"Depth as a force multiplier - question on rear supports" Topic

Gents,

What is your opinion – what was the impact of deeper formations in assaulting a line?

Was it one of "moral support" and simple weight along with acting as reserves – or could rear supports (2 or more battalions against one in a given frontage) contribute more directly to the wearing down and routing of the opposing force?

Were loaded muskets exchanged between battalions (maybe at least if they were part of the same regiment?)? Was the attacker able to "alternate" between battalions taking their turn to step to the front and deliver a volley / attempt a charge?

To what sort of depth were these rear supports meaningful? More than 2 battalions?

In Black Powder, rear supports are a simple +1 combat result modifier to see who wins and forces a break test. The leading battalions generally get bogged down in "close combat" and cannot normally withdraw voluntarily – but unless they're shaken, there's no real need to do so.

As a consequence, I felt that an Austerlitz recreation we played bogged down enough that we did not play to a satisfactory resolution – which led me to think that added decisiveness from thickening the line at certain points might be in order.

However, would that create another problem – that of superior forces more easily prevailing? While certainly logical, most wargames have difficulties in making meaningful games out of mismatched forces.

Thoughts?

In the ACW period, regiments/battalions deployed in a second line were the reserve. They were used as a rally point if the forward units needed to fall back, or could advance and relive a unit hard pressed to their front. In addition, they could exploit any breakthrough.

Having said that, Brigade reserves (the second line, when one was used) were about 400 yards to the rear of the first line. This was for protection from enemy rounds and shells. It allowed them to be close enough to support the unit to their front if needs be, but far enough back to be relatively safe.

All good questions, but I see you are trying to compare the historical record to a "game" system and did not seem to be happy with the results. Like many, you desire more historical record in your games in results. What follows is an observation as why many gaming systems fail in this department. I am not picking on any particular set, but rather, hope the following blurb gets you to thinking about what is wrong in basic game designs.

Your question is non-linear and therefore the answer you seek cannot be absolute. What I mean is: You can find many examples of doctrines requiring commands to be deployed in depth. There will be examples where a smaller force got so close and forced the front line to fall back that the supports could not come in to play due to time and distance with relationship to the proximity of the smaller force. You will also find examples where it worked. So it all depends on many factors. (ie: it does not work all the time.) Most failures can be blamed upon leadership not making the right decisions at the right time and expecting their subordinate units to execute those orders just in time!

An example of a "linear" engagement would be where one side tired, without food, water and ammunition, when pressed , will seek refuge somewhere else or surrender (if unable to continue the fight) until one or more combination of those variables improves. A car will come to an eventual stop when it runs out of gas and will no longer move under it's own power until more gas is taken on. This is a better example of linear results. You will ALWAYS get the same result until a factor changes. When a factor changes (getting gas), that externally applied factor makes the situation non-linear until the next time it runs out of gas. We all know that once again the car will stop…again! (a "linear" result.)

There have been many battles where the losing side outnumbered the winning side because the larger numbers could not get into the battle either by terrain restriction or time constraints and/or distance (multiple possibilities). So your tactical use of a second line in support really depends on many local situations. There is no one set answer other than, in theory, would help hold the ground longer or take the ground quicker because more "fresh" troops can be applied-and then hopefully at the right time!

Most games mechanics model non-linear issues in real life as linear in the game. (examples: Units are made up of men. Each is an individual that brings many and varying degrees of experience and training (and motivation) to the unit. Therefore, no two units should ever be rated exactly the same as John Doe cannot clone himslef to be in more than one unit at a time! Yet a game will lump all "line" together and rate them the same. Another example is that despite the complicated variables when a unit fires, most games will rate a stand the same every time it fires- in real life results varied wildly from shot to shot.

IMHO, the best use of when to concentrate mass in a game is based upon the understanding of how it worked in real life, knowing both the advantages and disadvantages , then allow the gamer to to take risks – just like their real life counterparts had to do. Seems that most thinking gamers have the propensity to look to the rules for answers rather than seeking a better understanding of what the mechanics are trying to allow and restrict during game play. A good set will allow for historical tactics to be rewarded and visa versa.

