"Napoleonic battle density, do we overpack the table?" Topic

Looking at some game photos, I'm starting to wonder if we overpack the game tables. Or were Napoleonic battle really that tightly packed.

Sometimes when I look at the battle reports and see all the units lined up it reminds me of a WWII game. Tank after tank is the same as battlion after battalion.

We do and we don't. The individual figures are generally far too far apart – they really should be shoulder to shoulder. On the other hand, the battalions are generally far too close together. Mind you, I am only considering the visual effect and not taking ground scale into consideration. (I generally try to avoid taking ground scale into consideration since any discussion on the subject always ends in tears)

Anyway, I personally think the whole point of Napoleonics is to cram as many figures on the table as possible. And they should all be in full dress and every unit should have a flag (regardless of whether they actually carried one or not). This is the proper way to do Napoleonics and if you don't do it this way you are doing it wrong – though you will probably be reluctant to accept it.

Yes, most rules/players do. it depends on the scale too.

I've seen games where it gets to the point that manoeuvre is difficult even impossible because of the number of figures on the table.

I do think, when you have lots of beautiful figures, it's hard not to be tempted to cram them all on.

My only hesitation is the same as ochroin's – if you are unable to manoeuvre it just becomes a slugfest which, of course, some Napoleonic battles were.

Anyway, I personally think the whole point of Napoleonics is to cram as many figures on the table as possible. And they should all be in full dress and every unit should have a flag (regardless of whether they actually carried one or not). This is the proper way to do Napoleonics and if you don't do it this way you are doing it wrong

Said like a true wargamer. Bravo, sir, bravo!

"Vive l'emper- ow! My toe!"

- Ix

I'm with SJDonovan, if you don't have flags for every single unit and any appear in less than full parade dress, you're a Philistine and you need to step away from the table please

Enormous hats and plumes.
Full dress uniforms and flags.
Wall to wall Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery.
12 feet of table minimum (for a small skirmish)

As the admirable Mr Donovan suggests, accepting such necessities may require time, but once so enlightened life is immeasurably enhanced.

I play somewhat "Old school home brew rules", and artillery does a lot of damage, so we need a lot of units…..So we have a lot of units.
Not a bad thing.
Plus it looks really cool.

Yes.

Well I've been hedging over jumping into 28mm Napoleonics for years now. So after reading your posts I finally took the plunge and ordered this starter set. Hopefully I'll be ordering an opponent box before the end of 2015.
TMP link

Actually it is if you think it is the HORIZONTAL scale of each unit on the tabletop representing the level of action you want..or if it the VERTICAL scale of the figures themselves. Both are completely different and are not really comparable. Only wargamers would think both can be use together and that is the crux of the question.
To explain: SJDonovan wants us to keep the ranks tight as historically done but this merely the vertical look of the figures themselves. Unless one goes to a 1:1 ratio then anything miniature we use is out of scale in any event. But the "footprint" of the unit, the base/stand(s) usually, is the important issue in this question. Proper scale maps and the historically correct deployments must then be used to create the correct spacing of an army. This of course can be on the corps level, brigade level or even battalion level. If accurate maps are used, then the "correct" "packing" of units is done whatever that is.
But is this packing over done because the vertical figures are out of whack with the horizontal unit sizing? Most probable.

G'Day Doug,

I am not quite certain I agree with you. I do agree that there are those who find that the horizontal scale and vertical scale are an issue.

Therefore there are some players who decide to go to 1:1 ratio, but in turn they do not understand the detailed evolutions or general principles of a peloton, detached compagnie, demi-battalion or even battalion.

-the cost of not using historical general principles for correct footprint.

I can live with the horizontal and vertical being wrong as long as l'ordre perpendiculaire is correct, and both minor and grand manoeuvres are correct.

Beside most players only use l'ordre separe (sort of like a modern day axis of advance with boundaries but without support control methods) when gaming, and do not even realize it.

Which the French officially ended in 1804 and the British soon after.

Best Regards
Art

Art,
I was kinda thinking more of the larger/higher formations of divisions and corps which I believe the OP was suggesting. Thus the table does not provide the space to move integral units effectively.

