"Batailles de l'Ancien Régime 1740-1763 on 7' x 5' Table" Topic

What approx troop scale would you recommend for BAR on a 7' x 5' table?

Ideally I'd like to be able to employ the 'Rule of Fours':

Each army:
3 brigades –
2 brigades of 4 infantry battalions, 1 brigade of 4 cavalry regiments (or battle groups – see below). Plus a battalion of light infantry and a couple of artillery pieces.

>At 1:20 a battalion of 28 infantry in 2 ranks has a frontage of 21cm (1.5cm per figure).

>At 1:30 a battalion of 20 infantry in 2 ranks has a frontage of 15cm.

>At 1:25 a cavalry regiment could be grouped in 6 figure squadrons, each with a frontage of 14cm, arranged in column. Large regiments of 5-6 squadrons could be divided into 2 battle groups, keeping the overall unit sizes down. 2-3 squadron 'units' would then be the norm.

>At 1:30 the cavalry squadrons could be 5 figures each instead.

I prefer the look of 1:20, but I'm concerned that the 7' x 5' table may not be my friend (even with slightly tighter infantry base frontages). :)

Any BAR experts out there with some experience in this? Perhaps the author? – "Hi Bill!"

Cheers
Paul

Hi Paul,
Use Quick Reference Charts Version #2.
The latest revisions are dated January 2013 available for $6.00 USD including postage here:
oldregimerules.com
-----
Three AARS of a fun 1:20 game with 24 figure battalions, based in multiples two ranks deep are here:

link

link

link

We used Version #1 of the QRs. I don't recommend same for a 7x5. Use Version #2 instead.

Best wishes and good luck,
Bill

Thanks Bill.

Just purchased the rules + an extra set of QR Sheets for my adversary to use. I really like the 'War Game' sound of the system.

Looks like infantry was at around 1:20 for that game you linked to, and cavalry was virtually doubled at approx 1:38 which equates to 4 figures per squadron. Each cav unit was effectively then a 'regiment'.

I'll give it a try!

Cheers
Paul

If 28-30 infantry figures at 1:20 = an 'average' 600 men battalion, then another option might be to leave the cavalry at 1:20 (or 1:19 I think) and deploy them in 8 figure squadrons. These would then be divided into 2 battle groups: 2 groups of 16 figures each for 4-squadron (600 men) regiments; or 1 group of 24 figures (3 squadrons) and 1 group of 16 figures (2 squadrons) for 5-squadron (750 men) regiments. 2-squadron units would count as 'average' sized; 3-squadron units as 'large'. 1 squadron would be 'small'. Would that work for BAR?

BTW is there an unwritten rule that cavalry units should not be deployed in 3 ranks if infantry units are only in 2 ranks? ie 3-deep cavalry units are usually only used in games where infantry are based 3-deep.

?

Cheers
Paul

I am assuming that you are using 15mm figures or smaller on a 7x5 table, is that correct? I think that your 3 brigades with 4 units per brigade should work just fine. You could divided the cavalry brigade of 4 units into two wings of 2 units each, one on each flank of the army.

You can deploy your cavalry in 3 ranks even if the infantry are deployed in 2 ranks. We just played the 1:20 game that way because that is how my 1:20 cavalry are based. At 1:20 and 1:30 I would probably use cavalry as regiments rather than dividing them into the smaller squadrons. You can use squadrons, of course, but for practical purposes, you will find that you want to throw the whole cavalry regiment into the melee rather than weaken its effect by attacking with only squadrons.

I tend to use 600 men as a generic size for infantry battalions and cavalry regiments. So you could size your units off 600 in 1:10, 1:20 or 1:30.

You can still use 3 rank deep cavalry and infantry if you wish. Visually, I find that a minimum of 24 figures "looks right" for units in 3 ranks. There is no rule that says that both infantry and cavalry have to be in 3 ranks. That is up to you.

Hi

Actually I'm using 28mm. That's the challenge on a 7' x 5'. Alas my games room is tiny, like our house! Trust me – I've achieved a miracle getting a table 7' x 5' to fit. :)

Re your thoughts on 'whole regiment vs weakening their effect with squadrons', yes I'm finding this to be the case already, even just visually. Your comments on 3-deep being OK may provide a solution for me; I'll experiment with it – but I now realise that the 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 regiment unit will be hard to beat. :)

Now that you know I'm using 28mm, does that alter your thoughts re unit sizes? ie 20 figure vs 28 figure battalions; and similarly 6 figure squadrons vs 8 for cavalry . . . ? My 28 figure battalions are still only 21cm wide and 4cm deep – so they're not huge, but maybe the 20 figure battalions at 15cm frontage might be wiser.

Decisions, decisions!

Thanks for your thoughts. Excellent ideas there. Love your blog too – I keep going back there for more info and inspiration.

Cheers
Paul

Well, I think that the main thing is to place just the right number of troops on your table so that you still have some flanks and maneuver room. So I'd make your frontage per figure as tight as you can make it to get the maximum number of figures into each battalion. Also, the three rank formation is your best friend in terms of using more figures per unit.

A 28 figure battalion is only 9 figure frontage and the 28th figure could be an officer or file closer positioned behind the battalion. Peter Young did this in his Charge games as did Charles Grant Sr. You could even have a 30 figure infantry battalion 9 x 3 ranks and then place an officer, drummer and NCO positioned behind the battalion.

I'd definitely go with three ranks cavalry. Your cavalry regiment should have about the same number of figures as an infantry battalion. Maybe have three squadrons of 9 figures = 27 troopers plus three supernumeraries hanging around the flanks or rear = 30 figures per cav regiment. Or have two 12 or 15 figure squadrons in a regiment.

More great ideas – thanks!

As a compromise, going in a slightly different direction…

I've just experimented with an 'average' battalion at 1:30 with 20 figures at 18.75cm frontage (each base of 4 men in 2 ranks = 3.75cm square). Looks the right shape (linear); not too blocky. Then I've done cavalry in squadrons of 3 figures (approx 7cm frontage) arranged in groups of 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 squadrons – 1 to 3 ranks deep as desired. Again, looks right compared with that 'average' infantry battalion above.

I take your point re 3-rank formations being my friend (and am now adopting this with cavalry where it's useful) but my issue with 3 ranks for infantry is at the lower scales like 1:30, where you end up with something that instead of looking nice and linear ends up resembling a shape closer to a fat rectangle. This has more of an assault column look to it than the typical appearance of mid-18thC battalions (to my knowledge). So I'm trying to avoid that 3rd infantry rank at the moment.

Thanks for your insight; it's extremely useful. :)

Cheers
Paul

I will try to post some pictures tonight, either here or on my blog depicting how battalions look at various sizes with 3 rank lines. I will use my Napoleonic 1806 Prussians since they are on 20mm squares compared to the 25mm squares that I use for my SYW armies.

Thanks. That will be interesting to see. :)

At the moment, I'm almost settled on a basing system that both looks good and allows enough room to maneuver on the smaller table.

Average infantry battalion of 20 figures at 1:30 in 2 ranks, 4 per base, 3.5cm square. Battalion: 17.5cm frontage. (I found that basing them on 3cm frontage per pair looked too compacted for small units of 20 but had worked well for larger ones of 28-30.)

Cavalry at 1:40 (or 1:50) in 2-3 ranks, depending on 'average' or 'large' units. Based in squadrons of 3 figures each, on a base 8cm wide x 5cm deep. Regiment: 16cm frontage. For simplicity, 'average' units are 12 figures, and 'large' 18.

If you can tear me away from that, you'll be doing well. ;)

Cheers
Paul