"Column v Line?" Topic

Ive just come back to Napoleonic wargaming after quite a long break. When I began looking for a good set of Napoleonic rules I was surprised that the vast majority had French column verses British line embedded in them. The only ones that didn't tended to have no national differences apart from the army lists. I remember back in the late 80's early 90's that Sir Charles Oman's theory on column verses line was proven to be completely false. Im surprised that not only most rules systems but also, Ive found, most forums seem to still use the column verses line theory.

Not sure about all the rule sets.

I don't think it was proved completely false. Just shown that it was never that simple.

I think there are a good three or four threads about this which would be very interesting for you to read. Far more learned men than me posted in them.

All good Napoleonic rule sets should factor in the differences between Column & Line, not just for movement but also musketry as well.

you should try looking at the late 90s rules, the ones written before everyone went all flintloque and over simplified things again.

Valmey to Waterloo is the one I would mention, but there are others.

(basically, these came out because of the research you mention, they were complicated to learn (but worth it once you did), which lasted for a good few years before there was a reaction again to the next step of have 'brigades' as units – and hence, no need for formation.

That was followed by a dead period in the mid 00s when no one really did much Napoleonics development (too hard, too many bricole arguments), and then a resurgence just now of overly simplfied beer and pretzel rules which is where we currently are and which are what you are mostly finding.

If you are wanting to see rules which assume french columns were mainly designed to manoever close to range before deploying into line and then fighting, then the late 90's is the stomping ground for those sort of rules.

(before that period of reasearch, of course, it was all +2 french in column, +3 british in line, -2 Spanish – a period of rules which is best left in the Nostalgia gaming bucket)

TelesticWarrior, i would have to disagree with your statement that all good rules should factor in column and line.
My rules (Orders to Eagles) is a grand tactical Napoleonic ruleset that puts the players in command of divisions. Rarely if ever would a division commander worry about column or line and would leave that determination up to the individual battalion commanders.
OtE (IMHO) is a good ruleset that doesn't micro manage the battalions. Instead it focuses on the more important tactics of the day which were combined arms and maneuver (get more troops to the objective before your opponent)

(see – too complicated, so guys started moving units up to brigades to avoid formation)

Kuski14,
You are right. My comment was not intended to cover grand tactical rules, but is just applicable to rules where Battalion sized units or similar are used.
I was just about to edit my original comment to clarify this, then I saw your reply so I'll leave it as is.

Just to complicate matters, my own home-made rules are also Grand tactical (Brigade sized units) but the Units are broken up into battallion sized bases that can form lines/Columns/squares etc. This is because I love grand tactical battles but I like to see Lines and Columns on my Napoleonic gaming tables.

Keraunos,
You are largely spot on with your comments, but we should remember that Grand tactical gaming is not just about avoiding complication and beer & Pretzels simplicity, but rather trying to create a game where the players can think BIG. Some people want to be like Napoleon and Charles at Wagram, rather than some smaller affair.
Commanders-in-Chief were not really concerned with Battalion level tactics during big battles, neither am I.

Just to complicate matters, my own home-made rules are also Grand tactical (Brigade sized units) but the Units are broken up into battallion sized bases that can form lines/Columns/squares etc.

This kind of goofy bathtubbing is one of the reasons why I've stuck with Napoleon's Battles for so long. I know that brigades didn't necessarily form line/column/square as a whole, but it's nice to pretend that my command figure has ordered a unit into a particular formation.

That kind of micromanagement wasn't unknown in period, but it can get tedious moving around every skirmisher in your army because you have to.

We've been playing a lot of NaW for over a year now. One thing I like about NaW is that you cannot do the standard trick of getting 2:1 advantage by pushing two columns into a line ( something common in many sets of rules ).
NaW doesn't even give any combat bonus for column vs line in close combat, the advantage of the column in the rules is only that it allows you more speed and maneuverability.

Also since the rules account for firefights if you have good troops it actually pays off to deploy into line and engage on firefights or be ready too do so if you fail to close…

NaW favors larger engagements, one division or more. For smaller games I've used General de Brigade and in those rules massed columns also suffer and good infantry in line engaging in firefights tend to show good results..

In both sets of rules that I've mentioned, when you have poor quality troops with poor fire discipline you might have to resort to artillery attack hoping to damage the defending line well enough so that the column will actually manage to close and not be stopped by defending fire.

