Markconz | 29 Oct 2019 7:10 p.m. PST |
Blackpowder ("Clash of Eagles" supplement), and some other Napoleonic rules have "secured lines" rules. I.e. in Blackpowder in a formation of three battalions, with centre battalion in line and two in attack columns contacting its flanks (i.e. Ordre Mixte), the line does not have to form square when charged by cavalry as its flanks are secure (assuming the columns form square. This also applies if a line has its flank protected by terrain that would present an obstacle to cavalry. General D'Armee and other rules on the other hand, do not offer this option, and the infantry line has to try and form square. On the one hand it makes sense as a tactical doctrine that you wouldn't have to form square (Blackpowder). On the other hand, perhaps such maneuvers are best suited to the well trained troops of earlier linear warfare period? And, by the Napoleonic period given the more fluid masses of less well trained on average soldiers, the doctrine was simply that infantry formed square if cavalry were nearby? (General D'Armee) What are people's thoughts on how Napoleonic rules should handle this situation? Thanks. |
Markconz | 29 Oct 2019 9:30 p.m. PST |
A slight addendum to this, you can actually try to hold in line in GDA, but you are considerably more vulnerable than in BP- not least because you have to pass a discipline test (7+ on 2D6, with some modifiers, to hold formation/change to square), or you become unformed and are then very likely to be ridden down. |
forwardmarchstudios | 29 Oct 2019 9:46 p.m. PST |
I've never heard of this being done in real life. Certainly not on the scale the rule implies (that is, in each game). The square would have to be right up against the line. Otherwise the cav would aim right at the gap, lap around the line and bowl over the flank, then roll up the line. The square would be helpless to stop it because if they fire at the cavalry they'll be shooting down the line as well- result: chaos! I think this is very gamey. Things like this were done (or were tried). But this was not a standard tactic, from anything I've ever read. I'm not sure about the 18th Century. The other issue is that battalions in mixed formation normally deployed far enough apart to deploy into line if needed. Part of the problem here is footprint. Footprints are always off in games (except in 2mm). This makes for a disconnect between what you see on the table and what the actual tactics were. |
nsolomon99 | 29 Oct 2019 10:10 p.m. PST |
Morand's Division deployment as it entered the line of battle at Auerstadt on the left of Gudin's Division. |
forwardmarchstudios | 29 Oct 2019 10:39 p.m. PST |
I was was going to mention Auerstadt. I know it happened, but it wasn't something that happened often enough to justify it being a standard rule, available in every game. |
Art | 29 Oct 2019 10:44 p.m. PST |
G'Day forwardmarchstudio I think you should read those books that both Hans-Karls and Eric recommended. "I've never heard of this being done in real life." – need to read suggested books "The square would have to be right up against the line. Otherwise the cav would aim right at the gap, lap around the line and bowl over the flank, then roll up the line. The square would be helpless to stop it because if they fire at the cavalry they'll be shooting down the line as well- result: chaos!" – need to read suggest books "I think this is very gamey. Things like this were done (or were tried). But this was not a standard tactic, from anything I've ever read. I'm not sure about the 18th Century." – need to read suggested books "The other issue is that battalions in mixed formation normally deployed far enough apart to deploy into line if needed. Part of the problem here is footprint. Footprints are always off in games (except in 2mm). This makes for a disconnect between what you see on the table and what the actual tactics were." -if you do not understand the general principles and system your footprint is a moot point "I was was going to mention Auerstadt. I know it happened, but it wasn't something that happened often enough to justify it being a standard rule, available in every game." – need to read suggested books and more… Best Regards Art |
forwardmarchstudios | 29 Oct 2019 11:24 p.m. PST |
My French is bad but I can figure it out. I'll have to do so. I still don't see how/where the tactic described was done… often. But I could be wrong. |
TheOtherOneFromTableScape | 30 Oct 2019 2:01 a.m. PST |
"I think you should read those books that both Hans-Karls and Eric recommended" Which books? |
Art | 30 Oct 2019 2:20 a.m. PST |
