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

Art,
You say: "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."

I haven`t, and that is probably because I have not felt it necsssary to do so. I have explained the use of flanking brigades, but all that may need some clarification now – perhaps I`ll get around to doing this presently?

To make it clear, maybe you could give an example of a battle in which "bodies of troops act almost independently of one another…though they are in a contiguous order of battle."?

Mike.

G'Day Mike…

Yes I shall send it to you…but now that I am back…I have a pressing engagement with Drouot… ;-)

Best Regards
Art

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…

Art:
I can appreciate the problem. In fact, I remember that incident. What I was suggesting was not a translation of terms into English terms, but 1. an explanation of what the French refers to as a formation or whatever, and 2. When more than one nation is using the same formation…that such an explanation would let us identify the equivalent formation for British, Germans, Austrians or Russians etc.

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.

I would not have necessarily made your connection between colonne d'attaque and colonne de compagnie, even though I know what each mean separately. Your reasons make sense, but the about is much clearer to me. Nice explanation. *

And I was pretty sure I understood what l'ordre separe meant in technical terms, but without your explanation, it would still have been a guess because I personally have not seen that term described in what I have read.

Thanks for the clarifications. Big help.

Best Regards, Bill

To make it clear, maybe you could give an example of a battle in which "bodies of troops act almost independently of one another…though they are in a contiguous order of battle."?

Here are a couple of examples:

From the the report of the 16th Legere at Jena, where one battalion changed formation and moved off into the woods while the rest of the formation continued on against the Prussian guns:

Report of the 16e legere (of Augereau's other division).
[John Koontz [JEK] was the translator though the same report can be found in Napoleon's Apogee translated by Scott Bowden]

<q.The regiment advanced (in a column) left in front (laqauche en tete JEK) towards the woods: the third battalion advanced into the woods in skirmishing order (en tirailleurs JEK); the two first, marching still in column, went past the right of the woods and deployed in the plain (probably meadow would be better JEK) at musketry range from the enemy artillery…This line formed, they commenced an active and well-aimed fire; marching then toward the enemy line, they approached to pistol range; they threw themselves into skirmishing order (se precipitant de la en tirailleurs JEK) and seized directly (pied a pied JEK) and energetically 11 pieces of artillery."

The Austrian DivisionMasse battalion formation could and did operate as three two-company formations independently during the 1813-1814 battles even though they were deployed with other battalions in battle lines.

Now that things have quieted-down, I thought I'd add a thought or two which differs from some prior posts.

The Dresden battle map does not represent immutable units such as infantry battalions or cavalry regiments. Each rectangle represents a brigade deployment area which is 90%+ vacant. This means despite appearance of units crowding the map, the field is mostly vacant.

Given Napoleon deployed the army, one might ask why things are the way they are rather than dismissing them as a mess. The reason is Rain. Due to heavy rain, the Weisseritz (?) stream overflowed and as there were no bridges the Allied left was isolated from support of the main army. So Napoleon deployed the majority of his heavy cavalry under Murat on the French right facing the isolated Allied left. Because the hard rain prevented all infantry from firing effectively against the cavalry, most of the Austrian left, approximately 16,000, surrendered.

The deployment for each army with one brigade behind another reflected the manner in which units were committed. In the chapter on the Engagement in "On War," Clausewitz in essence wrote, units were committed and fought till they burned-out (routed or dispersed) and were then replaced with fresh units. In this instance, as the first line routs and melts away the second is freed-up to attack without passing through.

While there was room, the large Allied artillery park never got engaged because the Allies had determined to withdraw. In any event the artillery was on a ridge and would have had to move down-hill. To do so however, would have made it impossible in the mud to retreat. As for the French artillery, Napoleon realized the rain would prevent effective small arms fire, so he double-teamed half his batteries which meant they could move and fight while the Allied batteries were virtually immobile. If the map is accurate regarding the location of artillery, in the center French batteries in the front line outnumbered the Allied by 2 to 1.

As long as I'm adding my thoughts, here's my second. Wellington didn't stuff dozens of battalions into Hougomont! At the height of the battle he sent 2600 men mostly from light companies into the compound. The compound, which included the walled garden, was 400 yards by just under 200 yards, or in grand tactical scale of 1"=100 yards, a little less than 16 square inches. Using Napoleon's Battle's 2 rank stands of 1" square, at a scale 480 infantry per stand, the space occupied by the stands would be somewhere in the vicinity of a maximum of 6 square inches, which easily fit into the compound rectangle. The only requirement is the use of a congruent linear and figure scale, which many rules do not have.

Finally, any comprehensive set of grand tactical rules should be capable of representing an army corps arriving on the battlefield (table). Over the years I have played many scenarios which had corps march ons. Using Napoleon's Battles, which the late Craig Taylor and I designed, a corps of 6 infantry and 2 cavalry brigades plus artillery snakes 80" or a scale 4.5 miles. Using Napoleon's Battles rules it would take such a corps approximately 4 scale hours or so to shake out into combat formation. If one addresses the problem when designing the rules, there should be no problem. In this instance the scale depth of the stands is all important.

Cheers,

Bob Coggins

Bob, much I can agree with in your post. I take the view that a key generalship skill is deciding on when to deploy from road column and the space and alignment of the corp. Also to understand how long it will take for the corps marching to the field of battle to arrive – not the first units but the whole of the combat troops and first line transport.

I have played a game as a rearguard command which was overwhelmed by the advancing enemy as the concept of the depth of column and time to deploy was not understood by the game designer / umpire.

Your point on the light infantry bases is where I was going with the cavalry at Waterloo. Obviously in reality all the reserve cavalry fits the historical space. (As an aside I maintain that Wellington's reserve cavalry were in column of squadron when in reserve based on the Waterloo letters and as illustrated in Adkin).

Some analysis –
A horse without intervals takes a space 1 metre wide and three deep.

Waterloo
Netherlands cavalry – 3,305
Brunswick – 919
British – leaving out Vivian and Vandeleur – 6,031

Total 10,256 with a minimum area of 30750 sq metres just for the horses without intervals.

Adkin on page 228 shows the 12th Light Dragoons with a strength of 433 requiring 1400 sq metres in close column of troop. 3.23 sq metre per horse.

I am looking for help here from this community. Using your normal ruleset can you determine the number of bases required for 10,000 cavalry and what is the surface area those bases cover when using the groundscale for the ruleset. Then post this back on here:)

I realise that the bases are supposed to represent the unit in line and that base depths can be conveniently ignored but should they? is it too much of a compromise?

Going back to the 12th Light Dragoons, Adkin shows this in line with a frontage of 260 metres and a depth of 18 metres. This line has a frontage 15 times wider than the minimum depth. Can we represent this on the table? 15 times the depth of a cavalry figure is going to be 45 times the frontage of a figure (a single figure is three times deeper than its frontage).

Now getting back to the OP, this was about representing a brigade. For cavalry I think we can just about represent a brigade in two lines with a large interval between the lines by a single row of four bases. To represent the brigade in a single line we may need to have gaps between the bases and accept that the bases are overdeep. In reserve I would remove all but the command base to represent the brigade in close column.

"The Dresden battle map does not represent immutable units such as infantry battalions or cavalry regiments. Each rectangle represents a brigade deployment area which is 90%+ vacant. This means despite appearance of units crowding the map, the field is mostly vacant."

Precisely. However, miniatures bases are immutable. Hence this entire topic and discussion. Historical units are "mostly vacant" and thus can be left "sitting on" each other, and aren't limited by "movement allowances" or "turns and phases," and so on. They are thus far more flexible than miniatures units, which are stuck with all sorts of artificial limitations on where you can set them down, since they can't "stack" or overlap, and their movement has to end with a "phase," etc.

