"Multiple Columns Attacking a Line" Topic

Do the rules you play allow multiple columns to come together and attack a single line? Some think this is a gamey wargame move & not a realistic move.

1), Did columns swarm in & attack lines in the real world?
2). Do you have any house rules that deal with this ? Columns Disordered etc?

We have playtested a couple of battles & lines are getting killed by this move making them almost useless.

Thoughts?

Thank you
Andy

Ok, so VERY generalised comments follow:

Yes, my favourite rules sets do allow multiple columns to attempt to attack a line. This was frequently attempted historically so why not in our rules. The devil is in the detail though – the doctrine and drill was for the column to use its superior mobility to close on the line and intimidate the line into a collapse of morale. If the line stood then the column would likely need to deploy into line to continue the attack.

The attempts to attack with multiple columns frequently were not successful and possibly thats what your chosen rules are not currently modeling correctly.

Lines were certainly not useless and should have the edge over a column in terms of firepower and overlap, hence multiple columns to mitigate the overlap and also to bring a greater mass of men to the point of impact on the line.

Good rules should model this by allowing multiple columns to manouver against a line but the chance of them closing successfully and in good order should be determined by the quality, experience and training of the columns and the effectiveness of the firepower of the line.

My thoughts

Such attacks are physically possible and my rules allow this. Attacks in multiple columns are similar with attacks in multiple linies behind each others in terms of frontage and depth.

American Kriegspiel notes a column formation an expect to take 16 to 24 times the casualties of a line, depending on depth. Woof! The advantage is that they are less likely to break and faster to maneuver. If the line they're attacking has been prepped by arty and then skirmish fire that will have a huge effect on the result too. I don't see where one could separate out all those effects. Mathematically, in a void, the column would be massacred, even 2:1, so there are definitely more elements to it all. Also remember that the columns weren't solid either, and could have a lot of space between them. Another AK tidbit: at 200 yards past the front line the unit behind it could expect to suffer 20% of the casualties as the front line- that's with rifles, but the implications are interesting. Lines placed too close behind one another could suffer as badly as columns, maybe worse if the columns were spread out.

I also think that a battalion in line would have difficulty bringing a much greater number of muskets to bear on an approaching line than one might think, if you factor in skirmishes working on the units flanks plus the difficulty of aiming at an angle whole in line formation.

As far as the rule goes with multiple columns, I don't mind them. What If really like to see are rules for mega columns like at Wagram and Waterloo.

Easily fixed with a Massed Target rule.

Yes, if you simply give lines a beaten zone along their entire front, and every single target in it is attacked by the fire of the whole battalion, it soon stops silly bunching up.

When playing WRG we'd regularly mass four battalions in column against a single line. It was just silly.

This question comes up more times on discussion boards than it actually occurred on battlefields of the period – and it really is more frequently attempted now, in war games.

I`ll try and find the earlier discussion here on the same subject – it seemed to cover most of the points that needed to be made.

I found these discussion threads by searching on google (TMP search engine was taking too long!)…

TMP link

TMP link

In my house rules I allow a maximum of two columns to attack a line. The combat is fought as two engagements of one column against one line, with a small modifier for the line being outnumbered two to one. Both engagements are fought at the same time, so line casualties from the first engagement do not count against the second engagement.

One column attacking one line usually results in a win for the line. Two columns against a line is a much more even combat.

We use "Corp de Army"(amended)and if you have not softened up the line (to shaken) with musketry,skirmishers and/or artillery, the line will stop one column and will probably stop a second.

Shako 2

This is how this game handles it:

A unit in line fires a 6" swath of musket fire straight ahead (6" Frontal zone).
Any enemy unit in Line or column that is within this Frontal zone is affected by the die result.

The games moral system works
6=Guard
5=Elite/Grenadiers
4=Regulars
3=Second Rate
This is represented perfectly on a six sided die.

The unit that is shooting rolls one die, receives a +1 to musket fire if it is not shaken (-1 fire, -1 Melee), this represents "waiting till you see the whites of there eyes". Its not a good thing to charge an enemy unit that has not received casualties or has been shaken. There is no modifiers shooting at columns.

