"Whatever happened to Regulating Battalions?" Topic

A few years ago the TMP Collective was all a-twitter about "regulating battalions":

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

TMP link

Whatever happened to this? Did people publish wargames involving this concept? If so, who has played them and can report on how the concept actually worked out as a game?

Or was this just another "sound and fury" sort of episode?

Grand Manoeuvre link

I have them, but must admit I haven't brought them to the table. I may have a proper look in the New Year.

Doesn't Le Feu Sacre kinda use those? I.e. you have to have a brigade / division structure and each battalion formates on the leader?

General Bonaparte meets Chain of Command makes great use of regulating battalions in the ruleset. This is the prime method of movement and maneuver.

Multiple Reports here: link

from the rule book:

Directing Battalions
This should be a player's primary means of moving their force towards the enemy. It is the most efficient and orderly way of manoevering. Not only that, it is how the armies actually worked (see Appendix A)! Only once units are in combat does this mechanism cease to be useful.

To keep alignment between battalions in a regiment, a Colonel may be positioned at the head of a Directing Battalion. This battalion may regulate the movement of the Regiment in three ways:

1. The Directing Battalion moves first, with an additional 6" of movement, and may choose to move all or part of the distance allowed. The subsequent battalions now use the same distance roll as the Directing Battalion (i.e. they do not roll for movement independently) but take into account deductions due to Shock or Terrain.

2. The Directing Battalion halts, and the subsequent battalions now move to align with it (no need to throw dice), with a maximum 6" of movement.

3. The Directing Battalion changes formation. The subsequent battalions all make the same formation change.

To be eligible for this move, the battalions must be within 9" of each other, and there must be a clear line of sight (i.e no other troops, woods, built up areas or hills) between the battalions of the Regiment.

A Brigadier may use the same method to move units of multiple regiments.
If the Commander wishes to change the Directing Battalion, for example if it is fired on and stops to fire back, the Commander simply moves to the head of a different Battalion which now becomes the Directing Battalion.

John

Interesting.

To be eligible for this move, the battalions must be within 9" of each other, and there must be a clear line of sight (i.e no other troops, woods, built up areas or hills) between the battalions of the Regiment.

What happens if battalions aren't within 9", or they lack a clear LoS? Are they unable to move at all? Are they moved in some other way?

Indvidual units didn't move on blind faith, they were briefed as to where the Brigade was heading. For the most part an advance would be planned to avoid such disruption, if possible. An alternative arrangement would be to proceed to an identifiable point, collect the Brigade and re establish another reference point.

Otherwise it was a matter of bypassing the obstruction and realigning beyond it. Don't forget all the units would be marching at a common pace (march rates weren't beaten into recruits for the fun of it) and all stepped off at the same time, so unless the terrain varied a lot over a short distance, arriving at approximately the same point wasn't out of the question.

Only point of issue I have with the extract is "A Brigadier may use the same method". "May" doesn't enter into it! Regulation is how you moved a Brigade and a Division or even a Corps come to that.

The passage over elaborates slightly for all those occasions where there were only single battalion regiments present (ACW and British Napoleonic, most of the time, for example).

However, the principal is sound other than a need to point out that a Regimental commander, regardless of the number of battalions present, would be acting under his Brigade commanders instruction as to what unit would be the Regulating one. He didn't get to decide that for himself.

What happens if battalions aren't within 9", or they lack a clear LoS? Are they unable to move at all? Are they moved in some other way?

They may move individually if they have the activation to do so, but of course this would be in an uncoordinated fashion.

"They may move individually if they have the activation to do so, but of course this would be in an uncoordinated fashion."

Does that confer some sort of penalty in the game? Like, do they move less? Or have a penalty in combat?

In other words: is there some meaningful reward for using the regulating battalions? Or some punishment for not doing so?

Well movement is variable (3d6 in column), so the penalty should be obvious.

But if you need to know more there is a detailed analysis on my blog of the rules, just click on the link.

Thanks, I did. What I couldn't figure out is: what happens when the mother duck Regulating Bn moves in one way, given terrain, enemy, etc, but all of its duckling Bns, in order to follow it, would have to move in other ways.

