"chief de batallion, table size and miniatures scale" Topic

I have bought the ruleset, and I am currently reading it. It looks interesting, but my first problem is that it needs a 6x12 table, and my game table is 2x2 meters (that should be something bigger than 6x6 feets).

So maybe I could use 6mm minis halving the size of each stand, and halving all measures? (sorry about my english)

thanks in advance

I bought and read them, but had absolutely no interest in trying them. Since you play the "long" way there's really no room for maneuver or any interesting tactical decisions.

That said, there's no reason you could not do what you describe. I do this all the time with games to make my table "feel" bigger!

"Since you play the "long" way there's really no room for maneuver or any interesting tactical decisions."

The irony of this being that, Chief de Batallions had no interesting tactical decisions!

The job role was to hold together one of the building blocks of the Brigade, where the bottom level of the tactical choices emanated from.

From that point of view the lack of decisions is pretty real, if a little boring. The rules could have offered a whole new perspective but sadly died in complexity while trying to mirror the micro environment.

Your solution should work fine. The table size recommendation is based on how the authors mount their troops, but that mounting system is not required.

I find chef de Bataillon to be a rewarding system. It has flaws, but its unlike the over simplified, dumbed down, systems that are flooding the market. Bowden has said that he is going to be doing a new version of it, though I haven't seen any info on when

Trajanus your kidding right?

Wow! I would buy an updated version of CdB! Hopefully it will streamline all that CIL bit.

Dale

I haven't played it, but have had it for years and always been intrigued. I don't think I'd try to play a piece of a larger action. I think its place would be more like Sharpe taking the South Essex to try to hold a bridge (can't remember which book) where all he has is one battalion, from which he detaches companies for various tasks. YMMV
Phil

We've played several games off it over the years and in recent threads on this subject Scott Bowden has already said that the complexity issues will be addressed. Once you start playing it is a very rewarding experience. I've seen battalions shattered and pushed back several times that somehow rally and come back to drive their enemies from the field! The amount of decisions that you have to make is very challenging, from which of the 20+ formations should you choose to go to, how to cross linear obstacles, fall back and reorganize or stand and firefight, etc.. . Also, it's interesting how the smallest variations in terrain can disrupt your advance and affect your deployment.

I've been hearing about these rules and would be interested in playing at the battalion level for a change – even though I only have a "standard" 6'x4' table… So, how imminent is this new version, and where in Old Europe could I get it?

"how imminent is this new version". Good question. My guess is that it is a ways off. A 6x4 has plenty of room as each player usually commands just one battalion. In 15mm scale a French battalion of 600 men would be six companies each of 20 figs(1:5 scale) and take up around 18" of frontage. The thing I like most about the game is the decision on the formations. For example(I don't have my rules in front of me, so this is just off the top of my head), if you were in a certain kind of column you can't choose to go into some line formations as your company order is wrong and the troops don't know how to do it from that column. So you need to change into another formation to get your companies in order, then go into the line formation that you want.

hos459,

And which bit do you think I'm kidding about?

For anyone who is interested I order my copy from Dennis at OnMilitaryMatters.com He had to order it so it took a few weeks, but did show up eventually. It was about $35 USD if I remember correctly.

Mark "Extra Crispy" Severin
Owner, Scale Creep Miniatures
scalecreep.com

Check out the new rules directory at
DeepFriedHappyMice.com

aegiscg47, so I could play it in a 7x7 feets table without changing base sizes and distances?

I was thinking about gaming it in 6mm, with nearly 1:1 ratio.

How many battalions per side could be gamed in that table size?

You said that each gamer can command a battalion. can you make a multiplayer game with only a battalion per side?

thanks very much for your answers

"You said that each gamer can command a battalion. can you make a multiplayer game with only a battalion per side?"

Each player would need their own battalion. Multiple people to one battalion wouldn't work.

Your idea of 6mm at nearly 1:1 would work out beautifully. The closer you get to 1:1 the better the battalions will look as far as frontage to depth is concerned

thanks, but I was thinking of 1:1 with only one battalion per side. More than one battalion per side is too much to paint for me

Trajanus that would be the comment "The irony of this being that, Chief de Batallions had no interesting tactical decisions!"

I can only imagine that was said in jest.

hos 459,

Actually, no I wasn't jesting it is all about how you define "interesting tactical decisions".

Pardon me if I combine my reasons with a point I was going to make on using smaller scale figures, as I hope this will explain what I'm on about.

