"God loves big battalions...but I don't" Topic

As you know, the size of line infantry & grenadier battalions varied quite wildly from nation to nation in the SYW.

I find this difficult to model in a wargame without hopelessly skewing the combat & morale mechanisms.

Simply put, a larger formation can soak up casualties & inflict them at a greater rate than a smaller one.

In my home grown rules, I have worked at this but the simplest answer is, for the sake of the game, to stipulate a French infantry battalion is the same size as a Prussian etc. This works. I should mention that the French have more second rate battalions & generally poorer leaders: this is my historical framework; not unit size.

Comments?

Sounds good to me.

My thoughts, exactly.

I agree.

The French and Austrians would start the campaign season with new recruits in their battalions. The Prussians for the first years of the SYW could call up trained recruits from their reserves. This should mean that the Prussians were better trained and can react faster then the French and Austrians. The Prussians can form line of battle faster and in the rules that I played with and could move and fire while their enemies could move or fire.

A side issue here was that the French started to form their army into "divisions" so that they they could form line of battle faster. This was the start of the subdivision of the army that became so important in the Napoleonic period.

Did the commanders on the ground make any decisions based on the relative size of battalions? If not just ignore it.

In many periods we hear of commanders combining under-strength battalions, so there was some level below which a unit couldn't do its job and the commanders took steps in response.

David F Brown

Might & Reason abandons the OOB completely in favor of more genric units for just this reason…

Looking upon the enemy he faced, poor Simon saw the ranked masses. They look so many from his perspective. They have big hats, they look so fierce and strong!
To distract his mind from the thought of fleeing, he began to count the enemy soldiers…. 323, 324, 325. I don't believe it, he astonished himself. Only this morning my colonel had counted 475 in our unit. That means WE outnumber them!
Wow, we will get the +2 on the dice! So I will not need to run away after all….

I don't think numbers are the only thing that creates battlefield behaviour.

Heresy. Use two small battalions vs the larger battalion.

Why is it a problem for larger battalions to absorb more casualties, put more men into h2h combat, and generate more firepower? I find that size differences are an elegant source of real battlefield considerations appropriate to the period. Also consider:

• Bigger battalions make longer lines and deeper columns, which are harder to maneuver on the field.
  
• Smaller battalions are nimbler: easier to change facing, easier to throw into gaps, faster at traversing obstacles or slow terrain (because they're not physically in the terrain for as long), etc.
  
• In a big battle, the above two points make it harder for a general with big battalions to get into position, easier for a general with smaller battalions to perform complex maneuvers.
  
• Battalion size has a psychological impact on the players, and can be a fun source of scenario misdirection (e.g. high quality small battalions vs. low quality big battalions).
  
• A big battalion facing two or more little battalions has more vulnerable flanks. This is especially true if a little battalion has sufficient quality to go toe-to-toe with a bigger battalion on equal terms, giving another smaller battalion time to maneuver into a dangerous flanking position.
  

You were specifically talking about SYW battles, and I admit I've played only a few SYW games, none of them modeled battalion size with figure count, and I know little about the SYW. Is any of what I've mentioned above relevant to SYW battlefields?

I have been playing as much AWI as my local gaming groups will stomach, and there can be some pretty big differences in battalion sizes on those fields. Fresh Crown units tend to be pretty big (600-800 men) while most militia units are lucky to muster 200 men and Continentals tend to vary a lot (150-450, depending on a lot of factors). I rather enjoy the dynamic of a few huge Crown regiments bumbling around trying to squish feisty little rebel regiments. While they have little to worry about from any individual rebel unit, the cumulative drain of casualties over the course of the battle can make a critical difference to the strategic outcome; I gear my AWI scenarios so that the Crown forces are almost certain to win the field, but can only win the VP contest by careful play.

- Ix

The outcome of horse and musket battles were primarily decided by numbers, so smaller battalions just end up putting more unis into same frontage. The unit-at-a-time combat resolution mechanisms many of our rules use skew the results, so if it isn't relevant for the level of game you envisage, ignore it.

