"Home/solo rules for "regulating battalions" (or brigades)?" Topic

Hi,
Anyne have a good home or solo mechanic/rule for the movement and cohesion requirements when using regulatiing units?
Something that considers the need for coordination between bns and/or brigades, and the resulting effects of loss of contact/coordination to the plan and process of movement for the overall brigade?

Art P has something written up somewhere from an ancient set of rules he was working on years back (Rememberence of Glory or something like that)

Phasing player moves their own regulating battalion.

Opposing player moves the rest of the brigade formation to conform.

Ouch !!

That would end up pretty realistic if done right.

He notes that there are some 'rules' which apply to allowing the opposing player to move the rest of the brigade, but I never heard what they are.

Here's the text from a something I wrote a while back:

A divisional commander would designate a "regulating brigade" to whose movements the other brigades of the division would conform. Similarly, an army corps commander might nominate a "regulating division" to guide his whole army corps. You can, if you think about it, therefore direct the movements of a whole corps just by ordering the movement of a single battalion!

Indicate the regulating brigade (RB) by placing the divisional general next to the brigade. The RB moves along the ordered line of march. The other brigade(s) must conform to the movement of the RB. It is possible for a commander of an army corps to designate a "regulating division". To do this, the corps commander nominates the regulating division, but does not have to attach himself to the division commander, but simply announces which one it is (it should also be noted in the order that initiated the movement for that division).

Conforming
Conforming to a regulating brigade, or to a neighbouring brigade ultimately conforming to one, requires a brigade:

to remain within about 500 yards of the regulating brigade, or the neighbouring brigade which is in the chain of conforming brigades to maintain (or catch up to) its designated positional relationship (e.g. to the right or left flank, to the rear, etc.), wheeling, turning and manoeuvring as necessary to move in the same direction and speed, insofar as the brigade is able
to execute the same formation change as the regulating brigade as quickly as possible to charge with or in support of the regulating brigade, as position and orders may dictate.

The formation commander may change the regulating brigade (or division) as necessary simply by attaching himself to another brigade and issuing a new order to that new, regulating brigade (it is assumed that the other conforming brigades hear the signal used to indicate this change and will continue to follow their original orders, while simply conforming to the new regulating brigade – there is no need for new orders to all the conforming brigades).

In spite of all best intentions, luck or other circumstances may prevent a brigade from maintaining its conforming position. It may lag, encounter rough terrain or other obstacles, enemy resistance, or it may be "inspired" to surge ahead momentarily. The divisional commander may need to alter the speed of the regulating brigade (e.g. slow down or halt) to help the formation re-establish its alignment. Alternatively he may need to relocate to a brigade having difficulty in order to assist it directly; it is even possible that a more senior officer (e.g. the corps commander) may attach himself to assist that troubled brigade.

Thanks Margard,
I was wondering about the 500 yard conforming distance- do you think it would be fair to say they need to be within 'real threat reaction distance' of each other- the time percieved by a commander an enemy might endanger the flank of either brigade? That would mean rules with different time/distance constructs would have a baseline for determining how large a gap could open. Or, is it more a visual, rather than a threat driven thing, meaning that in poor visibiliy gaps had to be much smaller or the movement issues/penalties (however they are represented) start to accrue?

Here's how I've handled it:

Each division has a regulating brigade. Each Corps has a regulating division. Which one it is and whether the division is regulating from the right or the left is detemined during deployment. Generally speaking it's the first brigade in a division (or first brigade in a corps), so it's a matter of putting the brigades in order from there.

In a turn structure I use, you have to roll to activate a division. Unless they are regulating to the last brigade in division next to them (in the direction of regulation). So during the movement phase players activate the lead division of one of their corps. They move the first brigade and then every other brigade in that division must move as best it can to get back into relative formation with the brigade in the direction of the regulation. If there is terrain in the way, or if the person did something to make that impossible, this can lead to the battle line being broken up (which can be bad in terms of flanking, having your line split and whatnot).

Then the other person does the same thing. The first play then goes again and has a choice. 1) Start moving a new regulating division in a new corps (say another line of attack like the French right at Dresden) or 2) move another division into regulation with one that already moved. Both of those choices suceed automatically. 3) If the player instead wants to move a division in a manner that is not taking it's first brigade and regulating it to the last brigade moved in the division to which it is attached, then there is a command check.

