"The Austrian Imperial Guard" Topic

Hello mysteron & Sasha

I think whenever only gentlemen are involved the conversation can only get better and everybody learns something. After all there is no right or wrong here. It's interesting hearing everybody's different point of view.

Best regards,

Glenn

Different wargamers go about simulation in different ways, and it's a matter of personal preference, not right or wrong.

Some people pull apart battles and rate the units and generals according to how well they did. That way they improve the chances of repeating history on the tabletop. It's fun to research it and all that, and you get a variety of different ratings for your troops, variety being the spice of life.

That's not the way I like to do it (nor Glenn if I've understood him right). I want to understand what information the commanders had at the time, and oome to a better understanding of why they did what they did. That means avoiding the hindsight element (or rather, reducing it). A good or bad performance by a unit simply means "good dice". We know how units which are rated the same in the rules often show different performance, even over a period in time. Its just the way the dice work out.

Which means coming back to the facts that were known. These were level of training, degree of selective recruitment (why I like to know whether they are top 1%, 10% or 30%), battlefield experience, and so on. It also tends to mean fewer quality categories and more reliance on the dice to produce differentiation.

That's why I rather struggle with the idea of "crack" regiments – because this is often based on hearsay and how well connected the officers were to whoever wrote the history, dispatches and so on. Some regiments (like the French 57th) get a very good press, and frankly I'm not sure how far this is justified. If you pick apart the 57th's actual actions in 1809, they are a series of heroic defeats, and a lot of the claims made on their behalf look a bit shaky if you try and corroborate with Austrian records. They're good, but I wouldn't rate them higher than others of Davout's regiments.

I have tried to develop an idea on whether particular regiments were selected for particular missions – but, as contributors above has noted, this proves quite hard.

So I would tend to rate all my 1809 Austrian line infantry the same, as standard line infantry (D), and the grenadiers as elite (B). For the French, Old Guard are A, Middle and Young Guard (in 1809) are B, Davout's regiments C, the 4th battalions E, and the rest B for leger and D for ligne. As a rule of thumb. But if you want to take the hindsight approach, you would have much more variety.

I use the EMPEROR system, where..

DRILL
3 – Well trained trrops
2 – Average trained troops
1 – Elementary training
0 – Untrained

EXPERIENCE
3 – Hard veterans
2 – Seasoned troopers
1 – Battle experienced
0 – Rookies

MORALE
3 – Fanatics, Old Guard
2 – Elan, Elite troopers
1 – Standard morale
0 – Negative morale

TYPE
3 – Crack infantry, Line cavalry
2 – Light infantry, Light cavalry
1 – Line infantry, Irregular cavalry

Combining these attributes gives me the battle values for different troops.
For example French Old Guard have max attributes D3, E3, M3, T3.

So Austrian grenadiers may be..
D3 – well trained
E1-E2 – having battles or campaigns behind
M2 – Elite troops moral
T1 – Line troops.

Different grenadier units may therefore have different battlevalues.

Zavenor and weyayeman,

I feel that what you are doing will tend to extremes – the historic record includes the equivalent of the results of our dice throwing and of our tactics. My ascribing extra skills to a unit that rolled high and was employed effectively or vice versa you move units out of their historic potential into into pure historic record.

I play toy soldiers to see what could have happened, I read a book to see what did.

Indeed, ensuring that the Duke of Diddlies Guard Corp de Elite always win in the battle of Ecalpemos you are moving a wargame which contains uncertainty and judgement into a game which has certainty for set engagements – I believe this is far closer to chess than a system with few variables and relies on skill and an element of luck.

