"Brigade Level Game Design" Topic

Yes, like companies, regiments was organisational, not tactical units. However, Osterreicher is right.

If we desire to play big battles, batallion units are overkill. In same time brigade units kill the "heart and soul". So only logical solution is to divide brigade to abstract game units. And two batallion units are perfect and most reasonable solution.

Sho Boki-

What about 2 x 100m squares for each brigade? This way the brigade can deploy in depth and in line?

I prefer to see the actual deploy and unvisible bases, not overpopulated abstract squares. So my two-batallion units have 4 bases, all bases twice wider than depth. Battalions are represented by two such bases inside abstract unit, wich actually in most cases IS regiment. So formation of battalions are allways clearly visible and maps related, without managing on battalion level.

"Also, would anyone debate the proposition that a brigade would never deploy all of its battalions in a single line absent some extraordinary tactical circumstance?"

In most of cases I know trained troops usually deployed in a single line, if this was possible. Why such proposition?

An interesting debate. My preference is that the Division is the lowest level of command but it is made up of a number of bases – typically 4 approximating to a Brigade or multi-battalion regiment

These bases can be in line, in multiple lines, in depth (assembly) and in road march using different bases to represent this.

You can still get to see a division make an attack as St Hillaire but not in detail. You can however represent the wider battle as a whole.

Within the battalion, I agree, but within the brigade, I have my doubts. If you placed four or five battalions in one line you would end up with a 500m frontage under one officer. The real problem is that the tactical situation on one end of the formation could be different from the situation on the other, which would complicate reinforcements, which would have to come from another regiment. You'd be mixing brigades in combat.

Mike- I'm working on some rules where the lowest level unit that can attack is a division. I think this is the most historically accurate representation. A brigade could attack locally, but that's all.

@Mike
The Division is lowest unit with multiple bases, or the bases are lowest units?

@fowardmarchstudios
Look Waterloo, almost all British Brigades in one line. Maybe French too, but my maps don't show, are the Brigades one beside other or side by side.
Or Borodino, the same for most Russians.
Or some Austrians at Wagram.

I'm not sure about the Russians- the French formation opposite the fleches were 27 ranks deep IIRC, so they couldn't have been in single lines, since there were only 3 brigades per division (of 5 battalions each). If they were all in one line they would be 9 ranks deep. To achieve 27 ranks they would have to be in column (9 ranks per battalion) and three battalions deep (two battalions in a square to the front, and a single battalion to the rear of those. Complicating the French at Borodino is that the battalions were incredibly small by that point due to attrition.

"almost all British Brigades in one line" -- To make sure we're talking about the same thing, I'm saying that you wouldn't see this:

_______________________ Division (500m)

Brigade 1 (500m) xxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx

Brigade 2 (500m) xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx

But this:

____________________Division (400m)____________________

_____Brigade 1 (200m)_________Brigade 2 (200m)

xxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxx___________xxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxxx___________xxxxxxx_xxxxxxxxx

_____xxxxxxx___________________xxxxxxx

The underscores are open space, I had to put them in there because the text box removes extra spaces…

I wrote:

I understand that the appeal of brigades as a maneuver element is appealing to those desiring a shorter but large game, but I can't see the Napoleonic impulse system on display here, and the game won't any good map showing the flow of the battle.

meant to write:

I understand that the appeal of brigades as a maneuver element is appealing to those desiring a shorter but large game, but I can't see the Napoleonic impulse system on display here, and the game won't MIRROR any good map (like Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars or the Atlas of the Peninsular War) showing the flow of the battle.

@Sho, all 4 (or more) bases have to operate as a contiguous body but it could be a thin line (eg Brits at Waterloo), a less wide and deeper series of lines (so two bases wide and two deep) or as a reserve in assembly formation, four bases one behind the other.

I do allow a limited number of Senior Staff Officers to lead ad-hoc battlegroups the French get a few, much rarer for the others. This essentially creates ad-hoc "divisions" weakening the original formations. This can generate the impulse if desired.

forwardmarch – I think the British deployements were more subtle. It seems that close or quarter distance columns on the centre were used, deploying into line late but at the desired point follow some lateral movement. For the brigade it seems the battalions were in these columns in a single line with deployment intervals between them.

@forwardmarchstudios
I am sure about the Russians at Borodino. All positions of every Regiments inside of Divisions are known. French were packed on tiny area, so they simply cannot be in Brigade lines.

