MichaelCollinsHimself | 10 Apr 2014 2:03 a.m. PST |
Dear All, The wars that I hope to cover in supplements and/or possibly in a new "Grand Manoeuvre" rule set are; the French-Austrian War (1859), the American Civil War (1861-65), the Austro-Prussian War (1866), and the Franco-Prussian War (1870). I`ve already done some reading on these subjects, and have prepared notes on how tactics changed etc, but if you have any views on how these different wars should be handled, or other conflicts of interest that you think may also be included, then please let me know. Regards, Mike. Grand Manoeuvre is at: grandmanoeuvre.co.uk |
HistoryPhD | 10 Apr 2014 5:03 a.m. PST |
The Second Prussian-Danish War (1864) |
KTravlos | 10 Apr 2014 6:36 a.m. PST |
Oh man so much cool stuff. Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878 The aforementioned Second Schwelvich-Holstein war (i tried :P) The First Scwelivich-Holstein war The First War of Italian Unification The War of Triple Alliance Really speaking though, in my humble and uneducated opinion, if you level of abstraction is the operational level or the grand tactical level, you might not need that many changes. Cavalry plays a bigger role in battle in Europe, but it is still better used as it was in the US Civil-War. Why not take a look on how the 1859,. 1866 and 1870 rules-sets deal with these things. The author notes are also very useful. |
McLaddie | 10 Apr 2014 6:56 a.m. PST |
And the Hungarian Revolution 1848-49 involving more troops than these wars: [better than half a million] Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1878 The aforementioned Second Schwelvich-Holstein war (The First Scwelivich-Holstein war The First War of Italian Unification The War of Triple Alliance |
John the Greater | 10 Apr 2014 8:20 a.m. PST |
I suggest the War of the Triple Alliance (aka, the Paraguayan War). Huge amounts of cavalry were used and there was a vast disparity in the weaponry of the two sides. The wars of Italian unification would be interesting. The Battle of the Volturno (1860) and the Battle of Mentana (1867) demonstrate the fast pace of military technology in that decade. OH, and the other suggestions above all have great merit. |
HistoryPhD | 10 Apr 2014 10:33 a.m. PST |
And for that matter, Maximilian's war in Mexico |
ScottWashburn | 10 Apr 2014 11:02 a.m. PST |
K Travlos hits it on the head: If you are dealing with large scales then the tactics really change very little between the Napoleonic Wars and the ACW. Lots of little changes at the tactical level, but the grand tactical level is pretty much the same. Weapons ranges might get a little longer, but that's about all. By 1866 things are starting to change, but it really doesn't become significant until 1870. At that point, with both sides using breechloading rifles, you start to have major differences. Cavalry charges on the battlefield become suicidal and the infantry is forced into open order. I'm not sure what the scale of your rules are, so it's possible there might not even be that much that needs to change even for 1870 (or 1914 for that matter). |
Pictors Studio | 10 Apr 2014 1:15 p.m. PST |
I would disagree with that to some degree. Certainly things might not have changed a lot but there were some little changes that became important and could affect how you game the periods. For example at the Alma when the British are charging up the hill and fail, try again and fail, are ordered to try again and just start shooting up the hill and they can hit the Russians and the Russians can't hit them. Also the thin red line which would not have worked so well with smoothbores probably. They might not make a huge difference to how you play the game but it might be enough for a nuanced set of rules to take advantage of it. Certainly in a big game of Balaclava Napoleonic infantry would have been run down by the cavalry instead of blasting it away had they not formed square. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 13 Apr 2014 6:09 a.m. PST |
Gentlemen, many thanks for all your replies and suggestions
I was interested in the Triple Alliance. John could you fill me in and/or point me in the right direction regarding the "disparity in weaponry" that you mentioned? Grand Manoeuvre rules are for a tactical level (3-5 bases = infantry battalion/2-6 bases = artillery battery/etc.), so the changes in weaponry and tactics will impact quite a bit on any rules version in which breech-loaders and rifled weapons are being used. So for the time being, it`s all about finding out what weapons were used
and whether they (and the tactics too) were used effectively or not in each war. |
McLaddie | 13 Apr 2014 5:05 p.m. PST |