Hopefully this may eventually help you find the answers you seek. I suggest that if the values in a rule set can be justified and agreed to, then change them. Be aware that a fix for one problem may create another somewhere else in game play.

Mismatched forces usually supply the most interesting games but only if victory conditions are adjusted to match the inherent capabilities of the opposing forces.

Good luck!

Tom

If you are looking at it from a wargame rules perspective, then for the ACW I don't believe there is an advantage to giving columns a bonus. Columns were used more for dealing with issues on approaching the enemy and lacked the cohesion to have any effect in a melee. They might affect the morale though of both the attackers and defenders.

As TK indicates in the ACW waves were more the norm. On assault they could be used to sustain the momentum of an assault after the enemy's first line was breached, to take a second crack at the line or to secure the position if counterattacked. How this would play out in a wargame is going to depend on the mechanics of the game. If you have longer time increments then a bonus might make sense.

I think you don't see columns used in the ACW because by then, the firepower was capable to shoot them to pieces before they made contact with the enemy!

My two cents.

I think there is a tactical misrepresentation in how supports are handled in many 19th century wargames. From the SYW through 1877, there were almost always supports, second lines and/or reserves. Wellington was obsessive about having them. He'd have brigades behind brigades, divisions behind divisions.

Supporting isn't a condition that provides a morale boost to the front line. That wasn't their main benefit, if it was a benefit at all.

It it is something that the second line did. Being the 'support' meant specific things to the commander of that second line. Being ordered to support a front line created a specific set of responsibilities, and tied the support to the front line in action.

If you follow what supports did in battle, you won't find accounts about a morale bump such second lines provided the first line. It is reasonable to assume the commander would feel good about it, but the actual men of the rank and file or junior officers might not even know who or even if there were any supports behind them. I have read one comment from a 95th Rifle officer feeling good about the support the Light Infantry battalions provided…in skirmishing.

Supports did one of three things during battle. Albuera is a good example these uses:

1. They moved off to the left or right to protect the flank of the front line. Colburne's brigade moved to the right of the Spanish 'in support'. Werle moved to the left 'in support' of the French V Corps.

2. Relieve the front line. Houghton and Abercrombie did this while the front line of Spanish were under fire from infantry and artillery. Also remember that these troops had never been in combat together before and were from different national army organizations.

3. Provide protection for retreating front lines. The French grenadier battalion and cavalry did this when the V Corps retreated.

Giving troops a plus or negative modifier for having or not having troops behind or on the flank really doesn't represent the purpose or benefits of supports. The modifiers make supports a 'state of being' rather than something supports provided in action, which is what made them 'supports'.

The modifiers are nice, but I haven't seen much to justify them and it completely ignores the mechanics needed to make supports actually valuable on the battlefield as Zelekendel has found.

They didn't often use battalion columns (i.e. column of companies or column of divisions) in the ACW, but they DID use columns OF battalions -- that is, one battalion/regiment followed directly by others. This was an attack formation, often used against entrenchments.

I think the advantages were:

1. Possible morale boost of having help directly behind you.

2. Possible morale loss for the defenders, seeing all those attackers coming right at them.

3. If the front battalion waivers/goes to ground, you can send the next through/over it to maintain the advance.

4. If and when you break through the enemy line, battalions can be peeled off to both sides to widen the gap.

5. Perhaps most important: easier for the commander to maintain control of multiple attacking battalions.

I'm with Bill (McLaddie) on this one:

• Supports provide a safety-net for the first line to reform behind if thrown back.
• Supports provide reinforcements to carry forward the fight if the first line breaks up.
• Supports provide reinforcements to exploit a breakthrough by the first line.

I maintain that supports do not make the first line more effective at fighting, they make the attack (or defense) more robust and allow it to continue in the face of both success or failure.

Furthermore I'd say that the way most games say, "+1 per support," up to some arbitrary limit is non-sensical and does not relate to the historical accounts I read for any period.