This can be modified by command assets like an ADC or a high level commander's personal presence. Similarly, a divisional general can redefine brigades of regulation within his division as needed.

The assumption is, if you want a division to do anything other than participate in the advance of the battle line by aligning to the brigade of regulation, it's going to take command attention to do so. It will eventually do so, but you may experience some failed activations as the one division goes on its special orders and another needs to move to take its place in the line and be assigned it's new place in terms of regulating.

Reserves works similarly. The army commander gets them moving and then assigns them a regulating brigade to put them where they are needed in the line.

This is for a very grand tactical approach where one base is a brigade and very large battles are played.

I've not given that kind of thing much thought. My training has always been that a briefing of some sort would happen before an action should begin. Of course, there's always the old 'Follow me' thing. But my experience of that sort of thing really only goes up to the Company/Troop level.
There's almost always some way to give orders on the fly.
You're taxing my brain Robert, thanks.

I'm thinking also that perhaps many rules are considering regulating battalions in a more abstract way- that is, bonuses and penalties for 'supported' and 'unsupported' status- but to me it seems to be more of a command/control issue, more about the dificulties of getting units to go where intended. A good 'AI' mechanic for regulating movement conformity would be interesting.

I like that Nathaniel. A very workable method.

Rrobbyrobot: My training has always been that a briefing of some sort would happen before an action should begin. Of course, there's always the old 'Follow me' thing. But my experience of that sort of thing really only goes up to the Company/Troop level.

Now get rid of sattelite, radio and wired communication and then coordinate ten thousand (or even a hundred thousand or more) people that need to stay in relative formations. And then try to make changes to react to a new situation (like the loss of the allied left at Dresden or the defense of the river crossing on the right in the same battle.

Do you furiously write orders to all the different brigades involvedd, or do you ride (or send a member of your staff) to the regulating battallion of the regulating brigade and give it one order and everyone else in the division will follow in formation?

le Grande Quartier General: I like that Nathaniel. A very workable method.

I find it fairly quick. It also takes into consideration how differing directions of regulation are better for turning in different directions. It's far, far easier for a regulating brigade to advance and the rest of the division to pivot and move a bit less than for the regulating brigade to pivot and the other brigades struggle to reach their new positions in time as they have so far to go.

Nathaniel,
I was speaking of 'wargaming' in one to one scale in that instance. Sorry, but I'm only 52. Wasn't around before radio. Satellites are beyond my military experience, however.
Having said all that, I have played Napoleonic games where I commanded multiple corps. But these were always set piece battles. And I'm sure you'll love this, we were playing using Empire rules. Plus I didn't develope the scenarios for these games.
My current games involve no higher than Division level in the Sudan. Or Battalion level in WW2.

I was wondering about the 500 yard conforming distance-

It's just an arbitrary distance – tweak to suit or as you see fit.

Makes sense, Rrobbyrobot. I was simply pointing out that in a time before radio, a combination of standing orders and what other formations should be on a given brigade's right and left could manage things far more effectively than attempting to individually command every brigade across a corps. Of course there would still be as much pre-battle planning as possible, but once you get the troops moving, moving them by regulating battalion within a regulating brigade would be far, far easier than letting each brigadier interpret the plan in the briefing and act independantly or constantly be ordering them individually.

I've never played Empire. I did a quick google search on it and I can't say it'd be my pick for a multiple corps battle. I like one base = one brigade for those. Must have been an impressive looking game though. Multiple Corps at 1:60 figure:soldier ratio.

Margard:

I think for any operation 1700 through 1865, the 500 yards as a distance between brigades, with one regulating is way too far, a brigade frontage distance.

I use similar rules to yours, but brigades must be within 50 yards or 1" depending on the scale. That was SOP according to Napoleonic through to 1870 and after. For the SYW and earlier it was even closer and more rigid. Each line, supporting or front will When brigades fall away from this distance for whatever reasons, barring combat and retreats, the #1 task of the brigade out of 'compliance', is to get back into compliance.

