"Brigade Level Game Design" Topic
118 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleThe Editor dabbles with online printing.
Featured Profile Article
|
Pages: 1 2 3
McLaddie | 01 Mar 2017 5:22 p.m. PST |
How do you suggest one model time in a table top war-game? There are four basic ways to monitor/model time in a simulation or wargame that I know of. You model or monitor the passage of time in a game by: 1. Time: Count in blocks of time: a turn is 20 minutes for instance. Some games have activities require X number of minutes and when they are used up, the turn is over. 2. Activities: Control time by the number of activities in a or cycle. Card-driven and command pip mechanisms do this. Having separate phases for each type of action is the most common: Movement, combat etc. 3. Event: Something happens in the game to determine when time has passed. Games that have variable turn lengths with die rolls are examples. Warmaster turns are determined by a secession of die rolls until a particular die roll occurs. 4. Player Decision: There are games where the player decides when he is done with a turn rather than specific numbers of activities or game events determining it. Obviously, many games combine elements of all four in different combinations to model the passage of time. Personally, I am going for a tight tactical relationship between distance and time, which has always been mentioned as a key element in planning and the subsequent combat. In my design, one inch equals 75 yards, but also equals on minute of movement by infantry. Everything flows from that relationship. |
Mike the Analyst | 01 Mar 2017 5:35 p.m. PST |
It is worth looking at the plates for the 1791 Reglements (and I know Art will correctly point out these were superseded and should be used with caution) link This file does not have the plates fully folded out unfortunately but you can see enough. XXIV and XXV(1) show a battalion change of front. Compare this with a change of direction of a line of battalions in XXXII. Plates XXVII onward show lines of battalions making formations changes. XXX is a good one (unfortunately only half visible) The full picture shows a column of 8 battalions, one behind the other breaking out right and left on the central battalion, aligning to form a line of battalions in column which then spread out and eventually form a line. Addition – see plate XXX on here link |
Mike the Analyst | 01 Mar 2017 5:51 p.m. PST |
Mcladdie, Change of front – see Torrens Part V S147 diagram 61. I would agree that use of columns would make the change of front easier but this is not a "wheel" of a line as the line breaks into separate battalions that are guided onto the base or regulating battalion. Torrens here link P276 – " The movements of a Brigade, or a considerable line are derived from those established for a single battalion". As a general point – no one agues for "zippy " companies / peletons when a single battalion changes formation yet we seem to want battalions to disperse from their brigades freely. |
McLaddie | 01 Mar 2017 8:10 p.m. PST |
"The movements of a Brigade, or a considerable line are derived from those established for a single battalion". Mike: Yep. Wellington once said that he learned how to move armies commanding a company. The movements are derived from a single battalion which is in tern derived from maneuvering a company. But as the pages in the 1791 and Torrens you note explains how battalions change to columns to change front. The diagrams do too. Or is that what you were saying? |
jwebster | 03 Mar 2017 10:48 a.m. PST |
This is really useful information – thank you all. One summary I have from this is that they trained only advancing maneuvers, not retreating. A great comment from McLaddie is that if units start retreating, particularly through other units, then it is likely that the other units will retreat or break as well. I'm also taking this to mean that units don't tend to recoil, they either fight in place or break. So what happened in practice ? For instance, if two lines are exchanging fire, one starts to waver and is charged by the other. What does the losing line do, break and retreat in disorder, reforming behind it's supporting lines ? What do the lines supporting the original lines do ? The victorious line is now weakened by casualties. Do they carry on the attack to the supporting lines ? Thanks John |
forwardmarchstudios | 04 Mar 2017 3:39 p.m. PST |
Ok- I finally had some time to paint a few figs and get them based up. Please ignore the color coding on the bases- that is for a secret project that I'll be blogging about soon. But other wise, the slides speak for themselves. Ok, Art, how does this look as a model of a Division attack as Ney describes it? There are two versions, from what I'm hearing. These models are all to scale as described in the pictures, so all deployment depths and such are basically correct. First, full deployments between battalions. In this picture there are gaps between the battalions large enough for a battalion to pass through in line.
[/URL] Here is the same formation, but with gaps small enough for a column by division to pass through.