Mike explained, as British Brigades were deployed at Waterloo. Columns in line at first, in morning, ready to escape, and in full lines later, for battle.

I can deploy my Brigades on all this ways clearly and sharply, shoving the position of every battalion, but I doubt, that this is possible with only two squares.

@Mike
I suppose, that this is not multiplayer game at all. Because there will be only 2-6 units for Corps Commander, without any chain of command. One hour turns with 3-4km moves?

Hello Sho Boki & Osterreicher!

Thanks for the +1's, in life you never know when you might need one!

Hello jwebster (John)!

Yes, a muti-base brigade is what I'm talking about, but not an artificial one. One that has a single base for every battalion or regiment and battery in the brigade. You also want to be able to see the regiments within the Brigade. Keep in mind that regiments come in all sizes from a single battalion to over five. So I think they can be tactical, grand tactical and even strategic.

As to your final question yes, brigade level is a sensible way to game several corps battles, but they don't have to be single base units.

Hello FMS!

There was a time when I would have agreed with you that Brigades don't deploy in a single line with another Brigade behind them. However, I've been researching Napoleonic battles for over 40 years and have found that a single line deployment for a Brigade was used. So all of your diagrams are active deployment possibilities. This is why I'm calling the multi-based Brigade the real "heart & soul" of Napoleonic warfare. It's here where the deployment/formation is critical, not the formations of the battalions. As probably 99% of the time they were in the proper formation for the situation at hand.

Hello Mike the Analyst!

While I appreciate we all have to make compromises and use abstractions. It sounds like your Divisions are generic. If so then I think you might be unable to capture what I see as the "heart and soul" of Napoleonic warfare. Historical Divisions come in all sizes and it's this difference that spices up the game when they contact each other. It's very similar to the old basic challenge of what formation should my battalion be in when I contact the enemy. Only this is the bigger picture with bigger consequences, if you get it wrong. So if your Division has been compromised to a generic size, so will the solutions. This is one of the biggest problems that a lot of 25/28mm and some 15mm players have when they play games with what they call Divisions, but are really regiments or small Brigades.

Best regards,

Glenn

Most typical 4 battalion Brigade in line.. two units with 4 bases each and Brigade General.

Second such line behind these and we have typical French Division at Waterloo.

hi there

You can design rules for a large battle where battalions are represented as individual independent things.

It just requires simple and perhaps brutal rules for conflict at the battalion level and some ingenuity about command / morale / enthusiasm and consequent victory and loss at the higher levels of the army.

By way of example DBm/m armies of 60-80 'independent things' can be completed in 3-4 hours.

David F Brown

Sho Boki- Interesting.
So, in your rules you need 8 bases minimum to represent a brigade? Do the two units refer to a regiment?

The abstract brigade question is really quite interesting… almost inexhaustible. I'm working on a single-base brigade game at the moment, but it uses ZOCs to deal with the issue of changing brigade frontage. This game is in 3mm, so I take advantage of the scale to create very large table-tops of dozens of square miles of terrain. Basically, the base itself is 1" square, which is 200m of frontage. However, it also has a ZOC that extends nominally to 2" in frontage- the brigade bases can enter flank to flank contact if they want, which represents a deployment in depth. This way, you can assume that the brigade commander is deploying his troops in the best manner possible, even when that extends physically beyond the dimensions of the game piece. It also fixes the problem of exaggerated depth when several brigades are deployed in depth. Also, because the artillery bases are .5 inches wide, or 100m, this means that the arty foot print is fairly close to being historically correct- it is a bit too wide probably, but not by too much.

I really need to get some more pictures of a few games up on my blog one of these days…. maybe over Spring Break…

@forwardmarchstudios

Brigade is organisation under Brigade General with one or more units. These units may be named as Regiments, if appropriate.

Amount of units will be calculated by numerical strength and organisational structure. So if original starting Brigade consist with two Regiments and 1200 men, for example, then we may present the Brigade as with one full Unit or two weak Units, by our taste. Two Units in this case means less coherent Brigade.

Also we must not forgot, that speaking about battalions-brigades as "heart and soul" when we play as Corps Commanders, the commanding system, chain of command, plays decisive role. Wich means, that being Corps Commanders, we want to control all our Brigade Units. But we can't do this directly, if our player General figure (PG) is'nt near, but through subordinated nonplayer Divisional and Brigade Generals (NPG).

