"Quality of Portuguese Line Regiments at Bussaco" Topic

I am working on a refight of Bussaco to 'Blucher' rules. I have all the OOB information necessary, but, of course, that doesn't inform you on how to grade the troops to fit with the rules.

I have to decide whether the Portuguese Line Regiments were Veteran or Conscript? I suppose that technically every Portuguese Line Regiment was conscript, so a better terminology might be 'experienced' or 'inexperienced'.

From my sources I can see that Bussaco was the first action for about two-thirds of the regiments, and just the second for the remainder. Consequently I think I can safely say that in 'Blucher' terms I should grade all the Portuguese Line Regiments as 'Conscript'.

Would anyone disagree?

Thank you.

There are two ways you can think about this question. The first is to ask what was known before the battle started, and therefore simulate the judgements Wellington et al had to make on the day. In that event I think your rating is quite sound.

The other, and very popular, method is the rate them based on how the troops actually performed and applying hindsight. In this event you might rate them higher. They did well, and Wellington entrusted one brigade with a counterattack on their own. Their reputation after the battle was improved. The regulars anyway – the militia didn't last long.

These troops are on home ground and defending against despised aggressors – that might incline you to be a bit more generous too.

Hope that helps

Matthew

Thank you Matthew, that has certainly given me something to think about. It may also have made the decision making process more difficult too!

Two points here; one in support of Matthew's assessment, and one contrary.

In support of Matthew's assessment, yes, they performed well at this battle. Despite this being the first (or second) action for the majority of the troops engaged, they did well in that they held their ground (home ground advantage) and even participated in a limited counterattack. As Matthew states, you may apply hindsight and grade them accordingly.

In contrast, the fact that they performed well, while encouraging, was a definite unknown going into the battle, hence their deployment amongst seasoned British brigades. Some rules allow for a variable morale or quality roll prior to first contact, which could be incorporated here. Being 1810, the Portuguese army was still very much being organized and ramped up, hence the conscript/inexperienced rating. Certainly from 1812 onwards, I would lean heavily in favor of experienced status for the majority of the line troops and veteran status for the lights.

Given what is said above, you could put a scenario note that each Portuguese brigade or regiment would roll a die the first time it is in any kind of combat or is fired upon.
Given hindsight that they performed well, err on the side of regulars, with a 10 to 20 percent chance that they perform as militia.

Just a thought.

I should add that I personally do not favour the hindsight approach to rating troops or leaders!

Bear in mind also that the British Army had taken over or was supervising their administration – which meant that possibly for the first time in their service, they were properly paid, fed, clothed and equipped, and could rely on the best medical treatment available at the time if wounded or sick. This all counts for more than you might think in a soldiers willingness to stand and fight, or indeed go forward and fight.

Also each battalion would have either been commanded by an experienced British Officer, or had a British deputy commander. Similarly either the Brigadier or Brigade Major would have been seconded from the British service.

For all of these reasons, I make absolutely no distinction in quality between British and Portuguese units when working up stats for scenarios.

In Black Powder there is a special characteristic called "untested"
Where by the precise ability of a green unit is unknown until it first suffers a causality and then it dices …. Wether it has the staying power of a green, regular or veteran unit.
If Blucher does not have this rule perhaps you can create one especially for This scenario.

Thanks for the ideas chaps. 'Blucher' does not have an 'untested' category, nor any of the other mechanisms suggested. In 'Blucher' you need to know the quality of all your troops beforehand because their type and grade determines their point cost. You need to know their point cost (even for historical scenarios) because the total point cost of your army determines how many MO dice your opponent will be throwing for you (basically how much command & control you will have in your turn).

Having one or two units whose grade is not discovered until called for is neither here nor there in that regard. In a scenario where half of your army is testing then it doesn't really suit 'Blucher' IMHO.

I might try and work on something along the suggested lines for future games though.

Seems like a potentially a big gap in quality between a conscript and a veteran unit, as the nature of conscripts can vary between armies and nations.

For the Portuguese line in 1810, I`d rate them as "trained" (I prefer that term) without yet becoming experienced – I think that they had probably become so a year later – hence their performance and steadiness at Albuera.

If in doubt, rate them as average, using whatever term in Blucher corresponds to average.

If you don't have significant evidence to rate them higher or lower, what else can they be?

I'm not familiar with the Blucher Rules, but why are your choices limited to Veteran or Conscript?

