"that "thing" about columns keeps coming up!" Topic

OK it was on another discussion forum…
…but its the perception that it was the unchanging French doctrine of the period to cram in the columns against single lines of battle.
Consequently, gamers tend to believe that such French commands would have some massive "melee" or "close combat" advantage as a result.
Contiguous columns then, being without interval, are even better and the rules they use support the assumption that more units are better than a numerically balanced fight.

I think you may have already guessed that I think this is nonsense.

I can only think of two occcasions where contiguous columns were used; in Macdonald`s attack at Wagram which was an ad hoc grand-tactical measure; probably not Macdonald`s original intention (see article on napseries). It suffered heavily from artillery fire.
Also there is Balland`s divisional attack at Wattignes which was also coslty, losing out to enemy artillery fire and having to deal with a smaller number of Austrian troops in defensive postions.

Anyhow, this gaming belief in column swarm gang-ups is what turns those nicely arrayed battlelines and enchequier formations into a complete mess on the table top as the noble intentions of the game`s command and control rules are lost to a frenzy of battalion micro-management!

What do you think?

[Contiguous columns then, being without interval, are even better and the rules they use support the assumption that more units are better than a numerically balanced fight.]

Well, that's just a basic wargamer instinct to always try to squeeze an advantage from the rules. As a general principle, More = Better, so gamers will always try to maximize that. I don't think you'll ever get rid of it in any playable or enjoyable way. The same can be said with flank attacks, which as far as I can tell were pretty rare in actual history, but which occur on the wargame table every 15 minutes.

One problem, obviously,is that the "fixes" to these situations often cause more trouble than the original "problems" did. If you write rules to discourage the "gang-up-columns attack," then you end up either with complex formation-integrity rules that just break down in the myriad circumstances of terrain, movement, combat results, etc. Or you get draconian and try to eliminate numerical advantage from the combat results (at any moment of contact, after all, it was really a 1-1 fight. Men in close order take up about the same amount of space in any army and any formation and thus, whenever two formations get into contact… it's 1-to-1)… then you end up with all kinds of weird results when a large unit attacks a small unit and gets beaten, and there's no advantage in numbers (I've tried a system like that, and gamers uniformly hated it.)

One clean solution is simply to have the likely combat results discourage the tactic by making it too costly for the attacker. For example, if you make sure that every attacking unit takes some sort of attrition result, no matter the outcome, then the 2-1 attacking guy is wearing-out his units twice as quickly as the defender, even if he wins the first few combats, and he'll quickly regret it.

By the way, this discussion also applies to the question of shooting. All those guys who argue passionately that the British two-rank Line is a better shooting formation than the French three-rank column… I've never understood how they can make that argument in cases when the columns are close together, and thus both sides have the same number of men in the same number of files exchanging volleys.

Well yes Scratchin, I guess I have "formation integrity" rules, but I believe that this "apparent" complication is the key to keeping it clean and simple in the game! Its all probably down to a matter of taste I suspect.

But then you get more than just 2:1 gang ups in such encounters, it can often be 3:1 or 4:1… and then, I find it gets just a little too silly!

The disadvantages that I see are; the vulnerability of such larger formations to artillery, and their having no advantage against a deployed line once a firefight has started… but these large formation columns (columns by deployed battalions etc), did have a limited, single, shock action value.

Remember though that continguous columns on the tabletop do not represent columns side-by-side in reality. The width of bases being too wide, wargames units side by side might represent those 100 metres apart, or more depending on scale.

Nor the fact that both units attack in the same "turn" represent attacks that occur simultaneously. One attack might threaten the position, and then when the defenders have lost their fire discipline, the other sweeps in.

So do you believe that two attacks from different angles made 10 minutes apart are more likely to succeed than one attack? If so, then "contiguous" columns should have an advantage.

Hi Mark,
I think that representation of depth is more of a distortion.
However, I think you could probably be able to squeeze in about four attack columns or columns of divisions against one deployed line… but it didn`t happen that often and this was because this was not the way that infantry divisions were intented to operate.

In your hypothetical French attack, the job of goading enemy lines would be given to their preceding skirmishers, not to battalions formed in the first battleline.
And if it were formed, a contiguous line of colums should be in line, and acting in unison.

The General de Brigade rules do have penalties for 'massed columns' in terms of an extra +1 to hit, I think the new addition will have more penalties.