For example, if you can be within 9" of the regulating Bn and still be regulated by it, that's a pretty broad spread of space for a brigade of, say six Bns. They could cover a couple of feet of tabletop. There could be a number of different terrain types and situations in that couple of feet.

If my Regulating Bn is the left-most of that brigade, and he advances without difficulty across open terrain and stops, but duckling 1 can't do so because of a marsh in his way, and duckling 2 is very close to the enemy and would have to stop long before he moved as much as the regulating Bn does, and duckling 3 is in a square because the enemy Cav threatened a charge last turn…. How does that all work out?

Basically I'm just wondering if Regulating Bns are a sort of historical bauble thrown onto the game, but in reality the units each need to do their own thing, as is usually the case in wargames.

The Directing Battalion moves first, with an additional 6" of movement, and may choose to move all or part of the distance allowed. The subsequent battalions now use the same distance roll as the Directing Battalion (i.e. they do not roll for movement independently) but take into account deductions due to Shock or Terrain.

Forgot to ask, why the additional 6" of movement? Is that a carrot for players to use Regulation instead of swanning about by individual battalion?

in reality the units each need to do their own thing, as is usually the case in wargames.

No, the reality in wargames, is that units each do their own thing.

That's not quite the same! :o)

As I posted on another thread where regulation was being discussed, not using regulation isn't a bauble, its part of what went on and not using it is like playing a Napoleonic Naval game that doesn't take into account which way the wind is blowing.

Sure, you can do it and still get a game but there is a major hole in the representation of what happened.

I've put on convention games where we put down a marker for which unit was the regulating battalion on the table top and they attracted a lot of attention.

Once the history behind them and the practical purpose was explained, people got the idea in a flash – a real "Yeah of course, I never thought of that!" moment, every time!

I guess seeing it makes it real.

No, the reality in wargames, is that units each do their own thing.

Yeah, that's what I meant.

As I posted on another thread where regulation was being discussed, not using regulation isn't a bauble, its part of what went on and not using it is like playing a Napoleonic Naval game that doesn't take into account which way the wind is blowing.

No, I'm asking if the way it's being used in games means that it's just a bauble. Does it really shape the way the game is played, and if so, how?

That's why I'm asking what happens in all those common war-game situations in which units face different sorts of terrains and the enemy, etc. Does the Regulating Bn rule hold up and control units in those circumstances, and if so, How. And if not, then what happens?

If you're just adding it to the game because "it happened in history," but the reality of the game is that units need to keep on acting and reacting the way they always have in other wargames before this became a Thing, then it's just a bauble.

If it totally changes the way units move and behave and interact, then I'd like to see how.

I think in a game situation it would change a lot. In fact, it would often prevent a lot of situations like facing different sorts of terrain.

In a way, it gets you to think of the brigade as a whole so you have to account for that. You may have to pass through a gap, for example. Well, that takes a lot of planning. But that is what officers did. Its wargamers who don't.

John: Is there a download somewhere for the GBCoC mod? I looked but the black background with blue type is very difficult for me to read.

In fact, it would often prevent a lot of situations like facing different sorts of terrain.

That would depend upon who sets up the table, right?

If a brigade has six units, with a frontage of three Bns, each about 4" wide and separated by about 6"… by my math that covers 2 feet of table.

Do you really need two feet of the same terrain, in order to make it work? And what happens if you don't have two feet of the same terrain? Or if an enemy moves close to one of those units, but not the other ones?

I'm just asking:

Does anybody have practical examples from actual, published rules, for how this works – or doesn't – in common war-game situations like that?

I'm not asking whether it's good in theory, or whether it's grounded in history. I'm asking how it works on the table, given the inevitable complications of terrain, the presence of the enemy, and so on.

Well, if you put the battalions in column …

Extra Crispy – do a cut & paste. "Select all", copy, and then open a super simple word processor like Notepad and paste. Presto, readable text.

General Bonaparte meets Chain of Command use random movement, basically up to 3 D6 for a column and 2D6 for a line. If a Brigade Commander doesn't not use the Directing battalion approach each battalion will roll separately so could end up more dispersed than it started since every unit has to move the distance rolled most of the time.

