"d`Erlon`s attack - alternative solo games" Topic

I`ve been exploring some options that may have been open to d`Erlon in his attack on the allied centre-left at Waterloo

I`ll start almost at the end of this present game… which , as it`s all about variations that could have been made in the execution of d`Erlon`s orders, is a good a place as any I think!

3rd Waterloo Solo Game – The Mont St. Jean plateau is cleared of Donzelotte`s and Marcognet`s infantry as the cuirassiers are all made to recoil from the steady musketry of Kempt`s brigade formed in doubled lines.

More photos (including two other d`Erlon games) can be seen at my website gallery at: grandmanoeuvre.co.uk/gallery

Do chip in if you`d like to make any observations or comments about the options that were possible or questions about the games.

Wassa chipz meen?

Found it on your website: blue = disorder, white = shaken. Wassa redmeen?

Nice figures! 6mm?

Michael, red markers are routing troops.

Matt, the figures are 6mm Heroics and Ros.

Nice. Never seen heroics and Ross painted before.
Look pretty good. Easy to paint?

Bases 20mm by 15mm?

Matt, I do prefer H&R for the proportions of the figures – the larger sizes of other "6mm" manufacturers are perhaps easier to paint and some do have more uniform detail, but it`s down to taste really.

Confession: most of my figures are pro-painted or second-hand, but some in the photo above are mine – e.g. the highlanders.
Bases are 20x8mm line infantry (some of my earlier figures still on 16x8mm, but it makes little odds), cavalry are 25x15mm, deployed guns 18x20mm.

Mike

What's your source for Kempt being formed in 4 rank lines?

D'Erlon ;-)

Honestly I don`t recall a source.

I understood that was how the troops on the left were formed – I think one brigade was mentioned somewhere?
I have both Pack and Kempt`s Brigades deployed in this way but whether it is true to the actual I`m not sure.

However, I thought it made sense for this to be done through-out the whole command.

In setting up the game, I did some very rough maths and it seemed to be the best way of fitting those two brigades on that frontage and this was also the case also for the Dutch-Belgians, when they formed the first line of battle I think from about 9 a.m. on the day.

The situation is being restored: one Cuirassier brigade routs and a second is charged by Ponsonby`s Dragoons – The objective of their attack removed, the Dutch-Belgian cavalry move to the exposed allied flank from where Best`s infantry had routed previously. Meanwhile Pack`s brigade is rallied and the Scots Greys charge uncontrollably into a battalion of Donzelotte`s second division.

Game over… Without their own cavalry support (the two brigades of cuirassiers are routed), the second brigades of the 2nd and 3rd divisions form square in response to the obvious threat from the Union brigade cavalry. After several turns halted, d`Erlon gives the order to withdraw. Wellington is now free to reset his defence.

All but for some massive, desperate combined arms attack (infantry assault & very closely assisted cavalry) I`m not sure much would have worked against any force in such a good position.

In my previous games, I tried more conventional attacks and implied in these attacks were ones with slightly varied orders to engage with the intention to deploy, or simply assault in column.
In the most recent game I tried a "mixed order" option as suggested by Allan Mountford – I`ve a feeling that a larger cousin to this, the "colonne vuide" would meet with a similar fate, unless it had an amazingly close support from the French heavies – and even then the odds would still be long on a successful attack!

Larger formations would always come unhinged astride the ridgeline. The point is that this frailty of grand formation must have been known to many of those involved…
This is the kind of tactic that should only be used when one is sure to be able to brush an opponent aside surely?

The choice of position was so good – it was recognised over 100 years previously by another Duke – there were fewer woods in 1815, but it was still an effective stopping point on the road to Brussels

It`s not materially a supremely defensive position – with entrenchments and bristling with masses of artillery; but it was simply the sheltering of the gentle slopes and the lack of visibility that they produce for the co-ordination of an attack – in terms of both command and control and the support of cavalry.

Another impressive and entertaining series of posts!

Agreed on the colonne vuide comment. Seems to me that the hedged road is the key terrain feature: disorders infantry and cavalry making them exposed to counterattack. I see that the un-hedged section of road is wide enough to take a significant number of cavalry. Perhaps that's the Achilles Heel in the position?

Allan

Hi Allan,

Yes I think that it was the weak point; being defended by Hanoverian Landwehr and light cavalry to the extreme left flank. But then, that is hindsight and I was trying to conform to the spirit of the original orders.

But directing a cavalry brigade, or two there might have produced some effect – and with some infantry support too?

Mike.

