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

Michael wrote,

"As for the larger picture…I did mention Albuera as an example as how the control of regulating units may have made a differece"

Michael,

Although I understand regulating battalions and order of precedence within formations, I read your original posts on Albuera but I do not understand the point that you are trying to make. Please could you expand on this?

Hi guys,

No, I am not offended in the least, what I cannot understand, as Phillip also explains, is the need to add a layer into a set of rules for Regulating Btlns. Sure, you can add a passage or two for players to at least understand the concept but like I keep saying, it is all in the actual act of moving your troops that we all already use the concept. You don't need rules to control your movement procedure when you touch your troops physically and push them across the table and I do not see how any such rule could benefit a player if he is already doing it to protect his flanks and align units in the first place.

I am sorry, but the concept needs "no" further addition to a rules set other than to tell players what the concept means and how it worked. It is up to the players to live up to the historical deployment of troops or suffer accordingly. If you expose your flank then that's your problem, if you do not close gaps then that is your problem, if you do not align your line then that is your problem…

If you own or have copies of the historical regulations and descriptions of the formations that were used you should have all the tools you need to maintain formation, alignments, covering flanks and deployment of formations you need. If you have this there is no need to add another layer, no matter how light people think that layer might be.

Adding in a passage or two regarding the official use of Regulating btlns is fine but that is as far as it need go, anything else is fluff, when you push one btln along in a formation then the next and so on while all the time remembering and using proper regulations that were historically used for an army that is all you need.

Shane

Michael- first up this has been a very enlightening discussion and has provided insights to me (as a 25 plus year veteran of gaming) into the process of moving formations etc etc, so thanks to all who have contributed – its what makes TMP such a invaluable forum.

I take your point in response to my comment- it doesn't have to be complex, but if you can get the same result (players moving formations in historical fashion)through other means then does it matter what the rule is called?

But something I wonder about- if you had such a rule- what happens when you come into contact with the enemy and the formations (say Brigades side by side) get out of synch as a result of combat…how does the regulating rule work then?

cheers

Phillip

About all I have gained from the contemplation of regulating units (of whatever size) is a firmer grasp on the concept that commanders did not have to give specific orders to every unit other than "just keep your eye on the unit to your right (or left) and do what he does," and even that didn't have to be verbalized, as it was implied with the appointment of a given unit as the regulating unit. It was "monkey see, monkey do."

Now this could be simulated in various ways, depending on your style. In rules like mine, where every unit is a brigade, I could just say every stand much touch another stand of the same division/corps/wing/whatever with some penalty for failure to do same, such as any stand (or group of stands) out of contact with the rest is considered a detached unit (to be activated separately) until it reconnects. Your mileage may vary.

Phillip –

If I may, I won't speak for Mike's rules (which are VERY good), but the questions you pose are a result of combat 'friction.' In our rules, when a unit gets out of alignment either through combat or another reason, it becomes increasingly difficult for the brigadier or division commander to get the units to move as desired. Any unit that does not move in conformity (same formation, speed, etc.) require either an initiative test (progressively more difficult as units incur casualties and fatigue) or an action (represented by a command chip) from either the brigadier or higher echelon commander to move. If a non-aligned unit can move, it must move immediately to realign itself with its regulating unit.

The end result is that as units get 'stuck in' so to speak, more and more of the commander's attention is focused on keeping his units in alignment and less on directing it to exploit the enemy's weaknesses.

There is a certain amount of inertia in this that I had hoped to achieve and did, although somewhat by accident. That is that an attacker must properly 'prepare' a defender by using artillery and/or tirailleurs to disrupt and discomfit the opposing battle line while maintaining the integrity of his own. If a position is not adequately prepared, then the attacker is forced to focus more attention on keeping his forces together rather than on exploiting weaknesses in the defending line. This is particularly true with poor troops who have a low probability of moving without a commander action and are more fragile overall from a morale perspective.

Apologies for the diatribe about our rules, but I think part of the reason that this tread has seen a dearth of rules suggestions is that the use of regulating battalions is crucial to both command/control as well as movement and combat and so it becomes difficult to provide a quick one off rule that can be easily and universally applied to most rules.

When I was introduced to the concept along with unit precedence, it caused me to reexamine many of the assumptions underlying many parts of my rules and rewrite a good portion of them in the process. Through playtesting, I then discovered consequences I did not foresee and initiated another round of revision and so on.

Shane – I agree with you that, conceptually anyway, regulating battalions are not 'complicated,' but neither would I classify them as simple either given the potential implications for other parts of the rules.

Bagration- thanks very much for your fullsome response- very interesting.

As a rules author myself I'm aware of the effects 'downstream' of a rule mechanism to influence gamer tabletop behaviour or see it work out through other rules/mechanics on a particular game system- since obviously they are all inter-related.

As an aside I recall the difference in approach when seeing an C18th game with the units in line all dressed on each other etc advancing as deemed historical by players, and yet on the next table the same game system (WRG) Napoleonics players all zooming around the game in battalion columns for the most part all doing their own thing…. same system, different understanding and 'gamer culture' for that period!

Which seems to me the need to educate and influence the gamer into moving his units with a modicum of historical structure.

Concur with Alte Fritz.

