normsmith | 30 Nov 2015 10:22 p.m. PST |
I have been scanning the web for images, but I can't see how the British line formations are represented on the table, Vs column, assault column etc of other nations. Am I missing the point and that basing wise, everything is just multiple ranked as a single block. I know there is scope in 6mm to show two blocks on the same base, but I will be using 10mm. Sorry if that sounds like a bit of a ramble – but basically, i quite like the single basing idea and just wondered how the 'line' as opposed to assault column are represented. Thanks Norm. |
EagleFarm | 01 Dec 2015 12:50 a.m. PST |
There are no formations in Blucher. A base is a brigade. How you place figures on a base makes no difference (and of course you can use cards instead of figures). There is a distinction in Blucher whether infantry are prepared (=defensively positioned including squares) or not. That uses a marker. So base your figures in whatever way pleases you. |
Ferbs Fighting Forces | 01 Dec 2015 2:26 a.m. PST |
Some great examples of Blucher basing here |
Brownbear | 01 Dec 2015 4:20 a.m. PST |
napoleonic wargaming without column, line, square and skirmish formation: a heresy |
arthur1815 | 01 Dec 2015 4:57 a.m. PST |
Not if the player's perspective is such that he should not be concerning himself with the formations of individual units – that can be left to their commanding officers, and the combat results will suggest whether they made the right decisions or not. Of course, if one was sufficiently rich to afford duplicate figures and bases, one could subsitute a new base to reflect the brigade's formation at any point in the battle… |
Footslogger | 01 Dec 2015 5:01 a.m. PST |
The assumption with the Blucher level of wargame is that the units within a brigade are in any formation you want, except that a brigade choosing to be "prepared" has deliberately adopted the optimum formation to deal with the tactical situation – not necessarily forming square, but that's in there. As for how you base your figures, base size is whatever works for your playing area, figure size is whatever you want, but the smaller the figure the more chance you'll have to base your figures in a recognisable formation of your choice. With 10mm, you might have a chance of showing British in line and others in column, but it won't make any difference to how they fight. |
Jcfrog | 01 Dec 2015 5:03 a.m. PST |
Boardgame like, volley and bayonets etc, same kind. Why not? Actually SamM says rightly you can base as you want, using base as mesasurement so unless playing against others with same scale why all the fuss about bases? It should be more about fitting your space. |
IronDuke596 | 01 Dec 2015 10:07 a.m. PST |
|
Toronto48 | 01 Dec 2015 10:56 a.m. PST |
If you are fixed on being a Brigadier and are concerned with tactical formations ( line column square etc) then Blucher is not the game for you To me the attraction of Blucher is its representation of Grand Tactics enabling you to try and simulate battles like Austerlitz, Wagram, Waterloo etc, in a reasonable time and on a normal table C in Cs like Napoleon and Wellington trusted their subordinates to adapt the correct tactics to carry out their assigned duties so that they can focus on the Strategic elements. Blucher still gives you enough troop options with their different ratings and abilities to cause problems and variances in battles. Think about Blucher as being able to play the game from the POV of a commander and not a Brigadier or Colonel You are concerned with results and not necessarily how they were obtained. |
cae5ar | 01 Dec 2015 3:03 p.m. PST |
Besides, skirmishing is represented in Blucher, albeit at a grand tactical level. Some units are better at skirmishing than others, reflected in their unit traits, and our group represents this by placing skirmisher figures out in front of the main formation on the base. The square formation is basically handled by being "prepared" in Blucher, though as Footslogger has correctly asserted, being prepared includes any action a brigade of infantry might take to cope with enemy cavalry. As for column and line, the reserve move essentially assumes a march column, and by basing you infantry in their nationally preferred fighting formation you give plenty of period flavour – Blucher lets the unit stats take care of the rest. Armies that fought in line tend to have better shooting. Arguments for the scale of battle aside, given the choice, how often do players of brigade-level games shake out late French into line or British into column? The unit stats in Blucher take care of this by assuming that the unit commanders will adopt the optimal formation for their troops. The player who represents an army or corps general can get on with fighting the battle as a whole. So for Blucher: skirmishers – yes, march column – yes, square – yes, assault column or line – that's assumed for the troop type and is where good basing choices give some flavour. |