"the large Allied artillery park never got engaged because the Allies had determined to withdraw"

Not the issue. The question was: in a miniatures game, with units packed together as closely as those illustrated above, could they be engaged? Obviously not, since they are so tightly packed-in with all those other units, that there is no room on the table for them to move anywhere or be placed anywhere, without first moving half a dozen other units out of their way.

If the historical units could have been engaged, but the miniatures bases won't allow it, then you have a basic problem with unit sizes and scales.

"Wellington didn't stuff dozens of battalions into Hougomont!"

No one said that he did. We were talking about the French.

Foy & Jerome's divisions were packed into the Hougomont position: 13,000 men in 24 battalions in a space no more than 400 yards on any side. I can't think of any game using miniatures, in which that would be possible.

I am looking for help here from this community. Using your normal ruleset can you determine the number of bases required for 10,000 cavalry and what is the surface area those bases cover when using the groundscale for the ruleset. Then post this back on here:)

Okay, Polemos Marechal d'Empire: 800-1500 cavalry on a base representing 300yds x 300yds = 90,000yds square (per base). Call 10,000 cavalry 7 bases worth, so 630,000yds square.

Or Polemos General de Division: up to 350 cavalry or so on a base representing 100-125yds wide by half that deep (I'll go with 333 troopers on a 120yds x 60yds base (7200yds square)to save my brain). That would take 30 bases of cavalry, so 216,000yds square.

Hope that helps

Regards

Foy & Jerome's divisions were packed into the Hougomont position: 13,000 men in 24 battalions in a space no more than 400 yards on any side. I can't think of any game using miniatures, in which that would be possible.

I'm not at all sure where you got that idea. What is your source for that? The book Hougomount by Julian Paget, which follows the entire battle for the chateau doesn't show that at all.

Precisely. However, miniatures bases are immutable. Hence this entire topic and discussion. Historical units are "mostly vacant" and thus can be left "sitting on" each other, and aren't limited by "movement allowances" or "turns and phases," and so on. They are thus far more flexible than miniatures units, which are stuck with all sorts of artificial limitations on where you can set them down, since they can't "stack" or overlap, and their movement has to end with a "phase," etc.

The assumption here is that contemporary commanders would want to or did 'fill in' all that empty space. They didn't. Those empty spaces served a necessary combat purpose. All treatises and regulations, descriptions etc. show formations and configurations with hundreds of yards between forces, even those in direct support behind the front line. The only place they would 'fill them in' in a smaller area purposely or otherwise, would be way outside artillery range. In AOE, that would be in the game's strategic movement area, 18 inches from the nearest enemy troops. Even then, it would be temporary. I suggested a number of ways that could be represented.

And as troop formation are, as has been pointed out, moving them through [or around] each other was and should be a fairly easy task to represent that ease of movement with game mechanics. The only real issue is how to handle the pass or interpenetration when the designer decides to handle that maneuver as part of movement and not a formation change.

The assumption here is that contemporary commanders would want to or did 'fill in' all that empty space.

No, I'm not making any assumptions about what the contemporary commanders would have preferred. I'm just stating the obvious limitations of a miniatures tabletop. Again: since it is packed with shoulder-to-shoulder units, then you'll either have to create some very unorthodox game rules that allow for "stacking" or something other than traditional "turns," "movement allowances," and so on… Or you will simply be unable to move units, much less fight with them in anything resembling the movements of their historical counterparts.

Foy & Jerome's divisions were packed into the Hougomont position: 13,000 men in 24 battalions in a space no more than 400 yards on any side. I can't think of any game using miniatures, in which that would be possible.

I'm not at all sure where you got that idea. What is your source for that?

Is there any reason that Mark Adkin is not to be believed on this?

I count 23 BNs squeezed into a space about 400 yards wide, and maybe 300 yards deep.

Again: I can't name any miniatures game in which this would be possible:

Mike the Mug,

Each NBs stand equals 320 cavalry deployed in 2 lines.

10000 / 320 = 31.25 stands and each stand is 2 square inches = 62.5 square inches at 1"= 100 yds.

Hope this helps.

Bob Coggins

No, I'm not making any assumptions about what the contemporary commanders would have preferred. I'm just stating the obvious limitations of a miniatures tabletop. Again: since it is packed with shoulder-to-shoulder units, then you'll either have to create some very unorthodox game rules that allow for "stacking" or something other than traditional "turns," "movement allowances," and so on…

OR you ask what commanders did in these situations. Meaning, whether the game stands are packed shoulder-to-shoulder or not, it doesn't matter much if actual commanders rarely would think of 1. moving units closer than the areas represented by the stands, and 2. wouldn't move units through multiple sets of units to their front or back, so simply changing positions was the norm in those situations through passage of lines.

Or you will simply be unable to move units, much less fight with them in anything resembling the movements of their historical counterparts.

Well, that is a questionable conclusion. Because you couldn't fight with units that close together [represented by game stands stacked on top of each other], there was no point in doing it, which is why historical units' movements didn't resemble such situations either.

The Hougomount maps you provide [thank you]are a great example of both the problems with many maps and what they show vs what they are meant to show. That many battalions were never in the same place at the same time during the battle--at all. There wasn't enough space, which is why 2600 Allied soldiers could hold off 12,500 Frenchmen. They couldn't all attack at the same time. The reality is that the battle for the Hougoumont was basically 2,000 British troops fighting successive waves of 2,000-3,000 French troops.

If you look at both the keys and the times, you'll see what I mean. For instance, Foy commits his first brigade at 1:15 and doesn't commit his second until an hour later. It looks like both brigades are attacking at once across an area less than 200 yards wide. They were both there at the same time, nor was even one entire brigade deployed across that space at any one time. How could 2 to 3 Allied companies continually clear out the woods after each wave if dozens of French companies were there?

I will give a timetable for the attacks, which involved seven different waves of French troops from approximately 11:30 to 7:30. None of which are shown and while the keys give some sense of this, in actuality, no more than parts of two infantry brigades attacked an any one time, and not in a single or even double line of battalions. Usually, the attack involved one brigade.

For instance, Baudin's brigade attacked alone first and then when they failed and Baudin was killed, it was called off. The attack lasted a half hour and all but one 1st Legere battalion were withdrawn and Soye's brigade was sent in as the second wave--again alone.

Foy and Jerome's entire divisions were never, ever within the confines of the Hougoumont. All the map could or I would think assume shows in the second map are the areas that the division's attacked, rather than their locations.

Is there any reason that Mark Adkin is not to be believed on this?

Lots and lots, depending on what Mark meant to show and how the graphics person translated it into the maps. Do you have any idea what sources Adkins used?

As I said, I'll provide a time-table.

All times approximate

Early morning Wellington orders Third Guards to move
from Garden to Lane

11:30 Light companies, Firs Guards rejoin
Guards Brigade

11:50 1. ATTACK Bauduin's Brigade attacks
Against Woods from south, 5 btns
(2300 men) Nassauers and Hanoverians
driven out of woods and Orchard.

11:50 Saltoun and 1st Guard light companies
recapture orchard Reille recommends to
Jerome that attacks be suspended.

1200 2. ATTACK Soye's Brigade relieves
Bauduin's brigade and attacks West side
of Hougoumont 6 btn (3600 men.)The
remaining 1st Legere Battalion of
Baulduin's brigade leads the attack.

12:30 McDonell orders the closing of the
gates. Famous fight led by Lt.Legros,
L'Enfonceur. Counter-attack by the 2nd
battalion Coldstream Guards.

12:45 3.ATTACK Gautier's Brigade of Foy's
Division attacks south-east side of
Orchard (1900 men)

1330 Two companies of the 3rd Guards
Counter-attack the Orchard; Napoleon
brings up Howitzers to Shell the
Hougoumont, sets it on fire.

