"incorrect footprint of unit bases" Topic

G'Day Gents,

Everyone seems to have an issue with the incorrect footprint of their unit basing. To what effect does this have on your game?

I was always under the impression that the vertical basing of figures was close, but it was the depth of the basing that is the issue. If so then why is it an issue, and how does it effect your game?

Or perhaps this is merely a visual displeasure, and has no great importance in the game?

Best Regards
Art

Art
Probably the biggest issues are with columns and artillery.
With columns players sometimes think a firing unit has a juicy target because of an exaggerated target depth. The reality, particularly when a column was in masse, would be the actual column depth is much shallower than the miniature column.
With the artillery, particularly when limbers are employed, the apparent depth may be exaggerated, which present more apparent disruption opportunities to movement and/or depth to be attacked.

Only really important if everything else is right, and with so many of the "games" out there, well they are so out of whack it wouldn't matter.

The games that get it right are the ones that people say are too fiddly.. such as Bruce Quarrie, and others…

As has been said, the "smallness" of our units distorts how we perceive the various formations. Consider this picture of a unit in line made up of just a couple dozen figures, especially the relative width to depth:

Now compare that to this:

Besides the target issuse, players often misundertand the capabilities of a unit represented by just 24 figures…

"Everyone seems to have an issue with the incorrect footprint of their unit basing"

Not me, there are far more important things to worry about!

Not me either. If I really wanted to do this with more accuracy I would go for 1:1 with those 2mm models.

I'd agree with Maddaz and EC above, which is why I tend to focus on smaller figures and games with lower figure:men ratios. These allow for greater fidelity to a unit's actual footprint.
For me it goes beyond the understanding that a given unit's base is an abstract of an actual formation. I really like seeing a proper (or as close as feasible) representation of a unit on the field. Not only is it visually more pleasing, but the game table itself takes on a dynamic, chaotic look, which rings more true to life than blocks of (albeit individually beautiful) checkerboard-like ambiguous bases.

To each his own, of course.

Cheers,
Bob

I went with 5/1 basing in two mm for a game, which isn't realistic (!) but did leave players trying to get forces in on the accurately scaled table, and looking at the very small distances for musketry.. and being concerned about cavalry catching their flanks, and not being able to instantly change formation, and wheeling… and so on.

But that was just a game to knock the "realistic" designs we had been playing on its head. I quite happily play C&C Napoleonics with wooden blocks that represent everything from companies to demi brigades, and the scale of the musketry never feels right… but it still produces good games.

Ahh, my favorite subject….

I use 3mm figs to try to get correct foot prints, or at least to experiment with conceptually. One problem with real foot print is trying to create real terrain. Here's a period map to scale so that these battalions (3 bases on 20mm x 10mm bases) are correct to the ground scale. Check out the correctly spaced French attack columns on the left as well. An attack column of divisions should be at least as deep as the unit is wide. This was important for forming square and carrying out other maneuvers.

[/URL]

Look at all that terrain! People often say that the main difference between Napoleonics and ACW games is the amount of terrain, but this is I feel, sort of false. There was a lot of terrain in continental Europe as well. The bigger the units, the harder it gets to model all the terrain.

And if you think arty foot print is an issue, what about skirmishers? A 1:1 Napoleonic battalion in 3mm takes up 6 x 60mm bases. That's the same as a 36 figure battalion in 28mm. Here is a 1000 figure Austrian battalion, with 8 60mm x 40mm bases. This has a proper depth for its frontage, obviously, and so one could easily capture this wiht 28mm, 15mm, etc.

Now, If that's about 150m across in frontage that means the skirmisher line should be about twice as far out, or about 3 to 4 feet across the table! It also means that in a 28mm game with "big battalions" there shouldn't be any solid shot being fired from any artillery- it's right to canister.

This also affects time. I suspect that somewhere hiding inside the foot print and ground scale issue there is some sort of rule concerning time as well. That is, a game played with battalions of this size should probably only cover a few minutes of combat, maybe not even an hour, unless it factors in repeated feed-ins of reserves (like at the flechets at Borodino, for instance). Also I think one probably should question whether or not "attack" columns are even relevant in big battalion games, since most units would have stopped to form line by this range, would they not?

