"Training levels of the Russians" Topic

I have made an attempt to convert the ACW rules Regimental Fire & Fury into a Napoleonic rule set. In the original rules there are four training levels that represent the experience level the soldiers have. The levels are Green, Trained, Veteran, and Crack. I have converted these and added two levels (lowest to highest), Militia, Landwher, Regulars, Crack, Elite, and Guards.
My question is for the 1812-1814 Russians I have rated the line infantry Landwher and the Jagers Regulars. Is that too low?
For comparison I would rate British line Regulars, French Legere Crack,Prussian Grenadiers Elites. I know these type of ratings are subjective and I'm not trying to cast all Russian infantry in stone. I played 4 play tests with line rated Landwher and they are getting crushed. Do I have them rated to low?

Chef de bataillon has Russian line infantry rated at 30% veteran and 70% conscript for that period. Their system has a couple more steps than yours, and that might help with tuning the balance situation.

There is already an official Napoleonic version of Fire & Fury, it's called Age of Eagles. If you still want to make your own version, it might be useful for you to see how they have rated the troop types in question.

link

Nic

The Russian system of recruiting was a mite different than the other nations. A farm manager or noble chose who would go and as far as the family was concerned, it was a death sentence because 1. service was for life, and 2. The family would never see the boy again… nothing like leave was granted.

Sooo. A soldier's family became the regiment in all senses of the word. More often than not, recruits were sent to existing regiments rather than creating them whole cloth out of new recruits.

It is quite interesting to read the russian descriptions of the early battles in 1813. In Arnold´s excellent book on the spring campaign, the russians at Lutzen are scornfull of the prussian line infantry that disintegrates so quickly compared to the steady russian infantry in lines.

I would hazard a guess that most representation of 1813 have it the other way round, but perhaps we have been indoctrinated about the disciplined prussians and the barbarious russians :-)

Dear Andy
Russian 1st and 3rd Bns should be classed as Regulars.
The 2nd Bn was formed from the depot so should be Landwehr/Regular.
The combined grenadiers were the best men from the depot/garrison so should be Landwehr.

The Russians in 1813-14 suffered from dwindling ranks rather than quality. They did not get drafts because the depots had been used to create more operational Bns. Many of the regiments that have been on campaign for two years should be veteran. Remember that the Russian army had been constantly at war against the Turks, over Finland etc…

The Jagers should be veteran/crack and were the best in the army. Now maybe the later conversions may be regular.

After Borodino, the infantry was filled out from the Opolchenie.

I have written a number of books on the Russian, Prussian and British Armies.
Stephen

The Jagers should be veteran/crack and were the best in the army. Now maybe the later conversions may be regular.

Leiven in his book Russia Against Napoleon. He writes about the the inevitable unevenness of the fifty Jaeger regiments the Russians maintained in 1812…over 100,000 men. p. 116-7:

The difference in quality between Russian Jaeger regiments in 1812 was often evident to their enemies. The first Russian skirmishers encountered by the Saxon army after invading RUssia were the inexperienced troops of General Oertel's corps. A Saxon officer recorded that 'the Russian army was not yet that which it became n 1813…they did not understand how to skirmish in open order. Some weeks later the Saxons got a great sock when they first encountered the veteran jaegers of the Arm of the Danube, fresh from many campaigns in the Balkans. These men were 'the excellent Russian jaegers of Sacken's corps. They were as skilled with their movements as they were accurate in their shooting, and they did us great harm with their much superior firearms which were effective at twice out range.'

It is interesting that the Saxon officer sees the quality of the 1813 Russians being noticeably superior to their 1812 army.

I do wonder at using a universal category like regular and landwehr etc. for armies organized by such different cultures over time with such varied experience and huge numbers.

The two books on Russian tactics of the period by the Zhmodikovs are more than helpful.

And excellent background information can be found in two books on the Russian Army:

-Russia's Military Way to the West by Christopher Duffy.

-Soldiers of the Tsar by John Keep.

'Conscript three, beat two to death, train one.'-Supplemental Material: Eylau-Friedland Campaign, Department of Military Art and Engineerig, West Point.

'…by the very nature of his duties and life-style; he was largely isolated from the peasant milieu from which he had been forcibly ripped by the act of recruitment; and he was subject to a system of discipline so strict, yet at the same time so arbitrary, that it inured him to violence and brutality while fortifying that spirit of servile fatalism so characteristic of the Russian masses of the old regime.'-Keep, 144.

It is interesting that the Saxon officer sees the quality of the 1813 Russians being noticeably superior to their 1812 army.

As the survivors of the 1812 campaign were now veterans, and that included units that had served elsewhere, that is not surprising.

What is also interesting to note is that the Russians lost the overwhelming majority of engagements of the Russian campaign, and their losses were also immense.