1400 4. ATTACK Foy's second Brigade attacks
the Orchard from the East.(2600 men)
Guard Light Companies driven back.
Three more companies of the 3rd Guards
relieve the Light Companies in the
Orchard. Wellington moves Halkett's
Brigade up to relieve 2nd Guards
brigade and reinforces troops in
Orchard. Guards regain Orchard.

1400 to 1500 5.ATTACK Bachelu and Foy mount a two
brigade attack against orchard
from the open area Southeast of the
Hougoumont. Stopped by Allied
artillery fire. (4,000 men) 8 btns

1600 6. ATTACK Bachelu and Foy mount attack
against Southeast side of the Orchard
with mixture of what fresh battalions
are available from all brigades. 3rd
Guards, battalion strength counter-
attacks and regains Orchard.
(approx. 2,000-3,000 men)

1830 7. ATTACK Foy tries another,weaker
attack from the southeast(approx.
2,000 men) Again, a battalion of the
3rd Guards retakes the Orchard for the
last time.

Some Points:

1. During this engagement, the entire area was filled with skirmish fighting, punctuated by seven separate organized attacks. Several British officers involved in counter-attacks describe clearing the Orchard or woods and then stopping because the French skirmishers retired to columns standing beyond the woods and in the open.

2. The majority of the time most of Foy and Bachelu's forces were outside the area of the Hougoumont during the day, not within the 400 yard square of the Chateau grounds. Outside the area is where the attacks formed up before going in.

3. The attacks started on the west side and ended up the southeast. At first this would seem to be a poor strategy, not attempting to encircle the area and attack from all sides. They attmepted that with Pire's Cavalry on the west side and were not successful. Most of the reason was there wasn't space to attack with that many troops in such a confined space. It would be like trying to pour a quart into a pint jar. The British forces at any one time amounted to 3 battalions. About what the French could bring to bear with their front line. Most attacks saw about French three battalions up, three back in support.

4. Note that all the French attacks employed about the same size forces, 2,000-3,000 troops. The largest, 1400 attack advances through clear ground outside the Hougoumont and without that cover, suffers defeat by Allied Artillery.

This is From Julian Paget and Derek Saunders' Hougoumont

Bottom line: The Adkin maps do not give anything like an accurate placement of troops or the areas they occupied in the attacks during the battle.

McLaddie,

Thanks for the post with a detailed rendition of the fight for Hougomont. Because it was used, I tried to confine my comments to Adkin so it is more of an overview using the author's numbers and times, only noting the major attacks. You are absolutely correct the battle revolved around 4 brigade attacks, interspersed with heavy skirmish fire with occasional smaller ad hoc attacks. So too do I agree that the icons on the map in no way reflect the actual location of the formed units. Thus, the premise there wasn't enough room is not valid.

To stick with the Adkin maps, not including Bachelu, I count 24 battalions committed in over 4 hours to attack Hougomont. They were not committed all at once but sequentially by brigade, about one an hour apart. As an aside, all armies delivered attacks on built-up areas in column, with no intent to deploy. Thus the columns would be close together.

At 11:45 Boudin was committed. One hour later, at 12:30 after Boudin had burned out, Soye was committed. 45 minutes later, at 1:15, after Soye had burned out, Tissot was committed and finally one hour later, at 2:15, after Tissot burned out, Jamin was committed. According to Adkin, an hour later, 3:30, after Jamin burned out, the fight devolved into "infrequent attacks" till the end of the battle. Thus, for all practical purposes the battle for the compound was over after 4 hours. Brigades being committed one after the other reflects precisely what Clausewitz wrote about in "On War," but what does he know.

As for French numbers, the IMP (Inherent Military Probability) is that both of Jerome's brigades, actually Foy's too, had either routed or disordered from their initial attacks with somewhere in the vicinity of 15% casualties.

Thus the size of Jerome's division was most likely about 6000 and so it is with Foy whose division would have likely been at about 4,000. Whatever the number Adkin continuing to represent Jerome's and Foy's divisions without losses cannot be correct. Therefore it is reasonable by the time represented by map 24 Jerome and Foy had about 10,000 in 4 brigades of 5 NBs stands each, which it is also reasonable to believe were disorganized and only capable of skirmishing and launching weaker ad hoc attacks.

To keep up pressure the battered brigades would deploy approximately 20% of their number as skirmishers whilst the formed units would be 3 to 400 yards to the rear. So while the Adkin maps represent the pressure the French placed on the compound, the placement of the icons indicate an incorrect location for the formed battalions. Curiously, the 2000 French skirmishers gave them parity with the defenders.

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Jerome's entire division attacked when the Allies only had 1600 or so in the compound. Of course the attack was supposed to be a diversion, thus, only the one brigade attacked. What happened after was contrary to orders. But that's what happens when one employs brothers.

In Napoleon's Battles, one would place the formed brigdes 3 to 400 yards from the compound where there skirmish line could fire at the defenders. Neither the skirmishers nor the brigade areas of the prior attackers would have been a great hindrance for subsequent moves of formed units.

Even presuming Jerome blocked further attacks, using Napoleon's Battles, Jerome's two front line units equal 3" each for a scale front of 600 yds. In lieu of the hundred yard overlap on the left flank this leaves plenty of room for Tissot to attack the Orchard and so too does Tissot's rebuff leave plenty of room for Jamin. So for the life of me I don't understand the problem, unless it could be some don't understand how units were committed in Napoleonic battles. For those, I most earnestly advocate they refer to Clausewitz and Jomini.

To dispense with the crowded artillery park at Dresden, it had nothing to do with an alleged traffic jam, which some experts in the gaming community would have others believe Napoleon caused. They are closely packed together as on a parking lot because it is. The batteries could not move because they had no horses. Due to the mud, their horses were removed to double team the batteries which he intended to use to fight the battle.

As for the crowded battlefield it is dangerous to draw too many conclusions based on the size of the icons used to represent units. An infantry brigade deployed for combat would only occupy a depth of a little over 100 yards, yet given it's scale the rectangles on the Dresden map indicate a much greater depth. Regarding the field, from the Wiessertz to the Elbe is, very conservatively, over 6 miles or 105 inches or a scale 10,000 yards and from the French front to the city is about 1500 yards. So given the size of the table the question is, do the units fit?

Based on the map provided, by my count there are 10 French brigades and 18 batteries in the front line to the east of the Wiessertz. With an average French brigade of 2900 the scale front of each is 450 yards or 4.5 inches. Each battery has 8 guns and occupies a scale front 150 yards or 1.5 inches. This means the front line using NBs 6 stand brigades occupies 72" or 7,200 scale yards which easily fits into the 10,000 yard front from the Wiessertz to the Elbe.

In otherwords there is plenty of room to deploy those units. And I could do the same with the 2nd line and reserves but it would merely be redundant. [As an aside, using battalion scale 1"= 20 yards the front would run 14 feet on a table.

Thus, if one uses a congruent figure and linear scale there are few spatial problems and certainly units don't need to be stacked. The problem is few rules sets do and to be blunt to me the reasons are unfathomable as scale isn't rocket science. The result is gamers eyeball or estimate when it comes to historical terrain and whatever occurs has absolutely nothing to do with what originally occurred.

Cheers,

Bob Coggins

Thus, if one uses a congruent figure and linear scale there are few spatial problems and certainly units don't need to be stacked. The problem is few rules sets do and to be blunt to me the reasons are unfathomable as scale isn't rocket science. The result is gamers eyeball or estimate when it comes to historical terrain and whatever occurs has absolutely nothing to do with what originally occurred.

Bob:
I agree, and odd things can be assumed or done with scale.

To stick with the Adkin maps, not including Bachelu, I count 24 battalions committed in over 4 hours to attack Hougomont.