But are you not simply superimposing game mechanics upon an erroneous interpretation of history. Maybe not entirely erroneous, but certainly a level of history ‘light'
The events of the Napoleonic wars from a micro (human) level to strategic level were what they were. How those events transpired shaped the character of the period and left a legacy, that should, surely, be our guide.
Life is not a series of random events. Things turn out the way they do because the receipe for success is already mixed. There still remains a chance (often a good chance) that things will not turn out the way they did if we repeated the very same actions with the same ingredients. But not every event is always going to be 50:50.
French Line infantry verses Austrian Landwehr – not 50:50 You have already made a decision that French line are better than Austrian Landwehr – but why? If the Landwehr have been in the field 18mths and the French are ‘Marie Lousies' would it not be possible that the distinct advantage be with the Austrians?
But what if the one battalion in this formation contains a shed load of veterans you would make that battalion better. No?
The difference between our two approaches to ‘Napoleonic' wargaming is I think that you believe that there ought to be some sort of level playing field, because it is a game. You cannot seriously get this impression from Napoleonic history. Austerlitz was only ever going to turn out one way. Indeed as was Leipzig. Whereas I believe that I ought to be able to recreate the environment problems Napoleonic soldiers actually faced – I know they did face problems because I have read the same books as you have, and that the war environment was what it was.. I also know that certain generals really DID understand the world of war with much greater clarity than others did.
If you choose to play an Austrian corps commander then you HAVE get the baggage that went with that. You may want to achieve miracles- but you are an 18th Century gentleman, surrounded by other 18th century gentlemen and it is simply not possible for you and your chaps to pull off a ‘telling manouvre'.
It never was.
If you choose to command the French 3d Corps (as Davout) you have an efficient, well organised machine at your disposal. You can still k up. Indeed you will K quicker and more spectacularly, because your machine is more efficient and powerful.
I honestly believe that because of the limitations you put on your enjoyment (and if it works for you, fine) But what you are not doing is anything remotely Napoleonic, besides painting the uniforms.

Hello matthewgreen!

Yes, indeed, I think were very close on most issues.

The only obvious difference is your using a 5 level system and were using 3. We have used 5,4 and 3 off and on over the years, finally settling back to 3 early this year.

The problem that always haunted us was the best, better, still better concept, your ABC. Was there any real difference in their performance, between these groups, on the field of battle. In the end the answer for us was no, as we could not even think of a rational way to compare them. Once you throw out the pay grades, status, myths, uniforms, etc. the playing field seems pretty level amongst this group.

In the end there is no real difference in our games except that the former A's & B's no longer have an almost guaranteed win.

Best regards,

Glenn

Gentlemen,

I too am enjoying this civil conversation!

The most apt comparision would be to compare it to sports…

If I am modeling Formula One history from 2000-2004, Ferrari are going to be rated superior to other teams, all teams are not the same… you are not going to learn anything about Formula One by having a backmarker team like Minardi rated the same as Ferrari…

In football you are not going to learn very much about recent NFL history by having the Raiders from the last half decade rated the same as the Patriots…

When you rate a unit or team based on its performance level at the time simulated, you gain a greater understanding of the landscape in which the conflicts took place.

You have unequal performance between teams/units even at the same general professional level…Your greater teams/units have greater capabilities. Your lesser teams/units must fight harder and be more lucky to have a chance of success…it is what it is…

To rate them all generically is the same as rating all soccer teams the same, all NFL teams the same, all Formula 1 teams the same. Generic models with different paint schemes/uniforms…

That is WHY I prefer to rate units upon their historical performances.

Remember that the officers,NCO's and soldiers have been together through thick and thin and have a good general idea of how they will perform in combat due to their prior experiences with their current unit in combat or while serving in other units in combat while learning the ropes and working their way up the leadership ranks.

They aren't bright-eyed cadets the first day on the job with a bunch of total strangers…they have a good ballpark idea of the capabilities of their own troops as well as that of their enemies. Fate may dictate unexpected results (the die roll) which represents the uncertainty that the battlefield provides, but overall, they have a good handle on how the different units will perform based on their many years of experience in the field.

Just sharing my thoughts on the matter.

We are all allowed to disagree and I am glad to see us all express our opinions in a very civil and thought provoking manner.

Frank

The difference between our two approaches to ‘Napoleonic' wargaming is I think that you believe that there ought to be some sort of level playing field, because it is a game. You cannot seriously get this impression from Napoleonic history. Austerlitz was only ever going to turn out one way. Indeed as was Leipzig.

I cannot agree with this idea at all. Surely the outcomes of Austerlitz and Leipzig were highly contingent on specific decisions and events? After all, in several instances Russian and Austrian units were able to give a perfectly respectable account of themselves.

Great discussion.

More & more with my wargaming, I enjoy managing less than stellar troops/units. Two, equally matched forces would be tedious.

Indeed, I'd rather command Prussian Landwehr over the French Imperial Guard. The scenario, or numbers or some such should give the poorer troops some hope of victory.
Win or lose, you know how well or poorly you commanded. And THAT'S what gaming is about IMO.

I generally strongly agree with Glenn. I question four things about the "greater granularity" approach:

1. Are you really sure that you can accurately determine the basic troop quality of a unit at a distance of 200 years to fit one of a large number of casualties? Is your methodology robust and equitable, or simply Marshal Ney said that the 37th was a formidable unit, so I am going to rate them as veteran? If the latter, I would suggest that the least you have to do is read accounts of battles which pay equal attention to sources from all sides.