Bill

I too use about 50 yards. It's a negligible amount of distance given I'm doing one base = one brigade with a brigade base being 40mm. We tend to sort of line things up in nearly base to base formations.

Thanks Bill, that's a useful comment. I'll have to knock a zero off! Come to think of it, I wrote that quite a while ago and I can't for the life of me remember why I made it 500 yds!!

Nathaniel,
It was impressive. Even a bit oppressive at times. It's the only set of Napoleonic rules I've played with miniatures. I've played SPI's Wellington's Victory, but that's a board game.
You talk about Brigade Commanders operating their Brigades. All well and good. But I have seen it as Division Commanders being the lowest level of decision makers in such situations.
As you can tell, I'm not very experienced at such a high level of command. Even when I was playing Empire with some frequency was back in the early 1990s.
Maybe my comment about my brain being taxed was off putting. It wasn't meant as a complaint. I was honestly thanking Robert. I like to think.
Here's a dumb question. How do you work out things like Regimental colors in your Brigades? I painted up two Line Corps plus one Reserve Corps worth of Austrians. Then a 'Corps' made up of various German states. Out of all that my favorites were my Wurttembergers. Really enjoyed their Regimental distinctions. Facings and flags.
Sorry if I seemed a bit fussy.
Robby

Seems a little bit granular for my personal taste.

Steve,
What you mentioned about AP's concept reminds me of the the old parent trick "you cut the cake in half, johnny, and then your sister chooses which half she wants" :)

Bill, I had heard that potential effective musket range was the main factor in placing infantry in support of each other- I'm not sure where I got that from either. I suppose thats 40 to 100 yards-maybe up to 150 yards if you emphasize the 'imminent'- about the width of a lane for bringing horse artillery up? That makes sense to me. What do you think?

Le Grande QG:

I have never seen any treatise on the 'proper' distance infantry lines stood 'in support' of a front line. I have for Cavalry. However, I have read Napoleonic, ACW and Franco-Austrian War narratives that have that distance from 100, 150 to 300 yards. [Never closer, or further away.]

I have seen the instructions for how a second line is to move. The regulating battalion in the second line moves in conformance to the regulating battalion in the front line, which is immediately in front of it. Any distance beyond 300 yards would make it hard to do that--or maybe even see the directing battalion, so I would imagine 100 to 150 yards is more reasonable.

I do want to mention that, like today's armies, the 19th Century armies followed the principle of KISS, 'Keep it Simple, Stupid. [Or any other epitath beginning with 'S']

Part of that KISS approach was this: The method for moving a company… the regulating file, usually on the right, was the same for a battalion: except it was a regulating company; which was the same for a brigade: a regulating battalion; which was the same for a division: a regulating brigade. And at times, a regulating division for the Corps.

There had to be some way for the commander to 'steer' and move his force, and for every unit in that force to know what to do without endless delays were couriers ran to and fro to tell every battalion what to do every time a change was needed.

The regulating unit at whatever level was the primary method. For instance, Dundas calls this the Fundamental, foundational principle of maneuver.

For instance, on the second day at Gettysburg, the orders for each division and brigade of the four divisions involved in the attack, McLaws, Hood, Anderson and Pender [though Pender was killed and his division didn't move.] included which brigade they would regulate on in the attack. And the major problems with the attack were caused by Hood and Barksdale when they ignored that system

Bill

Thanks Bill, that's a useful comment. I'll have to knock a zero off! Come to think of it, I wrote that quite a while ago and I can't for the life of me remember why I made it 500 yds!!

I know what you mean. I look at some of the rules I wrote umpteen years ago, and I can't tell you why. Yeah, the 50 yard was only 30 yards more than the distances between battalions in line. This was linear warfare, so 500 yard gaps could create a few problems. That kind of gap also provided some 'scouch room' for those columns at deploying distance that just couldn't keep exact alignments before going into line…

Bill

Rrobbyrobot: Here's a dumb question. How do you work out things like Regimental colors in your Brigades? I painted up two Line Corps plus one Reserve Corps worth of Austrians. Then a 'Corps' made up of various German states. Out of all that my favorites were my Wurttembergers. Really enjoyed their Regimental distinctions. Facings and flags.

