"how many of us use regulating battalions in their rules?" Topic

I do think that in some rules the use of the CR is back to front. Instead of grinding to a halt a unit that falls out of the CR, the entire (formation) should grind to a halt in order to allow the out of command unit(s) catch up. If the General is with the Reg btln then the CR should radiate from it, not the General. This is providing you continue to use CR's to show out of command.

p.s. I am also making it perfectly clear I do not use CR's to portray out of command myself. I do not have an "out of command" rule at all.

Shane

Shane wrote:
>>>So the extensive discussion of Regulating btlns, although important is but a minor problem for, ""Players"" and movement orders and carrying them out which becomes redundant compared to when the bullets begin to fly for a General in command.<<<<

Shane:
First of all, this isn't an issue of a single battalion, something that would not concern the likes of Wellington. R
Regulating battalions are HOW Wellington and Blake would have taken his troops to the ground and how they would have deployed them.

Whether Wellington is or is not dealing directly with regulating battalions, anything he commands deals with it.

Cunningham says in 1806:

"When ANY NUMBER of corps assemble to act together, a
regulating Battalion is named,…"

That is why Wellington himself, speaking of moving armies, says in 1826:

"One must understand the mechanism and power of the individual soldier; then that of a company, a battalion, or brigade, and so on, before one can venture to group divisions and move an army. I believe I owe most of my success to the attention I always paid to the inferior part of tactics as a regimental officer."

Whether you are moving a battalion, brigade, division, corps or Army, the regulating mechanism was used. That is why Dundas says in his manual: p.282

"The movements and manœuvres of a considerable line are similar to, and derived from the same general principles as those of the single battalion; they will be compounded, varied, and applied, according to circumstances, ground, and the intentions of the commanding officer; but their modes of execution remain UNCHANGEABLE, and known to all. The greater the body, the fewer and more simple ought to be the manœuvres required of it."

So when Hoghton moves his brigade at Albuera:

"The 3d brigade in that division was the one that was commanded by Major-General Hoghton, and was composed of the 29th, 1st battalion 57th, 1st battalion 48th. THE WHOLE DIVISION moved from its ground in open columns of companies, right in front, about a mile, where the line was formed on the leading company."

An entire division formed on a single company….This isn't an issue of a single battalion, but how an army moved. That is why LONGSTREET's orders included who regulated on which flanks. It was that fundamental to HOW THINGS WERE DONE. Neither Wellington or a corps commander like Longstreet could or would ignore the process as below their radar or a minor issue.

Whether moving a battalion or moving several divisions, IT WAS THE SAME MECHANIC, and the choices made concerning it made a significant impact on the execution of any battle plan.

Ned,

Your mention of Situational Awareness and the points raised by some others on what happened to Regulation when the wheels came off has got me thinking.

You will note from The Scotsman's on going Civil War history that a lot (if not most) of what he says relates to the loss of Regulation, or loss of Flank Security within or between Divisions.

Obviously the greater the distance covered, the greater chance of things going wrong as there were more individual units involved and more potential for terrain or other variables to intercede.

So within a Brigade the battalions were fairly close but keeping things together across a Division on a three Brigade front, tested the process quite a bit.

I'm interested that the examples that Bill gives from the Civil War took place in a period where although the ranges of weapons had increase its noted that the range of these weapons could not be exploited due to the close terrain battles were fought in.

This made me wonder if there is a correlation that might mean Regulating was more effective in some conflicts than others due to terrain and that overall it may have been more beneficial in the wide open spaces of Spain, for example, than in Eastern USA.

It is an interval that I recommend. I take a recommended interval to be "the space required to deploy each battalion to line + interval"… this I recommend for tactical reasons.
So, it is a certain number of base lengths in my rules + the interval recommended in the game for flank support; so units can go to and from column or line.
In have changed my rules to it being a case of "should be no further away" than this interval… with line of sight with the next battalion being more important because it would allow them to reconnect again.

What though is the rule? Is the distance allowed equal to the width of the unit to its right when deployed into line +2"? At what point can your opponent lean across the table with a measuring stick and declare that a unit is technically too far away from the regulating unit to take advantage of it?

'recommended intervals' don't work well as rules.

Malcolm you ask:
"At what point can your opponent lean across the table with a measuring stick and declare that a unit is technically too far away from the regulating unit to take advantage of it?"

When his nice, neat, orderly line engages yours, or if his cavalry attacks your disjointed line of battle.

If you ignore the recommended intervals then your battalions in deployed lines will have insecure flanks.

A games` combat rules should punish players for this mistake.

Mike

So really this isn't a rule about regulating units as much as it is a rule about what happens when a flank is insecure?

"So really this isn't a rule about regulating units as much as it is a rule about what happens when a flank is insecure?"

No, the regualting battalions rules are movement rules. The combat rules refer to "insecure flanks".

Right. So what is the rule on how far one unit can be placed from another, or does the player do written orders at start stating what the interval will be for that group of units?

I'm looking to see what stops it from being a radius centered on the nearest unit in the regulating chain.

"…what is the rule on how far one unit can be placed from another,…"

There isn`t one.

"…does the player do written orders at start stating what the interval will be for that group of units?"

No, he doesn`t have to and it is probaly better he does not.

