"Another thought on reading Lasalle" Topic

Now I promise I'll stop thinking and start playing eventually but one of the reasons I buy Sam's rules – play them or not, is he makes me think and explains why he has done things.

Lasalle has some interesting departures from other Nap rules one of them is no Flank fire bonus. It's become obvious that Sam and I share the same opinion on unit depths in wargames and here again is another example.

A three deep line of infantry, even with its supernumeraries, from four or five hundred yards away is not the proportional ‘barn door' that a 30mm deep wargames base presents!

That's not to say you can't hit it and it may do some harm if you do. The question is should you put in a modifier that applies every time a player tries it, when in real terms we have no data at all to suggest how often ‘proper' flank fire took effect.

Sam's chosen to factor it out (I'm sure the middle initial "A" in his name stands for abstraction) but he could have said it only has an effect at say, one or two BW, for example.When you might argue (as there are no casualties in Lasalle) it could be treated as part of the moral effect represented by a units "Disruptions" if hits were to occur.

However, that's not what I'm discussing.

It's the willingness on his part to challenge the tired old +1 for Flank fire that turns up time and again as a knee jerk in rule sets, with out any thought of validity and is still present in so many other ‘new' rules.

That's what I'm applauding.

Its nice to see an approach that questions what is worth modelling, I'm sure I'll find some others I don't agree with as I go along but here's to Sam for putting them out there!

I have played/read a fair few rules, but I have never encountered the flank fire bonus.
The rules I play do not have that either.

I see no reason for it.

Flank melee bonus if you somehow manage to attack the side of a column yes.
I have only seen someone let themselves get attacked whilst in column once as it is not easy to do, so I like the melee modifier.
The attacker needs to be rewarded for exploiting a weakness like that/the defender punished for ignoring an attacker approaching his flank.

Each to their own though of course.

Well, there sort of is, actually.

Remember that if you are shooting at the front of an enemy column or line, you only get the (one) bonus dice for skirmishers, and only if your SK is higher than the target's.

But when shooting into the flank/rear of an enemy, you get one bonus die for each SK factor, regardless of the enemy's SK value.

It's not specifically conceived as a "shooting into the flank is more effective," but simply: "shooting is more effective when the other guy can't shoot back!"

So there is an incentive for doing it. That said, I've played this game a hundred times and don't think I've ever pulled it off. My opponents tend to be better tacticians than I am, and don't show me their backsides!

A bonus for fire into the flank of a line does not seem justified.

The question is, since I do not own LaSalle, is what morale effect does it have on the flanked unit. There are enough historical instances to seem to justify negative consequences?

Hmm. I am somewhat surprised at the comments on this thread. IMHO, the effect of flanking fire is often underated in most wargames rules. In many histories, the armies always seem to be searching for and turning the flank of their opponent. What would they bother if it was not effective to do so? It is not the fire effectiveness of such flanking fire that is important, but much more the morale effect of having an enemy on your flank – where you can't engage them effectively. If your rules include rules to reflect the morale impact of having enemy on your flank then fine, but I have found that the simplest way is to make flanking fire more effective.

Note what Sam said Margard – this is modelling the difference between exchanging fire and one unit firing into a unit that cannot return fire. The advantage comes by being able to roll dice AT ALL against an opponent that can't fight back at range. Fire into the flank is likely to be very effective.

In many histories, the armies always seem to be searching for and turning the flank of their opponent

Ah not quite the same thing! Turning the opponents entire position is potentially devastating to the whole army, as it potentially disrupts the entire chain of command and forces reactions to be made up on the spot to deal with it.

An army expecting to fight or advance to its front would have all its orders written on that basis and commands deployed accordingly.

In the eras before radio, trying to change all that at the drop of a hat was a nightmare.

But when shooting into the flank/rear of an enemy, you get one bonus die for each SK factor, regardless of the enemy's SK value

Well that I don't mind so much.

Skirmishers wandering around behind your line of battle probably would be a bit bit disconcerting. As you say, there would be no one to shoot back and after all, a lot of a battalions C2 was standing around behind the firing line.

Someone picking them off would not be welcome.

Yet another reason not to want to play "Lasalle."

"The French soldier easily lets himself become demoralized; four hussars behind him worry him more than a thousand in front of him. 'We are cut off,' they always say in such a case. You have to expend plenty of strong language to prove to them that, if anyone is cut off, it's those four hussars."

Military Life Under Napoleon, The Memoirs of Captain Elzear Blaze, translated by John R. Elting, pp 109-110.

Turning the opponents entire position is indeed potentially devastating to the whole army. However, in the days before radio, the first each unit would know of it woould often be when their flank company started taking fire from an unexpected direction. The unit would then try to react by changing face to meet the flanking threat. If that was successful then theyw ould stand a chance of beating it off, If not, then I think it pretty likely that they would callapse in rout. Then as the flank attack progressed each unti would one by one be rolled up.

138Squadron hints at the problem – its the effect on morale of being hit from an unexpected direction. Course you'd need a bit more of a sophisticated morale system to reflect that.