So perfect game is when perfect commanding system, perfect units organisation and perfect visual met on table.

The rules I use stress operational movement and the regiment as the basic tactical element in terms of resolving combat, but each regiment has individual battalions on 3 stands of 4 figures each (varies of course by period and army).

For operational movement the division is the basic maneuver element, with the regiments arranged, like Saint Hilaire's wedge at Austerlitz or the Prussian 3 depth brigades in 1813-15. When the divisions move the units keep their position until they get close enough to the enemy to resolve tactical combat.

With this type of framework, you see formations of battalions/regiments, and also see the layout/deployment of divisions. As I hinted earlier, I like seeing a deployment that mirrors maps from the Atlas of the Napoleonic Wars and the Peninsular War Atlas.

I personally like having musket fire (fire combat) and close combat (a charge of some sort or very close range firing), but the game is mostly about command, control, and cohesion. That is, the goal of the player/leader is to ensure the most opportunities for their regiments to act, and to insure that any wavering or routed units are rallied.

I think this type of game gives the best balance to the visually appealing layout, deployment, and maneuver of a Napoleonic battle. Coupled with a resolution within a reasonable time frame. Most of the wish list shown earlier is present in the rules:

Things I don't want
- musket fire. If the effective range of a musket is less than the width of a battalion in line, then in a brigade level game it gets ridiculous.
=> personally I want to have this present
- lots of attributes for each brigade. That's just me, and perhaps unavoidable if you want to have clear quality distinctions between brigades. I like to do more moving and dicing than looking up stuff in tables or having lots of markers and counters on the gaming table
=> try to keep these modifiers reasonable, most combat situations only 3-5 might apply

Things I do want
- "Napoleonic flavor" – the basic thing for me is it has to be different from an 18th C battle, which I believe to be all about command and control and not "National characteristics"
=> agree, for me it's what the battle looks like, if I were in a balloon over the battle field, but also stress command and control
- some form of distinction between regular, veteran, elite etc. troops. I believe this had significant impact on tactical success and failure, and can be used to replace "National characteristics"
=> agree, we use a smaller scale than say empire, but the difference are there
- some form of points system so at least we can assess whether one side's numerical superiority was significant. Note that although we have accurate records of numbers of troops that took part in a particular battle, we have to make our own assessments of how effective each unit was.
=> even with historical OOBs it's nice to see how the balanced the sides are
- finish a large battle in (no more than) 6-8 hours of playing time
=> agree, 3 division games on a Friday night should be 2-3 hours, larger multi corps games should be no more than 6
- skirmisher impact. Skirmishers were often deployed at a brigade (or even divisional level). They can screen attacks and prevent enemy from advancing (to some extent). Not sure whether having skirmish ability as a brigade attribute is good enough. If we have multi base brigade then I would want to see some skirmish bases in there
=> in tactical combat, skirmishing is resolved separate but complimentary to other combat, formed regiments firing, artillery firing, charges, etc. I think it's an interesting difference from say SYW that should be at least present, if abstracted.
- special rules for assaulting and defending towns etc.
=> agree
- realistic proportions of infantry/cavalry/artillery. An understanding that artillery train and guns were separate units might also be nice.
- wargame table in scale for whole battle which might be 3-5 miles in each direction. This means movement, time scale etc. has to fit.
=> this is why I like having a 12 figure battalion mounted 2 deep on a stand, so that the battlefield is doubled compared to single rank units, and divisions can attempt grand maneuvers.

I would anticipate two big stumbling points for many people
- want to see column line square
=> I need to see these visually, even if the rules are not super complicated on changing formation or differentiating between different column types.
- want to have musket fire
=> I want this
- can't make each unit obey my commands exactly at all times
=> I want some kind of chaos to be present so the player won't know totally how units will act or behave.

David (der Österreicher)

Glenn, no worries. I use divisions ranging from 2 to 6 bases depending on strength. I am also using 6mm figs and looking at the whole battle level rather than a corps vs corps action. You have to compromise on the detail and move the player to a higher level of command.

Thanks to all for a great discussion

I have another question

____________________Division (400m)____________________

_____Brigade 1 (200m)_________Brigade 2 (200m)

xxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxx___________xxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxx

xxxxxxxx_xxxxxxxxx___________xxxxxxx_xxxxxxxxx

_____xxxxxxx___________________xxxxxxx

In this formation (and other formations could be used), the front line engages the enemy

In actual battles, how did the front line retreat to let the second (and third) line support it ?

