"Blücher Ground Scale Question" Topic

I've been looking at making 2D maps on which to play Blücher using those great looking cards. What I envision is using various maps of Belgium and drawing/painting them on 4x6 sheets of paper.

There in lies my dilemma. According to the rules, the only scale provided (recommended) is:

[q]One infantry unit represents two to three thousand men,
typically a brigade comprising four or more battalions.

One cavalry unit represents one to two thousand
mounted men, typically a brigade comprising several
squadrons.

One artillery unit represents two to four massed batteries,
comprising as many as 24 guns.[/q]

I need suggestions concerning translation of these units to a ground scale so that I can properly scale the playing field maps drawings.

I realize that the "scale" is intentionally somewhat squishy and that "units" can represent a large variance actual numbers of troops, so all suggestions are welcome. The important constraints are that Sam's cards are used and the table I have is only 4x6.

You can also make your own brigade markers, say 2"x1" or even 30mm x 20mm. This will help with your scaling, perhaps.

My mates and I have played about a dozen or so games of Blucher (using the 100 days campaign cards) on a 4'x6' table, with most games being about 200pts. However, a few games have been 300pts and we had no issues viz numbers of units vs table area.

We're going to likely switch to 3"x2" bases in the near future, as our miniature armies take shape.

Off the top of my head, it would seem something like 1" = 200 yards may be about right?

At the troop scale you mention, the assumption must be that an infantry unit represents a brigade (or something similar) deployed in two lines. This fits with the standard representation of brigade level units since Volley & Bayonet first used that level of abstraction. It makes the frontage of each brigade/unit approx. 300 yards (1500 men), which is usually represented by a 3" frontage for a 1" = 100 yards ground scale – very easy and handy. The question is: how wide are the cards? Divide 300 yards by the width of the cards to get your 1" = X yards ground scale.

As an aside, I *really* wish that game design would get over this "ground scale is relative" phase it's going through, like some sort of annoying teenager who insists on arguing that math isn't relevant to "real life". ;)

Cheers,

Christopher

I always assumed that his brigade bases are supposed to be 300m in frontage, or 1"=300m. If you work out the arty ranges, cannister is two base distances or 600m, which is pretty accurate. I'm not sure if Blucher is exactly the same- we've been discussing arty in Blucher and it seems to work differently then arty in FPGA.

In FPGA at least the 300 meter "frontage" is made purposefully hazy by the rules allowing brigades to "snap" to the frontage of an attacking unit as well as the way the flank rules work. A pretty elegant solution for the limits of a one-base brigade, IMHO.

Err … if your brigades have a frontage of 300m, then the only way that the ground scale is 1" = 300m is if your units have a 1" frontage. ;)

By the way, canister range is no where near to 600 yards – it's 300 yards if you want a round number, but really closer to 200 for the more ubiquitous 6lb guns.

I don't accept the premise that 300 yards is the proper frontage for a brigade. That may be possible if the brigade is squeezed together in a giant column, as at Waterloo. Brigades more often had a frontage of about 5-600 yards. There are of course such variables as the strength of the brigade, terrain, mission, etc. that influence frontage.

A "typical" brigade formation is 2-3 battalions in line across the front with the remaining battalions in a second line, right?

Dan is of course right – brigades more often than not deployed in a single line of battle than in a nice neat double line. However, that is the assumption used by virtually all single-base-brigade rules systems, and which Blucher appears to use as well from the description above, which is why I referenced it to solve the problem of calculating the ground scale. It does not require any sort of "giant column" deployment however – two lines of 1500 men deployed in standard line formation, with the second line 1-200 yards behind the first as was standard practice, is all that need be assumed.

If, on the other hand, you assume that the 3000 man Blucher units are a single line (and if they are about 3" wide), then the ground scale would be 1" = 200 yards!

I solved this problem in Volley & Bayonet by breaking apart the single-base-brigade into two linear stands, which could either deploy side-by-side or one behind the other as the player wished, depending on the circumstances. It's a simple variant that works well in V&B, but I have no idea how it would work in Blucher.

The Waterloo cards are for 2-2500. Infantry and 1300-1600 cav
Probably intended 250m per front I reckon, in which case the artillery long range should be reduced a bit, certainly if 300m.
I will use 250 m per bw.
The idea is flexibility if I understood well; no doubt the card for 1809 will be more rgt of 2500-3000 and cavalry rgt or brigades of 1000-1600.
Then 300m. The only change really would be to shorten to 7 the artillery long range, and even then won't change much to the game.

My guess he assumed two ranks of bn with manouever space that is as if in line.

Strict and accurate ground (and time) scales create as many problems as they solve.

For example, at 1" = 100 yards, with 30 minute turns, cavalry units at a walk should cover about 2 miles or 36". Double or triple of they move at a trot. Designers want to avoid these pesky questions…

G'Day Christopher,

If a Brigade level game cannot demonstrate the primary formations for all countries which are the following:

1…Dispositive de la division par brigade accolee

2…Dispositive de la la division par brigade avec chaque brigade en ligne

Then it is nothing more than a quasi-Napoleonic game design.

Best Regards
Art

Sorry, Art, I disagree.

If your stand represents a brigade's footprint, it is possible to have a very Napoleonic design at the army level in which brigade level decisions are beneath the overall commander. As such, formations are irrelevant. Local commanders are assumed to be using whatever formations they feel best serve their purpose.

Thus formations are, in a way, part of what the dice represent. Formation A smashes enemy Formation 6. It might be that they caught F6 trying to change into a better formation and shattered them. Or that the commander of F6 made a bluner, or misread the ground, etc. etc.

You mean, without thoe formations, it's only quasi to you.

I can't tell… Are you kidding? Or being serious?