Man this thread title is just wrong. . .

8/

Queer. My post appears to me to be grabbed by someone else while it was in edit mode so I'm repeating it.

Is the diagram at the link close to what we are talking about in terms of actual mechanics? Personally I'd want to state that for a unit to be 'in command' under the regulating unit system, it would have to be in line with or behind its immediate regulating unit.

link

Malcolm,

I think these will give you an idea as to how a line of battle is maintained.

correcting a mistake in the direction of march:

picture

a change of front (wheeling on the pivot of the regulating battalion):

picture

What you're talking about then, I think, is that when using regulating units, you want to treat higher formations exactly the way that we are all normally used to treating companies in a battalion.

Battalions come together to form a brigade and then that brigade adopts a formation just as the battalion adopts a formation composed of its companies.

You want to see enforced brigade wheels while not going so far as to put a brigade of a single base. You argue then that maneouvre elements are not free to manoeuvre independently?

I'm throwing out anything that is just good tactical sense (such as 'watch your flanks') because that can be achieved by the players maneouvering their units under any system and that puts regulating units under the category of 'a good tip for how to keep your units in lines' rather than a rule mechanic.

This thread grows so rapidly that by the time I see a post that I want to reply to, there are a dozen or more others beyond it. So if I'm missing something important in those intervening posts that would bear on what I'm posting, well, what can one do? Now, Scotsman said:

>"guess it would be a matter of what constituted 'engaged'…"

For sure.

>… but I think I also said later that the disconnected unit could continue on the line of advance IT was on at the time of the disconnect."<

Guess I missed that (see above). That would certainly help.

>"I have also played it where the disconnect units roll with a 50/50 chance of continuing on the same line of advance or attempt to re-attach. Or the player can simply not move it."<

Sounds good. or a 33/33/33 chance of try to re-connect, continue on, or stand still till the general tells me what to do.

NedZed said (pun intended):

>"I think that is the best approach to this thread. Introduce and suggest some ideas, play around with some rules suggestions, and then people can discard or keep the notion as they see fit."<

My sentiments exactly.

He also said:

>"But I don't have a feel for whether or not, in "most situations" in an "average large battle" (if there was such a thing) advancing brigades and divisions would be turned back by artillery fire."<

Not just turned back. Forced (encouraged?) to change formation and/or direction should also be considered. And don't forget the ACW and other horse-and-musket-era battles. (Remember, this is not just a Napoleonic thread.)

Malcolm wrote:
"What you're talking about then, I think, is that when using regulating units, you want to treat higher formations exactly the way that we are all normally used to treating companies in a battalion."

Yes, this is PRECISELY what ALL of the regulations, commentaries, etc etc of the period say. That is the exact philosophy of the command and control in this era of moving these large formations and what the generals were supposed to be doing and were supposed to be good at. If I had some books to hand, I would pull out some quotes.

(This is one reason why I mentioned earlier that the "regulating battalion" is a means not an end. It is a tool, but one that represents the larger paradigm understood by generals and armies in those days).

Also, the amount of time it would take to perform a "grande manoeuvre" like changing a divisional column into a line or vice versa (deploying or ploying) is dependent upon the frontage across which the subunits of the formation must march. So if brigades or divisions were to have larger than usual gaps between them, then the amount of time necessary for large evolutions would increase (not to mention the danger of the larger gaps being used by the enemy). Just as a large battalion might take longer to "change formation" than a small battalion (and be vulnerable while doing so) a brigade or a division doesn't want to be too spread out.

Symbiotic Relationship said:

>"Rules that use PIPs, and allow 'groups' of units to move in unison for the same PIP cost as single units, are pretty much using the idea of regulating battalions, yes?"<

Well, yes, whether intentionally or not. My brigade-stand rules allow divisions, or sometimes whole corps (small corps, as Union corps at Gettysburg) -- say 4-10 stands -- to be activated at once. And if stands become too separated from the rest and/or the CO they become a separate detachment, to be activated separately.

"You want to see enforced brigade wheels while not going so far as to put a brigade of a single base."

Personally, I am concentrating on rules which involve the depiction of units in formations with skirmishers and artillery batteries. But other folks out there will use bases for regulating brigades in larger scale (divisional level) games.

"…You argue then that manoeuvre elements are not free to manoeuvre independently?"

No, I don`t think I have said that exactly… individual units and sub units were at times detached and given independent missions, tasks or duties, but rather, as you can see in the diagrams, individual battlions were able to manoeuvre to bring themselves into line or into a "grand-formation" and with the intention to get into contact with the enemy in as good a shape as possible.

But you may have it now… regulating battalion rules are not tricksey substitutes for a game "rule mechanic" they are the way that units and units within commands were controlled.

Shane said:

>"The mechanic for regulating battalions should be placed directly into the Movement Phase of any rules set and that is it."<

A reasonable point, but whether it goes in the movement rules or the C&C rules might depend on the way the rules designer goes about his business, I would think. The main issue is, whether and how to include such rules, if any, and the nature of same. Or, how does the fact that commanders actually used regulating battalions/brigades/etc on the field affect the rules we write? If it does.

Malcom wrote:

>"As opposed to Command Radius, does not regulating battalions boil down to not having to be in CR of a commander, but instead having to be in some radius of a designated other unit?"<

That's certainly one way to apply the concept to the gaming table.

