"How Important is it to you to show the different formations?" Topic

Using tactical rulesets (such as Shako etc) that allow the gamer to physically represent the main formations (line, column, square, etc) …

How important is it to you to show the different formations (line, column, square, etc) on the table-top?

The gentlemen I game with have recently been debating this question. We seem to be equally divided between the yahs and nahs.

Some of the group feel it is what makes Napoleonics different from other horse and musket eras as well as being an important part of the phsical "look" of the table top.

Others feel it just slows the game down. For example, if cavalry attacks infantry, the outcome of rolling the dice to resolve the combat determines if the infantry successful repulsed the cavalry or not. The gamer should not have to take the extra time to move units based on multi-stands or re-position the different stands that makeup a unit into different formations.

What does the TMP say?

I like to see, line, column and square, its what makes using miniatures worth while and is IMHO the point of them – to be more visual than a card counter in a board style game.

If the rules are tactical I'd say its a must really.

The essense of Napoleonic warfare is the tactical side of things. Showing the combat with all detail is a must if you want to understand the relationship between formations and what they did on the field.

As I generally prefer to manouvre entire armies represented by divisions and brigades, then I couldn't give two hoots if battalion X is in line, square or column. I do however like to know if division X is in march column or deployed to fight.

If I'm doing a tactical game then I want lines, columns and squares, but if it is higher level, then it is irrelevant.

That's one of the concessions that Napoleon's Nattles make that I like. We really shouldn't be seeing lines, columns, and squares at Brigade level like we do but what draws so many of us to the period is those formation changes.

One could, in Grand tactical games, put whole divisions on large bases so that they never changed formation and it might be a great system of reflecting the decisison made at command level, I'd find it unsatisfying.

For me, it depends upon the game's basic maneuver unit (BMU). If the BMU is a battalion or smaller, I like to see the formations. If the BMU is a brigade or higher, then representing different formations on the tabletop is not needed.

As NapNewbie suggested, in brigade-level games, an 'outcomes' gamer will be satisfied with allowing the die provide the 'story' to what actually transpired on the table. Of course, this will likely drive a 'process' gamer insane.

ditto all above really.

If its Austerlitz and I want to play it in a normal afternoon (with beer) then I don't want formations slowing down the movement.

if its one corp per side I most certainly do want formations.

I like to see them – it adds to the visual appeal and was important to the outcome of combat.

About as important as using figures…..If I dont want to position figures to represent formations, thats what boardgames are for

I cannot imagine playing a wargame and NOT changing the formations of the units in a tactical way. Anything else just does not compute for me.

It's very important to me. I have passed on even looking at games that simply call for a block of men deployed as it pleases you on the base. It's all in the details for me.

I'm with the 'it depends' lobby. If you are going to be playing something the size of Austerlitz and you want to micromanage the formation and skirmisher deployment of every single battalion, be prepared to expend a lot of time and patience.

On the other hand if I want play a game with half a dozen battalions per side then you are working at a tactical level and then this sort of thing becomes far more important.

It comes down to which hat you are wearing in the game.

I spend a lot of time painting and basing miniatures. This is because I enjoy the look of the game. Changing formations is a big part of that look.

If I wanted one stand units, I'd be playing a board game.

My cavalry are charging that base of infantry there

OK

Tally Ho, in we go!

Oh by the way they are in square

Oh dear!

The closer I can get to the individual formations the better. Perhaps that's why I've moved toward single figure basing with all of my 28mm figures?

I can't understand "gamey" formations or stands like WRG/DBM or Johnny Reb. I know each has it's fans, but I'd much rather know that when I look out on the tabletop the troops are at least a decent approximation of the formations the real guys fought in.

I play Column, Line and Square, 2nd edition. For those rules, the question answers itself!

And, yes, it does slow the game down, but the rules were designed to make the differences matter to the outcome of the tactical interactions in the game.

Rick

I'm another "it depends" gamer. For tactical fights, by all means, show battalion formations. For large battles, keep formations as simple as possible.