2. Can your rules handle that level of differentiation i.e. having rated your units, do you genuinely think that that reflects the basic difference in ability and motivation between the best and worst units compared? It may be that the simpler system actually preserves greater reality, because you aren't rating troops in a nine-grade system with a 10% chunk of effectiveness between each grade.

3. Are you sure that you are accounting for factors at the right level but without overweighting? Are you in fact rewarding the French (say) at the tactical level when you should be rewarding them more at higher command levels? If you reward them highly at both, are you not in fact creating unbeatable armies based on little evidence (note that the Austrians in Italy in 1805 weren't obviously overmatched).

4. Are you sure you are weighting your tactical factors and your troop quality factors accurately, or are we (as humans) apt to generalize wildly with all kinds of bias errors based on really minute slivers of 'evidence'?

And I strongly suggest that to the extent that the 'best men' are creamed off into elite units, the units that you are taking the best men from should be penalized, if it is done on anything but a trivial scale.

Sorry, one more thought:

If historical performance is your basis for comparison, why should any unit be rated higher than the 1/27 Foot (a reasonably ordinary British line battalion)?

There is always the possibility of an upset.

To carry our sports analogy further, is there any sane sports bettor that would have given even odds to the Jets beating the Colts in SB3 or the Giants beating the unbeaten Patriots in the SuperBowl after the 2007 season? Is there any person that would have bet on McLaren not winning the 88 Italian GP after winning the first 11 straight races of the season going into that race (and every race after that race)?

In combat as in sports, you will have heavy favorites and the games should reflect this.

The Imperial Guard will not ALWAYS defeat a group of Landwehr, but the percentage will be pretty close to 100%. An NFL team goes 14-2 or 15-1 on the season with the only loss being when they threw several interceptions, had several fumbles and the other team had some other highly unlikely breaks that led to several touchdowns. That 14-2 or 15-1 team could and should have won that game, but Murphy's law came home with a vengeance on that particular day.

Tell you what, let's play a game of Texas Hold'em poker. Let me start out with a pair of aces each hand and you can get the random hand and play the hands out…at the end of the night I'm not CERTAIN, but I feel pretty confident I'm going to have all your chips in a very short period of time. The odds are stacked pretty heavily in my favor that with a pair of aces I will beat any random hand over 80% of the time when that hand plays out…

There will always be strong and weak poker hands, strong and weak sports teams, strong and weak military units…

There are some military units that proved superior time and again, they may have "rolled snake eyes" from time to time, but no sane general would bet against them emerging victorious if you put a gun to their heads…

And this my friends is what makes our wargaming hobby so great. The fact that we use dice to determine combat results help to produce a realistic probability of a unit experiencing the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat…there is always the element of each.

Frank

There are some military units that proved superior time and again, they may have "rolled snake eyes" from time to time, but no sane general would bet against them emerging victorious if you put a gun to their heads…

But most military units didn't have the equivalent of 16 battles to judge their record on, and none of them in the conditions of equality of a sports field or track, so it is more like the equivalent of picking two games from the entire season from every MLB team and then trying to work out a ranking order based on that, perhaps modified by their wage bill and their draft picks.

And anyway, the discussion here isn't between having qualitative difference between units and having none at all, it is how fine you can make the distinctions.

Hello wyeayeman!

"But not every event is always going to be 50:50."

I don't think anyone ever said that and I don't think anyone disagrees with you. The events themselves will often create different odds, while others may very well work out to be 50/50. I think this happens regardless of how you rate your troops.

"If the Landwehr have been in the field 18mths and the French are ‘Marie Lousies' would it not be possible that the distinct advantage be with the Austrians?"

In my system yes. Seasoned or veteran Landwehr are considered "trained". Inexperienced troops are "poorly trained", unless there is some evidence/suggestion that indicates otherwise.

"But what if the one battalion in this formation contains a shed load of veterans you would make that battalion better. No?"

In the Napoleonic wars a fair number of the units contained veterans. Sometimes entire armies were veteran. We treat these as "trained", average troops unless of course there are other factors to consider.

"The difference between our two approaches to ‘Napoleonic' wargaming is I think that you believe that there ought to be some sort of level playing field, because it is a game."

I never got that impression from anyone. Just fewer levels.