Did they retreat in disorder and attempt to reform behind the last line ? What was the expectation in training ?

Thanks

John

G'Day John

It is not a French Division in accordance to l'ordre perpendiculaire (1803 onward).

This is more like the system of 1770.

This dispositif was formed in such a manner, that ordinarily the division was arranged on two lignes. Infantry formed in the center, and the cavalry on the wings.

The interval between battalions of the premiere ligne and the seconde ligne was between 120 to 140 toise or more. In a country "coupe & difficile", there was an added interval of 12 to 15 paces between the escadrons.

The distance of 120 to 140 toise between the lignes was considered sufficient; when the premiere ligne was aux mains (engaged in combat) with the enemy, with the seconde ligne just out of musket range, but not too far, as not to be able to give assistance to the premiere ligne if needed. Normally in the French System; the premiere ligne had more troops, because it had to confront the enemy ligne de bataille.

Therefore the objective of the seconde ligne was to reinforce or send a body of troops; to the troops of the premiere ligne, who were being man handled by the enemy. It was also considered an excellent general principle, of positioning battalions on the flanks en potence.

As for a passage of lines

For most wargame designers today, they explain that the passage of lines as being too complex to execute, and that it was easily disordered by untrained troops executing a passage of lines.

With that said it is very important for the wargame designer to understand that there are two types of passage of lignes; a passage de lignes en retrait, and the passage de lignes offensive ou en avancant.

But that is not the true reason behind the disinclination of Commanders to execute a passage of lines.

The aim to understanding why a commander was reluctant is twofold;

1)…Which of the two types of passage de lignes were executed; a passage de lignes en retrait, or then there is a passage de lignes offensive ou en avancant.

2)…Why was the passage de lignes executed.

Hence the misunderstanding is that the Commander was reluctant to execute a passage de lignes en retrait in the proximity of the enemy. But this should not be confused with a passage of lignes offensive ou en avancant.

But why was the Commander reluctant to execute a passage de lignes en retrait in the presence of the enemy but not the passage de lignes offensive ou en avancant?

(as a matter of fact the French execution of a passage de lignes en retrait in the presence of the enemy, with the Reglement de 1791 was superceded by the passage de lignes from the Reglement de 1776).

Because the actual concern about the execution of a passage de ligne en retraite in the presence of the enemy, was that the retiring battle line was too fractured with numerous isolated small body of troops which had no cohesion with each other. Which gave a competent enemy commander the opportunity to assault the fractured numerous small body of troops which had no command, nor battalion cohesion.

With the Reglement de 1791, when the line retiring, "if in retreat, it is too much broken; and the single company is not sufficiently strong to sustain a sudden attack; the second line in like manner loses its compactness, which is essential to repel the charge by being open at several points to admit the passage of alternate companies; the movements cannot be made in good order when in such small bodies and under so many detached commands, and the loss of a platoon or even an officer of one of these detached parts, may endanger the whole".

General Schauenbourg went one step further in 1793-1794, and due to the colonne d'attaque having too many moving bodies in two different directions, it was therefore forbidden that the second battle line execute any passage of ligne in colonne d'attaque…but only en colonne par division.

To expand on this problems, "when both battle line were deployed in the proximity of the enemy and the first battle line had to retreat, due to no ammunition, shattered battalions, fatigue, routing battalions, or any other particular circumstance that required an execution of a passage de ligne, the concern was as followed:

"it caused too many fragments, a splitting of the retiring line into so many small parts; (at the perilous moment those exchanges are effected) where, followed up, it is taken in the flank and in the rear, while performing the difficult flank march, unavoidably lead to a rout with every probability of carrying along the second line in the flight".

Consequently to attempt to assure success of an execution of a passage de ligne en retraite, preventive measures had to happen, should an enemy attempt to profit and assault while the passage de lignes was being executed, the following was expected to happen…"while the first line is passing, the flanks of the pelotons / platoons of the second line ought to be well covered or guarded by officers, or steady non-commissioned officers or soldiers, least the first line should pass confusedly, and throw the second into disorder."

Passage de lignes offensive ou en avancant

With the passage de lignes offensive ou en avanceant in the proximity of the enemy was executed in the following manner:

Normally after a frontline has given a certain quantity of fire, or that an impression has been premeditatedly made, hence with tiralleurs in front, to cover the movement of the second line as a fresh corps, to bring them to the charge of bayonet while in close columns. This is explained in the Reglement de 1776 and in Colonel Gay Vernon's 1805 text.

