"what to do for Waterloo?" Topic

I was considering a mini solo game for Waterloo based on d`Erlon`s attack… given that the actual French formations would not be used but would be decided by my solo rules for non-player dispositions.
The British/allied deployments would be as per historical.

Any thoughts on this ?

Have gamed this many times using various rules.

I think your plan will work fine and give a good game.

The important thing, I have found, is modelling the close in, almost claustrophobic effects of cramming that many men into such a relatively small space.

Bob

"What to do for Waterloo"….Austerlitz?

what, …and have Napoleon win it Dave ?

Claustrophobic? Indeed.

As one who has never fought a wargame, but is totally obsessed with the events surrounding the "Hundred Days", I have often thought that the big day itself might not be the best subject.

It is massed formations head to head. Very little true manoeuvering and such a small space that something like the Union Brigade charge through Picton's folk must be almost impossible. The buildings do add some variety, but is it not just a "hard pounding", slogging match in the end? Hoping to God Blucher will turn up if you are DoW. Unless you change history completely and start flanking attacks, it is head to head and toe to toe, across a shallow valley, with little concealment anywhere.

Now, Quatre Bras, in contrast, is a brilliant topic for a wargame surely. An encounter battle. You start with almost an empty table, you have little idea what will turn up on your side as reinforcements, or when they will, and almost no idea what you are facing opposite. I could imagine great use of chance cards and gamers totally blinded to what is coming down the road, at the end of each round, whether from Genappe or Brussels.

I did say that the actual French formations would not be used in my game.

I've played Waterloo twice with Volley and Bauonet. It makes for a great game on the Grand Tactical level.

When battalions are manoeuvred in arrays the "level" then becomes grand-tactical.

D'Erlon's assault is actually an interesting tactical problem. Personally I don't think his formation was to blame per se. Indeed they reached the ridge and were breaching the line when the cavalry charge sent them packing.

The trick, such as it is, is how to employ that many men on such a limited frontage, being able to reinforce success while not getting too disorganized and crowded.

The leading battalions will get shot up. What do you do then?

Then there is the hedge and sunken road. How do you best cross that in the face of resistance?

Of course a good deal has to do with whatever rules you are using and how they handle interpenetration and that sort of thing.

It's a matter of delicate timing and traffic management. Perhaps not the best head to head situation but a great solitaire project.

Knowing nothing about a subject has never stopped me pronouncing with great authority on it.

I still cannot help but think that QB is even better suited to solo gaming. That card I have just turned over is the cavalry I have been desperately awaiting, but they are D of Cumberland Hussars………that card in the Bois du Bossu, which I can now turn over, is the entire Garde Imperiale a pied………..woops…..

Very interesting to hear that a "Waterloo" game can be far more complex than I imagined. I honestly just thought it was stand in square or line, for as long as you can, reinforce while you still have any, and say "give me night, or give me Blucher".

This discussion sort of ties in with the battalion vs brigade thread.

Down in the weeds Waterloo is very interesting. There are many micro tactical (is that even a thing?) decisions to be made, due in large part to their being so many folks in such a small space.

At a higher level its "push this brigade forward towards the ridge. Oh it's out of steam. OK push the next one and hope it does better". Magically they pass through one another and the spent brigade retires while the fresh brigade advances.

At the small unit level you have to try and find room for this battalion to pass through or around that battalion and hope the enemy doesn't inconvenience you while you are at it.

Very complicated problem if not as much pure fun as fighting with plenty of room to maneuver.

Quatre Bras also makes a very good solo game although here the small number of Allied units at the start can be trouble depending on your games scale. Nassau split up battalions in an effort to hold the line so if your smallest unit is a battalion its a tough proposition.

In the end though, after multiple goes at it, I think poor Ney did not have enough infantry to pull it off despite his very splendid cavalry. Had he managed to take QB I don't think he could have held it very long. The defensible terrain is to the south and time was not on his side.

G'Day Michael,

Could you please tell me what the actual French formations were?

I see only one division that may need to change its formation…and if it is supported with cavalry, the division will deploy to the rear (which it was attempting to do when charged by cavalry) prior to contact.

"When battalions are manoeuvred in arrays the "level" then becomes grand-tactical."

Actually the term array means order of battle…or one could use Battle-Array which is also the Line of Battle.

