"Rules with reasonably accurate unit footprints?" Topic

I've got a side project with 6mm @ 2.5:1 that has accurate ground scale and unit footprints (using Chef de bataillon). I'll have the drill; units in sections; and should be a great way to explore the tactical whys and hows.

I much prefer to paint 28s tho, and given how slowly I paint, if I want to play a brigade-level engagement, I'm looking at something in 1:20, like General de Brigade. I like the chrome, orders, a couple wth's with some Russian-related rules :-), but ok--until we get to the basing and ground scale. Woops.

A Russian battalion should be divided into 8 platoons, each ~20 files 3 deep. Column would be two abreast with the flags in the middle at the head. Suggested basing in GdeB is 3 (4x2) blocks?

(I will use meters from here on out)
French company ~120 men, ~40-42 files (+ncos), suggested basing is 3 wide and 2 deep. At the game's suggested scale (1mm == 1 m)that gives a frontage of 45 meters and a depth of 40 meters. W/D = 1.125 Real thing: (@ 0.7m/file) W: ~29m, D: ~4m. W/D = 7.25. (Width can differ, depending on drummer placement, etc.)

If you expand this out to attack columns and the like, things multiply, and you end up with the original widths and depths exchanged, which is not only not correct, but misleading.

Question is--is there another rule set out there that does a better job in this area? Playing around with the numbers last night, if I take my six Frenchmen and lay them out in a row, I end up with a W/D of 4.5, which at least splits the difference with no work on my part. Using a scale of 3mm == 1m, I get footprint of 30m x 7m, which seems reasonably close (even for closed columns). Since I can do this, I assume it's been done at least a couple dozen times already? :-)

A lot of the problem is all of the "modern" rule sets which advise basing two deep. There was always a problem with footprints, and this "modern" trend makes it twice as bad.

Being very "old school", I have stuck with single rank basing, and modify rules to fit it. Still not perfect, but better than the "modern" systems.

I try to get the frontage right, and accept the fact that units are all too deep.

Rod

The old rules by GDW Fire and Steel adapted for system 7 counters. 20:1 ratio and the counters stacked so depth was not so extreme. Counters were by company.

You might consider the computer moderated rules "Carnage & Glory II". The ground scale is in paces and works best with accurate unit footprints. Figure scale and ratio is irrelevant. I guess you could even put one figure per base as long as the base was the right size. There is not figure removal since the computer tracks unit strength, casualties, fatigue, ammo usage and morale allowing the player to concentrate on movement, formations and tactics. Using 6mm figures you could probably even get the unit depths right as well if that's super important.

In 28mm the situation I even worse than Rod intimates.

An Elite Miniatures figure is typically just over 13mm wide, I.e. You can just about fit three onto a 40mm wide base.

The 28mm figure depicts a man probably around 5'6" tall so the figure scale is about 5mm to one foot. This being so, the frontage of an individual figure I significantly overscale. Your typical infantryman got 22" of frontage which in this scale is about 9mm. So the miniature itself is 50% too wide – considered simply as a miniature.

I cite Elite not because they are bad but because they are fairly typical!

In game unit footprint should include manoeuvre space. So for ex extra depth from bases used by some as the proof we cannot be accurate, is bleeep… As units will need space behind to say form column to the flank etc.
front ( needed for ex firing effects relative to frontage) depth for all those movements we do not show in games unless an accurate skirmish.

There`s really no need to worry about the distortion of unit depths – the solution is just cut other players some slack when they try to wheel units in close proximity or at any other time. If we all recognise that this is the case, it doesn't become a rules problem !

Figures in a single line may be more correct as far as unit footprint goes, but it looks like a skirmish line.
If you want realistic unit footprints, then 6mm scale is the way to go.

One battalion, based in 3 ranks, 72 figures per company, 6 companies: frontage 19", depth 3/4"

6mm and single lines for big battles. Or double(triple) lines for small engagements and skirmish.