Let's say the game has eleven 36 figure units representing battalions on the table (per side). Well that is a divisional sized game. BUT is the table size appropriate to that scale?? If on a 36 foot long perhaps, but on a six foot? Probably not. Thus the complaint of "too tight". Yet Napoleonic players especially do want to play the Colonel and Napoleon all at the same time.

I would say that if many of these units are indeed placed on the table, the players are trying to play a level too high for the game, thus the horizontal scale is too distorted.

Now, of course, I would say that "maneuver space' on the table is quite useless anyway as, god knows, we all have been in games which both sides have been aligned on each side of the table four foot away and took a hour or more just to make contact roughly in straight line anyway! Make all the 'maneuver' on a map, and then place the units one move distance apart and get to it!

Maneuver, as you say, if for the small formations and for wargames a bit meaningless. I mean, really; the Nap player wants lots of pretty troops on the table and then blast away with the dice <grin>

Yes, I`d agree with Bill Haggart, that it`s much to do with players and rules, but then Napoleon had the same problem prior to the battle of Jena.

G'Day Doug,

The scale we use is 1:60 with battalions that are anywhere from 8 to 10 figures normally, using 25/28mm figures. This means a player fields anything from one to two corps.

In the game design we use; l'ordre perpendiculaire is very important (especially for the French), as are both minor and grand manoeuvres.

Each turn is 20 minutes and as an example; infantry move at 37 inches (pace count of 90), and cavalry (au pas at 100 meters in one minute) 62.5 inches per turn.

-prior to my departure we had three games, and it does take a player a few games to get used to keeping his cavalry in the back of the battle line ;-)

But as you say…lots and lots of pretty troops to blast away, which again comes down to 'most players' using l'ordre separe when playing.

G'Day Mike…are you referring to the 1805 campaign?

Best Regards
Art

It seems so. Whenever I see photos of one of those "wall to wall eye candy" battles, with troops lined up like Alexander's phalanx and no tactical choices except "When do I charge?", I can't help but think that it makes a great display but a boring game. Napoleonic games should be about maneuver! (But, then again, that's my version of fun, so if you enjoy it otherwise who am I to say?)

Cheers,

Christopher

Have gone from 20mm Airfix (in the 1970's) to 28mm to 15mm (which I still have) and now 6mm. The latter solves the problem of fighting substantial battles on a reasonable sized table and avoids the overcrowded look of the game whilst still retaining the colour and spectacle of the Napoleonic period. I will still game in 15mm/18mm for smaller battles but having gamed in 6mm for past 5 years it is that scale for me from now on.

If the batallioncolumns are not spaced out so that there is room for each batallion to form line, you are in my opinion playing with the wrong rules.
There also seems to be an perceptual/intellectual gap between what players who play 28 or 6 mm want to have out of their games – no offense meant – just an opinion.

Chandler had a list of densities of various battlefields;
average was 8-13000 per mile of front per side.
Lower early on, much denser to 20000+ in 1813+

No, the usual miniature wargame has not too many minis/ battalions per frontage.It has:

1 way not enough depth compared to frontage
2 not enough depth in deployment, so often on one long line instead of what should be several with reserves.
3 not enough manoeuvre space on flanks.

rules at fault
not enough playing space / in-adapted to the subject
not enough time for the game.

"Let's say the game has eleven 36 figure units representing battalions on the table (per side). Well that is a divisional sized game. BUT is the table size appropriate to that scale?? If on a 36 foot long perhaps, but on a six foot? Probably not. Thus the complaint of "too tight"."

Really?

A 36 figure bataillon in 28mm (and two ranks) is 36cm wide. (With modern 2cm basing, with the old 1,5cm basing, it is only 27cm). So 36cm equals 100 m. A 6 foot table would be 500 to 600 metre.

No division at Waterloo or Borodino had more than 500 m width.

Horses for courses. I like sparse tables and maneuver options. Then look at a battle like Quatres Bras or Waterloo and tactical maneuver options were almost nil simply because of the troop density vs. available ground.

The game units are footprints festooned with figures. Does one include 50 yards extra in the frontage, and so place neighboring battalions adjacent or not to show a gap between battalions?

