"Are most 7YW rules these days just "Napoleonic Lite" ?" Topic

I was rather taken by this line from any in the thread on Der Kriegkunst

"Personally I think the guys are trying to get away from "Napoleonic lite" that a lot of SYW rules became. Also the Command rules make it harder for you to do all you want. Compared to Napoleonic, command arrangements weren't as "streamlined" shall we say.

I think he is onto something here, I was thinking about some of the debate on Black Powder rules – ie why can't the rules themselves make players use historical tactics, eg forming square?

IMHO there is nothing wrong with a "Horse & Musket" set spanning 200 years, so long as at certain points something changes to make players change their tactics.

So, take 7YW vs Napoleonics – 7YW troops do not have to form square to receive cavalry for example, whereas Napoleonic ones do. Why?

The answer lies in two areas:

(i) Professionalism – with a few exceptions, Napoleonic conscript troops are not as well trained as 7YW war ones, only the British come close. Thus in any set of rules spanning the two periods, the "average" 7YW trooper is probably "Veteran" or "Elite" by Napoleonic standards – conversely, the average Naploeonic trooper is probably lower than 7YW Militia class proficiency wise (but more up for a fight than a 7YW Militia).

(ii) The increasing move of heavy cavalry towards charging faster over the ground, and using the sword rather than the pistols in the attack, ie fewer shots can be got away before contact.

In other words, under a ruleset spanning both arenas, the average Napoleonic trooper should not be able to shoot down 7YW horse, whereas the average 7YW should. Also, the average 7YW cavalry trooper should not be a "shock" trooper (even the 7YW Prussians are not there yet, the French and Austrians felt no need to form square in front of them)

That teh British formed square implies t me that their commanders felt that the risk of holding the kline were not worth it.

(For example, if I were simulating this in DBM terms, later "Shock" cavalry would be like Knights with an auto-kill if the infantry are pushed back unless in column, whereas the earlier horse would not)

So why then were the Revolutionary armies of France capable of giving these Old Order armies a bloody nose in the late 1700's and early 1800's?

I think here the rules have to allow three things as well:

Firstly, the early Republican armies were more swarms of skirmishers than anything else (In fact I am surprised that this trick wasn't repeated by everyone, as the lessons had been there from the War of Austrian Succession, but all armies down the ages always seem suspicious of "light" troops :-)

(Or more to the issue, skirmisher's probably can't hold ground)

Secondly, columns must be able to easily out-manouvre lines even on a battlefield. In the 7YW this would have been a "why bother" thing unless done en masse and at an angle (Leuthen), as all the infantry are pretty proficient and getting a column caught by a line of decent troops was a recipe for disaster, but in Napoleonic times all you have is militia grade troops, so needs must.

Thirdly, there were a large tranche of French commanders who had come up the hard way – ie were competent on the field. Just the most cursory reading of the 18th Century makes you realise that the natural state of the Officr class was inexperienced incompetence, and it usually took a strong commander (or King) or a few years of war before this was sorted out. In other words, French armies in Napoleonic times have far better C&C on the field until Les Autres have sorted themselves out (I think the turning point is c 1809….)

The British are different in that they remain a linear army, but they seems to have the luck of a more competent Officer class (possibly due to a lot of small action experience in the colonial expansion?) – ie they can still shoot like a 7YW army (as can Austria & Prussia), but also have good C&C.

The other big difference between 1760 and 1800 is the manufacture of cannon has got much better so the pieces are far lighter and more mobile, so this needs to be reflected as well.

Of course it takes time before these changes are instituted – in fact change usually comes due to necessity, ie the French are pushed to use their guns far more aggressivley in the Revolutionary period to make up for lack of Infantry training.

So, take 7YW vs Napoleonics – 7YW troops do not have to form square to receive cavalry for example, whereas Napoleonic ones do. Why?