He also said:

>"In any system where a player is limited to issuing a certain number of orders each turn, they might economize on their activations by choosing to exactly copy the moves of a regulating battalion by all eligible following on units."<

Great. Now we're getting down to some specific mechanics. This one sounds simple, even elegant -- IF your rules employ written orders (mine don't).

Malcom also asked:

>"You argue then that maneouvre elements are not free to manoeuvre independently?"<

This would be a simple way to eliminate "zippy battalions," or whatever the phrase is. The exception, of course, would be detachments, but to detach a unit (say to hold a hill, building, ford, etc.) should require some positive action on the part of the commander/player: an order, if you use written orders, a command point, a pip, chit, or whatever, depending on what C&C mechanism your rules use.

>"As opposed to Command Radius, does not regulating battalions boil down to not having to be in CR of a commander, but instead having to be in some radius of a designated other unit?"<

After a little further reflection on this one: A unit could be "in command radius" by simply maintaining its relationship to the next unit up the line, even if the regulating unit itself is out of sight. It's a chain. B aligns on A, C aligns on B, D aligns on C, etc. The problems arise when the chain is broken.

Or, rather than regulating unit radii, perhaps it would be more correct to state an exact distance.

Some systems might have units be obliged to be contacting the unit that they are following but we're wanting to see intervals maintained. That could be accomplished by putting units on large bases that guaranteed intervals but still…

So I look at my division, assess the terrain and threats to its front, and set down a 3" marker beside the battalion that will be my regulating unit. All units that are maintaining exactly 3" either beside or behind another unit that is in the regulating formation chain can move on the pip, chit, activation etc of the regulating unit.

More specifically, distances are measured from command stand to command stand so that if units are in line or column, what is essential is that I maintain distances between leading elements of the battalions, not corner to corner. This would allow deplyment room.

I can freely break units away from this at anytime but in order for them to once again gain this bonus, they must get themselves back into that 3" interval.

A few posts up I mentioned that it takes a long time for large formation to make grand formation changes due to the distance of marching; therefore being spread too far out on a large front would make such a maneuver take longer than perhaps it should.

However, I said:

"So if brigades or divisions were to have larger than usual gaps between them, then the amount of time necessary for large evolutions would increase (not to mention the danger of the larger gaps being used by the enemy)"

I should have been more precise and said:
" So if brigades or divisions were to have larger than usual internal gaps"

I meant that if one exceeded the "standard-sized" gaps within the brigade/division, then it would take longer for that brigade/division to perform the evolution. I did not mean to say that larger gaps between brigades would cause one of those brigades to take longer in its formation change.

Another point to consider is what might happen if there were a variety of gap-lengths between the battalions in a brigade? If that Brigade tried to "change formation" there could be big problems.

Battalions tried to "equalize" the number of files or frontage of its companies after losses. One reason for this is because having equal subunits was important to the time and distance calculations the commander needed to make. He needed to be able to estimate ahead of time the amount of ground he had to take up, and that proper intervals would still exist after formation changes were made. With unequal subunits a real problem could arise, especially if a square had to be formed!

Since "grandes manoeuvres" were just battalion evolutions writ large for brigades and divisions, the same considerations would apply for the commanding generals in charge of such movements.

I remember in my own army days the importance of the right marker and this was only at platoon and company level. When you went to higher formations for parades it was like organizing a major operation. Intervals, lines, spacings and set markers were all too important. I cannot even remember the exact or correct terminology anymore, it was well over 20 years ago for me now.

But my point is that yes, for each level of a formation it was the exact same principle that was followed but progressively on a grander scale as you went higher in the size of the formations involved. So, individually, you marked off to the guy on your right while the platoon marked off to the platoon on its right or front (depending on formation). The company marked off its position to the next company while the entire battalion marked off its position to the next battalion and so on up the formation.

The principle was the same but each level of the marking off was officered and guided by the commander at that level. So a company commander took care of his company but the Battalion commander was responsible for the alignment of the battalion thus also the alignment of each company and so on. The interaction is incredible and if you ever have the privilege to be part of a parade or even to watch one, you will quickly see that spacings, timings and coordination of formations is an art form.

However, like I said before, this is all part of the Movement Orders, not Command Control, yes it is still apart of the Command structure as such but should be set into the Movement phase of any good set of rules. I have countless times manouevered my formations from company level right up to army level in games over the last 30 years in games where I have aligned one formation (any size) against the one before it without even thinking about it. You just do it to maintain alignments, spacing, protection of exposed flanks and so on. It is pretty much second nature to most war gamers to do so.

It is the gamers who do not understand the importance of alignments that cop a pounding in games where he, being inexperienced, gets horribly cut up. I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I encounter a situation where my opponent opens an opportunity to me because he exposes a flank when advancing.

This is the crux of the problem that I have noticed in gamers over the years, including me at times. The propensity to advance too far forward without support and expose a flank. Not thinking about alignments and support because they want to come to grips with the enemy too fast or too early. This is the best way to get a right royal drubbing in my book and one that only too often occurs in table top games and in real battle situations for that matter.