I`m thinking a little more about the previous suggestion.

If that flank was heavily guarded by Cuirassier brigade/s then an exploitation may have been possible – say if Jacquinot was on the extreme flank and with Durutte`s division following and Lobau`s 6th Corps is left to guard against the distant threat of the Prussians…

Of course, it alters the intent of Napoleon`s original orders.

If you do walk the Ohain road you realise just how much DoW's left flank was an obstacle to movement in either direction. Down by Papelotte, La Haye, Smohain etc the sunken roads make for the kind of obstacle invented by Victor Hugo. Infantry can get through there but cavalry or artillery support, forget it.

What we call "Waterloo" was a marvellous site to defend. He may have been "no Stoodent of Caesar" (Rod Steiger quote) with a forest at his back ( what a good idea if you do have to retreat, in practice….better than one bridge behind you at Leipzig)

Left flank a natural obstacle and the source of your salvation. Right flank hinged on Hgmt but then in the air. No, Brain L'Alleud was garrisoned at the start……..

Centre a hedge and a crest to left. A sunken road and a crest to the right. A transverse line of communication the length of your position.

That is what I love about your model. It does show the terrain far better than Siborne did. I find his model very hard to orientate frankly……….to be fair, it was not far off 200 years ago he did it. When will you do the other half?

Hi Liam,
If I do the other half, I`ll have no other gaming surface to play on in my tiny, single garage!

What I think Allan was suggesting earlier is that perhaps
the ridge to the east of the hedge-line (see the photo 16 Jul 2015 6:23 a.m. PST ) might be weak point and if the Cuirassiers in his formation were swapped with Marcognet`s 1st brigade the attack might have worked a little better?
…and then followed by Jacqinot`s Lights I`m thinking to protect the flanks of the heavies.

Sounds like a plan, as they say ;-). I think you would need to create a space sufficient for the whole of Milhaud's IV Cavalry Corps to pass through after the Allied infantry had been driven away, although that would be moving too far away from N's original orders.

In my first two games, as part of the solo choice of forces I was dicing for the inclusion of Milhaud`s cavalry, but at only about a 20% chance probability of each brigade being added to the mix.
Your attack increased the cavalry support, but it was, like the infantry, hampered by the terrain.

I may now, run the game again historically (as far as infantry formations are concerned), but adding at least two of Cuirassier brigades on the left with possibly Jacquinot`s lights following.
So, essentially the same orders, with the intent to swing and roll up Wellington`s centre, but a little more bold !

Fascinating post. Thank you!

So, I finally got around to setting up the fourth solo game…

As you can see below, basically it`s the historical attack as far as the infantry are concerned, plus a "beefed up" right flank with 2 of the Cuirassier brigades. I didn't bother to dice for the heavies – I just thought that it made more sense to split the two heavy cavalry divisions, with one going to go to each flank of the infantry.

deadhead,

"What we call "Waterloo" was a marvellous site to defend. He may have been "no Stoodent of Caesar" (Rod Steiger quote) with a forest at his back ( what a good idea if you do have to retreat, in practice….better than one bridge behind you at Leipzig)"

Surely a bridge isn't a good option for retreating but the Duke didn't fight with four armies around him in a second day battle with near 400.000 enemy troops and the defection of saxon allied troops. And if we follow the film quotes -probably not historical-, Picton (Jack Hawkins) also mentioned the forest as a bad option.

You think that Wellington had won in Waterloo without Prussian allied troops presence? I'm afraid that definitevely not.

Other commitments have taken me away from the recent orgy with myself of Napoleonic gaming in Mike`s tiny single garage… I`ll try and return to this newly set up game on Wednesday 5th. Stay tuned !

Chorch

Not the slightest doubt that Wellington would not have even have fought the battle without promise of Prussian support.

Actually he only asked for "even one corps" to allow him to stand at "Waterloo". I often wonder what would have been the outcome if only von Bulow's folk had emerged from the Bois de Paris, to threaten Plancenoit!

The Old Boy, by sending three corps to support Wellington, (with Grouchy behind him and across his lines of communication) took a massive gamble, which I doubt Wellington would have, had positions been reversed. It paid off and he became a legend. Had it not…………..

D'Erlon's large columns advance but are disordered and disrupted by the allied artillery fire, meanwhile the buildings around Papelotte farm are cleared by Durutte`s division and allied skirmishers are pushed out of the at La Haye Sainte orchard…

The leading battalions of the French columns scramble through the hedges; their skirmishers disordering the Dutch-Belgian line.
Further along the ridge the Hanoverian Landwehr brigade is attacked by cuirassiers and the skirmishers belonging to Durutte`s infantry column – the cuirassiers are forced to recoil after hitting the formed Hanoverian squares.