GW Jeffrey's rules had a fair stab at this: link

It offer suggestions for 25mm, 15mm and 6mm figure sizes. IIRC he does use a consistent 4 x Coy Bn to make things a bit easier (10 Coy British battalions really exaggerate minor depth areas). The figure scales for different sized figures end up being different too. Again, IIRC 6mm infantry uses a ratio of 1:27, 25mm infantry uses 1:15 or something. The ratios for cavalry are different to those of infantry, and so on.

My view is that expressed by Rod MacArthur. I've found that playing LFS but at 1:30/33 (so 50% more castings) gives me the look and game that I want. It's taken me years to paint the figures and I can't imagine having to paint twice as many.

@Dexter Ward
"Figures in a single line may be more correct as far as unit footprint goes, but it looks like a skirmish line."

I'm not so sure on this one. I think a Napoleonic skirmish line would be deeper, but of course less dense, than formed troops in close order deployed in a two/three deep line. In effect using two deep basing of castings gets the visual relationship around the wrong way but it's been done so often in the hobby that it's accepted as being 'right'. Really the only answer is to do as you see fit.

I do however, think that if we were able to drift back in time over an Napoloenic battlefield we'd all be amazed at just how linear it all looked and we'd be saying, 'those formed troops in line look just like a skirmish line…' Consider a typical battalion of say 600 bayonets in a two deep line. It's approximately 150 times as long as it is deep. We can never really hope to get that ratio right using figures but we can try imply it's apparent fragility. Again YMMV.

I've found with single rank basing that the formations and the higher formations look better to my eyes on the table top. Battalions squares look line squares, not solid clumps, attack columns can form on a one or two company frontage without getting over deep. Divisions can form correctly spaced with front and supporting lines and there's actually a lot more table top space to manoeuvre. Plus the whole presentation looks correctly linear.

Often I see Napoleonic games that just end up being massive bun fights/traffic jams rather than consideration being given to the real deployments of the period and the space they took up.

I have to admit though that I'm so conditioned in my mind to favour single rank basing that I see Napoleonic units in two deep casting formations and can't help but think – that's an awful lot of painting for no better playing game than you could do with half the castings. Of course single ranks it might not suit the look most want…

I'm also of the view that single rank basing is more common/popular in the USA than it is in the UK, but I'm only going on gut feeling.

Yes single rank… But then to keep frontage right and same proportion for cavalry, you get the skirmishing look of your cav. With double frontage of same number of infantry.
I know I played Empire for 15 years.

Double lines also stand better by far on hills.

Best is double lines, not too small. Need space… As usual.

Extra crispy has the right thing but with the drummers, nco, officers outside the ranks.

Need play in the garden after 37 years painting. Or recruiting 27 gamers.

From Ney's "Military Studies"
link

Take a look at pages 25-27. This is about as far as you can get from pushing blobs of troops forward to bash into each other. Every consideration outlined for a four-regiment assault derives from the maneuvering capabilities and requirements of the constituent battalions, which in turn, depend on how platoons move.

Do we all want to learn the drill? Maybe yes, mostly no. But if the rule set we're using treats battalions as blobs that move forwards, backwards, diagonally, right, left, up, down with equal aplomb, are we playing a Napoleonic war game?

timmo's point is very well taken: where is the room to maneuver? Ney knows why he sets up his approach this way, but he doesn't have to think about it--it's common sense, based on his experience. It should be the game's task to make the same decisions common sense in the world it's attempting to create. And without at least a reasonable unit footprint and ground scale--nothing in the Instructions will make any sense in game terms.

Given that what differentiates our hobby from board games is physical appearance (and tape measures), the question of "looks right?" seems reasonable to address.

To me--"looks right!" is Crispy's battalion (but with the drummers, and ncos and officers surrounding as well :-) ). Opinions vary, but @ 1:20, you're abstracting to the point of no return. You're getting beautiful, detailed figures in return, but no, for me, six in a row or two ranks of three is not 120 men packed together.

I haven't found any issues with cavalry basing, beyond having to limit to one rank, instead of two. In 6mm, two works well, but I'm using 6mm ground scale, which would be huge in 28.

How much time do you have to paint? I agree the 6mm battalion line shown above looks great but given that many/most of us play multiple periods you have to be realistic in the numbers you can hope to put on the table for the scope of the game you want. I tried 1:20 and gave up as I was after about 25 battalions per side. I split 36 figures battalions into 18s and saved so much effort and with a two company frontage they look right to my eyes, or rather as good a compromise as I'm ever likely to be able to achieve.