"I honestly believe that because of the limitations you put on your enjoyment (and if it works for you, fine) But what you are not doing is anything remotely Napoleonic, besides painting the uniforms"

I don't see that anyone has limited their enjoyment. I can't speak for the others, but almost to the man anyone who has played in our games says it's the best impression that they have ever had of a Napoleonic battle.

Best regards,

Glenn

Hello Frank!

"The Imperial Guard will not ALWAYS defeat a group of Landwehr, but the percentage will be pretty close to 100%."

This is where the water starts to get very murky. I think the Imperial Guard has been beaten by Landwehr. And I think they may have only had one or two encounters. If that's true, should it not be 50/50? I would not go that far, nor do I buy into near 100% IG.

Best regards,

Glenn

"I cannot agree with this idea at all. Surely the outcomes of Austerlitz and Leipzig were highly contingent on specific decisions and events? After all, in several instances Russian and Austrian units were able to give a perfectly respectable account of themselves."
Certainly, but who was making those decisions and who was creating those events?
It's a combination of how good were your men.
And
How good was YOUR ability –as an 18th century gentleman, surrounded as you were by 18th Century gentlemen, who were not as socially connected as you were.
The problems start in the nature of the allied army. It was a cranky old ‘Anciene Regime' edifice, with very limited capability of changing its mind, once the plan was in motion.
This was exacerbated by the personalities involved who were not necessarily the best people to command troops. Moreover, if you are going to play your part in a recreation of this battle, surely you must accept this social limitation. You may well be a great game player, but in this role, your subordinates (and superiors) are fops and hangers on, socialites and old men long past their day, who perhaps look down at you and your strange ideas. The ‘system' would work against you. The gamer in you may very well want to move your corps up on to the Pratzen, because you just know what's going to happen. Nevertheless, that is against the orders of two Emperors and a whole host of men higher up the pecking order than you are, and how on earth do you transmit your genius to all your regiments when you have no organisation or facility for such a process?
The best you can do is rely on your men, some regiments of whom you think highly of. However, they are about to be taken in the flank. They may very well be tough soldiers but the whole command paraphernalia has condemned them into a greatly unfair fight.
Your Corps cannot deploy properly, because it has no room to do so and probably has never tried deploying in such a situation. Your Corps fights as best it can in an ad hoc manner.
You could of course be commanding the Russian Guard and you can attack with your full might against the French. All the troops you command are better than the French, but realistically you cannot deploy effectively enough to use your men in the best way possible. Good as they are, they cannot resist the French Guard Cavalry and an entire French corps on their own. Indeed, it will feel like your small command has the entire French army to face,
I whole-heartedly agree many, many Russians and Austrians gave good accounts of themselves. Everywhere -Wagram, Borodino – everywhere.
However, realistically where were the victories? Where the awesome dice were throws? The ‘telling manoeuvres'
Like I say I believe that by ignoring the realities of Napoleonic warfare, its intrinsic confusion and genius, you are left with a naive ‘gamers' view, that things should not what they were actually like but ought to be something else.
A historical approach to Napoleonic Wargaming does not result in a ‘no-win' situation; it results in a great challenge.
And that can be quite a lot of fun.

I think that the difference in opinion may be between those that wish to accurately simulate given battles and those who wish to play games.

As with anything there is probably no one who is absolutely one or the other.

weyayeman, you appear to be closer to the former than the latter. Although I accept I've never played a game with you so cannot tell… If you are, your assertion on the chain of command flies in the face of your earlier assertion on qualities of units. To simulate a stolid CoC and prancing aristos you need a system that does so. Indeed, penalising the units for being poorly employed fails to teach us anything about the battles.

Hello Glenn Pearce,

sorry for a hopefully not too late answer:
Normally k.k. Austrian officers, who were not nobles by birth, got this status at least when getting promoted into the general ranks, although only to a lower "form" like "von", "Ritter von", "Freiherr von" or "Baron" [after some little years I still cannot tell the differences and possible graduations between those titles].

If you look at many Austrian generals you will find a lot of higher nobility amongst them. Hiller was not a born noble, he – like some others in the Austrian army, where merit could elevate you to the lower nobility – was a homo novus with regard to his peers and IR 2 – who later got Tsar Alexander as their Honorary Inhaber – was not in any way special because of having BARON Hiller as their Inhaber.