Couple these concerns with the basically attritional nature of Napoleonic warfare and lines of units with no room to maneuver is not necessarily a flawed approach.

Which in sum is a long winded version of me opening line :)

Bob

Our club's motto has always been: "More figures!" :)

That being said, yeah, we do tend to overfill the tables to the point that there is no tactical option except a frontal attack.

OTOH, many historical battles were seriously over packed, too. Look at Waterloo (Just the French and Wellington's Army), you have as many troops as at the Battle of Gettysburg on a battlefield one quarter the size.

Many wargamers do overfill their tables.

So rules "Napoleonic Command II" spring to mind that actually punish you if the fill the table too tightly.

This thread takes me back.. I still refer to a weathered collection of Wargamer's Digest magazines from the 1970s.. the first I ever bought had an article on the lamentable state of demonstration games at conventions in the U.S. and how Napoleonic games in particular had become parking-lot battles.

As a pre-teen with only enough money to buy a hand-full of Minifigs that dwarfed the stalwart Airfix lads I kept going back to the picture from that article… "that's what I want!" LOL!

Moving through mid-life I'm fortunate enough to say I reached my goal.. in 6mm of course. :)

I am with jcfrog. Usually I find gamers actually try and "fill" a table with whatever number of units are on the field. Often if one is playing a smaller sized engagement, we often try to cover too much terrain and do not have enough depth for proper attack and defense.

Usually a table that is too crowded is a gamer thing as it just seems hard to keep troops off of the table in reserve until actually needed. Good bounce through rules for artillery can help reduce this practice.

My larger complaint is that in most games, the fight ends with engagement over 100% of the front, not just specific areas of attack. My be the helicopter view…….

Over packed tables?

Sounds like 28mm regret to me!

Decebelus, if you are still with this thread, I still don't know if precise mathematical distance scale and wargaming can be used together, however both Waterloo and Borodino are known for their compact battlefield areas.

But the conversation seems to be split between the need for maneuver and the thought that we are just unable to come to terms with space requirements and game play (and the visual aspect, of course!).

My view is much like the arrows drawn on the military map of a battle. The usual view, with armies four feet apart, is that of the broad rear/end of the arrow and the wargamer moves his troops along the arrow "in maneuver". I look at the battle with the troops already at the pointy end of the arrow ready to charge. Why waste your time getting to the point of the arrow on the table top when you could do all that moving on a map with a stroke of a pen??

Anyway, while players in my Napoleonic games are a little surprised that they start literally inches away from the enemy, the scenario design which gives them thought for use of their reserves, and the fun of starting the dice rolling so quickly, erases any qualms of the lack of "maneuver" read: boring measuring distance every five minutes or so.

Little to add to the comments above except to note that real Napoleonic battlefields were also packed with troops (albeit with suitable intervals between elements to allow for deployment) and there really wasn't much scope for 'manouvre' – all of that stuff had been done during the approach march.

They were however deployed in considerable depth, an absolute minimum of two lines of infantry for the forward corps and further divisions and corps in reserve. So manouvering was shifting the reserves.

Perhaps we should play in tables as deep as they are wide….

Hello Art !

No, Jena, 1806.
Prior to the battle Lannes corps was said to be closely packed together along with the Guard – I think Marbot and Savary mention this as having been a potential problem.

Regards,

Mike.

Some battles involve quite a bit of space. Marengo, for example if you want to be able to replicate the French withdrawal and final act. Vitoria with Graham's column to the rear. Albuera if you want to leave scope for the full manoeuvre – and Fuentes de Honoro too. There are areas of high density with a lot of space in between.

I like to get these battles onto one table. But the rules have be up to the job if you are not going to get bogged down. One reason why these battles probably aren't so popular in their entirety – with the exception of Albuera perhaps.

I don't object to starting with the armies close together – but there should be scope for transferring resources from one sector to another, or trading space for time. These high density 28mm battles I see at shows with a lot of width an no depth – they don't appeal to me as a game. But then my tastes are unusual!

Martin,

I did something like that in designing Muskets & Shakos.