Gentlemen: a privilege to read your erudite views.

Yes, what Martin Rapier said. It is all about frontages and the firepower from the number of muskets, rather than a function of the individual battalions' sizes.

The offset to the advantage of size for the big battalion is that if it routs, then you lose a lot more figures via rout than you would for a smaller battalion.

I rather like the approach in Shako and Twighlight of the Sun King where units don't 'shoot at' each other, they just lay down a beaten zone of fire to their front which affects any and every unit which enters it.

It then doesn't matter how big or small your battalions are, however the braver/better trained ones will hang around longer.

Clausewitz has some interesting observations on the influence of numbers on combat, both tactically and operationally. It always amuses me that both he and Jomini assume you always deploy infantry in two lines, and only an idiot would do otherwise, yet our rules so rarely reflect any benefit from doing so….

Twilight of the Sun King is one of the few sets I've seen where a single line is going to have trouble from the start against a double line. And the battles look like period prints.

2 lines (or more)?

My rules do…..

They promote encouragement of having multiple lines which adds to morale, allows passage of lines but makes a line a dense artillery target.

Clausewitz has some interesting observations on the influence of numbers on combat, both tactically and operationally. It always amuses me that both he and Jomini assume you always deploy infantry in two lines, and only an idiot would do otherwise, yet our rules so rarely reflect any benefit from doing so….

More often a feature of the width of battle available to units, rather than rules.

If you have 60 battalions you would never spread them one deep.

If you have 12, you might not have an equal second line.

True, but in our games we like to spread our armies out from flank to flank.

Cos if you don't the enemy cavalry just magically rides around the flank and wipes you out. irl this particular trick seemed a bit harder to pull off, and there were limits to the practical frontage an army could deploy and operate on.

Hello ochoin!

Your actually suffering from figure ratio syndrome. One of the many flaws inherent in most "old school" style rules.

Most "new school" rule systems use a single block as a battalion with big battalions being reflected by using two blocks. Some of the more sophisticated systems use the blocks as ratios (one block equals 500 men etc.). In most periods you simply use one of the smaller or average sized battalions as your standard. This simply means that some of your brigades might have more or less moving parts.

This allows you to maintain the historical frontage of your forces and does not force you to juggle the other concepts in your rules.

It's another big plus for some modern single base rule systems.

Best regards,

Glenn

Thanks, Glenn.

figure ratio syndrome

Take 2 asprin & go to bed? 87))

I am, for better or worse, 'Old School'.

The new school rules are effectively using a figure ratio of 1:500…..

Hello ochoin!

Your welcome.

I thought you might be an "Old School" chap. Nothing wrong with that. I just tossed out the "New School" ideas as some fellows mix the two together in an effort to get the best out of both doctrines.

The cure however, is take one old school big battalion and put it on two new school bases. If it still looks good in the morning change all your basing, ha, ha, ha!

Best regards,

Glenn

Hello Martin!

Actually it's slightly different as it's no longer a figure ratio but a base ratio. Just like figure ratios the base ratios can be any ratio you want it to be.

Most people put around 25 figures on a base, but you can use as many as you want and the base can be any size you want as well. You can compare the two if you want such as using 25 figures and 500 men is 20:1.

Another big plus of using this system is you can change the scale at any time. Consider your base as 250 men and now your using 10:1. We do this all the time in our games. It allows us to use the scale we want for different size battles. Same system, same figures, different battle sizes.

Best regards,

Glenn

Glenn, I understand that some of what you are saying is tongue-in-cheek so hopefully you will appreciate this from an "Old School" wargamer:

First time I came across someone who used your approach was years ago when a friend showed me his newly painted base of 20 something figures representing a British Nap battalion. I started asking him how he was going to represent all of those things those of us using figure ratios can do, and he kept saying "I don't need to do that". Finally somewhat in frustration I asked him why he didn't represent the battalion by painting the base red and using a single flag bearer. The advantage to your system is that you can do precisely that.

Ultimately it comes down to what works best for you. Ochoin doesn't like having battalions of different sizes. I like having battalions varying in size, within the army as well as between armies.

