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

>>>>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.<<<<

Shane:

If this battalion moves from the second line and 'conforms' to the left flank battalion in the forward line, I have no problem with that--it certainly was done all the time. However, if that battalion, on the other hand, is off unattached by itself, then no, it wasn't done often at all.

You originally wrote, "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." As I saw nothing mentioned about conforming etc., I assumed it was on a "separate mission", and not on the primary mission of any second line: support the first line.

>>>>>>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.<<<<<

I still don't understand where you came up with this. I hope you are not saying that every colonel is able to do what the dumb old Division commander can't: direct the entire division. What you see when these fragments 'come off' of a conforming Division is 1. The efforts of the fragments to reconnect in their proper place, and 2. the Divisional commander having to spend some 'quality time' with those fragments to get them where he wants them to be--reconnecting. The 2nd Day for the CSA is filled with examples of this.

The WHOLE idea of regulation and conforming was to provide a commander with the capability of moving entire brigades and divisions as a single entity, all regiments acting under a single formation and order without the Brigadier or Division commander having to constantly instruct every individual colonel. That is the way it worked. A colonel's primary concerns were 1. the condition of his troops, 2. the fight to his front, and 3. that his battalion/ regiment's flanks were conforming. Read Napier's account of Coruna to get a sense of what occupied a colonel's time in battle.

To suggest that players 'do it anyway'

Something to put on T-shirts sold as conventions: "Napoleonics players do it anyway"!

>>>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.<<<

Dodendorf, 5 May, 1809:

Ten companies of Westphalian infantry (having been taken the day before from both BNs of the 1st regiment, but operating here as a single battalion in line, under a single colonel: deWauthier), stand in the open, by themselves, with their left flank on a small river, and their right flank unsupported.

The only other forces present on that side were two companies of the French 22nd Ligne and half of an artillery company, who were in the town about a km distant.

This force had been sent by Michaud from his division at Magdeburg; he had 6,000+ men at his disposal, but dispatched this little force on its own mission.

What do I win?

How about a copy of those miniatures rules by The Scotsman, that everybody keeps asking him about, over on the Command Radius thread?

Becks Dark gave the Dodendorf example after quoting this from Scotsman:

"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."

Becks,

I think you may have missed the context of Scotsman's statement which can be found in another posting Scotsman made, which I quote here:

"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."

The context was the "open battlefield" such as a set piece battle. It seems to me that Dodendorf is a case of a "detached" force sent from the fortress, as you say, "on its own little mission". It becomes its own "army" and its commander becomes the battlefield "commander-in-chief" if the other forces you mentioned are also under his command.

Becks Dark:

Are we talking about a battle or some companies sent to cover a particular objective during a campaign? If it is a battle, what battle? A battle as defined by the contemporaries, not me.

I was referring to a brigade in a divisional formation during a battle.

Depending on the situation you have presented, you still may win… even if it is a rare situation…

Oops, I just saw Ned's comment. If it is a detached force on campaign, then yes, that wasn't what I was referring to. An open battlefield.

Hmmm. I have missed a lot in the last day. Bragration1812 and Mike C. have expressed what I was trying to say very clearly. It does sound like Mike's rules do all that I was referring to.

Personally, if Shane wants to do the 'whole nine yards', more power to him, but I for one like to have the game at a higher level of play, the Division or corps commander, not the company or battalion commander.

That being the case, the command dynamics, the way things worked at that level would be the target. Certainly the regulation mechanisms will be present and operating, but not with each company represented.

I still do not believe that players *should* learn Napoleonic tactics before playing a game or simulation, because otherwise they won't do it right or make a mess of it. That is part of the learning process. How many times do you drop the balls learning to juggle?

This may be my background in educational simulations, but if the simulation game is done well, players will learn those tactics and what is important much more quickly by making a mess of things a couple of times. If the players WANT to play the game, they will quickly learn what works and why--within the context of the game--and playing the game is the point here. If they want a further education, great. If the players aren't all that committed to playing the game, then all the education will be wasted.

If I am an expert bridge player, I want to play with 'educated' players. It isn't much of a challenge or fun playing with a newbie. That may be part of Shane's feelings on the issue, I don't know. I do know that even the best modern soldiers will have something to 'learn' if playing a simulation game of Napoleonic warfare.

Personally, if I had a choice between studying to 'learn the tactics and regulating system' and learning to play a game that will in a similar time frame impart the same information to play well, then I know which I'd choose. I can always go back to the books later.

