"200m/400m/600m- Sufficient to show a brigade?" Topic

Hi all,

I'm talking about frontage here as regards a brigade through the Napoleonic era. For Grand Tactical games the brigade is generally considered the primary basic maneuver element. Often times these are represented by single bases (in FPGA or VnB) or else in larger units in AoE. With my 3mm figs I use 20mm x 10mm bases, and I think I can represent a brigade with three such bases which represent 200m, 400m and 600m respectively, depending how the bases are set out.

Let's also say that a buffer zone might be allowed for terrain and restrictions on how exactly the brigade can be flanked (a la FPGA). With some national allowances and allowances for year, would a 200m/400m/600m option on brigade frontage not be satisfactory for covering MOST situations?

Any feedback appreciated!

Remember seeing a French Division deployed at Austerlitz. Don't know which one, but it's frontage was 800 meters.

So I guess 400m is a good frontage for a brigade.

Whatever size we choose is going to be "wrong" in the sense that we can find examples of units and battles in which deployment didn't "fit." Of course, this is also true of games that use multiple bases for a unit, since the base depth is often so badly distorted by the aesthetic requirements of a deep gun or horse model, or just wanting to have two ranks of infantry figures because they look good.

There are so many Napoleonic battles that simply can't be done with existing basing systems, that we have to just shrug and deal with it. Have you ever seen a game that allows the French player to stuff a dozen battalions into the Chateau of Hougomont? Have you ever seen a basing system that allows infantry units to sprawl out like they did at Salamanca, yet also pack-in like they did at Aspern-Essling? Have you ever seen a game that could reflect the miles-long snake of an army corps arriving on the battlefield in columns of march? And let's not even get started on the representation of artillery in the battles of 1812-13. ("Welcome to Sergei's Artillery Dealership… You're in luck, we have a sale on Licornes this weekend only!")

We just don't have the right tools for the job. To get it "right" we'd need figures on flexi-bases that can expand and contract in all sorts of ways, and then we'd need to be able to "stack" them to represent the interpenetration and intermixing of units, as commanders "feed in" fresh troops to an existing fight.

For large scale games, I'm fond of single-base units because it simplifies a lot of things and allows people to make good-looking dioramas. But I'll be the first to admit that it's wrong as often as it's right.

-

PS – A couple of years ago I walked the Aspern-Essling battlefield and realized: "Hm, this may look really small and packed on a map, but I can easily see how one could stuff 60,000 men in this space and still have plenty of room to move." It made me realize just how much empty space our miniatures bases "represent."

Good thought, I was involved in re-enacting for 20 years, big massive events from the 125 and 130 anniversary event especially. It. Truly is amazing how much space you need to deploy 10k muskets but from the air, it looks like strips of string. Something goes awry and all that spring into a killing zone in a VERY small area, bloody lane, Sunken road, garners nest etc. post ancient warfare is pretty fluid.

Strings , should read

Good lord, Ok. Strings wad up, wad up, not ball

For the Napoleonic wars, there were norms. A battalion in line was the basic combat formation, and whether in column or line, the frontage needed for a 600 man unit remained around 150 meters with intervals. A four battalion brigade would be 600 meters, half that with a supported line.

Aspern-Essling had a little over a two mile front for 67,000 French troops, where French brigades formed lines. At Borodino, 130,000 fought on a three mile front. There was no point in crowding troops together if they couldn't form a combat formation. At Austerlitz, a very spread-out battle [6-8 miles of front for 70,000 troops] the frontage brigades held was still the same.

Depending on what numbers you want your brigade stands to represent, 1-3 battalions, you could have stands with 300-400 meter frontages. IF you can have the stand 1/3 as deep as wide, then you can represent the depths that columns and multiple lines would take up if stands are touching, one behind the other.

Look at any battle and the frontages that brigades held could be wider, but they were very rarely narrower unless they were caught in column and unable to deploy. And be sure to differentiate between columns in approach or in waiting to the battle line frontage. For instance, At Aspern-Essling, there were a lot of troops behind the battle line in tight columns, but the battline always saw @600 men per 150 meters at any one time.

I think that if you want to really accurately simulate this kind of stuff, then you are going to need to use a medium other than a toy soldier game. Toy soldier games only work for this 'up to a point'.

Regards

Hello FMS!

Short answer is no.

Just looking at a French infantry brigade, most years contained 6 battalions. In line that would be over 800 meters wide. Sometimes there were even more battalions in a brigade. Cavalry brigades can be another complication.

I think you need to either adjust your scale or add more bases.

In 6mm we use roughly a basic frontage of 60mm equals 150 yards or one infantry battalion of 500 men or cavalry regiment of 250 men in line. We simply use those numbers to establish how many bases should be in a historic brigade. This then allows us to configure the brigade in any way we want, and still obtain reasonable frontages. So your individual blocks must represent something other then just frontages.

I'm amazed at the number of times that I've discovered that a brigade was in a single line, with it's units in line. So unless your able to come close to this frontage you will always come up short in your portrayal of brigades.

Best regards,

Glenn

Hi all,

Well, I'm using 3mm figs on these 20mm x 10mm bases for my 10:1 battalion level 1809 forces primarily. I've managed to get the frontage/depth issue largely under control for that project with minimum fudges. In my basing system for that level of game play a French battalion will be 60mm in frontage and an Austrian battalion 120mm in frontage, or 110m and 220m respectively. These numbers come from average OOB strengths (often from the divisions) across battalions where there isn't better info. This allows me to show all the tactical granularity I need while keeping the game looking good and massive (I've got about 7000 figs painted now, with more than 14,000 to go, give or take). I can also represent not only guns but the artillery trains as well at the correct depths. It's going to cover 30' across the Northern edge of the battlefield and probably about 20' on the Western side. I'll be using terrain mats for this.

So that's the primary goal of my basing, but I've also been trying to use the Ferraris maps for different things, including brigade level games (since I have so many bases already!). Using the computer program Split Print I can print out large color maps with super-fine tactical details to the exact scale I need by using google maps to measure the terrain as it is today and then applying that to the Ferraris maps. I can scale the maps so that my 20mm x 10mm bases cover 50m, 100m, 200m, 300m, etc. At 300m the map becomes a bit confused so I'd prefer to use 200m and a variable, abstracted brigade base. For that matter though I could just as easily scale the map up large enough so that I can use the same basing as my Wagram project. But what I was speaking about in my OP was an attempt to find a way to capture the abstracted quality of a brigade level game while retaining some of the tactical variability of the brigade maneuver elements.

And actually, since Sam is reading this I can reveal that what I'm really trying to do here is modify FPGA to allow for variable sized brigades to be used so that I can utlize the Ferraris maps in a coherent way. The main question I'm struggling with is how the different brigade formations should effect the combat values of the brigades?

I think that if you want to really accurately simulate this kind of stuff, then you are going to need to use a medium other than a toy soldier game. Toy soldier games only work for this 'up to a point'.

Whirlwind:

ALL simulations, regardless of topic, complexity or medium are 'up to a point.' It is simply what points you want to simulate.
Regards

Bill

FMS, If you only want to represent deployed brigades then maybe thos can be done but you refer to the "primary basic maneuver element".

If you want to consider the evolutions of a brigade (division or corps and so on) then you may need other bases to represent other configurations. I consider that a formation can be in one of four "modes", road column, assembly (collecting the formation from the march or waiting in reserve), tactical movement "column" and deployed. The "line of battle" section of the 1791 regs shows how a division of 12 battalions can move forward in a narrow column and deploy to line of battle.

D'Erlon's Corps at Waterloo deployed in Divisional Columns by Battalion lines, the front of each Column being a Bn in a 3 deep line of about 500-600 blokes. This took up about 100meteres, and there were 200 gaps between the columns. Figure 3 or 4 such columns for the entire Corps…

Pretty much a unique formation, on a particularly crowded battlefield, but probably as large as you'll ever see in Napoleonic terms. So an entire Corps deployed accross 1,000 metres, or 1 kilometre. Now thats dense!