This why I keep repeating: There Is But One True Horse and Musket Rule Set! WRG 1685-1845! All Else Is Heresy!

Hello Bill!

Yes your right I'm a very tongue-in-cheek guy. Also yes I do appreciate everything you say. Most Old School guys have great stories and I love yours.

Although I understand your frustration with your friend I think he was right, "he didn't need to do that". To understand why he didn't need to do that you have to basically start over with your ideas on warfare. You need to take a fresh look at how your present rules stack up against exactly what went on during a battle. A simple example is most OS rules allow units to change formation pretty much at the will of the player. The net result is most OS games have units changing formation all the time, where as on the battlefield units only changed formation occasionally, some never! That's a major difference.

I know I can only put one figure on a base, in fact some don't use any figures. Wooden blocks and even just cardboard cut outs are used. They just don't appeal to me and most NS players use figures the way your friend did.

My battalions vary in size as well. When we play low level games at say 5:1 (just for reference) the number of bases used will vary per battalion. It also happens at a higher level (i.e. big battalions are two bases). We just don't have all the little stands of 4-6 figures.

Best regards,

Glenn

This New School sounds more like Very Old School to me, eg von Reiswitz's kriegspiel

Hello janner!

Yes it does and perhaps that's part of the appeal. However, I think there are generally two major differences. NS rules are for the most part less complicated and also embrace battalion, regimental and brigade bases.

I think you also have to consider that Kriegspiel is a unique rule system and only used by a handful of authors. Where as OS and NS rules are embraced by a number of different authors with a large number of different mechanics, modifiers, dice, cards, basing systems, etc.
Their designs are all different and are pretty much only separated by their basing systems and some core concepts like formations and formation changes.

Best regards,

Glenn

That's why I like C&C napoleonics

There is no such thing as new school and old school. There were just as many rules sets in the 70's that used 1 base per battalion as 1 base per x men.
Some I can think of were System 7 and that UK Micro-something or other that came in a ziplock bag and you had to cut out the units. And all the 5 and 6mm rules. And every board game. You could even buy troop blocks in 2 or 3 ranks to really keep your frontages accurate e.g. for when the WAS Austrians swapped from 3 to 4 or vice versa in the middle of a battle.
In fact I now think Old School must mean 1 block per battalion.
I think the real difference is one system is meant for people who can't (paint) and the other is for people who can.

Hello thehawk!

Having played 6mm rules for over 35 years I can tell you the scale has nothing to do with OS or NS, other then a lot of 6mm players have embraced NS rules.

Were also talking about miniatures rules, not board games.

It also has nothing to do with your painting skills.

There is no time line or date that I'm aware of that separates the two designs. The terms simply refer to a style of rules. The common separation is Old School are rules that use multiple bases for a single battalion and New School only use a single base for a battalion. However, today there are also rules that have entire regiments or brigades on a single base. These are considered to be NS rules as well.

I think the terms simply came about because most people believe the multiple base battalion rules were more common first, so they are called Old School. Although it's possible that single base rules may have been first, it's not commonly believed to be the case, so that's why their called New School. It's a New School of thought, that is different from what was commonly believed before.

When I retired from board games and started miniature gaming in 1974 only OS rules were played in my circle of friends and associates. It was not until the turn of the century that I became aware that NS even existed, as System 7 was considered to have been a flash in the pan.

Hope that's a better explanation.

Best regards,

Glenn

I think OS would mean one block per battalion, too! What did CLausewitz and the Kriegsakademie use?

I use smallish battalions, because I figure most were understrength anyway. Usually 12-16 figures. 25mm.

I don't think we need to worry which came first. As long as we know that "Old school" means that a figure stands for a certain number of men and "new school" means a base stands for a unit of a particular size regardless of the number of figures on that base then we should be able to communicate with each other.

Hello spontoon!

OS and NS has nothing to do with who did what first. Their simply terms to describe a style of game. So if your only using one block as a battalion it's NS.

Does that clear it up?

Best regards,

Glenn