Are you capable of letting somebody else have the last word, mate?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone quite so long-winded on the internet, and that's saying a lot.

Becks Dark wrote:
"I don't think I've ever seen anyone quite so long-winded on the internet"

Ha! I will put up my 2274 Average Characters per Post against Scotsman's measly 2171 any day!

Becks wrote:
Are you capable of letting somebody else have the last word, mate?
I don't think I've ever seen anyone quite so long-winded on the internet, and that's saying a lot.

Becks:
See my last post in the CR thread. If you want the last word, you got it.

He who posts last wins?

There can be only one.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Regarding the point about the necessity of drill for gamers and the importance of regulating battalions here is some of the drill – that is to say, the regulations about regulating and the roles of subordinate commanders.

It states quite clearly what is expected from battalion or regimental commanders.

"Rules and regulations for the formations, field-exercise, and movements (1795)"

Capitalization denotes italics in the text

(P. 410)
2. The REGULATING battalion must be regarded as infallible, the commander of the line watches over it, and, from the movement that its direction is ascertained, the commander of each other, and their directing sergeants, are to consider their movements as subordinate to it, and to conform accordingly: It is the helm which guides the line, and must not change cadence, nor will it lengthen or shorten its step, but from unavoidable necessity, and by particular order.

That should read:

"…from the [moment] that its direction is ascertained,…"

I just found this in "Serrez les Rangs" by Kip TREXEL & Didier ROUY:

"Regulating Battalion or Squadron
A brigade moves according to the battalion or squadron designated as the "regulating battalion". The designation is made by placing the brigade commander behind and touching the selected battalion or squadron. All units of the brigade move as the regulating unit."

Hate to admit it but Empire rules have been using a form of Regulating Btlns for years now, check it out with their loss of Initiative rules.

I played this system probably 15 or so years ago and knew of it then from playing these rules, I admit using it in my own system but not with as strict a format as Empire. Maybe I should have…

Remember, Regulating btlns starts as low as the right or left marker in an infantry platoon or company. Everyone else in the line marches from this man, thus it is the same right up the formation. a Btln has a Regulating Company or company which all others conform or march to…it goes right up to the highest level. It is just that many rules do not account for it.

I accounted for it in my own system in my Movement system which I wrote after understanding how Scott Bowden did it for Empire.

Shane

Hi Shane,

Dated May 2007, I have these rules by Trexel & Rouy on file, but I can`t find where I got them from now!
Trexel is the author of Empire III`s campaign rules.
They both have also written "Le Combat de l'Aigle" (2006):
link

Same name, but different I think; there is a Spanish "Serrez Les Rangs" by "Asociacion Madrilena de Simulacion" available at "freewargamesrules".

Mike.

G'day Michael,

I might be mistaken but I think these guys all played together so there is that link between them all. I remember when I played Empire I got so annoyed that if your brigades were not fighting as one single entity against the enemy line you lost initiative, so I decided to find out why this rule was in place. I later learnt through drill manuals and studying how the formations aligned with each other the reason why.

I decided to employ a similar situation in my own rules but without the loss of Initiative rule. Instead I decided that formations should conform to their real historical formations and put great emphasis on alignments and movement cohesion between btlns to protect each others flanks, this is why I decided that to have open flanks and nil support reduced the morale of the formation. This was done to urge the players to make sure they protected formations in alignment with each other and conform to each other for this reason thus avoiding any negatives.

It worked and players really started to cover and protect flanks, conforming with all units in the formations at all levels. It was not really done for the purposes of movement directly as a guidance tool as Regulating btlns are designed to show but it did force players to keep and maintain a solid front and facing, not to open flanks to the enemy and conform to each other.

It works for us thanks to Scott Bowden's rules all those years ago.

p.s. I will take a look at that link, thank you Michael.

Shane

Shane's Comments on Empire:

Personally, my issue with Empire wasn't that brigades had to conform to each other but that (at least with the guys I played with) they had to move as one physical element on the tabletop, i.e. a mass with no intervals. This is a matter of personal taste. But I will also second Shane's issue with the loss of initiative simply because I found Empire to be too unforgiving for the depth of detail it required. This second concern does have some pertinence to the larger topic at hand.

Using Regulating Battalions / Formations in Rules:

Thus far people have talked about putting Regulating Battalion / Formation rules into the C&C section or the Movement section of rules. Others have said that they feel Regulation Formations would bring more complication.