But perfectly achievable even with 28mm figures if you figure each line of 32-36 figures is a foot wide…

The real mess is the artillery, its limbers and assorted forges, baggage, kit and caboodle – best not to go there!

Its still the same today BTW – the 3rd Commando Brigade is probably the leanest lightest formation anywhere in the world, and its fighting echlon can pass over a single choke point in less than an hour – but the B echlon will take days!

MtM-

I meant deployed brigades in the OP. With my 10:1 set-up I can show any formation I need to with minimal fudges. As it is with those figs I have *solved* all the problems in representation that I need to in my battalion level game. All I need to do now is finish painting the figs, do the terrain and come up with a ruleset, then transport it to HCON…

With the brigade level stuff I'm playing around trying to come up with new ways to do things. Using the Ferraris maps is part of that, as is using multi-based brigades. It's occured to me also just to have each base represent a battalion- there's no reason not to do this I suppose, if one takes the idea that battalions and brigades always depoyed with sufficient space to break out into line… but of course we know that this was simply not the case. Every battle as filled with exceptions and even unique attempts… the massive French "column" at Wagram was one such event that comes to mind. How can you represent that attack with brigades as the basic movement elements on the table? I'm trying to come up with a way to represent that with as few models/bases as possible. Of course it'd be easy at 10:1… and in fact has to be because when I get around to running a convention game i'd want it to be a special "event" during the game, if only to show off how it looks on the table top. Doing that and a lot of other things with brigades is the tricky part though. The real genius of FPGA (I think) is the 6" rule, which makes the eventual final combat result the function of potentially several turns of fighting over an unknown (to the players that is) depth of contested space. I'd like to keep that element of abstraction while adding some more concrete tactical elements back in.

Since you're using 20mm bases, and I'm assuming movement trays or sabots to move groups of bases, try this:

# men in brigade / 600 = # "average" battalions
(don't worry, we're just going for deployment space)

at 1" = 100 yards ground scale, 2x 20mm base = 1 av. bn.
(adjust as needed)

Round up so that you get an even number of bases.
Divide the bases into two movement trays or sabots.

Now you have a pretty good approximation of the brigade frontage at scale, and the ability to easily deploy the line in single or double line, which is going to cover the vast majority of cases. You can always take the stands off the sabots to show road column if you need to.

Cheers,

Christopher

By the way, this is another area where I think Sam is overly pessimistic about our wargaming options … ;)

Using multiple smaller bases and movement trays can represent a very wide variety of deployment options for brigade sized units. The more usual options are easy, and the more unusual ones just require a bit of fiddling with the individual bases, but it's worth it for the flexibility.

C

In general, it is far easier to represent varying unit footprints with units composed of multiple elements than single big bases. Just group them in particular ways, spread them out, jumble them up or whatever.

I would suggest though that in games with 1 base = 1 regiment/brigade, that the bases are being used to show the deployment of divisions/corps and that breaking those brigades down into sub elements just clutters the table with more stuff to move.

Whatever level of representation you choose, I have often found that four sub elements gives lots of flexibility in representing both footprint and formation – march column, attack column, supported line, extended line etc

It will always be an abstraction to a certain extent, and one problem with conventional ruler based games is that wargamers tend to bunch their units up far too much and don't leave the intervals between them to allow for the introduction of reserves etc. Using a grid to regulate movement and combat avoids some of these issues, but obviously introduces some other ones.

" one problem with conventional ruler based games is that wargamers tend to bunch their units up far too much and don't leave the intervals between them to allow for the introduction of reserves etc."

The point I was trying to convey about walking the Aspern-Essling battlefield was that any map or war-game table shows that space absolutely packed with units. In any scale game, you'll have a real problem packing all those figures in there, and they'll be so tight together that it will be impossible to move much.

Consider Bill Gray's Dresden scenario for "Age of Eagles." Look at the Allied center in particular.

There are a lot of units in that picture who can't move more than an inch or two, until other units start dying and make room for them.

Our eyes look at that mess and we think "parking lot." But most gamers seem to want to correct the problem by forcing intervals between game units to make it look better, which only exacerbates the problem, since it moves you even farther away from being able to represent the correct number of historical units in any given space.

What I'm saying is: our miniatures bases are so badly out of scale, that we really CAN leave them packed together, and in fact it's more "correct" than spacing them out. That's because the scale of our units is so badly wrong in any given case, that we're really representing mostly thin air.

When I walked the battlefield I immediately realized that there was in fact plenty of space for 60,000 men and indeed even more if needed. But you'd never know it, from looking at a "correctly" scaled wargame of the battle.

-

The problem of visual representation isn't as serious as the problem of rules limitations. Since we can't "stack" bases of miniatures, we really don't have any way of "bringing up reserves" in a game.

How are you going to feed fresh troops into an existing fight in a miniatures game? You have to first move away the battered unit somehow in order to make physical space on the table, and then move the fresh unit through its position to replace it, somehow all in one turn with nobody ending up sitting on anybody else.

Look at that Dresden scenario again: in some places the French line is four units thick. How will French units in that second line get "fed into" into the action? In most wargames the only way is: when units in the first line die, and make space for them.

One last thought; getting away from attempts at literal scale representation is probably the only way to go. Using area-based systems or something like that. I've beaten my head against it for years and never come up with a system that I liked. (In my experience, people tend not to like area movement, as it makes it hard to conceptualize things like units' relative positions, facing, artillery ranges, and so on.)

A few years ago I tried to create a really abstract system in which "units" represented only "committed units" that were engaged with the enemy, and most of your other forces were invisible or represented with a small marker (usually a single small base of that unit type).

The committed units were nothing more than indicators of where the fighting was happening, so they could expand or contract as needed, like an accordion. Behind them you placed the markers to represent which historical units were fighting in that place. The status of those units was indicated by using the four sides of the marker bases. As the component units in that sector of the field grew worn out, or ran out of ammo, etc, you rotated their markers to show it.

Thus if you brought up reserves, you've committed those reserves to that sector of the field. That's it; those units are stuck in. If you commit the Guard, you do so in some existing part of the field, and you add the Guard's fresh marker to that line of troops, and so on.

It was probably the most "historically realistic" game I've ever done, in terms of really representing the sorts of movement and decisions that an army commander would have had. "Stacking" was no longer a problem. Space and movement and scale were no longer problems. I patted myself on the back and told myself how brilliant I was.

People hated it. It was just too weird and abstract. And there was no joy whatsoever to be had in painting up specific historical units, only to be told that the figures on the table could represent any unit. It just wasn't the kind of experience that people wanted when they play with their figures.

The Traveling Turk wrote:

Our eyes look at that mess and we think "parking lot." But most gamers seem to want to correct the problem by forcing intervals between game units to make it look better, which only exacerbates the problem, since it moves you even farther away from being able to represent the correct number of historical units in any given space.

TTT:

I think there are far too many issues being handled as a bag of tangled snakes instead of laying each out in a straight line.

You are dealing with

1.'How it looks' not only on a scenario map, but on the table. That is the visual impression.
2. Considering battles that were 'parking lots' like Dresden, Aspern-Essling and Borodino.
3. What areas and troops the stands represent, which are more footprints of multiple formations rather than a single solid mass… though that is how the figures are often based.
4. The mechanics--or in your examples--the lack of mechanics for lines replacing lines and interpenatrating.
Game rules make such changing of places far more problematic than it actually was. If troops couldn't move forward and back in such ways, battles like Dresden would have been more like crowds leaving a soccer arena than a battle.

What I'm saying is: our miniatures bases are so badly out of scale, that we really CAN leave them packed together, and in fact it's more "correct" than spacing them out.

Depending on the game, the bases can be badly out of scale. And yes, having them visually packed together on a table is more correct, depending on the area and formations represented by the base.
IF that is something people find visually displeasing, that is an issue of personal taste.
IF players find they can't move units back and forth because they are so tightly packed, it could be unrealistic expectations of the players, it could be that the rules fail to provide for the actual ability of units to move in close proximity, and
IF players find their troops too cramped to move, it could be the historical situation.