Vernon was a Military professor of fortification at the Polytechnick Institute, and "by order of the French government," prepared a 2-volume work, "A treatise on the science of war and fortification." Then, "after being submitted to the revisions of a Board of distinguished Marshals and Engineers, was by order of the Emperor Napoleon, adopted as the text and class book of the Polytechnick and Military Schools."

The best example of a passage de lignes offensive, is the the Battle of Valls in 1809, which was a text book example of the L'ordre perpendiculaire ou l'ordre tactique, with the assaulting colonne serre par peloton. It must be understood that the assaulting colonnes serre par peloton do not deploy, but attempt to use shock to breach the enemy line.

The passage de lignes offensive may likewise be effected by colonne par regiments (par peloton) for both lignes.

In this case the second line must form en colonne serre par regiments, with the right in front, either upon the first division of uneven battalions, or upon the fourth division of the uneven ones.

Each colonne shall march forward and pass through the interval between the two battalions of each regiment of the first line which precedes them.

After having gained sufficient ground, each colonne shall form into line upon one of the divisions prescribed for its formation.

–In this case the colonnes of the second line does deploy, uniting the ordre profond to the ordre mince, but not within the presence of the enemy.

Hope this helps…

Best Regards
Art

The reason why rules treat brigades as battalions is because in their heart of hearts, players want to play battalions. They just want to play a big battle with fewer units.

But you can't have it both ways. There are a great number of Brigade level rules on the market already. Believe it or not there is a need for easy to play battalion level set of rules.

I know because I have been looking for one for years. It needs to be design primarily for 15mm figs. Measuring needs to be in inches and represent national characteristics. No gimmicky rules system that tries to make your rules unique. I already have several trash cans full of those.

So please, not another set of brigade rules!

Rallynow-
Shako? Its pretty straight forward.

Art-
I think that helped a bit but it could use a glossary and a few pages of diagrams… :)

The offensice passage of lines does seem much easier than the retreat. An interesting contrast.

Are you saying that the column by peleton closed with and assaulted the enemy line or that they attempted to flank the enemy while a friendly battalion in line engaged it frontally, in an effort to compel a retreat?

@Rallynow

I started with 15mm figs and realised, that there are no room on table to show battalion actions for full armies.
Therefore such type of rules must at first to be oriented to 8mm and lesser figs. With 15mm figs then may be played smaller corps contra corps battles.

@forwardmarchstudios

For big battles Shako uses divisions, as smallest units.
I hosted one internet game with Shako. Players refused to play, when they saw Compan division attacking.
Thense I thinked about treating corps, divisions and brigades not as one body, but as collection of many smaller parts.

I thought Shako used battalions?
I played in a really impressive 28mm Shako game at Historicon a few years back that used battalions. There were two or three thousand models.

As someone said above, if you have enough semi-independent little units running around the battlefield you actually get a pretty accurate depiction of the back and forth of battalion level combat. I remember the "theme"of the game was large bodies of reinforcements arriving from off board at different times and crashing into each other. It certainly felt very Napoleonic.

There are two versions of Shako. For big battles and small engagements.

Reinforcements arriving from off board are not Napoleonic, but only mean lack of space on table, imho. There must be space on table for maneuvring and reserves.

G'Day

I wish I knew of a location where I could post images and plates…it would defiantly make it easier for everyone to understand my explanations.

As for shock…or attempting to penetrate the enemy ligne de bataille…it was only executed by a close column…and mainly by a colonne par peloton.

But…as Napoleon and all others stated…it is extremely difficult for a close column to defeat a fresh body of troops in line. The commander had to assess the situation to know exactly when he felt the enemy ligne de bataille was failing…

The column you are asking about that assaults the flank of the enemy is called a colonne d'aile.

It is an open column. These formed columns are often found with a "flanking brigade". The colonne d'aile is formed par peloton, and when it reached the flank of the enemy ligne de bataille, it will execute a left or right flank so as to execute a change of front and then execute musket fire on the enemy's flanks…such as the action of the 69eme at the village d'Elchingen, 14 Octobre, 1805. (Memoires du lieutenant general compte Rouguet Francois)

I hope this helps…

Best Regards
Art

I thought Shako used battalions?