Bob:

From what understand, not all 24 battalions were committed within that four hours, but were used in the later attacks.
Here is another issue. When authors, and even contemporary men say that a brigade is committed, that doesn't mean that all battalions in that brigade are. There are supporting lines and reserves that aren't used, particularly if there isn't room for them to be used in the first place…

Best Regards,
Bill

Hello The Traveling Turk!

"Is there any reason that Mark Adkin is not to be believed on this?

I count 23 BNs squeezed into a space about 400 yards wide, and maybe 300 yards deep."

Looking at Mark Adkin's map it indicates to me that there were "24" battalions, not 23 and they were probably never ever all squeezed into a space of 400 yards by 300 yards at the same time.

He clearly states a time line that includes three separate attacks. The last one was between 3:30-7:00 and is identified as "infrequent".

Although he shows a ground scale the battalion, Divisional, etc. symbols are just that, symbols they are not intended to show the actual ground that was covered by those formations. That's pretty much a common practice when showing maps of this type.

I certainly believe he is showing a good example of what might have happened.

Your comments seem to contradict what Mark Arkin is actually saying in his maps. If so can you please explain how you reached your conclusions?

"Again: I can't name any miniatures game in which this would be possible:"

If I understand Mark Arkin's maps correctly then I don't see any problem with using a miniature game to duplicate these events. Some rule systems might not work. I can see it might perhaps be difficult for some card driven systems. But most other types should be okay.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn Pearce,

I don't think TTT is going to return to this topic. He's not a big fan of scale; figure, ground or time. For as long as I've known him he's written articles and posts stating his lack of belief in scales in miniatures rules. On this issue we profoundly disagree. Not that he is alone. Many designers simply dismiss or fudge scale because it interferes with their design. The difference is he actively argues scale is not possible. I think it is, thus we disagree. Sometimes, as we all, he gets carried away. His rules btw, are playable and enjoyable.

Cheers,

Bob Coggins

No, I hadn't planned on returning to the topic, because I didn't think that anybody was willing to confront any of the basic points.

With the possible exception of Bill, who was at least willing to consider that some very unorthodox rules might have to be created to address the fact that a wargames table is a finite space, that miniature bases are immutable in size and shape, and that games are divided into movement phases, and turns, and so on, and that we only have two hands, and that we therefore have to pick something up… and put it down again somewhere else, before we can pick up anything else and do so again….

Therefore: if you have units packed "historically" up against each other like in the Dresden scenario, how are you going to move any of them, much less fight with any of them? If a unit has, say, a 8" movement allowance, but there are friendly units all around in every direction, and it's impossible to move 8" without ending "sitting on" somebody else, then that unit can't move.

Is that historically correct? An historical unit couldn't move, because it couldn't "end a turn" or a "movement phase" stacked on another unit? After all, we all seem to be in agreement that the bases represent mostly empty space, so…. I'm searching Napoleon's correspondence in vain for some reference to him being unable to move a cavalry squadron through an empty space because it doesn't have enough movement allowance this game-turn.

Is that really people's idea of a good representation of scale, space, and time?

-

"Many designers simply dismiss or fudge scale because it interferes with their design"

Indeed, and given the problems stated above, I have no objection to that at all.

In fact, I defended you for years against all those critics who assailed Napoleon's Battles for its fudgy abstraction of things like fire ranges, cavalry detachments, brigade formations, and especially divisional artillery, which you repeatedly said might be here… or it might be there… or it might even be somewhere else not "in" the unit footprint to which its fire stats are applied. Where, exactly, is that battery of artillery…? It's somewhere nearby, don't worry about it.

I still agree with that approach. You were right to fudge it. That was an important conceptual breakthrough in game design. I have no idea why you pretend that you didn't fudge it, or why you think that other people would be wrong for fudging other things.

To my mind, the limitations of game pieces and tables and rules, are so utterly different from the limitations of actual units and historical commanders, that there is no way to use one to represent the other, without tons of fudge. That strikes me as so obvious that I can't imagine why anybody would protest otherwise.

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.

@Bill,

I was getting at that, in general, once you have decided on using miniatures for your game, you are probably going to have more trouble simulating scale than using another medium. I think I'd probably go for a map and marker system myself if I had to.

I vaguely remember George Jeffrey trying to get the footprints relatively accurate in his 'The Napoleonic Wargame' rules, so he ended up with standard-sized battalions and regiments, but with the cavalry using a different figure scale to the infantry (e.g. a battalion of 6mm infantry was 20 figures in four companies at 1:27, a cavalry regiment was the same number of figures but at 1:17 – something like that, anyway). I can't remember how he dealt with artillery though.

Regards

Therefore: if you have units packed "historically" up against each other like in the Dresden scenario, how are you going to move any of them, much less fight with any of them? If a unit has, say, a 8" movement allowance, but there are friendly units all around in every direction, and it's impossible to move 8" without ending "sitting on" somebody else, then that unit can't move.

There are two issues here, one historical and representational and the other physical, space on the table, but they are being treated as the same thing problem.

Again, let's divide them out. First the historical, and let's stick with Dresden. Units were close together and you don't see units in the reserve moving through two lines of troops to get into the fighting. Because they were packed together in areas dotted with villages, besides the walled city, both sides basically burned through a line, then replaced the burned out front line with the supports behind it, meat-grinder fashion.

Is that historically correct? An historical unit couldn't move, because it couldn't "end a turn" or a "movement phase" stacked on another unit?

Yes, historically, they didn't end a turn as tightly packed [within each other's deployment spaces represented by the stands] Even if we didn't have historical records to that effect, we'd know that because the units didn't fight that way, and maneuvered as they did in other battles less crowded. As I said, if you can't fight that crammed together, there is no point in entering combat in that condition.

Physically and representationally, it means that 'no', stands can't sit on top of each other. It means they can replace each other, trading spaces. Physically, that is possible with stands.

And yes, it requires planning and yes, there can be crowd control problems, traffic jams, just as there were in the real battle.

After all, we all seem to be in agreement that the bases represent mostly empty space, so….

I'm searching Napoleon's correspondence in vain for some reference to him being unable to move a cavalry squadron through an empty space because it doesn't have enough movement allowance this game-turn. Is that really people's idea of a good representation of scale, space, and time?

Really? You searched for references where Napoleon spoke of turns and movement allowances?

Give me an idea of what you feel would be a 'good' representation of scale, space and time, based on what you feel is based on historical evidence, and perhaps we can answer that question. What criteria are you using.

At this point, I get the feeling that you are basing your concerns on out of scale maps [a major issue of time and scale there too] and physical movement issues with stands on the table rather than the history and military processes of the time they are supposed to represent.

Bill Gray would be the one to answer it for AOE and the Dresden scenario he created. That is true of other games. The authors are the ones who could tell you what they felt were 'good' representations, or at least what their games represented in terms of time, scale and movement.

Whirlwind wrote:

I was getting at that, in general, once you have decided on using miniatures for your game, you are probably going to have more trouble simulating scale than using another medium. I think I'd probably go for a map and marker system myself if I had to.

Actually, I don't find that to be true. Different problems of scale in different mediums, but not more difficult. Our hobby is rather insular, believing their game issues and design problems are unique. In many ways they aren't.

I have a friend, an astrophysicist. I listened to him grouse repeatedly about the scale problems he was having with a computer program simulating galaxy rotation and galaxy collisions. HE had to represent billions and billions of stars [said with Carl Sagan's voice] and their gravity forces with a few thousand pixels. It was a powerful computer, yet a real scale/time/movement problem.

The game medium of miniatures does have it's benefits and weaknesses in representation, depending on what you want to represent and there are literally scores of ways to do that with game mechanics on the game table. It all depends on what the designer wants to focus on…or ignore. It does require that the designer understand what is being represented before he attempts to model it.

I can provide some examples of this 'crowding' and why it isn't all that crowded, but it is also a matter of function.