That's because the scale of our units is so badly wrong in any given case, that we're really representing mostly thin air.

Visually, perhaps. If you mean by thin air, that the actual bodies versus empty ground, then yes, most brigade and larger games do have that visual disconnect, particularly when figures are cramped on to a base. Here is an example of attempting to visually represent this with 5mm figures at 100:1 scale. Brigades being one stand:

But any number of gamers might not 'like' that style, even though on the table, units don't 'look' as crammed together.
Of course, 54mm figures on the same sized base for the same game rules will look crammed together:

When I walked the battlefield I immediately realized that there was in fact plenty of space for 60,000 men and indeed even more if needed. But you'd never know it, from looking at a "correctly" scaled wargame of the battle.

Is that a problem with representation, the rules, or the fact that stands simply aren't modeled to 'look' like the actual formations?

Each of those are individually attainable, and if solved separately, then reasonable compromises that are closer to what you are holding out as 'correct' could be achieved. Treating it as a single bag of snakes doesn't, even if in the end those snakes have to be put back into the bag.

The problem of visual representation isn't as serious as the problem of rules limitations. Since we can't "stack" bases of miniatures, we really don't have any way of "bringing up reserves" in a game.

Provide an example of needing to 'stack' bases, and perhaps we can look at rules visa vie visual representation. Whether gamers will 'like' any solutions, such as the ones you tried is another issue altogether.

How are you going to feed fresh troops into an existing fight in a miniatures game? You have to first move away the battered unit somehow in order to make physical space on the table, and then move the fresh unit through its position to replace it, somehow all in one turn with nobody ending up sitting on anybody else.

Is that a physical game problem, or one of how military men made it happen? Players move stands around all the time. Why is replacing one line of troops with another seen a such a problem? [Assuming of course, that each line of troops, fresh and battered, were occupying table space in the first place…]

Look at that Dresden scenario again: in some places the French line is four units thick. How will French units in that second line get "fed into" into the action? In most wargames the only way is: when units in the first line die, and make space for them.

So how most wargames do it are wrong. So what else is new? That is strictly a game mechanics problem. First, you have to ask how the real commanders did such movement, if at all. Then ask how many ways that can be represented by the game mechanics and choose one. Whether gamers will 'like' is, is again, another question altogether.

"Provide an example of needing to 'stack' bases…"

Every horse-n-musket game that you've ever played, as you surely know.

We're limited by things like "Turns" and "Movement Allowances," and by the simple fact that we have bases that can't move on their own, but rather each one must be picked up – one at a time – and measured, and moved and put down, before you can move another one.

Therefore, in order to move unit A into any position that is even partially occupied by unit B, you first have to move B out of the way. How do you do that, when there's not enough space for B to get out of A's way? Either because of interpenetration rules, or the fact that B's movement allowance won't take it far enough in this "turn" to get out of the way to make room for A, or for a host of other common reasons.

In a real battle, A would move move up into and/or through B, or would be able to move at the same time that B was moving, and so on. A and B might be intermixed for a while, or might not, but there is no "turn" or "movement allowance" to tell the real units where they have to end up at the end of their "move." Nor would their "bases" need a fixed amount of space, because real units don't have "bases" and can flex in ways that miniatures can't.

-

Take the Dresden example above. Pick any Allied unit somewhere in the middle of the allied position. How would you get it into the fight with the French, without moving three or four others out of the way first? And since games almost always make retrograde movement more difficult and slow than forward movement… how will you get those front-line units out of the way in order to bring up that reserve unit?

Take, for example… let's say one of Liechtenstein's infantry units near Rachwitz. I can't see any open space anywhere near it, in any direction, for nearly two feet.

How will you move that unit out of the way, to make room for some other allied unit to come up in support of it?

Yet that is what real units did in real battles.

--

Or take the massive allied artillery reserve in the center. How on earth are any of those guns going to get into action? Presumably at least some of them DID get into action, but where?

In a real battle they could have been "in" the infantry or cavalry units – something that is impossible in a miniatures game because we can't stack them.

Hi Sam, thanks for dropping by again and sharing your thoughts on the topic.

I've recently had the idea of using command bases on the table top that would "shoot" out infantry and cavalry units very similar to what you just mentioned above, although your idea is more advanced in development than my own is, plus a bit more radical. My idea was that figs could then be placed on sabot bases that would represent the local battlefield. Such a system would be tricky, especially when artillery is factored into the mix.

My solution to the issues you mentioned on parking lots has a mechanical elegance to it- I simply shrunk the units down until I could maneuver them and show all kinds of interpenetration. The Austrian division mass was an issue but one that has been rectified. The battalion mass I'll just have to show by removing five of the Austrian companies from the table top.

I'll tell you what- I almost have 6,000 figs, which would represent the 60,000 men at Aspern-Essling. As soon as I get them all based up (only 2k are based up at the moment) I'll try to set the figs up as required and see what it looks like. At my scale 2 miles is 6 feet across so putting 6000 figs into that space shouldn't be too much of an issue. It'll be a fun experiment to see if my scale math has worked out.

BTW, do you have anything written up for that abstracted game? I'd be interested in seeing the nuts and bolts of it, that is, if it ever got that point.

" I simply shrunk the units down until I could maneuver them and show all kinds of interpenetration. The Austrian division mass was an issue but one that has been rectified. The battalion mass I'll just have to show by removing five of the Austrian companies from the table top."

Yeah, I tried that too. The idea was that the unit is really only its command base. It could "sprout" up to three other bases, depending upon what formation it was in. And when it changes formation, bases can appear and disappear.

Conceptually it was OK, but it failed on a couple of reasons. For one thing, it was very easy for players to Cheez. I had to write all sorts of rules for relative position and distance and the sanctity of the command base, to prevent players from using it to move units all over the place by formation changes, as a way of avoiding combats or slipping around between enemy units, etc.

But the fundamental problem was that nobody wanted to paint 24 figures, but use only six of them. The system required people to have potentially four times as many bases as they'd need at any given moment. That was commercially unfeasible.

I'll see what I can find of these old Rules, and if I find them I'll let you know. (You have to imagine how massive and extensive my "Failed Game Ideas Cabinet" is….)

I play tactical/skirmish, so my views here are completely uninformed by any actual knowledge. That said, this discussion is really fascinating. Can I ask some questions, please ?

Is part of the problem that use of 1 base = 1 brigade?
It strikes me that (i) a "brigade" was a rather fluid-size of unit and (ii) it was not really a basic tactical element, but rather composed of battalions that could and did take on different formations, and (iii) could take up quite a variable amount of space (as Sam discusses)

Battalions, on the other hand, did really have about 4 standard formations (column on peloton/platoon frontage, column on division or 2-platoon frontage, deployed in line, and open order or skirmish), were of roughly the same size, and were indeed a basic tactical element.

Even the 4 formations, especially toward the end of the wars, usually would be reduced to 3 for actual fighting (the column on peloton frontage being really more for maneuver before combat).

I could then think that if you had 1 base = 1 battalion (but with fewer figures), each battalion modeled in column on 2-platoon frontage, you could:
- add a marker to each side to show the battalion deployed
- assume any movement X inches from the enemy is faster, representing some maneuver column(s)
- abstract skirmishing however you already do it for large scale games
- have some trays or similar, if needed, to make the physical act of moving the brigade easier on the table
- your tray can be sized or you can use space markers used to show larger or smaller intervals between the battalions
- have some leader ratings or command/control rules to limit how much and how effectively a brigade changes the arrangement and formations of its battalions or change trays

Using 1 base (with fewer figures) = 1 battalion, I would think you will get a much better correlation between space on the table vs. how the units really occupied space in real life. So, what do I not understand? What am I missing?