Using the Directing Battalion gives a greater degree of certainty since you only roll once for movement for all units in the Brigade, plus you gain a bonus 6". Equally important the Brigadier, or Regimental commander in the regiment's case, can choose to move less than the distance rolled. Thus again providing greater control.

How far individual battalions move will depend on terrains and the amount of shock they carry which can slow them down. But they can still try to keep pace because they can move up to the distance rolled less any deductions they need to make for terrain. A lead battalion in the open say can slow down if necessary to allow the laggards to catch up.

The rule does allow for a well handled Brigade to make a coordinated attack unlike one which does not use the Directing battalion whose attacks are likely to go in piecemeal.

ahh, next I'm going to start a topic on "regulating COMPANIES" (pelotons). Same idea.

Thanks archdukek, that's a great explanation.

The rule(s) appears to be a very neat incentivised method of keeping players engaged with the regulating principal and provides that element punishment and reward that I was saying RF&F lacks.

Also an unusual idea to blend elements of WW2 rules with Napolionics. How did that come about?

I found and read through some of those threads a while back and in my own rules I replaced a good number of movement rules with regulating brigades. I thought it sped things up. Instead of having to decide where each brigade went, measure command radius and so forth, you just chose where the regulating brigade went and then moved to form up with the rest of the brigade bases in the division. If you can't make it because of terrain getting in the way or something, then well, that's too bad in terms of brigades getting exposed flanks and gaps in the line and whatnot.

We didn't do the 9" thing, but instead had a rule where if a brigade started the turn not being able to see the brigade they were supposed to regulate towards they had a roll to see what they did. They might move to where they thought the brigade was (somewhat randomly determined), stay put, send out a junior officer on a horse to find their command and so forth. We liked having officers with different temperaments so we had a factor like that here.

It was also interesting to see how the direction of regulation mattered given the maneuvers we were attempting, the terrain that had to be crossed and so forth. Wheeling a division where the regulating brigade moved very little and basically pivoted was usually a mess compared to when the regulating brigade was on the longest point of the maneuver.

I think the place to put the incentive for using the mechanic is in a flanking bonus. In a really big problem when a unit is attacked in the flank or the rear. We had a "my flank is vulnerable!" modifier on the checks for brigades that broke contact with their division too close to the enemy. The bolder brigadiers would be more likely to not care as much as they should. Generally though we went with a brigade that lost contact with their brigade of regulation and was threatened by the enemy as being very cautious.

We handled special individual brigade maneuvering as part of formation changes on the divisional level. So if a division arrives at a ridge line they want to hold but needs to put their 2nd brigade a bit further ahead and on an angle and their 3rd brigade a bit further back and on a different angle they can do so. It ended up being super fast and obvious where we'd activate the division and go "they hold the curve of this hill and the 3rd brigade holds the village a little further down" and just arrange them.

I do like the idea of introducing more friction like General Bonaparte meets Chain of Command has.

Then my friend moved across country and took his Napoleonic collection with him. :D

Sorry I disappeared, I was off playing CoC WWII all day.

The rule(s) appears to be a very neat incentivised method of keeping players engaged with the regulating principal and provides that element punishment and reward that I was saying RF&F lacks.

I believe that is why myself and Archdukek so like this ruleset.

The ruleset is still in playtest, so is not available generally.

Also an unusual idea to blend elements of WW2 rules with Napolionics. How did that come about?

I would not say that the rules are a blend of WWII rules with Napoleonics, but more are a Napoleonic ruleset that utilizes mechanisms that are common to the Too Fat Lardies stable of rulesets.

Here Friction and Playing the Period are the important principles and that is what this ruleset is trying to represent. Thus variable movement and variable activation, a concept that I find causes some Napoleonic gamers disquiet, are important to the game.

John

ps Mike, the guy I was playing CoC with today, pointed out to me that Republic to Empire has a form of regulating battalions as well.

As John de Terre Neuve says the rules are not a blend of WW2 and Napoleonics. They do, however, make use of a Command Dice mechanism for command & control similar to that introduced in Chain of Command except that here a roll of '1' activates a battalion up to a '4' activating the commanding divisional general, with '5' and '6' having special effects.