I just learned that MacDonald`s leading division was not in contiguous columns but in two lines but at closed distance.

…and I am informed that this was done in response to the threat of enemy cavalry.

I understand your concern, we have had the same problem in the past in our own games.

We remedied the situation in a number of ways:

Firstly, We have a couple of ways casualties cause severe loss of morale to a formation, columns being much more vulnerable. For example, we deduct -10% Morale from a unit for each 10% casualties it has suffered overall throughout the battle. This is a continuous deterioration of unit morale.

Secondly, we also have a second way to drop more caused by casualties from any cause. This is one of the factors which determines if a unit has to take a morale check in the first place, that is: For each 10% casualties suffered on a unit's "Front Rank" will cause another -10% from their morale for that turn. As you can picture, a column with a frontage of one or two companies is going to suffer much faster than that of the same formation in Line.

Thirdly, We strictly impose proper formation spacings between btlns in column in our rules, with each btln column having about 50yds between them as according to French doctrine (if your units are French). We find that in such a situation French players rarely are able to field 2 columns against any one single British line. This depends more so on the length of the British btln in line and the column itself, whether it is a single company frontage or column of divisions.

I have seen 3 columns deployed this way against a single line but it is rare and when it happened the French columns were in single company frontage. Thus the casualties suffered from the British defensive fire broke two of the columns while the other retired demoralized and was subsequently broken by the British counter-charge anyway. (as usually happens in our games).

Fourthly, even if the columns survive the incoming fire the chaos is so great in the ranks that they usually halt and try to deploy, if this happens the player who squeezes too many btlns in the front cannot deploy and the columns automatically become unformed. This triggers a counter charge chance for the enemy player and so on…

Fifthly, If the columns morale holds and they are able to continue the enemy line might begin to fold or retire before contact is made. But even if contact is made the columns are usually shot up badly. We allow columns to hit with the first two ranks of figures to represent the impetus of the advance and follow up ranks pouring forward. But we also give the defender a figure overlap on each flank as well. So if the column has 4 figure ranks they will have up to 8 figures in the melee. The defender will get 4 in defense front on and another two overlaps. This results in a 8 vs 6 fight.

Now, for every 10% losses due to defensive fire the column will lose -1 from its melee factors. It is not uncommon to see large negatives due to this. This alone drops the ability of the column to defeat the line due to the loss of cohesion because of increased chaos in the ranks due to losses etc.

So a column usually either fails to make contact and often turns and flees due to losses or if it holds on it is usually at a disadvantage because of losses anyway. Rarely have I seen columns hit home and punch through an enemy line. Because of this players tend to avoid it and try instead, to deploy once they hit the 300yd engagement range we use. When they do this they usually ensure their formation of columns is in two lines checker-board fashion so that they can deploy easily.

Players who try to cover every square inch of ground with figures in our games for maximum advantage usually end up realising very quickly that this tactic does not work and they eventually catch on.

…and us more experienced players get to have a few victories until they do /snicker

Shane

What seems to be missing in this discussion is "Why did they form assult columns in the first place?" It's an historical fact they existed.

The reason is that formation to be in to cover ground quickly is the column. You don't have to stop and dress lines in the process. Those that lag behind (as anyone who has marched troops in column can attest to) is that the rear laggards can act as an informal "reserve" for the ensuing melee, if one results.

The time to cross the ground in column is rather quick. How many organized British volleys can come off in that time? I am willing to bet that the defending British, in the rules, get the full benefit of the time the turn represents, in fore effect while the movement of the column would actually get there before the end of the turn! Sounds to me that the time/distance relationship is out of whack in the rules!

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

Tom has a very valid point there. You can only fire so many volleys per minute and an advancing column will cover the ground more quickly reducing the number of volleys.

However, one point in war-games rules I will make on this is that designers tend to miss the point and mechanics to represent this correctly. In you typical rules a fast advancing column is going to use that extra allowable move distance to end up closer to the enemy line when they fire. Thus instead of an advantage of the column for its faster speed it becomes a liability or disadvantage…this does all depend on time given to each turn, distance between adversaries and coverage of the ground in a turn of the column.

It is a very complex question in which the three factors should be seriously looked at for historical accuracy that can be converted into games mechanics that show that accuracy faithfully. This often means a great deal of trial and error to get it correct, and time spent modelling the three factors and coordinating an acceptable balance relationship between the three.