Thanks in advance,
- Sasha

Sasha-

You have several excellent ideas there. The 1 base= 1 battalion frontage idea is a good one, definitely. I think if a rule set is going to down that route then its best to have some set formation rules as well, just to cut down on the clutter on the table top. The tricky part is getting it all to make sense on a map like I'm trying to do. I have some advantage based on the models I'm using- when I use 10:1 figure ratio they are like models, when I use 20:1 they are like game pieces. Part of the tricky thing in my case is that I'm trying to use the Ferraris maps as a playing surface, which means that I have to find a way to create a dialogue between the abstracted brigades and the actual terrain they're supposed to be fighting over. This is tricky and most model wargames, especially at the brigade level, simply don't have enough terrain on the table top to be quite realistic, and this lack of verisimiltude then trickles through the entire game design(s). To see what I mean take a look at any ACW battle as opposed to a Napoleonic model battle and then try to fit a brigade-based game system into it. They don't make sense- with chits and a map you can do it but with models its very, very difficult (unless you go huge like in a convention game, which is what I'm doing for Wagram. Those are special situations though.)

I'll have to sit down with a camera and get some pictures of a game played out on a Ferraris map and post it on here. I haven't done a full out game with them yet, only a few turns, and I think doing a full game would be illustrative.

The Traveling Turk wrote:

We're limited by things like "Turns" and "Movement Allowances," and by the simple fact that we have bases that can't move on their own, but rather each one must be picked up – one at a time – and measured, and moved and put down, before you can move another one.

TTT:
We are only limited by them if we decide we are. After all, they are our game mechanics, nothing more. Turns and Movement Allowances are simply conventions used to represent something else. That ‘something', as you have already suggested, can be represented by other things, some 'acceptable' to gamers, some not.

Therefore, in order to move unit A into any position that is even partially occupied by unit B, you first have to move B out of the way. How do you do that, when there's not enough space for B to get out of A's way? Either because of interpenetration rules, or the fact that B's movement allowance won't take it far enough in this "turn" to get out of the way to make room for A, or for a host of other common reasons.

So the question is how to manage that on a crowded table with the type of rules that exist at the moment?

In representing anything in a wargame or simulation, if one ‘interpretation' of the target dynamics isn't working, you go back and take another look at what is being represented, as forwardmarchstudios is doing. I think the problem here is being locked into the hobby ‘group' or ‘game think' on the matter… In this case the idea that ‘interpenetration' is a movement and turn issue. For instance, Age of Eagles has no penalty other than a cost of 3" of movement each time one unit interpenetrated or passes through another unit. But of course, that doesn't solve the problem you detail.

In a real battle, A would move move up into and/or through B, or would be able to move at the same time that B was moving, and so on. A and B might be intermixed for a while, or might not, but there is no "turn" or "movement allowance" to tell the real units where they have to end up at the end of their "move." Nor would their "bases" need a fixed amount of space, because real units don't have "bases" and can flex in ways that miniatures can't.

Here I think is another example of that game think, what game mechanics do or don't represent. Always a problem when they are never explained adequately.

There were all sorts of formation and march rules that told ‘real units' where they had to end up at the end of their move, and even how many steps and the time it would require to do it. And they had a needed and required amount of space to do it in. While real units could ‘flex', spread out and shrink. where our bases don't, the bases still represent real restrictions faced by real units in moving.

Napoleonic military men may have found such ‘flexing' at times necessary, but assiduously avoided it in all but the most extreme cases simply because of the confusion it caused. It would be like asking a marching band to significantly change the routine they'd practiced for weeks right before the half-time show by forcing them to do it in a smaller space or with a different band formation.

So, lets look at your example. I think we can agree that physically, the tabletop units are going to be in one of three places, at least notionally, behind, intermixed or in front of other units, in a scenario like Dresden.

"how to manage that on a crowded table with the type of rules that exist at the moment?"

Of course. We are limited by the realities of things that actually exist. And limited by the simple physics of an inflexible object like a base of figures, taking up a certain amount of space. Or limited by the fact that we can only move (i.e., lift, measure and put down) one such unit at a time.

" I think we can agree that physically, the tabletop units are going to be in one of three places, at least notionally, behind, intermixed or in front of other units."

No, they can't be left intermixed. That's called "stacking." (I'm going to assume that you wouldn't take too kindly to my leaving a Cuirassier regiment sitting on top of your infantry figures…)

That leaves behind or in front, as I said in the first place: Unit A can't move up in support of B, unless B can be moved out of the way first (which pretty much moots the whole concept of "moving up in support.")

You asked me to demonstrate an example of why stacking would be necessary. I gave you a few examples. You did not dispute the basic limitations and physics of games as they currently exist. You gave only vague indications that it could be done some other way:

"We are only limited by them if we decide we are…. That ‘something', as you have already suggested, can be represented by other things, some 'acceptable' to gamers, some not."

Since publishers are required to operate within the limits of reality, and publish things that people will want to buy and will enjoy, they unfortunately do not have the luxury of creating games that people don't accept.

That said, I would be very interested to hear about how you have decided not to be limited by the basic physical requirements of space and motion and inflexible objects.

Please share with us how, exactly, that works on the tabletop. I am always open to radical suggestions for game mechanics.

No, they can't be left intermixed. That's called "stacking." (I'm going to assume that you wouldn't take too kindly to my leaving a Cuirassier regiment sitting on top of your infantry figures…)

That leaves behind or in front, as I said in the first place: Unit A can't move up in support of B, unless B can be moved out of the way first (which pretty much moots the whole concept of "moving up in support.")

TTT:
Okay. First of, I assume [perhaps incorrectly] that the cavalry was someplace on the table taking up space. Second, I assume that you are speaking of either the cavalry in line or in column, and the infantry in line or in column.

You asked me to demonstrate an example of why stacking would be necessary. I gave you a few examples. You did not dispute the basic limitations and physics of games as they currently exist. You gave only vague indications that it could be done some other way:

And I appreciated the example, but you are mixing the snakes again. I was responding to your statement that we have to deal with turns and movement. Game mechanics. I wasn't referring to the physical space issue with that comment. Like your command stand idea, a designer conceives of game mechanics and then deals with the physical problems imposed by the needed game markers or vice versa, but few have ever been successful in treating them as one issue. The physical pieces are, in the end, simply game pieces serving the game system. They could just as well be cardboard or pieces of paper. Oh, wait, sometimes they are….

Since publishers are required to operate within the limits of reality, and publish things that people will want to buy and will enjoy, they unfortunately do not have the luxury of creating games that people don't accept.

Okay, now you are adding a third snake. So are you frustrated by the game mechanics, the physical limitations of the table and playing pieces, or simply that many innovative solutions such as your command stand which didn't work or weren't acceptable to
gamers?

I can respond to the first two. Whether a majority or none at all will 'like' your or my solutions to the game problem isn't something you apparently feel designers have any control over, so I don't see how that is anything but an insurmountable limit on solutions. Perhaps it is, but again, that is imposed from outside, not some inherent limitation found in wargame mechanics or physical needs of the game.

That said, I would be very interested to hear about how you have decided not to be limited by the basic physical requirements of space and motion and inflexible objects.
Please share with us how, exactly, that works on the tabletop. I am always open to radical suggestions for game mechanics.

I'm glad. You seem to be frustrated by the physical and gamer responses to the radical solutions you've attempted. "The idea was that the unit is really only its command base. It could "sprout" up to three other bases, depending upon what formation it was in….But the fundamental problem was that nobody wanted to paint 24 figures, but use only six of them. The system required people to have potentially four times as many bases as they'd need at any given moment. That was commercially unfeasible."

From your description, I am assuming that players, depending on the formations and frontages, chose how many stands were on the table. There are a number of miniature games that have interchangable stands of units.

In any case, I'm glad you're still interested. I certainly wasn't finished. As I said:

So, lets look at your example. I think we can agree that physically, the tabletop units are going to be in one of three places, at least notionally, behind, intermixed or in front of other units, in a scenario like Dresden.

TTT:
Before posting what I had already written, lets deal with your cuirassiers and infantry.
Without the specifics, what I assume is the issue something in this neighborhood:
Either:

1.The cavalry unit is moving up from behind. There may be several units in the way or in column together, or simply one, probably in line…If it was one unit in column, would it be as much of a problem? In any case, the movement leaves it occupying the same space as the infantry. If that cavalry unit has enough movement to get to the unit, but not move through it as planned. That is one issue.