I think that doing Chef de Battalion in 6mm or 10mm is a great idea in terms of space and money. Doing it in 25/28mm would look fantastic but there again so would the cost, 15mm was bad enough!

However, I would suggest that if you go the 6mm route you make sure the table is proportionally smaller than if you were doing it in a bigger scale. The reason being Mark's point, "Since you play the "long" way there's really no room for manoeuvre or any interesting tactical decisions."

Which is where we came in.

Scott B is no fool. I can't recall if it's stated anywhere in the rules and as mine are under piles of junk in the attic somewhere, I'm not about to look but there is a clear game device behind playing up the length of the table in this way. The whole point is to drive units towards each other in a fairly straight line and to stop gamers thinking in ‘wargaming' terms about tactical moves that didn't happen at this level of command.

The battalion commander's job was to ensure that his men were proficient in the basic drill manoeuvres, (and there were a lot more than are shown in the book but it does represent a likely range of choice) and they could sustain themselves on the firing line.

He then had to ensure that his unit would keep its place in the Brigade, aligned to the Regulating Battalion (assuming they weren't fulfilling that role) and carry out any direction or formation changes the RB did, until engaged with the enemy.

He might get prior orders to change formation at a given point in the advance, be directed personally to do so by the Brigade commander, or be forced to do so by the sudden action of an unseen enemy but generally even formation changes were not his on the spot choice, in a way gamers are used to.

Think of the amount of choice that Nelson's captains had at Trafalgar – sail behind the ship in front, close with an enemy ship when you break their line and then make sure your crew work well enough to give it a hammering – it's the same idea, with about as much choice. The alternative is a piece meal attack and defeat.

All those rules in Chef de Battalion about micro terrain features and cohesion of the unit were items that affected the ability to carry out the mission, not any cleaver tricks or sneaky moves. Your Brigade may have been part of a sneaky move but it was not the Battalion commander who originated the idea, to think other wise at this level of action, is just part of the ‘1000ft high General' syndrome.

The narrow table serves to focus players to the tight world of the Battalion commander and make up for the fact Regulation is not portrayed in the game (a major short coming)

Don't think tactics, think holding things together and you will get what this game is trying to show you.

This was the life of the Battalion commander 95% of the time and the reason that the scenarios in the book are isolated actions, where a Battalion or two are on a covering mission or some such, as per a big skirmish game, to spice up things.

Those "interesting tactical decisions" were not part of the day job and unless people look at things in a different light they will just see in these rules a boring advance up the table with a drawn out dice throwing contest at the end of it, which is obviously what Mark did.

Trajanus I'd suggest you are wrong, and Battalion Commanders faced all sorts of 'interesting' tactical decisions on a regular basis.

Even if we take your descriptions above of the limited role of battalions commanders (which I disagree with strongly) as correct then there are plenty of other scenarios.

Taking your statements as 100% correct, the Bn Comd still faces all sorts of issues once the 'S' hits the 'F'.

I can only equate your line of thinking with those that would suggest a squad leader/section commander of WWI or II faced no 'interesting' tactical decisions, merely conforming within a higher overall plan.

I assume when/if you play Chef d'B it is continualy a walk in the park :-)

Whilst I liked the idea of "Chef" and bought the rules very early on, I've never been able to use them (mainly because it's difficult to keep a game set up and an opponent interested for long enough). Whilst I agree with Trajanus' analysis of the decisions required, equally I think hos459 is right in stating that these are not necessarily negative points. I think that the problems people experience with "Chef" (or at least their idea of it) arises from the fact that most wargamers start off as senior commanders withouth "learning their trade" by climbing the command ladder as their real-life counterparts would have done. In fact, most grand-tactical rule sets make the co-ordination of multi-battalion attacks far too easy, IMO.

It is not that difficult to envisage multi-player games, but you would probably need separate tables (and thus a hall or similar large space) for each battalion. An umpire to control/limit inter-action between each table would also be essential. The idea of a multi-battalion attack on a village, or other terrain feature, with very restricted communication between the attacking players, is quite intriguing and would make a great weekend club game.

Sorry, had to delete the last post – never could spell !

hos459,

Now come on, play fair, I've given you reasons why I think as I do.

You give me "I'd suggest you are wrong" and "disagree with strongly" and provide no reasons at all!

Then you say "Taking your statements as 100% correct, the Bn Comd still faces all sorts of issues once the 'S' hits the 'F'."

Yes indeed he does, read what I said again and you will see I agree with this.

Indeed some of them may well be ‘interesting' but they probably won't be tactical, that is my point!

