"Deployment distance between opposing forces" Topic
22 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board Back to the ACW Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic American Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleThe Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.
|
Inkbiz | 14 Mar 2014 9:07 a.m. PST |
Hi Guys, Would anyone know, offhand, the typical distance at which opposing forces deployed? I'd assume artillery ranges factor into it rather strongly, but was there a relatively standard distance in a set-piece battle? I'm asking specifically with consideration to terrain scale, where a 2 yard/2 meter wide table would suffice to cover a true-to-scale deployment distance between opposing forces. Thank you, Bob |
MajorB | 14 Mar 2014 9:10 a.m. PST |
Basically you don't deploy within artillery range unless you have to. I'm asking specifically with consideration to terrain scale, where a 2 yard/2 meter wide table would suffice to cover a true-to-scale deployment distance between opposing forces. That of course would depend on your ground scale and level of game. |
Saber6 | 14 Mar 2014 9:33 a.m. PST |
I use "just out of Artillery Range" |
Inkbiz | 14 Mar 2014 9:52 a.m. PST |
Yes, I'm asking which ground scale (for example 1:500, 1:800, 1:1000, etc..?) would suffice for this to be able to fit a relatively true to scale terrain, at standard deployment distance, within a table roughly 6 feet / 2 meters wide? I should clarify specifically ground scale, without any consideration to figures whatsoever. Thank you, Bob |
Murphy | 14 Mar 2014 9:57 a.m. PST |
Depends what you mean by deployment and during what time of the war and geographic location?
There's a big difference between Fredricksburg (Maryes Heights), and Picketts charge, and "The Wilderness"
. |
uglyfatbloke | 14 Mar 2014 10:04 a.m. PST |
Alternatively you could adjust your figure scale and ranges to suit the size of your table. We use a table 20 foot long (or more) by six foot wide and have an 'effective range' of 3 foot for artillery and that seems to work pretty well. |
Extra Crispy | 14 Mar 2014 10:08 a.m. PST |
Some rough eyeball distances: Waterloo: The armies start roughly 3km apart. Needing to show maybe 5km depth on the table (ignoring a lot of rear area) you get a ground scale of 1:2500. And Waterloo is a pretty small battlefield. Gettysburg: The armies are much closer: about 1.5km But the battlefield is much deeper and wider. Talavera: The lines look to be 1 – 1.5km apart Borodino: Again, the lines look 1.5-2.0km apart. So based on this, you could get away with a very shallow battlefield of maybe 4 km or 1:2000 ground scale. This leaves little room for rear areas, essentially 6-9" for each army to deploy in an the table's edge, with the space in between being no-man's land. So that's 1mm=2m or 1"=50.8 meters? That's my best eye-ball guess. |
McLaddie | 14 Mar 2014 10:38 a.m. PST |
If you are asking about deployment distances [battle formations and deploying into line], the convention followed by Napoleonic generals was 1200 to 1500 yards from the enemy. These distances are mentioned in a number of regulations and treatises such as Vernon's 1805 text written for French officer training at the Polytechic. Generally, the rule was never to deploy within artillery range or view. |
Inkbiz | 14 Mar 2014 11:25 a.m. PST |
EC, McL, ahh thank you, I appreciate your help, that's what I was after. |
forwardmarchstudios | 14 Mar 2014 12:22 p.m. PST |
Inkbiz- I have an idea why you're asking about this, since you're also doing the micro scales. What project are you working on For myself, I'm using 60mm=110m for my Wagram, or 20mm= 36.6 meters. 110m is the frontage of a 500 man, three rank battalion in line, and it allows me to break the unit down into divisions for columns that'll have the correct frontage. Taking that out, 3'=1 mile, 6' =2 miles, etc. I think that it's probably easier to come up with a good looking basing and then work backwards from that to get a good looking ground scale. There's a lot of compromise involved. |
Art | 14 Mar 2014 12:52 p.m. PST |
G'Day Bob For the French; Bill is correct in regards to the first phase of a deployment laid out by Vernon. But you have to remember that l'ordre tactique for the French was the l'ordre perpendiculaire, also known as l'ordre francaise. This means that your wargame table should be large enough to have an entire Allied force deployed on it, with around a half mile on each flank. The object is to permit the French to manoeuvre, while the Allies counter that movement without using the table edges as a means of stopping the French. Best Regards Art |
Sparker | 14 Mar 2014 2:01 p.m. PST |
Of course if you are spatially challenged like my games tend to be (28mm gamer) you can start off within arty range but give the defending side a couple of free bombardment rounds at the start of the game, working out how many rounds at long range, medium range, and so on
|
nsolomon99 | 14 Mar 2014 3:50 p.m. PST |
Have to agree with Art. One of the reasons I have never taken the plunge with 28mm for this period and always stuck with 15mm is that I too like some manouver room and rules that allow you to do it. Without the room to manouver what are you simulating, a limited range of actions? Even in the age of Frederick the armies manouvered around each other before and even during the clash of linear lines – Leuthen, Rossbach, Kolin, Zorndorf, Lobositz, Torgau, etc. Go back to Marlborough and you find the same thing although less frequently. At Blenheim the British left and center essentially fought a pinning action while the allied Prince Eugene's Austrian & Imperial troops tried an outflanking manouver. Oudenarde was another meeting engagement battle of manouver. Yes, during the Napoleonic Wars there were many actions that were frontal assaults and can be simulated with a line-up-your-men-and-have-at-it approach, well suited to tournaments and points based armies but there were also plenty of battles of manouver and I feel your ground scale, figure scale, model battlefield and rules should at least allow for that. Fortunately, we're all built and wired differently and since this is a hobby we can try all sorts of things to find what aspects we enjoy the most. |
ratisbon | 14 Mar 2014 5:23 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, I entirely agree that 1200 yards, artillery long range was the typical deployment distance. Bob Coggins |
matthewgreen | 15 Mar 2014 9:46 a.m. PST |