"weyayeman, you appear to be closer to the former than the latter. Although I accept I've never played a game with you so cannot tell… If you are, your assertion on the chain of command flies in the face of your earlier assertion on qualities of units. To simulate a stolid CoC and prancing aristos you need a system that does so. Indeed, penalising the units for being poorly employed fails to teach us anything about the battles."
First off why does our gaming need to teach us anything at all?
Secondly I think I have been entirely consistent- sorry if I have left a wake of confusion – I would not have been regarded as very competent at all even in an' Anciene Regime' army. To clarify.
I think that in order to play a Napoleonic game we must be guided by history (as far as we can) in both a viable command and control structure that reflects history AND command troops who for good or ill are rated historically (again as far as we can tell).
This does not exclude the individual gamer from making ‘telling manouvres' or a complete hash of things – that's up to our own skill.
The pattern is this: If you command an Austrian Corps of 1809, the likelihood is that everything moves slower, from messages, individual initiative and manoeuvres to general obedience. Nothing is stopping your genius except the conditions of the time. In comparison, should you be a complete dufuss in command of the French 3d Corps you should find that your profound stupidity will be acted upon with a fearsome efficiency. That is the complete joy of the approach.
With individual units, then there is always a chance. Usually anyhow. But some match ups are likely to go badly for you – should your Landwehr Uhlans try to take on a regiment of Saxon cavalry don't be surprised if they dissolve. The trick is always to do the things you need to do to improve the odds within the rules of the game. Hit the Saxons three successive times with Landwehr Uhlans (3 units perhaps) and you will find that that is too much for them. They will be tired and disordered. Or get some horse artillery deployed. Or something.
If I launch my Saxon Cavalry in force at you, then I am confident in sweeping you away (like it happened) It's up to you to resist with the forces at your disposal. Not with what you wish to have, but with what you actually have. Imagine my shock and your joy, if after much toing and froing My lads have been reduced in battlefield efficiency by persistent attacks by average cavalry.
That's the thing in a nutshell.
By using an effective method of controlling each players decisions and using historical orders of battle then great and thoroughly enjoyable games can be had.
Napoleonic battlefields were far from fair or equal.

Prior to 1806 IR2 did have a Royal Inhaber did it not?

Hello grenadier corporal!

Absolutely not, good to hear from you.

Yes I'm aware that he was not born a noble and that the Austrians had a class system. Also that often Generals in Austria and France were given titles. However, I don't think they were automatic. I believe all titles must be approved by the monarchy. Regardless he was a member of society as well as a high ranking officer. He owed much to the monarchy. As mentioned by wyeayeman IR2 was controlled by a royal prior to 1806. Obviously if there is a shortage of royals etc. another person in good standing would be selected. You might be looking at this the wrong way. I believe because they were considered elite regiments it was another perk to command or control them. Not because the royals controlled them made them elite. Although it could very well be both.

As I mentioned before this is very dated material for me and I have nothing at hand to support it. If I come across it again I will let you know. Although I won't be surprised if someone else pops up with the full story fresh at hand.

You also have to consider the alternative. Do you really believe that the Austrian army did not have even one elite or crack regiment, simply because they didn't have a fancy name? I don't.

Best regards,

Glenn

'You also have to consider the alternative. Do you really believe that the Austrian army did not have even one elite or crack regiment, simply because they didn't have a fancy name? I don't.'
The Austrian army had several very good regiments, nothing to do with their names.
I think the first sentence here is telling, You seem to believe that they ought to have some good regiments, for no other reasoning than 'because they should'. And in this case you have chosen IR 1-4 on the basis that they were 1-4. Not at all because you have any evidence to support your claim.
What would you do if they actually didn't have any good regiments at all?
- And do you extend this thought process to all other armies?
1-4 Bavarian IR?
1-4 Saxon IR? Were the Saxon Guards, guards? The Spanish? The Neapolitans. There should be some sort of quality control at some point.
10% elite has been mentioned. But what if the soldierly males of a particular state were not quite good enough. And in comparison to whom.
Does this 10% occur with in someone's complete army or within a corps. Would you go so far that within a corps, regardless of its composition you would always have a % as elite? So whatever troops you put on the table you would justify 10% of them being elites or 5% being guards? I hope you see the nonsense of that argument but it does seem that that is where logic might take you.
Without actual evidence of performance to prove your theory, does not your argument flounder somewhat.
' I think the Imperial Guard has been beaten by Landwehr.'
Glenn – I think you owe us an explanation on this statement, I really do. And not a' I read it twenty years ago' sort of reply either.
Take your time, I am here all week… (there should be some sort of grin here)

Is Glenn perhaps thinking of the Hanoverian Landwehr (Osnabruck Bn) and their part in defeating the French Imperial Guard at Waterloo? I'm on my phone so I can't do links, but should be easy enough to google it.