[/URL] This formation now makes sense to me, after our conversations on here and looking at Ney's book. As the slides below will show, it allows for a division to attack in waves across its frontage. I'm a huge stickler for being able to accurately model something on the table top if its going to be included. So, if we determine that a passage of lines was performed a certain way, then we need to be able to actually show it, one way or the other. Since my figs are small enough where I can capture tactical deployment with the correct footprints, I took a crack at interpreting the offensive passage of lines that Art was talking about. Here is my understanding, and keep in mind I only show this with the smaller gaps left for the passage of lines, and not the larger ones. I have some thoughts on the difference between the gaps which I discuss below. This first slide shows the beginning position of the division at the moment it decides to conduct a passage of lines to continue the attack. We assume that the front line has been engaged and must be relieved.
[/URL] This second slide shows the development of the maneuver:
[/URL] Here is the actual passage of the line and maneuver into position:
[/URL] The final slide shows the passage of lines complete:
[/URL] So, now that I've actually set this out on the table, three things occur to me. One, this was a logical way to continue the attack once the front line had become exhausted through fighting and attrition. Second, this maneuver would have taken significant time and would have required a lot of training to conduct under fire, and would have been vulnerable to counter attack, especially by cavalry. For this reason I'm wondering if the wider, 100m gaps from my first picture above would have made more sense? Third, with most figure scales this maneuver can't be shown because of table space constraints. With 3mm though it is pretty cool.
Finally, here is the flank attack that Art mentioned, with columns attacking on the flanks. This is totally do-able on a table top. This picture only shows part of the division. Note that the troops on the bottom are the enemy.
[/URL] The second line regiments now begin to conduct the flanking maneuver while the front line troops are engaged:
[/URL] The unit being attacked is now in serious trouble. This seems more likely when you factor in the noise, chaos and uncertainty of a battlefield.
[/URL] There is only one likely outcome of this maneuver:
[/URL] So, what do you think, is this an accurate depiction of division tactics? Honestly, a lot of it seems to be simply logical, and i'm not sure that you would need to lock players into these maneuvers, so much as to present them with "battalion level physics," as someone suggested earlier, which make formations and maneuvers like these the most logical and effective thing to do. That is, after all, why the generals who created these formations did so in the first place.
|
McLaddie | 05 Mar 2017 11:10 a.m. PST |
forwardmarchstudios: For the most part, yes, that is the way it would work. I think the second line, once it passed through could wheel, or if in attack column, deploy. I would think that all columns in the second line would pass through at the same time…as they are regulating on the same battalion. The only thing I don't agree with is the flanking movement. Unless you've seen that described in Ney or somewhere else, the third line would not break up and go separate ways. The would march as one unit to one or the other flank. |
forwardmarchstudios | 05 Mar 2017 11:45 a.m. PST |
McLaddie- The passage of lines in echelon was an innovation on my part :) Good point on the flanking maneuver, I hadn't thought about that. It would also be required since there would probably be a second line of enemy troops to deal with behind the first as well. I'm tempted to do a series of pictures like this for my blog now. Do you think that the gaps between the battalions were smaller than a fully deployed battalion in line? Is the top picture of a division correct, or the bottom one? I was thinking that the smaller gaps might cause problems if cavalry attacked as the passage was conducted. Also, if some sort of panic did happen, all three battalions are somewhat intermixed at that point. I wonder if it depended on the battlefield situation? I need to re-read Ney's book on that point. |
jwebster | 05 Mar 2017 12:29 p.m. PST |
@forwardmarch Your pictures are way nicer than diagrams :) You have 3 1" bases representing 1 battalion, is that correct ? This definitely has a Napoleonic "look" John |
forwardmarchstudios | 05 Mar 2017 12:44 p.m. PST |
jwebster- Thanks! I love 3mm, it lets you do all this stuff on a game table and still have plenty of room to maneuver. The division is pretty deep but you could still do this in a game on a 4 or 5 foot wide table. The game (at least in that sector of the table) would focus entirely on the division attack. You could probably do this with 6mm figures as well, and maybe 10mm (with a lot of strip-cutting). As regards ground scale, each 1" square base represents 33m, and each battalion is 100m in frontage. It's a bit artificial to have them all the same size but it makes my life easier. I'm working on a basing system (which I use in these pictures, although its a bit hard to see itl) that will allow people to easily keep track of large, complicated OOBs using 3mm figures, with no paperwork. I'll be incorporating a system to allow for different sized battalions in that system. |