Beautiful map/terrain FM, is that your latest incarnation?

Hi Inkbiz!

Thanks! That's actually an old one, I have a ton of pics like that on my photobucket if you want to check them out. I wanted to be able to play games on the maps but the problem is that there's too much terrain on them to make sense of. At the brigade level they might work, but really you'd need to annotate them. I have them laminated for exactly that purpose.

Here's a close-up:

[/URL]

Also, actually, I just realized that in the map in my first post those are BRIGADES, not battalions. If you want to play with 60mm battalions you have to zoom down to here:

[/URL]

My annotations are on there, my idea was I could annotate on the computer and then print them out. I even marked out the stone wall around the farm, which the Ferraris maps actually show. A pretty incredible history document.

Doesn't bother me at all! Love having my stands big enough to protect the figures and keep the bayonets from breaking off.

While I love the look of massed figures at any scale, and how cheap it is [relatively speaking] to use 5mm to 2mm figures… The size of the figures really isn't the issue. It is the footprint of the base.

While the 12 figures to a battalion can leave gamers with the wrong impression of size and depth, the physical space occupied by the stand and how that works in play is the dominate factor regarding Art's question.

About the distortion of depth:

I don`t think that scale; figure or ground scale are the answer.

If the gamers concerned see it as a problem, then the easiest solution is perhaps to simply ignore it where movement is concerned and allow units to move through the backs of units in columns etc.
No need to come up with more rules on the subject; you just need to reach a consensus between yourselves as to how much of the front of a base should not be passed through or should constitute a "target" for artillery.

I think a correct width is important. If your unit is a bataillon the range of musket shooting should be around the width of the unit. (Black Powder for example with a approximate width of 11" and a musket range of 18" isnt perfect.)

The depth IMO doesnt matter. I see the additional depth of a unit as a mix of a control zone in front, a back zone with officers and stragglers and the room for a company commander to wheel his line. (But in my own rules a fire fight is by units touching.)

Depth does matter to determine manouverabilty and placing of units, like in case you want – as is usualy was – deploy 2 or 3 battle lines.

Also when calculating distances of a column when fired at, best would be to used the first stand regardless how deep on the battle field the column is – it could be well, usind cm to meter scale be enormously long, despite the stands are in contact.

also when one is using other formations to move behind those columnar formation, it should be taken into account that it is usually not as deep as it appears on the figure field.

The big case is – see discussion about angulated fire – to plot symetriy according to the tactical formation we use as wargaming represtening unit.

I agree that correct width is of essential importance

I really like extra cripsy's pictures at 17 Jan 2015 3:06 p.m. PST. and forwardmarchstuidios at 17 Jan 2015 4:44 p.m. PST.

Now imagine what would happen in battle if that very thin battalion in line was forced into a "V" shape in the middle because it as aligned along the top of a ridge (or behind a stream) that was "bent" AND an enemy battalion in a close column of divisions hit the point of the unit & terrain feature.

Not many of the line would be able to fire due to the limited arc of fire (combined with that they are facing the wrong way) AND the fact that the ends of the battalion in line are now much further away from the point of contact then they would be if the unit was in a straight line. (If the bend was 90 degrees, they would be 127yards away, rather than 90 yards away for a 180yard long battalion in line).

What I think we Napoleonic aficionados need to realize is that, because of the limited smoothbore musket range, the methods and results of battalion tactics are defined by such geometric restraints. So what happens when a column attacks a line cannot be implicitly understood, rationalized and concluded by looking at the 24 figure 2 rank stand that represents a battalion in line. Sure! such a figure can fire everything at full effectiveness at a "? battalion in column?" of similarly designed figures. But that conclusion is based upon a very very faulty and false conclusion from looking at faulty geometric relationships.