Hello weyeayeman!

So nice to hear your grinning, I've been doing it for a very long time.

"You seem to believe that they ought to have some good regiments, for no other reasoning than 'because they should'"

No, I don't know of any other major power that didn't. It defies common logic that a power the size and age of Austria would have none. Do you think they had none?

Ah but then again you don't use common logic, just reports. Which by the way just exactly where do you get these reports? I think I've only actually read a couple of military reports and they were ACW. I certainly hope your not just translating what you have read in history books as actual military reports, are you?

"And in this case you have chosen IR 1-4 on the basis that they were 1-4. Not at all because you have any evidence to support your claim."

I've already explained my position on this. If you don't agree that's okay.

"What would you do if they actually didn't have any good regiments at all?"

Stop considering 1-4 as good troops, along with all the others that you seem to think were, or do you?

"And do you extend this thought process to all other armies?"

Why would I, it seems the others are well known.

"There should be some sort of quality control at some point."

We do, our group can add or subtract them at any time by vote. How do you control and sort your reports? What are your categories and how many of them are there?

"10% elite has been mentioned."

Not by me.

"Without actual evidence of performance to prove your theory, does not your argument flounder somewhat."

I have no idea about which theory your talking about. If it's the 10%, then I've already stated it's not mine.

"I think the Imperial Guard has been beaten by Landwehr.'
Glenn – I think you owe us an explanation on this statement, I really do."

I gather you missed my point. It does not really matter if they did or didn't. Frank has rationalized a percentage in his mind based on his perception of historical events and sports. An odd cocktail for sure. Clearly his perception of historical events is different from mine. Which one is right? Regardless, how does he, and I gather you, arrive at your percentages or separation points, categories, etc. I think it's by the seat of your pants. Neither one of you has fully explained how you work out all your levels, details or sources. Does not yours and his position flounder somewhat?

Hope your still grinning, I am.

Best regards,

Glenn

Even the Old Guard must have a chance to have beaten.
With 10Dice this is 10%.
My guard are commited twice in games and in both cases some of his bases throw this 10%. Bad luck?

Yes?

The circumstances in which troops are committed to action (including their supports) should typically trump 'troop quality' or you have in fact created super-troops.

I cannot understand why Old Guard should perform better than any other Guards or Elite units like Austrian grenadiers – or even veteran French line and light units – they seemingly could fail when sent into action as any other experienced regiment as well, see Belle Alliance.

If we accept that there is a % chance of a success or failure for any encounter, no matter how disproportionate, how do we know that was not the case in the historic encounter?

Each combination of match up, circumstances, timing and terrain will be so different as to be useless in this sort of statistical analysis.

We reach a point where the statistics of military units are based upon the historic equivalent of dice throws and players' choices.

I still maintain that giving units abilities and statistics after the fact removes the options that would face the very commander's we wish to emulate….

…do I use the untried unit to hold the key terrain??? Of course I do, on this day in history they heroically held out against ridiculous numbers of baddies.

…do I use the untried unit to hold the key terrain??? It is a risk, but I have to keep the other units for my bold counter stroke…wait, my dice throwing just allowed them to heroically hold out against hordes of baddies, there is an elite reputation in the making!

'I cannot understand why Old Guard should perform better than any other Guards or Elite units'
I am in the wrong arena, if this sort question comes up.
I prefer history to guide me as to my troops capabilities and those of my AdC's or hangers on.
If you reduce everything to a dice through then why play Naploeonics at all.
History is EVERYTHING, otherwise all you have is a game played with toy soldiers in pretty uniforms.
I'm out.

I don't think anyone here wants to ignore history. I think people are wondering how best to rate different units and what those ratings are based on. Maybe there is something you would like to share about, why people should rate French guardsmen as better troops than Austrian grenadiers, and if so, by how much?

In case history is everything, then why should Old Guard perform better than other Guards or Elite units?

What made Old Guard so superior to the other Guards, propaganda, better fighting record, more propaganda, better care and yet more propganda.

In the end – I see Austrian permanent grenadier units fighting in all campaigns and all battles at the very front and have long battle experience – in contrast to Old Guard which almost all the time is held back in reserve – and fails when for once all the hope for deciding a battle is set square on their shoulders?

Interesting and well mannered discussion even if we have gone beyond the op somewhat.