Go to the Topic: "John Elting inspired 2mm Divison" There are other books as well…I am certain they will provide you with other books to reference. There are even books in English from 1800 to 18120ish time period range that can be used as sources. When the Americans were attempting to come up with their own principles, system, rules and regulations they relied upon the French and British. There is also plenty of information on this forum that pertains to l'appui…ligne double…brigade flanc…colone vuide…types of disposition for a division using a body of troops as an appui…ect. Best Regards Art |
Glenn Pearce | 30 Oct 2019 8:04 a.m. PST |
Hello Markconz! "What are people's thoughts on how Napoleonic rules should handle this situation? Thanks." "A slight addendum to this, you can actually try to hold in line in GDA, but you are considerably more vulnerable than in BP- not least because you have to pass a discipline test (7+ on 2D6, with some modifiers, to hold formation/change to square), or you become unformed and are then very likely to be ridden down." Both of these rule sets use creative modifiers to force you into making tactical decisions. This design is very common in a lot of Napoleonic rules. It is referred to by some as a "Rock/Paper/Scissors" design or "Old School" gaming. One of the biggest problems with this design is the interaction between infantry and cavalry. Historically they reacted to each other over events not modifiers. Historically once on the battlefield cavalry stayed in place until they were given the order to attack or support an attack or position. In "RPS" games they are generally on the move from the start of the game and don't stop until they attack some infantry not in square or run into some other cavalry. In other words they are motivated by modifiers, not history. I don't think a historical cavalry commander spent his day trying to find infantry not in square and then sneak up on them before they could get into square. I however, do recall reading about a light infantry battalion actually being surprised by cavalry while they were crossing a stream and trying to reform on the other side. They simply stopped and started to fire on the cavalry, beating them off. Sounds like this is not likely to ever happen using "RPS" rule sets. Around the turn of this past century "New School" rules started to appear. Most of them don't use modifiers for formations. In fact most don't even bother players with formation problems. It's considered to be dealt with at a command level below that of the players. In other words units are always considered to be in the best formation for the situation at hand. No major Napoleonic battle was ever lost because an infantry battalion was not in square when it was attacked by cavalry. So why bother structuring your entire game around an almost none event. Polemos Napoleonic rules sold by Baccus6mm avoids these pit falls. Although designed for 6mm, any scale can be used. Hope this helps, Glenn |
Gunfreak | 30 Oct 2019 8:32 a.m. PST |
Davout's force at Austerlitz was attacked headon by Russian cavalry. They simply stopped and fired in line to chase away the cavalry. The whole must form square seems to be a self fulfilling prophecy. The infantry is thought you must form square, they see cavalry and they form square. If they don't they get shaken and run and cut down. I wonder how many battalions needlessly got cut up tying to form square when just standing fast and giving a volley would suffice. At Salamanca a British battalion just refused is flank by having a company or two swing backwards and chasing away the cavalry with fire. |
Eumelus | 30 Oct 2019 3:07 p.m. PST |
"The Napoleonic Wars" covers a lot of time, ground, and armies. Davout's infantry at Austerlitz and Wellington's at Salamanca were elite veterans and could show sangfroid in the face of cavalry, but every one of the armies of the Befreiungskrieg in 1813 drilled their conscript infantry incessantly in forming square (or closed column). I would assume their commanders did so for a reason. And perhaps no battle was entirely decided by failure to form square, but the fate of numerous such unfortunate battalions is well documented. I would agree that "modifier" hunting is wrong, but having the cavalry decide whether or not to attack based on whether they can see that the infantry are shaken/disordered and therefore unlikely to give effective defense (whether that entails well-controlled volleys, defensive formation, or a combination of the two) is surely an appropriate decision point for a tactical-level game. |