This is why alignments and support is important beyond all else, I try to teach players the correct way to gain the most advantages with regards to movement, alignments, supports, flanks and so on in my own system. I show the players what causes an advantage and what causes a disadvantage in the mechanics of the system that can increase or decrease the chances of success. It is in doing this that players in my system learn how to align and support formations in our battles.

This is what the entire question of this thread and the other one boils down to, supports, alignments and spacings. If you teach players the problems and disadvantages associated with not following proper formations, covering flanks and everything else I have spoken about you are giving them the best possible chance, if not win the battle, to at least protect their own formations with the best possible chance to remain in tact throughout the battle.

Yes the regulating btln is important but like Billsfan said, it is all about protecting flanks. I add that it is all about teaching players the importance of flanks, alignments, supports and more importantly, not going out on a limb exposing your flanks by being too eager to come to grips with the enemy.

Like I said, this is all part of the "Movement Phase" of any good set of rules and as such should be a part of the rules where you teach and guide new players the proper ideas behind it, not simply saying that you MUST have a regulating bltn. It is MUCH more important to learn alignments, supports and spacings for deployments because anyone can point, aim and direct their btlns in formation forward in the direction of the enemy. It is being able to protect that formation that is most important.

Shane

Shane wrote:

>>>>>However, like I said before, this is all part of the Movement Orders, not Command Control, yes it is still apart of the Command structure as such but should be set into the Movement phase of any good set of rules. I have countless times manouevered my formations from company level right up to army level in games over the last 30 years in games where I have aligned one formation (any size) as against the one before it without even thinking about it. You just do it to maintain alignments, spacing, protection of exposed flanks and so on. It is pretty much second nature to most war gamers to do so.<<<<

Shane:
That is all very true. Whether the regulating and conforming process *should* be in 'movement' or 'command' or not is, I think, a matter of taste, rather like deciding where one chapter should end and the next one begin.

Overall, it is not a question of whether players naturally 'align their troops or 'protect' their flanks in a game or not.

And I disagree that it was simply a question of 'protecting' flanks. And the whole conforming and regulating process was not 'only' a movement issue. The 'system' had a great many pieces to it. It also involved:

1. ORDER. Maintaining alignment and conforming was the military definition of 'order', which was paramount in the Napoleonic Period. It was prized by the British and many other OVER speed and movement.

2. CONTROL AND RESPONSE: It provided THE basic method for large bodies of troops to respond to commands in maneuver, advance or change front etc. etc. Broken conforming complicated movement and command responsiveness, requiring a commander's personal intervention BECAUSE they were 'out of command'.

3. COMMUNICATION: It provided a much faster form of
communication at all levels than the horse.

4. RECOGNITION: Regulating and conforming allowed officers from great distances to not only identify the overall command, but know where individual units within that command stood. That was lost when conforming was lost.

5. COMMAND STRUCTURE STRESS: The loss of conforming could and did wreck communication on all levels. The Brigadier couldn't communicate with his entire brigade anymore with a signal order, or if he did, errors could occur as with Kershaw's two wings. If he left his post, that increased the time and difficulty in finding him with orders or information. The same was true for division commanders, and Corps commanders too. It often forced commanders to communicate with each command individually rather than just one unit to direct them all. More time, more work, more opportunities for errors.

6. MORALE: When soldiers, both officers and men, come to expect and depend on certain practices as an organization, the the loss of that organization reduces their confidence and ability to simply function together. When Young comments about Longstreet and Wofford rallying men from the left flank regiments--there is no mention of a Union attack. Longstreet didn't call off the attack at the end of the day because his left flank was attacked, only that it was exposed.

>>>>…not simply saying that you MUST have a regulating bltn. It is MUCH more important to learn alignments, supports and spacings for deployments because anyone can point, aim and direct their btlns in formation forward in the direction of the enemy. If is being able to protect the formation that is most important.<<<<

Simulations 'teach' simply by being an interactive environment. I would hope that what they learn from playing a Napoleonic wargame is what contemporary military men did to be effective, and what they did to be ineffective.

How do you propose to 'teach' players how important alignment, supports, and spacings were for Napoleonic deployments in battle without providing the core methods Napoleonic soldiers employed to DEAL with those issues?
What will they be learning about Napoleonic war and alignments, supports, and spacings?

TheScotsman,

you talk about all the headings you have used in capitol letters above like you are teaching us all something we did not know. Sorry to disappoint you but the exact same heading you used are almost the exact same words I use in various other aspects of my system and for that matter many other systems for important aspects of those systems to learn and understand.

Lets recap what I was eluding to when I said :

(((((If you teach players the problems and disadvantages associated with not following proper formations, covering flanks and everything else I have spoken about you are giving them the best possible chance, if not win the battle, to at least protect their own formations with the best possible chance to remain in tact throughout the battle.)))))

This paragraph of my earlier post is talking about this very thing, what did you think I was talking about, did I not make myself clear enough for you?

The Movement rules of any system and the consequential ramifications for not following good practice results in situations where formations fought at a disadvantage at best and at worst, the cause of their destruction. This is why I teach players the use of proper alignments, supports and formation to ingrain in them, via looking at the rules the best possible way to maintain or keep their formations in tact, in good morale, in formation, in communication, order and anything else you wish to show.