I feel I need to defend myself a bit. My interest in wargaming is completely in history and simulation, and not creating a level playing field for a game, whatever that means. But the particular discipline I am trying to apply is to reduce the amount of hindsight applied in the rules. I think this helps get into the minds of the commanders and understand why they did what they did.

Second point is about the 10% elite idea, which has my fingerprints on it, and which has been disowned by everybody else. This just a handy rule of thumb which suggests the degree that selection may have influenced quality. It has the useful characteristic of being known in advance and verifiable across the mists of time. But it is not a hard and fast rule. The fact that Old Guard comprise the top one or two percent, while Austrian grenadiers were 10 percent, and French post 1808 elites were one third tells you something.

But the main arbiter of all this is how the generals of the time treated the troops. The French Old Guard were kept in ultimate reserve and committed only in desperate situations. The Yound Guard by contrast were committed much earlier. Austrian grenadiers were much more similar in their employment to the Yound Guard, or to converged grenadier formations in the French army before 1808, when, as it happens, they comprise the top 10% give or take. Russian Guards fall somewhere in between. British guards were in the line, but in a division that was often held back. But the British tried to avoid casualties in their line troops that is in contrast to French, Russian and Austrian armies. This helps justify rating British line higher, though you still need further evidence.

At the other end, commanders would employ less experienced troops differently too. The Austrians tried to keep their landwehr out of the critical roles (with one or two interesting exceptions). Their freikorps were employed in advance guard formations but not the main line – suggesting their spirits were strong but drill weaker.

What I like to see in games is players making the same decisions as their historical counterparts for the same reasons. The lessons of hindsight must be applied with care – though I will admit it is unavoidable to some extent.

I've not had a proper chance to read through all the posts here, but it seems to be very interesting reading, especially as I'm currently building an Austrian army for Marengo, a battle where the Austrians very nearly beat Napoleon before he'd really started building his personal Empire.

From what I've read there seems to have been the idea amongst the French that the best Austrian regiments, and toughest to meet on the battlefield, were the Austro-Hungarians – especially their Grenadier battalions, who I think were considered the Austrians "elite" at the time. If I were to choose a unit to give "Guard" status, I would probably choose these.

On an aside to this subject, if the Austrians had an Imperial Guard Regiment, what do you think these guys would these look like?

Let's pose a 'What If':
What if the Austrians took top 5% of their grenadiers based on combat record and recommendation by superiors and placed them in a single battalion. Would you expect better performance by this battalion than the rest of the grenadier battalions? Would you expect the rest of the grenadier battalions to perform 5% worse? What effect would telling this top 5% that they were better than everybody else have on their morale?

Of course, we also have to take into consideration many factors, including weather leading up to the conflict, lack of sleep or rest affecting troops, health and sickness, and whatever combat situations these troops have been in just before taking part in a battle. Few rules seem to include these factors. A crack battalion might not be of very good quality if they have been under heavy duress.

Eclipsing binaries. Marengo is especially interesting. It is a rare example of Austrian units going into a second successive campaign; it is unusual for the Austrians to last more tha 12 months. These men had been victorious in Suvarov's 1799 campaign. Also, as so often on campaign, the cadres suffered fewer losses than the men. The officer to men ratio at Marengo is unusually high for the Austrians. That goes up to generals too. This army therefore suffered from fewer of the classic Austrian weaknesses.

Murvihill. I think you've answered your own question. If the Austrians had picked a super elite from the grenadiers this would have performed better. But that may only be because the ones left behind would have been demoralised. A more challenging hypothesis would be if they had only selected one company of grenadiers per regiment. Would this have worked better. Well that depends on a host of factors which are unknowable. My guess is that the Austrians knew what they were doing when they selected that proportion of grenadiers, and this was an optimal proportion given the sort of intake they had.

The interesting question is why the French went for a higher proportion of elites after 1808 – and the Russians did something similar. I supsect this because they were tring to do something different – and not creating an army reserve. They achieved the latter by expanding the Imperial Guard, which amounts to something quite similar when all is said and done. We seem to be dealing some basic dynamics of managing a conscript army. Don't cream off too many. But creaming off 10% give or take gives you an army reserve which is useful to have in a crisis.

Interesting questions Murvihill:

Let's pose a 'What If':
What if the Austrians took top 5% of their grenadiers based on combat record and recommendation by superiors and placed them in a single battalion. Would you expect better performance by this battalion than the rest of the grenadier battalions?