The answer lies in two areas:

(i) Professionalism – with a few exceptions, Napoleonic troops are not s well trained, only the British come close. Thus in any set of rules spanning the two periods, the "average" 7YW trooper is probably "Veteran" or "Elite" by Napoleonic standards – conversley, the average Naploeonic trooper is probably lower than 7YW Militia class.

(ii) The increasing move of heavy cavalry towards charging faster over the ground, and using the sword rather than the pistols in the attack, ie fewer shots can be got away before contact.

In other words, under a ruleset spanning both arenas, the average Napoleonic trooper should not be able to shoot down horse, whereas the average 7YW should. Also, the average 7YW cavalry trooper should not be a "shock" trooper (even the 7YW Prussians are not there yet, the French and Austrians felt no need to form square in front of them.)

Oh dear.

freecloud, while I understand and agree with the basic sentiment expressed i.e. each era should have its own fluff and flavour so as not to resemble too closely another era (eg Napoleonic vs mid 18th century). I cannot help but bring to mind the charge of the Bayreuth Dragoons in the War of Austrian Succession, now I am a bit fuzzy on the exact numbers (help from the audience is welcomed :)) but I beleive it was around 17 battalions of Austrians up and legged it as a result of that one charge at the gallop…… Or the British Light Dragoons at Emsdorf…. Or the Prussian cavalry at Rossbach……

Just a point or two to reflect on regards mid 18th century cavalry. :)

@DragonFire – I think you are right, there has to be a "will the s stand" test too :-).

But what strikes me (playing both Lace & Napoleonic periods) is that there is no great panic – nor evidence – about infantry being slaughtered by cavalry in the earlier period.

But my main point is more the systemic structure of rulesets – I am actually happy with the idea of a 200 year ruleset (heck, I play Ancients too….), its more that I would like to see the shifts within the rules force the new tactics.

So, for example, my thoughts here are (to summarise):

- "Shock" cavalry is not common pre Napoleonic period
- Ditto, "good shot" infantry is not common after the late 18th century

Those two changes alone would make it far harder to fight 7YW tactics in the Napoleonic period.

The "why didn't the Prussian and Austrian foot shoot the French column to shreds" discussion to me is because, for a short period:

- Revolutionary armies had clouds of skirmishers while the Ancien Regime outfits were still proficient shots (once they became mass-production armies this was lost)
- French armies had better C&C until about 1809.

In short, I am looking what you would change within a long-period ruleset to make it very inadvisable to use tactics from other sub-periods *within the mechanisms* rather than having to impose it.

As another example, the rules themselves need to make it inadvisable for 1860's armies to use Napoleonic tactics, by some combination of uprating the firepower and guns.

But as to why armies didn't use clouds of skirmishers from 1740 on when it became clear it worked, I can only put that down to the military's generic hate of disorder :-)

Personally, as this started from a comment I made :), I think the situation is actually a lot better regarding the rulesets these days. Off hand I can think of 3 sets specific to the SYW without breaking into a sweat (probably a welcome symptom of how popular 18th C warfare has become). The first ever set I played back in *mumble mumble mumble year* were from WRG and covered everything from early 18th to Napoleonic and a bit beyond, With emphasis on Napoleonic and add ons for the rest. But a French SYW army still played like a Napoleonic period French army. Other rules over the years have done the same, regarding the 18th Century as napoleonic with prettier uniforms.

Thing is I am not a fan of rules which try to cover centuries of warfare between two covers. I am not even a fan of SYW rules which cover the battles in North America as well as Europe in the same book. This foible is probably one of the reasons I never got into Ancient gaming, a well known serial offender of this.

It's not even so much how individual units act or react. But do the the rules guide you into using your army in an appropriate manner. Not going to use the word historical, because when all is said and done, do we really know what that was. But appropriate as to our individual understanding of the period. If we all agreed on what the historical interpretation is and had one mass viewpoint, there would only be the need for one set of rules for any given period anyway.

To be honest it's not so much the rule writers here, it's us with that personal interpretation again.