Bagration, you may have provided the first post that describes what the original question asked. Many thanks for that. But let me be a bit simple to keep things straight. You lost me with the reference to "In our rules, when a unit…" after starting with…"I won't speak for Mikes rules (which are VERY good)". Your rule system, is NOT the same as MichealCollinsHimself's rule system. That is how I take your post to read. So now we have 2 games that harness this approach in their rules. So your very well written description (aka diatribe) has nothing to do with what MCH has created in his own rule system.

Shaman –

Sorry, yes, you are correct, Mike's rules and mine are different although there are a number of similarities including the use of regulating battalions.

don wrote :

>>>>>and even that didn't have to be verbalized, as it was implied with the appointment of a given unit as the regulating unit. It was "monkey see, monkey do."<<<<<

That pretty much sums up the whole concept, if you have fingers with nerve endings connected to your brain you can choice one btln, move it, change its formation, turn its alignment, correct its facing or what ever and copy this with the next btln and so on down the line until you are done….no rule needs to be designed for this, common sence is all that is needed.

Understanding "why" you need to choice one btln, move it, change its formation, turn its alignment, correct its facing or what ever and copy this with the next btln and so on is the point. Understanding the consequences and dangers is the reason, once you know this Regulating btlns is nothing more than the pysical moving of them.

Check the Prince of Orange thread to see what happens when a General is inexperienced and naive to get a good idea why you need to know the reasons for manouevring formations in alignment, conforming with each other.

Regulating Btlns is not a rule, it is a reason incorporated into regulations, and reasons do not need to be made into rules if you are following those regulations…

Shane

Captain,

Much has to with the instructions that are to be given to brigade generals, the officers whose job it was to "regulate" and actually lead an advance or make a redeployment and this is the basis of command/control that we are concerned with here.

If Thiers is to be believed then the commanders of V corps were not present at the crossing of the brook. Previous to this the regiments were in columns with one battalion after the other. The regulating battalions were at the head of the columns.
But without the two divisional commanders present (one of whom is also the corps commander) there could have been no specific orders as to how these formations were to be arrayed. The brigade generals without instructions probably waited for a while.

The final advance of Girard`s division has the first brigade leading the second and the 34th regiment on the right of that brigade… and that`s where we might expect it to be as the brigade`s regulating battalion (see Dempsey`s map page 114).
The same map (and later the map on page 126) shows the regiments of the second division advancing (again with their battalions one behind the other in column), but the brigades of this division are side by side, with the senior brigade on the left. This indicates to me that if the second division was expected to do anything, it was to be arrayed to the left of the first division (again I think where we might expect it to be). Anyhow, the second division`s brigade generals would need to wheel and lead their brigades to the left (regulating them) in parallel to the furthest extent before turning to the right and ploying or deploying for battle.

However, a flanking move to the right, or on the enemy's left would have been easier.
An attacking force in two lines only need perform a simultaneous wheel to the left, regulated by the leading battalion of the first line of battle, the operation simplified… the whole battle array is in place at the same time whereas at Albuera, attacking on their left would have required more manouevre from the brigade generals and taken the French some time longer to extend their lines.
The line at Albuera was reformed by the allies in time because some notice of the attack was given and all that was required was that the brigade generals lead their commands off to the right and then reform.

Shane… you almost lost me with your last post!
But I think I understand your point.

By your experience (in the military and in wargaming) you understand the importance of alignment, flanks… etc. having learned your lessons, in effect you are already using something very close a "regulating rule".
Your understanding of the subject is rather more than a "common sense" view!

What I`m trying to get across here is the historical role of the brigade general, regulating battalions and how he fits in with the rest of the chain of command, rather than being limited to what players may consider to be "common sense" applied to the manouevre of wargames units; this is usually based upon the received wisdom of what wargames rules have said in the past.

Shane,

>>>Regulating Btlns is not a rule, it is a reason incorporated into regulations, and reasons do not need to be made into rules if you are following those regulations<<<

I think this kind of takes us full circle.

If not on this thread, on the Command Radius one.

Somewhere the point of players and what they will or won't do willingly came up and I think you have bumped into it again.

I agree that Regulation should be considered as natural practice but the issues as to if it needs to be a ‘rule' are not that simple.

If an author or players are happy that the consequences suffered by a player who does not Regulate are sufficiently covered by the rest of the rule set then maybe not. A suggestion may suffice.

After that point it can become just a matter of choice as to how much history you want to include.

On the other hand we all know tiresome people who would say "look, where in the rules does it say I can't layout my units and move how I like" and that's why we already have Rulesets that seek to reward or punish players, who move out of formations.

It becomes an expectation, or a matter of how long you are prepared to play against someone who moves all his units in skirmish, for example – that's to say do you as a rules writer wish to give basic education by outlawing this, or letting the newbie get slaughtered until he stops?

sweet,

You guys are understanding my angle on this, thank you.

Traj, yes you are right, some players will try to get away with things like that. However, they usually end up with no adversaries eventually, well, at least in my neck of the woods at least.

Yes it sounds like it have come around full circle or I am actually sounding like I am agreeing without knowing it with the Scottsman but I am not. I will explain :

What people need to do is learn the regulations as per the drill manuals of the period, understand them from cover to cover and use them as they were written. Once players understand this they tend to do more realistic things on the battlefield and actually begin to "simulate" combat as it was meant to be simulated.

Teach players how the troops were trained to fight and drill yourself the say way. If you understand the true nature of the forces you push around on the table top and the regulations they fought under the closer you come to simulating that era. Yes, Regulating btlns is part of that but it does not need a rule, it needs instead to be understood as a part of the overall manual but it is the whole that is important, and that is, alignments, formations in proper array, covering flanks and so on. Once you have this totally understood and portrayed on the table top there is no need for artificially introducing some rule for Regulating btlns.