The original Shako ruleset has two levels, one with battalions as the basic units, the other with divisions.

Here we played Borodino through internet by Shako rules.

Hello Mike the Analyst!

Thanks for the explanation. Oddly enough I know exactly what your talking about. I too am a 6mm player and for some of our bigger games we also have compromised the size of our Divisions into units of regiments (skipping the Brigade level). Which gives us Divisions of various sizes that can be anywhere from two to eight bases.

This simply pushes the "heart & soul" up a notch and lets the game play faster.

Our rules allow us to call a base anything we want for whatever level of game we want to play. A small skirmish to a major battle.

Best regards,

Glenn

Sho Boki-
That map looks awesome. What program did you use to do that?

Photoshop.

John, Greg, Glenn, Mike, et al,

I always felt that a game using a tactical brigade level design…that you could do the time warp…change eras from the SYW to the Napoleonic era…and then jump straight into the Crimea using the same rules.

(you shall notice that I did not use the wargamers term of "command level"…nor will you ever see me using the terms such as "doctrine"…or…"command and control"…since both are contemporary terms that do not apply during the Napoleonic era…)

So I totally agree that you have lost the soul of the Napoleonic era at brigade level. But there must be some ways of adding those elements back into the pot.

I have yet to see a game design that even shows that all brigades and divisions (all nationalities included, even British and 1812 Prussian) were formed in one of two dispositions:

Dispositif de la division par brigade avec chaque brigade en ligne (division formed with one brigade behind the other)

Or

Dispositif de la division pare brigade accolees (the division formed with each brigade side by side)

Most game designes have brigades moving individual…and there is no tactical importance to the division.

Then there is a component which is missing in most game designs…that of les principes de l'ordre separe.

There was a great thread on this principle some time ago…it is the least known and understood principle that was dangerous to an army under these principles when up against an army that no longer observed these principles.

Such an army is going to have an extremely hard time wining.

France abandoned them by 1805…Britain sometime shortly after…and Prussia and Russia by 1812.

But with that said, I think l'ordre separe is perhaps a good method to use at a wargame convention…because the individual winner can be on the losing side.

Like most…I enjoy formations en ligne ou carre….but I also enjoy using the various tactical colonnes used by the Russians and French (personally I like the Russian Army of 1812)…of which there are 13.

a) A colonne d'aile was one of the wing columns of a battalion formed on its center.

b) A colonne d'attaque was a double column formed on the center which was also called a colonne tranchee. Depending upon the year and nationality, the grenadier peloton was attached and centered on the rear of the last platoons. It could follow one, or both demi-bataillons when the column separated. A colonne tranchee was divided in to various sub-segments by General Seguier. It was "sliced" by manipules, manches, manchettes, plesions, and plesionnettes, as were found in Mesnil-Durand`s column.

c) A colonne de retraite was similar to a colonne vuide with the grenadiers formed to the rear.

d) A colonne de route was an open column for marching to the field of battle.

e) A colonne demi-ouverte could be a double column which has the elements of a carre tactique but without six ranks.

f) A colonne direct was a column with the right leading

g) A colonne double was a doubled column coupled as one body.

h) A colonne mesoplesionnaire was a double column used by Mesnil-Durand. It was abandoned, but was always referred to as an example.

i) A colonne ouverte was an open column.

j) A colonne par bataillon was a column that consisted of battalions as the sub faction. Normally the grenadiers and/or voltigeurs formed on the flank or the rear of the main column. This also includes the colonne d'attaque par bataillon, and colonne par regiment..

k) A colonne renverse was a column with the left leading.

l) A colonne serree was a close column or "action column".

m) A colonne subdivisionsaire (from which columns of sections, pelotons, and divisions are derived).

I do enjoy the weakness of the colonne d'attaque and it limitations of manouvre, and the consequences if it does happen to break through an enemy ligne de bataille. Of course I understand that all these columns are not needed in a game design…but they are presented in mine…

Best Regards
Art

"A colonne direct was a column with the right leading"

Does this mean that the right subdivision of a larger battalion column would move in advance of the left subdivision?

G'Day

A colonne direct is when the bataillon is formed from the right.

2-1
4-3
6-5
8-7
-G- (or leading but usually detached)

A colonne renverse is when the bataillon is formed from the left.