Often people will respond to this criticism by saying, "Well, the guys in front are less likely to retire if there are supports behind them with their bayonets pointed forward." That's a nice thought and all but the units are at minimum three ranks deep, if attacking in column they are *many* ranks deep, the argument that they need to be umpteen more ranks deep (i.e. all the supporting units behind them) in order to have the morale to advance seems strange to me and I think it is an issue of conflating scopes, i.e. concluding that something is necessary at a larger scope when it is already accounted for and primarily pertains to a smaller scope.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Yes, I was unnecessarily brief – but obviously, all the aforementioned "grand scale" tactical possibilities or supports are naturally present in every rule set and completely up to the skill of the player and the luck of the command rolls.

The main thing, then, was that we simply didn't have the time or patience (well I would've :) to keep on slugging enough to see the supports come into play.

I think the main problem is, as always, too small tables. It's all about maneuver space. We were engaged along the length of the table and that left the only chances for tactical movement to move "supports" back and forth.

I'll add this much: In the ACW period, columns of companies and columns of divisions were the standard formation for maneuver in the presence of the enemy. HOWEVER, one the units came into range of the enemy, they almost always formed into line.

Units on both sides were VERY well drilled. In fact, they could easily move through a battery of artillery in line, either to advance or in retreat by forming columns of four (as in moving by the right or left flank) in each company so as to be able to move between the guns and then back into line again, all without having to halt to change formation.

Dear Mr. Zelekendel,

What scale do you use?

Best Regards
Art

The main thing, then, was that we simply didn't have the time or patience (well I would've :) to keep on slugging enough to see the supports come into play.

What? Why should it take a long time to employ supports or reserves? It would depend on the rules and scale I would think.

I think the main problem is, as always, too small tables. It's all about maneuver space. We were engaged along the length of the table and that left the only chances for tactical movement to move "supports" back and forth.

Again, as Art asks, what scale are we talking about? Supports at the brigade level were within 200-400 yards of the front line. Small tables wouldn't negate that.

The Austerlitz game was done at 15mm. I also use 6mm for ACW.
Frontage for Austerlitz was 90mm per battalion in line, but of course, as stated before, the French mostly charged into melee never leaving column, as is usual in unmodded Black Powder, all along the Austro-Russian line.

Zelekendel,

At Austerlitz the French deployed their battalions in columns of half battalions, or double lines, 4 companies wide. Except for a minor action to secure a town on the right flank, Lannes units didn't change formation, mostly because they were not engaged in musket combat and the battalions deployed in checkerboard with artillery in the gaps had sufficient firepower to ward off cavalry. Soult's Divisions, St.Hilaire and Vandamme, advanced up the Pratzen in columns of half battalions and when confronted by the infantry of the 4th Allied Column deployed in line. Bernadotte's divisions advanced in columns of half battalions in checkerboard, as Lannes' divisions. They did not change formation as they were not confronted by infantry but rather created a breakwater of fire to give the outnumbered French Guard Cavalry a breather from the Russian Guard Cavalry. In the south the French mostly deployed in line for infantry combat though at Telnitz they counterattacked the town in column, which was the doctrine in all nation's armies for attacking built-up areas.

If "Black Powder" rules require, encourage or benefit the gamer for running the French into combat in column, it misrepresents what the French did, most especially from 1805-08. If gamers are doing this because that's what the British think the French did or should do, the rules should punish them for doing it, and if BP does not there is a flaw in the rules.

Years ago I attended a symposium on Napoleonic warfare in Columbus OH. The speakers were Chandler and Gunther Rothenberg. After one of Chandler's talks extolling Wellington and the British, Rothenberg, who immediately followed started by reminding that 300,000 men and over 600 guns were deployed at Wagram, with a total of 75,000 casualties, numbers that dwarf those that occurred during the 4 years in the Peninsula. As an American, I never cease to be surprised at the parochial view most British take of Napoleonic warfare based on the unique circumstances in the Peninsula, so I shouldn't be surprised if British rules are Peninsula eccentric any more than it's not surprising that we Americans have a parochial view of Normandy centering on Omaha and Utah beaches, even though it's incorrect.

