"Which rules depicts the use of light troops best?" Topic
16 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the 18th Century Discussion Message Board
Areas of Interest18th Century
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
|
Prinz Geoffrey | 15 Jun 2009 6:46 a.m. PST |
I have been thinking a bit on the role of light infantry, jagers, grenzers, fei-corp, etc. in Seven Years' War combat. Some rules at the grand tactical level basically ignore light infantry. Some rules have light infantry and cavalry stands. Some build the role of light infantry into their pre and post game phases. In your opinion what set of rules represents the role/use of light or irregular infantry/cavalry the best? One other question do you feel that much attention is needed/warrented for light infantry in Seven Years War, specifically European, theater gaming. |
Der Alte Fritz | 15 Jun 2009 6:54 a.m. PST |
Light troops very rarely affect the outcome of an 18th century battle, unless they occuppy a terrain feature that is a prominent part of the battlefield, such as the Lobosch Hill at Lobositz, or the tall cereal grasses and adjacent hamlets at Kolin. Light troop activity usually took place along the perifery of the battlefield or completely detached as in Kleine Krieg situations. |
Prinz Geoffrey | 15 Jun 2009 7:27 a.m. PST |
So DAF, do you feel that most SYW rules are better off to ignore light/irregular units and build their role into the pre/post game portion of campaigns, i.e. scouting, rear gaurd, etc.? Is there a set of rules you feel deals with the light troops best? |
Mike OBrien | 15 Jun 2009 8:16 a.m. PST |
I would disagree with the assertion that light troops have a minor place in a SYW game. Light troops had a critical place in at least two of the major battles of the period, and in the East they form up pretty heavily in the OOB due to Frederick passing them off to his brother. I haven't played Koenig Krieg in a while but as I recall they give light troops a pretty reasonable place in the game. As DAF said, they are to be used to occupy woods, rocky hills and broken areas. Since SYW battles don't all take place in nice, parklike settings, there should be a use for them. Of course there are specific situations, such as raiding, that they come into their own. |
lebooge | 15 Jun 2009 10:38 a.m. PST |
Having recently played Koenig Krieg, I think that light infantry have their place and can be effective in woods, towns, etc. Light cavalry seems to be a different story from what I can tell. We played a large game a few weekends ago where every played had a brigade of heavy cavalry and a regiment of hussars, who were able to operate as self-ordering light cavalry. This enabled the hussars to go off by themselves, deploy into skirmish order, inflitrate enemy lines by flitting through a small (less than 200 yards) gap in the line and then reform in the enemy rear and attack targets of opportunity. This seemed to be ahistorical use of the cavalry in my unlearned opinion, where they were operating with nimbleness and independence that would have made Rommel jealous. I don't own a copy of the rules, so I don't know if this is how they are supposed to operate or not. |
Der Alte Fritz | 15 Jun 2009 12:23 p.m. PST |
and a regiment of hussars, who were able to operate as self-ordering light cavalry. This enabled the hussars to go off by themselves, deploy into skirmish order, inflitrate enemy lines by flitting through a small (less than 200 yards) gap in the line and then reform in the enemy rear and attack targets of opportunity. Shudder!!! That sounds like an extremely liberal interpretation of what light cavalry could do. I wouldn't allow it one of my games. Prussian hussars were trained to act as battle quality cavalry. The Austrian hussars were less so, but they do appear in some of the larger battles, again on the perifery. I would suggest that light infantry (we are talking the likes of Croats, jagers etc) as unformed infantry. As such they would not be able to stand up to formed infantry and fire away out in the open. Put them in a village, woods or on a hill with some cover and they are ok. Freikorps troops would be low quality, but trained infantry and could probably fight formed in the open. Frederick used them as trip wires out on his flanks (Hochirk) or in front of his army (Borne/Leuthen). Prince Henry used him in his army in the battle line because that is often all that he had available to him. I think that most rules cover this well if you make your light infantry unformed and your freikorps lowly trained troops. Just don't use them as Napoleonic skirmishers. |