Learn the manuals and you learn it all…without this you will end up doing things you should not do or were not done. The Scotsman is trying to focus on Regulating Btlns, I am trying to focus on the Drill Manuals and the Regulations as were written, I have even posted threads concerning hem.

Shane

Rules or guidelines for intervals in rules?

I think we need something from the instructions of the period to give us some better guidelines as to intervals between battalions regiments and brigades.
This is from Gay de Vernon's A Treatise on the Science of War and Fortification, (1805, trans. 1817).

"Regiments composed of 3 field battalions form in line form right to left, according to the rank of the battalions, which are separated by intervals of about 20 mètres (about 67 feet Eng). Brigades, consisting of 2 regiments, enter into line in the same manner, by rank of regiment form the right: the regimental intervals are 30 mètres (100 feet); the
intervals between brigades are from 30 to 40 mètres (100 to 135 feet). A division of infantry consists of 2 brigades or 4 regiments, or 12 battalions."

I think I found this on the VLB group?

Shane –

You wrote. "Learn the manuals and you learn it all…without this you will end up doing things you should not do or were not done. The Scotsman is trying to focus on Regulating Btlns, I am trying to focus on the Drill Manuals and the Regulations as were written, I have even posted threads concerning hem."

While I agree that you are correct in a manner of speaking, how many players are actually willing to do this? Suggestions and guidelines are fine, but would you expect a novice to read your rules along with the appropriate drill manual for the nation he has some interest in? Perhaps I am reading you incorrectly here so please let me know, but that's how it looks.

I'm afraid that I'll agree to disagree with you with respect to whether or not the use regulating battalions requires a rule or not. No worries though.

Hi Bag,

My point is, TheScotsman wants us to "simulate" if this is what we are trying to do, however, his discussion about Regulating Btlns is only a small part of the whole. If we are to simulate as he states it then we might as well "simulate" the entire Drill Manuals and Regulations for the nation we play is my point, if you do not really know how a French Division or a Russian one or a British one was properly deployed then what are you doing? it cannot be simulation of what happened can it?

To be frank, I agree with him in this respect, if you are going to simulate what they did 200 years ago with regards to regulating btlns, alignments, flanks, supports and all the rest you might as well study and get to know the manual as it was written. I actually think this is where players of our sophisticated age should be headed if we want to play battles at btln level in order to re-create actual deployments. It does not matter so much at Brigade or Divisional level rules but at the level I play it makes good sense.

Players should be forced to learn and know how to deploy and move their troops as they were historically, if they don't it is a farce.

I bet you, you have seen players at clubs etc playing btln level systems with deployments and formations which were totally unrealistic and never practiced by that particular nation, but yet the player in all probability is naive to the fact but happily continues on as he was?

Now, I am not trying to be a rules lawyer here nor a perfectionist but if we are going to pursue the lofty heights of "simulation" through Regulating Btlns then we might as well go the whole hog as the saying goes…(go the whole 9 yards for our American listeners)

Shane

Shane… perhaps one needn`t take the things quite so literally to their logical conclusions mate.
It is possible to mix things up a bit you know and have some things more "in focus" than others – it needn`t all be about details.
Besides some things are easier to represent more closely or are better simulated in a game design than others and I think regulating battalions is an example of this being the case.
Personally I don`t mind making a few rules on this if it makes a game more manageable (which is the aim) and if a game`s rules reinforce one another.
Mike.

Learning the drill manuals as a player does absolutely no good if nothing in the rules provides any incentive to do it.

Player A to his ally Player B: Why is your attack not moving forward? I need your help.

Player B: The far left of my line has been slowed by some trees and I cannot conduct my divisional wheel until it has caught up.

Player A: Your leading elements then will be arriving to my aid in a couple of turns?

Player B: No no. My regulating unit is my lead element, of course, and it will be the hinge of my divisional wheel so it won't be advancing until the wheel has been completed in a few hours.

Player A: Shut up and move everything 12" toward the enemy!Now!

Player B: But my flanks? My discipline? We can't have chaos.

Player A: When you move, turn your outside battalions slightly toward the outside to form a gentle curve. Your division will have no exposed flanks. Round divisions work best. Don't worry about the troops. They'll have no memory of this display.

Player B: My intervals will be inconsistent.

Player A: Intervals? Base-to-base contact!

Player B: But what if I need to change formation into line?

Player A: Then you advance a unit, change it into line, and have the unit that was beside it change into line behind it. Perfectly easy. Worry about it when the time comes. Intervals are for girls.

Michael,

Regarding Albuera, I still cannot see that turning an enemy's right flank was any more difficult than turning his left. All that needed to be done was to move the units off in two parallel columns with the left in front led by the left battalion, and a simultaneous wheel to the right would have the units formed up immediately for an attack in two lines. As the French first moved parallel to the allies (according to Maransin) this is presumably what was done at Albuera.

While I think that Dempsey's book is very good, there are no references, as far as I can see, that support the arrangement of the French units in his maps, apart from the fact that the second division followed the first. How do we know that the first brigade of the second division was on the left? How do we know that the first division advanced with one brigade behind the other?

If there were problems with the deployment, then that must have been down to the competence of the French generals in not setting up the divisions correctly in the first place, and not due to some inherent problem with attacking a right flank.