Being blunt, could a set if rules which uses such historical mechanics, but which flies in the face of what Wargamers are used to, I.e. complete freedom when moving their battalions, ever be successful commercially?

Thanks for the comments guys. I think "blend" was the wrong word. I meant that it's unusual to lift or be inspired to use ideas from rules where the periods are that far apart.

I realise it's really a matter of transferring mechanisms, not bits of history as such but it's not something you see every day, so well done for spotting the opportunity!

Current Lardies games generally don't give you complete freedom when moving right now. I hear they do pretty well commercially speaking.

It sounds like in this case you are still free to move your battalions as independent commands if you really want to (assuming the opponent just sits there and waits so you can generate enough dice results) but the friction will be incredible.

Using regulating battalions:
Some wargamers have been doing this for years and not been too aware of it. People have told me this about when they`ve seen my rules on regulation.
Actually, it is good practice in wargaming the period of linear warfare (Napoleonics included).

Essentially, the practice concerns arriving to engage an enemy in good order, whether deployed or formed in columns.

Not dividing your own force is very important if "the line" is be strong enough to overcome the enemy`s.
Knowing this in the game is almost as important as it was in the real world.

What my rules do is simply describe the historical method, they are quite basic and easy to learn, as they were for soldiers at the time.

These methods were used back to antiquity to the anicent greeks who used audible signals (trumpets, horns) and standards and insignia to signal troops movements.

In this period, regulation was based on units/battalions, but larger commands used brigades, and divisions as "directing" formations; it was a simple pricinple of follow-the-leader which was scaled up.

I`ve used these rules since 2005. In my games I find that it is much easier to use these rules to manoeuvre large grand-tactical formations than it is when I play some more conventional, commercially successful rules which allow players to micromanage individual battalions.

The rules make it easier to keep things together, but harder to do the really stupid thing of dividing your forces in face of an enemy.

As for commercial success – It ain`t big wargaming biz producing rules that use historical mechanics – I only get pocket money from this, but it`s what I enjoy doing.

A Grand Manoeuvre game example using regulating rules:
link

If a Brigade Commander doesn't not use the Directing battalion approach each battalion will roll separately so could end up more dispersed than it started since every unit has to move the distance rolled most of the time.

IF? IF? If he doesn't 'use' it, he is basically losing any control he has over his brigade--it is only this battalion or that when he can reach them. Historically, where do we see brigade commanders 'not using' the directing brigade approach???

Using the Directing Battalion gives a greater degree of certainty since you only roll once for movement for all units in the Brigade, plus you gain a bonus 6". Equally important the Brigadier, or Regimental commander in the regiment's case, can choose to move less than the distance rolled. Thus again providing greater control.

Of course, it provided 'greater certainty' and 'control.' That was what they were for. It was the primary means of control for the brigadier. Otherwise it was just a bunch of battalions which he had to control individually *somehow.* Considering the lack of aides and couriers at that level, it wasn't something a brigadier did… 'not use' what was the steering wheel and gas pedal for his entire command.

The rules make it easier to keep things together, but harder to do the really stupid thing of dividing your forces in face of an enemy.

Michael:

I have found that to be true in wargames. Military men worked to create systems that were simple, that would stand up to the chaos of battle, which included making it difficult to do stupid things. If you represent those systems successfully in a game, they should also end up being simple and provide the same brakes on stupidity.

In his Tactical Treatise contained in On War, Clausewitz noted that the further down the command hierarchy one went, the less responsibilities, control and decision-making ability you found until you came to the company commander who had very little to do other than keep his men in formation and their cohesion intact.

He noted that the most inexperienced officers were at the lowest levels and in battle saw very little of the situation… which is why you don't want them getting creative to taking initiative outside their purview.

Mike, the guy I was playing CoC with today, pointed out to me that Republic to Empire has a form of regulating battalions as well.

News to me, although I have to confess that regardless of ploughing through them several times after I bought them and thinking they might be good. When it came to playing them I just waved goodbye to the money and moved on.