Cheers,

Bob Coggins

What is a column of half battalions?

What is a column of half battalions?

I think it's one half battalion in line behind another half battalion in line, in the same way that a column of companies is a company in line behind other companies in line.

If "Black Powder" rules require, encourage or benefit the gamer for running the French into combat in column, it misrepresents what the French did, most especially from 1805-08. If gamers are doing this because that's what the British think the French did or should do, the rules should punish them for doing it, and if BP does not there is a flaw in the rules.

In BP, there are two types of column – March Column and Attack Column. A March Column cannot charge and shoots and fights at a disadvantage compared to line. An Attack Column also shoots at a disadvantage but can charge and does not suffer any diadvantage when fighting.

An Attack Column though is narrower than the same unit in line and the gamer's tendency is to allow multiple Attack Columns to fight a single unit in Line. IMHO this is ahistorical since the Attack Columns are too close together to allow for possible deployment into line and thus gain an unfair advantage when two or three of them fight a single unit in line. This in fairness, is not a failing of the rules (except in the lack of a rule enforcing any minimum separation between columns) but rather gamers exploiting the system to their advantage.

MajorB, we have always disallowed two columns charging against a single line for obvious reasons.

However, a single column charging a single line battalion is still at an advantage: it needs a 3+ for its "morale saves" compared to the line's 4+.

The line and "attack column" both fight with the same firepower in close combat (at "musketry range the firepower is 3 against 1).

However, a single column charging a single line battalion is still at an advantage: it needs a 3+ for its "morale saves" compared to the line's 4+.

Ah! Thank you Zelekendel, I knew there was another advantage for the Attack Column, but I'm blessed if I could see it in the rule book earlier!

I've always thought this +1 on a Morale Save for being in Attack Column seemed wrong, particularly when being in a March Column gives a -2. So much so, that when I have played Napoleonics using BP I have simply disallowed Attack Columns as such.

I think what the Black Powder game needs is more "disengaging" and less "to the death" close combats. This increases the fluidity and increases the importance of supports, because shaken units that disengage need to be rallied before committing again to the attack.

For example, columns that charge in that fail to retire or break the enemy could simply be forced to withdraw; the charge did not carry home and now the battalion is bogged down in a close range firefight and at danger of being counter-attacked (especially by the British).

I think what the Black Powder game needs is more "disengaging" and less "to the death" close combats. This increases the fluidity and increases the importance of supports, because shaken units that disengage need to be rallied before committing again to the attack.

Among other things but yes I'd agree with that.

Cheers,

The Bandit

What is a column of half battalions?

I think it's one half battalion in line behind another half battalion in line, in the same way that a column of companies is a company in line behind other companies in line.

As far as I know, the French didn't have/use battalion columns with four company fronts. That certainly is a new one on me, particularly for Austerlitz. Where did you get the information, Bob?

Half-battalion columns possibly?

Anyhow… I`m with Bill on the nature of supports.

Guys,

Bowden!

As you know in 1805 French battalions had nine companies, 8 fusilier and one grenadier and an 8 company deep column with a front of 1 company supplemented by the grenadier company, had little firepower. So from 1805 to 08, they doubled the battalion, or deployed it in double lines with a front of 4 companies.

Thus a 10 battalion division deployed in checkerboard had a brigade with a 16 company front of 4 battalions at deployment distance with artillery in the gaps supported by a brigade of 4 battalions without the artillery in the second line. The other brigade consisted of light infantry used in a skirmish screen.

At Austerlitz the fire power of Suchet's columns, supported by the artillery and the withdrawing skirmish screen deflected the attempt of a Russian 900 man uhlan regiment to charge home on Kellerman's small cavalry division which sought protection of the infantry by withdrawing between the gaps.