McLaddie | 05 Mar 2017 2:50 p.m. PST |
I should have mentioned. I *think* that a defensive exchange of lines would involve companies to file through gaps sections of the second line would create by wheeling back, so that the two lines could reform faster. It could be the first line allowing the second through in the same way. I *think* that is how the Spanish and English did it at Albuera. |
Major Snort | 05 Mar 2017 3:18 p.m. PST |
I think the British deployments 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 This keeps coming up , with no supporting evidence. The only British deployment that consisted of quarter distance columns formed on the centre was that of the Third Division at Waterloo. The reason for this deployment is well described by Shaw Kennedy, who was responsible for ordering it, and no lateral movement prior to deployment was envisaged by Shaw Kennedy, or reported by participants. |
forwardmarchstudios | 05 Mar 2017 7:09 p.m. PST |
I was just thinking about this. Would it really have taken a lot of time to conduct the passage of lines for the assault? I was thinking about this just now. The purpose of the passage of lines was to enable the assault to continue, and I would imagine we could add the adverb "rapidly" or "apace." If there was too much of a let-up in the fire, that would give the enemy the chance to regroup as well. Plus, the second line is only moving from 200m in the rear, but I admit it could be up to 400m in the diagrams. Even so, the advancing columns, notwithstanding some enemy action, would probably be able to reach the front line troops in less than five minutes from the order to advance, no? Maybe even sooner. From there, if they're correctly drilled troops, they'd only have another two minutes to deploy into line, from what I estimate anyway. So, there wouldn't have to be a long break in the action of the division- in fact,it makes more sense that there would not be. I'm really glad all of this came up, I've learned a lot about higher level infantry tactics in this thread. |
4th Cuirassier | 06 Mar 2017 8:04 a.m. PST |
@ McLaddie If an inch equals 75 yards in your design, does this also mean that an inch-long base contains a formation 100 files wide? – one file being about 3/4 of a yard or 27 inches wide? This is the bit I always struggle with. A battalion of 1,000 men three-deep would have been about 220 yards wide, so at 75 yards = 1 inch, that's a total of three bases an inch wide, or about 76mm. Using Elite Miniatures you can get three 28mm figures onto a base 40mm wide, so you could cram at most maybe six into a space 76mm wide. Hence your Austrian 1,000-man battalion has to be as few as six figures, or at most 18 if you make them three deep on the bases (and don't the "line" then being half as seep as it's wide). Otherwise it's disproportionately wide for the ground scale. I struggle a bit with using six figures as a battalion but if one uses 30, so it looks like a good long line, it's then 5x too long for the goud scale. |
McLaddie | 06 Mar 2017 12:33 p.m. PST |
This is the bit I always struggle with. A battalion of 1,000 men three-deep would have been about 220 yards wide, so at 75 yards = 1 inch, that's a total of three bases an inch wide, or about 76mm. 4th C: That's right. However, the battalion of 2 or 3 bases is mostly notational. The game is has the brigade as the smallest tactical unit. The battalions in the brigade serve to identify the formation, strength and condition of the brigade for the most part. There is no reason the stand representing 75 yards couldn't be two inches for 28mm figures. It just means that few units could be on a game table. Obviously, at the scale of 75 yards per inch [I will also have a 100 yards per inch conversion] means that 3mm to 15mm figures will be better for providing that grand mass effect on the table. |
4th Cuirassier | 07 Mar 2017 4:10 a.m. PST |
The rules I started out with stipulated 8mm per figure which in 28mm is not possible – 13.3mm is, however, which is to say two-thirds more. So if you gross everything up proportionately, so all other distances are also 2/3rds larger, things like musketry range (relative to the length of a line) are then correct and consistent, but the table in effect just shrank to three-fifths of the original size…. |
McLaddie | 07 Mar 2017 4:17 p.m. PST |
So if you gross everything up proportionately, so all other distances are also 2/3rds larger, things like musketry range (relative to the length of a line) are then correct and consistent, but the table in effect just shrank to three-fifths of the original size…. 4th Cuirassier: Yep, you gets what you pay for… Table space is a real factor for table top games. For instance, Black Powder was designed for BIG tables, big movement and bigger, 28mm figures. For my rules at least, the stands are the only measurement. How many figures you have on a stand isn't an issue. By the way, who were the first three Cuirassiers? |
Pages: 1 2 3
|