Different authors might have different views but these two sets of rules do encourage good troops to prepare attacks in line rather than mindless forward charges in column. unless of course your troops are of inferior quality

Maybe one of those sets will match your point of view..

cheers
Francisco

I feel that unit formations are important in Napoleonic wargaming. Rules which represent a brigade with one base just do not give me the visual impact of a Napoleonic battle with units in a variety of formations. I do think that, if you lose that visual impact and complexity, you have lost a large part of what the Napoleonic era is about, at least in terms of what happened on the battlefield.

The difficulty is in representing various formations and their impacts while delivering a rules system which allows large battles to be fought; we do that by rationalising the combat mechanics.

kuski14,
I am afraid that these statements:

"get more troops to the objective before your opponent"

"Rarely if ever would a division commander worry about column or line and would leave that determination up to the individual battalion commanders."

have just put me off your rules. I cannot see how the former was a prime consideration in Napoleonic warfare, which was not about taking objectives, but about defeating the enemy army and breaking their will to fight. Taking objectives was only relevant if it helped in that.

The latter is patently untrue. Napoleonic divisional commanders very much cared about what formation their units were in. On occasions, even an Emperor got involved in such issues.

The latter is patently untrue. Napoleonic divisional commanders very much cared about what formation their units were in. On occasions, even an Emperor got involved in such issues.

This was sort of my earlier point. Army commanders were known to give orders directly to skirmish companies, but it was usually in very specific circumstances. A fun rules set will give you the feeling that you're able to do that, while not forcing you to play the role of all your brigade generals.

"Rarely if ever would a division commander worry about column or line and would leave that determination up to the individual battalion commanders."

Check out the arrival of Morand's division onto the field of battle at Auerstadt in 1806. This would be at least one example where the above statement is not correct.

Could someone please define what is meant by "Grand Tactical"? (I really want to know – I'm not trying to be snarky)

Could someone please define what is meant by "Grand Tactical"?

Basically, it's the level between "Tactical" and "Operational". In Napoleonics, I'd say that "Tactical" is battalions, "Grand Tactical" is brigades, "Operational" is divisions, and "Strategic" is corps.

This kind of goofy bathtubbing is one of the reasons why I've stuck with Napoleon's Battles for so long. I know that brigades didn't necessarily form line/column/square as a whole, but it's nice to pretend that my command figure has ordered a unit into a particular formation.

But why pretend when you can just as easily visually portray the lines & columns, and still have a grand tactical game? That way you get the magnificent visual effect of a Napoleonic battlefield that Pas de Charge is talking about, but also get to give orders like a Commander-in-Chief of a large army.

There are some Black Powder house rules available which deal with this problem very well.

But why pretend when you can just as easily visually portray the lines & columns, and still have a grand tactical game?

I'm not sure you've played Napoleon's Battles, then. You get the visual display, but it's brigades that are in the formation, rather than battalions.

If you're talking about battalions in formation, then that's not really a grand tactical game, and is usually slow as molasses in January.

"But why pretend …… to give orders like a Commander-in-Chief of a large army."

Time, space, number of players and figure numbers are a few factors! I saw the Aspern Essling game at Salute last year, superb stuff TW, but not a massive amount happened and there were at least 4-5 players per side.

Quite often with only two of us, using Napoleons Battles (But other such rules could be used) we have had a good day/weekend fighting Waterloo, Boridino, Aspern Essling etc.

If I want to see lots of skirmishers, lines and columns, ADCs riding around etc out come the 28mm and wqe play a slightly less ambitious battle/part of battle,

Tally Ho!

Battalions in formations can very easily be part of a grand tactical game; our little group does it, TelesticWarrior seems to do it, and many others manage to do it.

I do rather dislike "grand tactical" rules such as NB which treat brigades as if they were battalions when it comes to formations. It completely misinterprets the importance of both battalion and brigade formations.

As to the Aspern game at Salute, that was a demo game and the participants spent much of their time talking to the public, so it is hardly a good example. I have played large GdB games which went rather quickly.