Also, you say "I can only equate your line of thinking with those that would suggest a squad leader/section commander of WWI or II faced no 'interesting' tactical decisions, merely conforming within a higher overall plan."

Firstly, that's comparing apples with bananas; the latitude given to squad leader/section commander in WW2 (particularly if they were German) was actually higher than a Napoleonic Colonel, because it was a completely different type of warfare.

As for WW1 it's a bad example, for another reason. They did what they were told pretty much like Napoleonic's. Just how much ‘Tactical' leeway do you think you got walking out into No Mans Land?

My grandfather was a ‘squad leader/section commander' and I can tell you from his first hand recollections to me, if his ghost is reading this, he will be falling about laughing!

Would you mind at least giving me your definition of what you consider ‘tactical decisions' as I think this is our real disagreement and help me by restricting your answer to the period please.

Supercilius,

"Whilst I agree with Trajanus' analysis of the decisions required, equally I think hos459 is right in stating that these are not necessarily negative points."

Just to be clear, I don't see them as negatives either just as points requiring a different outlook from ‘normal' wargames.

"I think that the problems people experience with "Chef" (or at least their idea of it) arises from the fact that most wargamers start off as senior commanders with out "learning their trade" by climbing the command ladder as their real-life counterparts would have done. In fact, most grand-tactical rule sets make the co-ordination of multi-battalion attacks far too easy, IMO."

Absolutely spot on and as a result they have no idea how companies and battalions drilled and fought they just think they do.

To return to my nautical analogies for a moment.

It's like naval gamers thinking they know what its like to be the Captain on a frigate or a ‘74' when they have never known what was needed to be a Midshipman!

You play at giving Broadsides and Rakes with no real idea of ship handling and weather and think you are bloody Jack Aubrey or something!

I don't want to come across as toffee nosed in this but lots of gamers will have pushed their Napoleonics around for years without reading or absorbing enough material to understand all this and generally it makes no odds, you can still have a good time.

However, once you take on a set of rules that operates at ground zero you have to look a bit closer or you won't get the point!

Trajanus the average section/squad commander for much of WW1 had far more tactical decision making to do than you seem to give him credit for – just as a napoleonic Batalion Commander did.

I completely fail to see how you can describe the decisions faced by a battalion commander, for example, when part of a Division assault and all around him has turned to Sh1t and he has to SOMEHOW keep his battalion together, withdraw in order under possibly multiple threats as anythimng other than a tactical problem (happy to suggest any of another dozen or so scenarios choc full of battalion level tactical decision making I at least consider 'interesting').

You seem to be working under a different description of what a tactical problem is – to me any of the decisions being made by a battalion commander pretty much constitute a tactical decision making process (the other option being strategic or operational, pretty sure thats not what we're talking here :-).

Every process the Bn Comd goes through, from formation to adopt, evolution to use, selection of fire system, use of supports, setup of internal command and control etc etc etc is a tactical decision.

As for your grandfather, take this in the spirit of the discusion and reacting purely to your comments, but I'd suggest he would have made many decisions that decided if individuals in his section lived or died (or minimized/maximised the same within the tactical scenario imposed on him at any particular point).

Trajanus I'd ask you the same question – what definition of 'tactical' are you using?

The decisions are either tactical, operational or administrative (in a nutshell).

Not sure the Bn Comd is making too many administrative or operational decisions within Chef…….

I'll jump in.

I think that what Trajanus is suggesting is that the battalion commander is given an objective and place within the overall brigade structure that is a great deal less flexible than a ww2 squad (or perhaps platoon would be a better comparison) with close order units maintaining deployment distances in the advance and keeping station on the regulating battalion. Where the battalion is supposed to go and when is up to the brigadier – the battalion commander doesn't get to make the choice about sending elements of his command to flank the enemy line – that's either his battalion's job or it isn't.

WW2 platoons have a lot more space to operate in relative to the number of men involved (might well be operating on the same frontage as a Napoleonic battalion) with many more decisions on what sub-units will do to accomplish the mission.

A napoleonic battalion commander has one block – he can decide what shape (formation) that block is in – and change according to circumstances – and if organized so detach a skirmish company or two to support what he's doing in some way, but nothing like the platoon commander with three maneuver squads and support weapons and a fairly broad area over which to operate. To get that type of decision in Napoleonic usually comes at least at the brigade level (or maybe higher).

Please correct me if I've misinterpreted.