You are not teaching me anything I have not already learnt and understood for over 2-3 decades. You are simply making the use of Regulating Btlns way too focused to that end rather than teaching players to do what any comander would more importantly be doing i.e. making sure his alignments were correct, making sure he was supported, making sure he was not exposed, making sure he protected his flanks and so on. Yes, the use of Regulation btlns etc was important and as such each unit in the formation aligning itself to the Reg. btln is important but that is not the point. More importantly is to teach that alignments, supports and flanks are THE most important job for a formation commander and thus if they get them right all else falls into place.

All this can be done simply by teaching the importance of all of this to players, not telling players that Regulating Btlns is the most important thing he can do. I am sure all Divisional generals were far more worried about Flanks, alignments and supports than the Regulating bltns. Focus on that for players, not the simple act of pointing, aiming and moving the formation in the intended direction.

As long as everything else is taken care of, the act of moving the troops via the aiming point is less of a problem to deal with. The only problem I can see with Regulating btlns and formation movements is that of intervening terrain problems and contact with the enemy. The first problem is overcome by part of the line falling away and coming in behind the main formation to avoid the obstacle while the second problem, that of contact with the enemy makes the whole question of regulating bltns redundant because focus shift to actual combat, not general movement. Individual units become more important as combat progresses but they must still maintain alignments, support and covering flanks which is exactly what I have eluded to.

Yes, I understand that btlns conforming to the Regulating btln is important and yes I understand the principle behind it. But what I am saying is that from a war games view point this is irrelevant and cannot be shown with any real tangible mechanic other than, like I have said all along, to place in the Movement Rules in any system as part of the movement process. I see no real mechanic that can be derived from saying, ohh, you now have a regulatory btln, all others must conform to it and move with it accordingly. This, most war gamers already do and those that don't usually are inexperienced because they do not fully understand the impact of poor manouevring, alignments and supports. Teach them this first and all else falls into place…

Do you now see where I am coming from???

Shane

Ok..been reading the entire thread for over an hour now. And while doing so, I've been thinking about a solo made up scenario I'm playing. The German Division and a French Division (9 and 8 battalions respectively, are advanding on a British/Portugese Division. Other things are happening alos, but this is the crux in the center.

A Spanish farmhouse is occupied by Rifles before the German Division (1/2 Nassau on the extreme right) can send in its voltiguers. Hence, we have some chaos on the extreme right of the French/German right flank.

Advancing, with 4 German battalions (1 Brigade) in line) followed by a second Brigade) the flank is now disrupted. I use General de Brigade rules for Command and Control. Advancing, the 1st line of Germans were kept in line with the 1/2 Nassau, so without thinking, this battalion was probably my reg/btn.

I'd appreciate feedback on how others might play this out.
1. Let the 1/2 Nassau deal with the threat while the balance of the line moves forward with the advance, or
2. hold up the advance pending the outcome of the farmhouse conflict between the Rifle and 1/2 Nassau.

With this reg/btn now diverted, and the advance continues, 1/2 Nassau will wind up out of the command radius.

Should this German Bde be held up, then the French Division's advance could have an exposed right flank itself.

My thought would be to let the 1/2 Nassau from the 1st German Bde deal with the conflict, and possibly hold up the right hand battalion of the following 2nd German Bde to lend any necessary support.

Seems to fly in the face of aligning Brigades on the reg/btn. And how much time would the GD or BG need to designate the next battalion in line (left of 1/2 Nassau) as the reg/btn.

Or again, just halt the whole advance to rid themselves of the Rifles in the farmhouse? Seems that holding up the entire advance could give the advantage to the British waiting to receive the attack.

Thoughts????

bishop, yes, breaking off part of the command to deal with the problem on the falnk is perfectly ok. I seem to recall the same thing happening at Waterloo with DÉrlon's attack, one of the Brigades were broken off or tasked with covering the French left while the main attack went in on the right of the roadway.

It is basically up to the commander to decide how much of his units will cover the flank or be tasked with masking the main line of attack.

"March In Line And Increase of Front
I. The principles of the march in line are clearly enough indicated in the regulation of 1791. The men and the battalions are placed square to the front, on the ground they occupy, and in perfect alignment; the colours are generally carried six paces in front, when the line is to march, for the purpose of giving the cadence of the step, serving as a point of intermediate direction, and preventing the battalions from bulging out beyond the one appointed to direct the movement.
THIS ARRANGEMENT, though good in itself, IS SELDOM OBSERVED IN ACTUAL WARFARE."

-----Military Studies by Marshal Ney; written for
the use of his officers, pg. 35-36

Could Ney's use of the phrase "in actual warfare" also mean the same as "WHEN ACTUALLY ENGAGED" ?

To what extent might he say the same thing for the "regulating battalion" ?

BD:

I think Ney was talking about the 'perfect alignment' with all the spacings 'just so', men placed 'square to front'. I don't think he is saying that the actual arrangements called for in the 1791 Regulations concerning 'the march in line' were 'seldom seen'.

Ney does speak to the 'regulating battalions' and such in those Military Studies and other places. I can find the accounts if you want.

Scotsman,

Yes, I see he speaks to "regulating the battalions" immediately following that passage.

Thanks, for the offer though.

Without reading any further, was it generally a band/corps of drummers which could be seen and heard designating the regulating battalion during the Napoleonic Era ?