The problem with NB is you essentially move a formation around much like a battalion but it gets called a brigade or large regiment.
I understand what they were trying to accomplish and it does play quick but if in line, column or a square as a single entity formation it looks and feels like a battalion in tactical level play!
Sorry… not a fan of NB

MG

DDon, you can see that you have opened up a whole can of worms here because most Napoleonic players can't agree on much. This will end up coming down to personal preference in what type of game you prefer and there are alot of choices out there. I would recommend going to your local game store or regional convention and trying several rulesets out.
Pas de Charge: generally speaking I was correct with my statement (A corp commander gives orders to a division, a division commander would give orders to his regts/brigades, brigades/regt commander would give orders to his battalions and the battalion commander would give orders to his companies. It is called the chain of command for a reason) In rare and extraordinary cirmcumstances would a higher level commander take charge of an individual battalion or company because at that point he loses command and control over the rest of his troops.
I understand that my rules may not be for everyone, but I do account for army/corp/division commanders getting into the battle like this – however I still don't micromanage the battalions as that slows the game down way too much for my liking and it is shown through combat and defense modifiers.

P De C,

indeed and I chatted quite a lot with them. However the sheer logistics of 2 of us playing a game at that scale over a day would be impossible. Just the time taken moving all those little skirmishers, all those individual bns, Coys, Sqns etc. Don't get me wrong I like the rules but they are not always suitable for what I want to achieve, mainly because we don't have enough players to play a big game.

With some abstraction, a few brews (warm and Cold) and natural breaks using Napoleons Battles a couple of us can and often do fight the Boridinos, Austerlitzs, etc over a day or a weekend. Any rule system that requires a lot of players will inevitably take time, years ago in germany we played Leipzig using NBs. Even then with about 10 players per side we did not get past 1 1/2 days!

Tally Ho!

The whole column vs line thing comes down to troops' ability to maneuver in these formations. Everyone knew lines allowed greater firepower, but it was much easier to maneuver in column. The French often would approach in column, then deploy into line when they got close (at least, they'd try to). Even the British would use columns to maneuver on the battlefield, but would deploy into line farther away from the enemy than the French because their commanders trusted them to be able to move in line.

This ability to maneuver in line is what rules should reflect at a tactical level, not that Army A was better at fighting in line than Army B.

kuski14,

No, this statement:

"Rarely if ever would a division commander worry about column or line and would leave that determination up to the individual battalion commanders."

is incorrect. There certainly was a chain of command but that did not negate the fact that division commanders had to care about formations. He may not take command of a battalion but that would not prevent him instructing those further down the food chain as to the formations that he expected them to use. More junior commanders would change formation in emergencies but the intended formations to be adopted were ordered from above.

Just so, and the chain of command did not prevent Massena from giving very clear instructions (including the way skirmishers were to be used) prior to the battle of Bussaco.

Surely the problem here for miniature games is insoluble? You either make the player responsible for every formation change or no formation changes, neither being accurate, and leave as a matter of taste which is more annoying.

Regards

Pas de charge,
Explain to me how a division commander writing orders to a brigade or battalion would take the time to state the obvious that they should go to line within 150 yds of the enemy (or sooner). Your logic doesn't make sense and unless the battalion was close enough to hear the division commander yell the order, it would be determined by the battalion commander when was appropriate to change formation. One of the few circumstances to this would be going to square as a division commander might be able to see a cavalry threat well before the battalion commander and could issue the order for them to go to square.
In everything I have researched and seen (through reinactments) a division commander focused on getting his battalions into the correct position to fight but didn't handle when a battalion would deploy skirmishers or go to line because they couldn't anticipate what the enemy was going to do. Yes there were circumstances where a division commander took charge at the front of the battle but this was generally more for morale than it was to point out how the battalion should be formed up.
We can agree to disagree on this one if you like but it is hard for me to want to slow down every battle I play to worry about micro-managing battalion formations (at the division command level) when it happend less than 10% of the time historically.

I have been working on this Whirlwind and I believe that regulation of commands and the units within them combined with limited local initiatives of subordinates in special circumstances is the solution.
Regards,
Mike.

@MCH,

All power to you for trying. For myself, it seems to be a logical impossibility – how can I order Reynier's Corps to attack and not as a player make any decisions about the formations that each unit is in, if each unit can be in column, line, square, skirmish order and the rest of it? However, best of luck to you!

Regards

Thanks for the best wishes!
I`m in the process of writing a solo module for my rules and these are about to be play tested by about 7-8 gamers soon.