I might expect it to improve 'a bit'. Whether that would be a significant enough jump to include in one's rules would depend on the granularity of your system – if using a %/D20 system*, maybe yes, a D6/D10 system maybe not. (* I know it is more complicated than this depending on how the rules use factors, but you can take the point).

How much better do you think they would be?

Do you think there is a practical limit to how much better Napoloenic infantry can actually get?

Would you expect the rest of the grenadier battalions to perform 5% worse?

I'd expect them to perform a bit worse than 5% actually by creaming off its most exemplary soldiers. Conversely, the elite unit might be a bit better than 5% – if that is actually possible for a Napoleonic infantry unit. Again, whether this is in anyway noticeable depends upon the granularity of the rules and your beliefs about practical maximums of efficiency.

What would you expect them to do?

What effect would telling this top 5% that they were better than everybody else have on their morale?

On whose morale – the top 5% or on the everybody else? Again, it might have some effect, but it is unclear whether the benefit to the one unit is outweighed by the loss of morale to the rest – I actually suspect the latter, depending upon the numbers involved. What do you think?

I think it a very open question as to whether Napoleon benefitted or lost out from his continual expansion of his Guards. Some commentators have identified a progressive worsening of the French infantry during the Napoleonic Wars and identified the cause as battle casualties. It may equally well be that overuse of 'elite' formations was also a contributory factor.

I wouldn't want anyone to think that this is particularly aimed at the French by the way – it is equally valid IMHO to examine the claims to 'elite' status of all guards units. For example, Esdaile makes the point explicitly that the Spanish Guards were amongst the worst Spanish units in 1808. I've never believed that there was much justiciation for making British Guards better than a good line unit, particularly in the first half of the Peninsular War.

A bit off topic but I think British guards at talavera behaved differently from afoot line unit. They attacked the French without firing a volley, swept them away, lost control, were forced to retreat but managed to rally. This suggests a degree of arrogance that you would not get from even avoid line unit, but a sense of honour that gives them good stamina. But there wer minuses to managing such a unit – a bit like British heavy cavalry.

Hmm, maybe. Their behaviour at Talavera was, to my mind, reminiscent of the 29th at Rolica. And thinking about it, weren't the Guards accompanied in their misadventure at Talavera by the KGL?

A question of being the same only more so, I think. Not volleying before charging was unique at Talavera, I think. The rally was quite impressive, though that might be because the witnesses that recorded it were unreliable.

There's not such a large gap, I'll grant. And for my money the light infantry were the best infantry in the British army (95th, 52nd, 43rd anyway). Their training allowed them to be more versatile, and they were better disciplined.

Do these top 5% get extra training? Extra experience?

Rations, uniforms, conditions are all very well, but there are less well heeled units that often outshine their polished and spoilt brethren.

There is a finite limit to the extra training that can be fitted in whilst gaining experience. There is a finite difference that experience can achieve without the cohesive effect of training and applying lessons.

The units matthewgreen refers to are well trained (about as good as it gets) and were very experienced. This gives them an esprit de corps that would have far outweighed gold fringed jackets, and an effectiveness that far outweighed being held in reserve.

My contention is that taking too many from your line units denudeds them of the very men who understand combat and can train and lead those around them. Take too few and you will achieve insufficient mass. In every time and place this magic number has been sought…unfortunately it varies.

IIRC, those light infantry regiments actually practiced a high degree of selection initially by throwing out all the members that couldn't step up to the new training regime. The throw-outs were then formed into another regiment – which performed perfectly well, AFAIK (I think I read the above in the "Wellington's Infantry (2)" Osprey). That argues to me tht they should be treated as elite, certainly during the first half of the Peninsular War (and veteran, but not necessarily elite, in the second half)

Adam. My contention is that selection was one of several factors in play. It is, of course, difficult to separate it from other factors – especially if the elite had superior training, as was often the case. All I am trying to say is that a unit recruited highly selectively is likely to perform better (especially be less likely to run away)than one with the same level of training and experience that hasn't been.

Not all elites were particularly well trained. The Young Guard were (as I understand it) drawn from fresh recruits, with only limited opportunity for training – though with the benefit of veteran cadres. These formations certainly performed with elan, but also treated as comparatively expendable by Napoleon.

How much benefit does selective recruitment confer? Impossible to say – and it depends on how well they were managed. But pretty much all nations in all eras have used selective recruitment (which may not be entirely explicit, as Whirlwind points out, above) to create more reliable formations. This may not have always worked – but the fact that people kept doing it suggests that there must be something in it.