My next question would be: how big were those drums and how loud could they get ? If they were drums or some other form musical instrument AND they were loud enough, one might just be able to make a case for their use while engaged. Would have to read AAR's, of course, and that's A LOT EASIER do for the ACW… for me at least.

BD:
"Without reading any further, was it generally a band/corps of drummers which could be seen and heard designating the regulating battalion during the Napoleonic Era?"

BD:
I am not sure whether that was just a French practice or used by others. I don't see it in Dundas or any of the British accounts--which doesn't prove anything.

I dont recall EVER seeing any mention of drummers or drumming in AARs from the ACW -- of course, I wasn't looking for them.

I too have read this post for much longer then expected…and to my less informed eye I take away the impression that the two "camps" are arguing different shades of the same color-yet obviously different shades nonetheless. It does seem to me that the blurriness occurs at the time of transition between movement and engagement. Shane's points about adequate spacing between commands to limit interpenetration and best fields of fire are all somewhat second nature to experienced players certainly ring true. I too would like to claim to be able to calculate anticipated room necessary/allowed for my deployment and subsequent advance without tripping myself or exposing myself to enfilade. Why would I need a rule to further reward myself for this skill?
But I also see the need in certain types of rules systems to reward appropriate strategic and tactical movement formations "behind" ones own lines. (I certainly would consider expanding the BOFF rules to incorporate this concept to help with the initial die roll to determine response to movement orders.) Anytime you are marching in a practiced formation less "marshalling" should be required. Activation(?) should be easier, morale could benefit from familiarity.
This maybe the one source of agreement, as well, in everyones threads. I read no one disagreeing that spoken/unspoken regulating brigades are part and parcel of good tactics. Just questions about the validity of rewarding/penalizing it with modifiers. The Scotsman's points are also quite good in that the whole "efficiency" (my word) of the command is improved if everyone is where they are expected to be. So….shouldnt a commands marching speed, command radius, morale etc. be improved if the regulating battalion is implemented as outlined? Hard to set up those next layer of rules to provide the right carrot to get the player to chase. My arguement (and probably a paraphrase of Shane's) is good tactics should be reward enough. My generals are behind the units in need of the most support, my spacing is adequate to avoid "second rank casualties" and quick deployment from column to effective line…ad nauseum. Don't get me wrong, the attacks I brag about most are the "late game" parade ground marches through the center of the board and smashing through the enemy with my supported line reserves. By all accounts "regulated" quite beautifully. I actually "want" there to be a way of setting up a regulating battalion….I just haven't heard the vehicle for it here yet.
I play AOE, BOFF,REG-FnF,Gdb,CG2,and ITGM (yes I get confused as to what rules go to what games) and I just don't see many of those game rules supporting another layer of intricacy within their current framework.
(ps. my pet rules issue revolves around trying to create a level of order delay implementation based on how far away your are from the general creating the new order…so its not a quick leap for me to embrace the idea of regulating battalions mitigating that delay…..Not EXACTLY the same as command radius)

Shane wrote: (((((If you teach players the problems and disadvantages associated with not following proper formations, covering flanks and everything else I have spoken about you are giving them the best possible chance, if not win the battle, to at least protect their own formations with the best possible chance to remain in tact throughout the battle.)))))

>>>This paragraph of my earlier post is talking about this very thing, what did you think I was talking about, did I not make myself clear enough for you?<<<<

Shane:
Perhaps I am mistakenly assuming what you mean by 'teach'. For me, as a career educator and training simulations designer, I tend to have some fairly particular concepts related to the word.

What do you mean by "If you teach players the problems…"
Is the game doing that, the rules, you? Do you see wargames as purposely designed to 'teach'?

Oh, and I only use the capitals as emphasis, much as you do. I'm not in teaching mode here, unless I am done it for so long, it is unconsciously done. I thought I was providing evidence for a particular set of conclusions about history.

Shane wrote:
>>>You are simply making the use of Regulating Btlns way too focused to that end rather than teaching players to do what any commander would more importantly be doing i.e. making sure his alignments were correct, making sure he was supported, making sure he was not exposed, making sure he protected his flanks and so on.<<<<

The regulating btlns, among other things, WAS a basic method for "making sure his alignments were correct, making sure he was supported, making sure he was not exposed, making sure he protected his flanks and so on."

I get the impression that if the regulating batn methods are used, somehow it is making it too easy on players or they won't learn the proper lessons.

I haven't suggested anything but how the conforming process was used. The players can learn the why's and hows of it's purpose and all that you've noted by playing the game, if done adequately.

>>>Yes, the use of Regulation btlns etc was important and as such each unit in the formation aligning itself to the Reg. btln is important but that is not the point.

>>>More importantly is to teach that alignments, supports and flanks are THE most important job for a formation commander and thus if they get them right all else falls into place.<<<

Shane, it certainly is the most important job of the commander, but the conforming methods as the basic method for doing that. And what 'place' do you thing all else falls into, but the system set up to 'maintain alignments, supports and flanks.'

We agree that those were important issues, but I am not sure why you don't see that the primary way of ensuring those alignments, supports and flanks was the regulating and conforming system. Not the whole story, but certainly a fundamental piece--for the whole army.