The encounters as written show part of a battle, with a three foot square area representing the frontage of three battalions.

The defender's first two lines, and the attacker's first line are the only troops deployed on the table at start.

The attacker's second line comes on at the player's choice after the first line has made room.

Both sides have access to a third line of reserves, and although they can choose where and when to deploy them their arrival must be diced for.

There is also a chance that friend or foe might wander over from the flanks, as nominal off table forces also contest the field.

So in essence the set up is three battalions wide but counting both sides six battalions deep.

Deciding when to pull units out of the line and replace them with fresh troops, along with how many men to commit to skirmishing are the main decisions an officer faces in the game.

Batteries also suffer losses from fatigue so deciding when and where to commit sections of guns versus how many to keep in reserve is also a factor.

Same for cavalry having to decide how many squadrons to commit and how many to keep in hand.

In short the "maneuver" element is more about moving forward and back between the lines rather than looking for an open flank.

Bob

yes

I doubt that Napoleonic wargaming exists, it is ancients disguised as Napoleonic miniatures

Ah! That will be Black Powder then.

I use to but now, bigger table, enough troops for a good reserve. But I still could line up my artillery without a gap.

Tightly packed close columns are what you need for reserve formations but combat formations need more space. I think the main problem is the representation of the basic unit as a rectangular tableau which cannot represent the unit in line nor the variations on the column. I think the old style of single rows of figures gives a better representation of the deployed line of battle. Maybe there is something to be said for having linear bases and column bases which can be exchanged when needed.

Can you get your battle to look something like this?

Austerlitz by Simeon Fort

Jena by Simeon Fort.

The interesting part of this one is the columns supporting the fighting zone and the space between the divisions.

I think this works here

link

The important thing is there is empty depth on the table.

Going back to the Kriegspiel we get the rectangular block which can be stacked for representing the reserve compact formations and can also represent the correct line frontage (whilst accepting the depth is wrong). The same blocks can be used to represent a column, correct depth but too wide.

Mug, lovely presentation. Brings back fond memories.

Here in the American SW we've got plenty of guys that love to put enough figures on the table so that you've got them shoulder to shoulder the width of the table. And as Christopher says above: "and no tactical choices except "When do I charge?", I can't help but think that it makes a great display but a boring game.".

So when I started creating small battles to fight, I used a heretical methodology. Create the forces first, figure out how much space the defending infantry took up in line, doubled that and thereby had the width of the table. Table was never less than 4' in depth and often more like five. That's a real life practical limitation as many of our brothers can't bend over far enough to push lead 3' away.

In the larger scales, it is mostly impossible to fight the larger historical battles in their entirety.

We (as I guess most of you) fight sections of battles.
It would be nice to have greater depth of the table but this isn't possible: not least because it makes it impossible to reach the centre of the table. We (again I'm guessing we aren't alone) position our reserves "off-table".
This also allows some fog of battle as your opponent can't know exactly where the Imperial Guard are going to come from.

In the past, the presence of reserves has been marked on paper but in our recent AZW game, to allow hidden movement, we had a lidded box, with a representation of the terrain, down scaled) & used markers each turn. Think of the game of 'Battleship" to understand my meaning. We may use this device for our up coming Ligny game.

I doubt that Napoleonic wargaming exists, it is ancients disguised as Napoleonic miniatures

Yes, it does exist. If you want to come to Brisbane for a multi-player game, we'll assign you the French Guard (against those verdammt Prussians) to show you.

I have been playing wargames since the mid 1970s, starting with WRG Napoleonic and now using GdB, I to like lots figures but I have trouble with Napoleonic players.

We continually say how realistic certain rules are but still stack in as many units as we can. How realistic is it to give flags to units that did not have them. How realistic is to make infantry move at close to the speed of cavalry.

As for scale I like the rules that use frontage of units as a measurement.

@Mike the Mug

Excellent presentation – fantastic, that looks like it – one would have to combine Kriegsspiel with figures, or find a way of it.

To tell you the truth, the first historical wargame I played was DBM about twenty or twenty-five sum odd years ago. What made the game attractive to me was that it really looked like a map of a battle had been set in motion.