Before I continue the game, I think that initially, a break-through does indeed look possible on the French right flank.
It all depends now on the timeliness of Uxbridge`s intervention.
As one can roll time back in solo games to allow for a non-player`s initiative, I`m now wondering if Jacquinot`s light cavalry should be thrown in to the mix also.
The solo rules do cover situations in which a non-player has a grand-tactical advantage and these could be applied here also.
Other more minor "local" tactical changes of situation are covered by applying Grand Manoeuvre`s generals` initiative rules.

More to follow…

Nice Looking game. ;-)

Thanks,
I`m hoping to continue the game on Monday.

Sorry for delay… playing the 4th game and posting photos to the gallery on-going:
grandmanoeuvre.co.uk/gallery

4th Waterloo Solo Game – A Dutch-Belgian Militia Battalion breaks and routs to the rear – will the Netherlands Second Division hold ?

4th Waterloo Solo Game – Uxbridge`s initiative seems to have saved the day once more as the Union Brigade cavalry burst through the French columns…

I think the results of this action will be quite predictable and in this fourth game, the outcome is already another French failure; the main part of d`Erlon`s 1st Corps routed. The French right might have had some success with its heavy cavalry assistance, but Best's Hanoverian Landwehr Brigade held firm in squares and will later be supported by Vandeleur`s dragoons.

In all the games the nature of the terrain has been a big factor; Wellington's chosen position made any attack made on his left extremely difficult. It seems to me that any tactical method employed against his army would have failed. This is what the four games played, using 5 different attacking tactical arrays have demonstrated.

But d`Erlon had to attack, as it was on this flank that a grand-tactical thrust would clear Napoleon's path to Brussels and in effect, also push the allied armies further apart.

Hi

The countless battle reports I have read indicate that D'Erlon's attack was very nearly a success – if not for the Allied cavalry intervention and the French formation not allowing for deployment into square.

So, as commanders reliving history we rejig things with an expectation that OUR strategy/tactics improve on the original outcome – do your rules or scenario design not allow for this?

There may be another reason for unsuccess – French simply haven't superiority in numbers.

Hi flipper,
Yes, it was Uxbridge`s intervention that saved the day, but the terrain made the infantry attack a most difficult thing to manage… the terrain concealed the positions of the British heavies from view

The game rules do not prevent players from trying to change historical tactics or orders, but for me as a soloist the starting point, was key. My starting point in all the games was the orders that Napoleon gave d`Erlon`s I Corps and the methods used were all variants from the original, historical tactic that we know failed.
In all the mini solo games, the non-player D`Erlon was still obliged to attack the same area as his real historical counterpart did on the day.
The aim of the games (which were, in essence, test games), was to see, given the same corps objectives, if d`Erlon could have been successful using other grand-tactical methods.
And the answer I`ve come up with in all games is; no.
This is because in all cases, the heavy British cavalry manage to do great damage to I Corps` infantry in the main attack before any support or counter-charge is possible from the French heavies used to support the infantry`s flanks.

In the last game some hindsight was employed, but the form of attack, using two cuirassier brigades to engage on the right flank of the infantry columns, although very bold, was still within reason. But this too failed to make headway and the main attack itself had failed anyway.

Hi

Points taken.

I would be interested to see how things would pan out if you had the second French brigade from each division deployed in column some way behind the initial attack.

This is where rules tend to get bogged down in complexity – because the British cavalry should (as you have found) 'do great damage' to the first french wave and then (possibly) go on the rampage – only to fall on the second French line (which may now have deployed into square) only to be driven back themselves.

Who knows…

Many thanks.

Evening Flipper,

The second game played had just such an array for the French – this being a conventional attack by 1st Corps` second division in two lines of columns of companies. However, if I recall, the morale of the division broke with the first line completely beaten (after having deployed to engage the Dutch Belgians) and the second line (still in column) being held up by the terrain, was also attacked by the British Heavies. The results of the combats between the second line and the British cavalry were mixed, but this still led to further collapses in French morale.

See the photos of the second game in the gallery. Two divisional attacks were made by the 2nd and 3rd divisions with a slight variation in the nature of the attack orders.

Mike.

Hi

At least the 'Grand battery' didn't get overrun …

…and in one of the games La Haye Sainte was captured !