Clausewitz noted that the further down the command hierarchy one went, the less responsibilities, control and decision-making ability you found until you came to the company commander who had very little to do other than keep his men in formation and their cohesion intact.

That's really the basis of the answer to this idea of "What if the players don't like it and want to move individual battalions?" stuff.

Are we dealing with children here?

If you turn up at a chess club for a game and want to move your Bishop horizontally as well as diagonally, you will get told where to go.

If players turn up to a wargame where the rules stipulate Regulation and they want to move every battalion individually, show them the history and that the rules don't allow it and suggest they might like to try table tennis instead!

Or maybe we should take a vote on if British Heavy Dragoons might have been armed with Bazookas.

McLaddie,
I said "If" because not all of your Brigadiers may be activated in any single turn or an activated Brigadier may decide to use his limited Command Initiatives of which he has 3 for some other purpose, to drive home a battalion's attack or remove shock to name 2 examples.

In either case the player has the option of allowing the units in the Brigade to move forward individually but at the risk of disrupting his whole brigade attack. He might choose to limit movement to 1 D6 to limit the consequences, but that is his choice.

A knowledgeable player will always choose to us the Directing Battalion approach when he can for precisely the reasons you say, but he doesn't have to. In the TFL rules family using historical tactics are rewarded, but players are still free to make idiots of themselves if they choose by not doing so. Sometimes the unorthodox can work but it is a risk.

I said "If" because not all of your Brigadiers may be activated in any single turn or an activated Brigadier may decide to use his limited Command Initiatives of which he has 3 for some other purpose, to drive home a battalion's attack or remove shock to name 2 examples.

In either case the player has the option of allowing the units in the Brigade to move forward individually but at the risk of disrupting his whole brigade attack. He might choose to limit movement to 1 D6 to limit the consequences, but that is his choice.

A knowledgeable player will always choose to us the Directing Battalion approach when he can for precisely the reasons you say, but he doesn't have to.

In the TFL rules family using historical tactics are rewarded, but players are still free to make idiots of themselves if they choose by not doing so. Sometimes the unorthodox can work but it is a risk.

archdukek:

I can understand that the brigadier could be off doing a number of things, and I certainly agree with the approach that players are free to be idiots if they want. I can also see in an attack that a brigadier may push forward a single battalion in the final attack… but that appears to be different from

If a Brigade Commander doesn't not use the Directing battalion approach each battalion will roll separately so could end up more dispersed than it started since every unit has to move the distance rolled most of the time.

A brigadier may do all the things you describe, but that wouldn't lead him, or require him, to 'not use the directing battalion approach.' It wasn't something he could turn on and off at will, anymore than you can decide to run to the store in your car with the engine turned off, any more than a band leader decide another 'approach' to the band's planned and practiced routine in the middle of a half-time performance.

Every battalion and its leadership was working very hard to maintain that 'approach.' They have practiced it and it is how they take direction as part of the brigade. There are many examples of a single battalion being taken to do different things separately. And certainly in the final assault the brigadier could push this or that battalion. Invariably, that battalion would be taken from the end of the line--it wasn't done from 'the middle of the line' unless the brigade had already dissolved or it was a supporting line plugging a gap in the first line to its front, in which case the new battalion[s] would follow the regulating battalion of the first line.

But if the brigadier chooses to go to another part of the line, his regulating battalion will still follow his orders and his brigade will follow… and generally, the brigadier could go to any battalion and with a preparatory command, repeated down the line, have the regulating battalion lead the brigade in the new movement or direction. And another practice was dividing a brigade into 'wings' or half of the brigade, but again, this is a trained procedure where both wings have their own regulating battalion.

I may have misinterpreted what you were saying, but if I am correct, those are my thoughts on it. And I have been following the discussions on the rules development on the LFS and TFL lists.

I hate to press this point, but how would you sell these rules to someone who plays Black Powder? I use that particular rule set as it strikes me as by far and away the most popular rule set for Napoleonics, but it certainly has nothing like this in there.

You can't dismiss all Black Powder players as being the boy who want to move the Bishop incorrectly at chess, they are normal, average Wargamers. If this CoC spin-off wants to be a success it will need to appeal to precisely this crowd. Where do you begin to sell them the idea? Certainly not by telling them they have all got it wrong up to now.