I end up losing out on some of that. If a given brigade base is supposed to represent those from more than one regiment, I pick one and go with it. It means some get lost in the shuffle and will never get represented as painted miniatures.

And yes, you're right about the division commanders rather than brigadiers.

I think my favorite thing about having a regulating division/brigade/battalion system is how fast it is to move things in terms of decision making. You move the regulating unit and then there's no more decision making to be made. You move the rest/next unit to it's position relative to the regulating one.

Before I implimented this, I'd often find the players of the game humming and hawing about the optimal place to move each brigade (given they had complete freedom within a command radius). Now they know they simply need to move them to the point where they'd be back in formation with the line of battle and if they want to do something else, they're going be taking a huge risk in terms of command checks and unpredictable results.

For example, one time a brigade (2nd of a division) was given special orders to take a town (it had taken less casaulties than the 3rd and was in better shape to hold the small town). The brigade advanced into the town, but the 3rd brigade hadn't received word to instead regulate to the 1st brigade as he failed that check on reassinging regulation.

So the 3rd brigade turned off to the right and took up their position to the right of the town, moving in front of another brigade which would have normally taken that position. The damaged 3rd brigade ended up to the right of the town (sort of on an angle) rather than the safer spot to the left of the town. Or had he not tried to change things at the last second, they would have at least ended up in the relative safety of holding a town.

Now that there was a new brigade wide gap in the line to the left of the town, the oppositng player broke the damaged brigade and soon the defenders of the town had no friends on either their right or their left. The opponent then committed that corps' reserve division to the left of the town, defeated the isolated 1st brigade and soon hussars were pouring through the gap towards the army commander's current position (after capturing the division commander who caused this mess on their way). In the end the army commander escaped, but the entire division was either broken or later surrendered after the town was surrounded.

Not to mention that the brigade that ended up behind the damaged 3rd brigade was the regulating brigade of the next division in the line. And it could no longer just advance straight ahead and was regulating from the wrong direction to get everyone in the division into position in a single turn.

One of the benefits of using regulation to manage movement is that it forces you to develop a plan in advance and then implement it. And it shows the friction involved in changing course mid stream.

@le Grande Quartier General, see:
link

For Huzzah! – the game I prefer to play – I wrote some home rules which take away modifiers for Favourable Position in Threat Tests and Melees based on rear supports and instead give positive modifiers to Orders Tests if the Brigade or Division moves by regulating battalion. To benefit in Orders from regulating battalions, a Brigade, or Division, must have Cohesion – and I defined Cohesion as

A brigade has Cohesion if:
1. there is more than one infantry or cavalry unit remaining;
2. its constituent units align to the same facing; the battalions or regiments may have different individual formations, line or column, and they may not be exactly lined up but they must all be facing the same way.
3. all constituent units in the command group are be able to see a unit of their brigade to their front or left or right

Huzzah! seeks to maintain historical formations by the use of modifiers such as Favourable Position. If you keep other units to your rear or both flanks you benefit in Threats and Melee and other tests – so, of course, you'll keep units supported to the rear or the flanks.

But elsewhere on this forum, arguments against this method of maintaining historicity have been put in the discussion. I think I am tending to agree with these points of view, and whilst I still think Huzzah! is the best ruleset I have come across, I just gave it a tweak.

full document I wrote is here: link

Just an addition.

The conversation has been about Battalions/Brigades which would indicate infantry.

Its worth pointing out that Regulation applied equally to Cavalry in all its subdivisions and even within Artillery batteries when on the move, for exactly the same reasons.

Huzzah! is actually quite brilliant, I like the way it solves sticky issues by turning firepower around the other way, and dealing with threat zones. Very clever and simple.

I would like to theive some mechanics from Huzzah! for the computer moderated approach, but its actually very hard to do. It demands that the computer has a super accurate map of where everthing is at any point in time. That is harder to acheive than it sounds.

I will continue to have a think about it though. At least with a computer, the quantifying of the level of threat zone can be a lot more granular.

I am not 100% convinced about the total accuracy of the approach, if you want to be incredibly pedantic. From a soldier's point of view, there is threat, and then there is the perception of threat. The 2 are not always the same thing though ….