Shane wrote:

"Players should be forced to learn and know how to deploy and move their troops as they were historically, if they don't it is a farce."

Shane,

In that case, every set of Napoleonic rules currently available, and probably every set of home grown wargames rules are "a farce". You cannot carry out even half the movements prescribed in drill manuals in most rules, and because of the restrictions imposed by the stands used to mount the models, it is impossible to even represent many formations accurately. Even the best set of rules will be a total compromise.

Mike wrote:
"I think we need something from the instructions of the period to give us some better guidelines as to intervals between battalions regiments and brigades.
This is from Gay de Vernon's A Treatise on the Science of War and Fortification, (1805, trans. 1817)….I think I found this on the VLB group?"

Yes, the notes were made from de Vernon by Howie Muir and posted on the VLB Yahoo site by the Scotsman.

"…there are no references, as far as I can see, that support the arrangement of the French units in his maps…"

Odd, I thought he had explained the movements and positions of several French regiments in his text! and that it was also known that the 40th were on the left of Girard`s attack columns…?

Thank you Ned,
I thought it was Howie but I didn`t note it down!

Michael,

As far as I can see, he uses L'Heralde's account to determine the order in which the French crossed the brook (which seems to imply the right was in front) but says: "The information about Girard's formation that is available from the French sources is, however, incomplete in one important regard – it says nothing about the way in which the various French battalion columns were arranged in relationship to each other." The maps, therefore, must be conjectural.

If the French did approach right in front, in the manner suggested by Dempsey, with the intention of turning the allied right, then this shows either bad planning or a hasty plan being put into operation with insufficient time given to reorganise the columns prior to marching. I have not seen L'Heralde's account so cannot comment on the accuracy of Dempsey's interpretation.

Captain,
You say: "…All that needed to be done was to move the units off in two parallel columns with the left in front led by the left battalion…"
So, with the first in front of the second divison (presumably both with their right leading) both divisions would have had to reverse their order of march before moving off again?
Mike.

Mike,

I am not sure how long Girard had been on the field, or how his troops were arranged prior to the start of the turning manoeuvre, but if turning the allied right had been the French plan from the start, then I would imagine that the troops would have been organised with this in mind, and been formed left in front. There would surely have been time to do this while the diversionary attack was taking place against Albuera.

If the turning movement was a spur of the moment decision, and Girard's troops were already arranged with the right in front, then I suppose that it could have been decided to march off as they stood and suffer any delay when fronting towards the enemy. It just doesn't seem to be very good practice to have the troops at the rear of a column having to prolong a line by moving behind and past the lead battalions while close to the enemy.

Captain,
Dempsey does have the 28th Legere in front of the 103rd which seems to come from Lapene and these were according to Maransin in columns of attack by battalion. I seem to recall that in his explaination of the fighting, Dempsey makes a good case for saying that some battalions of the second division were placed as he suggests.
I recall from a discussion on Napseries? that two eyewitness accounts from the 1/48th claimed to be fighting (charging?) the 28th Legere. Which would put them to the right of the general conflict as Dempsey has it in his maps.

And L'Heralde was from the 88th of the first division right? …and he mentions column formations of both by divisions and by peleton (by company – maybe because the battalions were operating with 5 companies?)
Mike.

Mike,

It is Major Brooke of the 2/48th who describes charging, and breaking, the 28th leger. The 2/48th were part of Colborne's brigade so that would place the 28th on Girard's left flank at a very early stage in the action.

… thanks Capt., well that sorts it then!

Capt Snort wrote :

>>>>>In that case, every set of Napoleonic rules currently available, and probably every set of home grown wargames rules are "a farce". You cannot carry out even half the movements prescribed in drill manuals in most rules, and because of the restrictions imposed by the stands used to mount the models, it is impossible to even represent many formations accurately. Even the best set of rules will be a total compromise.<<<<<

In my own honest opinion, yes. Remember, this depends on the scale you are talking about, Btln level games only. Brigade or Div level systems use blocks or single bases so it is presumed that this is all going on inside the base or blocks and not seen. However, in btln level games which drill down to individual btlns shown this becomes important.

The lowest independent manoeuvre formation was the company, it was the company and its regulation width and the spacings set out with each company that enabled the Btln to manoeuvre and take up its designated part of a line. Companies were designed to be the building block of the Btln and at all costs the frontage of a company was to remain the same number of files even if it meant reducing the third rank in order to do it. And it did not matter what formation your btlns fought in on the battlefield, the company was "always" found to be in "Line" formation.

so, if you have a system that sets out the troop bases as "Companies", in "Line" then you have the basic building block for proper formation drills. Do this and everything else fits into place. This is what I have done with my own system and this has allowed the guys I game with to come to understand drills, formations, manoeuvre times, proper spacings and so on…

I always try to endorse the proper formations and battlefield deployment of the nations that were involved and using companies as your lowest building block does this and there is no question whether using correct drill manual procedures is correct or able to be done or not. Get this right and everything else falls into place. You get to know the length of your companies, you get to know the length of your btlns in line or columns, you get to know the length of a brigade when deployed and so on.

So, for me, I believe that following instructions from drill manuals "can" be done provided your basing is set to show company frontages as they were meant to be, accurately. It is not a matter of taking things literally but taking things accurately and learning the proper drills and manoeuvring of the day, it is in no way impossible or for that matter being anal, it is being accurate.

Being accurate allows you to "more" clearly understand the "proper" drills of the time and the associated difficulties they faced.