timurilank | 15 Jun 2009 12:53 p.m. PST |
Prinz Geoffrey, I would certainly be the least qualified to make any rules recommendation, as we have used the WRG 1685 – 1845 set for the past 30 years. However, gaming both the Napoleonic and SYW periods, you will find a big difference in how light infantry were regarded by the various nations. With the exception of the Austrians, "light infantry" were a very small percentage of the total military strength. If they were present with the main army, they functioned as a curtain to deter enemy patrols reconnoitering camps, as the Great King learned about the Austrians, when their screen pulled back, the Austrians were ready for battle (Duffy). As a "curtain," the light infantry were part of the vanguard and relocation at time of battle was dependent on the General's plan. Examples have already been mentioned. When Light infantry served away from the main column, they found their moment to shine. I would recommend reading the campaigns section of Kronoskaf.com. Follow the events between battles and you will discover what is described as the small wars; guarding mountain passes, shadowing an armies flank, harassing supply columns, seizing important river crossings, threatening rearward positions of raiding an capital city of the enemy. I believe, if a set of rules cater for another troop type which primarily skirmishes, less willing to do heroic deeds even though you may think otherwise, are fine. It is up to the gamer to create the scenario best suited for their true role or moment of glory. cheers, Robert 18thcenturysojourn.blogspot.com |
Prinz Geoffrey | 15 Jun 2009 2:23 p.m. PST |
Thank you for the input, I am aware of the role of light/irregular infantry in the Seven Years War. I am looking at the infantry from a rules/gaming perspective. Which rules have people played that they feel acurrately depicts the contribution of light infantry in a battle/post-battle scenario. Which rules most closely give one the feel of the light infantry and do other gamers feel that rules need/do not need consideration of light infantry for successful simulation. I have read rules that abstract musketry ranges to incorporate a skirmish screen, others that have the light infantry as seperate units and others do not have the player field the light forces but track their impact in the between game phase of a campaign. |
timurilank | 16 Jun 2009 2:21 a.m. PST |
Prinz Geoffrey, The WRG 1685 – 1845 do cater for light infantry skirmishers and light cavalry for the SYW period. Army lists do specify the number of units and the variety of morale classes, so could cover primitive tribes to jaegers and Grenzers, Cossacks and Hussars. Employing light troops, as they historically should, will produce the best results and enough has already been stated on that topic. My own Austrian army was designed for the smaller war; more Grenzers and Hungarian infantry, Dragoons and Hussars than a main battle force. These will be set against a similar force in our upcoming Bohemian campaign. By contrast, my French army have only one Hussar unit of two squadrons and one unit of light infantry. Cheers, Robert |
Musketier | 16 Jun 2009 3:26 a.m. PST |
As has been said, the light troops' main role was in the "kleine Krieg" between major battles – and I'm still searching for rules and a numerical scale, between skirmish and brigade-level, that would properly represent such raids and patrol encounters. For the day of battle, "on the periphery" is the key phrase I believe. For those sectors of the field where broken ground, vegetation or buildings cramp the regulars' style, any rules should provide for the use of light infantry. Conversely, these should fight on their own and be tied to such terrain features – no providing "skirmish screens" for the line battalions in the open! Light cavalry should stay out of the fray unless battle-trained, meaning the rules should reflect the superior "weight" and cohesion of the heavies. Any inviting, 200-yard gap in the battle line should be covered by a second-line battalion, or even a battery, to trap adventurous hussars; a wide flanking move to plunder the enemy's baggage now, that's entirely in keeping with the hussar spirit! |
abdul666lw | 16 Jun 2009 3:52 a.m. PST |
Relevant, almost parallel thread: TMP link Experience only with the WRG set, but coupled with 'good' OOB (no flank company able to form a skirmish line in each line battalion!) they worked rather well. |