The relationship which I think is important is the range of the smooth bore musket relative to the frontage of a battalion in line. I think many, even most rules get this wrong. If what I read is to be believed the British Napoleonic army often gave fire at 50 or less yards. Even down to 10 yards at Busaco. Take a typical battalion of say 600 bayonets two deep, their frontage will be about 200 yards. It follows that the effective range of the musket, at which units would fire at, would be about 25% or less of the battalion frontage.

Of course how the rules handle and possibly abstract the skirmishers, their deployment and fire effect will have a bearing in this. However, quite typically you see units firing 12", as that's what wargames rules have always done, and getting hits at over what would be over 200 yards when considering the unit frontages.

Some approximate sizes and shapes of Napoleonic formations.

First, the rough assumptions on the building blocks of the formations. 6 companies per battalion with 720 line troops. The basic building block is a company of three ranks with a width of 30 yards. Lets approximate that each soldier takes up 16" of space with his body and there is a 32"pace from him to the start of the guy behind him. So the depth of the block of men is {16"+32"+16"+32"+16"=112" or ~ 120" or} 3 yards Okay, that makes the battalion inline 180 yards wide and 3 yards deep. (yea, there are saegants and between company spacings and… but that's close enough for illustration here. {{{{180 yards x 3 yards,,,,aspect ratio is [[6 to 0.1]] }}}

A battalion in column by divisions (e.g. 2 company front) in open order has 3 paces (30") or 90" or (I'll say) 9 yards between the forward and rearward company and 10 yards laterially between adjacent companies. That gives it a shape that has a front of 70 yards and a depth of 70 yards. aspect ratio of 2 : 2. (Remember see period prints of big battles in progress? All those square shaped units marching a maneavuring behind the battlefront are these units positioning themselves).

A battalion in column by divisions in closed order has the same lateral spacing but has closed up the following companies to 3 paces. So the depth is then {3+ 9+ 3+ 9+ 3= 27 yards, which gives it a shape of 70 yards by 27 yards. aspect ratio of ~ 2 : 1 . A battalion attacking on a division front would start out at open order and closeup before contact. Notice that it is wider than it is deep. With our wargame figures, it comes into contact as a long strung out rectangle.

There is also a battalion column by company, which is a useful formation fro moving to the battlefield and snaking around terrain features. In open order it is about 30yards x 140 yards (aspect ratio of 1 :4.3 ) and in closed order about 30 yards by 54 yards (1: 1.8).

In summary:

formation             yard x yards    aspect ratio 
==================================================
a company               30 x  3      1 : 0.1
a division              60 x  3      2 : 0.1  
battalion in line      180 x  3      6 : 0.1
batt.by div.open       70 x  27      2 : 0.5
batt.by div.close      70 x  70      2 : 2
batt.by comp.open      30 x 140      1 : 4.3
batt.by comp.close     30 x  54      1 : 1.8 

I suggest that people might actually cut out of cardboard templates that are aspect ratio sized in inches for the various formations to see what things actually were proportioned with one another. (you can do this even if they don't let you use the pointed-ended scissors anymore). Also cut out 3 pieces of 2"x 0.1" to represent a division in line and a number of pieces that represent a division's 90 yard range effective firing zone. (2 wide on one side, 8" wide on the opposite side with 3" between sides).

It doesn't bother me much, or at least no more than anything else. Everything in a war-game is an abstracted representation of reality, and not usually to correct scale at that.

Unit foot print is the least of the scale distortions.

Apart from fire combat distances, the real issues concerning a unit's footprint have to do with maneuver and how many units you can have in combat formations in any one area.

A battalion column may close up, but it will still want enough area to form line or go to open column. The only time that isn't true is in 1. march columns and getting within deployment range of the enemy and 2. When forming multi-battalion columns which still have the same area needs as the single battalion writ large. So let's say you have a stand that is 1" X 1/2" at 75 yards per inch.

If a battalion is two stands, then in a column representation, that is 75 yards by 75 yards or a battalion in closed column by divisioin. Within that area, the only formations that wouldn't fit that footprint are line and open column… Line formation can be represented by the two stands side by side. Of course, the line is only @3 yards deep, but if you take into account that supporting lines rarely even formed up closer than 150 yards [for reasons of maneuver and formation change needs], if supporting lines are represented by other battalions an inch to two inches away from the front line, you still maintain reasonable spacing, both in facing and depth.