jeffreyw3 | 01 Dec 2015 5:49 p.m. PST |
If you're saying that you're fine with huge simplifications in order to play a simpler game in a a couple of hours, then I get it. But this canard of, "oh, you're not playing a Brigadier, so formations aren't important" doesn't wash. Or at least this Ney fellow seems to disagree… link |
cae5ar | 01 Dec 2015 7:38 p.m. PST |
I wonder how many times Ney consulted his drill manual in the heat of battle? Naturally generals, as the policy makers of the army, have plenty to say on the importance of formations. But what are we trying to achieve in a game simulating the actual battle itself? Are the players taking on the role of corporals, captains, brigadiers or marshals? Each has his own concerns and a job to fulfil after the first shot is fired. The fact that drill and battalion formations were laid out in such detail and trained to such exacting standards before a battle supports the argument that they occured in the background of the main strategic thinking during the battle. Formations are important but they are abstracted to suit the level of command pitched at the players and likewise largely reside in the background as unit stats in Blucher. |
EagleFarm | 01 Dec 2015 8:02 p.m. PST |
As a Napoleonic player I want rules with line, column and square. But I also want to fight great battles. I want to fight Waterloo, not some small part of Waterloo. And I want to play campaigns. And I want to do all these on a small table, with a modest number of figures, two players, and be done in a few hours. Unfortunately I doubt anyone is going to come up with rules that allow me to do all three at once. Luckily I don't have to choose to do just one of these. If I want column, lines and squares I can use my 25mm armies based for that. If I want to play a big battle I can use my 6mm based for Blucher. Now if I had to choose just ONE game level, that gets harder… I really like formations, but there is a lot of satisfaction deciding when to commit the Guard and Cuirassier Corps to win the day! |
Toronto48 | 01 Dec 2015 9:22 p.m. PST |
EagleFarm you got it !! Blucher is not the ultimate Napoleonic game and makes no pretension to be one It is a set of rules that allows players to experience one aspect of Napoleonic Warfare and in this case it is Grand Tactical. Just because it does away with tactical formations does not make it any less simpler or realistic as it is designed for the purpose of Grand Tactics which will present the players with choices and decisions based on the rules, the strategic situation of the game itself and a player's interpretation of both This cam be as "complex" or as "simple" as you decide as there are enough rule variations to allow both |
Dutch508 | 05 Dec 2015 8:36 a.m. PST |
In general a commander deals with tactics two levels down. That is to say a Company Commander thinks in terms of Platoons and squads, a Battalion Commander thinks of Companies and Platoons, A Brigade Commander thinks of Battalions and Companies and so on. An Army commander in Blucher deals with formations of Divisions and Brigades although one could argue he should focus on Corps and Divisions… |
xccamx | 05 Dec 2015 9:45 a.m. PST |
@Jefferyw3 I don't think Ney disagrees at all. That he writes on the importance of formations has no bearing on whether or not he would be expected to order the formations of individual brigades as an army commander. In fact, to quote his opening paragraph; "The generals of division, in superintending the drilling of the several regiments under their command, will be pleased to apply, to the principal evolutions in line hereinafter described…" If we might suppose that this drilling of troops is occurring at a time when stress on the general of the army is at its least (i.e. outside of immediate battle) and is left to the Generals of Division we might also suppose that it is these same generals who must be the ones concerned with the application of such in battle. Therefore if you were playing division, or perhaps corps, sized battles of course you would play with manually forming column, line and square. But when commanding an army, perhaps it is not so obvious that the player should be the one concerned with the speed at which a French column can form line. |