As in….. BY JOVE my British battalions at Minden are going to form square to receive that ungentlemanly French cavalry charge. Not historical? who cares, if I stand in line I might lose the game for godsake if I get bad dice rolls ;)

So any set of rules which make you act in what we can all agree is a manner that reflects the period, to my mind has to be narrowly focused on the time and it's quirks.

ok rambled on a bit, will go lie in a dark room for a while.

@andy – I should have put a link to the thread in the original post I guess. I am also a gamer of (cough cough) years experience, and I recall those rules :-)

But your Minden example is just it – good 7YW foot should be able to fancy their chances vs 7YW cavalry in any long-span ruleset without resorting to some sort of "may not form square" rule.

And the uniforms *are* prettier ;-)

freecloud I take it you mean the likely results of a Cav vs quality SYW inf (frontal) should preclude the Cav player from attempting it rather than a "forbidding rule" either way, thats right on! Good rules give correct deployments and actions good odds to work, while allowing for a rare "off the wall" result to happen infrequently!

@docdennis that's exactly it!

The rules must make either the Cav not want to hit them, or teh Infantry willing to go for it – if you have to introduce a "cannot charge" or "may not form square" rule ebven though the game mechanics make it clear that it is a Good Thing, then there is something wrong with teh mechanics.

Slide it forward to Napoleonics, same game mechanics, then clearly what you want is thje rules now have to make you want to reverse that decision. Again , if the basic mechanics now don't make you want to scurry into a square at the sighting of far off horsedust, then there is something wrong.

In my view it is the interplay (in this particular case) between weapon rate of fire (ie troop's training & morale) and cavalry rate of closure and/or impact on closure.

You make a lot of broad generalizations that I don't agree with (too many to list so I'll just address several of them):

1) Professionalism: I would take the professionalism and training of Napoleon's Grande Armee of 1805-06 over that of any in the horse and musket period. They could move, change formation quickly, change back and move again on the dime, yet still they formed square in the presence of cavalry (e.g. the fighting on the Pratzen Heights at Austerlitz is a prime example of this). These were not conscript or militia quality troops.

Square formation was a part of 18th century drill regulations in many armies, but was seldom used on the battlefield as the firepower from a 3 or 4 rank deep line was deemed sufficient to stop cavalry. It was also common to have the rear rank turn about and face any attack from the rear. It was the flank that was the greatest concern and weakness to linear warfare, not the attack of cavalry from the front.

At Kolin, the Prussian first battalion of the Garde was ridden over three times during the battle by Austrian cavalry. They then stood up and resumed their fire.

2) Shock cavalry was not common pre-Napoleonic period. Probably half of the Austrian and Prussian battlefield cavalry in the SYW were cuirassiers. Seydlitz developed shock cavalry tactics during the SYW, notably at Kolin and Zorndorf, using his heavy cavalry to frontally assault the Austrian and Russian infantry, respectively to these examples. Frederick considered the cavalry attack in a column of squadrons vs infantry to be a "state secret" as he was the first to use it in the mid-18th century.

Frederick was developing shock cavalry tactics during the War of Austrian Succession, notably at the Battle of Soor in 1745 when the Prussians hurled their heavy cavalry at the Austrian infantry/artillery positioned on the Graner Kop hill. The charge of the Bayreuth Dragoons at Hohenfriedberg, also in 1745, is a little more difficult to explain -- it just sort of happened and the dragoons hit the Austrian infantry at the perfect time (speculation, mine, is that the Austrian infantry was already reduced in numbers from its firefights with the Prussian infantry and as such, their morale was already brittle. The timing of the Bayreuth Dragoons' charge was therefore perfect).

In our BAR rules, a battalion of infantry can usually stop a frontal cavalry charge with firepower, so most cavalry commanders won't attempt to charge infantry unless it has used its first fire bonus and the infantry is diminished in numbers. The rules don't force the infantry to go into square, but rather, they encourage the infantry commander to maintain his troops in line formation versus cavalry.

@Der Alte Fritz – the thing is, am still left with this seeming contradiction:

(i) If the 1805/6 Grande Armee was so good vis a vis 7YW armies (and I agree that was Napoleonic France at its best) why did they need to form square vs opposing horse?