The look of the game is very important to me. Showing formations is essential to my gaming enjoyment.

Shane captures my feelings. For me at least, there is a visual component to the game and it is important. Otherwise why not use blocks of wood?

I tend to prefer games with formations. It's a matter of presentation and I believe a game should also look good.

I'll normally play with something around +20 btns a side and so it's still at a level where formations are important.

That said it's hard to do some of the massive battles at that levela dn then I'll sacrafice formation.

In the large games, especially in 6mm, it makes no difference whatsoever as you can easily make columns & lines, and with the spare figures make squares.

In games where the Corps is the biggest unit, then yes they do become a bit more needed.

In Divisional games they are essential…

Its all down to what level you want tp play really..

Most gamers seem to want to play ALL levels of officer in an army, simultaneously. They want to be Napoleon, making decisions about releasing entire corps of reserve cavalry… they want to be Marshal Lannes, making decisions about moving up an infantry division… and they want to be Colonel De La Squid, making decisions about deploying a skirmish screen, and whether the 3rd BN should be in Closed Column or Open Column.

The fact that you can't really do all of this, without creating a game monstrosity, doesn't stop many people from searching after that Holy Grail of a wargame that would somehow let them wear all those hats, do all those things, and yet be home in time for supper.

Meanwhile a lot of guys will say earnestly that the rules should only allow you, the player, to make the sorts of decisions that your historical counterpart made. Yet if you give them an army-level game that doesn't let them adjust the formations of individual battalions, then they complain that the game is too "generic" or "lacks period flavor," or whatever… despite the fact that they, as army commander, obviously shouldn't be worrying about those things.

I don't care.

If the rules are good, I can go either way. It's definitely not something that stops me from sleeping at night!

Appy with either tactical & formations OR grand-tactical, but not both at the same time.

For me, grand-tactical feels very napoleonic; manoevering large bodies of troops in combined-arms attacks, without the need for representing much in the way of formations. My rules handle the benefits of combined-arms tactics in the combat factors. When 1 turn is around a hour it seems unnecessary to do more!

I also enjoy tactical games (division per side, or so), and still like the napoleonic rules from Wesencraft's "Practical Wargaming" of the early 1970s.

I don't care.

It looks nice to have troops in different formations.

If you want to do that, it can be done on large bases -- for example, 60mm or 75mm square bases for Marechal de l'Empire or Grande Armee can be used to depict a large number of 6mm figures in a mini diorama.

I personally am not interested in moving troops from line to column or square, so I don't worry about depicting it in figures I can put into the different formations.

Obviously there is a completely valid game in doing the detail level formations and figures mounted appropriately will be essential for that.

Visually nice, but I decided that insisting on it leads to too many other limitations and problems (such as not being able to field an entire army), so I went over to brigade-level, a la Grande Armee.

I find that games with stands in formation quickly become boring and predictable. You know that that unit is in square – so you don't charge it. You can see it is in line, so you charge it. None of the uncertainty the commander feels about whether it will change into square before you hit it is reflected.

Basically, providing either side is competent you end up with genius commander and staff on one side fighting genius commander and staff on the other. I think in order to have formations historically you need a whole pile of rules restricting changes – not just 'it takes 1 turn to change from column to line' but ' you may only change from column to line if your brigade order is 'hold' and the commander has a visible threat within 1 turns move'.

Anything out there now that does something like that?

I want to see the formations. I know they are slower, but if speed of game were the main consideration, then I would do something else.

Sam is right, we want to do to many things. but, I have worked in a higher HQ in the Army, and there is a whole lot of sitting around looking at maps that dont say anything new. Not as much fun as you might think.

And I want to have fun.

I agree badger,

I also get sick of hearing it when people whinge about games designs where the player can control every facet of the game from the army commander down to the single figure skirmisher trying to take out his opponent.

So what? why not play systems where you can do this? A good games designer will put in place limitations, restrictions and parameters which force a player to comply with the system and not use his individual units as robots or automatons. If the sight limitations are in place a player must act with respect that he cannot have it all his own way and will eventually comply with the restrictions. If he does not then he should go and do other things which he can have full control of whatever he wishes to do.