Shane

This situation boils down a situation where the number casualties did not make any difference. Fact was that the charging infantry column retained sufficient cohesion (control over the men to keep it acting as a unit) to attempt the charge and, conversely, the firing defenders did not disrupt the cohesion of the attacking unit enough to keep them from making that charge attempt. What we should be concerned with is "control" of the unit as a whole.

Since I am a "unit cohesion" guy trying to pursuade in a world of "casualty based" guys, may I suggest the following:

IF the columns make their "morale check" to charge (most rules require that, right?), make the defenders take a heavy penalty (bad modifier) for not sufficently damaging the attacking unit when checking to see if the unit tries to stand (for a melee) and hold their ground.

If they do stand, allow 1/4 or 1/2 fire effectiveness (to ompensate for less time and everyone's realization that these guys are still coming on). Any "casualties" resulting from that fire on the way in is considered during the first round of melee.

Just a suggestion for one way this could be handled.

Cheers!

Tom Dye
GFI

In Empire part of the elan test to close looks at whether the assaulting units have fired. If they have not fired they get a +10%, fired once is NE and fired more than once is a -10%. So there is good cause not to get bogged down in a firefight if you desire a "shock" style resolution.

What does that represent, 21eRegt? I don't see a relationship there. What does it matter if the attacking unit has fired their weapons before they charge? To account for fatigue perhaps? Artificial way to force gamers to only use their "Forces of Decision" to attack with? (Clausewitz)

Again, it seems counter productive in trying to recreate realism. If they remained under control to deliver ordered vollys, still under control to charge, why should there be a negative modifier? Seems like the unit would be acting in a desired manner, to me.

To keep from getting bogged down in a firefight, the results of the firefight should make it more difficult to even make the attempt to charge. (Not the fact that they were involved in one as a reason to keep a unit from trying.) Sounds like just another thing to make the players keep track of, too! (Playability issue.)

Just wondering, here….

Best
Tom

I think all these suggested factors are missing the easy fix.

Make firing at an area not a unit, and make all targets in that area get shot at at full effect – not an even spread of the hits, but each treated as the only target.

Do that, and players soon stop cramming troops innto tight spaces, and thus, no need to extra factors come the (never really happened anyway) melee phase.

BTW,

attack columns were not about closing the last 200 yards, they were the 800 – 200 yard gap, at which point, form line and advance.

[Make firing at an area not a unit, and make all targets in that area get shot at at full effect – not an even spread of the hits, but each treated as the only target.]

That will run the risk of cheesing-up the shooting rules so that players will try to maneuver their lines a tidbit in order to catch just a bit of this unit or that in their zone, in order to give it the full musketry wallop.

Not to mention you'll get cases where one battalion is mostly, but not entirely, behind a friendly battalion, and thus partially exposed to the enemy's fire, so it will encourage attackers to create an unrealistic "shielding" tactic, sort of like using one battalion to screen for all the others. That will result in some odd formations and angles, methinks.

"The time to cross the ground in column is rather quick. How many organized British volleys can come off in that time? "

One. The British would wait and fire once. Then counter-charge. I don't believe the speed of the French column mattered.

Often the French would attempt to deploy into line instead of retiring from the British counter-charge. In that case they were gunned down in an unequal fight because the British had all of the muskets firing.

No, I don't like wall to wall French columns. In my rules, such play is severally penalized. Play historical.

scratchin frazz, you're playing with the wrong guys if they do that.

such 'problems' are miniscule. – if only part a batallion is in the target area, proprtionate its hits – if you need to.

the real point is, if every unit in the target gets hit from each firer it absolutely forces players to space their troops out. and that is the big win.

[scratchin frazz, you're playing with the wrong guys if they do that. such 'problems' are miniscule]

I applaud you for having found such an abnormal group of gamers who never try to max-out the benefits of wargame rules during play.

I can assure you, though, from long and tedious experience, that if a set of rules allows for something advantageous… then the majority of gamers will take full advantage of it, and be damned with any noble concepts of "playing historically." If you allow a unit to fire full effect on every unit even partially within its field of fire, then the result will be a series of creative new tactics to maximize that from the shooter's point of view, and to minimize it from the target's point of view, and I doubt very much that the resulting gameplay will look the way you intended.