For what it's worth, there are changes in tactics, but to game the 1848-49 Hungarian War regarding organization and weapons, and not much in the way of uniforms for the Austrians, and then the Crimean Russians. The Hungarians are a colorful lot though. An entire army, @200,000 strong with all cavalry powerful hussars and lancers, the infantry dressed in hussar cording and the artillery painted in stripes, green, red and white. |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Apr 2014 7:36 p.m. PST |
I thought that one of the major tactical shifts that would show up ACW and later is that skirmishers armed with the newer rifles could easily and accurately shoot down the artillery crew (or horses) at ranges where the artillery couldn't effectively fire back! |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 14 Apr 2014 12:08 a.m. PST |
Agreed Lion, the accuracy at ranges that rifles were to be used is the key
and of course, better training levels allowed higher rates of fire with breech-loaders. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 14 Apr 2014 12:08 a.m. PST |
Yep, Bill
that`s the next one that i`ll be looking at
(1848) |
McLaddie | 14 Apr 2014 8:38 p.m. PST |
I thought that one of the major tactical shifts that would show up ACW and later is that skirmishers armed with the newer rifles could easily and accurately shoot down the artillery crew (or horses) at ranges where the artillery couldn't effectively fire back! Uh, I'm not that's the case. The ability of skirmishers to shoot down artillery crews was seen in the Napoleonic wars. Most light infantry instructions specifically mention that. And artillery had a difficult time dealing with skirmishers at any range. Be that as it may, the ability of close-order infantry to fire at ranges equal to canister ranges [200-600 yards]robed artillery of a major offensive weapon and made the defense an attritional engagement. If skirmishers could shoot down artillery crews with impunity, they would have at Malvern Hill, Murfreesboro and even Gettysburg. They didn't. Artillery still out-ranged the rifled musket by a factor of 3
There was more going on that hampered the effectiveness of artillery than the longer range of the rifled-musket. That it had an impact, there can be no doubt. Terrain did too. |
ScottWashburn | 15 Apr 2014 4:21 a.m. PST |
Well, not to begin the much-discussed rifles-vs-smoothbore argument again, but while rifle muskets were more effective than smoothbore muskets, they were not THAT much more effective. Close order formations could still be used successfully against them. It was the introduction of breechloaders and repeaters that forced major changes in tactics. In combat, rate of fire is more important than the accuracy of the weapon. |
John the Greater | 15 Apr 2014 6:57 a.m. PST |
point me in the right direction regarding the "disparity in weaponry" The Allies (Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay) were armed primarily with rifled muskets and spencer carbines for the cavalry. Their artillery were mostly La Hitte rifles from France with a few Whitworths. The Paraguayans were armed almost exclusively with Brown Bess flintlocks (though they did capture some rifles). Paraguayan cavalry rarely carried firearms. The artillery were mostly smoothbores, except for what they captured from the Allies. By the last year of the War large numbers of Paraguayans were armed with spears. I recommend Terry Hooker's book on the Armies of the Paraguayan War from Foundry Books. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 15 Apr 2014 1:27 p.m. PST |
Thanks John, most useful information! |
KTravlos | 15 Apr 2014 4:09 p.m. PST |
I can tell you that in the Pacific War (Chile vs. Bolivia-Peru) the rifled weapons were not used effectively. Ergo the Chileans were able to pull off frontal assaults on fortified positions (Andean Tragedy). The Russians also seemed initially in the Russo-Turkish war to prefer frontal assaults and got decimated by Ottoman artillery and fire-power (Osprey book). So I would say that weapons disparity should only play a role were one side knows how to use it and the other does not. In cases were both sides know how to use it or have thought about countering it it is tactics and operational plans that count. For me in the Austro-German War of 1866, it was outmaneuvering the Austrians that decided it, rather than any effects of the needle-gun. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 16 Apr 2014 2:54 a.m. PST |
Yes, quite so Konstantinos; it was probably competency in command that was the largest factor in that one
regardless of the disparity of weaponry between each side`s small arms and artillery. |
spontoon | 17 Apr 2014 7:00 p.m. PST |
Don't forget the U.S. VS. British "Pig War"! |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 18 Apr 2014 10:25 a.m. PST |
Yeah, which rifle was used in that war? |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 20 Apr 2014 3:25 a.m. PST |
