"Regulating Battalion" Topic

I am very carefully taking the lid of this can, hoping not to find any worms.

<caveat>Let me say from the outset that I am not interested in this becoming an arguement about what general did what, and how this proves/is an exception to practise like the other thread did. I am posting it only on the Design thread, not the historical thread. All I want to know is this reasonable way to represent Regulating Battalions</caveat>

I was thinking about how to represent command/what to do with officers in musket games. Does this capture it?

For this example assume the basic unit is a battalion, and grouped into Brigades. The Officer is the brigadier

"An officer may attach himself to any unit under his command. He may detach, move and attach all in the same turn

A unit with an officer attached is known as the Regulating Battalion (RB)

A unit is 'in command' if it fufils any of the following
1) It is the RB
2) It has LoS to the RB of the same brigade and is within x inches.
3) It has LoS to any unit of the same brigade that is classed as being 'in command' and is within x inches.

ie Bn 1 can see RB, and so is in command
Bn 2 can see Bn 1, and as Bn is in command Bn 2 is in command.

Command is determined at the start of a player's turn, and not recalculated until the start of the next turn.

A unit in command may make any legal action.

A unit that is NOT in command may not
charge an enemy
Move except to gain a more defensible position. It must be able to gain that position in the course of one move.

it may
Countercharge
Fire
Follow up a unit retiring/retreating from melee(close combat)

INCOMING!!!!!

LH:

From what I understand, for the Napoleonic wars through the ACW:

1. A Regulating Battalion was identified at the beginning of an engagement, the right or center being the typical SOP. To change which battalion was the Regulating battalion required more than the mere presence of the Brigade Commander because every battalion had to be informed of the change and because the brigade's operation was linked to adjacent brigades, each regulating on the other.

That is, if all the brigades started by regulating on the right, and the center brigade changed to regulating on the center, what maneuvers could be done and how fast was changed as well as where the usual problems would occur. For instance, both ends of a center RB could lag behind, while only the left end of a right RB would lag without attention. You can see how changing the RB in the center could cause a rippled line, the center surging ahead with the ends of the brigade lagging, while a right RB for the line of brigades would at worst create a refused left if a brigade lagged.

2. It was rare for brigades to change RBs in the middle of an engagement. I have found few examples and it is almost always an attempt to correct some screw-up.

3. Such a change of RB did require the presence of the BC.

4. Being 'in command' or whatever you want to call it, was not based on the line of sight to the RB, but the actual 'attachment' of one battalion to the movements of adjacent battalions that dominated. Each battalion moved based on the movement of the battalions on side of the direction of the regulating battalion, whether they could see the RB or not. [I think a 10 to 20 yard space between Battalions as a norm.] In fact, that was the SOP fall-back action when a Battalion Commander had any doubts about what to do. Staying 'attached' was a primary responsibility of every Battalion commanders. Read Napier's account of the battle of Corunna. He spends most of his time checking his movement and positions based on the adjacent battalions even though Moore was in close proximity a good portion of the time.

5. If a battalion became misaligned, causing a break in the formation, unless hotly engaged, the battalion commander's first priority was to re-establish alignment.

6. Certainly individual battalions could be given separate orders outside the brigade formation, but then it was an independent command and did not regulate on anyone. That too, required the presence of the brigade commander to initiate. Rarely could a battalion commander break formation on his own decision.

All of these points are illustrated by the accounts I provided with the CSA operations the 2nd day of Gettysburg, but any examples from the Napoleonic wars would demonstrate the very same points.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Ok- thanks for that.

Try

RB set at start of game. All Bns must attempt to stay 'aligned' (I assume if you were 3rd from left at the start you were expected to be 3rd from left at the end!). A Bn can only break alignment if Bde Cmd attached.

LH:

You bet. That works. And yes, that 'order' is exactly why a army deploying went into an 'order of battle.' The Bde Cmd doesn't have stay with the Bn breaking alignment, just that when it does, the Bde Cmd is with it, as it required an order from the Bde Cmd or higher to break up the 'order of battle.'

Bill H.

"RB set at start of game. All Bns must attempt to stay 'aligned' (I assume if you were 3rd from left at the start you were expected to be 3rd from left at the end!). A Bn can only break alignment if Bde Cmd attached."

This looks good to me, particularly as it encourages pre-battle planning. 'Planning' is a term which often seems to draw blank looks on wargamers faces.

Thanks for starting this thread despite the looming dangers and thanks TheScotsman for clarifications. Previous thread kinda lacked a proper summary about the matter.

RB set at start of game. All Bns must attempt to stay 'aligned' (I assume if you were 3rd from left at the start you were expected to be 3rd from left at the end!). A Bn can only break alignment if Bde Cmd attached.

It does look good; besides of being more historically accurate, it's more streamlined too. You could also take things like inversion into account, as players are forced to think their deployments more carefully anyway.

The one thing a designer might want to consider is brigade and divisional maneuver with a RB. There were several reasons why pre-planning was critical:

1. To swing an entire brigade or division line efficiently depended on where the RB was. If, as with the 2nd Day of Gettysburg, the CSA divisions wanted to swing to the left, it could be done with the least delay regulating on the right. If the swing had been to the right, the far right RB would have had to pivot in place and wait for the rest of the line to follow through. The wider the swing, the further the left had to move before the entire line could move again, and the opportunities for screw-ups was much greater. The same is true for a center RB. So, game-wise, an attempted swing originating on the end away from the RB [or with a center RB] will take much longer and present more opportunities for SNAFUs.