Phil

I think it is not correct to think that batalion commanders never have any initiative. Of course, in the battles we all like to play (the bigger, division level upward games) there isn't any room for that. But a lot of smaller engagements (and in fact I think there were far more of this kind of actions then big battles) the battalion commander could have it's own role to play. Think of advance and rearguard actions, the first crossings of rivers with only light troops, the actions against Tyrolean or Vendean insurgents etc etc.
I don't know CdB so if it's good for this kind of actions, but if it is I will try it.

I'd suggest that even in the 'bigger' scale games we play there is still plenty of space for Battalion Commander tactical decision making (still not sure what Trajanus defines tactical as).

Even IF the view of a battalion simply being an automated, unthinking cog within an army machine is correct (I say it isn't) then how many descriptions do we have of the battlefield smoke etc causing confusion.

OK, great, you as battalion commander X have been given orders to do Y within the Division scheme – so start the Chef game at a point where the battlefield situation has changed and the battalion commander has not received new orders from his superiors (who may or not be alive, and may or may not be aware the situation has changed, and may or may not be facing a changed situation themselves).

It seems to me it is all too easy to underestimate the decision making required at levels of command it is all so easy to dismiss as automatons. That applies just as well at section/squad level in WW1 as it does at battalion level in Napoleonic.

And all of this ignores how often we have descriptions of individual battalions, or groups of companies, being sent of on individual missions both during a campaign and in battle.

Is it realy that hard to think of a few dozen scenario's where a battalion commander is faced with difficult battlefield decisions?

hos459,

I don't think we are that far apart in this. It's a matter of language and definition

"The decisions are either tactical, operational or administrative (in a nutshell)" does not quite cover the issue.

To this I would add that 'tactical' can be sub divided into battle tactics and small unit tactics.

The WW1 and WW2 analogies we have been using revolve round the latter and in my view have no direct comparison in the Naploeonic period, unless you look at skirmish companies or some such, as weapons and deployment of troops were not as advanced.

By 'battle tactics'I mean those derived by the commanding general of the army and supported by the chain of command from him, to Corps (if the army had them) and then on to Division and Brigade. The battalion commander had no say in how they were formulated and very little, if any, in how they were implemented.

The battalion commander operated what were, the small unit tactics of the day, as apart from breaking the battalion into wings, or sending out skirmishers the battalion was as small as it got. The manner of fighting dictated this.

The decisions a battalion commander made might be big in terms of the survival of his battalion but they need not have the same level of impact on the battle itself.

As for ‘interesting' that depends if the player finds keeping the unit together, ordering fire etc interesting. As opposed to big attacks or clever outflanking moves, for example.

I would suggest that a lot of people raised on more conventional rules tend to like these big decisions. It's the ‘everyone wants to be Napoleon' syndrome, if you like.

And regarding:

"As for your grandfather, take this in the spirit of the discusion and reacting purely to your comments, but I'd suggest he would have made many decisions that decided if individuals in his section lived or died (or minimized/maximised the same within the tactical scenario imposed on him at any particular point)"

Don't have any problem with that at all.

Valmy92,

Yes this is pretty much what I was trying to get across.

Brownbear,

CdB has scenarios like these and as I've been trying to say these are the only kind of thing I think most gamers would find interesting in the general sense.

hos459,

"It seems to me it is all too easy to underestimate the decision making required at levels of command it is all so easy to dismiss as automatons. That applies just as well at section/squad level in WW1 as it does at battalion level in Napoleonic."

I'm not suggesting we are dealing with automatons but the style of warfare imposed by weapons that were only effective at 80 yds, places certain restrictions on commanders to keep units together and Brigades as tight as possible. That's why there was Regulation and close order drill. Initiative was not a prerequisite.

"And all of this ignores how often we have descriptions of individual battalions, or groups of companies, being sent of on individual missions both during a campaign and in battle."

Yes and sometimes these were required. However, these were the exception and that's why they are noted down. It's bloody boring to repeatedly write about battalions who did nothing but stay in line with each other and shoot at the enemy, it just gets absorbed into a description of what the Brigade or Division was doing.

"Is it realy that hard to think of a few dozen scenario's where a battalion commander is faced with difficult battlefield decisions?"

No its not, all I have been saying is that these would be the exception, not the rule, in the service life of individual units.

Trajanus I cannot agree, but find the conversation going in circles.

You seem to have a very low opinion of Chef d battalion – apparently the job was so easy anyone could do it. Makes you wonder why good ones were so highly regarded.

OK, couldn't resist…

I'm thinking of a level of command, I won't tell you which one, see if you can guess :-)

As a commander, at this level, I regularly have to make decisions relating to my command and its operations relative to a number of factors.