For tabletop gaming, Huzzah! is a super ruleset to use, that teaches the tactics of the day, and is well worth learning.

wrote some home rules which take away modifiers for Favourable Position in Threat Tests and Melees based on rear supports and instead give positive modifiers to Orders Tests if the Brigade or Division moves by regulating battalion.

celtcraze:

You might want to consider this. Giving 'positive modifiers' to threat tests and melees because there are 'supports' nearby or to orders because the brigade or division is moving by a regulating battalion is creating artifical rewards that should be unnecessary if the game mechanics do a decent job of portraying those battlefield practices.

It's like giving a +1 to a driver for using a seatbelt as he drives, when the only advantage is at the moment of an accident…and a +1 doesn't cover that.

Supports didn't provide some mystical +1 benefit to the front lines in all combat by just 'existing' close by.

Supports provided benefits by supporting, by doing something, which meant very specific actions: covering/extending a flank, exchanging lines or plugging a hole or covering retreat of the front line.

For games with such modifiers like Huzzah! and Shako, I've seen the argument that the front line would feel better or have improved morale because there were supports isn't 'supported' by any historical evidence I have seen, either in the idea the commander had in providing support or in the results. Most troops wouldn't see or be aware of that 'support' anyway.

The same is true of using a regulating unit. It was how troops moved together, period. If a line of troops were disrupted in moving, the line broken for some reason, that in and of itself is enough negative results. Giving units a +1 for orders because there is a regulating unit isn't necessary or meaningful. If the units were marching with the regulating unit, then they would continue to and any change of orders would automatically be followed. IF the unit, say a brigade, has battalions out of alignment for whatever reason, they automatically are 'out of command' and need to reattach before they can do anything else--or they need to receive independent orders, thus becoming their own unit with their own regulating battalion.

That is 'punishment' enough for the failure to use regulating battalions. Being able to continue functioning as a single unit is enough benefit for using a regulating unit.

The +1 modifiers aren't necessary nor particularly realistic if the game mechanics follow the way things worked during the period. Another idea is that the players need 'incentives' to do things historically by adding modifiers. To my mind, that simply says that the mechanics of play aren't providing the benefits organically.

Bill H.

Great post Bill.

I think the place to houserule Huzzah! would be in the movement of the units rather than in the combat resolution. And getting rid of command radii. The game already has a dicing mechanic to see if orders get where they need to be. So if someone wants to break away from using a regulating battalion to specifically place a battallion somewhere, there is already a risk in that part of the limited command resources will be allocated to that.

There's a penalty for spreading ones attention in this manner. I'd probably increase it by a further down step in quality for an brigadier trying to manage one battallion separately while also ordering the movements of the rest of the brigade via a regulating battallion.

While it may not be historically accurate for troops to get better at fighting while in formation with their regulating battallion, it may be appropriate to penalize the commanders in terms of the greater difficulty in multiplying the formations they need to manage.

I think Huzzah! is very near to organically producing play in keeping with the period. It has some conventions that have stuck themselves onto wargaming (like command radii) but those can be excised. Another example might be how units in a command group are moved individually and how units are free to disregard the command as long as at least one unit in his command obeys it. That should probably go as well.

Nathaniel:

Yes, command radius rules should be jettisoned. They are so far from the actual communication and control issues faced by 18th and 19th Century commanders that the rationales for the radius rules are almost funny.

I think the idea that the problems with mulitple commands would spread the commander's time and attention, is a good one. The very thing that the regulating unit process was meant to avoid, among other things was that multiplying where the commander's attention was needed.

Once the regulating unit was given it's mission, the entire brigade or division would continue until commanded otherwise. That often freed the commander to take care of problems down the line personally, while the brigade or division carried on.

Another example might be how units in a command group are moved individually and how units are free to disregard the command as long as at least one unit in his command obeys it. That should probably go as well.

I agree. I never understood that one…

Bill

In my rules, I toyed with several concepts and finally just game each Tactical Command (usually a brigade, in a game where the units are battalions, squadrons, and batteries, with 2-5 corps per side)one move, to be made by as many units of the command as the player desired. So he could move ahead and wheel left 45% for example, with one battalion, a few battalions, or all the battalions, but that's the only move for the brigade this round.