Rules-wise, I`m starting to think around how I can adapt Grand Manoeuvre to these bigger nineteenth century wars i`ll need to add a suppression effect perhaps, for simplicity`s sake, by adding the effect to an already existing game order state when engaged at the increased rifle ranges
? |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 21 Apr 2014 1:58 a.m. PST |
The essence of the changes in adaptations to these later conflicts will be in increased "combat ranges" with the outranged, or assaulting side only rolling defensively
. So, I think the next step is to look for historical assualts and engagements to test the rules
any suggestions? |
KTravlos | 21 Apr 2014 10:26 a.m. PST |
The Prussian assaults on eh Dybbol forts in the 1864 war The Italian attempt to storm San Marino heights at Solferino. Little Round Top at Gettysburg or Picketts charge The Chilean assault on the Allied positions at Tacna |
John the Greater | 21 Apr 2014 11:51 a.m. PST |
The Allied assault at Curupayti. As fun as Cold Harbor! |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 22 Apr 2014 12:48 p.m. PST |
Thanks, a few interesting suggestions there gents ! I`ll be collecting information for these presently, but if you can direct me to some good online sources for these , i`d be most grateful ! |
KTravlos | 22 Apr 2014 1:36 p.m. PST |
Well Wikipedia has a good article on Tacna, and the description in Andean Tragedy is pretty good and evocative. There is a Osprey essentials history book on Solferino, one that is pretty good and through. Of course there is a ton of material on Gettysburg. On Dybbol 1864, the 1859 Grand Tactical Rules-set has some good stuff. There is also a newish ? book on that. Take a look at the offerings of Helion publishing. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 23 Apr 2014 5:16 a.m. PST |
Cheers Konstantinos, I`m borrowing a book on the 2nd schleswig – in exchange for my Henderson books on the two battles of the Franco-Prussian war
so Dybbol is covered i think. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 18 May 2014 8:20 a.m. PST |
I`ve deciced to do my first tests of the firing and combat mechanisms on the battle of Gravotte and the attacks on St.Privat. So, does anyone have information of detailed orders for battle for both sides, or know where I can access the information somewhere on the net ? |
coolyork | 18 May 2014 7:49 p.m. PST |
Pick up Dr.Kolinski's book on The Paraguyan War ( Independance Or Death ) . This guy spent tons of time down in Paraguay . While you'll see that the Brown Bess was quite common ,and captured weapons came into use there was a number of others in use such as German muskets stamped Potsdam,Suhl,Danzig etc not to mention Turner breech loaders,Wittons rifles etc . This war was the whos-who of the worlds weapons . Good luck |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 19 May 2014 6:52 a.m. PST |
I found some fairly detailed oob`s last night and it looks like I will be able to get this on table to test it quite soon
. |
KTravlos | 19 May 2014 8:37 a.m. PST |
Great man! Good luck and keep us posted |
Hussard | 20 May 2014 8:06 a.m. PST |
Hi friends, I live in Corrientes, my house in less than 100 meter from "Fuerte de la Bateria" where took place the battle on 25th may 1865 . The parguayans used a variety of arms that they bought the previous years from many different countries, they usually took the armies of the fallen enemies and used them too. It is a very interesting topic. I remember how surprised were the allies when uruguayana fall that they found brazilian weapons captured the previous weeks and that there were canons melted during the revolutionary wars too. After the battle of Pehuajo or Corrales , in Paraguay they knows it as Corrales, The argentinean officers who were walking the battlefield found so many different arms and uniforms that they were very surprised, but it was in some way a consecuence that the paraguayans formed these small contingents with voluntaries from many different units, and of course because all these units were armed with many different weapons too. regards, Manuel |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 20 May 2014 10:26 a.m. PST |
Thanks for the information Manuel, I`ll make a note of this. For St Privat, I now have the French dispositions for VI & IV Corps and today I have tried to establish ranges and game effects for artillery and small arms