I think that it can be used for C&C and can be kept simple, for instance, formations should be penalized for not maintaining historical deployments according to their national doctrine. I don't think these penalties need to be -1 to XYZ but rather formations that have closed their battalion intervals too close to form into line – can't. Attempting to deploy into line from column without enough space causes the units to disorder or become unformed. If the division ends up in a combat situation it is more likely to become confused causing delays in reaction time for it as a formation. Both of these have innate consequences that were true on the battlefield and can be true on the tabletop.

Now, to circle this back to C&C. One can simply assume that a division that is following its historical deployment for its national doctrine is "in-command" and that whole division moves per the orders issued to it by its Corps Cmdr. A confused division will experience delays in executing changes of orders and in some circumstances may even experience delays attempting to execute existing orders.

When does a division go "out-of-command"? Is a question likely to be asked by many who are familiar with other game mechanics like CR. Well, not often frankly. It could happen due to a subordinate officer choosing to be insubordinate and refusing to follow orders. It could happen due to the death of an officer. It could be said to be relatively the same effect as when a division becomes "confused" as noted above. I do think this needs to be coherently and consistently outlined in the rules though, Ney's troops at Jena were not ineffective in combat because he ran off against orders with a couple squadrons and an infantry battalion. Thus, we should be careful to make sure that the combat effectiveness of units is only affected by circumstances pertaining to combat and C&C response time is only affected by circumstances pertaining to C&C. I would argue that while many things that affect C&C do not affect combat effectiveness, there is some overlap where combat effectiveness issues, example:

The battalions of a division become unformed because they attempt to deploy into line without sufficient intervals.

While the division is penalized for combat effectiveness since its battalions are unformed, it should also be penalized for C&C since the Regulation Formation method shows us that a mob doesn't respond as well to orders as a formed body of men.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit,

Would Regulation formations bring more complications…?
It depends… if you are going to graft them onto a rule set which is already quite detailed… quite possibly.

I agree with the difficulties of deployment somehow that could be catered for in each game`s combat rules (firing and/or close assaults)

National doctrine, or systems were very similar at the beginning of our period; the French system of 1791 was intended to be a linear first line with second lines in columns and possbily a reserve, which is not much different to other nations methods. And besides guidelines for practice in the field hinted that they should be flexible and altered according to circumstances. Some refer to the forming of one or more lines.
There were more similarities in methods of manouevre.
The practice of securing the flanks of lines with battalion columns, a form of "mixed order", (using the modern term for this) was employed by other nations` troops too, not only the French.

But the point I`d like to make that using regulating battalions is not a substitute for command radius; if you use it, it does not have to be supplimented by other "command/control" rules which further penalise the command, or the units within it, because the consequences should be felt in other areas of the rules and those are largley the tactical disadvantages in combat that the regulations of the period point out quite clearly. Dundas speaks about manouevring commands to the point of engagement with the enemy in good order and alignment using the methods of regulating battalions.

If one battalion, one part of a line of battle loses time or alignment, then it is down to that battalion to catch up or correct its alignment… but yes true, it does affect the rest of the line too, which is taking its alignment form it… they`re like "glued together" at the flanks!
As a consequence, the command is confused enough wouldn`t you say?

Mike.

Mike,
I believe Kip uploaded his rules files to the VLB Yahoo Group files, so that may be where you found them.
– Ned

Yes, that must be where… thanks Ned!

Mike,

I read your post a couple times because I am getting stuck. I was advocating doing away with CR in a rules set and instead using RB, depending on what part of your post I read seems like you agree and disagree so I figure I'm misreading you.

Able to clarify?

Cheers,

The Bandit

OK Bandit,…

I think it is unnecessary to have a "confused" command status, or rules for "confused commands" when alignment is lost, or lines are broken by terrain enemy fire etc.,
because the results and consequences of these things happening will be bad enough.

Mike.

Bandit wrote:

"I don't think these penalties need to be -1 to XYZ but rather formations that have closed their battalion intervals too close to form into line – can't."

Bandit,

Please don't interpret this as nitpicking, but I think that your comment illustrates just how far away from a complete understanding of Napoleonic manoeuvres most of us are, and the difficulties that anyone attempting to replicate them in a set of rules would encounter when introducing certain things to wargamers in general.