Because Bill, it is down to really just a matter of putting the horse before the cart. Yes, Regulating btns are important for manoeuvre direction and conforming but you first have to understand the fundamental reasons for using it. Namely, to cover flanks, to align formations together to avoid gaps opening up, to present a solid front to the enemy and teach commanders (and players) to move in such a manor that everything is mutually augmenting everything else.

Yes, I understand what I am saying actually conforms to your argument for Regulating btlns but you "have" to understand the formations from platoon, up to Company, up to Btln, up to Regiment and so on. you need to start with the smallest common denominator and understand each level before you can move on to the next.

You have not yet given any reasoning in a playable game mechanic or anything substantial for anyone to sink their teeth into, I am providing that by explaining that you first have to understand WHY you are doing something before you go ahead and do it. Why do we need a Regulating Btln? because you need to enforce units to conform to each other, to mutually support and cover each other, to protect flanks, to align themselves with each other and so on. This is what Officers need to be taut first, once they understand this then the concept of the Regulating Btln becomes much clearer.

But by the time they understand and are in positions of command to designate a Regulating btln the actual act of doing so becomes supurfluous even though important in itself. He might assign a Reg. Btln for all others to conform to but the reasons he does so is to ensure all the things I speak about are covered and taken care of. It is not the act of designating a Regulating Btln that is important, it is understanding why flanks, aligments and covering flanks is important, assigning the Reg btln is just the act of picking a cab off the rank that everyone else follows.

Now, in game terms it is a little different, the act designating a reg. btln means little as a game mechanic as such, yes you have to conform all other btlns to it and align all units to each other and so on but the player could use "any" one of his front line units for the purpose, there is no need for a game mechanic to show it, no charts, no modifiers, no neon lights, nothing, period. You simply pick up a unit, move it forward, put it down, move on to the next and so on…

As I keep saying, "We all do it every time we play a war game anyway".

Example :

It is my turn to move my Division, 1st Brigade has become engaged with the enemy, it is in the thick of the fighting. 2nd Brigade has two lines of units, the first line is 4 btlns in line, the second line is another regiment of 4 btlns 300paces behind in column.

I want my 2nd Line to advance in support of the 1st, but to remain at 300 paces distant behind the fist. So, as my first line has 4 bltns lined up in Line formation I decide to advance another 15mins forward towards the enemy position I am attacking. I look at the line and pick one btln to advance its movement allowance forward. I check that distance, pick the Btln on the right flank (it has now become my regulating btln) and advance it its movement allowance forward. I go on to the next on the lest and repeat this move, making sure its right flank is no more than roughly 50 paces from the left flank of the btln I just moved. I repeat this with the other two btlns until I am done.

I then move to the 2nd line in Column to their rear, they are in Column and are 300 paces behind. I wish to maintain that 300 paces distance from the forward line even though my columns have a greater movement allowance. I again chose one of the columns, again, the one on the right. I move it forward and conform the other three to it, making sure I have left the appropriate spacing I require.

Fast forward, I repeat the same thing in the next turn but wish to make a 15 degree movement to the right, I use the right hand btln in line as my pivot and advance all others to conform with it making sure my flank is not out in the open. This might become unavoidable but the order is given. To counter this I send the left "rear" btln in column a separate mission order to advance towards the forward open left flank of the forward line as fast as possible to cover it with all speed. This leaves three btlns in rear to act as second line.

Now, everything I have just said is normal as a game or in real combat, it is part of movement orders and yes, it is even using Regulating btlns but my point is, "you don't need a mechanic to show it". It is something ALL gamers do as a natural matter of course without needing any alarm bells sounded to explain that they are indeed using a Regulating btln, they JUST do it and get on with it because the prime goal is to advance, protect flanks and cover each other with alignments.

If you can come up with some reason for me to see anything more into it that I have for some reason not yet discovered then I will for one continue to play as I always have and just get on with it. I do not see the need to add so much hyperbole about this whole topic when it is simply a matter of course that most of us do this anyway. how many times have you pushed one single btln forward as a gauge or marker so that you can align all the others to its new position? I bet thousands of times…there is no need for any indepth study into the phenomenon as you are making it into. What is important is flanks, alignments and facings, the Regulating btln is simply the right marker or indicator for the rest to conform to, big deal, it is no revelation, not holy grail that for some reason is only noticed now, it is a simple, no fuss way to move troops, nothing more.

The part many players have trouble with is second guessing the enemy they should not be able to see and react to. This is the problem with most war games, players who seem to have a sixth sense to be able to somehow spontaneously react and zip around to counter an enemy threat that only a helicopter would be able to detect…

Shane

Shaman,

Thank you for understanding what I am trying to get at.

As for Activations and Order delay, this is my whole point for my own use of CR's as I have clearly stated many times. I have written very indepth rules for this and use them very successfully in all my games in our group. This is one of the primary points of the system the guys seem to like, that they do not have all the control they wish to, that forces and friction work against their plans from time to time.

Shane

TheScotsman wrote :

>>>>>We agree that those were important issues, but I am not sure why you don't see that the primary way of ensuring those alignments, supports and flanks was the regulating and conforming system. Not the whole story, but certainly a fundamental piece--for the whole army.<<<<<

I think it is because I feel you are pretty much trying to teach players how to suck eggs, if you get my meaning?