It all depends on what that base represents. If it is the absolute area a group of men take up, you will have problems because of figure scale vs representational scale. If you say the bases represent the maneuver area the battalion or larger formation needs to be combat effective, the issues start to fall away.

The question is what areas were given over to a battalion or brigade by the SOP and formation change needs for them to function.

Yes, actually I`m more worried by the footprint of the page right now… :P

Actually, if your grand formations allow for manoeuvres within them by their component units (as they should) one needn`t worry much at all!

I just ignore depth because even in a Quarrie-style single line of figures the depth is still overstated.

Even worse than the depth problem is that of the correct size of squares. A 500-man infantry battalion formed in square in three ranks would have had 125 men per face at most. Call it 40 men wide in 3 ranks per face. 40 men would have occupied a frontage, at 22" per man, of around 24 yards.

A British square was usually formed four ranks deep so it would have been 30 men wide per face and about 18 yards wide.

In other words, tiny. Formed in line, the 500-man unit would have been between 100 and 150 yards wide, but put it into square and it dwindles to a dot of maybe 15% of that aspect.

This explains why squares sometimes did and sometimes did not take appalling casualties from artillery. Anything that hit would cause utter carnage, but they were such small targets they were hard to hit, unless the firers were horse artillery who had moved in close.

Good discussion.
I use double-rank 28mm figure basing mainly for looks. I tend to justify the extra depth by thinking that each turn is just a snapshot of the battle and the space it occupies is a zone of influence. As in, that's the area of ground that a unit effectively controls during that period of time. Could be deluding myself but it's one way of looking at it.
After reading this I might have to remove a couple of bases when battalion is in column.

If your unit is a bataillon the range of musket shooting should be around the width of the unit. (Black Powder for example with a approximate width of 11" and a musket range of 18" isnt perfect.)

That's nowhere near perfect. I hear this musket range v unit frontage argument but it doesn't mean anything. Effective range was 50 yards or less, anything over 80 yards and you might as well save powder and get every man to yell "Bang!". So BP musket range should really be around 3".

I was thinking that if my 28mm 24 figure battalions are way out of scale when it comes to their unit footprints I hate to think of how out of scale my command bases are.

Opps. There is an error in my table, a couple of posts above in that I have close column of divisions aspect ratio swapped with the open column of divisions. It should read:

batt. column by div.open       70 x  70      2.3 : 2.3
batt. column by div.close      70 x  27      2.3 : 1
open square                    60 x  30      2   : 1

Thanks for posting the chart, billsfan--I was trying to derive the same, and it was nice to have something to check against. I'm having less luck with doing the same for cavalry though…

My 1:20, 15mm per figure, 36 figure battalions are 270mm wide (2 ranks for visual "goodness") in line.

So, assuming a "real" frontage of around 150 yds/135m, I use a ground scale of 2mm to the metre.

Using that, it is eye opening to see just how little of a real battlefield I should represent (8' by 5' table – apologies for imperial/metric in same post).

Depth is messed up, as per OP, but unless units are really crowded in I am happy that they work in most instances. For columns, it gets ridiculous, but as all measuring is from the front normally it is not a major issue. But definitely like the idea of making up some cardboard templates of real formations at scale for those tricky moments.

But linear ground scale is king, as it helps me keep troop numbers, battlefield, ranges etc in line with each other.

Of course, I then through all that out when I put buildings on the table…

Excellent discussion, Gentlemen. Although this is the Napoleonics Board please let me give some examples from the ACW, a period with which I am much more familiar.

A regiment in line actually would have a larger footprint than just the two ranks of men with 13 inches between the ranks (roughly 2 paces in total). According to Hardee's, the files closers were placed two paces behind the line of battle. The field music, drawn up in four ranks (if at full strength), was placed 12 paces behind the file closers. Further still to the rear was the regiment's Colonel at 30 paces (Hardee) or 35 paces (Casey) to the rear of the file closers. Finally the Colonel's staff was 3 paces to his rear. Note the regulations allow the Colonel and his staff to reduce this distance for an understrength unit.