It seems like the Portuguese at this period should be something in between.

Stephen

Why assume the British commanders didn't know the quality of the Portuguese before hand, or rate them differently than they performed at Bussaco. There is enough variability in most morale systems to cover any variables. I have read of poor to standard British performances at Bussaco.

I've always classed Portuguese regulars as the same as French and British regulars. Portuguese militia as poor/green/inexperienced or whatever but the line the same as their peers.

I've always been reluctant to rate the Portuguese as the same as British (or veteran British I should say) because that doesn't seem to be how the army command treated them. It seem to me that the British regiments were give a senior role and the more difficult/important missions. And I can detect a certain nervousness about how the Portuguese units would perform, at least in 1810 and 1811. But I wouldn't like to say that their combat record was in fact any worse.

Depends on the year I suppose but Bussaco onwards they seem no different to regular British troops. Of course the British had some crack units like the 95th and some battle tested line units like the 40th, 45th, 88th… Who I'd rate as being better than your average units.
Naturally the British command might have taken a bit longer to trust them… being foreigners…. retrained. I'm inclined to rate units on how they performed in hindsight… and to me, Portuguese infantry, after having fresh officers and being paid were little different to the British.

That said most of their issues were not problems of ability but being badly fed, unpaid and led by an ageing officer corps. The raw material just needed a bit of polish and care.

I'm not familiar with the Blucher Rules, but why are your choices limited to Veteran or Conscript?

I don't know, I didn't write the rules. They are the only choices. To be fair there isn't a great deal of difference between the two, but they have to be in one camp or the other.

I've always been reluctant to rate the Portuguese as the same as British (or veteran British I should say) because that doesn't seem to be how the army command treated them. It seem to me that the British regiments were give a senior role and the more difficult/important missions.

Well, that could be just the British prejudice concerning any army but their own [which was fairly strong concerning the Portuguese and especially the Spanish.]

Then again, they were under the British army control, so British officer could simply trust their own troops more than them foreigners.

There was also protocol. When two separate armies joined, the army whose country the battle was in always had the place of honor in the battleline, which is why you see the Spanish armies on the right at Talavera and Albuera. Splitting up the Portuguese avoided the issue of a separate army fighting in their home country. And there was the issue of who should command the two armies when in the host army's territory.

Lots of reasons for placing the Portuguese as they did apart from them simply being poor troops.

If you read detailed accounts of battles – i.e. the Pen and Sword about Salamanca – it is clear that the Portuguese could be very inconsistent in their performance. Decent one battle, below average and shaky the next.

I think it was in Keegan that I read that in many instances, veteran troops would more reluctant too attack then grin troops. Ignorance being bliss and all that.

In interesting simulation issue. Use pre-sight, which may incorporate prejudice, or hindsight, which gives players yet another advantage over their historical counterparts. In practice you have to strike a bit of a balance.
It's easier with the Portuguese than the Netherlands troops in 1815, whom you'd rate as awful based on the opinion of British generals, and much better based on how they actually performed.
Good though the Portuguese might have been, I can't look back on what I know of their record and suggest that they rate as more than Trained in the usual classification. The Cacadores in the Light Division should be better I'm sure though.

I`m a little puzzled here matthew, if it`s a simulation of an historical battle you`re after, why would you "level the playing field" in order to make a balanced game?
I think that the officers commanding these troops would have had a good idea of the capabilities of their own troops before battle and known that their training had been sufficient preparation.

According to Beresford, or Hardinge…The Portuguese regular infantry had their fighting days and other days. I think that as the war wound past 1812, their fighting days were fairly consistent, hence Wellington's bemoaning of his Portuguese Gamecocks in 1815.

Perhaps a related issue, if you consider some troops inferior to others and these can be identified by their uniforms then what is to prevent these inferior troops from being singled out and targeted by the enemy player.

In a Bussaco game as the french player it would make sense to send out skirmishers against any British and send columns against the Portuguese. Same at Waterloo, target the Brunswickers or the Belgians and avoid the redcoats.

What I allow is that for formations of mixed nationalities the defending player may exchange a unit under attack for any other unit from the formation. This then negates the advantage of being able to see the "weakest" units to attack.

Another option is to only show British figures on the table.

Another way to deal with mixed divisions is to give all units the same aggregate rating but allow a small number of "bonus" points which can be used at the players choice, this representing the contribution of the better units in the division. Each bonus can only be used only once so the player can decide to either commit the better units early and use up the bonus or hold them in reserve and play the bonus later.