Shane

Ned was kind enough to forward to me His Majesty's Manual for the Cavalry, c.1795, Instructions for Hussars and Light Cavalry, and others. What great primary source reading material.

Thanks, Ned, for your generosity!

Cheers,
gregoryk

Shane wrote:
"I am sorry, but the concept needs "no" further addition to a rules set other than to tell players what the concept means and how it worked."

Shane:
I can see where we differ on this. The system of conforming and regulation was not a 'concept', but a series of concrete practices used to move men. It had it's strengths and weaknesses on the battlefield, as a set of battlefield dynamics which included how units moved, protected themselves, commanders controlled their units.

It was system involving large groups of men. To suggest that players 'do it anyway' because they move units in a similar way and flanks are vulnerable, misses how the system/groups of men, behaved in response to commanders and battle. It's like leaving out the 'concept' of disorder because players can and do disorder their tabletop units themselves.

Bill, out of everything I have said over the past couple of days you have zero'd in on one single word, "concept". Ok if you do not like it I will change it to "practice".

>>>>>To suggest that players 'do it anyway' because they move units in a similar way and flanks are vulnerable, misses how the system/groups of men, behaved in response to commanders and battle.<<<<<

Wrong, I also clearly stated that players should learn and use actual "Drill Manuals" and study and learn the "Regulations" therein. If anything I am encouraging players to go much further than your advice to simply use regulating btlns…

Learn the Drill manuals and understand the reasons why they did what they did then you are much better armed to fight your battles in a proper, simulated way. Do this and you get to understand the reasons why things were done as they were. Once you reach this level you will understand the "concept" behind the use of regulatory btlns.

Knowing the Regulations and following them basically encompasses your request that we use regulating btlns but deals with a much greater picture of which Regulating btlns is only a part thereof.

Shane

So Shane, with the original question being: "how many of us use regulating battalions in their rules?", your would answer yes, as an explanatory and helpful note in your movement rules ?
Mike.

no, I am aiming towards an explanatory section devoted to Drill manuals, this has always been my aim.

…but you`re going to mention it there!

Michael, I am not sure what you are getting at ?

You do have a copy of my rules already, I sent them to you as requested a couple of weeks ago. As you can see, they are not totally finished and several sections are not written as yet. You will also notice a file with a page only 1/3 completed, this is because that file is still being worked on as is several parts of my system.

Saying that, if you look at my Movement section in my rules you will notice clear clarification devoted to Formation set up and deployment, the issues involved within and the complexities of command control with regards to higher formations. This section and others discusses very clearly the problems involved with command and the control issues that can occur when different obstacles or challenges are put in front of a formation on the move.

I though what I had written was fairly clear for you to see?

Shane

Nothing Shane… like i have said.

>>>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 taught first, once they understand this then the concept of the Regulating Btln becomes much clearer.<<<

Shane:
You make three points above [which I hope I am getting right]:
1. "This is what Officers need to be taught first", which I guess you mean by " putting the horse before the cart." I am assuming that players and Officers are interchangeable here as to what they need to learn before they can play a Napoleonic game with regulating batns etc.?

2. You wrote later "I think it is because I feel you are pretty much trying to teach players how to suck eggs, if you get my meaning?" "…the act designating a reg. btln means little as a game mechanic as such…" That seems to mean I am teaching them where teaching is unnecessary…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".

3. You say, "you have not yet given any reasoning in a playable game mechanic or anything substantial for anyone to sink their teeth into." Obviously, you haven't seen it that way. I'll explain.

First, I'm not thinking of developing an annex courseoin Napoleonic warfare in the near future. I just want to provide a game with the same mechanisms for unit control used by Napoleonic Divisional commanders. Regulating battalions, conforming etc. are fairly basic elements in that--not all, but it is difficult to imagine a model of command without them. Simulations games provide an artificial environment that models a real one. You drop players into it and let them explore. If you feel that 'training' is necessary before you'd let them near a game, that's fine. Go for it. I figure that playing the game will 'teach' the same thing in working to optimize moves and discover how to win.

You see, if teaching someone the "fundamental reasons for using" regulating brigades etc. were sufficient for understanding, simulation games would have no purpose in training. And if the simulations can provide that 'learning environment' with all the lessons dynamically illustrated and fun while being puzzled out, why not let them gain their 'understanding' that way? Is a separate curriculum really necessary?

Second, is this regulation game mechanism 'unnecessary' before or after your pre-game training?

Third, your view of the entire process leaves out several elements of how the whole process worked. I am not sure why you've say, "you have not yet given any reasoning in a playable game mechanic" as I have given THREE different examples for this thread.

But here are several reasons why what you've described doesn't model how Napoleonic maneuver and command worked—at least in the cases we are examining.