I have to agree, I also have experience with players who play the rules, not the game. Meaning, they look for any and every loop-hole in the rules they can get an advantage from to win. Out the door goes historical accuracy or gamesmanship, all that matters is making use of the system to gain advantage.

The reply to any question over the validity of what they do is this: "But the rules lets me do it"…no thought goes into judging whether it is historically accurate or not, so I get where Frazz is coming from.

Shane

To answer Tom Dye; from multiple readings I seen reference to the inability to get the troops moving again once they start shooting. Even the British who are usually allowed to do anything whenever they want. My opinion, and that's all it is (though based on research), is that by closing quickly and without stopping to engage in a firefight you are "getting to it" before the attackers realize what danger they are in and the defender realizes what is swooping in. Be that a theoretically overwhelming force or a smaller group attempting to catch them at a disadvantage. One "impulse" firing doesn't penalize you nor does it reward you. Spending the better part of an "hourly round" shooting would indicate the attacker has lost his forward momentum. Or so it seems to me.

I personally like the rule and Empire is one of the few game systems I've played where your abilities degrade with fatigue.

… and yet still, it would appear that even 1/2 battalions could see off columnar attacks – First Sorauren, 28th July 1813 (the 20th and 23rd Fusiliers).
…yes and Clay`s right, it was the French doctrine if staggered (halted) in their assault, to attempt to deploy. But this didn`t always require the decimation of the French column to produce this effect, but rather it was; the whole pyschological effect of the "display" of the posture, the fire discilpine and then the counter-movement that would defeat the French tactically. The numbers involved and the accuracy of their muskets then were less important than order and discilpine of the troops.
Still however, for those occasions that it may happen and also has a good chance of success, here`s my game`s reaction test for deployed commands being assualted by larger formations:

f) A special command reaction test takes place if an enemy command in divisional/brigade column by battalions in line or by a command in columns with closed intervals (no deployment intervals) has advanced to within 10 centimetres and the command is: "E", or "F" class or "D" class in poor morale (that is 33% or more are either shaken or broken).

If the defending line didnt run from the dum beating columns then those columns would need to deploy and fire.

hense you need space to deploy or else you become disordered, simple!

FYI shako uses the "every unit hit in fire zone" principle and incidently Keraunos hates those rules :)

he does, because you are encouraged to fire as often a possible – i.e. from long range – in order to get the required number of hits on the target.

Its the artillery hitting everything in the beaten zone which really works for me though.

play one game with bunched up columns under such rules, and you never do it again…

dear blucher,
I don`t recall shako hitting "every unit hit in fire zone" for musketry. As far as I can remember, you can only hit one unit and stagger (UK English: "disorder") another.
In my opinion Shako`s support rules (intended I think to encourage players to keep commands together), have the unintended effect of making these columnar gang-ups overly powerful. But it doesn`t only happen in Shako, which at least has units unable to deploy in that fire zone. Which adds some realism, but for the fact that deployments were often attempted in musketry range.
You`re right if there is no space deploy that should be a deterrant, but it tends not to be because players are aware of the advantages of massed columns in the rules and in fact many rule sets.

Hello MichaelCollinsHimself!

You have identified two problems with what I call second generation wargame rules. Massing or bunching columns and miro-managing battalions. There are more but these are two good ones.

Sadly the only solution for 2nd. gen. rules is, more rules. This really only treats the symptom, not the cause. The major problem with 2nd. gen. rules is the closer you look at them or the more you play them the more problems start to surface. Most players simply accept this as part of normal gaming. Their conclusion is simply more rules makes a better system.

First generation rules focused on companies. How do I handle them within a battalion. Second generation is a little different as they look at the formation of the battalion without paying too much attention to companies.
Third generation ignors the formation of the battalion. Some even bypass the formation of the regiment and brigade.

Most people think that 3rd. gen. is strickly for 6mm as they generally play big battles and can't afford the time it takes to micro-manage a battalion. This is not true, it will work for most scales.

One of the popular 3rd. gen. rule sets is Polemos by Baccus6mm. Your problems of massing columns and mico-managing battalions does not exist. A long laundry list of problems associated with 2nd. gen. rules is just not there.
In one rule set battalions maintain their position to other battalions but their individual formation is not a factor.
No need to mico-manage. Another rule set does not bother with combat below the brigade level.