Imagine twenty 100-man marching bands who have all practiced several individual routines for months for a football field-sized area.

The night of the half time performance, they are all lined up side by side waiting to perform on ONE field. [unlike a battlefield] Now, they know they aren't going to perform lined up side by side. They can't. They also will assume that they will be going on to the field one at a time. If a band in the second line needs to go first, then it isn't all that much trouble for them to pass through, as long as there is enough space for both bands to allow a yard or two between each band member.

However, no one would expect them to move without space to move or perform without a football field area to perform in.

If they were expected to perform in a smaller space, or go perform with the second line of bands going first, everyone would believe that:
1. It is a mistake
2. It is Ordered by an idiot
3. It will seriously degrade any performance.

If they wrote about these kinds of screw-up this later, the problems would probably be written about before the performances…

If you don't find those kinds of descriptions/complaints about crowding and traffic problems, then it means it didn't happen and the writers would focus on the performances.

It is the same with the combatants. Soldiers weren't shy about describing SNAFUs, so if there aren't any related to Dresden in all the memoirs and AARs, then that tells you something.

Hello Bob Coggins!

Nice to hear from you and I'm enjoying your posts, as usual.

I don't recall seeing that side of TTT before. Maybe it's just my memory. Thanks for the heads up.

I don't really care if he responds to my post or not. I was just reinforcing most of the points already made by you and Bill.

I know his games are enjoyed by many and that's a good thing. I'm not a fan, they all seem to be a little off of my preferences. Does not mean they are bad, their just not for me.

Best regards,

Glenn

Hello Bill!

"It is the same with the combatants. Soldiers weren't shy about describing SNAFUs, so if there aren't any related to Dresden in all the memoirs and AARs, then that tells you something."

Talk about hitting the nail on the head! Does make it seem like the problem is simply with TTT.

I recall playing the full battle of Dresden in 6mm with a scale that seemed appropriate. I was only a player so I can't confirm much, other then crowding was not an issue. Lots of units, yes, lots of reserves in some places yes. Everyone really enjoyed the game with no complaints that I ever heard about.

Best regards,

Glenn

Lots of design issues raised in this thread. The main one seems to be about base representation. Using a square base to represent a narrow rectangle is always going to be problematic. If you allow the square base to include empty space that can be rationalised sometimes as front line and second line or sometimes as manoeuver space (a sort of zone of control) than that is OK except where this really needs to represent a thin defensive line. One way to deal with this is to use a square base but have gaps on it to add extra figures for dense reserves or even artillery and cavalry passing through. Just double any artillery losses if under fire etc.
Timeslicing makes its own problems. I now take the view that the position of troops at the end of a turn should be considered an approximation either of position or time (think Heisenberg uncertainty principle). The factored-in artillery discussed above is a form of approximation.

Sam was on to something with his idea about having units only placed on the table when they're actually deployed. I'm messing around on paper and the maps with some ideas that he gave me, using good ole 2x2 Naps as a baseline (2x2 Naps considers off-board reserves an integral part of game play, not a sideline. A very important emphasis, IMHO). Also, since I have proper terrain, an absolute scale and a reasonable amount of ground to work on (via the maps), I can stat messing around with real time hacks as well. I believe that for many reasons real time has been abandoned, but I wonder if that wasn't because the lack of correct terrain and units that were simply over sized? I'm trying to get to the bottom of it. I'd love it if I could figure out a ruleset where you could not only control brigades but also know exact time hacks as well. Maybe a fools errand, but like I said, I want to try it out. I think the maps provide a tool that can make it work.

forwardmarchstudios:

Well, before you start placing units on the table only when they are deployed, really consider what space the units take up maneuvering before that time.

That's not to say it isn't a decent idea. I have been working on something similar. The question is when that might work.

On the road, units were thin, 2-6 ranks wide, and stretched out over miles. Then moving off the road, they had to assemble someplace into maneuver columns in preparation for forming combat formations and relationships. Any army was motivated to make the transition from road columns to maneuver columns to arranged in combat formations as quickly as possible, Nobody stayed in the first two unless absolutely necessary.

When Wellington was marching across country, trying to stay ahead of Marmont's army before Salamanca, their 'march' formations needed to be compact, but they could quickly turn into combat formations and Packenham demonstrated at the battle.

So, when do you put the stands on the table?

Bill

technically French infantry would not march on the road, they would march at the side of it – of at least 1/2 company or sections width, they could march on either side of the road – and approaching the field of battle they would be company width.

Otherwise so far a great discussion.

Question : What was the depth of a French battalion in line – lets say 900 men in 3 ranks??

What would be the depth of this battalion (8 companies) in a colonne d'attaque?? – 4 companies deep??

A lot of this can be dug out of the Kriegspiel and IMHO is a great source of information to start from. Agreed that KS is not intended as a two player open face to face leisure wargame. No Command span etc. and you need an umpire.

The Baring English translation of the 1873 rules gives the following on column depths. (one pace = 30 inches)

Horse artillery battery in column of route – 500 paces ; Foot artillery battery in column of route – 564 paces ; Artillery and infantry reserve ammunition column – 516 paces ; Artillery only – 460 paces ;

Compare this with a battallion of infantry (1099 men per bn)- col of route – 400 paces ; Cav squadron in half section – 270 paces ; Cav sqn in fours – 67 paces ;

Remember these are british batteries from the 1870s so 6 guns each, 9 ammunition wagons, 1 forge, 1 store wagon, 1 General Service Wagon, 1 store cart, 1 cavalry ball cartridge wagon. (the ft battery has 12 ammo wagons and no cavalry ball wagon). The artillery and infantry reserve column is 27 vehicles, Artillery only 24 vehicle.

These lengths include intervals so if halted and closed up the lengths should be reduced (halved possibly). The umpire should determine any extension due to slopes etc., An extension of one-third of the regulated length should be regarded as the minimum.

As for placing or not placing units, the old method is to use blinds., I prefer to use bases as blinds in order to occupy the space and for the visual impact. Take for instance a brigade deployed for combat. You could show a single rank of figures covering the frontage. In reality there could be a second line in immediate support but there is no need to put this on the table unless the first line is engaged or subject to recce / recon. To further add to the unpredictablity why not allow the payer to mis-represent the troops by swapping the assumed Hanoverian Landwehr for the Brigade of Guards.

Question : What was the depth of a French battalion in line – lets say 900 men in 3 ranks??

VW:
This is trick question, right? It doesn't matter how many men are in the battlaion if it is formed in a line of three ranks… It would be no more than 10 yards deep, and more commonly 6 regardless of the numbers.

[I have found some discussions of different distances between the ranks being preferred depending on circumstances and officer preferences, such as Ney's 1803 Instructions… which has surprised me.]

Lets say you have a small scale of 20 yards to the inch and stands with half inch depth. Standing alone, that battalion in line has no space problems on the table. Place another line behind it touching bases and you have 2 three rank lines [2 X 6 = 12 yards] scale depth with stands taking up 20 yards scale on the table. However, unless it is a column or an exchange of lines, those two lines would never be that close together.

The typical supporting line was 100, and more often 200 and 300 yards behind the first line. So, realistically those two lines would form up five to fifteen inches apart.

Increase the scale to 100 yards per inch, with 50 yard deep stands, and you still have no problem with common practice, the stands will still be two to six inches apart.

What would be the depth of this battalion (8 companies) in a colonne d'attaque?? – 4 companies deep??

Is that a closed column, or at quarter, half, three quarter or full intervals?

Here there are space problems with a closed column [ which would be 4 X 6 yards with perhaps 2 yards between companies, or 30 or so yards deep] With stands 10 yards deep, you are off by 10 yards. Go to 50 yard deep stands for a brigade, say one stand per battalion, and you still are off by at least 20 yards….