I hate to press this point, but how would you sell these rules to someone who plays Black Powder? I use that particular rule set as it strikes me as by far and away the most popular rule set for Napoleonics, but it certainly has nothing like this in there.

NM: Sure it does. First, it has Brigade Orders when its units are close together [but not in any particular formation, which is at least in the ballpark.] Then the rules go wrong allowing the player to break up the brigade anyway he wants to, when he wants to. [Rather along 'wings' or half procedures] Then there are free moves and initiative moves that have individual units within the brigade moving any which way. Finally, there's the "Follow Me" rules. The problem is that the method is presented as a rare occurrence rather than the absolute norm, and then appears to restrict it to only columns. I am not sure how popular BP is compared to other sets in popularity, but that isn't the issue here.

You can't dismiss all Black Powder players as being the boy who want to move the Bishop incorrectly at chess, they are normal, average Wargamers. If this CoC spin-off wants to be a success it will need to appeal to precisely this crowd. Where do you begin to sell them the idea? Certainly not by telling them they have all got it wrong up to now.

"They" haven't gotten it "all wrong" nor is anyone 'dismissing' players because of this point. This isn't a player's issue at all. It is a design issue. And as far as "representing real combat" in the 19th Century--which was the designers' expressed intent--Black Powder got those particular points wrong…. I will say, as far as I can see, as I don't have a clue what historical information the designers were trying to represent with the movement rules.

If the players don't know that, or don't care, that is fine with me. They can enjoy the game with my blessing, if that is necessary…not! I am not interested in selling them on 'the idea' that BP got it all wrong. The point of that would be?

However, I think it is clear that real combat in the 19th century wasn't represented well by BP on those particular points above. And if players want to, it is fairly easy to change the rules so they do a better job.

Actually McLaddie the draft TFL rules would allow the brigadier to make the various choices you describe selecting which battalion was to be the directing one or dividing the brigade in two, a task made easier for those made up of Regiments whose Commander can control such movement at the regimental level.

What the rules don't say is that a battalion can only be moved as part of a brigade or regimental manoeuvre.

In the previous version of the rules a unit whose Brigade or Regimental Commander had not be activated could only move 1 D6. So it was pretty limited in what it could do. Possibly you would regard that as a more historically accurate outcome. However, the downside was that games could be quite prolonged and anything up to a third of a Division might be inactive for prolonged periods.

To make the games more decisive the author has increased the potential range of movement of such units in the latest version which John and I are separately play testing.. This does mean they can play a more active part in the battle and does make the games run quicker. Whether this increased playability is at the expense of strict historical accuracy I cannot yet judge.

Northern Monkey,
To be honest I think it is a challenge for any new Napoleonic ruleset to break into a market heavily dominated by Black Powder and others such as General De Brigade. However to date Too Fat Lardies have enjoyed considerable success by following a strategy of producing rules which do reflect the historical tactics of the period in question while still being an enjoyable and challenging gaming experience.

If you look at the success of Chain of Command in a market dominated by Bolt Action as one example, I think you will find that sales have increased as players have turned to Chain of Command as providing a much more historically plausible experience in which you can use historical organisations and tactics with success. While many people enjoy Bolt Action as a game, I think many others including myself find Chain of Command to be a much more rewarding experience and a better representation of WW2 warfare rather than being a game in a WW2 setting.

From my own experience to date I think that as and when TFL choose to publish these draft Napoleonic rules, if they so decide, players wil try them and make the same kind of choice to move away from an enjoyable but very generic set of rules like Black Powder to one which creates a more accurate representations of Napoleonic warfare.

It will be very much a case of try them and see for yourself.

In the previous version of the rules a unit whose Brigade or Regimental Commander had not be activated could only move 1 D6.

archdukek:
Well, here's the thing. Why would the subunit of a brigade move if the brigade didn't?

So it was pretty limited in what it could do. Possibly you would regard that as a more historically accurate outcome. However, the downside was that games could be quite prolonged and anything up to a third of a Division might be inactive for prolonged periods.