It depends on what you are trying simulate Michael.

My ideal is to put yourself into the put yourself into the position of those in command, knowing what they did. Untested units, or officers, should be a risk.

I said nothing about levelling the playing field. It's about reducing the amount players know that their historical counterparts didn't. And that reduces the risk of completely unhistorical choices being made.

It's one of the most challenging things about game design – but very rewarding in that it helps you understand why generals made the choices they did, rather than dismissing them as lazy or stupid.

Matthew

I see what you were saying now Matthew.
And what you`re referring to is simulating is the right scenario background information and player choices to be outlined to all players at the start of a game?

Untested units would be at risk if they were to come up against opposition that was better than them. I think that this is already be accounted for in many rule sets – I think that this is the case in my own rules; the uncertainty is played out in the combat die rolls.

Yes. Part of the role of the die is to take care of things that are unknown!. The unit rating should give you a rough idea of expectations, preferably based on factual things (experience, training,selective recruitment. etc) and not more.

Surely, rating is by training and experience before the battle.
In my rules Raw and/or Poor units are allowed to pass their Morale Tests same as any other grade.

Let them prove themselves in this battle. Then see who should be upgraded for their next encounter. Next time their rating might be Steady or even jump to Elite.

That's a somewhat tricky approach because sometimes raw units perform valiantly because they are clueless to the results that can occur in a battle whereas sometimes veteran troops can under perform because they know they'll get hammered.

Maybe rather than relegate units to "poor" status just make their range of reactions wider than with more disciplined/experienced units.

~@ Au pas de charge

Nail, head in my opinion. A few years ago I spoke a lot to WW2 veterans and gained the impression that it is the inexperienced troops who do the brave things, because the veterans have learned how dangerous that sort of thing is. It is however also the inexperienced who might panic over the inconsequential. As a result I don't make veterans simply better and new recruits worse, the more experience troops have the more predictable they are.

In answer to Deephorse I'd also be very wary of the British Army's opinion of anyone but themselves, they all work on the same system, my troop are the best in the army, my squadron etc. The moment you're discussing a foreigner they might as well have three heads and be blue. A dispassionate reading of non English language historys will give you a more balanced view, altophugh also beware the tendency of any military to big up an opponent who beats them, particularly if they manage to turn the tables later.

Two ways to look at it:
1. They were good troops and did well. That means you rate them higher.
2. The day of Bussaco they rolled all 6's. In which case you rate them lower and hope you are as lucky as they were.

They were trained by British officers and NCOs in the British manner to British standards. I think that this should rate the Portuguese as equals to the British troops.

If the Portuguese also received frequent firing drills with live ammunition, there is an argument that they should get the same volley bonus many rules give the Napoleonic British.

Personally I favour wrgmr's suggestion from 2015 for all line troops at all times in a campaign context.

When a battle takes place you roll a die to see if they behave as listed in the rules (3 or 4 on a D6), better than that (5 or 6), or worse (1 or 2). As time and battles go by, you can weight the score accordingly. If they got completely pwned at their previous battle it's 1, 2 or 3 to underperform, 4 or 5 to perform as rated, and 6 to outperform. Otherwise you might very the ratings so that it's 1 to underperform, 6 to overperform and 2 to 5 to perform per the rulebook.

The upshot should be that your units' behaviour gets more predictable. Not necessarily better as they accumulate experience – it can also get predictably worse. If a unit has been bested the last three times it fought, you wouldn't put it anywhere important.

This strikes me as the kind of detail a good commander would have in his head.

@ 4th

A wonderful idea for the entirely non egotistical completely honest player [do tell me when you find them] because we're all going to admit when our elite veteran guard armoured heavy cavalry got repeated shoeings and are now reduced to a level that means we don't want them on the table any more in case they do a Cumberland Hussars on us.

inexperienced troops who do the brave things, because the veterans have learned how dangerous that sort of thing is. It is however also the inexperienced who might panic over the inconsequential. As a result I don't make veterans simply better and new recruits worse, the more experience troops have the more predictable they are".
I reckon Mark Williams' comment to be spot on. It's the inexperienced troops that'll either panic or charge, eager to "get the hell outta here" or, anger and adrenalin surging,come to grips with an enemy threatening their lives.And orders be damned..