A lot of players are attracted to these rules because the focus of command is more from the top down, not the bottom up like 1st. and 2nd. gen. rules.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Glenn

Hi Glenn,
Well, this maybe a feature of "2nd generation" games; games that feature "battalions" as the basic infantry unit and maybe the squadron for cavalry.
But the mistaken assumption that players and rules writers tend to make is that the methods used to limit micromanagement will lead to the writing of more rules. It need not necessarily be so.
If you substitute combat support rules for ones that encourage players to adopt historical battle arrays and once these are understood, and you have more specific modifiers for support, nothing is added to the sequence of play. Just allowing artillery greater effects against such concentrated targets will help.
Not bothering about battalions is not the solution, and recalling the command radius debate that we had earlier, such higher level games do not do much justice to the subject of a so-called, top-down approach to command control and communications.
And all this is because people have been looking at it down the wrong end of the telescope… tactics, communication and most every single subject on Napoleonic warfare that we have discussed here was based upon methods established at grass-roots; from the bottom up….
Men form in lines, in sections, then companies and these formed lines of other battalions, often they were arranged one behind the other in columns but they still were groupings of lines nevertheless. Similarly a division in lines of brigades was guided by a single battalion and led by its brigade commander… commands were not moved or "activated" from time to time, by pips or cards or anything like them, from the command`s centre by the divisional general. Besides, the actual way things worked is far easier to simulate than it is to be constantly checking those command radii.

Only you Glenn could be so far up his own arse as to presume that everyone is looking for the same level of gaming as you are. Some people actually want to play Napoleonics and consider company and battalion formations, rather than order entire corps and armies around the field.

I have to say I've never encountered the problem described above, but I've only played Principles of War to any large degree, where it's impossible to get more than 2 attack columns into contact with another enemy unit.

However, one of the only things I do like about Polemos is the fact that melee in the sense of hand to hand just doesn't happen. The attack goes in. Either the defenders run, or they shoot. The attackers then either are demoralised by the shooting or not. One side gives. This to me sounds quite reasonable. I don't know half as much history as most of you, but I can't think of many hand to hand bayonet charges in open field situations.

Well that didn't take long. We didn't even get to the second page.

A lot of the problems associated with the column vs line issue relates to the way shooting is handled in wargames rules. I personally think that the effect of individual volleys is below the level of detail that you want players to control in a divisional game. I believe that shooting is a part of the unit to unit engagement that we present as close combat, shooting outside of this context is to ineffective to need any consideration by the rules. In our houserules shooting is integrated in the combat tables. Basically two units will arrive at engagement range in given formations and supported by a certain number of friends, the result is one side withdraws in various states of disorder or you have a prolonged firefight. Whether units stopped and shot – or whatever they did – is usually just obscuring the end result. I am amazed at the number of rules that try to resolve combat in 5-8 steps with different shooting and morale tables, instead of factoring everything into one result.

"…I am amazed at the number of rules that try to resolve combat in 5-8 steps with different shooting and morale tables, instead of factoring everything into one result."

This is what I have done in my rules too Sparta.

LFS does this too. You simple move your battalion into the enemy and then work out the RESULT.

The results table then tells you the outcome. I have found that some people miss shooting though. One "combat roll" with quite a few modifiers might not be as fun as two or three simpler rolls for fire, melee or whatever.

I do think though that my earlier point is often ignored. I would suggest that at 200-400 meters the outcome could be decided. ie the atacker may stall and form line/firefight or the defender may run. I guess the attacker may run also.

My point is that these scenarios are more than common enough to be represented. Far more common than "melees" which nearly every ruleset insists on.

No small arms shooting in my rules blucher, but I have a stalled assault rule though.

100 – 200 would be about where the attack stalls, I think.

400 is, after all, out of range.

defender fires 200 – defender knows nothing, any half trained attacker continues and the defender will run .

defender holds fire to @100, chance attacker stalls to a firefight else they are likely to break.

defender holds fire to 50 – attacker should have cleared off out of it as they are absolutley ****ed the momment they do receive fire, and their NCOs damn well know it.

abstract all that down into two tests
- defender tests to hold fire – fail = they rout.
if defender passes, then attacker tests to form a firefight at 100 – else attacker routs.

easy peasy, and no melee outside of defended terrain.

apportion casualties according to personal taste, they are pretty meaningless compared to the unit status.