Michael can your game design even create formations in colonne par bataillons?

I think that d`Erlon's assault is the perfect game to play solo…

I would also take into account the cause and effect of the massed battery as well. Such as if there had not been a massed battery the Allied cavalry would have taken a different route, which would have not been as surprisingly beneficial to them…or what would have happened if Ruty had not got involved and mishandled of the mass battery.

Best Regards
Art

hello Art (with a new ID),

Now I`m confused; you`re asking ME what the actual French formations were ;-)

So, "array" in English means "order of battle" now ?

I merely attempt to point out that the representation of the grand tactical level is possible in a game which uses individual infantry battalions & cavalry regiments.

As for "colonne par bataillons"; oddly enough no, the solo game does not account for such a formation.

Regarding the massed battery, the effect would be factored in at the start of the game.

Best Regards,

Mike.

G'Day Mike

I never knew that the term array changed… ;-)

As for the formation of colonne par bataillons…you should think about this formation in your game design…for it was a common formation used by the French.

If the French are caught in this formation..then it should be costly…but it was an excellent means of approaching the enemy in a rapid and controlled manner.

As a point of interest…what would happen if the VIeme Corps assisted d'Erlon…

Best Regards
Art

Well, maybe it has changed a little since 1066 Art.

I do account for it in GM rules, but is not an option in the solo module – perhaps it`s due to my prejudices, but it is a strange beast to accommodate and I couldn`t quite include it – nor make sense of it`s correct application in a combat situation.
I realise that maybe I should have given it a faster movement rate in the rules – and it should be as per the individual movement rate for infantry.

I do intend to use the solo rules for both sides… so, please let me know if anything else strikes you as useful regards this little game.

Regards,

Mike.

Bonjour Mike

I would role a dice to see if Ruty gets involved with the massed battery. If he does not get involved…then all three divisions may fire.

I take it that you also have a system to reflect the mass batter's possible effect, from the cannonade when attempting to demoralize an enemy position at the pied ferme?

Jomini suggested that the French should have used the colonne d'aile…I totally agree. I suppose at a brigade level game design, it may be represented with a formed "Flanking Brigade".

Best Regards
Art

Art,

A dice roll for Ruty – could do I guess.

Yes, sure, the effect of fire will be rolled for prior to this segment of the battle.

I`m not sure about the "brigade level game design" that you mention there Art and I`m not too clear… a column on which wing Art?

Regards,

Mike.

Use Zucker 1814 game with the 1815 armies and what if he played the peaceful chap vs the aggressors. Plus a bit of political wild cards with support and Austrian participation.
For a change?

G'Day Mike

I was under the supposition the solo game was brigade level.

Do you not remember the tactical categories of a column:

The colonne d'aile manoeuvred in an open column so as to execute a flanking fire. The colonne d'aile was formed on the extreme right or left of a deployed force to provide a mobile support.

Originally it was formed en colonne par section, but later it formed en colonne par peloton. Such a column is formed la gauche en tete or la droite en tete, and at à distance sufficient to permit a simultaneous evolution of its sub-component's to obtain a change of facing to "faire face" to an enemy flank.

Best Regards
Art

Hi Art,

No, Grand Manoeuvre is a rule set with battalions and cavalry regiments – with options to go down to companies and squadrons.

"Tactical categories" …No, not all of them – and maybe we could look at that question later?

My question was not about the form, but asking where these columns should have been on the day at Waterloo?

But come to think about it, I do wonder what an open column would have achieved against the British heavies.

Regards,

Mike.

G'Day Mike

A colonne d'aile should be positioned on the left flank of the 1er division, and a second colonne d'aile on the right flank of the 3eme division.

The action with the Allied cavalry happened on the Allies Battle Line or in close proximity, therefore the French would still close up to close column, so an open column is not the answer.

If French cavalry support the infantry, the Allied cavalry will never be able to repeat the actual events that transpired that day.

Remember that the French were not destroyed by the Allied cavalry from a head on charge, but they were charged on their flanks.

Best Regards
Art

"If French cavalry support the infantry…" Yes, there`s the issue – the probability of this, determining which units might be used in support – this is one of the pivotal factors in this phase of the battle to be decided !