McLaddie said –

Giving 'positive modifiers' to threat tests and melees because there are 'supports'…should be unnecessary

Yes, that's what I was arguing, so in my houserules I removed them and instead gave the modifiers to Orders.

McLaddie said-

Giving units a +1 for orders because there is a regulating unit isn't necessary or meaningful. If the units were marching with the regulating unit, then they would continue to and any change of orders would automatically be followed.

I hear you. I think i understand your argument, but I think it runs against the basic model of Huzzah!; it does not accept the basic concept of uncertain outcomes that Huzzah! is trying to emulate.

I think your premise is that a colonel makes an order, such as "Regulating Battalion go there and do stuff!", and obediently it so does, and following mechanically along go the rest of the Brigade.

But Huzzah! says that colonel Mechant makes an order, "Regulating battalion advance", but the unhappy horse under aide delivering the order for regulating to the other battalions was shot and the message did not arrive, or the Chef de Bataillon Parvenu does not have very happy relations with the colonel and is having away with his mistress and decides to question the order and not do anything for a bit, or the Colonel himself decides to question the order from the CinC to advance at all as being quite reckless and instead he does nothing for a bit. The order fails because circumstance on the battlefield, flippant examples as they may be above, undermines the plans of the player-general commanding the army.

Huzzah! says that nothing is certain. You want to send the seemingly simple order of "you lot get moving and shoot stuff!", but they decide "no, stuff you, we're cooking our gruel!".

You can try to stack the odds in your favour by following certain processes, such as making orders and moving a brigade by a regulating battalion, but even then it is uncertain to succeed.

That's why you have a plus one for orders.

Now, I have heard arguments on this forum about people being aggrieved at rulesets that don't allow them to order their little metal and plastic men about at will, that it is entirely unhistorical of the little blighters, but this little facet is part of the reason I like Huzzah!.

These little plastic guys that I have lovingly painted and based are rebellious, querulous and unruly. I have to cajole them forward to their deaths, or perhaps their glory. I need all the +1 modifier cajollery I can find and regulating battalions is just one.

Sean

But Huzzah! says that colonel Mechant makes an order, "Regulating battalion advance", but the unhappy horse under aide delivering the order for regulating to the other battalions was shot and the message did not arrive

Generally speaking, direction of regulation would be something set up before the battle. Mechant tells the regulating battalion to advance, and the rest of the battallions in the brigade see it start to move and initiate their own movement in response. The only time you need to send someone to tell them about regulating to a new battalion is if you make changes.

And it's not about uncertainty in Huzzah!. I can make my check and then cherry pick which parts of the command obey and which do not-- as long as at least one part obeys the order. That's a level of control that the historical commanders would have killed for.

I'd instead demand that all parts of a unit must obey the order starting with the regulating unit and if you start breaking them up and having an order only apply to some, that you get a pretty massive penalty beyond just the -1 on ordering the same target twice.

I hear you. I think i understand your argument, but I think it runs against the basic model of Huzzah!; it does not accept the basic concept of uncertain outcomes that Huzzah! is trying to emulate.

Sean:
That is for sure and for certain. While I am a big supporter of 'uncertain outcomes' in wargames, those outcomes have to be in relation to the military system and a-hem, historical reality.

I think your premise is that a colonel makes an order, such as "Regulating Battalion go there and do stuff!", and obediently it so does, and following mechanically along go the rest of the Brigade.

Oh, that isn't my 'premise,' roughly speaking, that's the way it worked. I'd be glad to quote Napoleonic and ACW treatises and drill books or actual narratives to demonstrate that.

Basically, the colonel or brigadier would give the command to the regulating company or battalion. The officers in that battalion would call out the orders, which would then be repeated by every officer down the line of battalions and companies. [For junior officers, that seems to have been their primary function…;-j]

The commander with the regulating unit moves and the rest, knowing the order, follows. If a unit doesn't hear this repeated command over the noise of battle [Of course, it did happen], the fall-back response in every case was to always follow the unit next to you, closest to the regulating unit, be it left or right.