Getting into greater intevals, a battalion in open column would be as deep as a battalion frontage in line, so would actually take up more depth X2 than the stands in column, all bases touching. To represent an open column ths stands would all have to have 1/2 inch between them at 20 yard per inch. So, no real space problem there other than stands being placed properly.

Howsomever, in forming up, a battalion or group of battalions would need space to get into column and the commander would want to maintain that open space to allow for quarter up to full intervals if needed, so there would be required 'dead space' around any such column formation. You see that in any set of diagrams detailing formation changes.

So, while a set of stands representing a battalion or brigade would often not be physcially filling up the scale space occupied by the stands, unless you want to play "Chef de Batallion" and do it yourself, commanders at the attendent levels of command would always assure there was space to maneuver and flex their formations, which is well represented by the footprint of a stand or group of stands.

And it also one of many reasons why you would never, ever see 24 battalions fighting on a 400 yard front at the same time, particularly in an orchard or wood.

I've done the distances from memory so they could well be off by a few yards, but no more.

technically French infantry would not march on the road, they would march at the side of it – of at least 1/2 company or sections width, they could march on either side of the road – and approaching the field of battle they would be company width.

Yes, technically they would, but technically, how often was that possible over miles of countryside? And yes, approaching the battlefield battalions/columns would take on a form easily transformed into an unified battle formation.

"It is the same with the combatants. Soldiers weren't shy about describing SNAFUs, so if there aren't any related to Dresden in all the memoirs and AARs, then that tells you something."

Talk about hitting the nail on the head! Does make it seem like the problem is simply with TTT.

Glenn:
Well, as much as I admire TTT's work as an historian and aspects of his game designs, I still have difficulty understanding his views on how men and formations moved and fought. I appreciate his articulate and outspoken views on the issue. He has a long discussion in his rules for Might and Reason concluding that all efforts at representing time, scale and movement are rubbish. Not surprisingly, his games ignore those issues for the most part.

TTT appears to be ignorant of some fundamental elements of Napoleonic combat and the period methods for moving large numbers of men on the battlefield, even after many years of discussions on the issue.

His acceptance of Atkin's maps at face value is a vivid example of this. Maps, both contemporary and modern maps have as many issues and flaws as any personal narrative or history. And like any historical evidence or conclusions based on them, maps need to be viewed with a critical eye.

If you have any doubt, pull out four maps of any Napoleonic battle from four different books, internet or wargame scenario and compare them. Not only will the maps more than likely be in conflict at several points, but the unit representations and locations can be wildly dissimilar.

Part of that is the various purposes of the maps, and part of it is the problems with map graphics in general, as well and the typical problems with the historical evidence they are necessarily based on. Some maps are really bad, some very, very good. It all depends.

Compare the map TTT provided from the Dresden scenario with this map offered in a history book and used on several websites:

link

or this one:

or even this:

Notice that not even the footprint of Dresden itself, or the woods, or the streams or the river are the same between the three maps.

Do there appear to be 'Space Issues' for troops with those maps? Do the various forces even take up the same areas between the maps? Which ones are correct when it comes to representing the actual footprint of the different forces? Perhaps that wasn't even a consideration in making them. Who knows? Notice how cramped the Scenario map is compared to the above maps above. Different purposes and requirements for the maps produce different maps.

Point being in looking at maps: whether for wargame scenarios or historical texts and contemporary military documents: Appearances can be deceiving.

"Do there appear to be 'Space Issues' with those maps?"

Let's assume for the sake of argument that your map is right. Now use those scale maps, and use miniatures for whatever game system you prefer, and tell me:

Do the miniature units fit on the table, the same way that those lines fit on the map?

-

I've lost track of the number of times I've repeated this, but:

We've got miniatures. On bases. Unless you're playing with 2mm figures at a Very small figure scale, those bases are wildly out of scale in terms of depth. Those bases can't bend or change their size. Those bases can't be left "stacked" on each other, yet we play with them using artificial time increments like "turns" and "phases," meaning: if you want to move them around in the midst of each other, then you often must leave them stacked on each other.

"TTT appears to be ignorant of some fundamental elements of Napoleonic combat and the period methods for moving large numbers of men on the battlefield,"

Many historical game designers think that their game is the one that got it right, and Oh Look, it's so easy, and everybody else is floundering. But if you start to press them on any number of issues, their arguments get really shifty. Oh no, that wasn't a fudge… No, no, the way that that other guy did it, THAT was a fudge…

Even on this thread, people have apparently kept a straight face while saying on one hand how important accurate game scale is… while on the other hand, "Oh, our bases mostly represent empty space…"

I just find it silly to waste all that effort pretending that my fudging is something more noble or correct than some other guy's fudging.

"much as I admire TTT's work as an historian…"

Although it is considerably more time-consuming and exacting, historical research is in some ways easier than game design, because the criteria for good research and writing are generally accepted across the discipline. (There is also, alas, no assumption of popularity or profit.) The work is supposed to stand on its own merits, and will be judged within a predictable framework of standards.

Games, by contrast, need to appeal to a very wide variety of people who often have very different ideas of what is "right" or "fun" or a good use of their time and money. Games are as idiosyncratic as gamers themselves, thus I am at liberty to do it by intuition.

It is not a trick question, if we can get this right one can scale this down more or less to achieve a good compromise.

I drew up on a piece of paper a French battalion with a frontage of 300 men – or 300 files, which would give us a length of about 160 meters.

In case I use a scale of 1 cm equals 20 m, for 8 companies battalion – I would need 8 cm width.

to base figures, without tumbling them over – I would use 1 cm depth – which would be 20 meters (as you see a bit too deep – but still ok for a battalion in line).

I could easily place a second battle line about 150 to 200 meters – or 7,5 to 10 cm distance.

Now in case we come to the columns, a battalion column in open colums would be as deep as wide, easily achieved by one company front of 1cm and 8 cm depth.

At a half open column this would be 1 cm front and 4 cm depth (which we cannot achieve – there the base of one company would be 1 cm deep) – the solution would be to reduce this column to 4 stands only and by that we could represent a battalion column in half open column quite well.

And to figure out more – I would be interested in your opinion of how deep a colonne d'attaque was – quarter distance? – which would give 2 cm depth or 2 cm front (two companies width) so again a reduction in stands in depth, you would only use two stands)

That would be more or less the limit, a closed column would be even less deep, but could be formed by less stands as well.

It is not what mainstream game designers think – it is what do I want to have out of a game.

In the past I feel a lot of importance was focused on how quick a unit could fire or how quick it marched, how fast they could deploy or ploy but – for me – I like to see the challenge of how to place a division or even an army on the battle field in that way to make the best out of the units so that they support each other.

A "usual" battle order would be two battle lines – in some cases three.

In case you have a brigade of 8 battalions, that would give you 4 battalions in the first line and 4 in the second, that should be ones basic order of battle.

Can you achieve this – in my opinion – yes.

Hello Bill!

I'm with you 200%, maps are a deep dark hole. As you probably know we pretty much only play historical games. I spend hours and hours trying to find maps and then transfer them as reasonable as possible to the table. The major danger is assuming that the units are somehow frozen in time at the location shown on the map. This might have been TTT's problem when he looked at the map of Hougoumont and perhaps the scenario of Dresden. Battles are fluid and it's highly unlikely that the actual battlefield ever looked like the map you may be looking at. There are some good ones, however, and when we do Waterloo next year I'll certainly be looking closely at Atkins.

Best regards,

Glenn

Hello The Travelling Turk!

"We've got miniatures. On bases. Unless you're playing with 2mm figures at a Very small figure scale, those bases are wildly out of scale in terms of depth. Those bases can't bend or change their size. Those bases can't be left "stacked" on each other, yet we play with them using artificial time increments like "turns" and "phases," meaning: if you want to move them around in the midst of each other, then you often must leave them stacked on each other."