For the non-player, once an order to attack is given, each battle array is diced for according army doctrine, circumstances, generals` abilities and character.

If, on the other hand, as a player you do not specify the method of attack, you can apply the same procedure to your own subordinate commanders` formations.

Mike.

kuski14,

You have moved a long way from your original statement:

"Rarely if ever would a division commander worry about column or line and would leave that determination up to the individual battalion commanders."

and I think that we are now talking somewhat at cross purposes.

I agree with you that a divisional commander usually did not run around changing the formations of individual units or ordering them to deploy or withdraw skirmishers (although sometimes he did); neither did he write orders to individual battalions ordering them to form line at 150 yards. Battalion commanders etc had limited initiative to change formation in emergencies or on encountering the enemy but the formations of battalions within the division up to that point were very much something that division commanders worried about.

What division commanders did was:

1. Use regulating units to set the pace, direction and formation of units inder his command.

2. Set the initial, and often intermediate, formations of his units by the use of written or verbal orders and the above-mentioned regulating units.

Look at some well-known examples:

1. The formation of three of d'Erlon's divisions at Waterloo. The column of divisions by battalions in line was decided upon at a very senior level, not by battalion, brigade or even divisional commanders.

2. The various British formations at Waterloo. Initially, most battalions started in columns; this was not a decision made by battalion commanders. Later, they deployed in 4 deep line; this was not a decision made by battalion commanders.

3.Morand's division at Auerstadt. The battalion formations were not decided upon by battalion, regiment or brigade commanders.

4. The famous French column at Albuera; again the battalion formations were decided upon at senior level.

There are many, many more examples which can be obtained from reading orders and reports.

This statement:

"In everything I have researched and seen (through reinactments) a division commander focused on getting his battalions into the correct position to fight…"

gave me a good laugh; firstly because reenactments only show us how reenactors behave and do things, not how people behaved and did things at the time and, secondly, because I have never seen or heard of a reeneactment that was big enough for a reenacting division commander to actually be in the situation of a real division commander.

I am sure that your rules are great; I wish you good luck with them and hope that they are a huge success.

We seem to have gone way off track here with discussing the merits of Tactical verses Grand tactical. I prefer Tactical so never tried Fire and Fury ACW until the Regimental version came out and I'm Interested in finding a Napoleonic set of rules as good and at the same level. The Idea of the French attacking in column hasn't gone away and attack columns are mentioned in the post before this one (Spanish linear or not). Even a number Grand tactical rules have provision for attacking in column and give some magical mystical bonus for managing to get into melee in that formation.

nickinsomerset,

I agree that it would be ridiculous for two of you to try to fight Aspern with GdB in a sensible timescale. However, I would rather fight that sort of battle with GdB and a lot of players than fight it using NB with two players.

Why? Well, for the following reasons:

1. Having lots of players creates something approaching a chain of command with all of the friction and problems that involves.

2. I dislike the way that NB results in brigades forming lines, columns and squares as if they were battalions. For me, the abstraction and inaccuracy is just too great.

However, we have to cut our coat according to our cloth and, if NB works for what you need, then that can only be a good thing.

Dave,
The idea of the French attacking in columns hasn`t gone away, this is true. This is just as well, because there was perhaps something of an over-reaction to the Oman Maida thing! I think that as a result of this many people drew the conclusion that the French always intended to deploy, but I don`t believe this was so.
Many times the French did not intend to deploy, but rather set out to assault in columns believing that their opponents would not stand.
The fire was to be largely carried out by close artillery support and skirmishers.
It`s true that early in the war, (around 1803-5), theoreticians and military men in authority might have believed that deployment close to the enemy line was possible… but maybe this was only possible against an enemy line that was already half beaten?

I tend to agree with MCH that often, and particularly in later years, the French did intend to complete their attacks in column in the belief (hope?) that the enemy would be so shaken by the artillery and skirmisher fire that they would break before contact.

Also, the less well trained armies of the later years may well have restricted their ability to form line from column under fire.

Yes… not only a lack of training did this, but the French also thought very seriously about allied cavalry superiority and so, rather than line, in general their tendency was to adopt columns and squares as the habitual order.
Mike.

Mike,

Indeed; I forgot to add that part:(.