[No horses can possibly be shot in the carrying out of this command, a communication of orders which moved far, far faster down the line than any rider could.]

But Huzzah! says that colonel Mechant makes an order, "Regulating battalion advance", but the unhappy horse under aide delivering the order for regulating to the other battalions was shot and the message did not arrive, or the Chef de Bataillon Parvenu does not have very happy relations with the colonel…[snip]

The colonel or brigadier is with the regulating unit, so no horses are shot, no CdeB can get a wild hair and ignore the command… The regulating unit process is a concerted effort to avoid such problems, battle tested over centuries of warfare. [The ancient Greeks and Romans used it to maneuver their lines]

That doesn't mean outcomes were certain, only that when things unraveled, they did it within the context of the primary means of maneuver. Battalions stray or are slow. The commander decides to attempt a maneuver that is contrary to where the regulating unit is. One unit, under fire, unordered, panics and goes to line, forcing the commander to continue on with his brigade of battalion columns or stop and form line. etc. etc.

I don't see modifiers, as agame mechanic, really applying in anyway to this as "Huzzah!" incorporates them.

<q?Huzzah! says that nothing is certain. You want to send the seemingly simple order of "you lot get moving and shoot stuff!", but they decide "no, stuff you, we're cooking our gruel!".

Nothing is certain, even when the entire weight of training and army procedures are focused on making things certain. So you have this effort to decrease the uncertainty, while Murphy and the enemy work diligently to increase it.

The question isn't whether things are uncertain on the battlefield. They are. The questions are "Where?", "How?" and "How Often?" Unexpected and counterproductive events don't occur evenly spread over the entire army on the battlefield. They occur at particular points in the army organization in relation to that particular organization and events.

For instance, the uncertainties experienced by Napoleon's Grande Armee at Austerlitz was not similar to or in the same amounts as suffered by the Allied armies. Different organizations. +1 modifiers etc. implicitly suggest that it is all the same thing, only more or less of it. It ain't.

You can try to stack the odds in your favour by following certain processes, such as making orders and moving a brigade by a regulating battalion, but even then it is uncertain to succeed.

So, where and how do you see those uncertainties appear? IF you are sure they do at the points you, or rather "Huzzah!" suggest, then what historical evidence gives you the idea that a +1 modifier would reasonably portray that evidence?

These little plastic guys that I have lovingly painted and based are rebellious, querulous and unruly. I have to cajole them forward to their deaths, or perhaps their glory. I need all the +1 modifier cajollery I can find and regulating battalions is just one.

Well, my point is that the regulating unit procedure wasn't some 'cajollery' or a little extra effort to avoid uncertainty, to be portrayed by a +1 modifier.

It was the fundamental method for moving any-size unit on the battlefield. To give a command +1 for using it is like giving an order sent by phone a +1 over signal flags. Two very different systems of communication, with different strengths and weaknesses. A +1 doesn't address any of those, nor portray the benefits of one over the other… let alone the uncertainties involved, even in a simplified form.

I don't believe "Huzzah!" captures how 'uncertainty' expressed itself on the battlefield with respect to orders or movement. My opinion.

Your plastic guys sound rather lively. My little lead guys seem less rebellious as brain-dead. They just stare at me resentfully when I roll badly. Creeps me out sometimes…

Best Regards,

Bill H.

Did no-one pick up on my play on words on the commanders' names??? sigh. philistines!

TMP link

The above is a mammoth discussion on Regulating we had some years back.

I'm too idle to go over all the ground covered and posts I made – Bills far more philanthropic – but he and others posted good stuff there too.

Did no-one pick up on my play on words on the commanders' names??? sigh. philistines!

Celtcraze:
Of course I did… but as both are real names of Napoleonic generals, I at least, didn't want to laugh where there was none intended. ;-7

You're kidding, they're real!!!???
I gotta read more.

Yes. When I actually saw Parvenu for the first time in an OOB, I couldn't believe it. I believe the poor sod shows up as a brigadier in the 1812 Grande Armee, IIRC. Merchant was a British family name. Go figure.

Then there is the British Cavalry officer 'Le Marchant'.

Le Marchant even has a barracks complex named after him in Devizes. Channel island family I believe, hence the French name.