Allowance must also be made for when the line was to advance. With the command "Forward" the colours and general guides on each flank were to advance 6 paces in front of the line.

Given these parameters, and assuming each man occupies one pace in depth provides the following: 6 (advancing colours) + 2 (men in 2 ranks) + (2+1) (file closers) + (30/35+1) (Colonel) + (3+1) (staff) = 46 paces (Hardee) or 51 Paces (Casey).

At 28 inches to the paces that gives a regiment in line of battle a footprint with a required depth of 36 yards (Hardee) or 40 yards (Casey). And even if the Colonel and his staff moved out of their position the location of the field music would still require the regiment to have a footprint depth of 21 yards.

I have mounted my figures on one inch square bases each representing 75 men occupying approximately 38 yards of frontage. Five stands would make up a regiment 375 men strong, not an unreasonable strength for the mid-war period. At a scale of one inch equal to about 40 yards the footprint is well within reason.

In a column either Marching by the Flank or in Column of Companies at Full Distance the depth remains appropriate with the stands in a single column. The anomalies only start when the regiment is in a column at Half Distance or Closed, In Mass. And in the ACW these latter two formations were rarely used except for moving up to the front.

Well, Ryan gives an example of what I was talking about. The actual space needed for maneuver and organization was greater than a simple rank and file count.

For instance, If a column was going to be able to operate in open column as Billfan shows, as well as form line, the battalion would need at least a 180 X 140 yard area to be able to do that.

Good discussion. I have moved my basing convention for infantry from 1in by 0.5in with a single rank of 3 15mm figures, to 1in squares with a double rank. It looks much better. Cavalry have always been on 1in squares. This mostly works OK for the reasons stated above – that real units left a lot of space between them. Usually.

But there are two contexts where I've bumped into serious game design problems. In grand Tactical systems (Grand Armée or Volley + Bayonet) which use 2 or 3in square bases I found that compact battles like Waterloo there wasn't enough space, especially if you want to do terrain features justice. Not so difficult to correct this. Use shallower bases.

The bigger headache comes in tactical games when trying to represent close columns and squares, whose footprint is really small. I have toyed with actually removing bases from play. My current rules project is at the grand tactical end of things, so I've shelved that problem for later. When it comes to it, most gamers are happy with very approximate interpretations of the formations used and are happy to gloss over this. They aren't botherd by the different between a close column and one at quarter or half interval.

On a related issue I struggle with the footprint of buildings. I am increasingly tired of the convention that one building model represents a hamlet or village. In fact the streets are the most important structural feature of most built up areas – but large scale buildings make this very hard to represent in grand tactical games. I am starting to use 6mm buildings for my 15mm figures, which can look a bit odd.

Matthew

If you are using four bases and let's assume the width in line is close to correct -- how would you represent column and square? Would column be two bases wide but keep the same depth (and maybe show more figures on each stand for visual purposes)? Is square one stand?
I know this won't be exact, but as a compromise, what would make the ratios closer?

tshryock. Exactly the sort of thinking I was going through. But remember that columns of manoeuvre had much larger intervals, so a 2 by 2 or even 1 by 2 or 4 might come into play.

All of which brings its own complexity, and won't be popular with most players. But I have it in mind to try it out to see if such things affect the way people use units on the tabletop.

It'll be hard trying to wend your way through a village without a column of sections. :)

per Matthewgreen but…
I went back to 0.5in thick base with single rank figures ( 4front x 0back = 4 figs/stnd) to represent my 2 rank formations and 3/4"(18mm) thick base for my 3 rank formations with figures mounted in a psuedo 2 rank fashion to give depth of the 3 rank ( 4front x 2back = 6 per stand)along with proper relationship back to the 2 rank formations in frontage.
It is my best a compromised for: scale/depth, formation relationship ( 2 rank vs 3 rank vs cavalry-square vs cols line), cost ( # of figure and painting) and looking less like a skirmish formation(that many have complained about with 8-18 figure sized battalions(at 6 to 25mm)).
My 750 3 rank battalion tend to be ~27 to 28 figs at 4.5" frontage and same number in 2 rank at 7".
This allowed use of 2 cav per 1" sq base.
It is… tough to beat the look of those 48- to 96 fig 5mm or 3mm to a battalion!