If being serious, I am glad we don't game together:)

G'Day Mark

Brigade formations are not irrelevant…

Each of the two following depend on how a division functions

1…Dispositive de la division par brigade accolee

2…Dispositive de la division par brigade avec chaque brigade en ligne

You cannot even have a proper footprint if you do not represent these two formations.

As for:

"it is possible to have a very Napoleonic design at the army level in which brigade level decisions are beneath the overall commander."

Not according to the French Military:

All formations within le tableau de l'infanterie which fall within the four groups, in accordance to masses (to include the Russians basically):

1) Administrative formation
2) Indispensable to a Mass
3) Mass (collective body of troops)
4) Tactical formation

1) Administrative formation
Bataillon
Compagnie
Demi-brigade
Escouade
Regiment
Section

2) Indispensable to a Mass (collective body of troops)
Bataille
Bataillon
Corps d'etat-major
Compagnie
Demi-brigade
Manipule
Regiment
Bataillon

3) Mass (collective body of troops)
Bande
Bataillon
Cohorte de garde nationale
Compagnie *
Demi-brigade
Etat-major
Legion
Regiment *
Tirailleurs

4) Tactical formation
Aile
Armee
Bataille
Bataillon **
Brigade d'armee
Corps de bataille
Demi-bataillon
Division epagogique
Division strateumatique
File
Manche
Peloton
Section
Subdivision ***
Tirailleur

*Sub category – Indispensable to a tactical mass under certain circumstances, which then makes it a tactical formation.

Compagnie: (example) detached grenadiers and voltiguers or tirailleurs en compagnie-division

Regiment: (example) when Regiments with 4 or more battalions became Brigades, or a regiment with battalions on line and battalions in close column on the flanks

**Tactical Units of a Battalion (fractured)
Demi-bataillon

***Tactical unit for subdivisions (fractured)
Le peloton
La division (aile)
La section

This is the actual sub-tactical formations for the following tactical units which concerned the Commander:

Armee – sub-tactical formations: avant-garde, corps, divisions, brigades, and flanking brigades

Corps de bataille – sub-tactical formations: avant-garde, divisions, brigades, and flanking brigades

Divisions – sub-tactical formations: avant-garde, skirmish line, brigades, regiments*, battalions, carre de ralliement, flanking brigades, and compagnies*

Brigade d'armee – sub-tactical formations, skirmish line, regiments*, battalions, carre de ralliement, and compagnies*

I hope this helps

Best Regards
Art

I think Art is always serious about Napoleonic formations. ;)

I actually think that it's better to abstract tabletop units away from thinking of them as a discrete "brigade", and instead think of them as a footprint of a number of men belonging to a division, that when deployed in line take up the appropriate frontage for the tabletop unit. This gets you away from trying to harness the chimera of differing brigade compositions, and instead makes you concentrate on how your division is deployed for battle and how it is using its manpower to achieve its goals. Ideally, you should be able to decide yourself if you are deploying those men wide (single line) or deep (two or even three lines, etc.), which is where the brigade-block basing falls down. However, it is easier for most players to handle on the tabletop, so there is that balance.

I meant 1"=100m.. whoops!

For cannister I got my wars mixed up. And who knows where I got 600m.

I tried to resolve all of these problems with my micro-Wagram project, where each (standard, 600 man, French) battallion was 3 bases, 20x10mm each, which allowed me to accurately portray lines and columns, while being small enough to field entire corpe and still be able (barely) to reach across the table to move things. As you might imagine it was pretty fiddly, plus terrain was a major headache. The Ferraris maps show how much terrain there really was in central Europe in the period- much more than gamers often give it credit for! Time and cause/effect also becomes a bigger headache, as was mentioned above. You really need to get down to minute or two minute turns, which means you're getting more into modelling a theoretical event versus playing a game.

I always enjoy Art's detailed postings, but not sure they are relevant in such an abstract game as Blucher. No offence intended Art, I just think the level of detail you are talking of will not translate wll to this style game. Of course, that may mean it is not suitable for you, but others seem to enjoy the abstraction.

Marc

That level of detail won't translate at all with this level of rules, which is why they make so many flavors of ice cream.

I've been reading about Napoleonics for years and I don't recognize the terms in 75% of his post. Frankly, I don't really want to know either. I also would not want to play any game that complicated.

I like my Napoleonics nice and simple thank you. Blucher does a fine job of that.

@Art: Please forgive the extreme noob question, but wouldn't brigades almost always be deployed such that the entire force could assume a single-line formation?

That is, while a brigade may normally be deployed as two lines, the neighboring brigades would leave enough space for the second lines to come up and line up on the forward line?

I realize that the "scale" is intentionally somewhat squishy and that "units" can represent a large variance actual numbers of troops, so all suggestions are welcome. The important constraints are that Sam's cards are used and the table I have is only 4x6.

The issue isn't ground scale, but rather what area the cards/units can cover/represent. CATenWolde has already noted that. Art was simply providing details of those various frontages etc. For instance, at Austerlitz, Lagrand's 5,000-10,000 men [depending on the time] on the French right flank covered the same frontage as Soult's entire corps of 20,000. Some divisions were several lines/brigades deep, some were in a single line of brigades…some far wider than the cards would allow at any chosen scale. Brigades were fungible, the cards aren't. Even with a squishy scale you have some cards/units needing to occupy the same space [stacked?] while others need to cover two or three times the width of their base.

You will certainly find those same issues in doing Ligny and Waterloo. The game and campaign system considers actual distances and ground scales 'relative' or simply of secondary importance to the game…note how slow units move on the campaign map and why. There is no way around, under or over those design decisions, so do what works for your table without worrying about ground scale… that ship has already sailed.