There was plenty of evidence revealed in the Iberia campaign that the French had to advance up terrible terrain and to do was by column. They intended to or actually began to form line to deal with the opposition but by the clever British tactic, it surprised them!
There is also information of the French attack of the Austrian force as they approached capital of Austria in 1805 campaign. The Austrians advanced in column and the French in line. The result- the columns were crushed. If you consider the situation the Austrian battalion commanders, NCOs, and troops were probably very nervous attacking in column and since they new this was against their doctrine, experience (which dictated to form line) and common sense. It was there ultimate demise and they out number the French! Hmmm… sounds like typical and poor micro managing of a CO! I deal with it every day at work!!!
So "pas de Charge"'s comments have merit that can't be dismissed!

my 2 cents
MG

Also, the less well trained armies of the later years may well have restricted their ability to form line from column under fire.

This is born out by Marmont's amazement with the regiments of Artillerie de la Marine, when he found they could maneuver in line.

FYI! Cheers,

link

Chris

It really all comes down to preference in gaming how one wants to represent this. In my particular rules I do not micro manage battalions and a bad combat roll (or good one by the opponent) can represent the battalion not being in the correct formation for an attack.
I want to play and not fiddle with skirmishers or many formations.
IMHO Napoleonic battles are won and lost on the commanders ability to successfully use combined arms as well as maneuver on the battlefield (not necessarily what formation 1 battalion of 60 happens to be in)
I can appreciate those that want to play smaller engagements or smaller pieces of larger battles. For those, when the player is playing a battalion commander I definately see the need to worry about formations, but not when players are division commanders or higher. Just my two cents.

A man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them – James Madison

"I want to play and not fiddle with skirmishers or many formations."

Some, possibly many, of us see that "fiddling", especially with formations, as being at the core of Napoleonic wargaming. If you "round up" the rules to a point where the features that made Napoleonic warfare what it was are subsumed into a dice roll, then what makes it a different game (apart from more fiddly details like ranges) from, for example, the Crimean War, the 1st Carlist War, the war of 1859, or that of 1866?

As I have pointed out to you, division commanders (and higher) DID worry about formations; if your players are division commanders, they need to be worrying about formations.

One of the best games I played was in Germany. Waterloo in 15mm. Dusty Millers rules, 15mm 1:20 each company etc represented, 3 tables each about 6 x 20. We fiddled with skirmishers etc, had a good game and all the command and control problems P de C mentions were there. About 10 per side, with Napoleon and Wellington commanding from a desk without a godlike helicopter view of the table. It took a weekend to play what we did and the 4 Prussians (Wilf and the gang – all German!) did not even get to deploy!

Great time had by all, Port and Red wine to start the game and only one proper scrap! The one problem was size, number of players, figures and time. Over the years I have played Waterloo and variations quite a few times with 1-2 players per side, in a day, day and 1/2. Again great games with plenty of red wine and sometimes a kebab supper!

It is nice to see a Dvision all deployed, some Bns in line, skirmishers out forwards, reserve Bns in column (or line) ready to reinforce/exploit, reserve division behind, Bns in column ready to reinforce/exploit, perhaps one Brigade deployed to refuse a flank. But then when I see a NB Div deployed in line it represents exactly the same thing, the forward Bns have formed line skirmishers out forwards, reserve Bns in column (or line) ready to reinforce/exploit, reserve division behind, Bns in column ready to reinforce/exploit, perhaps one Brigade deployed to refuse a flank.

It is all about abstraction, once a mate put a number of my 4 fig bases together, made an impressive looking line of 36 figures and said that it looked like a proper Bn should. No it looked like a platoon!!

Tally Ho!

It comes down to tactical vs Grand tactical and ground scale. I play GT games at company level…. yes, huge games, lots of figures and lots of players with orders and they have to develop their lines from btns…

I am so sick of GT games that are so poorly scaled to ground scale… the frontage of a unit really has a very important part to play in a game, especially the movement to get them where you need them. Lines are long and thin, columns are about 1/3 shorter and more dense (closed column) and the only thing that is "square" is a formation in square and then they are suppose dot be a diamond, not square… Using a "square" base to represent anything in Napoleonics is retarded. It is so disproportionate to what space is really occupied by said troops.

Saying there should be no modifier for firing between a column and line is crazy talk, clearly the line has the advantage. Where the column has the advantage is in the ensuing melee… should it survive… which it usually does but with heavy casualties.