MG

A few points to make.

One is that I think it is incorrect to require the representation of a unit have to include the space that would enable it to shake out into line. Going from column to line to fight was often done, but it wasn't exclusive. That requirement was ignored when approaching the battlefield or keeping units in reserve or in counterattacking. Sometimes units would also be more densely packed than could be represented by a large figure base that might represent the zone of action of any evolution.

A second point is, for me, part of the interest in the footprint of units, the arc of fire and range of the weapons is to question, understand and perhaps improve the accuracy of the game mechanics and rules concerning the interaction of different formations. In most rule sets, the following interaction will happen if a column attempts to march past a line. (The line occupies the space in the x dimension between x=0 and x=180 yards, the column march in the negative y direction and at one point has its head of column covering x=181yards to x= 250yards). The entire line, without moving, fires at full effectivness at the column at a short range and blows it away. However, somehow the far left of that line was never any closer than 180 yards away but fired at full effectiveness? Just the same as it was firing at a line directly opposite it? And none of the second rank firers were screened by their limited arc from firing? Might we be missing some very basic and important interactions of column and line. The French were very often successful with this. Could it be that they were hitting gaps in or between units, or advanced protruding angles in order to cut down the fire received? Could it be that they learned that if the enemy was "leveling their muskets and firing" that approaching up or down a slope would make most of the issued fire miss? Could it be that they used their skirmishers and cheering to provoke an early first fire at a longer, ineffective range and then moved through the smoke?

Anyway, (as you might suspect by now), I will be coming out with some incremental granular calculations on lines firing at columns, which consider what is not obvious from a two-4man stands per battalion representation. Arc of fire restrictions, screening of the enemy by your own unit and real variable ranges are taken into account. Further work is done for the cases where the attacking column comes in at an angle (not perpendicular) to the defending line, and that has a big effect on the amount of effective fire.

Hello Art!

The footprint of your unit effects it's relationship with all the other units on the table and every terrain feature. Depending on the level, scale and abstraction of your game these relationships will vary.

If the goal of your games is to try and mirror, reflect or resemble as many of the problems and situations that their real life counterparts had to deal with, then these relationships are very important. If you just want to push pretty figures around then it means nothing.

Best regards,

Glenn

G'Day Gents,

I appreciate everyone's posting, and I am in the process of writing a collective rejoinder, but first I have a fleeting question to Alex.

With all your examples of musketry and artillery (to include tables presented), if we assume that most game designs have a vertical basing which is more or less correct, how does that effect musketry or artillery fire when the basing of figures have an incorrect depth to them?

Best Regards
Art

Wow! Everyone is playing nice. Something unexpected for this board.

Art,

In my amateur opinion, the "problem" of scale errors is one of perception of what the interactions of the units must be when writing rules. When you have two 4 figure stands (3" wide)representing a battalion in line, it is very reasonable to expect that they should be able to successfully engage a unit 4" away and 60 degrees away from the direction they are pointing. IF you project yourself to that 15mm size, yes you can and aren't we all doing so when we play with our little fellows. That, I guess, is the indirect affect of the too-large depth of the bases. That the depth of the bases is too large does make a line have too great a depth, but, as has been pointed out, there usually was a gap between successive lines in reality (officers, breathing room, file closers, staying out of massed target situations)that corrects that error. However; in the case of columns in open or closed order, they become way too deep and look like a giant enfilade target for artillery and many more shooters then would be able to see them in reality. That is why I thought it worth illustrating to look at the width:depth ratio of the different formations. A column, from the side, is a much narrower target than our toy soldiers suggest and even artillery would have a hard time to re aim and hit such a moving target. But would have a good effect when it did. (see {artpdn at 19 Jan 2015 11:01 p.m. PST} in the thread "Arcs of Fire, why do we do it" for an explanation). There were also real problems in trying to move line across real terrain at any speed and the use of columns to move troops around the battlefield is not appreciated.

