Alan M | 10 Jan 2018 8:47 a.m. PST |
From looking at some AWI OOBs, I am intrigued about how some units might be represented in a game. A good example would be Germantown where some brigades and divisions show a strength of say 1500 and contain 10 or so regiments. To represent each regiment individually would mean very few figures each even if depicted at 1:10. How has anyone else approached this? |
Winston Smith | 10 Jan 2018 9:00 a.m. PST |
I play two rules sets for AWI. In Big Battles, I use Age of Reason. Small units simply do not use as many dice. But most of my AWI gaming these days is with Flames of Liberty, a Sword and the Flame variant I am working in as house rules. The first thing I changed was to drop the "stragglers in a charge" rule. In the last game, a unit of 4 Jaegers did useful service. The main thing to remember when using small units is to give them adequate morale so they stick around. My figure to man ratio is "whatever fits". I don't obsess about that. Are small units fragile? Well, yes. Of course. But unit sizes have ranged from 4 to 24. If you are going to consider them discrete units, well, that's that. |
22ndFoot | 10 Jan 2018 9:48 a.m. PST |
My understanding is that there was an optimum – and reasonably "standard" – frontage for tactical units. Large units – large depending on the circumstances – could divide into wings or smaller and, the corollary, small units could band together to make one of the "proper" size. This was certainly the case in the British Peninsular army with its Provisional Battalions and had occurred earlier in the ECW. As a result, I band small rebel units of line together to make standard sized battalions rather than field them separately. Small units of specialist troops I treat largely as Winston suggests. The level depends on the scale of the game and what historical information I can glean. I sometimes consider the source of component units in estimating morale (up and down as some of these composite units would be very "over officered") and try, as far as possible, to avoid mixing units from different states unless the records suggest otherwise. I use British Grenadier and Carnage and Glory for large actions and Sharp Practice for small ones. |
Spooner6 | 10 Jan 2018 10:26 a.m. PST |
Winston's points are good. I follow 22nd idea. If at a 20 to 1ratio in the posters comments I would field 3 24 man or 4 20 man Units in that Brigade. At the end of the day they will take up a similar frontage and you can use more standard unit sizes. That is if I am fighting a big battle and that is just one Brigade of many. If there are only two brigades then The rules might not be scaled to the force size. Try out different suggestions and see what works for you and your group. Chris |
robert piepenbrink | 10 Jan 2018 11:20 a.m. PST |
Alan, notice how in von Steuben's Blue Book, units of more than--I think it's 120 files, or 240 rank and file--are divided into two, and units with under 60 files are merged? I tend to treat formed infantry as standard-size units in that range, merging as necessary, and reserve the "small unit" category for skirmishers. A certain amount of simplification is necessary in miniature warfare, and this device saves a huge amount of complication. |
Old Contemptibles | 10 Jan 2018 11:22 a.m. PST |
We use our own rules "Sons of Liberty" which is Battalion/Regimental scale. Small battles have never been a problem. For Trenton I did the game in a slightly different figure ratio. Which gave the Hessians three elements to command. So basically adjust your figure ratio for small battles. |
Alan M | 10 Jan 2018 12:21 p.m. PST |
This all great stuff chaps. Thanks all. |
Bill N | 10 Jan 2018 5:27 p.m. PST |
Would not the answer to the question depend on the battle you are doing and the rules you are using? All things being equal I prefer my regulars to have at least 12 figures per unit, and will frequently combine small units to get this strength. However I can and do use regular units with fewer figures, especially when the troops are of different types. For firing and melee purposes it seldom matters. |
Supercilius Maximus | 10 Jan 2018 10:17 p.m. PST |
Alan, notice how in von Steuben's Blue Book, units of more than--I think it's 120 files, or 240 rank and file--are divided into two, and units with under 60 files are merged? It's 160 files/320 R&F for the maximum, and 80 files/160 R&F for the minimum. In fact, what Steuben actually says is that a battalion must have 8 platoons formed into 4 divisions, and that a platoon has to be a minimum of 10 files in two ranks. Incidentally, 10 files was the point below which British platoons dropped from 3 to 2 ranks under the 1764 Manual of Arms. |
Ironwolf | 11 Jan 2018 12:51 a.m. PST |
For our rules (American War of Independence) we use the one fig represents approx. 20 men. So one fig is a platoon and two figs is a company. We then use Steuben's view on merging units with fewer men into Battalions. So if an OOB is listing multiple battalions but their actual troop strength is showing company size. We merge them together. Unless the scenario calls for company size units or smaller under strength battalions. Then we play the scenario as is. link |
Ironwolf | 11 Jan 2018 12:57 a.m. PST |
For our rules (American War of Independence) we use the one fig represents approx. 20 men. So one fig is a platoon and two figs is a company. We then use Steuben's view on merging units with fewer men into Battalions. So if an OOB is listing multiple battalions but their actual troop strength is showing company size. We merge them together. link |