Two Regular Morale-4 rated enemy columns desire to charge a single battalion in line with NO stagger on it. They move into the frontal zone of the battalion in line contacting it. The defending line battalion fires rolling a 4…because its not staggered it recives a +1 for point blank fire now making it a 5. The die roll equals or is more than the Morale of the attacking columns both units are stopped 1/4, Both are shaken (-1 fire, -1 Melee), and one of the columns has received a casulity (5= 1 kill, 6= 2 Kills, the Morale rating of the unit is the number of kills it need to be removed a very simple sytem that allows you to play with 50 units on a side).

If the defending line would have been shaken, -1 to fire the die roll of 4 would become a 3 not equaling the attacking columns morale rating both battalions would have struck the line battalion. Here is what makes it interesting. The attacking columns would be charging with bayonets. The line battalion is shooting without bayonets, and because of this receives a -1 in melee for a failed volley. most likely the line battalion will lose the melee.

very simple lots of fun.

Someone pls present evidence of multiple battalions in column, stayed in column and charger a single line from the front in any battle I witnesses!

I have had this discussion before and nothing was found/presented!

A rule set that allows that to occur, both from the front, without reasonable probability of other things going "bad"( like a collision/disorder) allows "gamey" play. It sounds like the OP's rules are very much that!
This includes a good simulation rules such as Empire.
Troops kept deployment intervals period!SO my disappointment with them and creation of a house rule.
More recent rules sets such as C&G II and another one that ICRC do address this.
MG

look forward to the evidence
MG

French Infantry Tactics: Paddy Griffiths

Wattignies 1793 Balland`s division assaulted Austrian positions.

Soruaren 1813 two battalions in column attacked one British regiment in line.

…yeah, ok but it`s still all very unusual !

Yankees, beat me to it, well explained.

MacDonald at Wagram?

At Wagram, I believe that the front face of MacDonald`s formation comprised of 2 lines of deployed battalions – and the two sides made up of battalions in column formation… plus there was cavalry on one of the sides – the formation was known to the French military as a "colonne vuide" (a column with a void, or gap at the rear).

And McDonald at Wagram was not regarded as successful.

An old chestnut. This is not a historical tactic, but is a natural evolution from a popular interpretation of line vs column encounters promoted by British historians in particular but which is long past its sell-by date.

In fact the disadvantages of columns facing lines is overdone, and the risks of deploying columns too closely to each other not understood. If you find gamers are resorting to this sort of tactic you need some new rules.

Well, no one said a successful example. Ahem. Reading over AK again Im beginning to think that the column may have gained quite a lot if cover from the skirmish screen as it approached. The author noted that its very hard to make soldiers aim against a distant target that is not shooting at them while taking fire from a closer target. Combine that with the 10 degree issue and one could really shave off some of the effectiveness of flanking fire. Plus, the column only nedds to make a part of the targetted line break and the rest will have to withdraw. The same could go for a line attacking a larger line

It also occurs that were not taking into account the possibility of units not squaring off like in wargames. Isnt it possible were missing a big part of the equation right there? In real life an assault wouldnt neccesarily break apart into discreet combats. A single battalion could find itself overlapped by two others wuite easily, no?

Agreed forwardmarch,

I think we need to see the equation (the big picture) from all angles. I believe that once the morale effect of the massive formation (be it a Wattignies column, or one of d`Erlon`s) is accounted for, the essence of it, once engaged is about the frontage of troops directly involved.

In Grand Manoeuvre, I have special combat rules where battalions in these columns aligned with a single battalion will fight as one unit – it`s tough I know, but the only reasons that I can see for adopting this type of array is if the body will later break to attack positions/defences or if the attacking side is overly confident of success and is not at all concerned about the enemy`s artillery, nor does it believe that it will be counter-attacked by enemy infantry.

I have only made it a slight advantage in an initial combat to the column/s with the weight of numbers on their side.

I take statements about the uselessness of the troops lined up behind each other at Waterloo as supportive to my rule for this and of course many of those accounts from Peninsula battles that indicate that once columns became staggered, the following ranks were of little use.