"And without at least a reasonable unit footprint and ground scale--nothing in the Instructions will make any sense in game terms."

And that statement pretty much sums it up. I wish more game designers would understand this.

"And without at least a reasonable unit footprint and ground scale--nothing in the Instructions will make any sense in game terms."

The problem and solution, I feel, is to ask how much room a column or line needed dynamically, rather than considering it statically: i.e. one measurement.

For instance, one reason that supporting lines were 150 to 300 yards behind the front line is to allow for room to maneuver. How does a column go from open, to half to close formation if they don't have the room to expand and contract? How does a line form square if there are friendlies too close? It is more than just things like columns at deploying distance across a front. It was also a depth consideration too.

Sooo, if you look at how much room a column would need to form at full or half-distance, most stand widths are probably not deep enough. Regardless of the stand depth for a unit in line, [say a scale of 50 to 75 yards deep for instance], in practice no friendly units would be closer behind them than 100 to 300 yards. [Again, Ney's Military Studies repeatedly mention the issue of proximity] As it was battalions generally had 30 yards between them in line for this same need for room to maneuver and change formation.

The issue is to be able to put as many troops in an area of a battlefield, both frontage and depth, as the real combatants were able to. So the question is how the combatants viewed that issue. Space and distances were a major concern of theirs… from the company through to the corps.

It's another way of looking at the issue. Seen from this POV, realistic frontages and depths with current size stands aren't all that difficult, all depending on the scale.

Good point Bill.

Looking at a stand as a area of ground rather than the litteral space occupied by a company in line does allow for the statement of alternative formations.

Depth may be wrong a lot of the time but leaving space between your stands to show a coloumn of companies at half or quarter distance ony makes that worse.

Its better reflected in the overall distance between units and avoidance of the crowd of metal that's often seen in the photo's of large games in hobby magazines.

I've spent years painting these suckers and I'm dammed well going to use them all !

What McLaddie said.

What I find odd, is that in most Napoleonic games I have played and seen, Everything is in the front line. There is no advantage in the rules and practice of "gaming" that rewards having multiple lines of battle or units in checker-boarded divisional columns. That is how most of the fighting was done and if you look at pictures of our napoleonic wargames, 95% of what you see is lines and closely packed lines attacking the same.

Any need for reserve cavalry to counterattack when your line is broken and the enemy cavalry tries to do their thing (which is to attack the flank or rear of infantry)….Nope. They did it in that era…. our in wargames it is never seen and there is no reason to do it.

Do we need some rules rethinking? YES!!

:) That was going to be my follow-on: why don't the checkerboard patterns that were ubiquitous at the time, appear on the table? Why isn't the failure to provide lanes to retreat and retire/relieve through catastrophic? Again, this wasn't high military strategy--it was simple common sense--no, I'm not going to trap a unit on the front lines, any more than I'd park my car with the driver side door two inches away from a wall. People who feel trapped don't behave as you'd like.

Right Jeffrey,

I do not believe a rethink is needed here.

It`s very simple.

Chequerboard formations were primarily for manoeuvre and in particular to aid a passage of lines – and this was employed for situations in which the command was advancing or retreating.

It`s the same in antiquity – maniples were used to replace one line of battle with another; hastati then principes.

Combat formations were "deployed" or "formed" lines of varying depths and in general it was thought that deeper formations could fight for longer
If those lines became deeper in Greek warfare, it was not just because the weapons got longer.

A deeper formation also gave the potential to "shock" an opponent – but in general, the benefits of depth of formation were limited to the individual formations themselves – and defined by their own abilities, training, morale and so on…

@1968billsfan

multiple lines of battle or units in checker-boarded divisional columns. That is how most of the fighting was done

Have you a source (written and/or pictorial) for the chequered division columns?

Is this only for Austrians, or did other countries do this too?

Stoppage:

Actually it was the French who first made wide-spread use of the 'checker-board' formation. It was basically two or three lines of supporting battalions in column at deployment distances, each line of columns centered on the gap between columns in the line in front of them.