Battalion columns DID NOT require deployment intervals
between them in order to deploy into line, and in certain armies (the British for example) this was actively discouraged, and columns would often be drawn up directly alongside each other prior to deployment. This was referred to as "contiguous columns" and you could search in the regulation links recently posted to gain a better understanding of this. There are also many actual examples of contiguous columns being used on the battlefield.

I think that the chaos caused by the discussion on regulating battalions would pale into insignificance if wargamers actually read all of these regulations and realised that the manoeuvres carried out on the wargames table are often a very poor representation of what actually happened 200 years ago.

Captain Snort,

I hear what you're saying and, yes I am aware. But since my wargaming table top battalions do take up more space in one vs the other …

That seems to go to another but perhaps related topic of, "Why do miniature battalions take up so much more room in line than in column when historical frontages were similar?"

I volunteer not to start that thread. My quoted comment simply demonstrates a, "one issue at a time," regarding this complicated of topics.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit,

Not sure I understand your reply.

If real battalions did not need to leave lateral deployment intervals between themselves in order to deploy into line, then why did you suggest introducing such a restriction in a wargame?

Bandit & Captain…

Maybe we are straying into the subjects of "forming line", or "deploying to line".
Sorry, probably my fault for mentioning securing a flank with a "battalion column", and also talking about the deployment intervals for advancing line of battle ployed in columns and in the same post.

Mike.

Captain Snort,

Because the battalions placed on the wargames table typically take up different amounts of space for each thus I think it is a practical thing that people are forced to leave space as one thing we can likely agree on is a deployed division took up X space, thus on the wargames table it should not take up X space when battalions are in column and Y space when they expand into line, it was me saying, well, I know that in real life the frontage was the same but I don't really care about battalion frontage, I really care about division frontage so how do we allow the deployment into line on the table and still maintain the division frontage so that players do not just march up tight divisions that magically expand to double the width? Figured this made sense.

Any more coherent this time?

Cheers,

The Bandit

MichaelCollinsHimself,

Agreed and that was why I just kinda grazed past it in my first post on the subject.

So – to the other points?

Cheers,

The Bandit

But brigades and divisions could "magically" expand to double their width.

Rules and Regulations:

"The line of battalions in mass being thus formed…may from thence advance on a front of one fifth of its extended one (as the several battalion columns are now 5 divisions in depth) and may then deploy into line as near the enemy as appears safe…nor until they begin to deploy can the enemy provide against or determine what position they will take up, as four fifths of their number may be thrown to either hand."

I also do not think that this is straying from the subject at all – how can you introduce regulating battalions without first understanding the regulations?

Wouldn't regulating battalions fall under the regulations for Battle Array. Perhaps that's a different thread.

cheers
Edward

"So – to the other points?"

OK Bandit,…

I agreed that deploying to line could be problematic… there`s an example of this happening to Prussian battalions that were wheeling and failed to keep the correct intervals at the battle of Ligny (its in Peter Hofschroer`s "Ligny and Quatre Bras" volume on page 275)

National doctrine, or systems were flexible and varied according to circumstance… and so a rule to penalize players for non-adherence to these systems would simply not work, nor would it fit in neatly with variable historical practices.

Mike.

Captain,

Ok maybe not straying, but for the time being I thought we were centred on discussing the movements of a line.

What has been edited out of your quotation?:

"The line of battalions in mass being thus formed…may from thence advance on a front of one fifth of its extended one (as the several battalion columns are now 5 divisions in depth) and may then deploy into line as near the enemy as appears safe…nor until they begin to deploy can the enemy provide against or determine what position they will take up, as four fifths of their number may be thrown to either hand."

also could you please provide a reference to the page number of this part of the regulations?

Mike.

Mike,

The full quotation is:

"The line of battalions in mass being thus formed, at such a distance from the position it is to extend on as circumstances may point out, may from thence advance on a front of one fifth of its extended one (as the several battalion columns are now 5 divisions in depth) and may then deploy into line as near the enemy as appears safe – in such a state of deployment the troops have not much to apprehend, as they are in a situation to resist any sudden attack; nor until they begin to deploy can the enemy provide against or determine what position they will take up, as four fifths of their number may be thrown to either hand and an oblique direction may be readily given by the previous placing of the several battalion columns in such intended direction, which is an easy operation."

I am not sure that the page number will correspond with your copy, but it can be found under: Movements of the Line, S187, point 5 and is illustrated by plate 106E. The method of expanding the frontage is shown in plate 111. There is no doubt that this was used regularly on the battlefield, and I know of at least one occasion when such a deployment took place within musketry range of the French.