Pas, I understand that you and many other gamers want that in a Napoleonic ruleset, and that is fine. But that is not what I want (or many others for that matter).
Also forming line, column, and square was not what made Napoleonics battles what they were. It was the use of combined arms (Artillery, Cavalary, and Infantry)
In fact more casualties were inflicted by disease and artillery then the firing of muskets in line(as they didn't really aim)
You say that if I abstract formations that I might as well be playing later wars…. I have to disagree because those do not really involve cavalry (whole combined arms thing again). The Napoleonic wars were the last time that Cavalry really had a place on the battlefield that was effective, this was mainly due to improvements made to firearms. My rules are balanced and portray (In my opion) the biggest napoleonic feature of combined arms.
Also until you actually play my rules I would request that you not judge them. Every game I have run (for my club or at a convention) the players tell me how much the game "felt" like a Napoloenic battle. Do the rules you use allow for Division squares (as they were used by Davout at Auerstadt or by Napoleon at the Pyrimids) Or are you limited to battalion squares?
It really doesn't matter though. Napoleonic gamers all have a differing viewpoint on many things and tend to stand firm to their beliefs not seeing the forrest for the trees (which is why alot of people shy away from the period – they don't want to deal with rules lawers and history fanatics)
Again I will say that we will agree to disagree and you will continue playing your type of game and I will continue playing mine.

"Also until you actually play my rules I would request that you not judge them."

- I have not at any point judged your rules.

"Napoleonic gamers all have a differing viewpoint on many things and tend to stand firm to their beliefs not seeing the forrest for the trees"

- and some cut down the trees and only then notice that the forest has gone too.

When abstracting formations removes detail on how those formations actually operated, which is something that had a huge impact on how Napoleonic battles were lost and won, then yes, you might as well be playing something from the Crimea or 1859 for example. I am not saying that forming line, column and square is what made Napoleonic battles what they were, nor am I saying that musketry was the biggest killer; I am saying that it was the interplay of those formations, their advantages, disadvantages etc that made Napoleonic warfare what it was. Combined arms have been a key part of warfare before and since and are not unique to the Napoleonic period.

A division commander would not be worrying very much about combined arms operations as he would generally have only one arm (plus possibly a battery of artillery) at his disposal. Combined arms were the purvue of corps or army commanders.

Yes, our rules do allow divisional squares. I am not quite sure why that is relevant.

Hello ddon1234!

First of all welcome back to a wonderful period of wargaming.

As you can see there is and probably always will be a lot of players who strongly feel that the column vs line is at the very foundation of Napoleonic warfare. However, ever since Oman's theory (if not before) was brought into question a lot has changed in the world of Napoleonic wargaming.

An entirely new breed of gaming has surfaced. The most common one is the one that simply avoids this debate all together and says that it's simply low level tactics and is not really important in large battles. The commanders at that level are more often then not in the proper formations for the situation at hand. It avoids the constant and unhistorical formation dance that plagues most rule sets.

Another one argues that sometimes columns or lines worked and sometimes they did not. There is also a lot of missing evidence in some cases that confirms exactly which formations units were in. You also have to face the unknown that if they had been in different formations, would the outcome have been any different? So how can you build a solid rule matrix on such a slippery slope?

To further complicate this issue is the rise of support for cohesion as being the key to success or failure of units, not formations.

So as you can see things have clearly changed since you have been gone and the column vs line is no longer the Napoleonic panacea it once was.

Best regards,

Glenn

"A division commander would not be worrying …… Combined arms were the purvue of corps or army commanders." Which is where I feel NBs is focused, not so much the lower levels of command, more the Army and Corps Commanders looking at the whole battle picture and ensuring that Army Reserves etc are in the right place at the right time.

Tally Ho!

nickinsomerset,

One can do that with any set of rules; it is not a unique feature of NB.

You don't need to see battalion formations on table to be able to use combined arms in a Napoleonic game.
Having battalions on the table dooms you to playing corps level actions or below; to play army level games you really need to operate at a higher level, but some Napoleonic gamers seem unable to tear themselves away from column, line and square.
It's not true that a grand tactical Napoleonic game is like Crimean War – if it is, there is something badly wrong with your rules, and they are not modelling higher command levels properly.