(ii) If 7YW Prussian/Austrian cavalry was as good at shock tactics as later horse, why was "forming square" not really a major concern of 7YW armies?

To me that Prussian battalion being ridden over 3 times and popping back up to shoot actually illustrates my hypothesis. The infantry are brave/experienced enough to not run, and the cavalry couldn't hit them hard enough.

I am fairly confident in suggesting that a similar "ride-over" event in the 1800's would have led to butchery nearly every time. The qusetion then is why, what changed?

And then how do you reflect the difference in a ruleset that covers both periods without resorting to "Deus ex Machina" rules that the rules mechanism don't actually support.

Take the BAR rules for example – what would you have to change in the mechanism to get the correct result for 1805/6. I'd argue you would have to change the mechanism so that either the later French can't shoot as well (less trained) and/or won't stand to a charge (lower quality); and/or the cavalry are more willing/able to get into the scrap (faster) and have a bigger impact (shock effect) if they do so.

For what its worth, in the 1700 – 1900 period I also struggle with:

- the reasons why "heavy" cavalry dropped their armour – if having it was so good in 1700, why not in 1760 or 1800?

- skirmishers work well wherever they are used, yet armies continued to largely ignore them.

(ii) If 7YW Prussian/Austrian cavalry was as good at shock tactics as later horse, why was "forming square" not really a major concern of 7YW armies?

One of the supposed reasons I read somewhere and wishing I could find the article again. Was due to the way armies deployed. Back to that old Linear thing.

Forming square protects the flanks, by making sure there isn't an open one. look at most armies in the SYW advancing. long lines of Infantry, flanks protected by the battalion on either side. Not sure horses are stupid enough to charge into 600 bayonets pointed at them, when they can see it coming. Not sure what would happen when the firing line was wreathed in smoke and hiding what was waiting for the cav which might play a part on those occasions it happened, or firing too soon and not disrupting the charge.

Napoleonic armies (most of them) deployed differently, divisions advancing in column for instance, with the nearest battalion not able to protect the flank as well and open space on the divisions flanks. You pay a price for the flexibility of the period in doing so, therefore square becomes common because the flanks become open.

One knows the times when cavalry broke a square, the most famous from a brit perspective being Garcia Hernandez, because it was a rare occurence. Not sure if cav getting the beejzus kicked out of it out of it when attacking a line is given a high profile and wondering if anyone has ever done a check on it happening during Napoleonic period. Everything else seems to have been analysed to death.

Well I'm an Ancients, medieval and Renaissance guy mainly- so probably a serial offender.

But the main differences that strike me are the size of armies and the amount of horse artillery and you don't need to different rules to simulate that if your rules are working correctly you will have slightly different problems in the different settings.

The nature of how armies came to battle seemed to also change(well from the early 1700's particularly). Napoleon had the habit of getting more corps to the battle on time and he didn't wait around for the opposition to bring all their forces to bare- look what happened when he did let the happen, Leipzig and Waterloo!

Take a battle in the early 1700's, you have wall to wall solid line of muskets and the cavalry guards the flanks, that just doesn't seem to happen in the nicely organised way when you have corps of 20000 men trying to out maneuver each other.

PS- was typing as Andy put up his post- along the same lines in many ways.

They used square more because they were more spread out, and cavalry could pop up all over the place because it wasn't all on the flanks of the army.
Cavalry armour, big healthy horses, 6 of one, half dozen of the other.
The only mechanism that needs changing is to make infantry w 2 secure flanks = infantry in square.

For our Napoleonic variant of BAR (still in development at this point), we borrow the "breakthrough" concept from the In The Grand Manner rules. The infantry can still stay in line and fire at the oncoming cavalry, but if the cavalry closes, we don't have a melee. Instead, we roll dice to see if the cavalry breaks through the line and each cav figure that passes through automatically skewers 2 or 3 infantrymen. So this gives the infantry commander a great incentive to form square, although he can still take his chances on trying to stop the cavalry with firepower.If he loses his bet and the cavalry breaks through, then he loses a LOT OF MEN and possibly routs. If he has the firepower to stop the cavalry, then the cavalry can get chewed up pretty good too, but win big if it closes with the foot.