I did not intend to hijack the thread, but in order to expand on the subject of regulating battalions I think that it essential to understand the various shapes into which a brigade or division could be thrown, whether your basic units are battalions or brigades.

>>>>>I think that the chaos caused by the discussion on regulating battalions would pale into insignificance if wargamers actually read all of these regulations and realised that the manoeuvres carried out on the wargames table are often a very poor representation of what actually happened 200 years ago.<<<<<

and…

>>>>>I also do not think that this is straying from the subject at all – how can you introduce regulating battalions without first understanding the regulations?<<<<<

Finally, someone who understands what I was trying to get across to TheScotsman on the CR thread…thank you Captn Snort.

Shane

Well, if we are going to discuss column to line evolutions I would like to have some things cleared up. Perhaps it will be a useful bird-walk.

I have been told in such a way as to believe it and generally accept it (but not really understand it well enough to repeat) that a battalion in column can take up roughly the same frontage as a battalion in line. Frankly, this has always confused me because if the column and line are made from the same number of men and one is deeper then the other must be wider.

link

and

link

Obviously there is some conflict here. I'm hoping other can help in clearing it up.

It seems when ya lay it out on paper that battalions in column do need some space to roll out into line. In my earlier example I noted that there is an innate penalty for formations (divisions in my example but could be any middle or higher order formation) whose subunits have attempted to change formation but can't because they didn't have space and this would seem an accurate and innate consequence both historically and on the tabletop.

Thoughts?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Captain,

Thanks for the full quote.

By means of about ten diagrams, I have tried in my rules to give some guidelines for "forming line of battle".
So, I agree, that the various battle arrays that are formed and how needs to be understood too… so expand away!

One, or two links to google and the regulations might be useful as points of reference for us here (I found two recently on there I think dated 1792 and 1798) we must remember too that people over here in Europe don`t get full access.

And you are quite right I think, when you say it is "…essential to understand the various shapes into which a brigade or division could be thrown, whether your basic units are battalions or brigades."

Mike.

Michael,

Ned Zuparko, if you ask him nicely and provide him with an email contact might be persuaded to email you all the regulation books and manuals he has. He has already done so previously for me and for that I owe him a deep gratitude.

Shane

Thanks for the mention, Shane. I probably don't have anything Mike or other VLB denizens don't already have but I may have a few things of interest, especially if some Googlebook links don't work in Europe.

>>>>>I also do not think that this is straying from the subject at all – how can you introduce regulating battalions without first understanding the regulations?<<<<<

Shane wrote:
Finally, someone who understands what I was trying to get across to TheScotsman on the CR thread…thank you Captn Snort.

Shane:
I did understand your point. I simply thought that if the game represents the system, and the players learn the system, they would have to come to an understanding of the regulations as they pertain to the game, I would think. You definitely felt that wasn't enough.

Players wouldn't be looking at diagrams and instructions, but actually moving the units around learning the regulating system.

I got the impression that you didn't think that kind of understanding was possible from a game system, or any game system modeling the regulating process.

Thanks Shane and Ned,
Ned, if you could do this, that would just great… maybe I could email you and let you know what I have already?
Mike.

Mike, I'm at nedz@mindspring.com. We can probably help out each other. Let me know if you need Clausewitz's Guide to Tactics, too.
-Ned

We're never going to match the CR thread in length if you guys don't get with it! Are you even trying? C'mon!

I am, I am, but my question about the greater difficulties of regulating cavalry passed uncommented

nikola,

With cavalry regulations I have (1799) in the section "When the Line advances" (S. 96) the language is changed, and "directing squadrons" are the named regulating units.

It is noted there that "inclining" (to correct a mis-alignment) is a difficult action & this should be to 34 degrees and only at a trot, not a gallop when the line has a front of 9-10 squadrons.

Saying also that: "When time has been given to adjust the line, the incline may be repeated as often as is necessary,… The fronting every two hundred yards is presrcibed to prevent the breaking or falling into file of the line, …, …if much greater space was at once attempted to be inclined over."

1/32nd part of a circle is the limit for wheeling about 11 degrees and the directing squadron is limited to walking pace. And for obvious reasons, this is recommended once halted rather than whilst moving.

So, these are some goods reasons to limit cavalry`s movement rates!