for your interest I`ll post them below (let`s hope the justification works ok): Artillery Ranges: French 4pdr 0-15 15-65 65-130 3-4 disorder 5-6 disorder 6 disorder 5-6 morale French 12pdr 0-20 20-75 75-150 3-4 disorder 5-6 disorder 6 disorder 5-6 morale French Mitrailleuse batteries: 0-55 55-85 3-5 disorder 4-6 disorder 6 morale Prussian Krupp 4/6pdr 0-25 25-75 75-150 3-4 disorder 4-5 disorder 5-6 disorder 5-6 morale 6 morale Infantry Combat Ranges: French Chassepot: 0-40 40-60 3-6 disorder 4-6 disorder Prussian Dreyse: 0-15 15-30 4-6 disorder 5-6 disorder d.6 scores and ranges in cms, the scale is 1 cm = 20.94 meters. I have yet to think how to apply a pinning effect to these results I may go with something similar to suppression rules I have applied to WW2 Rapid Fire games. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 23 May 2014 3:48 a.m. PST |
I have found the suppression rules that I applied to "Rapid Fire" One should note that suppression rules for GM would be more simple than the ones below because Grand Manoeuvre uses elements and not individual figures and order and morale effects are a direct result of artillery and combat calculations. Anyhow, I`m posting them here to give you some idea as to how they may be applied this time to a mid-nineteenth century variant of Grand Manoeuvre
"SUPPRESSIVE FIRE" FOR RAPID-FIRE.
General: The level of suppression is determined by the casualty effect. Initially, troops are assumed to present a target of a limited size, which if fired upon and suppressed will be reduced as they seek greater levels of protection. Conversely, their firepower drops also. Suppressive Fire Calculation and Casualty, Firing & Morale Effects: Suppression is accumulative within one turn – once a company/group has suffered 2 hits it is "suppressed", and on a third casualty it is "pinned" and therefore if fired at in the same turn it is with the relevant target modifiers. One needs to apply a sequential method of fire in using this rule. Starting with the heaviest weapons first. It should be in the following order; artillery, tank/mortar H.E., M.M.G. fire, then rifle group fire. Hits achieved produce the following automatic "suppressive" effects in one turn: 0-1 Hits = No effect. 2 hits = Suppressed. 3+ = Pinned. Firing on Suppressed, or Pinned troops: Modifiers for firing at "Suppressed" & "Pinned" targets: Target suppressed: -1 Target pinned: -2 Effect on suppressed formation/group firing. Company/Group is suppressed: May only "crawl" 3 " away from enemy, or into cover but may not fire. If stationary: -1 to firing. "Suppression" is removed in the next turn if no casualties in next turn. Company/Group is pinned: May not move at all. -2 modifier to firing – becomes suppressed in their next turn if no casualties are sustained in the enemy`s next turn. Gun crews: Anti-tank guns, mortars, machine guns with 3 men would be eliminated if "pinned", or would not be able to fire if they became "suppressed". If suppressed, the remaining crewman would not be able to move. Alternative that we have played here, is to say 3-man, MMG/weapons teams fire at 1 per casualty. So this is a variation to the company rule. Gun Crews that have not exposed their position by firing but are within 1" of an affected group share the group's morale condition. Reforming groups and re-crewing weapons: Figures joining a single suppressed gun crewman become part of the new crew. Example: If two infantry figures join a suppressed crewman and they take a casualty in the enemy's turn the crew is still suppressed in their next turn. (The gun crew firing at a 1 effect, and 1 as a target) Firing AT grenades and throwing hand-grenades: If suppressed only count a score of "1", or "2" If pinned only count a score of "1" Assaults on suppressed and pinned groups: The group or company being assaulted suffers a 1 to their basic score if suppressed. If pinned, a group has its basic score reduced by a 2. So, a company reduced to 6 men that is pinned has its base score reduced by 2 points to "4" plus the score on a d10. Administering the rule: Markers: Blue Tiddly-winks, which are painted red on the reverse side to represent suppressed and pinned groups respectively. Artillery effects on groups: We have used the d.6 method for artillery accuracy and the 4-inch grid for the casualty effected area. If there is more than one group in the area, the affected groups are diced for using various dice. Casualties are first taken from groups that are not suppressed, or pinned and in that order of priority. If groups are equally affected we have used a random dicing method within the affected area. Or say, deciding that of 3 casualties 1 is in one and 2 in another and then dicing to determine which group it is; high one group, and low the other. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 26 May 2014 6:21 a.m. PST |
We`re all set to test the new rules, ranges and effects on Wednesday. The test will fall in to two parts; firstly the counter-battery factors and then the effect of French fire upon a Prussian infantry brigade. The sides are