>>>>> 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.<<<<<

There are several things wonky with this scenario. Not only are a number of mechanics ignored, but it assumes an absence of group structure where there was a great deal that needed to be maintained. Here are SOME of the reasons, and this is just how it worked:

1. Divisional commanders didn't pick their regulating battalions in the middle of an advance--or change them. There are several reasons for this, but you will find that brigade and divisional commanders rarely changed directing units once the initiated a battle plan. The reasons are:

a. All the brigades, first and second line are regulating off the same battalion if they are moving together, or part of the same plan. Only if they had different objectives would they have different directing battalions, left, middle or right.* There are a number of reasons for this, mostly having to do with avoiding confusion and maintaining a unity of purpose.

b. All battalions were "directing on the right" or what ever, and to change the directing battalion means informing the entire line, which would take time, including new directions of how to move to the new directing battalion. *

c. Usually, the division was part of a larger plan, which included anticipating necessary or planned maneuvers. That is why Longstreet, and not the divisional commanders, determined that the right would be the directing battalion for ALL brigades and divisions. The plan was for both Hood and McLaws to wheel to the left, which would have been far more difficult and slow if the direction had been on the left or middle. It is why Pakenham has the directing battalions and brigade configuration he does at Salamanca, and surprised the French with how rapidly his division was able to change front and swing left. At Salamanca, British Divisional commanders chose the regulating battalion that provided the best control in carrying out their particular advance and attack. In both cases, the Confederates at Gettysburg and the British at Salamanca NEVER changed their directing battalions for either divisions or brigades, with one exception, and that was Barksdale when he lost his directing battalion in the Peach Orchard.

d. One of the obvious issues with the process is that the Divisional Commanders and Brigadiers couldn't "check the distance". The directing battalion was given the orders and the rest of the brigade or division worked to keep up. If terrain, the enemy or command issues caused part of the line to slow, every unit on the left [of your example] would slow too, and possible rifts would occur.* There were a number of these rifts in the 2nd Day Gettysburg. Similar one occur at Salamanca and Austerlitz, for example. The path of the brigade couldn't be 'checked' before hand, and any problems that could threaten the connections and alignment of the division happened during the advance--they couldn't be measured away before hand.

>>> 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.<<<

You are demonstrating far more control than a Napoleonic or ACW Divisional commander had, and there are no obstacles or slow battalions, which makes it really easy…

>>>>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<<<<

The spaces are fine and divisional commanders often did determine them even though there were SOPs for that. Again, you wouldn't be 'chosing' your regulating battalion at this point. When the battle array of the division in two supporting lines had been chosen, your regulating battalions would have been chosen too, and with few exceptions would have stayed that way the entire battle.*

>>>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.<<<<

That means the regulating battalion has to remain stationary and the rest of the line would have to pivot. That is a slow and awkward process for a line of battalions regulating on the right. IF that had been the plan, the regulating battalion would have been on the left, where the pivot could be done far faster with less possible problems.* There are consequences in choosing a particular regulating battalion. In fact it was so difficult to change direction, that if the pivot was planned for more than 25 degrees, the battalions formed columns to make the move, reforming and deploying in the final position. Is the second line supposed to follow suit? [i.e. conform?]*
IF your division had been moving in concert with other divisions, that flank issue wouldn't have existed. Part of the battle plan would/should include who is regulating/ supporting who. IF planned, then you planned to leave your flank exposed. Leaving your flank exposed, in and of itself, was a morale issue, even without an enemy threatening it. If if wasn't planned, that is going to worry a lot of folks in your command. I identified two examples of that problem turning serious with the Gettysburg accounts.

>>>>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.<<<

Shane, in real combat during the Napoleonic wars and ACW, sending off individual battalions on separate missions was rare, very rare in an open battlefield. The only times it is done purposely at Austerlitz, for instance, is sending battalions to hold villages or strong points, not out in the open. And when individual battalions ARE caught in the open away from their brigades at Austerlitz, it isn't pretty. At Gettysburg for the Confederates, the separation of regiments from their brigade formation is seen as a mistake, without exception. For the Union, it was desparation, and even then condemned.

So, if this is done during the Napoleonic war, I'd need some examples. At Eylau, Davout sends off one battalion and a battery to stem the tide of a Russian flanking attack, but that is an emergency and the battalion is all he had. Davout creates a 'combat team' and assigns a staff brigadier to command the force.

*The points with the asterisk denote where the Divisional Commander's job can become far more difficult. EVERY time a brigade, battalion or section of his divisional formation stops conforming to the directing brigade, for all intents and purposes, it becomes a separate command requiring separate direction for what to do.

If confirming is not maintained, very quickly the Divisional commander loses the ability to move his division as a division. Instead it becomes several mini-commands which he can now only command with direct contact and/or separate orders being sent to them. Once the conforming process has been broken, the commander's job has become far more difficult and the division's reaction time to ANY command is now splintered into whatever sections have been created. That is one of the obvious things about the 2nd Day at Gettysburg. Once the conforming is broken, the parts of the attacks, both McLaws' and Hood's divisions start stalling and the divisional and brigade commanders are left with two options: re-establish the conforming, or start issuing individual orders to everyone. In every case where the attack was re-initiated, conforming had been re-established. Every time the attacks stalled, the conforming had been broken. [I realize these are ACW examples, but I am more than happy to provide Napoleonic examples.]

You see both of these processes, and because of it, the attack fails to achieve as much as it could have, if the conforming had been maintained. That is the conclusion of a number of CSA generals.

The conforming process is far more structured, even rigid, than you portray it. It matters what formation you chose and which battalion is directing, and that has to be done at the formation is deployed, not in the middle of an advance, on any level. To do it had a number of negative consequences, least of which is the necessity of a new game plan and delays.

>>>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 am more than happy to provide Napoleonic or ACW examples of what I've just explained. As I see it, you'd have to provide examples of the regulating battalion/brigade being changed after the creation of the attack or defensive formation, examples of battalions being purposely deployed individually in the open, and some evidence that the conforming process was not as proscribed as I have indicated.