For instance, Caffarelli's division at Austerlitz was deployed in the checker-board formation. It is described and illustrated in Military History Press's publication of Davout's Journal of Third Corps operations. Both Soult Corps and Suchet's division were in the 'checker-board' formation at Jena the next year. There are a number of examples.

@McLaddie

Thanks for comments.

I understood 1968billsfan was referring to Austrian battalions fighting in three separate columns of Grand-Divisions (each of two companies on half-company frontage).

Another TMP thread a while back mentioned a French brigade attacking – an English line – with half-battalion columns.

We began in Napoleonics, 30mm, in the last century, using 36 figures for French battalion, 1:20 ratio. The Fred Vietmeyer system, Fort Wayne, IN, shown in Jack Scurby's magazine, was the model.

Figures were mounted 3 to a 1 inch "deep" base, 2 inches across, so each figure occupied 17mm of space. French units were deployed 2 deep, 18 front 18 rear rank.

Years later I decided to re-base, and did Voltigeurs on 17mm by 1 inch single bases. The other companies were 2 figures wide (34mm), 2 bases; and 2 figures on single 17mm x 1 inch bases.

We toyed with deploying a battalion 3 deep, 12 across, as almost 1 figure = 1 man, with all measurements being accurate. 4 units of 12 fusiliers would represent a weak infantry company of 96 men. 24 Voltigeurs and 24 grenadiers would be what? Section?

We often fought 36 figure battalions as 3 battalions of 12 each, with same single line frontage. We used 3 figures across, 3 behind facing rearward to form square, and removed the remaining 30 figures! We painted with enamels in those days, well varnished, and the figures endure!

In most other games, a square is just too big, and very weak. The smaller square shows just how few cavalrymen could attack a square effectively. Our squares were 2 inches on a side, representing 720 men.

GdeP

G'Day Jeffery,

"Question is--is there another rule set out there that does a better job in this area? Playing around with the numbers last night, if I take my six Frenchmen and lay them out in a row, I end up with a W/D of 4.5, which at least splits the difference with no work on my part. Using a scale of 3mm == 1m, I get footprint of 30m x 7m, which seems reasonably close (even for close columns). Since I can do this, I assume it's been done at least a couple dozen times already?"

If I may…not all close columns are equal…especially for the French…in my opinion "Remembrance Of Glory" does a good job with widths of formations…which is more important for me…since I have explained in another thread why depth (footprint of a body) does not effect artillery in a wargame design as much as most think…if one uses the correct general principles actually used.

As for footprints of a close column:

A colonne par division serree ou en masse has a smaller frontage than a colonne d'attaque.

A colonne d'attaque has a smaller frontage than a colonne double.

A colonne double has a smaller frontage than a colonne par companie.

Of course I admit that I prefer a colonne par pelotons serree par sections ou en masse over a colonne par divisions serree par sections ou en masse…due to the fact that when changing front or direction…it is not by executing a flanking wheel…

With that said I am not certain I fully understand what everyone seems to be referring to…in regards to the supporting line, and why it was 150 to 300 yards behind the front line is to allow for room to maneuver.

As for open squares…for the French and Russians (and Prussians prior to 1812)…they preferred oblong squares…and I can safely assume other countries understood the principles of an oblong square as well. Oblong square can direct more firepower at the enemy cavalry if positioned correctly.

Best Regards
Art

With that said I am not certain I fully understand what everyone seems to be referring to…in regards to the supporting line, and why it was 150 to 300 yards behind the front line is to allow for room to maneuver.

Hi Art:

As you've mentioned in the past, a French column was often only closed when about to assault the enemy. Like a line of columns at distance allowed for battalions to
deploy, a column could only go from open to closed or back if there was room. An open column was as deep as its front if in line formation. One at half distance was still pretty deep.

The distance between supporting lines was to allow for this, room for the front line to maneuver as well as put enough distance between the front and supporting line so that the rear could move easily forward or to the flank in support, OR if the front line retreated percipitiously, the supporting line could avoid being disorganized, but instead provide room for the retreating troops to pass though.