French: Six infantry battalions in light earthworks, each with two companies of skirmishers deployed approximately 600 yards ahead of the line plus two 4pdr batteries with a mitrailleuse battlery in support of the artillery. Prussians: Six infantry battalions laid as per the orders of the 4th Prussian Guards Brigade at the battle of St.Privat plus two supporting divisional artillery batteries. The first line has skirmishers deployed ahead of it. "The brigade will advance south of the road on St. Privat and the hill to the south of it; the attack will be supported by the 1st Guard Infantry Division advancing north of the road. Each regiment, on the left the Franz Regiment, on the right the Konigin Regiment, will send one battalion ahead in column of companies ; the remaining battalions to follow in half-battalions and take no company column formation when entering the effective hostile fire zone." St. Privat German Sources (page 280) |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 28 May 2014 8:05 a.m. PST |
The test of the rules for the Franco-Prussian war went very well today. Here's a short description of the main events in the test: The first part being a counter-battery duel between two French and two Prussian batteries went true to form, with the French guns being knocked out quite quickly and then a Mitrailleuse battery was destroyed by unopposed fire the range being too great for the fall of shot to be observed. This was followed by an optimistic advance of a Prussian Guard Grenadier brigade on the French lines. The first Prussian line the leading battalion of each regiment was halted at about 1,000 yards from the main French positions. It was also stopped short before its skirmishers could engage the French. The second line was halted before it became intermixed with the first, but it than took fire as the French attention switched from the pinned troops of the leading battalions, who presented less of a viable target to them. The Prussian morale was reduced to the point that the impetus of the advance was lost and the brigade was made to check its morale. This test was passed, but another was forced upon them when units in the second line took hits and also became either suppressed or pinned. The first line gradually recovered its order and recovered from the suppression effects, but was then fired upon again, with very decisive effect; and the fourth unit's morale was affected and the Prussian brigade tested its morale again; this time it failed and the command was forced to retire one move. In the advance the Prussian brigade had taken fire from 5 French battalions, which is probably the most that could have engaged considering how units were spaced at interval along the French line in that battle. Given some cover from terrain or support from other corps, or artillery formations, the Prussian advance could have gotten closer and as close as some accounts say that the advances were stopped initially; to about 600-800 yards. It is worth noting that the "German Sources" book has reference to the Prussians getting to within (needle gun) rifle range after some time, and after which they were forced to "advance by rushes". We had this movement represented by suppressed units if they were not also disordered as the Prussians were quite good at dealing with disorder, or better at ignoring it, the effect of their rallying in the morale phase represented this quite well. In this I have extended the range of combat outcomes from the basic (Napoleonic) Grand Manoeuvre rules to combine the effects of suppression and pinning with order and morale states. It looks like these outcomes will be adequate to model the reactions "modern" infantry to varying weights of fire they might encounter. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 29 May 2014 12:47 p.m. PST |
Hi Konsantinos, re. the Chilean assault on the Allied positions at Tacna
. I`ve found quite a bit of information on that battle, any particular time, or part of that battle? I wonder too about how the troops that took part should be rated – their discipline, training levels, and morale states – how should the units in each army be rated? After I have added some refinements to the "Gravelotte" test, this is the next battle that I will attempt to use to "fine tune" the rules. Any views and indication of the stae of the troops at Tacna would be greatly apprecaited. Regards, Mike. |
KTravlos | 30 May 2014 8:54 a.m. PST |