Hello MCH!

Sorry but I thought your original problem was with players who do not adopt historical battle arrays and like to micro-manage.

Your last message states you will use extra rules for support or historical and modifiers, but this adds nothing to the sequence. That was my point, more rules. The sequence does not have to be changed.

I don't think you need to reflect everything that happens at the grass roots. If you do then your probably better off using 1st. gen. rules.

Keeping and moving formations together is one of the strongest points for 3rd. gen rules.

Command control is a feature found in a lot of rules. If you don't like them just drop them.

Anyway it seems your happy using 2nd. gen. rules and there is nothing wrong with that. I was simply showing you that
3rd. gen. rules do not have a lot of the problems that seem to have plagued 2nd. gen. for years.

Best regards,

Glenn

Only you Red Fox (get a new handle, Fox does not fit) have such a flair with words. Are you trying to get banned from here as well? Your lack of comprehension skills is obvious.
Your ability to even conduct a sensible debate is completely missing. Polite…well, that's obvious as well.

Since you can't read for yourself let me try and make this as simple as possible. I have no problem with people who want to consider company and battalion formations. I play them myself, but I see a lot of problems with them that don't exist in 3rd. gen. games.

"I've never encountered the problem"…….and you also have no solution. So what value do you bring to this situation, NONE!

Glenn,

Sorry perhaps it needs more by way of an explanation…

"Your last message states you will use extra rules for support or historical and modifiers… …That was my point, more rules."

No, on balance there would probably be no more rules.

A little while ago, I did compare my regulating unit rules with the steps invloved in ensuring that each player had command and control in a well-known divisional level rule set.

There wasn`t much in it… in both cases you need to know the rules, either about the abstract procedures in rules or about the actual practices of the day.
But we are comparing two contrasting game systems here!

"I don't think you need to reflect everything that happens at the grass roots…"

No and I`m not saying that one should reflect everything, in a game there can be different levels of representation, but it just happens that the basics of the ways commands were manoeuvred is far more straight forward than the exaggerated, abstract, top-downism of command radii, chits, pips and the like.

"Keeping and moving formations together is one of the strongest points for 3rd. gen rules."

Isn`t that because they`re unavoidably stuck to the same base?

"Command control is a feature found in a lot of rules. If you don't like them just drop them."
Anyway it seems your happy using 2nd. gen. rules and there is nothing wrong with that. I was simply showing you that
3rd. gen. rules do not have a lot of the problems that seem to have plagued 2nd. gen. for years."

I don`t think I have been impressed with these "3rd generation" rules you mention… largely because of their treatment of c2 issues… they seem to "gloss over" something that I have taken some interest in. Not only the finer points of tactics, but they`re not able to SHOW skirmishers and tactical formations on the tabletop… there`s a loss of the visual appeal in seeing a battle unfold and take shape.

Hello MCH!

Thanks for the explanation. Seems were drifting off topic but thats okay.

Yes, there certainly is some abstraction in 3G thats different from 2G. Some are a little odd while others are so much better then what is being done in most 2G rules.
Manoeuver is much simpler in 3G then 2G.

3G bases come in all sizes, battalion to brigade. Sticking the figures on to the base just reduces the formation changes to the lowest level you want. Some play 3G rules with units lower then the battalion.

Some 3G rules do address lower tactics but look at them a different way from 2G and 1G.

Your most interesting comment is the visual appeal. I take the comments from spectators as the best source for this. The most common one being upon viewing 3G games is "now this game looks like a battle".

It's very hard for most of us to give up our impressions of what type of game is the best reflection of a battle. I've played in most scales and used a lot of different rules. If given a choice I would go 3G every time. Fewer problems, easy to play and looks great.

Best regards,

Glenn

abstract all that down into two tests
- defender tests to hold fire – fail = they rout.
if defender passes, then attacker tests to form a firefight at 100 – else attacker routs.

Rout looks like a too harsh result. From the battle narratives I read the unit would retreat, and only would be routed if the enemy soldiers pursued. Otherwise they will stop the retreat out of range, and come back later… excepted very bad trained troops, that once retreat started it degenerated into a rout.

Perhaps that was the key to success of the British: that they were trained to take inmediate advantage of the French retreating, giving them no time to recover and, in the meanwhile, provoking chaos in the reserve units. More than their shooting skills or anything else, it was their discipline to make a sudden advance and then to stop before they pursued longer than needed (though sometimes they made a mess of it, as happened at Talavera).