1-2
3-4
5-6
7-8
-G- (or leading but usually detached)

It gets even better when there are only seven fusilier pelotons…

If I understand correctly…you use grande bodies of troops…therefore what is of interest for you would be:

colonne par bataillon (a regiment)
colonne d'attaque par bataillon (a regiment)
colonne par regiment

and such formations as a division…en colonne vuide.

Hope that helps

Best Regards
Art

G'Day Gents

As mentioned earlier on this thread…one issue is that designers either…they themselves do not understand the general principles of great bodies of troops…or…hmmm….what other reason could it be…but to permit players to use brigades like they were battalions…

The next issue I have is….I don not see a brigade which is engaged with another enemy brigade or division just falling back all at once (generally speaking)…or retreating back facing…all in one game turn.

This requires a passage of lines…and that requires time.

Best Regards
Art

This requires a passage of lines…and that requires time.

Art:

How much time? You have given the example of passage de lignes offensive, during the Battle of Valls in 1809. There are others such as Girard's at Ocana and Sachet's Division at Jena. These were under fire.

The British accomplished a defensive exchange of lines with Spanish Allies at Albuera in close contact with the French. Girard attempted it at the battle. It is unclear whether he succeeded.

So, how long do you think it would take from decision to completion? I am thinking of treating it as a formation change for both brigades…

Art-

What books do you recommend – in English – to "understand the general principles of great bodies of troops?"

Also, how do you suggest one model time in a war-game outside of a full-out kriegspiel? I'm not aware of any systems that really work well- I've tried creating a few myself but they all end up being rather complicated. It can be done, but with difficulty.

Also-
Do you think that if you can model the behavior of individual battalions correctly, then players will naturally place them into the most advantageous larger formations, which will reflect period deployments which also sought to maximize effectiveness?

Or do you think it would be useful for a war-game to include a list of "favored higher formations," almost like modern day military doctrinal templates (in simplified form, you place the template over top of a map and adjust the sub-units to fit, but keep the general deployment.). I've thought this might be an easy way to go…

My feeling is that when we discuss formations in the abstract we sometimes forget that terrain and the ground situation often determine deployment.

What books do you recommend – in English – to "understand the general principles of great bodies of troops?"

forwardmarchstudios:

Ney's Instructions and as Art notes: Vernon was a Military professor of fortification at the Polytechnick Institute, and "by order of the French government," prepared a 2-volume work, "A treatise on the science of war and fortification." Then, "after being submitted to the revisions of a Board of distinguished Marshals and Engineers, was by order of the Emperor Napoleon, adopted as the text and class book of the Polytechnick and Military Schools."

They go into some depth on the question. Both Ney's instructions and Vernon's two volumes are available in PDF form on Google for free. I am sure Art will have other sources.

Ney's Instructions are interesting…. I don't see too much that necessarily dispels common war game assumptions though.

Plus, Ney also says that terrain and the situation dictate deployments. This gives me hope for playable war-games…

Erg, too late for an EDIT…

Anyway, the maneuver in Ney's Instructions where a front line battalion will left or right face, then march a battalion to two's length to the flank, and then rotate to attack the enemy line at a 45 degree angle is pretty cool- now how often do you see that done in a war-game? Combine that with a flanking column beyond the flank of the 45 degree battalion and you suddenly have the enemy flank under fire from 270 degrees. Frankly, this sounds like more mobility in the battalions than most war-games grant to players… its downright Warhammer-esque!! :).

On another note, the only way I see this being possible in a war-game is by using some sort of pip system, where the side being attacked is obliged to stay still while it gets attacked from the front and then flanked. Otherwise, you would need to account for visibility, the initiative of the defending officers to re-arrange their troops, the speed at which the attacking battalions are moving, etc, etc. Also, these tactics definitely per-suppose an open battlefield, and not the more cramped fields of larger battles, nor on the average table top. Food for thought though.

forwardmarchstudios:

Uh, keep in mind that we are talking about "understanding the general principles of great bodies of troops."

A battalion is not 'a great body of troops.' And any move rotating a battalion is carried out in conjunction with the brigade, division etc. …Which is what Ney is discussing for a good part of the instructions, including how to change the facing direction of an entire corps… perpendicular to the enemy line… and possibly placing it on an enemy flank.

On the first page, Ney addresses his instructions to "The Generals of division in drilling of the several regiments under their command"…not battalion commanders.