Micheal you will have to decide if you wish to rate them on some universal rating scale, or in relation to each other.I would advise the second. Generally speaking all three armies were very bad on a universal rating scale due to the lack of general staffs, lack of equipment uniformity, lack of logistics etc. In relational terms the Chileans were better than the Peruvians, who were better than the Bolivians, though individual Bolivian units did well. If you read the description of the battle in "Andean Tragedy" you will get a good idea of which units fought well and which ran. The battle started with the Chileans marching in open ground in parade order, which lasted quite a while, so you might want to focus on the point just before impact. The fact that the Chilean troops were able to storm the defenses even after such a spectacle is a testament to their resilience. Morale for the Peruvians and Bolivians initially was high (they sung their anthems as the Chilean troops began their Pickett's charge), but it started going down. Again I strongly recommend you get "Andean Tragedy" as it has all the information you could possibly ask for. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 30 May 2014 10:51 a.m. PST |
Thanks, I think you`ve sold me a copy ! On my internet travels I found these images I believe they show infantry in two battles (Tacna & Miraflores) in battalion columns: Tacna:
Miraflores:
and with both battalions arrayed in battalion columns; the Chilean Regimiento 2° de Lνnea en Antofagasta:
|
KTravlos | 30 May 2014 11:09 a.m. PST |
the pictures make sense with the descriptions in "Andean Tragedy". |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 31 May 2014 11:28 a.m. PST |
I just ordered "Andean Tradegy" from Amazon ;-) |
KTravlos | 31 May 2014 4:24 p.m. PST |
Good. Its a good book for the military stuff, not that good for the background of the war. But you will get your fill on military stuff! |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 02 Jun 2014 2:05 a.m. PST |
I`ve set up another test of an attempted assault by the Prussian Guards at Gravelotte St. Privat on Wednesday, but this time with a few changes to the terrain and these are to incorporate features that were present on that battlefield; a large wood which, in effect will channel the Prussian`s advance but it will also shelter them from the fire of the French units to their right. I have also added two slightly depressed areas on the slopes at about 500-600 yards in front of the French lines which will provide some limited cover against fire. Also the Mitrailleuse battery of the last test will be replaced by a battalion of chasseurs which will give some better support than the multiple firing guns did. In addition to these changes there were one or two things that I have noted that I forgot to do last time there usually are in a game test! These St. Privat tests are expected to produce failed assault outcomes/results
It will be necessary also of course also to see how more successful charges (even Picket`s Charge which managed to contact with enemy units in positions) will play out using the same rules mechanisms. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 05 Jun 2014 12:00 a.m. PST |
Yesterday I ran the test described above and two others on the contest between two Prussian artillery batteries and two companies of French Chasseurs the two Prussian batteries were engaged in counter-battery fire against two French ones in defences, as the Chasseurs companies fired upon them. For these two artillery tests, I increased the effect of counter-battery fire for the Prussians and the main reason for this is for the greater rate of fire that Prussian batteries achieved in the war compared to the French muzzle-loading guns. That said, the Prussian guns took longer than expected to force the French artillery out of the line, as the Chasseurs hit one of the Prussian batteries and it was made to retire. Perhaps one should be using supporting elements of infantry units for artillery? But there are accounts of Prussian artillery being shot-up by French rifle fire before they could unlimber. The Prussian infantry assaults were more successful than in the last test; the first line of two battalions was halted about 900 yards from the main French positions, but the second line moved through, deployed its skirmisher firing line and most of them got to with 450 yards range. A single Prussian battalion (in two half-battalion columns) managed to close and assault the Chasseurs in their prepared positions, but were repulsed with their morale affected. This, and the worsening sate of the other advanced Prussian battalions, triggered a third test of the Prussian brigade's morale, which was failed and caused them to withdraw one move. With all of both sides` skirmisher firing lines deployed and engaged this time, a different method was used to handle combats between them which produces recoil effects, but if their parent units are pinned, or suppressed they don`t really fight, combat or fire as effectively I`ll be looking at the range of outcomes between engaged firing lines more closely in the next test I think. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 09 Jun 2014 10:37 a.m. PST |
Got the book, yep at first skim through, looks like it will do the job alright! But battalion columns – what were they thinking of? OK, I suppose it is called "The Andean Tradegy"!