During the subsequent cavalry battle which took place to the front of Suchet, no Allied cavalry attempted to breech the infantry line. Neither did the Russian Guard Cavalry attempt to attack Bernadotte's infantry in pursuit of the French Guard.

When the French battalion was reorganized with 6 companies, with an attack column of a 2 company front often bolstered with the grenadier company to make a 3 company front, the half battalion formation was no longer used.

Half battalions, or doubled lines, were known to all. Wellington deployed his battalions in double lines at Waterloo.

As for supports, Lannes' and Bernadotte's corps occupied a front of over a half mile each. They were their own support, but there was plenty of cavalry just in case.

Cheers,

Bob

ps: Given the nature of a column of march I'm surprised it could bring enough fire to bear for any rules to give it a fire rating.

Yes Wellington did use doubled lines at Waterloo, or rather his divisional generals were left to be delegated to chose them perhaps?

I seem to recall that there was some confusion about what a divisionmasse was once too…

G'Day Gents,

Mr. Scott Bowden's understanding of a colonne par demi-bataillon is wrong.

For the French, prior to 1766 the military could execute their conversions par demi-rang (half-rank)…they then changed the term to demi-bataillon.

Using a battalion of 8 peloton as the example…-here is the tricky part:

A colonne par peloton has the frontage of a peloton

A colonne par demi-bataillon has the frontage of a peloton

Therefore the battalion in both colonnes, the width is the same.

……..

A battalion en colonne par peloton has 8 fractured tactical units.

A battalion en colonne par demi-bataillon has two fractured tactical units.

A French battalion deployed and formed en double, has six ranks and still considered a line…not a column.

I know that Mr. Scott Bowden advocated the idea of a French column with the grenadier peloton positioned on the right to give the column a three peloton frontage…that was a column from 1754-1755…and then it was attached to the last division in the column, and never used from 1776 to 1815.

I hope this helps…

Best Regards
Art

artpdn,

I appreciate your response and defer to you.

To me the bottom line is the battalions had a 4 company front and the effect on the Russian cavalry was the same.

As one who has designed a wargame or two, including Napoleon's Battles, my question would be does this formation have attributes of a column or a line.

The basic unit of maneuver in NBs is the brigade so such detail isn't terribly important. However, in my dotage I'm fiddling with a more tactical set of Napoleonic rules.

In game design the vocabulary and the mechanics need be kept approachable to the players, most of whom don't have your historical knowledge or even mine. Thus multiple types of formations, as historically desirable as they may be, is a non-starter. This leaves column, line, square and march column with no variations because they complicate the rules and confuse gamers for little in return. I am, however, thinking about the abilities of doubled lines and the possibility of adding this one extra formation.

Thanks again.

Cheers,

Bob Coggins

G'Day Mr. Zelekendel,

It is my understanding that Black Powder game design is one that covers the 1700s to 1900s.

The general rules, general principles of grande manoeuvre, military system (doctrine) changed so many times within that period, that unless you have house rules for a certain period, just play the game as is…

As an example the general rules, general principles of grande manoeuvre, military system (doctrine) from the 7YW is not that of 1792 to 1815, which is not that of the ACW.

Best Regards
Art

Gentlemen, this has been a very informative and interesting thread to follow. Thanks to all participants!

Sincerely, Dave S.

G'Day Bob

About two years ago…I came across a formation called a colonne d'aile, which literally means a wing/flanking column.

It was positioned on the flank of a grand bodies of troops, and manoeuvred in open column. It was expected to arrive on the flank of an enemy battle line, and by executing a flanking movement, had an entire battalion in line to execute musketry.

There are ample first hand accounts, proving that the French Army trained with this formation at Boulogne.

But there were skeptics that stated that since no one had ever read of its use in battle, it must not have been used.

I then came upon an account at the Battle of Pultusk, which occurred on the 26th of December 1806, which stated that the French 3e Division had marched up to the angle of the enemy battle line, executed a change of direction, and deployed en demi-bataillon with the second demi-bataillon in echelon behind at 50 paces.

There you have my proof of a colonne d'aile!