Disposition on multiple lines, including forward elements, main line, and reserves. Often I have to consider flanking security as well. For each of those areas of deployment I have to consider strength, type of element, formation, coordination with each other element. I often have to work within and conform to higher levels of command, and flanking commands, but regularly find myself having to make decisions without recourse to higher command.

I regularly have to consider security, orders of movement, enemy courses of action and adjust plans accordingly. Often I find it necessary to detach part of my force for any of a number of different reasons.

I often face changing battlefield situations that go well beyond situations my commander has forseen, and often, even when tied to my commanders battle plan face oportunities and circumstances I have to make snap decisions on whether to exploit or not.

What level of command am I talking about???

Trajanus I'd also be interested to hear what definition of 'tactical' you are working on.

hos459,

"You seem to have a very low opinion of Chef d battalion – apparently the job was so easy anyone could do it. Makes you wonder why good ones were so highly regarded".

Where do get that from?

Of course it wasn't an easy job! Nothing that could cost you your life is an easy job, never was, never will be!

All I've been trying to get across was that like any job it had parameters and levels of responsibility that were its own and compared to those levels of command immediately above him, the Battalion commander had little influence on battle plans and carrying them out, as he was at the bottom of the command chain.

If you are talking about the rules, my opinion is that they were a stab at capturing all the variables you have pointed out in the activity of a Chef de Battalion but are too complex as a result of trying to cram a million real world factors into a written format.

That and the fact that to make a good game the scenarios need to be those exceptions from the day to day actions of just being ‘part of a Brigade'.

Unless you are Richard Sharpe, Napoleonic command had an awful lot of day to day!

hos459,

"What level of command am I talking about???"

Yeah nice try!

Sorry mate, I've written JDs for a living and I could make a post room clerk look like middle management so I'm not playing this one!

"Trajanus I'd also be interested to hear what definition of 'tactical' you are working on."

Check out my 22 Mar 2008 6:16 p.m. PST again, if you don't understand the battle tactics/small unit tactics point we are, without a doubt, going in circles.

The difference seems to be that pretty much everything you say Bn Commanders didn't do, I read about them doing consistently.

Trajanus I somehow missed your post of 22 Mar 2008 6:16 p.m. PST

Seems your basically trying to say there are no 'interesting tactical decisions' in Infantry Minor tactics.

A position I disagree with totally.

hos495,

"The difference seems to be that pretty much everything you say Bn Commanders didn't do, I read about them doing consistently."

OK now bearing in mind I'm saying battalion commanders don't influence battle plans (defined as starting with the commanding general and being fed to Division and Brigade command) and have limited discretion in carrying out their part of these plans and really I think that's all I'm disagreeing on; tell me what you read and where that proves otherwise.

And I'm not interested in minor tactics in this request. I don't think we have a disagreement on that, apart from the frequency of judgements and neither of us is really going to be able to prove anything in that regard.

hos495,

"Seems your basically trying to say there are no 'interesting tactical decisions" in Infantry Minor tactics.

No that's not what I'm saying. After all "interesting" is a relative term.

What I am saying is that the majority of gamers who started Naps at a level where the rules make them an a Corps or Army commander won't find the timing of a single battalion shifting from column to square "interesting" as they have no understanding of warfare in the period, from the ground up.

You on the other hand, appear too have some and find it 'interesting'.

In fact I think we all agree on the fact that there are different ways to look at napoleonic warfare and the way we want to portray/game it.
When looking from the point of a army/corps commander it isn't worthwhile to look at the different formations of a battalion or even brigade as long as they doing what is told.
Looking from a brigade commanders vieuw it maybe is different, the formation and changes of a brigade matters and are more crucial to the task you have to perform.
As a battalion commander it really is necessary to look at your battalion, the ground on which it operates, the formation the cooperation with neighbour batts etc. I eg am very interested in the small scale actions of battalions which, in my opninion, is far more intersting then the great battles of the napoleonic period (but I can't fnd any decent rules).

So, how imminent is this new version, and where in Old Europe could I get it?

you could try Caliverbooks.com

A new version is out??

Nice Smeagol, good Smeagol!

Brownbear – no, only rumoured about, see fifth post from the top.

it's a pity

I ordered a copy of the rules from the US (onMattersMilitary – great service, shipped next day) last week 'cos it was half the price shown on the Calavier website and I couldnt find it on ebay, hope to have them tomorrow.

I know everyone say the rules suck, but the subject interests me way too much to be put off, so I thought I might have a go at producing a set of "playable" "house" rules from it.