as I said earlier, more playing out and testing on Wednesday – I`ve been trying to figure out the firing/target modifiers for firing lines. |
Old Contemptibles | 09 Jun 2014 2:03 p.m. PST |
Not familiar with these rules so please forgive the newbie question. Are these battalion level rules or brigade level rules? I am guessing battalions. It isn't exactly clear on the website. |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 09 Jun 2014 11:47 p.m. PST |
Hi Rallynow, The game uses a standard 4 base infantry battalion/cavalry regiment, although this can be varied for under-strength and paper-strength units. For artillery batteries; one gun model = a two-gun section, and so this is variable too 2-6 according to nation and type. Skirmishers are represented (in Napoleonics) by one or two bases, but for this period the skirmish line is more often reinforced and so more can be used the details of this I`m about to address in our next test. The Napoleonic game can play quite quickly, and so larger battles are possible using sub-units, but for the C19th, I`m hoping that the increase in firing line bases will not slow the play down too much and make large battles possible without abstracting out the form and nature of the combats. a little more detail can be found here: PDF link you`ll also find more information and free scenarios at: link |
MichaelCollinsHimself | 10 Jun 2014 6:46 a.m. PST |
A couple of photos showing the end of the recent St. Privat test: From the French side, the Prussian half-battalion columns are heavily pinned down (the yellow tiddly-winks represent pinned units, blue tiddly-winks represent disorder and the 5mm d.6 show morale damage):
Seen from the Prussian point of view, the assault on the position held by French Chasseurs has failed and the Prussian battalion has routed with its morale affected:
|
MichaelCollinsHimself | 11 Jun 2014 10:56 a.m. PST |
Today we looked at some scale and basing issues which needed to be resolved or a compromise reached in some way. In order to avoid a doubling in the number of bases/ groundscale and therefore require an increased size of playing area, I decided to introduce a sabot base for single bases so that they may also represent company columns – this may give a slight distortion to the line, but given the game`s movement distances on table this would not impact too much in instances where lines are reformed/deployed. Anyhow, all the ranges that I had previously worked out will remain. And so we played out an encounter between a Prussian battalion and a French one and introduced some modifiers for firing at skirmisher (firing) lines and firing at formed bodies that are screened by skirmishers that are not suppressed or pinned. For the effects of fire upon firing lines themselves, I added suppression and pinning to the two outcomes of skirmisher combats in Grand Manoeuvre Napoleonic rules. Our quick test resulted in the Prussians reaching and assaulting the French in their defences, but because they had become disordered they were repulsed with their morale affected. Next week, we will apply the changes to firing lines and test again, using a full Prussian brigade to attempt to get as close as possible to the best French effect and the worst Prussian effect; with the Prussians advancing over open terrain for the full range of the Chassepot rifle. |