The whole problem with question like this and the thread itself if that you have a great deal of people coming from many different angles all who want to get their spin on the answer up here (including me). But the greatest thing lost in translation here is that we all play Napoleonics from differing levels of complexity but more importantly, differing levels of control.

Some of us like getting down to company level or btln level while others prefer higher levels such as Brigade or even divisions as the basic building block of the system we play. Honestly, how can you have a debate over the matter when this occurs? Because we all like different levels of control we ain't going to agree on anything here. It is better to ask the question but add in that you only want replies from those who play at the same level of control…this will get rid of all other posters who could not care less for the scale (control) level you play and you will get much more amicable debate.

p.s. no offense meant Michael, just my observations

Shane

Response to 21e: We're on the same page regarding the degenerating into a firefight. Please note, that in most games, the player decides when his unit will fire. This implies his unit is "under control" and obeying the unit commander's wishes. It's when the unit leadership loses that control, the unit settles in on a firefight when the "upper" commander really desires the unit to press on the attack.

The main problem is that the player is also playing the higher (than the ME that is firing). HE "expects" (and the rules usually allows) this player to make his units perform as he wishes , when in reality, once committed to battle, there was little he could do to influence matters (except at the expense of all else the commander needed to be doing at THAT time).

Indeed, fatigue needs to be covered bettter in most rules! I quit playing Empire when it came boxed! Our game was stopped for over an hour when 6 of us took the time to verify that 6 cossacks indeed had an 80+ % chance to rout a divisional column of Bavarians because they a] had lances and b] attacked the column at a 45degree angle! No real adressing that a] the attacked unit outnumbered them by a factor of 10 to one and b] cossacks would not attack formed bodies of troops in good order!!!

BUT, I am glad to hear that you still enjoy those rules! (And probably a more updated version, too!) 8>)

Shane is right, unless you are gaming at the same level (battalion, Company or Brigade, etc.) AND use casualties to adjucate unit effectiveness, you're going to talk ppast each other's points as what may be a major consideration at lower leavel is "in the weeds" for higher level games.

Not a slam on anyone, just affirming his factual observation!

Best
Tom Dye
GFI

Thanks Tom, good points.

One other thing that does spark my interest is how there are so many differing views on unit effectiveness resulting from battle casualties. I often hear from players who play at the higher levels (brigade-division) that casualties have nothing do do with unit effectiveness. However, when playing at the company-battalion level casualties are everything, or at least a very important factor in unit effectiveness because of the level of detail inherent in a system at this level.

Players at the higher levels might not agree but this I feel is simply because they don't have to worry about such trivial matters (from their perspective). Therefore they feel it is not important but berate those who play at this level for giving it such importance.

Simply put, some people enjoy the minute detail of battalion-company tactics and drill and all that goes with it while those of the higher control levels see it as manipulating and controlling or "micromanaging" when it is not. It is simply, managing the minutae of battle from the opposite end, the end higher control levels do not bother with.

I could just as easily accuse higher level players of, "macromanaging" but what is the point? It is not a big deal, it is just the level of management you prefer. For me personally, I have no desire to control massive corps and divisions of men, I do in my games when I need to but for players like myself, managing the lower levels is much more fun. Seeing the volley fire, the formation changes and damage inflicted in casualties by volley fire or gunfire is what I like to see and monitor, not the manoeuvring of corps etc that simply factor in unit effectiveness abstractly.

It is not meant as an affront to anyone but just how I personally see Napoleonics and prefer to portray my own experience on the tabletop. I hope others at the higher levels can understand this point of view? Neither view is better than the other, just a different perspective of playing battles.

Shane

Thanks Shane,
No offence taken of course. I should have made it clear about the scale of game i was referring to.

It`s OK Glenn,
The point I made about seeing a battle "unfold" in its tactical and grand-tactical details; its not just a spectator thing. Its part of the enjoyment of playing out a refight or a scenario as a contemporary commander.

Tom,
In my own 6mm rules I think I have attempted a compromise of tactical level and higher command… I have played out 2 corps aside games in 1:1 time ratio once the fighting has started. So although we come at this same point from various angles, I have tried to address it from the middle ground of a "compromise" and a game in which the combat rules are simplified to compensate for, and allow the movement and the manoeuvre of more troops and commands.