2. If the cavalry unit is meant to end its move in an area that there isn't enough room because of infantry stands already there, that is another. Did the unit sit in among them in reality?

Whether those are the issues you were thinking of in providing the Dresden map, you'll have to let me know. The latter doesn't seem to be an issue with the placement of units because on the AOE Dresden map, the unit designations are basically scaled to the table and are pretty much occupying the areas the original units did at the beginning of the battle. Any serious crowding was done behind the lines far from the front because there was no advantage to crowd together on the battle line. Something I think you mention in reference to the lack of depth of the table

So, I am assuming that the physical interpenetration of moving units and exchange of lines are the issues.

The frontages of stands, particularly in column are not necessarily close to the front an actual column would occupy until you get into the brigade scale of AOE where an inch is over one hundred yards. Then it is much closer to the general area a group of battalions would occupy. [I'll get to that…]

The Traveling Turk wrote:

Take the Dresden example above. Pick any Allied unit somewhere in the middle of the allied position. How would you get it into the fight with the French, without moving three or four others out of the way first? And since games almost always make retrograde movement more difficult and slow than forward movement… how will you get those front-line units out of the way in order to bring up that reserve unit?

Take, for example… let's say one of Liechtenstein's infantry units near Rachwitz. I can't see any open space anywhere near it, in any direction, for nearly two feet. How will you move that unit out of the way, to make room for some other allied unit to come up in support of it?

Yet that is what real units did in real battles.

TTT:
So the questions are:
How did the real units do it?
How much time did it take?
How can we represent those factors on the table top?
How is that done physically with our ‘inflexible' stands?

Well, the nice thing about wargames is that they represent real battle, so the question "How would you get it into the fight with the French, without moving three or four others out of the way first?" is the same question the actual French commanders had to ask and answer to have purposely placed units in those positions, even considering the lack of flexibility with game bases and the lost, unusable space between large bases as seen in even the Dresden map above.

So, without dumping a whole lot of examples here,
How did real units do it?
1. Within 1500 yards of the enemy, armies spread out and either deployed, or established deployment distances between units. Beyond that 1500 yards, they remained in columns, at times closely packed and/or in road column.

2.Within 1500 yards of the enemy, real units did such exchanges and interpenetrates easily enough and far more often than wargame rules would make you believe. Take a worst case scenario: Two brigades in line and two behind them. The units behind are not from the same nation, nor have the four brigades ever worked together. They are under fire from two dozen cannon at about 800 yards and less than 100 yards from a larger force of enemy infantry. The front line has taken extensive casualties. Yet at Albuera, the Spanish and British exchange lines without a hitch. So, realistically exchanging lines, which was the same process for one unit passing through another, units can do it pretty simply.

How much time did it take?
To exchange lines between a front regiment or brigade of infantry in line and one in column or line behind, even if cavalry would take less than five minutes, ten at most.

How can we represent those factors on the table top? And How is that done physically with our ‘inflexible' stands?
Representing this depends on the rules system and what mechanic you want to focus on. For the sake of argument, let's say that a planned exchange of lines isn't treated as a movement, but rather a formation change—which is how real units treated it, if we are to accept the organization of the drill manuals and treatises, as well as eyewitnesses. For instance, from what I understand, in Longstreet a unit can move OR change formation. So, if the two units are placed one behind the other at the start of movement, they can change places [which should be fairly easy physically] in most any situation but switch the position of the stands.

Or, if we need to have exchanges and interpenetration as part of movement, then a unit, like any change of formation, is either before the change starts, in the middle of the change at the end of movement, or past it. In this case both units would be expending movement points to exchange lines, just one if passing through. If they don't have enough movement points to fully exchange lines, then they are considered intermixed… I think we can think of ways to show that on the table without needing to use ‘more space' than the original two units did. We simply have the two sets of stands intermixed.

If attacked in that situation, they are considered disordered. [As happened to the French V Corps that attempted it at Albuera.] If it is a matter of a column of infantry passing through another in line [little problem with columns passing columns…] or in the case of Dresden, passing through several lines of infantry. Then a single stand is moved aside in line [behind the line next to the penetrating column or if there isn't enough room, set aside as a reminder and replaced once the column has fully passed through] and the column placed through the various lines. Of course, if the lines are assaulted, there will be a penalty such as disorder. That is the real danger of any formation change… getting hit while in the middle of the change. There is also the option of markers, like those that many games use for disorder, breakthroughs, ammo depletion etc. Those are just examples. There are other ways to do this of course. .

Your cuirassier example could be handled the same way. In most cases of cavalry passing through infantry, it was done either as Marchant's brigade did at Salamanca through an infantry brigade at several intevals where companies folded behind the line, or elsewhere, as one long column through one gap. In either case, the cavalry unit would have to make the choice of which to do and in either case, it would take time to do, either with movement points or a formation change.

Behind the lines with all those overly thick columns are basically beyond close observation of the enemy. They could easily be represented by one narrow stand for the head of the column until they come within range to be identified as a particular amount of infantry or cavalry etc.… which is about a mile or hey, 1500 yards. [Perhaps just the command stand for the brigade or division… ] You could pack those stands together if you want. It would also add a little ‘fog of war.' But gamers may want to just run them at the enemy without spreading out or deploying like Ney's corps at Friedland, but they should experience the same results. Again, the narrow stands could represent those narrow company-wide or less columns without having to place all the actual stands on the table. That could work with Dresden. The depth of the table would allow that for a good number of the units shown. Again, just one of many ideas.

Or take the massive allied artillery reserve in the center. How on earth are any of those guns going to get into action? Presumably at least some of them DID get into action, but where? In a real battle they could have been "in" the infantry or cavalry units – something that is impossible in a miniatures game because we can't stack them.

In the real battle, they weren't all deployed forward together, but moved up in separate batteries. [there's a big surprise…] Some were held in reserve to stick in the holes that the French did create… If the guns are going into action, whether they are dispersed among infantry units, or all together in a battery, they will take up similar room on the front line, depending on what actual artillery frontage is represented by the base. The artillery can interpenetrate much like the infantry column did. Here too, there were actual rules for spacing and how artillery operated with infantry. For instance, Tousard goes into some detail as to how that is done.

Then again, if the scale is large enough, the supporting line formation can be assumed to exchange when needed without the units actually moving anything unless separate units. Divisions didn't exchange lines all at once, but rather it was something regiments and brigades did.

Making the stands more flexible is another option, though some will be frustrated with the fiddly feel of it. That means for a game like Age of Eagles I might have twice as many stands representing a brigade as the game provides for. Bruce Weigle's 187o's set of games provides for this kind of approach. I represent infantry all on ‘linear stands in Volley & Bayonet, massed stands being a formation change for two linear stands who then move together. This allows the brigade to occupy a 300 yard front or 600 yard front.

However, these are just some of the ways the issue could be ‘handled.' I still may not have addressed your issue, but am willing to continue in the attempt.

"I think we can think of ways to show that on the table without needing to use ‘more space' than the original two units did. We simply have the two sets of stands intermixed."

But two sets of stands require the same amount of space, whether they're separated in two units, or mixed. How would you show that Unit A has left – i.e., made empty – its initial position, and come up into the position of Unit B? In order to do that, you still need as much space as you did before, because you still have the same number and size of bases to put… somewhere.

And you seem to be assuming that they were next to each other in the first place, or have room to be. That's not necessarily the case. What if Unit A needs to move through a bit of Unit C, in order to support Unit B. There are a lot of examples of that in the Dresden illustration above. It might be the case that some corner of C means that we don't quite have enough game table space to move A into support with B, despite the fact that it wouldn't have had that problem in real life (since either unit could have compressed its frontage in a way that a wargame base can't.)

Then, of course, there are a billion practical issues when you intermix two units and leave them that way:

- If I shoot at one of them, what's its range and facing? Am I measuring from the edge of "its" nearest base, or the nearest base of the other unit mixed in with it?