>>>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…<<<

;-j Actually, the enemy often could tell which units were regulating, as every army used the same system, and often could predict what formations would be used because of it.

Even so, the conforming system, if reasonable portrayed, will certainly curtail the sixth sense, the spontaneous reactions, and the zipping around. Much of what a command could do in reaction to the enemy was determined by the formations and conforming elements they chose. I can also provide examples of how that pre-determining of reaction possibilities based on regulation and formations could help or fatally hinder a command.

For instance, Caldwell's entire division ended up inverted because he was in the wrong formation to quickly form line where he had to.

At the divisional level, if you start looking around for why Napoleonic units couldn't spontaneously zip around, you don't have to look any farther than the formation and conforming conventions.

>>>>>Divisional commanders didn't pick their regulating battalions in the middle of an advance--or change them.<<<<<

Hang on Bill, I used the term, "pick one", yes, but I did not mean nor imply pick one "each turn". I meant that when the order is given and the activation roll has been succeeded the formation is then ready to go. I choose a btln to use as the guide for the rest in the line to conform to with regards to regulation of the movement allowance for that turn. I conform all other btlns to it as I can already judge all other btlns allowable movement for that turn from the movement already conducted from the first moved.

countless other player do this and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

>>>>>You are demonstrating far more control than a Napoleonic or ACW Divisional commander had, and there are no obstacles or slow battalions, which makes it really easy<<<<<

I disagree, I am excerting just enough control actually. I find it a little funny that you tell in one breath I am being lax on control then in the next I am excerting "far" more control?

>>>>>That means the regulating battalion has to remain stationary and the rest of the line would have to pivot. That is a slow and awkward process for a line of battalions regulating on the right.<<<<<

Okie, I will elaborate a little more, I used the right hand btln as the pivot yes, I had to because the order was relayed to change facing….now, in the passage I wrote I said the other btlns in the line advanced and turned to conform with the pivot btln.

Sorry, what I should of said was, I moved the extreme left btln its full movement allowance forward and turned its facing to the right 15 degrees. The next btln was then moved to align itself with this btln and so on down the line til I was at the pivot btln which simply moved forward and slightly to the right while its left flank marked time.

>>>>>Shane, in real combat during the Napoleonic wars and ACW, sending off individual battalions on separate missions was rare, very rare in an open battlefield. The only times it is done purposely at Austerlitz, for instance, is sending battalions to hold villages or strong points, not out in the open. And when individual battalions ARE caught in the open away from their brigades at Austerlitz, it isn't pretty. At Gettysburg for the Confederates, the separation of regiments from their brigade formation is seen as a mistake, without exception. For the Union, it was desperation, and even then condemned.<<<<<

I strongly disagree with you here, I have read many occassions where individual btlns or regiments were sent on separate missions. If I am not mistaken even you, on the other thread eluded to it several times… I will say, that the better the formation the more possible it was to do so, it is in the poorer quality formations that this would be impossible or at best dangerous, thus when you elude to Davout you are backing up my point.

Now, I am not going to hunt down examples to prove my point, however, if while I am reading books in the near future I happen to come across examples of this you can rest assured that I will post them for you. I am also sure others who read this might also post examples.

Shane

What was the role of regimental commanders when a brigade was ordered to act coordinated?

One example of a formation changing facing or committed to two separate missions can be found on page 126 of Dempsey's Albuera book.

in this picture you see the 1st Brigade of the 1st Division Vth Corps Advancing North to confront the Allied line. As they approach the 40th Ligne changes from Column to Line with one btln remaining facing north while the other btln conforms to its left flank facing to the West against a new threat. The rest of the brigade also turns to its left (west), forming line and confronts the British brigade of the 2/66th, 2/48th, 1/3rd Regiments. This is clearly demonstrating to me a situation where there are two separate threats to a Division and the left brigade must turn to face this threat while still maintaining a portion of its btlns against the previous threat 90 degrees away from the new threat.

I am sure I would not have to dig very far to find many more of these occurrences…

And yes, nikola, what about those Regimental colonels, they must be too stupid to be able to direct portions of their own regiments. It seems only the Brigadier or DC are smart enough to do so.

Shane

>>>>>*The points with the asterisk denote where the Divisional Commander's job can become far more difficult. EVERY time a brigade, battalion or section of his divisional formation stops conforming to the directing brigade, for all intents and purposes, it becomes a separate command requiring separate direction for what to do.<<<<<

so Regimental colonels cannot actually command and control their own regiments as far as you are concerned ??? wrong!!

I should expand the question.
I suppose that it is agreed that battalion commanders had very little freedom of decision, and that the main task of the brigade commanders was to retain order and direct the regulating battalion corresponding the orders he himself has received.
To what extent could he relegate responsibilities to his regimental commanders? Could he instruct them about the general plan and expect them to interfere if need arose?

Also, how did cavalry commanders resolve the greater problems of their command, more sensitive to terrain obstacles and with less time to react?

>>>>>The conforming process is far more structured, even rigid, than you portray it. It matters what formation you chose and which battalion is directing, and that has to be done at the formation is deployed, not in the middle of an advance, on any level. To do it had a number of negative consequences, least of which is the necessity of a new game plan and delays<<<<<

But yet, you also tell me I was being far too controlling than a Divisional commander would be able to control??