Re. the use of colonne d`aile; I`ll try to make it a simple die roll to decide that too :-)

Regards,

Mike.

btw chaps, what do you make of this "map error" thing?

link

Good Day Mike,

I believe it was explained by Bernard Coppens…and the reasoning behind Neys orders…

Do you have a copy of those orders?

In any case…yes quite true.

Best Regards
Art

Hi Art,

No, I don`t think I have them.

Mike.

G'Day Mike

I have a copy somewhere…I shall email a copy to you.

Best Regards
Art

Actually, yes I have seen 22060 from Napoleon`s correspondence before, but just didn`t notice the topographical inaccuracy in it.

The map error question was discussed here, at length, before.

Much confusion between Ferme Mt St Jean and the hamlet itself. The map is too poorly reproduced on this link to be decipherable.

The general view was that any confusion on the map re place names could not conceivably have affected tactics or the outcome.

G'Day Liam.

…and who's general views would that be?

Thus you can perfectly explain the orders then…

Best Regards
Art

Explain what went wrong at Waterloo with the whole French chain of command? No, that is beyond comprehension. Just doubt that such a minor error on a map seriously influenced decision making.

There is a farm in the centre I can plainly see. There is, I gather, a small chateau behind those woods on the left. There is an area of low ground to my right and a recce shows a scattered hamlet. But what is over that ridge…I have no idea. But I will lob many a shell/cannonball over it…..and never actually get a view of what was there in the end.

Let me try to find the previous discussion;

Done!

TMP link

G'Day Laim

I never asked you to explain this:

"Explain what went wrong at Waterloo with the whole French chain of command?"

I only asked you to explain what was written in the orders…

Best Regards
Art

PS: Thank you for the link…and again I ask…what was written in the orders…otherwise there is no validity in anyone's comments…not one person except Hans-Karl makes a valid point…and I agree with Bernard Coppens…which you have read n'est pas?

As for the general views of those who posted a coherent and lucid posting…hmmmm….

Ney`s dispatch to general Lobau on the morning of the 18th:

"The English are amassed on Mont-Saint Jean, that is in front of the forest of Soignes. If the Prussians retreat behind the forest of Soignes you must send a thousand cavalry behind them, and come with your troops to join us. If one finds they intend to come in front of the forest at Mont Saint-Jean, then make a screen and bar the route.
Ney."

Is Ney in error here also about the exact placing of the British-allied army ?

G'Day Mike

Have you read the orders written in pencil, in response to the orders for the attack to begin at 1 P.M.?

Best Regards
Art

Yes, the part about it being the left that leads rather than the right and to inform Rielle.

I am a simple chap and do not follow this. Everything quoted above seems to largely fit in with what we now know about the topography.

I face an enemy behind a ridge where two roads meet (Nivelles and Charleroi). The enemy has a forest at his back ("He is no stoodent of Caesar"). To my right is some tricky ground (woods, valleys, streams, muddy rubbish tracks) which would be a challenge to Grouchy or the Prussians, but the latter are surely miles away.

How did a minor error in map reading influence the battle plan?
That farm in front of me is Mt St J (actually it is not, it is LHS). What's in a name?, a famous English playwright asked. It is still in the way and filled with German lads in green.

There is a bend in the road (to this day there actually is).

So maybe Ney thought "Blucher was in the Woods" (I love the film quotes) and they were the Bois de Paris instead. They are a bunch of trees…woods, forests, wald, forets…..they are still full of Prussians.

Someone tell me, how did it make a difference? You keep posting rhetorical questions…..

We probably have not read this or that…present us an argument!

Great post. I love this kind of thing! Fascinating, especially if we really do learn summat new about "Waterloo" this year!

Then you understand why so much importance was given in attacking the village of Mont St. Jeans with so many troops…to include 24 bouche a feu which were also brought up just to fire upon the village of Mont St. Jean.

This was meant to attack a village and not two small hamlets. A village cannot be bypassed…where as small hamlets can have a cordon set up…

Quite so, and the Army Bulletin of the 20th repeatedly mentions the village of Mont St Jean as being attacked and after all they name the battle "Mont St Jean" too.

It must be me. I do not get this.

You simply cannot see Mt St J, farm or village/hamlet, from anywhere on the French side, today. Back then, the ridge was even slightly higher (the mound effect on reducing that is grossly exaggerated, if you think about it).