So no, I wouldn't regard that as a more historical outcome. If the failure of a brigade[s] to activate for long periods of time slows the game down, then perhaps the roll for activation isn't historical, or at least far too harsh. The whole point of a regulating battalion/brigade was to keep things moving.

Personally, I always find activation rolls [Or hesitant rolls or initiative rolls etc.] something of a clunker. No one seems to have attempted to calculate how OFTEN troops didn't move or were hesitant etc., if that is the history dynamic being represented. Instead, it is just assumed to have happened and how often is whatever 'feels right', based on 'who knows what?'

So, in answer to the original question; regulating battalions are still going.
I`ve used them in my Napoleonic rules since 2005 and in my recent C19th variant which goes up until 1851.

They will be there too in my new ancient rules (in development) for all of the more civilised of armies; the Greeks, Macedonians, Carthaginians, & the Romans.

Northern Monkey,

Like other BP players, you have freedom of choice.

But…

1. Visit my website at: grandmanoeuvre.co.uk
…there`s loads of information about how the rules work there.

2. See how games like these are possible:

Waterloo (2015)

Waterloo (2015)

Amstetten (2014)

Amstetten (2015)

Castiglione/Solferino

Wagram

…and see how orderly and how controlled – how regulated they are ?

Northern Monkey,

Where do you begin to sell them the idea? Certainly not by telling them they have all got it wrong up to now.

OK, this right here, is me, quoting me!

I've put on convention games where we put down a marker for which unit was the regulating battalion on the table top and they attracted a lot of attention.

Once the history behind them and the practical purpose was explained, people got the idea in a flash – a real "Yeah of course, I never thought of that!" moment, every time!

I guess seeing it makes it real.

Its not telling people they are wrong, its explaining that rules writers haven't told them what's right!

I've played dozens of rules representing periods right across the spectrum of when regulating was practised, from Ancients to ACW and stops in between, none of them have given it so much as a glance.

Some may have had a disguised mechanism that wrapped it up in the movement rules, more often than not under a host of invented reasons for keeping tight formations with in game punishment and extra dice rolls but none have addressed it directly, much less explained how it worked and how easy it is to follow.

I have no idea why. There are published rule writers I know personally, whose historical knowledge I respect, who don't use it, while they happily refine other parts of their rule systems to enhance the historical content and improve game play!!!!!!

However,my experience is most certainly "If you build it they will come"

Look a Mike's photos – that's what a Napoleonic battle looks like – its not the free for all BP allows, nor a lot of other rules come to that.

Nothing to do with the scale of the miniatures or the size of the action, even if you are playing Brigades one on one with 28mm, if your drone was overhead it would still look like that last picture.

With not a petulant child chess player in sight! :o)

Look a Mike's photos – that's what a Napoleonic battle looks like – its not the free for all BP allows, nor a lot of other rules come to that.

Agreed they look great.

In the previous version of the rules a unit whose Brigade or Regimental Commander had not be activated could only move 1 D6.

archdukek:
Well, here's the thing. Why would the subunit of a brigade move if the brigade didn't?

I believe the operative word above is could. In the current rules you may move each battalion their full movement, but again the operative word is may. You do so with the risk of losing your cohesion i.e. 1 battalion move 18" and another moves 3".

Personally, I always find activation rolls [Or hesitant rolls or initiative rolls etc.] something of a clunker. No one seems to have attempted to calculate how OFTEN troops didn't move or were hesitant etc., if that is the history dynamic being represented. Instead, it is just assumed to have happened and how often is whatever 'feels right', based on 'who knows what?'

and of course that is your opinion. I believe myself and John E (Archdukek) would have the opinion that we like friction in our games, as represented in this specific game as Activation rolls.

Neil Shuck had a great blogpost about different activation systems link

John

Personally, I always find activation rolls [Or hesitant rolls or initiative rolls etc.] something of a clunker. No one seems to have attempted to calculate how OFTEN troops didn't move or were hesitant etc., if that is the history dynamic being represented. Instead, it is just assumed to have happened and how often is whatever 'feels right', based on 'who knows what?'

Difficult one to judge. More than one Brigade decided not to budge at Gettysburg as I recall.