I have no problem with playing the role of Army commander, Divisional commander, Brigadier, Regimental colonel, company commander and platoon sergeant all at the same time, as long as strict and proper controls are put in place in the Command & Control system which force me to act according to commands given from above and following a proper chain of command with time lapse and reaction time taken into account.

Shane

For me, the most fun is for me to be a commander of something less than a division, and have what I see on the table top look like (with a little sqinting) what a colonel or major or brigader general would see. These are the officers that could see these units most of the time. Some of the time, smoke or terrain would block the view. If a unit gets crashed on the flank by an enemy unit marching obliquely across their front, and then turning and hitting the flank at an angle and with overlap- they could see it, and I want to see it as well.

A general above the brigade level---- think about this. How often did they actually see the all the units they were commanding???? Wait a minute. No heliocopters. No Piper Cup spotting planes. Rarely would they even gallop out to a local high spot ("General's Hills" were very rare- sorry for some of you gamers) and overlook the battle. "General's Hills, were often grown up into short scrub and coppice- couldn't see from up there. Also for seeing the enemy formations and reserves moving up. NO, get real, they worked off of crude maps, sketch maps from staff officers they rode out and scouting around. They were "playing" a board game with limited information and usually very little observation of what was happening, and guestimated intellegence.
Also for the higher level game people… you need delays on both the gaining of intellegence and the issuring of orders. (Opps! I just doubled your reaction time or tripled it- if you can sort thu the garbage of incoming intellegence correctly!) No more, "they have a division behind that mountain that could come in on our left flank, so we have to….", Do you know how really slow a horse travels? Wargame horses never get tired. They never take the small ravine path to nowhere rather than gallop right back to the command post. They always find the command post, every if it moved.

This guy votes for smaller units. Keep the game within the boundaries of what on officer could see, and ride to and see and respond to. Make the line-of-battle look like a three rank line of people. Not a few well-painted figures spread out in skirish order. Some form of updated LSQ forever!

I need my change of formation fix.

I need to witness the adverse effects of deteriorating morale, watching a unit slowly, over time, fall apart only to continue to stand when you least expect them to. You cannot get that when playing with massive blocks representing a division.

Yep, Ditto 1968billsfan and Shane.

It really depends on the level of play. If you're tactical then you need to show the variety of formations at that level. If you're at a higher level, such as Napoleon's Battles, Age of Eagles, or Le Feu then formations matter less -- it's more about maneuver.

Some people want a high-level game on a par with chess, but with some sort of historical bent to it, and without the artificial limitations of the squared board and moving only one piece at a time. They want the god-like, helicopter view of the battlefield, because the game is, first and foremost, THE thing. If that's all they want from the hobby, then fine – it's their hobby.

FWIW, my view (and that's all it is) is that being a Napoleonic wargamer – as opposed to a gamer who has some Napoleonic armies – means studying the period at all levels and understanding the mechanics of battlefield manoeuvre. In terms of generalship, this means learning about formations, having the right formation to do the job/see off the enemy threat, having to manoeuvre around/through obstacles and other units. This is part of the "learning curve" of the Napoleonic officer. To by-pass this and go straight to commanding the corps, or army, is to become the wargaming equivalent of over-promoted royalty/nobility.

It depends on how you look at Napoleonics and how you want to play.

No doubt one of the defining points about the period was the balance of infantry, cavalry and artillery that came partly out of technology and partly out of tactical control of formations.

However, another defining point was the size of battles and the operational manoeuvring of corps units.

If you are interested in the corps, it is very helpful to forget about the tactical detail and let it be subsumed in the combat resolution. In fact, to get a big battle resolved in reasonable time, it is probably essential.

The helicopter borne player is a factor of any tabletop wargame whatever the level of command you play at. There are various ways of resolving the issue. I don't think they are specific to the question of formations. It is simply a question of one's interest and aesthetic.