It would vary, Lieven is quite good about this in his excellent book, the Suisse fighting against the Russian Jäger at the Beresina crossing were very impressed about their shooting skills.

I always wonder the bad press of the supposedly lack of skill of light infantry, the Russians had plenty of experience, as for example fighting against the Turcs, or the war in Finland.

And the Swiss at the Berezina held their position against all comers…

Some previous discussions of the topic (with some very useful contributions from posters who are familiar with Russian stuff, instead of relying on English and/or French):

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

My question is for the 1812-1814 Russians I have rated the line infantry Landwher and the Jagers Regulars. Is that too low?
For comparison I would rate British line Regulars, French Legere Crack,Prussian Grenadiers Elites. I know these type of ratings are subjective and I'm not trying to cast all Russian infantry in stone. I played 4 play tests with line rated Landwher and they are getting crushed. Do I have them rated to low?

Yes, probably too low, but your French Legère are way too high for this period as well. The average French chasseur in a French Light Infantry regiment, in 1813-4 in particular, was in no way "crack".

As the survivors of the 1812 campaign were now veterans, and that included units that had served elsewhere, that is not surprising.

What is also interesting to note is that the Russians lost the overwhelming majority of engagements of the Russian campaign, and their losses were also immense.

Many accounts and certainly Leiven suggest that the Russians suffered huge losses. And half of 1813 involved the massive influx of new recruits that had taken a good part of a year to collect and march across Russia into central Europe.

@14th NJ Vol

I'd go with what Dr Summerfield says, the lad knows his stuff.

@Sparta

the prussian line infantry that disintegrates so quickly compared to the steady russian infantry in lines.

The Prussians in 1813-15 lost 17 out of 27 major battles fought against the French, winning only those where they had either enormous numerical superiority or a competent ally on the field. Sometimes they lost even with those but they never won otherwise. You aren't really allowed to notice this though.

@ McLaddie

I do wonder at using a universal category like regular and landwehr etc. for armies organized by such different cultures over time with such varied experience and huge numbers.

Another heretic. Next you will be advocating – gahgh! – national characteristics!

@Brechtel

the Russians lost the overwhelming majority of engagements of the Russian campaign

Which engagements of 1812 did the Russians not lose? I can only recall one, the one where (IIRC) Chichagov blocked their line of retreat and the French couldn't dislodge them. So they were thus forced to use the route they had come in by, which had of course been foraged bare.

I struggle to recall an actual tactical victory where they overran the French lines, or booted them from the field though.

Which engagements of 1812 did the Russians not lose? I can only recall one, the one where (IIRC) Chichagov blocked their line of retreat and the French couldn't dislodge them. So they were thus forced to use the route they had come in by, which had of course been foraged bare.

There is a list on the Napoleon Series:

link

Some Russian victories, some disputed ones too.

I think its good game to have various ratings, but can get complicated for large games.

I guess many don't understand that the Russians recruited for life and the regiment was the only home. Most of these had recruits dribbled in, sort of like the confederates in the ACW and the units stayed as high quality. Also, they did , on paper, make some line units into light units (who did poorly in that role- not having been trained). Most of the information shown above is from western observers noticing their performance in a few campaigns- it is not accurate for the entirely. However, the LINE troops who had spent years fighting the irregular Turks were excellent as light troops as were those who fought in Finland's forests for years against the Swedes. These entered the war from the north and the south and were not where the main french army (and the reporters) were at. People might also consider that somehow the French & allies came back with 27 thousand and started with 480 thousand men. Maybe the local military experts should reconsider who won the battles. (Hint: many many small battles can add up to outweigh a few big battles)

Sometimes it is not about winning the battles; it is about winning the war. It is possible to win most or all of the battles and still lose the war because the enemy's strategy is not dependent on winning battles and he has a better idea of what victory will look like and how it can best be achieved.

That was Kutuzov's genius.

Eric

@ Whirlwind

Thanks, I hadn't heard of a lot of those.

There is already an official Napoleonic version of Fire & Fury, it's called Age of Eagles.

AoE is based on brigade-level Fire & Fury; the OP is about adapting Regimental Fire & Fury, which is considerably modified from the original. Most AoE principles will be inapplicable, though you may be right that AoE could provide some conceptual guidance.

A better source of ideas are the Support pages of Fire & Fury site. There are quite a few things you might find useful:

• A QRS for a RF&F variant called Suvorov in the Alps which was published in Wargames Illustrated.
  
• Rules for Forming Squares
  
• A Liberator Wars variant which covers the Napoleonic Wars in South America and claims it could be used for other Napoleonic variants. It includes a period rules document and a QRS.
  
• A War of 1812 variant which may have some useful ideas, esp. regarding the official ratings of Napoleonic British regulars.