Back in 1981 when we released 'Guard du Corps' for napoleonics we used battalions as the manuever units of the system.

As part of the advanced rule option for command and control, we used an operational radius in which battalions had to remain within a certain distance of other regiments in the parent regiment or if in an independent battalion's supporting role with so many yards of another battalion in the command to which it was attached.

Later in 1984 we used the same system in 'Century of Glory' a 1:60 troop ratio system for the 1820-1910. The manuever units were battalions as well.

Other systems have used similar restrictions but their troop ratio scale was lower with manuever units being companies.

It adds a level of granularity that would make my wargaming experience an unpleasant one. So I don't use it.

Hmmmm… ok, so as anticipated, I think we have started to wander from the subject of regulating battalions… partly I think because players out there have expected us to provide a mechanism (a fancy name for a rule, or a bunch of them) that we can bring on as a fresh substitute for the tired old "command radius".
Now, an obvious point perhaps, but command radii represent a number of functions of command, control and communication rolled into one rule, or group of rules, whereas, at the other end, regulating battalions rules are really centred on a very particular part of the whole process (the executive end if you like, and the control of manoeuvre)… and the implimentation of orders once the army, corps, and divisional generals have issued them and the brigade-generals are doing the real work of manouevring and directing these formations to the point of decision and contact with the enemy.
Well, having said that, what matters in all this is… how the chain of command and order transmission works in conjunction with this… how one determines the ability of subordinate generals (even the brigade generals!) to use their initiative; the thing that Ned describes as their "situational awareness".
Also how a game`s combat rules reinforce the good practice that is implied in this regulation… the what ifs the line is attacked in flank by infantry, cavalry by firing or by assault etc…

What we have with regulating battalions is a simple set of rules which if repeated & applied through the various levels in an army will, for experienced and inexperienced players alike, lead quite effortlessly to more realistic battle arrays.

Mike C. wrote:

"What we have with regulating battalions is a simple set of rules which if repeated & applied through the various levels in an army will, for experienced and inexperienced players alike, lead quite effortlessly to more realistic battle arrays."

Oh-oh, Mike, I think some people are going to see that statement and say, "Them's fightin' words!" because they will assume it is an attack on what they may be doing. I hope I'm wrong.

In some of this thread, and also in the Command Radius thread, I think many people are bringing past personality conflicts and arguments into the discussion, or are, at the least, not dealing with the precise statements being made but are instead assuming someone else has an "agenda" and therefore interpret remarks one way instead of another and then counterattack against a perceived slight.

I may have this wrong (and if I do I am sure I will hear about it) but as an example I think Scotsman in a previous posting on one of the threads mentioned he was having trouble highlighting words so he would capitalize them instead. Then in this thread Shane takes offense to the condescending appearance of those capital letters. IMO (and correct me if I'm wrong Shane – maybe I have misinterpreted YOUR writing style), this is because they got off on the wrong foot with each other early on in their exchanges on these subjects. From personal correspondence I thought they had many similar opinions on at least some of these subjects, but those have been overshadowed here by writing styles and the perceptions engendered by that. Face-to-face discussion may have resulted in a different outcome.

Mike, you mentioned "through the various levels in an army." I think that is an important distinction, because people might be focusing on a particular level. For example, I've been more in interested in the "Grand tactical" or "Grandes Manouevres" game and aspect, so comments I've made about philosophy of deployment and orders and generals etc might be seen as off the point or unnecessary for someone focused on a basic "aligning battalion" rule.

So I think it is important that people clarify, or ask for clarification whenever a poster hasn't explained something clearly. Scotsman and BD haven't agreed on everything, but their exchange has been easy for someone like me to follow because they have kept their propositions and responses to the point.

Oooooerrr! Well Ned, I hope I`m not offending anyone here… I`m just trying to make the case for regulating rules.

Maybe posters have some "history" between them… but I hope that we can concentrate here on the historical facts of regulating battalions.

As for the larger picture…I did mention Albuera as an example as how the control of regulating units may have made a differece… attacking a different flank (the left instead of the right) and the attack on the left being more difficult because the second formation would need to pass the first to avoid "an inversion", or rather just a divergence from the practice of seniority of formations in the line of battle. Maybe that was a little premature because people are still finding out how simple regulating rules are.
Perhaps we could return to such questions later, once the basics of regulating units are understood and what they imply for games rules?

From a rules point of view i don't think its necessary to have a regulating formation rule. If players advance formations that expose their flanks they pay the price tactically, just as they did in real life.

Why add another layer of complexity to a game system when you get the same result (the need to keep alignment to avoid exposing flanks) through other means such as combat results and the enemy taking advantage of your error?

Mike wrote:
"Oooooerrr! Well Ned, I hope I`m not offending anyone here… I`m just trying to make the case for regulating rules."

I totally agree with you above, and just hope to preempt any misunderstandings even though I may have started a new one with Shane and Scotsman. ( I have often been accused of being "too full of myself" – or of emptying rooms- so that could be the case here, too!)

Phillip,

Except that it is not a complex layer at all and as a bonus rules for regulating units provide you with the guide for manoeuvring larger bodies of troops.

I think too that it is very possible that the strengths and weaknesses in the system will lead to some different results.