Sometimes they started a lot closer. The idea was to deploy out of artillery range maybe, but you would also want to deploy your own artillery in range of the enemy. So you can envisage the pattern that one army would deploy around a geographical feature that offers some defensive advantage. The other side would move up artillery into a position to start bombarding them, with their infantry somewhere behind. It was common practice to open a ballet with a cannonade – which does strongly suggest that the artillery were close enough to fire at something! At Ligny the two sides seem to have deployed 500-1,000m apart before the fighting started. At Waterloo the French were allowed to deploy their grand battery un-harassed, and in range, and no doubt artillery support for the attack against Hougoumont too. |
1968billsfan | 15 Mar 2014 1:14 p.m. PST |
One thing not to ignore is that (as pointed out above) even with linear armies, there was a great deal of dancing around before engagement. If you consider almost any battle, there were many options that could have lead to the fighting happening on another place or tabletop, with only very minor differences in decisions and happenstance. At Gettysburg, a 1st day decision for the union cavalry not to stand, would have meant fighting at Pipe Creek. At Austerlitz, the allies actually thought that they were going to pursue the French. You can say the same about almost any battle, unless the fighting was fixed by some dominate terrain feature (a fort, a river, a mountain, fortifications). A second important point is that the historical generals almost never had the T.O. and deployment of both sides laid right out before them. Their own deployment was always restricted to assure for things out of their control, such as a turning motion, sudden retreat by the enemy, or suffering a flank attack. They did not have the luxury of knowing that a missing division could not be deployed on the other side of the basement wall, where the washing machine is. With that in mind I say that if we really want to nail our battle to the tabletop that we have prepared, there is no real reason NOT to start the game with at least some of the units in contact and actual battle. That is, lined up and shooting at each other without both sides going through approach marches and deployment from route formation to attack formation. Since the gamemaster has to keep the battle on the tabletop terrain he has set up, he has to force the opponents to come into contract at some point to "fix" or "pin" the battle in place. Either by restricting the setup, forcing orders on the opponents or making it impossible for one side to resist if they defer fighting on this field. One big advantage of this is that you get your game going right away, which helps get it to a conclusion in the time you have to game. Once some of the forces are pinned, you can then allow each side deploy based upon limited information of the opponent and go from there. Another method is to give the overall general of each side a map before the game to write their locations and actions on. (This map can be much bigger than the game table and you can fight on a portion of the map). Let people crash into each other and start in battle from there. |
KTravlos | 15 Mar 2014 2:16 p.m. PST |
My own view is forming to be 1) If I want operational and grand-tactical movement I go to board-games, or 6mm miniatures and smaller. This permits one to simulate the maneuver of the armies and indeed simulate some fog-of war elements well. 2) with 15 and 28mm miniatures the missions and scenarios should be simple. It is the point of contact that is simulated, when the brigade or division is about to launch the assault. This means that I am gravitating towards rules that above all do a good and fun job at giving you the ebb and flow of morale in the close fire-fight and assault. Come to think of it, it make sense to use a bigger battle itself as a "campaign" game for the table top 15-28mm tactical fights. |
McLaddie | 15 Mar 2014 6:53 p.m. PST |
Sometimes they started a lot closer. The idea was to deploy out of artillery range maybe, but you would also want to deploy your own artillery in range of the enemy. So you can envisage the pattern that one army would deploy around a geographical feature that offers some defensive advantage. The other side would move up artillery into a position to start bombarding them, with their infantry somewhere behind. matthewgreen: Well, yes. The answer only applies to 'deployment' distance, which means the distance at which troops would deploy into line [or at least into a battle line of columns at distance. Before that, outside of artillery range, or at least not under artillery fire, there could be a great deal of moving around. It was common practice to open a ballet with a cannonade – which does strongly suggest that the artillery were close enough to fire at something! At Ligny the two sides seem to have deployed 500-1,000m apart before the fighting started. At Waterloo the French were allowed to deploy their grand battery un-harassed, and in range, and no doubt artillery support for the attack against Hougoumont too. Artillery was another equation and as you point out, they would have to unlimber within range to be effective at all. Even so, it wasn't always clear where that was. On the morning of Borodino, the French guns opened up at 1600 yards and quickly decided that range was too far, and moved up 400+ yards. Bill KTravlos: We have put together a campaign lite system, where we take famous battles, wind the clock back 24 to 48 hours and play a mini-campaign [yes, hidden movement] to develop the tabletop battle. We can do this over the phone, email or in a half hour before setup. It gives context, different battlefields and battlefield situations without doing a full campaign. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 16 Mar 2014 2:46 a.m. PST |
Surely you`re thinking of 1812 Bill; operas were sometimes preceded by an overture, but a ballet by a cannonade? |
McLaddie | 16 Mar 2014 7:33 a.m. PST |
MC: The overture by the deaf composer wasn't actually a ballet, but for a cannon dance, it will do
|
ratisbon | 16 Mar 2014 8:56 a.m. PST |
matthewgreen, Thanks for the thought. Moving the artillery forward opens the battle. It is done after the army is deployed, else the guns could be attacked. Cheers, Bob Coggins |
Inkbiz | 18 Mar 2014 8:12 a.m. PST |
Excellent information and insights, all of the above, thank you. I've been considering trying to work on some 'true to scale' figures, for games that are somewhat larger in scope, but shoot that'd make them under a millimeter tall.. |
|