Your problem with units getting crushed may be that the d10 isn't big enough for 6 different levels with different DRMs. Try thinking less linearly – RF&F has a lot more levers, dials and knobs for adjusting the performance of troops than just the training rating. Increasing the number of training categories may be unnecessary or even deleterious if you adjust other aspects of unit behavior. Consider some other options:

• RF&F units actually have 2 morale ratings, experience (Green, Trained, Veteran, Crack) and enthusiasm (Unreliable, Reliable, Spirited). Between these two ratings you really have about 12 different morale settings for each unit. You may not need to add any morale levels at all.
  
• To get what I consider proper stoicism out of famous units like the FFL, I'm experimenting with adding just a single enthusiasm level I call "Fanatic", which causes the unit to reach "Worn" at the same rate as a "Spirited" unit but remain "worn" longer (nearly to extermination) before reaching "Spent". This might better describe some Guard units (Crack Fanatic), line units famous for their stoicism (Trained Fanatic), badly trained and lead levy units full of revolutionary zeal (Green Fanatic), etc.
  
• Not all troop performance issues are related to how they fight in contact, but affect C3 instead. Use the command system to help represent the character of various troop types. In my AWI RF&F games, I rate militia as always being in provisional command, limit "back country rifle" units to Extended Line and Column formations only, disallow Extended Line altogether to Hessian units and 1775 British Line units, etc. You can use the existing rules to customize unit behavior quite a bit without having to modify the rules as written at all.
  
• Instead of adding extra morale or enthusiasm levels at all, you might consider adding completely separate modifiers that apply only to special cases, e.g.:
  Stoic: ignores "Spent" modifier in close combat, treats "Panic" result on Maneuver table as one level better
  Poor: -1 in close combat (regardless of morale or fresh/worn/spent level)
  Militia: always in provisional command
  Levy: never get Fresh bonus to Maneuver rolls
  Elite: +1 to Maneuver rolls (follow orders regardless)
  Aggressive: May ignore Maneuver roll and move Well Handled if charging into Close Combat
  Stolid: ignores Fresh and Spent modifiers on Maneuver rolls
  Etc. ad nauseam
  

The flexibility to portray small but noticeable character differences between individual units and even commanders is one of the things I love most about RF&F, though I've never seen much of this done officially. I made a whole custom QRS for fighting a fictional war in 1866 Mexico between the US and France which shows some of my experiments, because I wanted to really bring out the wild and colorful nature of the setting.

- Ix

That was Kutuzov's genius.

Kutusov was no military genius. He lost at Durrenstein and Austerlitz in 1805 as well as Borodino and Maloyaroslavets in 1812.

And his deliberate failure to support Tshitshagov and Wittgenstein at the Berezina in November 1812 was disgraceful.

And there is evidence that he was both scared of and gun-shy of Napoleon after so many defeats…

Hello 14th NJ Vol!

Well your trying to convert a rule design from one period to another which is bound to be full of problems.

I would say that the basic four levels were probably one too many. Your six levels will only create more problems. It seems that a number of Napoleonic players feel that six levels are important, maybe so, but it pretty much makes it impossible for militia to ever beat a guard unit. In fact I suspect if you continue with your play testing you will probably find that any unit two levels higher will pretty much always come out ahead. So my first suggestion would be to simplify the situation, not complicate it. Why not just have "Poorly Trained", "Trained" and "Well Trained".

Your next problem is trying to generalize an entire army over a three year period. I guess you could do it, but it's probably not going to give you the balance that your seeking. An army changes from day to day so if you are going to lock yourself into this extended period you are going to have to accept an average. So just from reading this thread I would say that the majority of your Russians should be "Trained" and those that seem to have been above average, perhaps the Grenadiers, Guards, some Jagers, etc. "Well Trained" and randomly pick some troops of all types to be "Poorly Trained" as well as the Opolchenie. Keep in mind the entire concept of rating troops is simply for gaming purposes. Your previous attempts confirmed your rating was out of line and even with only three categories you will still probably need to juggle the various armies before you obtain the reasonable balance that your looking for.

I hope this helps you in some way.

Best regards,

Glenn

Though the Russian army did suffer from heavy losses it stayed intact and was not smashed to pieces like the ci devant Grande Armée of 1812.
Especially the cavalry did recover very well indeed and Russian eye witnesses remarked that it was better in 1813 than in 1812.
What a big contrast to France in this aspect for example.
All in all the stream of Russian resrvers being fed in – to beef up the losses worked remarkably well.
It would be very difficult in my view to just do an overall rating but some of the Jäger units
must be rated as top notch.

An excellent discussion thank you for all the inputs. Going with rating the line infantry Regulars and the Jagers Regulars with earlier regiments Crack.