Sounds like you answered your own problem. It's simply a matter of scale and rules. We had these kind of problems years ago when we used 25mm figures and "old school rules". We have been using 6mm figures and modern rules for years now. Units move around in the midst (by/through) of each other with no problems. Some movements might take two turns, but that's mainly due to distance. There is never any need to stack them.

Am I missing something?

Best regards,

Glenn

Just to give you some idea what I am working on. Ground scale is 1:10000. In the foreground we have Reille'c Corps about Frasnes, Quatre Bras is in the centre and the road to Brussels runs down the centre.

[URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/StartFrench_zpsc6693e40.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Reille's corp viewed from above.

Two Cavalry Brigades deployed in column of squadron, two infantry divisions with bases removed as these are "stacked" in assembly formation. The markers show the number of bases required when fully deployed. Likewise the corps artillery. One more division is marching up the road.

[URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/StartFrenchAbove_zpsbbc9e8ba.jpg.html]

[/URL]

The Dutch initial position.

Two battalions deployed at Gemincourt farm in the foreground, Other units in extended order in the Bois De Bossu, Reserves at the crossroads.

In the distance Dutch-Belgian cavalry moving up the cross-roads.

[URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/StartDutch_zps5e4db05d.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Do the miniature units fit on the table, the same way that those lines fit on the map?

TTT:
That would depend on a wide variety of things, from what those 'lines' represent, the scale of the game and shape and size of the stands. My impression is that you believe those 'lines' on the map represent something as specific and inflexible as the stands. While I have seen maps that do pay attention to unit size and formation, there have been damn few of them. With them, I have seen little problem with stand scale based on what I have related. Is there some problems, absolutely. Anywhere near the legion of conundrums you describe? No.

I've lost track of the number of times I've repeated this, but:

We've got miniatures. On bases. Unless you're playing with 2mm figures at a Very small figure scale, those bases are wildly out of scale in terms of depth. Those bases can't bend or change their size. Those bases can't be left "stacked" on each other,…

Uh, to repeat myself again too. It all depends on what those bases represent. IF they onlyrepresent the actual physical men, then you are correct. However, in most cases if that is what they are supposed to represent, then they would always need a lot of space around them to be at all realistic concerning maneuver needs and doctrine.

IF, on the other hand, they represent the area a commander would nominally keep open around his formation to move and be functionally ready for combat [the actual men and horses of which could be physically occupying a much smaller area], then no, there is very little scale distortion, except in very specific cases.

…yet we play with them using artificial time increments like "turns" and "phases," meaning: if you want to move them around in the midst of each other, then you often must leave them stacked on each other.

IF that is the way you want to conceptually translate history and then design your game, yep, those are problems. No rule says you have to design it that way.

And of course, turns and phases are artificial… they are models of something else… an attempt to represent the dynamics of reality…artificially, and being artificial, wargames/simulations will always and forever be only partially successful in duplicating reality. [And that is a good thing about them.]

Modeling history is not an all-or-nothing proposition. It is a wildly 'unrealistic' expectation not entertained by any game or simulation designer except, apparently, within our hobby.

Knowing where the representation is successful and where it isn't supposed to be is what is important here. The silliness comes with not knowing or avoiding knowing.

Nor is this dividing time in to turns, and phases all that 'unrealistic.' Human beings artificially segment and define reality all the time. {I have to hurry, it's almost lunchtime.] It helps make reality manageable. When commanders divided a battle into stages like approach, engagement and contact, or close combat or some units into 'reserves' or called some units 'grenadiers' or some cavalry 'heavy', or divide movement into paces per minute, all those are artificial constructs too, layered over reality to help them manage it.

Wargames simply take that very real practice and apply it to the tabletop with associated mechanics and little lead and plasitic soldiers.

Military men and wargamers now are still debating what all those military terms, constructs, shorthand titles and practices meant 'in reality.' So why should it be any different for wargamers? At one level, it shouldn't be any less debatable. On another, it must be, because the designer is making decisions about what those divisions of reality specifically mean with his very finite game rules.

Many historical game designers think that their game is the one that got it right, and Oh Look, it's so easy, and everybody else is floundering. But if you start to press them on any number of issues, their arguments get really shifty. Oh no, that wasn't a fudge… No, no, the way that that other guy did it, THAT was a fudge…

And many historical game designers are convinced that nobody can get it [history] right, insisting very real design issues in representing history are completely insoluble, so it's silly to try…and do something else.

I don't think anyone is saying it is easy. And I fully agree, from long experience, that when pressed, many, many wargame designers do get shifty, or simply claim historical accuracy and never bother to establish what that means in game design terms.

Even on this thread, people have apparently kept a straight face while saying on one hand how important accurate game scale is… while on the other hand, "Oh, our bases mostly represent empty space…"

What? Who said that? Certainly not me. You said that the movement, scale and time elements of all wargames are wrong. In Might and Reason you wrote "It apparently doesn't bother anyone these scales were wildly inaccurate and not very useful for representing anything."

It all depends on what is being represented by those stands. There is no immutable law that mandates they can only represent the physical space a unit or a number of men occupies, just as there is no unbreakable rule that says taking a figure off a base as a casualty must represent only dead soldiers.

It's like insisting that 100 man band can only be represented by a stand 20 yards by 5 yards, even though they would never perform as a band in that small an area or have other bands anywhere near them in a simpler space unless, perhaps, in a few situations, they were off stage, out in the parking lot, waiting to perform with a whole lot of other bands.

So would it be inaccurate to 'represent' that band on a football-sized stand if playing a game of half-time performances? It would all depend on the scale, wouldn't it?

You seem to be insisting that a wargame can't be accurate unless the parking lot is represented, though the game is about the performance in a much larger combat area.

I just find it silly to waste all that effort pretending that my fudging is something more noble or correct than some other guy's fudging.

Well, I can understand that feeling with so much fudging going on, both unspoken and declared. It is silly to claim it is anything else. I agree with you on that score and have said so many times before.

I am not sure there is anything more or less 'noble' about attempting to do meaningful job at representing the history and military content in the game. That is what wargames are about. Perhaps there is in publically declaring where you stand on an issue, which you have done. I respect that.

Pointing out where a map can not represent what it appears to, or pointing out what can be represented and/or conceptualized with counters in a wargame isn't noble either. It is just the facts of the matter and wargame design.

Although it is considerably more time-consuming and exacting, historical research is in some ways easier than game design, because the criteria for good research and writing are generally accepted across the discipline. (There is also, alas, no assumption of popularity or profit.) The work is supposed to stand on its own merits, and will be judged within a predictable framework of standards.

True. I do see some overlaps in intent and product, but that is another discussion…

Games, by contrast, need to appeal to a very wide variety of people who often have very different ideas of what is "right" or "fun" or a good use of their time and money. Games are as idiosyncratic as gamers themselves, thus I am at liberty to do it by intuition.

I don't think anyone would suggest otherwise. Game designers are at liberty to do it anyway they want from intuition to to re-heated H.G.Wells. More power to them all.

However, if claiming to 'represent' something, in this case history, there the designer had taken the liberty to choose a specific focus of what 'it' is and is supposed to be. Asking how well the designer succeeded is neither noble or silly. It is a natural response to the designer's choice.

Can you achieve this – in my opinion – yes.

VW: I definitely agree.

Mike the Mug:

Thanks for the pics. The squares with the numbers. Do they represent the area the units occupy, or are they just markers? Is this your first 'test' of this?

Bill

Bill, the figures on the base represent the "occupied space" and the marker tells you how many bases this would expand to. So a division of 4000 men would get two bases so this could be represented by one base and a "2" marker. I am showing these face up for demo purposes, these would normally be face down. BTW the "4" is incorrect for Foy, should just be a "2". Jerome arriving on the road column needs 4 bases for the 8000 men.