In fact over the course of the war there were quite a few. Of course that has to be set off against the number that did so which comes back to the "how often".

Thanks for bringing this up again. I was unaware of this entire concept until this thread. I immediately felt dumb for not knowing about it, but since Friday I've been reviewing various resources on Napoleonic tactics, and I'm finding the concept of regulating formations under-emphasized or even unmentioned. Curious, and disappointing.

If anyone reading this has tried to apply this concept to Lasalle, I'd love to see what you came up with. I haven't yet come across any house rules to implement regulating battalions in the game. I can't help suspect that proper application of the regulating battalion concept might also elegantly evaporate the dense gangs of attack columns that dominate Lasalle battlefields.

- Ix

PS: Let me also make a special thank you to Garth in the Park for reposting links to all those previous TMP discussions. I'm still working my way through those discussions (that is some really DENSE reading there… oof!), but they are well worth reading.

- Ix

I believe the operative word above is could.

John:

Then the answer is it couldn't, a battalion commander would not, could not voluntarily move out ahead of its brigade--without consequences, both battlefield and military. You see, the battalion on the side away from the regulating unit would follow that battalion. He might be forced to catch up to his brigade or forced to move forward because of terrain etc. or he might even be individually ordered to [requiring a unique order] but he wouldn't be 'allowed' to make that decision.

I believe myself and John E (Archdukek) would have the opinion that we like friction in our games, as represented in this specific game as Activation rolls.

I guess I wasn't clear. I like friction in my games too. The activation rolls can represent this friction. In this case, the die roll represents the 'chances' of that friction affecting units. That means representing the real life probability. I have yet to see anyone work to establish that…or even try getting in the ballpark other than the 'feels right' response, which leaves me asking 'why?' and 'compared to what?' [I am assuming compared to some historical source it means to mimic, but I haven't seen that.]

@John de terre

I am eagerly waiting for these rules – they sound really good

In a report on your blog you have a reference to

passage of lines (one of my favourite rules)

Could you describe this rule please ?

Thanks

John (not the potato)

Yellow Admiral,

Which Napoleonic resources have you been looking at? Over the years I've found tactical use and standard procedures a bit thin on the ground, almost as if the exceptional was noted rather than the routine.

This is compounded by original sources being in half a dozen languages, of course.

The Civil War has the advantage of English, more educated participants and cheap printing, not to mention the sizeable resource of the Offical Record.

Great for Civil War buffs but as all the drill and procedures are direct descendents of the earlier period, practical things like Regulating and the Equalization of companies and their use in battle turn up there as well !

One period informs the other. Down through the Crimea and the Mexican war moving and fighting close order bodies of troops stayed the same and makes it easier to follow what happened both in 1815 and 1865.

If anyone reading this has tried to apply this concept to Lasalle, I'd love to see what you came up with. I haven't yet come across any house rules to implement regulating battalions in the game. I can't help suspect that proper application of the regulating battalion concept might also elegantly evaporate the dense gangs of attack columns that dominate Lasalle battlefields.

OK, retrieved my copy from the "money spent I'll never get back" pile and it seems to me that if you scrap moving every individual unit within a "Force" (what is it with Sam and renaming things?) then nominate a regulating unit with in the "Force" it's job done!

If part of the "Force" has Reduced movement applied to it, either move the rest and then hold them till it catches up, or Reduce all of them.

I'd suggest that Regulation be enforced until 4BW from the enemy line which is a trigger for several things that already match the idea that a proximity to the enemy triggers events or actions, then shooting and combat take over.

As Charging is a move into contact I'd suggest that none occurs from outside 4BW, Infantry already can't and as far as cavalry goes, they have the advantage of getting to 4BW faster as it is. This essentially simplifies regulation to a matter of delivering any Brigade on target, which is why it existed.

The above may have just proved it but I've never played Lasalle, just read them, so if this is all nuts let me know. I'd also like to hear about the "dense gangs of attack columns" too!

archdukek:

Just to be clear, I have been focused on one aspect of the larger rules set you are helping develop. I think it sounds promising, so just to be clear, I'm not dumping on the project, but questioning some of the RB mechanics described here. You've played it, I haven't.