Of course they talk about attacking MSJ. That was just behind the centre of the enemy line. Farm or Hamlet. That is the schwerpunkt or however you spell it……

Think about it, further.

Did Boney ever even hear the name Waterloo until the battle was long over?

The name would have meant nothing to him on 18th June. It is somewhere between him and Brussels. A spot on a map.

He never thought for one moment he was fighting the Battle of Waterloo. He was attacking the "heights" of Mt St Jean.

But still, where does the map error apply to all this?

Great discussion. I am profoundly ignorant about all this, but that never stops me pontificating. Tell us all how a map error changed what Boney did on the big day. Specifically.

Quid says you cannot

You are a Soldier…your mission analysis is wrong…and you are in-adequately framing the problem.

Do a 5 Paragraph Operation Order on a village you cannot see.

Then

Do a 5 Paragraph Operation Order on a hamlet you cannot see.

A Quid says they will not be the same

I'll even make it easier…do each 5 Paragraph Operation Order on a cordon and search mission for a village and one for a hamlet.

We did Quatre Bras last Saturday using AOE. Nice compact battle.

OK, so hopefully I`ll be starting the terrain for this game soon.

I went to Homebase this morning and purchased some 2mm polystyrene wall-liner, PVA adhesive and some wall-filler mix.

I intend to construct the terrain using two 1200mmx600mm MDF boards; this gives me a scaled portion of the eastern half of the battlefield of 2,500 x 2,500 metres.
I will build up the contours gradually with wall-liner and filling the steps with wall-filler.
The terrain will then be finished with a mixture of emulsion and acrylic paints.
This is the method I used for my Wagram terrain boards. For those boards I used lighter, thinner paint layers of the same colour green to represent the higher ground too, but maybe for this one there will be time to add some colour effect for different crops in the fields.

Here are a few photos of that Wagram terrain:

The playing surface will include the main Brussels road from La Belle Alliance to Mont St. Jean Farm.
It will extend eastward to the farms and buildings of; Papelotte, La Haie, Smohain & Frischermont.

The polystyrene wall-liner layers in this model will probably have to represent 5-metre contours, which means that most of the cuttings and sunken roads in the terrain will need to be modelled with the wall-filler mix.

Showing my "workings out": here`s part of a modified contour map that I found recently on the internet; it shows the selected area for the game:
link

Made a start today… letting the PVA dry now:

I lightly superglued the two 4x2ft MDF boards together.

5m contour layer on the base board:

..and the first 10m contour:

It`s coming together now; four contour levels done and time to call it a night…

Two more contour levels have been added this morning… and nearest to the camera, the allied ridge line is beginning to appear now.

I ran out of wall-liner and had to work too, so I had to halt construction of the Waterloo terrain model for a while. I will however, back on track tomorrow (Sunday).

A number of points for consideration that I`ve been looking at since I last posted were:

The quality of the Dutch-Belgian troops – so many gamers still believe that they were mostly poor or potentially disloyal. I hope to rectify this.

Also -and in some manner related to the Dutch-Belgian issue above- the effectiveness of the massed battery and it`s positioning. Some doubt exists that it was so close to La Haiye Saint as previously stated.

Thinking on the larger picture… I`m still considering the French and allied options re. attacking arrays/defensive dispositions. And with the defensive dispositions, the orders and preparedness of the allied commanders involved. Some say that the whole situation; the choice of terrain and the placement of troops was, in effect, a deliberate large-scale ambush.

I`ve finished the contour levels.. here are two photos from the different viewpoints…

1. Viewed from the British allied side:

and

2. The position of La Belle Alliance is in the bottom corner of this photo and is the terrain as seen from the French side of the battlefield:

I`ve marked in the positions of the roads and tracks and showing just below in the photo is the model that I made for La Haye Sainte and La Belle Alliance in the distance.

Above: the eastern flank of the allied position with temporary models showing; Papelotte, La Haie and Smohain.

I`ve finished making models of Papelotte and La Haie – there`ll be some photos to follow. Three down and three more to follow (Smohain, La Belle Alliance and Mont St.Jean Farm)…. after I`ve completed making the model buildings, I`ll start on the terrain; laying the roads and tracks down.