Forming square was easier in the Napoleonic wars. There was an evolutionary increase in the speed of close order drill during the black powder period.

The drill used by Marlburian troops was a step up from that used by Thirty Years War troops. Frederick's Prussians were better still – and they practised more. Before his time troops formed for battle and stayed in that formation. During the Seven Years War you begin to see units deploy, form back into column, then move and deploy again on the battlefield.

By the Napoleonic period French drill is faster than Prussian drill. In the mid-1900's chasseur and zouave drill is faster yet. Then smokeless powder and repeating rifles relegate close-order drill to the parade ground.

Serious cavalry attacks have to be made faster as time goes on because infantry firepower increases, even with just smoothbore muskets. Paper cartridges, iron ramrods and flintlocks up the rate of fire. Later on percussion locks greatly reduce the rate of misfires.

All of this contributes to cavalry charges at speed. But I think one main reason for square along with the reasons listed above is simply that troops can do it faster with improved drill. Earlier on battalion commanders don't call for a formation change in the face of cavalry when they seriously doubt the move can be done in time. That's my theory, anyway.

"put on your steel helmet" catagory of a topic this one..silly premise..it will lead to living with the Dawgs..

Is Warfare in the Age of Reason then a good set?

"put on your steel helmet" catagory of a topic this one..silly premise..it will lead to living with the Dawgs..

:) :):)

Personally I feel that the problem is not in the shock vs firepower especially in these two eras as the british basically did the same thing in North America and North West Europe in the mid 1700's as they did in the Iberian peninsular and at Waterloo 50-60 odd years later. The main difference between the two eras is in logistics and maneuver off and on the battlefield. Succeed in making that work for you and add a few sprinkles of the smaller intricacies, Infantry ability to fend of cavalry in line in the SYW vs Infantry not being able to in the Napoleonic wars etc and viola you have a set of SYW rules and a set of Napoleonic rules. Broad brushstrokes I know but there you have it IMHO :)

Having played both Koenig Krieg and also having the honour of playtesting the owner of Koenig Krieg's Napoleonic set of rules I certainly feel that the differences between the eras can very easily be explored and instituted. :)

The prussian guard at Kolin is just an example of the opposite of the OP want to say. The unit was ridden down 3 times… and they did not magically reform in a minute. They were ineffective for some tome with the battalion scattered. Then they rallied and and reformed. The point is that in a collpased line is easier to run away than in a square.

Yet at kolin the decisive moment was Serbelloni great charge, that for the point cavalry was not so effective…

Anyway square were formed in the 7YW but they were slower to form. So it was often more practical to just receive in line.

OK, now I'll pontificate and concur with Alte Fritz, andy1909 and symbiotic. The OP's analysis is based on a couple of misconceptions which, IMHO, skews the point being made.

First, Nosworthy in Battle Tactics of Napoleon nails the reason for the proliferation of square during the era. The battalion column had become the primary formation of movement, but still needed extensive real estate on each flak to deploy into line for fire and final assault upon contact with the enemy. These gaps not only exposed flanks to marauding cavalry, but created paths for friendly cavalry to charge forward. This in turn meant the horse could well be deployed behind the center of an army, not exclusively on the flanks. Exposed flanks and a greater chance of cavalry in the area promoted the use of square given it was a faster formation to assume vice line.