I`ve got other sample rules displayed (and some free things too) at:

link

Columns deployed at deployment distance, they did not bunch up. I see no reason to allow more than one column to attack a single line unless one is a flank attack. The need to attack with more than one batallion in column comes – in my view – from faulty game mechanics that makes combat a mass contest instead of a morale contest.

Wasnt the British attack at Fontenoy a column of the sort we're talking about? Or maybe a "pre-modern" version?

I would have thought the British were deployed in two lines and that the term "column" has been loosely applied to the grand formation.

I stand corrected. It was more like Picket's charge than a proper column.

Hi Nicolai,

I agree that the gaming practice is a bad one but on the other hand…

d`Erlon`s columns did bunch up and couldn`t have deployed formed on their left, their right or their centre.

I seem to recall that Griffiths said that the French columns had unintentionally closed up because of the terrain at Soruaren in 1813 and at Wattignies in 1793, the French were in columns to assault an succession of positions (stream and banks lined with trees/scrub and a ultimately a village).

I too found the tendency to cram columns together against lines to be the nail in the coffin for the last set of napoleonics rules for me before Drums and Shakos Large Battles. In DSLB battalions must maintain minimum distance between other battalions and cav regiments. Multiple battalions can cooperate to attack a line, but these attacks are resolved one at a time. If units get too close together (as a result of combat outcomes, for example), that side's ability to react to enemy moves is hampered, as the commander must use reaction opportunities to set his battlelines back in order.

Not again?

Amazing continuation of speculative thought sans research.

Hi Michael – I agree columns could bunch up by accident. In my opinion they would have bunched up by design if it had an advantage. The idea of a column is maneuverability or to make maneuvre possible if your troops are to untrained to maneuvre in line, as the french in the spring of 1813. If you close up several columns, they are just as difficult to maneuver across terrain as a line, with the added problem of more casualties.
A lot of the problems is inherent in wargame designs that gives bonuses to columns – there is no indication of that from any of my readings of the period. Columns were used to close quickly, and with a minimum of disorder to hit a point in the enemy battle line and hope they broke. If they were not softened by your artillery or skirmishers, and did not retreat, you would have a firefight, where the column would probably be at an disadvantage. The notion that the – very difficult – steering of several columns towards one line, would increase the chance of breaking through at a specific point, is in my view not based on historical evidence.

How many players who have multiple columns attacking a single line complain about WWII games with tank parks?

vtsaogames, I had not thought of that, but you are exactly right, same thing different periods.

owen

I find the concept of coloumn vs line od.

1, most of the time first attacks failed even after artillery softening.
2. As soon as column gets with in musket range, the first two companies/platoons will get all the fire, instead of it beeing spread out among the entire battalion. Causing lots of dead and dying bodies hindering movement.
3 if the column does get closer it will resive flanking fire from the wings of the enemy unit in line.

Massive casualties, i don't see how a column has any propper chance unless the defenders are mostly dead or so shaken a cat hissing at them would make them flee.

3. Line isn't that hard, slightly more unweeldy sure, but after all acw infantry did it and they were mostly volunteers.

Hi Robert,

Re. research, I can`t find anything specific to formations used at Wattignies – but of course that doesn't mean there isn`t any evidence though !
But yes, "columns" are mentioned in the online sources I have come across.

We may simply have a bad wargames practice that perhaps need some fair but strong rules for both firing & manoeuvre.

And yes, it does come up repeatedly because some popular rule sets tend to encourage it.

If you think like to that battalions were ALWAYS at deployment intervals… you might wonder, as I did, how d`Erlon could have initially deployed seventeen infantry battalions and four foot batteries at Waterloo in the 1500 metres between La Belle Alliance and the hedges in front of the allied lines ?

Just a quick reckoning here:

each battalion in line (average strength of 600) would occupy approximately 133 yards in a 3 deep line.

so…

17 x 133 = 2,266 yards

and that`s about 2,060 metres and not to mention the space for the divisional artillery.