This was then carried over to Napoleonics when I started playing that period. The sense of those lovely maps with their rectangles representing cavalry, artillery, and infantry were set in motion flowing like water over hills and around woods and through the fields.

In the end, the table "feels" right to me if I visualize it in this manner. Stands on the table are no different than those rectangles on the map. If there's room for them to move into new positions, like those that I see on successive maps, then that's about right.

But, there also should be, when the scenario calls for it, the opportunity for traffic jams. Geographical choke points have been a reality for commanders from rock throwing Neandethals to today's hyper-modern mechanized troops.

Maneuver often occurs before the part of the battle represented on the tabletop – a little map work before the game can take care of this.

The part of the battle represented on the table is usually Crunch Time – often with lots of Crunch!

Of course YMMV.

G'Day Mike

Jena is a battle with manoeuvre found at different levels.

To properly play this battle, a game design that represents brigades only may be too large. This battle should be used by a game design that shows battalions with only seven tactical sub-factions, detached compagnies en tirailleurs to forming elite battalions of two elite pelotons.

This is a battle that is not one that finds an overfill on the table, to the point that there is no tactical option except a frontal attack. For this battle is a perfect example of l'ordre perpendiculaire for the French.

We find the French with divisional avant-gardes, combined elites formed from two to six compagnies. There are French battalions in colonne double, battalions detached to secure a flank or woods,

As an example you have Ney acting as a Colonel with his own avant-garde of:

One battalion of 6 volitgeur pelotons

One battalion of 2 carabinier pelotons (formed during the battle)

Two battalions of 14 chasseur pelotons and 2 voltigeur pelotons (later the two voltigeur compagnies are detached with a squadron of chasseurs a cheval)

1 squadron of chasseurs a cheval with the arrival of the regiment complete

1 squadron of hussards with the arrival of the regiment complete

Best Regards
Art

Too much stuff on the table is a serious issue.

It doesn't really matter about ground scale or scale frontages, you are still whacked by the unreal depth of a unit caused by figure sizes.

The table top foot print of a single 30 figure unit in 28mm, even in two ranks, is considerable, multiply it up by a dozen or more units per side and you have a problem.

When it comes to Napoleonics, ACW and AWI in this scale we don't even attempt games that involve a representation of more than a Division a side any more.

G'Day Mike Frang,

It would seem that there are indeed more players out there than thought, that do not prefer over packed troops on the game tables.

Best Regards
Art

Memoirs of the Duke of Rovigo (Trans Butler) vol. 1 part 2, page 181:

"This happened on the night between the 13th and 14th of October. On that night there was a hoar frost, accompanied by a thick fog, similar to that which we experienced before Austerlitz; but it was favourable to us, for we were upon a level height of a limited extent, which obliged us to form the troops in large masses, almost touching each other, in the order to facilitate their deploying in the morning. This level was not more than two hundred toises from the position occupied by the left of the Prussians. Had it not been for this fog, our fires would have served as a direction for the enemy; and their artillery would have done us considerable mischief, for every shot would have told. However, fortune favoured us wonderfully; for the fog lasted until eight o`clock next morning."

G'Day Mike,

I do not disagree with you on the disposition prior to the battle…

But the key to your own example is: "to facilitate their deploying in the morning"

But once action started…the French army executed a perfect example of l'ordre perpendiculaire…with plenty of manoeuvre to include change of fronts (by grand body of troops) on the field of battle.

Well maybe not Ney…but his actions are understandable…

But those of Marshal Lannes efforts and manoeuvre, are only shadowed by his actions at Frieland.

Best Regards
Art

Maneuver often occurs before the part of the battle represented on the tabletop – a little map work before the game can take care of this.

The part of the battle represented on the table is usually Crunch Time – often with lots of Crunch!

Yes, but for units to change from column to line, or back again, to maneuver around obstacles and simply to provide depth to go from close column to open or to square, there needs to be room. Even in conjested battles like Borodino, Dresden, Wagram and Waterloo…real slugfests with uber-crunches, both sides still did not mass troops the way they aften are on the table top. Lots of 'maneuvering' occurred once the cannon balls started flying.