I am posting a new thread "Line versus column: firing effectiveness" that also bears on the topic. I have done simple calculations of the distances for sections of a line firing at an advancing column and the results are surprising. Further calculations for oblique approaches will be uncomfortable for those partizans of the great superiority of a line over the column, as well as those simple calculations for hitting a gap between units (even the company gap usually between battalions). Later work will factor in models for musket accuracy and leveling.

Monday night`s game was played with George Gush`s rules for the War of 1812…
I thought about this discussion whilst trying to change the formation of one of my large light infantry units; the column was so long that I could not form line on the head in a single turn.
Maybe the figure bases were too deep?

Yes, I have often had the same problem before. My unit has 7 stands(1"x 3/4) and is in a column. It is 5 inches long. I get the the front and want to deploy into a line. I can not shake out into a line to the left or right of the head of the column in one move. One way around this is to continue movement at a column rate and then do the Fredich der Grosse left (or right) face (with a little giggling for one unit only) to form the line. One thing to take care about- I've seen players do this column=>line trick to push units further out in distance they they would be able to move.

Michael, I cannot comment on the rules but I would comment on the formation change. An open column will have the depth equal to its frontage. It can form line to the front on the head company and the rearmost company will have to march about 1.6 times the frontage by taking a diagonal path. (I am assuming that the battalion is left or right-in-front). The battalion may also change the direction of the column and perform a processional style deployment so the rear company only need cover 1 times the frontage.

A close column or perhaps at quarter distance will be quicker as the rearmost company will have a shorter diagonal to cover to get to its place.

Nafziger in Imperial Bayonets estimates 2.62 minutes to form line from an open column of six peletons and 1.5 minutes to deploy from a column of two peletons width at a section distance (essentially quarter distance).

Are the turns really as short as 2.62 minutes?

Hi Mike,

I`m not sure about the scale time.

The unit was on a road, two figures abreast, with all the bases touching.

Yes, I guess that a processional forming of line would have been a solution, but for some reason I didn`t think of that!

In my game, I have fewer bases in a standard 4-base unit, so perhaps the problem is avoided – and time`s not an issue as most formation changes are completed within one turn.

But then, we had all entered the spirit of playing some old-school rules, so I just carried on and it was an enjoyable evening nonetheless.

G'Day Alex

If I may…

" the "problem" of scale errors is one of perception"

If this is indeed the root of the problem, then I submit that this is why you and others should be here, to assist others who are half-learned or have no understanding of the general principles, general rules, and the study of each country's military system (doctrine), to rid them of the errors of the misconception of a column in depth on the game table.

If you and others can successfully teach others in the correct military science, then depth is no longer an issue.

Each player has chosen the scale that fits his needs, thus we are not here to tell him his scale is wrong, but to educate and provide him with options.

Mike if I may, I think you accidentally made a typo:
"An open column will have the depth equal to its frontage"…

And what you actually meant was; that an open column (colonne ouverte / colonne avec distance entire), the intervals will have a distance equal to its frontage, for each division or sub tactical faction.

Best Regards
Art

Art, yes fair point.

An open column, each sub element being at full distance will have a depth "D" from the front of the first element to the front of the rear element (to which should be added one more distance).

This depth "D" will be the same as the frontage taken by the unit when deployed into line.

G'Day Mike,

Unless of course the open column deploys par demi-bataillons en echelon…colonne double…or colonne par compagnie (four small columns) as did the French ;-)

Best Regards
Art

For my ACW rules, (variant of the old "rally round the flag"), I estimated that the "real" column was only about one third the length of the 15mm "toy soldier" column. Therefore if the column shook out into a line, the last element measured the distance it could move from the 1/3 point from the head of the column.