abdul666lw | 16 Jun 2009 7:47 a.m. PST |
Actually when the WRG 1685-1835 set revived the interest of our local group for mid-18th C. warfare (decades ago, so memories come back slowly, and age doesn't better thing!) we wondered if there were such beasties as 'regular light troops' in Western Europe by the WAS – SYW times (the Frederician 'superhussars' excepted -our interest was mainly in the WAS anyway). On the other hand detached grenadiers, and sometimes dragoons, were occasionally given mission -and then used formations and tactics- normally associated with light troops. [Invaluable contemporary information available in the 'Nec Pluribus Impar' site pfef.free.fr/Page_Principale.htm -in French, unfortunately; specially the Campagnes de Jacques de Mercoyrol de Beaulieu, capitaine au régiment de Picardie, 1743-1763 pfef.free.fr/Anc_Reg/Divers.htm ] Regarding the WRG set, we understood that the skirmishers screens were inappropriate for the mid-18th C., and found their definition of 'skirmishing irregular infantry' too restrictive and 'sclerified'. Instead we had all our infantry basically in ± close order, but some troop types (in limited number, and their abundance severely restricted by the OOB) able to pass to 'loose order': bases in chessboard pattern, doubling the depth of the unit, frontage unchanged; then: mobility as skirmishing light infantry; shoot as the same frontage of skirmish line (not very efficient), except for specialized skirmishing light irregulars who shooted 'full'; handicap in hand-to-hand and chiefly severe reaction malus when charged by regulars in close order on good terrain. This we allowed to a few 'selected' regulars, from 'unreliable' (Prussian Free Corps) to 'average' (converged piquets, dismounted dragoons) to 'good' (converged grenadiers); and to the two types of iregular infantry, 'charging' (Culloden Highlanders type) and 'skirmishing' (we acknowledged the 2 types, a least for diversity sake: to emphasize their differences, 'charging' were treated as fanatics with matchlocks, 'skirmishing' as able to cover thgeir own front with a skirmish line, armed partly with rifles regardless of their 'actual' armement, handicaped in hand-to-hand and reluctant to enter hand-to-hand in 'normal' circumstances). |
Der Alte Fritz | 16 Jun 2009 11:43 a.m. PST |
France employed a large number of light infantry units, many similar to Prussian freikorps, in both the WAS and the SYW. Some of these units were combined arms "legions" of infantry, cavalry and artillery. The Arquebusiers de Grassin was a very capable unit in the WAS, as I recall. I seem to recall reading that they were trained to fight both formed and unformed. As others have noted, the scenario is more important than the rules. We have played Lobositz 2 or 3 times with our BAR rules, and in each instance, the Croats on the Lobosch have successfully fended off the Prussian trying to root them out. The rules give unformed troops some advantages when they are in broken terrain whereas the regular troops have movement and firing penalties that are not applicable to the light troops. |
timurilank | 16 Jun 2009 1:28 p.m. PST |
abdul666lw, The current WRG rules set work well for bow armed, as well as musket armed skirmishers; these can be foot or mounted types. Most of my cossacks are bow armed and have no problem escorting Turkish Dellis off the field. As mentioned, using skirmishers in the open against a well armed and supported foe is inviting disaster. Having said that, the rules do allow for evade moves and even skirmishers for them to take advantage of exposed flanks, so fielding these does require some cunning tactics. The only modification we made for skirmishers, was to allow Grenzers to support their own formation in the manner of regular trained troops. In all other aspects, they follow their irregular classification; morale and movement. Cheers, |
TailEndCharlie | 16 Jun 2009 6:07 p.m. PST |
Musketier, You explanation is exactly how they are incorporated in Koenig Krieg. You can use them to harass on the edges and in unfavorable ground but you don't want to charge with the light hussars on anything but a very broken unit. The light infantry also have there place in buildings and woods but caught in the open they are mince meat. |
Musketier | 17 Jun 2009 2:02 a.m. PST |
Thank you TEC, the new edition is looking ever more attractive! Guthroth explaines that for 28mm, I just need to double all the measurements, which sound fine. Now, about doubling my table size
|
|