Also, you mention new game plans and the magic word, "delays" now what do we mean by, delays??? we mean the conveyance of a new order or changed order, do we not? Now, how bout those like Bob of NB's who uses Command Radius…maybe, just maybe this is why he uses it??? As he said himself, if a player makes sure his command is comforming and in a proper order or battle line formation there would be no need for the rules for his CR's to take effect, but if an order had to be changed because of comforming problms and issues would not an order change suffer a delay? if so then Bob's use of CR's actually fits this. If there are btlns out of control needing order changes and the Commander is not close by would not the player have to pysically move the commander over thus making sure the CR touched those units allowing the order to be conveyed? this itself denotes a "delay" in the conveyance of the command process does it not?

Uuuu I only go for a short time to repair the vaccum and already receive a reply, thank you

re. the question raised by nikola and Shane as to what the regimental commanders could or should do… ?

I think the answer to this lies in the way infantry divisons were arrayed and the means of command/control that was applied: that is by brigades and regulated.
From early on, it was the divisions` infantry brigades not their regiments that formed each of their lines of battle. Later in the French army there is the development towards larger numbers of battlions in the field; these lines could then be formed by regiment but the tendency was still to do so by brigade.
But many regiments were designated as "brigades" if their function was different and they were manaouevred separtely from the line. Bill gave the example of Vandamme`s 1st brigade, Schiner`s 24th Legere Regiment at Austerlitz and how it was used at Stare Vinohrady in an attempt to soften the Austrian line (in skirmish order) and then, whilst the 2nd Brigade plus a regiment form Vare`s brigade assaulted the the main body of the Austrian line, the "brigade" was given orders to attack the Austrian right flank.
But in this example the regiment (a brigade) is acting under orders from the divisional general, Vandamme.

>>>>>*The points with the asterisk denote where the Divisional Commander's job can become far more difficult. EVERY time a brigade, battalion or section of his divisional formation stops conforming to the directing brigade, for all intents and purposes, it becomes a separate command requiring separate direction for what to do.<<<<<

Shane wrote:
>>>>>so Regimental colonels cannot actually command and control their own regiments as far as you are concerned ??? wrong!!<<<<

How in the heck did you translate what I said into colonels being unable to control their own regiments? We were talking about a Divisional Commander controlling his Division… or does he in your view? He certainly isn't a bystander while the colonels do whatever they think right without regard to the division. He is the one to attempt to achieve the tasks the *division* has been set for it. It is much harder to do that when he has all these independent commands to coordinate.

Shane wrote:
>>>>Hang on Bill, I used the term, "pick one", yes, but I did not mean nor imply pick one "each turn". I meant that when the order is given and the activation roll has been succeeded the formation is then ready to go.<<<

Shane:
Okay. I can only respond to what is written, the same as you.

>>>>I choose a btln to use as the guide for the rest in the line to conform to with regards to regulation of the movement allowance for that turn. I conform all other btlns to it as I can already judge all other btlns allowable movement for that turn from the movement already conducted from the first moved.<<<<

Man, so when when you've moved the regulating battalion, you can "already judge all other btlns allowable movement for that turn from the movement already conducted from the first moved?"

Can any of those following battalions 'fall out' of alignment or conforming, or is it a sure thing? If it is a sure thing, then that is one reason I said, "You are demonstrating far more control than a Napoleonic or ACW Divisional commander had."

>>>countless other player do this and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it.<<<<

Well, that would all depend on what it is supposed to represent.

>>>I disagree, I am excerting just enough control actually. I find it a little funny that you tell in one breath I am being lax on control then in the next I am excerting "far" more control?<<<

Then I'll explain. You have too much control of the battalions, and the control is lax because you ignore many of the issues of control that Division and Brigade commanders had to deal with in moving.

>>>>>Okie, I will elaborate a little more, I used the right hand btln as the pivot yes, I had to because the order was relayed to change facing….now, in the passage I wrote I said the other btlns in the line advanced and turned to conform with the pivot btln.<<<<

>>>>Sorry, what I should of said was, I moved the extreme left btln its full movement allowance forward and turned its facing to the right 15 degrees. The next btln was then moved to align itself with this btln and so on down the line til I was at the pivot btln which simply moved forward and slightly to the right while its left flank marked time.<<<

Then with your *natural* movement, you designated the right hand battalion as the regulating battalion, and then moved as though the left hand battalion was the regulating battalion. You will find that such a move, wheeling right when the right-hand battalion is regulating is a far more complicated and awkward--that is SLOW-- process than you have just presented, which is why if a plan had a unit wheeling right, they made the work easy with a regulating unit on the left.

>>>>I strongly disagree with you here, I have read many occassions where individual btlns or regiments were sent on separate missions. If I am not mistaken even you, on the other thread eluded to it several times… I will say, that the better the formation the more possible it was to do so, it is in the poorer quality formations that this would be impossible or at best dangerous, thus when you elude to Davout you are backing up my point.<<<

I will repeat, there were only two situations where commanders purposely sent individual battalions on separate missions:

1. to take and hold woods, rough terrain or buildings, and
2. In dire emergencies, which is the Davout example.

Rarely if ever did brigades split off battalions on separate missions in open terrain. I can give you lots of examples of the two listed, I challenge you to come up with an example that isn't identified by the participants as an emergency or one where the battalion is sent to occupy a piece of rough or BUA terrain.

>>>Now, I am not going to hunt down examples to prove my point, however, if while I am reading books in the near future I happen to come across examples of this you can rest assured that I will post them for you. I am also sure others who read this might also post examples.<<<<

I'd settle for just one. If this is such a common experience.