In short, the issue of stand depth is not as much of an issue as some think, because the surrounding area for an unit of any arm would almost always be clear of any other troops because of that need for 'room to maneuver or formation evolutions.

Best Regards, Bill

G'Day Bill…

There must be some misunderstanding…I have never advocated that a French column was "often"…only closed when about to assault the enemy…

L'ordre Perpendiculaire (also known as L'Ordre Tactique) is misunderstood by most, and quite often confused and entangled with the system de 1791…to the point that everyone believes that they are one and the same…and yet once there is an understanding of L'ordre Perpendiculaire, they soon understand that these two systems are in contraction of each other.

Which means that with the general principles of L'ordre Perpendiculaire, if the formation was en colonne for shock…is was always en colonne serree ou en masse.

To understand the difference, the French Ordinance of Manoeuvres of 1791, fixed the deployed order as the sole order of battle, of course this ordinance did not absolutely prohibit the employment of the column formation, but it prescribed the line of deployed battalions as the primary order of battle.

When the l'Ordonnance de 1791 was nearly finished to be distributed to the French Army, there were only three columns in l'Ordonnance; the colonne par section, the colonne par peloton, and the colonne par division. These columns could form by sections, platoon or divisions, at full distance to half distance, at the distance of a section, or mass, but when actually employed we find the following:

Les colonne par section at full distance was a formation de marche.

La colonne par peloton at half distance was a formation de manoeuvre.

La colonne par division closed to distance section, or in mass, which was either a formation de manoeuvre, or used for a body of troops waiting to manoeuvre.

Since the colonne d'attaque was a tool that was not in accordance to the principles of l'Ordonnance de 1791, La Commission never adopted it. It wasn't until the last moment, that to satisfy the partisans of Folard and Menil-Durandt, that the colonne d'attaque was accorded a place in the manual, but it was tailored to mirror that of a colonne par division, and was no longer an action column of column used for shock.

With that said, the second line of battle would not find bodies of troops formed in columns at full or half distance. But for the sake of argument, even if they were formed at open or half distance, a column can close to distance section or mass at the pied ferme, and did not need any manoeuvring space to close up.

It is true that a minimum distance was required in all Military Systems; in le Reglement de 1791, it was measured by the length of a battalion deployed plus one frontage of a peloton (Evolutions de Ligne, No. 451), the British measured the distance by the frontage of two deployed battalions ( Of Second Lines page 361).

Each of these general principles were "supposed" as the correct distance so as not to embarrass (to hinder with obstacles, difficulties, or impede) a change of front.

Now if both the 1st and 2nd Battle Lines had all battalions deployed, then theoretically when these deployed battalions were to change direction, it would keep its alignment. But it was known that such a feat under the presence of an enemy force, it may not be possible to keep the alignment of the Battle Lines, so the French permitted the Battle Line executing a change of direction to fracture both Battle lines by forming l'ordre pleine or en l'ordre potence for those battalions which had an extreme augmentation of distance to cover when manoeuvring in a new direction (Evolutions de Lignes No. 396).

With the Reglement de 1791 the second Battle Line cannot be independent of the first Battle Line, whereas with L'ordre Perpendiculaire or L'Ordre Tactique, the two Battle Lines can and do operate independently of each other, due to the fact that the 2nd Battle Line can also act as an appui mobile.

The question that forums Members ask today in determining the distance between the 1st and 2nd Battle Lines, was also an issue during the Napoleonic's, and Napoleons response can be found in his memoires:

"L'armee doit-elle se ranger en bataille sur plusieurs lignes et quelles distances doivent-elle mettre entre elles?"

"La cavalerie doit-elle etre en reserve derriere l'infanterie ou place sur ses ailes?"

Doit-on mettre en action des le commencement de la bataille tout son artillerie, puisque chaque piece a de quoi nourrir son feu pendant vingt-quatre heures, ou doit-on en tenir la moitie en reserve!"