Hello MCH!

Okay, gotcha.

Overall your comments remind me of where I was about six years ago. We were using 2G rules and could fight any size Napoleonic battle. The rules were pretty much our own as well, just like you. Although everything worked to our satisfaction 2G rules put you more in the saddle of a battalion commander. Works okay for small actions but starts to bog down as the size of the battle grows.

When we tried 3G rules the size problem disappeared. We could now finish large battles in a half day that before could drag on for three days. Another interesting thing is some of the smaller actions also take a half day. Thats mainly because we pushed some of the 3G concepts down a notch or two.

We think our 3G games also give us the enjoyment of playing out a refight or scenario as a contemporary commander, but more often then not at a higher level up the food chain.

My only point in posting here was simply to show you alternative ways and systems to overcome your problems.
Obviously your not interested in these and that's fine.
If someone enjoys 2G games then there is certainly nothing wrong with that. I still play them, just don't enjoy them as much as 3G games.

Best regards,

Glenn

>>Think of the movie Open Range. They handled it pretty well, I thought.<<

I agree. When I want to point out a fairly realistic gunfight in a film I always say "Open Range".

The Bug strikes again with BravoX's post. This same response showed up elsewhere on TMP today.

Glenn,

I am aware of some of the ways that these "larger scale" games handle c3, but I`ve a feeling that they would not be appropriate for a refight of Waterloo for instance, in which only a few defensive postions were held by contingents of battalions, or of companies.

But I would be interested to see the rules that you were using six years ago, I may be able to learn something from them.

LOL I never said that….

Sigh, is it worth the effort to say it again…

Well I by and large agree with Shane and Tom's comments on this.

As far as Glenn's comments are concerned firstly I dont buy this 1G, 2G, 3G stuff at all, they seem to me just reflections of his own preferences rather than refelecting any true 'generational' progression in rulesets over time.

I might just as well proclaim that Sharp Practice represents 4G rules or C&C Napoleonics or even Chef De Battalion for that matter dependent on my personal interests.

As it is a few years ago we moved beyond the grand tactical games and these days are much more interested in going to the other extreme fighting small sections of a battle but with very large battalions, reflecting drill, tactics and morale in detail, it doesnt mean we are now using 1G rules.

My personal belief is that a lot of these column vs 2 rank line issues are based largely on a myth.

French columns are used to move troops rapidly over the battlefield, with the intention of deploying at some point to engage in a few rounds of musket fire before charging in.

The defender gets of a round or two and if it doesnt stop the French in their tracks the most likely thing is the defender turns and run when the French charge in.

A true bayonet on bayonet melee is very very rare indeed one or the other side gives way before contact so any theoretical close combat advantage of a column is unimportant.

Against the Brits the French were often at fault for deploying too late because of the Brits being concealed by the reverse slope or some other terrain feature. They stopped under fire to deploy and were caught in the middle of deployment, with ineffective return fire when the Brits charge.

There was no prolonged musketry fire from the Brits where the supposed superiority of 2 rank would decimate the French it was more a case of one round of fire and charge in and it was a morale effect that caused the French to turn and run.

If you want to simply concentrate columns together in a small space its just suicide as the narrow frontage will expose thems to flank fire / charge and if they get hit in the flank by a charge they will never be able to deploy and will just be rolled up and evaporate.

Hello MCH!

Waterloo no problem. You simply put a modifier on any appropriate strong points. You can also adjust the basic unit of your game, brigade, regiment or battalion. If you want to do Waterloo as fast as possible use the brigade. If you want to maximize your tactics and take longer use battalions. A bit of both, the regiment.

Playing Waterloo where you can feed companies into the battle line only works if you have nothing else to do for a week.

I've played Waterloo five different times, with different rules and scales. It was always fun but I don't think any of them will come close to our 2015 game.

Sadly our old rules were never put to paper. We just used a quick reference sheet which was on my old computer. They were very simple and we worked hard on them for about 25 years. After we played a few 3G games it became obvious that we had to change if we wanted to improve our games.
It was very painfull to say good-bye to 25 years of work but were all very glad we did. Oddly our games are still pretty simple (once you have learned them) yet much more engaging. There are times when you can here a pin drop and smell the wood burning.

Best regards,

Glenn