- Do formations exist when units mix like this? Can a unit in one formation mix with a unit in another, and if so, then what is the formation if somebody shoots at or charges this mixed unit-thingy?

- Can a third unit move through them? Can a third unit join them? How many units can glom like this?

- Does the combat resolution system take into account the defender having more than one unit type in a temproary "single unit" like this? (For example, A is a cavalry unit and B is an infantry unit. If I charge them… what kind of unit am I attacking?)

Rules like that might be possible, but they wouldn't be clean, clear, or easy to write or learn.

It reminds me a bit of the kid who built the working Lego model airplane. God only knows why, but he managed to make it fly. I suppose that proved that one could use even the most improbable materials to do the job… but I suspect it won't be catching on.

But two sets of stands require the same amount of space,
Whether they're separated in two units, or mixed. How would you show that Unit A has left – i.e., made empty – its initial position, and come up into the position of Unit B? In order to do that, you still need as much space as you did before, because you still have the same number and size of bases to put… somewhere…And you seem to be assuming that they were next to each other in the first place, or have room to be.

TTT:
I may be visualizing this incorrectly. I appreciate the attendant clarification. [A real problem in discussing such things.]

It might be the case that some corner of C means that we don't quite have enough game table space to move A into support with B, despite the fact that it wouldn't have had that problem in real life (since either unit could have compressed its frontage in a way that a wargame base can't.)

What makes you think that it wasn't a 'problem', particularly when there was such an effort to avoid those kind of partial interpretations?

I think there may be some assumptions here that aren't completely true to Napoleonic warfare. I will see if I can't address each of your questions/situations as history, as game mechanics and also as a physical issue.

Bill,
Checked your private messages recently?

TTT, thanks for the ideas and experience you are bringing in. The point you make on 21st inst. at 8:28 is interesting.

Yeah, I tried that too. The idea was that the unit is really only its command base. It could "sprout" up to three other bases, depending upon what formation it was in. And when it changes formation, bases can appear and disappear.
….
But the fundamental problem was that nobody wanted to paint 24 figures, but use only six of them. The system required people to have potentially four times as many bases as they'd need at any given moment. That was commercially unfeasible.

This could be looked at in a different way. Now I wargame 6mm and like depth to the field of battle so reserves and grand tactics become of interest. Reserves (especially cavalry) can compact into closed column of troop and take up little space compared to when deployed or even moving as open columns. Figure bases however are flawed before you start as cavalry figures are disproportionately deep. I think it would be a challenge to fit Wellington's cavalry at Waterloo into the historic space.

Why not use Core bases for reserves and remove bases as they compact ("stack" if you prefer). This means you can have the deployed units and figures deployed in the front line as the reserves are represented by compact bases. You can bring more figures to the fight if you do this. As units are eliminated from the front line fighting then these become available for use again as they are deployed from reserve. Most line infantry can be exchanged, it is just the odd cavalry and guard and guard unit that may have to have its figures left off the table. Anothe way of looking at this is to be considering the reserve units as "blinds" but looking better than any strip of card.

A further thought about "sprouting" units from a core. Consider the core to be the head of column "right in front" unless specified otherwise so there can only be a simple deployment from deep reserve column into line of battle to the left.

I suppose you could allow any point in the core to be the regulating element where the rules expect this level of player knowledge.

Michael C.

How is it going…as I mentioned previously…there are only three ways for a Division to form Brigades:

1) disposition de la Division par Brigade avec chaque Brigade en ligne. – one Brigade in front and one Brigade behind.

2) disposition de la Division par Brigade accolees – two Brigades side by side and each Brigade able to break apart

3) disposition de la Division par Brigade accolees – two Brigades side by side but the Brigades are unable to break apart, such as when a Divison is en lignes deployes and colonnes serres, or MacDonald at Wagram.

The first category there is no need to have the lead Brigade actually produce figures or stands to represent the reserve…since the following Brigade is the reserve.

In the Second and third category both brigades have a second battle line that is their reserve. Therefore the second and third categories need more depth for their stands.

The passage of lines with infantry should not be an issue to model…

An infantry Brigade executing a passage of lines through a mass battery will require the artillery to hold their fire.

A Brigade level wargame design should have cavalry Brigades only passing through the intervals of two infantry brigades.

Categories one and two also apply to a single Brigade.

Best Regards
Art

G'Day Ralph,

If I understand you correctly; you state that all the divisions in D'Erlon's Corps at Waterloo were formed in Divisional Columns by Battalion lines.

Actually the Divisions were not formed identically. As an example; in the 1er Division, each regiment was formed en colonne par battalion, in Brigade columns. Which gives the 1er Division an extremely small frontage.

We have two memoirs that validate this…Candler of the 28e and an officer from the 92e who observed the assault.

I am not certain how you gents form a colonne d'attaque par bataillon, colonne par bataillon, and colonne par regiment at Brigade level…but I have been working on ways to model these formations at a scale of 1:60.

Of course I would love to use a colonne d'aile in a wargame…but unless you use hidden movement…it has no value on the tabletop…

Best Regard
Art

Bill,
Checked your private messages recently?

Mike:
Private messages? Uh, I have private mess…. Oh, those. Obviously not. Mea Culpa.

This could be looked at in a different way. Now I wargame 6mm and like depth to the field of battle so reserves and grand tactics become of interest. Reserves (especially cavalry) can compact into closed column of troop and take up little space compared to when deployed or even moving as open columns. Figure bases however are flawed before you start as cavalry figures are disproportionately deep. I think it would be a challenge to fit Wellington's cavalry at Waterloo into the historic space.

Yes, in forming those tight columns, like a board game, chits or cardboard counters could be placed under cavalry stands to indicate that one stand represents several. When the cavalry unit shakes out, it can then place the other stands on the table. The same method could be used to represent that unit in a long road column, which chits/stands representing the unit's length.

And of course, the stand left could well be a marker for whether the infantry or cavalry unit was formed on the left or right.

Oh, and at Waterloo, the British cavalry wasn't crowded together in tight columns, but the cavalry units were stacked in some depth so that cavalry had room to deploy before attacking.

Fine thanks Art…

I see that you have addressed TTT`s concerns from the higher organisational level; the division.

There should be little question of what individual units are doing within "brigade bases" – this pre-occupation about battalion activity is maybe partly a hang-up from rules of the past, that encouraged players to micromanage their battalions and regiments.

OK Bill, a reply sent btw.

TTT wrote:

But two sets of stands require the same amount of space, whether they're separated in two units, or mixed. How would you show that Unit A has left – i.e., made empty – its initial position, and come up into the position of Unit B? In order to do that, you still need as much space as you did before, because you still have the same number and size of bases to put… somewhere.

TTT:
Fun challenges, to be sure. There are several things that have to come into play [excuse the pun] to make this a physical issue:

1. The movement has to leave the two units in the same place or Unit B is already surrounded by other units, AND any exchange of lines or pass through is being treated as a movement issue rather than a formation change.
2. The stands are probably square or deeper than they are wide [front] such as AOE. If they are half as deep as wide, the two sets of stands can be mixed on edge facing each other ABABAB and so forth to represent units intermixed little increase in space used.

So, only way I see this situation being an issue is when there isn't enough space behind or in front of unit B and not enough movement to get A past B and into a clear area. Again, there are three basic ways of handling this, with lots of variations.
1. You don't allow it if the unit doesn't have enough movement, like crossing a stream, B. And you don't allow it to pass through more than one other unit per movement phase ir it doesn't have the movement to clear both. I can't think of a situation where a player with three units stacked behind each other ABC would want to move unit A through unit B to replace Unit C on the battle line… And I can't think of a historical example either.
2. Unit A isn't moved, but a marker is placed on or about Unit B to indicate their intermixing. Unit A could also simply be taken off the table if other movement issues are also involved in preparation to moving it later, or
3. Or allow any unit that has started a pass through to complete it, as long as it had enough movement to start it, regardless of the actual distances. This might be seen as a was to game movement, but on the other hand, units move so unrealistically slow in most games, it really shouldn't be a serious issue.

