better.
I would say : it wasn t Peninsular anymore, on Waterloo he was very lucky, in Spain and Portugal he was great, that s the difference.

I say that because when we design scenarios, we should simulate differently Peninsular war ones and 1815 ones.

British infantry was outstanding, particularly in defence, i said much about it, but technically a "grande armée" was the most formidable foe of its time.
Wellington needed Damp ground, farm fortresses breaking wave attacks and 50 000 prussians flanking movement to overcome it.

Friendly yours.

D
"British infantry ? In Duel, it s the Devil !"
Général Foy to Napoléon in the morning of june the 18th, 1815.
Post Reply