The next page he writes:

"Marches and evolutions executed in column, of rthe essential parts of military tactics. In such cases, commanders of battalions and of platoons cannot pay too much attention to all that relates to the direction of the march, to the perpendicular of the flank pivot where the guides are, to the distances between platoons or divisions of which the columns are composed, and to the intervals between the different battalions or regiments in order to give the commander-in-chief the facility of deploying in every direction; resuming the line of battle either to the front, or on one of the divisions or subdivisions of the centre, or on one of the flanks;"

The firs chapter on page 25 begins with "The attack with four regiments being directed against the right wing of the enemy, the general in command shale march his lines by the left…"

Ney is not discussing individual battalions except in referent to large maneuvers of 'four regiments' or more.

I am too, I'm just doing it in a different way :)

And he definitely talks about battalions attacking- look at the maneuver on page 26, and Plate 1. That move is downright Warhammer-esque! Needs to go in the rules….

I am too, I'm just doing it in a different way :)

And he definitely talks about battalions attacking- look at the maneuver on page 26, and Plate 1. That move is downright Warhammer-esque! Needs to go in the rules….

forwardmarchstudios:

That is only 'Warhammer-esque' if you think several units have to operate together. On page 26, all the operations are for four regiments [i.e. at least eight battalions]. Each line with an arc above it references a single battalion.

Note that the wheel at the top of the page requires the battalions to go into column to comlete the wheel. That is something that is lost to Napoleonic gamers. A line of units can't wheel more than than @10 degrees without either forming column and reforming in the new position, or wheel by 10 degrees to avoid total confusion, re-align and dress, wheel by 10 degrees, re-align etc. It takes a long-long time to do that with a line of battalions in line formation. We are talking about a line of men with at least 2/3s of a mile front. Moving a large body of troops has issues that single battalions don't, or do on much, much smaller scales, like wheeling.

Hardly Warhammer-esque…

McLaddie, is in not that case that a brigade change of front is a scaled up version of a battalion change of front?

In each case a battalion or company/peleton is selected as the base which takes up the alignment then the others conform to this new front.

The picture on plate 1 does not appear to reference more than one battalion- if it does, they are all doing the same thing.

Still, pretty cool.

How do you suggest one model time in a table top war-game?

McLaddie, is in not that case that a brigade change of front is a scaled up version of a battalion change of front?

Mike:
Only if the entire brigade is in a solid column to begin with. It is true that many of the principle movements of a brigade can be seen [and are described in treatises] as mirroring that of a battalion. The only two ways eight brigades with a front of at least 9 football fields could change facing would be to wheel on one flank, creating a marching arc of 900 yards or more than 1/2 mile. The other way would be to pivot on the center, one half advance at the oblique, the other half retreated at the opposite oblique. It was so much easier to simply break up the battalions in columns and reform on the desired new front. [Particularly when considering the obstacles that would be met in that 900+ sweep of the two brigades.

So, a brigade wheeling and changing front can only be similar if the brigade is in battalion columns. Very difficult to do and at best very time-consuming. The difficulties involved in changing front in line formation is the reason that treatises and manuals don't really describe such maneuvers, but do instruct how to do it with battalions going from line to column and then back again on the new front.

IF the entire brigade or in this case two brigades are in line formation, it can't change front the way a battalion in line formation would change front… without taking a long, long time.

forwardmarchstudios:

Actually, I was wrong, each of those lines with arcs above them is a company. The notches on the top of the line mark the battalions, and we are still dealing with eight battalions or for regiments for both diagrams… the line across the page in the top diagram has a dotted line extending left to indicate that the line goes beyond the page. Note to that the diagram is assuming an eight company battalion [grenadiers detached, which Ney advocated.]

The instructions listed on the left read:

a. Original formation.
b. Break into open columns left in front
c. gain ground to the left flank
d. file into oblique alignment and wheel to the right into line.

A single battalion wouldn't have to do anything but 'd'.

NB: Second line is omitted…its movements are in conformity to the first line. All through the instructions the references are always to eight battalions or four regiments, which is pretty typical in instructions. Dundas uses the same size line in describing the exact same procedure.

Torrens in 1824 rewrote some of Dundas, but Part V "Evolutions of the Brigade or Line Movements from Line"
describes the same thing, particularly the second second headed:

"Changes of Position by means of the Open Column"

Other sections, starting with the first section "When a line formed of several battalions is required to move, to attack, or to pass a bridge or defile," describe how several battalions [8] in line are to move and change front… having the entire line wheel is not described at all.