Mike.

A front of 9 to 10 squadrons! If we only had that much space… Thank you MichaelCollinsYourself(?)

So it is roughly the same in cavalry, although certainly more difficult.

What now interests me is what happens when a body contacts the enemy. I am uncertain but i think it was The Scotsman who has cited that at that time everyone knows what he should do.
So, the battalion commanders make tactical decisions and squadron commanders are perhaps even permitted to retire and reform, as would have been practiced and taught in peace. The regulated formation is disrupted and needs to be reorganised before the brigade can be again used as a whole.

What is the role of the brigade commander at the time when he is not needed? If a rules set focuses on simulating his level of command the performance of individual units should maybe be resolved without players' influence (which I would not like), who should then be given a different problem to resolve.

nikola,
In my own rules, the roles of players are centred on the corps, or divisional levels. Rather mechanical perhaps, but I see the brigade-general`s job as getting his formation to the point of action.
However if given their own missions to follow, they could decide themselves about the formations that they used so if (as I suspect) you are using larger figures in smaller games you may have some autonomy there as a brigade general.
But once the whole command is at the point of contact it knows the job it must do (and to some extent they would have been briefed by its commanders).

I would think that it would be a case of "keeping it simple" and having everyone act in the same way in a command once engaged. The battalion commander`s part is quite limited to ensuring that their units arrive to give battle in concert withother units in the command`s formation and in an orderly manner.

I don't see that any rules with regulating brigades and conforming would require any more rules concerning flanks than exist now. It might be fun to have any non-conforming units with their flanks in the air suffer some negative morale modifiers in movemen and/or combat, but most rules try to do that anyway.

No, I think just using the mechanism is rigid enough, and fraught with enough possible screw-up with terrain and movement rules, that a whole lot of new rules wouldn't be necessary.

We have been playing around with the idea that a divisional commander is focused on a single task [which could have multiple pieces within a 15 to 30 minute turn.

The Division commander is one of three places:

1. With the regulating brigade/unit, which means the player can adjust or move the line where he wants.

Negatives: He can't commit the reserves as he wishes. They can only move to one or the other flank of the brigade in front of them.

2. At his usual post at the center of the division, which means he can advance or halt the division on the line between the center of the division and the objective, or if the regulating unit is in the center, he can move the division as he wishes within the restrictions of how a battleline would move with a center RB. He can also commit the supporting line[s] as he wishes while there.

Negatives: The Divisional commander can't move the line as freely from the center, even with a center regulating battalion. Also, if he is not with the regulating battalion, the entire line stays on a straight course towards the movement objective. It has to role a situational awareness test to halt. [Unless it already wasn't moving.

3. He can be with particular brigades [any two his base can touch] other than the regulating brigade or the center post to help in moving, disorder or combat.

Negatives: He can't move the divisional line, can't commit reserves, and he is harder to find if orders are sent to him.

The ability of a battle line to swing to a flank quickly was dependent on which flank the RB was one. If the player wants to swing the battle line to the left and the regulating battalion is in the center or on the left flank, it is a much slower process. Also any swing more that about 20% caused either disorder, very slow progress, or as most Napoleonic DCs did, they formed battalion columns and moved to the location of the new line and deployed again.

Obviously, when the DC went down or was unavailable, there were very limited things the divisional line would do, all according to SOPs, involving movement and the commitment of the second line and/or reserves.

If brigades are given separate orders or become separated, they have their own regulating battalion and operate accordingly. [Either the orders or SOPs.]

It is fairly simple. With the need to keep attached to move as a Divisional unit, the RB works well to keep players from zippy moves or isolated combat teams meandering all over.

That's my take on it. IF folks wanted to get involved in Battle Array conventions, that would be added detail. The only way were were *considering* it was in the SOP involving where a second line would join the first line in support--more likely to easily attach to the left than the right flank if the RB was on the right, for instance.

Just the ideas we are playing around with. It is a pretty simple system.

I must reread Marmont's memoires again, I am now certain he describes in detail the positioning of his divisional generals and himself in combats during his advance in 1809.
I did not understand the significance at the time

I too dislike forcing players to behave in a certain way – the results of his actions ought to be hard enough for him. That would convince me that a rules set is good. Not some factors which are created to avoid a situation difficult to model. I like when the rules describe and explain the process. So I agree, an abundance of rules to handicap units with exposed flanks is unnecessary. The enemy will do that.