This situation should only be an issue behind the lines. In the Dresden example, units in the front of the armies are in supported lines, with columns behind them represent units in waiting. They aren't going to crowd in to the front lines, regardless of the cramped space or narrow front. Look at any battlefield, 1792 to 1815 and check to see how much front is given to 6 to 8 battalions in any army. Depending on the size of the battalions, it is always going to be about 1 km. That's because units have to have enough distance to fight. You realized this with your Grande Armee rules, so that shouldn't be an issue. It is the close columns in the rear, further than 1500 yards that are the issue, or less than a foot in AOE. As each brigade's area includes the minimum 100 to 200 yards that a line and supporting line would have between them, there is no reason why a group of units ABC, each set of stands touching, that Unit A couldn't physically switch places with Unit C, and not only be within the realm of the historical, but within the AOE rules as they stand now.

And you seem to be assuming that they were next to each other in the first place, or have room to be. That's not necessarily the case. What if Unit A needs to move through a bit of Unit C, in order to support Unit B. There are a lot of examples of that in the Dresden illustration above. It might be the case that some corner of C means that we don't quite have enough game table space to move A into support with B, despite the fact that it wouldn't have had that problem in real life (since either unit could have compressed its frontage in a way that a wargame base can't.)

Well, either the unit A makes it, or it doesn't and ends up supposedly in the same corner of space as Unit C. Again, don't allow it. Have a marker or stand alignment of some sort note it, or move the unit forward the inch or more to make it work.

Then, of course, there are a billion practical issues when you intermix two units and leave them that way:

- If I shoot at one of them, what's its range and facing? Am I measuring from the edge of "its" nearest base, or the nearest base of the other unit mixed in with it?

Well, if using my example of physically mixing the units, then I would simply treat the mixed two units as one and measure that as it normally would be measured. The facing of both real units have to have the same facing to attempt pass through and again, you treat the two mixed sets of stands as one unit for range.

- Do formations exist when units mix like this? Can a unit in one formation mix with a unit in another, and if so, then what is the formation if somebody shoots at or charges this mixed unit-thingy?

Absolutely. I'll post a description from a Spanish treatise. But as you have twice as many units in close proximity, I think treating the mixed unit as a column would be reasonable. Or simply treat the two units as being in the formation they were before mixing, if say, both were in line. Of course, they are at a disadvantage as any unit would be caught in the middle of changing formation… a situation which most rules avoid completely. I would say they would be disordered.

- Can a third unit move through them? Can a third unit join them? How many units can glom like this?

Any gamers who would create this situation deserves whatever they get. Realistically, three brigades would not try to exchange lines at the same time. Never seen that even mentioned as a possibility. . Even with cavalry, for command reasons no more than one brigade ever attempted to pass through another brigade of either cavalry or infantry. Marchant's exchange of lines with Packenham's infantry at Salamanca is a good example. I would say that if two units are intermixed, they have to untangle before any third brigade could attempt to pass through either.

- Does the combat resolution system take into account the defender having more than one unit type in a temproary "single unit" like this? (For example, A is a cavalry unit and B is an infantry unit. If I charge them… what kind of unit am I attacking?)

Are you suggesting that one sentence in the rules couldn't answer this question? Isn't this much like any combat involving multiple units?

Rules like that might be possible, but they wouldn't be clean, clear, or easy to write or learn.

I don't know how easy they would be to write, but I see no reason why any additional mechanics couldn't be simple, and easy extensions of rules that exist already for movement, formation changes, fire, multiple unit combat.

OR you could design rules with a different focus and different representations of units…

It reminds me a bit of the kid who built the working Lego model airplane. God only knows why, but he managed to make it fly. I suppose that proved that one could use even the most improbable materials to do the job… but I suspect it won't be catching on.

I think the real issue is that the kid has some problems knowing what the airplane looks like in real life or which one he wants to build, whether it flies or not.

I enjoy the Spanish military literature because they are much more conversational in their approach to regulations and tactics. What is clear are the methods for the passage of lines. T Some companies in line folded back to allow other companies or squadrons to pass through. The same basic methods used by any army, which is why the Spanish and British could do it without problems under fire and in close proximity to the enemy at Albuera. So while the comments below rightly identify the dangers of two battalions/regiments in line carrying out a passage of lines, it was done all the time. It is also clear why columns to the rear were seen as safer.

Reglamento para el exercicio y maniobras del la infanteria v1 1808/1812

Observations on the passage of lines.

620. It is undeniable that the method given for the
passage of lines is finding both deployed has great
inconveniences, because already in the moment of
mutually traversing each other puts them, by the
division and disunion of their parts in a very weak
and almost defenseless state, and also because if one
supposes great disorder or confusion in the first line,
the maneuver that must be executed is perhaps
impracticable, and the second line runs great risk of
being run over.

621. Conversely, if the second line is in columns,
the maneuver for the passage of both lines is more
simple, more military, and infinitely more covered
and better supported: even in the case of the first line
being absolutely swept along, there is no danger that
their disorder communicates to the second [line], as
the large gaps between the columns provide relief
and ability for the defeated parties of the front line to
promptly withdraw, until reforming themselves in
the shelter of the second [line].

I'll see what I can find of these old Rules, and if I find them I'll let you know. (You have to imagine how massive and extensive my "Failed Game Ideas Cabinet" is….)

I'd love to see them, Sam. And I don't really mind games with lots of 'status markers' involved. In fact, I prefer games with diorama-type status markers!

Hey Sam-

Quick random question. Have you ever read any books by Roberto Bolano? He was a Chilean writer/poet/war gamer and post-post modernist who is now deceased. I have a distinct feeling that he would have been quite interested in the style of abstraction that you employ in GA/FPGA. I've always thought that you must have worked, either consciously or subconsciously, some aspects of continental literary theory into the rules for those sets, at any rate definitely into FPGA, and that this is what gives them their particular flavor v. the more old school, details oriented war games like Empire that came before. As someone on here recently noted concerning those detail driven games, they seem to seek (a false sense of ) "Truth," a very specific kind of mechanic Truth, as opposed to your own brand of war game where the literally billion+ variables are left to the players' imaginations and an invisible parallel narrative text which you decided (rightly, IMHO again) to allow the players to fill in if they want. Yet, despite the ultimate unknowability of what has occurred (due to the myriad viewpoints and experiences of the action represented in, say, a single round of combat between two brigades), the result of that event, (say one brigade being thrown back 3 inches), is incontrovertible to the players, who are both actors and historians of the game-battle at the same time. There's a pretty impressive interplay between the subjective and the objective and the balancing act you manage, especially when one considers the way you manage time. It's really impressive, and speaking from a humanities background GA/FPGA remain the unchallenged avante garde. What I'm saying is that I don't want to sound like the frontage issue is of that much importance, because sometimes when I think about it I don't think it really does. There's definitely a clear cut argument to be made that a 300m steady frontage COULD work, given the rules on flanking and the way brigades "snap to" attackers that don't make a decisive enough flanking attack. In fact, I find the argument in its favor to myself so persuasive that I sometimes wonder if my hand-wringing over brigade frontage is worth my time. It's really when I've tried to export FPGA to the ACW that the system breaks down somewhat, and I wonder if it doesn't have something to do with the difference between European and American terrain in the two wars, or some technological advancements or…?

That being said, I want to see how the technological advancements that allows us to have access to the Ferraris maps (and a vast amount of {generally, allowing for ~30 years} historic terrain) at such a level of detail could add yet another level of narrative to FGPA and other brigade level games. As far as I see it the biggest single weakness of GA/FPGA is the exact same as all model war games, and that's the over-simplification of terrain on the table top and not the rigidity of the bases. It's pretty obvious that you intended the sub-representational terrain to be another part of the "invisible narrative," and so I am proceeding with my map project with some trepidation, lest I find out at the end of a lot of work that one might as well just toss all the terrain into a CV, roll-off and call it a day (or is it rather the command roll and the commanding Marshal's personality rating that we are measuring against the invisible terrain? Or is the invisible terrain a silent factor in both of these rolls????).