It is not the first "test" but the first I am putting out into the public domain. I am just trying to show an approach using different bases to represent grand tactical or operational formations given the debate on this thread. More to follow.

To complete the start – Picton' division
[URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/FirstPicton_zps1e95b087.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Reille's corps begins to advance, Hubert's cavalry performing a recce as the divisions of Foy and Bachelu make grand tactical moves.

[URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/SecondReille_zpse13cd17c.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Picton approaches Quatre Bras followed by the Brunswick contingent. The Brunswick Cavalry are leaving the road clear for the infantry. The Dutch-Belgian light cavalry have formed up in reserve so only one stand is needed for each regiment.
[URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/SecondPicton_zps06a6eb27.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Mike d'Mug:

Thanks for the explanation. Face down they would add to the 'fog of war'. With each stand representing 2000 men, a nominal brigade, what is the ground scale?

Visually, it is a strange effect, instead of more troops crowded together, it looks bare of troops. Of course, so would any hidden movement system.

Are these your rules?

Bill, thanks for the interest. Yes these rules are something I have been working on for some time. I am heavily influenced by Kriegspiel when it comes to troop space and battlefield space. Still lots to do to finish them.

QB is an encounter battle so lots of space and lots of new arrivals. No safe flanks. I am showing this as a replay. If this was a game then there would be dummy units available to both sides to create uncertainty and fog of war.

Scale is 1:10000 so the table gives me 18km of depth and 12 km of width.

The Fudge Factor

I really have to say something about this non-technical, sloppy term used in any number of ways to mean any number of things, including, but not limited to:

1. Any game unaccuracy
2. Any effort to cut corners on absolute accuracy
3. Any simplification of the mechanics or content of a game
4. When a designer consciously cuts something from the
content or mechanics because of unsolvable problems
5. Cutting something because to include it would make the
game less playable…so inaccuracies are accepted,
overtly or covertly.
6. Self-delusions or fooling oneself about what is being
creasted by the rules
7. Down-right lying about what is being presented in the
rules vs. what is there
8. What the inclusion of any non-real game mechanic is
called, from dice rolling to moving little stands of
lead.

I have often menntioned my friend, the astrophysicist with his computer program of galaxies colliding. It is a proven simulation accurately predicting how galaxies' structure behave when they collide.

Now this simulation is created by a box of wires, silicon chips and electrical impulses supposedly modeling billions of stars, millions of light years away?

Four thousand pixals of white moving inches on a flat computer screen represent hundreds of billions of stars spread across hundreds of thousands of light years moving at hundreds of thousands of miles per hour.

Talk about a fudge factor!

So how in the world could he reasonably say be created an accurate simulation? Because he uses calculus to compute the motions instead of a D10?

What makes that claim less silly than saying a game stand represents both the unit and the space it would need and would have to maneuver?

The "Fudge Factor" is basically a designer's or gamer's substitute for whenever they can not describe in technical terms regarding game design decisions.

Most all simulation designers wouldn't use the term "Fudging" because to use it simply means they don't know what to do with some design issue or how to describe the design process.

It is more far more of a hinderance to discussing game design than a useful term.

Bachelu clears out Piremont whilst Foy aproaches Gemincourt. [URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/ThirdfromEast_zpse8972e1d.jpg.html]

[/URL]
Picton is directed eastwards along the Namur road

Viewed from the North, Picton arrives followed by the Brunswick contingent
[URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/ThirdfromNorth_zps37021e68.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Here is the following view from the NorthEast.
The French have taken Gemincourt farm and crossed the stream (marked as a hedgerow). Picton has come out of march mode and deployed on the Nivelles – Namur road. Brunswick has almost arrived at Quatre Bras.
In the South Kellerman is arriving with his Cuirassiers. In the West we see the lead base of Alten's division marching from Nivelles.

[URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/FourthfromNE_zpsfe79a5b1.jpg.html]

[/URL]

Here we see Jerome's strong division (4 bases) begin to advance on the Pierrepoints and Bossu woods.

[URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/FourthJerome_zpsc66ab612.jpg.html]

[/URL]

In this one Picton's division is about to engage with Bachelu

[URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/FourthPicton_zps4277a6d6.jpg.html]

[/URL]

In this final shot Foy has driven the Dutch- Belgians from Gemincourt back towards QB. The supporting elements also fall back and Hubert's Chasseurs attack. The Dutch-Belgian cavalry counter-attack to support their infantry. Note that most of the time the cavalry are in open column when moving and line is formed when the object is to engage the enemy on a wider front rather than find a way through their own lines or gaps in the enemy deployment.

[URL=http://s1273.photobucket.com/user/Tim17777/media/Rules/FourthFoy_zps1c8c346b.jpg.html]

[/URL]

@Mike the Mug: Very good-looking setup! 15mm minis?

Question : What was the depth of a French battalion in line – lets say 900 men in 3 ranks??

VW:
This is trick question, right? It doesn't matter how many men are in the battlaion if it is formed in a line of three ranks…grin It would be no more than 10 yards deep, and more commonly 6 regardless of the numbers.

[I have found some discussions of different distances between the ranks being preferred depending on circumstances and officer preferences, such as Ney's 1803 Instructions… which has surprised me.]

Lets say you have a small scale of 20 yards to the inch and stands with half inch depth. Standing alone, that battalion in line has no space problems on the table. Place another line behind it touching bases and you have 2 three rank lines [2 X 6 = 12 yards] scale depth with stands taking up 20 yards scale on the table. However, unless it is a column or an exchange of lines, those two lines would never be that close together.

Does anyone actually play on that small a groundscale?

That 900-man battalion is going to cover a good 160m (thanks, von Winterfeldt!), so you're talking about a single battalion's frontage being 8". Musket range is going to be ~5" or so, and cannons are going to be able to fire a good 50."

That means you'd need a 6' wide table just to have enough room to place your reserves out of cannon range!

Your table is all of 1440 yards deep, and I'll assume at least that much wide. How many complete battles can you fight out at that scale?

It is not a trick question, if we can get this right one can scale this down more or less to achieve a good compromise.

I drew up on a piece of paper a French battalion with a frontage of 300 men – or 300 files, which would give us a length of about 160 meters.

In case I use a scale of 1 cm equals 20 m, for 8 companies battalion – I would need 8 cm width.

to base figures, without tumbling them over – I would use 1 cm depth – which would be 20 meters (as you see a bit too deep – but still ok for a battalion in line).

I could easily place a second battle line about 150 to 200 meters – or 7,5 to 10 cm distance.

And it's the figure basing that gets us in trouble.

I think I'm going to succumb to the idea of a $20 USD battalion that looks like a real battalion (ie, 3mm minis) for Napoleonics, and half of that is just so I can get a base thin enough to actually be in scale. The other half is for maximum spectacle, battalions that actually look like battalions!

1/600 scale is 6"=100yds, so my 900-man battalion will have a ~10" frontage, and the bases should be about 0.6" (15mm) deep at the most.

I could probably make that work with 15mm minis if I kept them in one rank, but I would not want to try 20mm or larger minis on that narrow a base. I don't think they could stay upright.

Cavalry are even more problematic. A single 15mm horse requires 15-20mm of base depth, and a 28mm horse may need 50mm of base depth (40mm is more likely, IMO). That's 33 yards depth for a single horse. That's about 10 horses deep.

The place we luck out is artillery. A 28mm Artillery piece probably has a 100mm deep base, which isn't quite deep enough to cover the limber, nevermind the caisson. But if you grab that 6-horse limber and put that on the table as most rules do, now you're looking at 8" of tablespace! That's 133 yards deep and 33 yards wide, enough for the entire battery's limbers, caissons, and wagons!