2. The inertia or friction played on a line moving indifferent ways. For a line with its RB at one end, the other end would and could drag. Benning had to take care of this problem with his brigade more than once. If the RB was in the center, then both ends would be apt to fall away. At Salamanca, Leith's Division's advance was regulated on the center. Leith placed a staff officer on each end of the divisional line to specifically make sure the ends didn't lose alignment.

However it is done, having some delay in maneuvering from the end away from the RB [end or center] would make the 'planning' part more in line with the actual command issues. The places where friction occurs can also be done in several ways.

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Thinking about this at work today (150 pp dossier to be copied x5 gives a LOT of thinking time!). Would using the relationship between RB and 2bn be okay as defining what 'aligned' meant. This would mean that you could echelon your line- if the front of 2bn was 2" behind the front of RB, then 3bn would strive for the same position etc.

I want to keep it simple. A bn could only move out of formation if with the Officer attached.

What happens to a line which loses (through combat or independant command taking it) a centre bn- do the others close up towards the RB?

pre-battle planning

No, Nothing- do you have a link, or a dictionary or something…

LH:
Yes, certainly you could echelon the line. From what I understand, when a line loses a center battalion [it falls out of the line], the side away from the RB attempts to align on the battalion on battalion towards the regulating battalion, regardless. That means the line aligning on the battalion falling out of line follows it. Of course, the primary mission for the battalion that fell out of line would be to reattach itself before it did anything else.

IF the battalion was taken from the center by the Bde Cmd, then yes, THEN through the series of orders, the gap would be filled and the next battalion over would then align on the remaining Bn on the side towards the RB.

LH wrote:

pre-battle planning

No, Nothing- do you have a link, or a dictionary or something…

I'm not sure what you are asking for?

Best Regards,

Bill H.

That last was 'Sarcasm' – the idea wargamers don't knoe about planning.

Oh. Sarcasm, I remember that.

I would add a further rule on being 'in command'.

Battalion is acting on specific Brigade commanders orders. As these may take it out of the LOS for a short period, perhaps with a caveat about how long those orders can stand before the battalion commander needs to act on own initiative.

I would also allow a unit out of command to move back into command radius is the path is not blocked by enemy troops, or specific feature etc.

I would also allow a unit not under command to slowly retreat, perhaps needing some kind of check (depending on how your rules intend to work). Also units of an aggressive nature and reputation might be more inclined to advance or charge, than defend or look for cover.

Hussar –

We use RBs in our rules as a command and control mechanism and it seems to work for us. We have divided movement into 'conforming' and 'non-conforming.' Conforming movement involves moving in the same direction, at the same speed, and in the same formation as the RB. Non-conforming movement is anything other than the above. If a unit wishes to perform a non-conforming move, it must pass an initiative test to do so and it is far from automatic.

Those armies that lacked a formal brigade structure can issue orders to RBs at the regimental level. This is a significant handicap as our command system uses chips to represent the ability of a general and his staff. Thus, a French division commander may have 5 chips to use to conduct conforming moves for his brigades while still retaining enough chips to order division assets like batteries into action without initiative tests. A Spanish division commander may have 3 chips and 4-5 regiments (some of single battalions) and a battery of guns to try to order. I think it does a nice job of replicating the differences between those armies with more modern organizations and staffs and those that lacked them without complicated mechanics.

Hope this helps.

Bragration1812

Interesting concept. Are your rules published? Or can I get a copy?

Stephen

Email me offline and I'll send you one. They are written and I'm in the process of updating the examples, illustrations and index.

I have a whole new respect for rules writers having updated our set. It is one thing to say that mechanic 'X' works a certain way when gaming with your buddies and quite another to write it down in such a way that someone who doesn't know crap from apple butter about your rules can get to the same place.

bagration1812atyahoo.com

Following the discussion from the 'Do we need generals' thread I am breathing life back into this one with this proposed mechanic.

Each Brigade has a 'General'. They are rated 1-3, representing not just his skill, but the skill of his staff/AdC etc at getting orders out. This is his Staff Rating (SR)

He is used to mark the proposed movement. Each general starts joined to a battalion of his command. This is called the Regulating Battalion (RB)

Defender Moves all his generals and only generals). A general that starts with a RB may move as far as he likes
Attacker moves all his generals.

Defender moves all units, with one nominated battalion moving to the Generals location. This becomes the Regulating Battalion (RB). The other battalions must then move aligning in a formation with the RB. The formation is set by the relationship to the battalion next to it. (If the RB has battalions either side it is the battalion to the Right). Units may not move further than they need to get into formation.
Attacker likewise moves.

A General joined to a RB may not move until all battalions are in formation.

A General not with a Battalion may not move at all unless he makes a command roll.
Roll SRd6. If the total is more than the distance to the closest battalion he may roll again on SRd6, and move that far.

In the game units move on die rolls, of between 1-4 d6 depending on the 'Coherence' of the unit (this is replacing casualties. Over the game Coherence drops, and thus all the die rolls/target numbers etc).

What do people think?

It makes you plan moves.
It limits the maneouverbility.
Over reach the general and it signals intent. Too close to ensure units reach him and it restricts movement