"La solution de toutes ces questions depend des circonstances:"

1. Du nombre de troupes, de celui de l'infanterie, de la cavalerie et de l'artillerie qui composent l'armee;

2. Du rapport qui existe entre les deux armees;

3. De leur moral;

4. Du but qu'on se propose;

5. De la nature du champ de bataille;

6. De la position qu'occupe l'armee ennemis et du caractere du chef qui la commande.

On ne peut et on ne doit rien prescripe d'absolu. Il n'y a point d'ordre natural de baiaille chez les modernes.

English paraphrase:

Should the Army be divided into several battle lines and what distances should the battle lines have between them?

Should the cavalry be positioned behind the infantry in reserve or positioned on the wings?

Should we put into action at the beginning of the battle all the artillery, since each piece should ration his execution of fire, so as to be self sufficient for 24 hours, or should we stick half into reserve?

The solution to all these questions depend on the circumstances.

1. From the number of troops, the infantry, cavalry and artillery that make up the army;

2. From the relationship between the two armies;

3. Morale;

4. The purpose proposed;

5. The nature of the battlefield;

6. From the position occupied by the army and the enemy character of the leader who commands.

We cannot and must not prescribe to one absolute disposition. There is not a natural order of battle in modern warfare.

Therefore with L'Ordre Tactique and the two systems called; le disposition de la division par brigade avec chaque brigade en ligne, and le disposition de la division par brigade accoles, the distances between Battle Lines will unquestionably change with each circumstance.

Best Regards
Art

G'Day Jeff

If I may…

"…without at least a reasonable unit footprint and ground scale--nothing in the Instructions will make any sense in game terms."

The real problem is that everyone wants to use all their figures (which is understandable)…but players should only use enough troops on the table so that correct military systems for each country is possible…such as L'ordre Perpendiculaire for the French.

A wargame table at the start, should have only enough figures, when the army is deployed, that it only takes up 1/3rd of the table.

Best Regards
Art

Art:
Thank you for the explanation. I don't see any disagreement. As I said, you mentioned that columns closed up when going into the attack. Neither you or I said when exactly that was done, and I am sure that there was variation.

As you point out:

Les colonne par section at full distance was a formation de marche.

La colonne par peloton at half distance was a formation de manoeuvre.

La colonne par division closed to distance section, or in mass, which was either a formation de manoeuvre, or used for a body of troops waiting to manoeuvre.

I was simply pointing out that to have the ability to say manoeuvre at half distance required more space than a closed/in mass. I understood that a closed column was more difficult to manoeuvre than a a half or open column.

And yes, "a column can close to distance section or mass at the pied ferme, and did not need any manoeuvring space to close up."

That wasn't the idea. The idea is that to be in an open column takes up more space. The ability to return to an open column or half distance from a closed column requires space. the distances between battalions across a front for deployment purposes is one of space needed to deploy. The same issues apply to the depth of a battalion formation.

What I am saying is that the footprint of a battalion in battle is not simply the place that men are standing, but the room required in behind it to allow for maneouvre and formation changes. An open column will have a depth at least equal to the frontage of the battalion in line. That would be it's 'footprint.' That space is easily represented by many games with battalions of two to four stands. As the norm for placing a second line behind the first puposely was greater than that depth by at least fifty yards, that kind of footprint is no problem.

Obviously, that will reduce the number of figures on the table. And just as obvious is that fact that the generals on the real battlefield enjoyed far more latitude in formation deployments than any wargame can when they require hard and fast rules.

Art--agreed on the number of figures and the desire of some to throw everything onto the table. Possibly playing "down" the length of the table, instead of across would help?

Bill--I see your point, but I'm not finding it works out in practice with platoon-sized units. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Bill--I see your point, but I'm not finding it works out in practice with platoon-sized units. We'll have to agree to disagree on this.

Jefferyw3:

How so? You are talking about using Chef de bataillon with 6mm figures.

The closest analogy I can think of is a marching band on a football field. As they go through their routine, the 'footprint' of the band changes depending on what they are doing. And while the band never takes up all of the 100 X 50 yard area at any one point, yet they can only do their change of formations if they have that size area.

How you see this kind of thing applying or not applying to platoon-sized areas? I'm assuming company-sized units are the same kind of think in this instance. They too had stated distances they formed up from other companies, though I can see that at such a small scale it isn't as much of an issue.

Bill