That's the kind of question that gets one's mind working, more so than the ways that I'm going to have to modify Black Powder to let forty guys bash out Wagram at 10:1 at Historicon….and although that'll be awesome too it's basically a mechanical question and not a philosophical one.

Anyways….. in other news I picked up two big pieces of foam core to which I'll soon be taping up some Farris maps. I'll now be able to finally get down to details with using the maps as a game surface. Sam's idea already has my mind turning, and I've already figured out a few ways to utilize the historic local road networks in the maps to create a new kind of war game. I'll post some more on this with some pics as soon as I get the chance.

they seem to seek (a false sense of ) "Truth," a very specific kind of mechanic Truth, as opposed to your own brand of war game where the literally billion+ variables are left to the players' imaginations and an invisible parallel narrative text which you decided (rightly, IMHO again) to allow the players to fill in if they want.

Yes, wargame as a Rorschach ink blot test. It is whatever you think it is.

Yet, despite the ultimate unknowability of what has occurred (due to the myriad viewpoints and experiences of the action represented in, say, a single round of combat between two brigades), the result of that event, (say one brigade being thrown back 3 inches), is incontrovertible to the players, who are both actors and historians of the game-battle at the same time.

If you are recreating the battle of the unknowable, what are you recreating? If you are recreating history, that at some point has to be some specific element. If it was unknowable, Sam wouldn't be having his questions about representation.

As far as I see it the biggest single weakness of GA/FPGA is the exact same as all model war games, and that's the over-simplification of terrain on the table top and not the rigidity of the bases.

All wargames, all simulations, from the Army's Urban Warfare Tactical exercises to Chess, are simplifications of reality. IF terrain is seen as the issue and not the bases [which are rigid for a particular game, but not in wargame design overall. There are lots of different size bases.] then the question is what elements of terrain do you want to represent? If that is targeted as an important focus of your game while the designer of the FPGA game system simplifies it far more, it is easy to predict complications incorporating what you see as important into a system which doesn't. Each design simplifies or ignores whatever isn't seen as the important things to simulate.

It's pretty obvious that you intended the sub-representational terrain to be another part of the "invisible narrative," and so I am proceeding with my map project with some trepidation, lest I find out at the end of a lot of work that one might as well just toss all the terrain into a CV, roll-off and call it a day (or is it rather the command roll and the commanding Marshal's personality rating that we are measuring against the invisible terrain? Or is the invisible terrain a silent factor in both of these rolls????).

Good Day Mike C.

I know we both talked about l'ordre separe being the perfect concept for multiple players…as an example: side A. wins but it is possible for a Player on side B. to be the overall winner.

I would be very interested in seeing how you incorporated the concept of l'ordre Separe in your game design. As you know the actual concept is for a Division…Corps…or Army.

But if a Brigade is represented as a single stand…I could be wrong but I get the impression that the affect of l'ordre separe is lost…

Whereas…at a Battalion size game…the effect is profound. We know that the French officially stopped using the concept in 1805…followed shortly after by the British…

As for the Austrian…Prussians…and Russians…the concept was not discarded until after 1812.

The discontinued used of l'ordre separe is a factor in the British defeating the French in the Peninsular….as well as for the other Allies who dismissed the concept after 1812.

Therefore perhaps at your level in the wargame design…it may have the desired effect at Corps level. Because I do not see how the concept can effect two to four stands.

I remember playing the the early 1970s…and even though we did not know that there was a concept called l'ordre separe…the Allied Players where always at a disadvantage from the start…Today I recall how one Player who had Austrians would not come to the aid of the Russians or Prussians…or vise verse because they were not going to have their men kill for another country ;-)

Whereas the multiple French players always fought as one Army…

Best Regards
Art

G'Day Christopher

In regards to your posting…when assuming someone who uses movement trays or sabots to move groups of bases…you are going to have to look into a special movement tray for the French who execute a flanking manoeuvre en colonne par bataillon or colonne d'attaque par bataillon…and the Russians en colonne d'attaque par bataillon.

Best Regards
Art

Hi Art,

Well, I guess you always had competent French players !

I`m not sure that the representation of l`ordre separe is more difficult at the brigade-level of game – if anything I would say it would possibly be easier then for player`s to identify with higher commanders` roles and less so concerned about what happens to this unit or that?

What I find difficult to grasp is the representation of different arrays in games which represent multiple units… but then I`m biased and accustomed to games that involve individual and identifiable battalions and regiments.

Howdy Art;

I often find your use of French terms little help in understanding what you are attempting to explain when,

1. While I can read the French, the technical meanings aren't clear unless I already know what you are saying--in which case I learn nothing new.
2. When you then apply those French terms to other countries, it gets even worse. For instance, exactly which British formation/maneuver do you see as equating to the French l`ordre separe?
3. String several of these unexplained terms together and any comprehension comes to a screeching halt. It can be very frustrating.

I don't think that is your intention in communicating here.

Best Regards,
Bill

G'Day Bill et Mike

I was once convinced that I should use the English translation of the French military terms and concepts…but when I found many members attempting to read something in French and then attempt to translate it into English…it never works out well. -mainly due to a thread that happened a year ago over the topic of colonne de companies and colonne d'ailes…and two verse three ranks…

As an example: a French colonne de compagnie translated into English is a column of Companies…therefore they think that it is a column which is one company wide.

But in actuality it is a colonne d'attaque deployed in four small columns (4 tranches) meant to support tiralleurs. It is not meant to be a column for assaulting.

The Prussians were having difficulty in manoeuvring while the first treffen was in line while the skirmishers were deployed in 1812,1813,1814…

Thus in 1815 they formed their version of the colonne de compagnie from their own battalions…when in a colonne double; double zug frontage, the battallion could manoeuvre in three ranks and then detach skirmishers from the 3rd rank. thereby having a battalion in column with a frontage of 4 zugs.

Of course the Prussian column did not have to worry about the imbalance of only having one elite zug, nor even two elite zugs like the Russian and French. Thereby having four sub-divisions en ligne

Also the Prussian system did not concern itself with such issues as mass of, depth of, and the profounder of a zug within their column, which concerned the French while en colonne or en bataille.

The Prussians had the ideal column formation when detaching skirmishers en compagnie-peloton (French terminology for the fragmenting of the third rank-and fragmenting a column in indiviual subdivisons). Therefore there was no issue of a regles d'endivisionnement to speak of.

With that said I am always willing to give a definition of a French military term or concept…but sometimes as Mike and Ned shall validates…it takes a while ;-)

Also…quite often even German and English speaking countries had to use French military terms…such as ligne de science…I believe I have only seen it written once in English…

-or how most members feel that when Pelet states that the Garde marched en carre (square)…that it must mean an open square…but actually in French military terminology…a colonne d'attaque deployed on column double is a tactical square…which can only be formed with 8 pelotons…which the Garde used in 1815.

As for l'ordre separe..it is a military concept…where bodies of troops act almost independently of one another…though they are in a contiguous order of battle.

They shall not expect or give immediate "support" that corps would benefit from in a contiguous order. Unless the Commander of the corps directed it…and that is the digested definition of l'ordre separe ;-)

As for which countries applied l'ordre separe (remember it is a concepts)…all countries did up until a certain point…but with that said…the concept never really died away…in the sense that we find it popping up in various battles…such as Waterloo and the French massed battery…

Terrain…roads…man made objects…may also determine the use of l'ordre separe…

Mike…as for your comment "I`m not sure that the representation of l`ordre separe is more difficult at the brigade-level of game" In reality I totally agree with you…but I do not think you can get the same results when using a stand to represent a Brigade and it must reply on it own support…while not expecting any support from its flanks…

But at Battalion level games…a player must learn how to provide flanking brigades or an appui mobile. It is for that reason I am curious to how you present this concept.

As for my old friends that fought as the French…no they were no more competent…but the Allied players acted much like Afghanistan does today…they still believe in l'ordre separe ;-)

Best Regards
Art