Second, at the beginning of the Napoleonic era, all countries had skirmishers, lots of them. But how the Austrians and Russians defined skirmishing (see Kutusov's instructions to the Bug Yegerski Corps) was not the way the French did. To adopt French methodology meant validating that the individual soldier possessed the loyalty and intelligence to operate independently of his officers, thus proving the French Revolution correct and negating a primary reason autocratic Europe was at war. Some countries tried to adopt French technique while keeping the direct supervisory role of the officer corps intact. This didn't work, thus FM Graf Radetsky in 1813 ordering the Austrians and Russians not to engage in skirmish combat with the French because (quote), "we simply do not understand this kind of fighting." Dr Peter Paret's Yorck and the Era of Prussian Reform has an excellent discussion of this issue.

These two issues I think indirectly define the problem you surfaced. Van Crefeld noted that Napoleonic warfare was no more than an extension of Lace Wars technique, as the raw material had not changed one wit. What had changed was Napoleon using the material and processes of Frederick's time to its maximum potential.

Lace warfare was the way it was not because the capability to field a true Napoleonic army wasn't there, but because the military culture of the time could not fathom anything different. The Age of Reason was an era where all aspects of life became regulated, nearly choreographed to a near geometric degree. Order and symmetry were mandatory in society, politics and on the battlefield. Thus one didn't need to form square because all generals recognized and never deviated from the need to keep a continuous line of battle, one devoid of any unprotected flanks for the foot. Same thing for French style skirmishing, an absolute impossibility given the unreliability of the peasant soldier.

It all makes sense to an 18th Century military mind, which no modern player has. The fix is either to deny your players the option by rule, or develop a system of modifiers to force the proper reaction, though that might well make the game too tedious to play. If not, you have SYW games that are really nothing more than Empire light.

In Age of Honor, the Lace Wars variant for Fire & Fury, we deny players the option, but this is a lot easier to do at brigade level where the fidelity of detail is not crucial and may well be inappropriate.

JMTSW, YMMV

Regards, Bill Gray
ageofeagles.grouply.com

Thanks all, some interesting thoughts. The OP idea was that the rules themselves should make players want to play the correct way in the sub-period, but it looks like there are lots of divergent views on that!!

Some responses though:

@Colonel Bill/andy/symbiotic/Dragonfire – I'll buy the bigger armies/ bigger gaps in the army/cavalry popping up in the line argument.

However, I still would argue there is cause in the shift of quality from a professonal to a largely conscript force in the Napoleonic era that influenced tactics.

@Der Alte Fritz – I think athat approach of making the risk/reward much higher stake is the riht approach – but I would argue that the fix in the BAR rules for Napleonic Cavalry action is "programmng in" the higher shock value of Napoleonic cavalry (or the lower calibre of the infantry) that I am arguing for ;-)

The Austrians & Russians and their attitude to skirmishers in the Napoleonic period always amazes me as these two armies really pioneered the use of lights in the 1700's.

Re the clockwork world of the Age of Reason, Madame de la Tour du Pin's memoirs are a fascinatingly detailed account of how that all came apart….

'Napoleonic' tactics were *sometimes* used during 'regular'18th C. wars -infantry squares at Blenheim, skirmishers screens and attack columns at the Plains of Abrahams… so it would be excessive to totally deny players such options (as does e.g. the 'SYW' WRG amended set). But they would be deterred by drastic penalties except in peculiar circumstances where they were actually, and successfully, used at the time.
For instance, you *have* to form an attack column to storm a defile, a bridge, a gate… Even, according to contemporary memoires pfef.free.fr/Anc_Reg/Divers.htm (in French, but great site nonetheless) recommended to storm villages or defended lines of hedges.
The % of units able to skirmish would be limited at the level of the OOB / army list.
A square lowers drastically the amount of fire delivered against a given target, and since the manoeuvre was unusual the men should be 'disturbed' (reaction test?)…
&c…
This would prevent Lace Wars gamers (fielding so much prettier armies indeed) to play a French SYW army like a Napoleonic period one, even with basically 'wide time span'rules such as the WRG set.
(Actually I think the only value to be modified rather than restricted in the WRG set is the speed of horse artillery -by Lace Wars times still a light field artillery able to keep a good mobility during the whole battle, not a 'galloping' type supporting the cavalry: for such a role here is what was suggested later in the century: link ).