Yet there was still skepticism from others…but their own skepticism was based upon not understanding the French military system themselves…they stated that it was too vague of an account, they themselves didn't know what it meant, but again they said that if it wasn't found in memoirs or after action reports…it did not exist.

If you ask them today…they would give the same Johnny One Note response…echoing their old viewpoint as to whether or not the colonne d'aile was used on the field of battle.

Well they were right…not that they themselves understood why…then or today ;-)

But at the Battle of Pultusk, the demi-battalons were not en colonne d'ailes.

I later found a detailed account of the colonne d'aile in battle, but in the process I had to learn the difference between a tactical demi-bataillon, colonne par demi-bataillon, and a colonne par peloton.

I shall keep this simple so that everyone may understand:

A demi-bataillon was normally referred to when deployed in line.

The following columns are single columns, each with tactical fractions:

colonne par demi-bataillons
colonne par bataillons
colonne d'attaque par bataillons
colonne par regiments (par division or peloton)

I can safely say that up until 1808, that the demi-bataillon was used with the second demi-bataillon near by, or in echelon behind the first demi-bataillon.

A battalion double is not a column, but a line that has enough mass (six ranks to defend against cavalry), but normally had a column on each flank…or on one flank as at Waterloo.

A demi-bataillon has a 4 peloton frontage, a demi-bataillon double has a 2 peloton frontage. Normally it was the entire battalion that would ploy en ligne double so as to have a 4 peloton frontage, or two battalion deployed one behind the other to have a doubled 8 peloton frontage.

Using English terms verse French terms do not always work out…

In English a column of companies is one column that is one platoon wide, whereas a French colonne par compagnies is formed from a battalion in line (which ploys), or colonne d'attaque (which deploys), into 4 small colonnes…as did the Prussian in 1815.

Best Regards
Art

The older I get, the clearer it seems that there will never be an "ideal" set of rules out of the box for me, and surrendering to just the rules as written as is is unsatisfactory for my own projects – though I'll gladly play unmodded games organized by others.

G'Day Mr. Zelekendel,

Welcome to the club… ;-)

If you desire to create house rules…and I see you play Napoleonic and ACW…then create house rules for both…

That is what I would do…

Best Regards
Art

A colonne par demi-bataillon has the frontage of a peloton.

A battalion en colonne par demi-bataillon has two fractured tactical units.

A French battalion deployed and formed en double, has six ranks and still considered a line…not a column.

Art:

Well, good, I'm not totally off the rails. So my question is:

A battalion en colonne par demi-bataillon has two fractured tactical units, with a frontage of one peloton?

Bill

The older I get, the clearer it seems that there will never be an "ideal" set of rules out of the box for me, and surrendering to just the rules as written as is is unsatisfactory for my own projects – though I'll gladly play unmodded games organized by others.

Has anyone found an 'ideal' game of any kind, from Chess to Shutes and Ladders? Every game has those who 'change' something to suit them.

Every game offers some great things, but no game can offer all of your wants, regardless of your likes and perticular wants from gaming. I suspect if someone said they'd found such a game for them, I'd wait six months and ask again…

G'day Bill,

A colonne par peloton looks like this, with a battalion of 8 pelotons

XX = a peloton

XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX
XX

A single colonne par demi-bataillon

1er demi-bataillon
XX
XX
XX
XX

(distance of 20 paces)

2e demi-bataillon
XX
XX
XX
XX

The following were designed for command and control:

colonne par bataillons
colonne d'attaque par bataillons
colonne par regiments (par division or peloton)

The colonne par demi-bataillon was the exception, it was meant to deploy en demi-bataillon. It was contrary to l'Ordonnance, because the colonne par peloton was just as capable tactically.

Hope this helps…

Best Regards
Art

Art, that's the plan. I've found a base I like in Black Powder, and it's familiar to the club members – being an eternal game system tweaker and developer it's something I'm personally interested in.

I've already developed the house rules for ACW but they are, of course, still work in progress.

Art:

Thanks. That answers my question.

Bill