Fried Flintstone | 30 Oct 2019 5:44 p.m. PST |
That's decided then ! Squares were rubbish and they should never have bothered using them. 😂🤣😂 |
Fried Flintstone | 30 Oct 2019 5:46 p.m. PST |
… and just repeating "need to read the suggested books" when no books had been suggested in the thread was especially helpful |
McLaddie | 30 Oct 2019 8:29 p.m. PST |
The formation was a common one for the Revolutionary Demi-brigades. Meyer's brigade at Albuera formed such a line/columns on the flanks formation and beat off several attacks by French cavalry. The French and British both defeated cavalry charges in line formation [See Austerlitz, Lannes Corps or Borodino around the Great Redoubt.] My question would be why special rules for 'secure flank'? The flanks are secured by something or they're not. What rules don't make flank attacks serious trouble, something to secure the line from anyway? What's 'special' about something every battlefield commander considered a basic consideration in deploying for battle? It's like making special rules for 'supported lines, as though having one line facing the enemy with one behind it has no benefit unless there is a special rule rewarding the formation. Maybe give line formations special rules for firing volleys because the line is for bringing all guns to bear. Or a special rule for columns moving because they can move easier than lines. All these things don't require 'special rules' if the game machanics portray Napoleonic maneuver and combat in a reasonable fashion. |
Glenn Pearce | 31 Oct 2019 12:34 p.m. PST |
Almost all RPS designed rules are structured in a similar fashion and think that RPS is the only way to play Napoleonic games. I don't really fault them for this as most of their players are of the same mind set. I was brought up to think it was as well. After all there was no other way to play at that time. It all seems to revolve around the concept that infantry will almost always lose a fight against cavalry unless they are in square. This I think is the heart of Markconz concerns. Two popular RPS rule sets see this interaction between infantry and cavalry slightly differently and handle it slightly different. Every RPS rule set I ever played had a lot of "special rules", covering similar situations and a host of others. Whenever you changed rules you were always having to deal with a new set of "special rules". You were also generally faced with the fact that you needed a laundry list of house rules to clarify or to try and correct the new "special rules". I don't think that any RPS game, at least the ones that I played, portrays Napoleonic maneuver and combat in a historical fashion. And that seems to be the root cause of Markconz dilemma. |
Rod MacArthur | 31 Oct 2019 3:09 p.m. PST |
It is exactly what Cole's 4th Division did at Albuera, advancing with the Division in line with a battalion in quarter distance column on each flank. The flank battalions were 1st battalion Loyal Lusitanian Legion and the 4th Division's converged Light Battalion. These quarter distance columns could have formed square within 20 seconds, allowing the seven battalions of the rest of the Division to remain in line. There were some who felt that this was what Stewart's 2nd Division should have done earlier in the battle, and Colbourne's Brigade would not have been destroyed. Rod |
SHaT1984 | 31 Oct 2019 3:35 p.m. PST |
Rules like these are for gamers who don't or haven't read the history in detail. Fair enough for first timers, but years on, just garbage. Simple rule- only play historical formations. As cited 'l'ordre mixte' was a revolutionary wars expedient that was for a time and place. Regulars who could form and fire, while conscript/ volunteers who could not (so well). Books on 'theoretical perfection' are just so much more garbage. Davout- Austerlitz- elite veterans? Neither 'elite' nor completely veterans. Sure, more battle experience than most Europeans (except Austrians?), but then a significant proportion of the Grande Armée- as at Austerlitz was the peak of the 'trained and tough' infantry the Empire was to see. Davout's force at Austerlitz was attacked headon by Russian cavalry . Nope. The only Russian cavalry opposing Davout on the far right flank (as his part-Corps relieved Soults 3rd Division- Legrand) were a few cossack units under the command of Kienmeyer (1st Column Avant Garde). Perhaps you meant somewhere else, or another Marshal? Davout only had a part of his Corps present and the forced marches of ?90 miles in 3 days/ nights must have been seriously debilitating. d |
Brownand | 01 Nov 2019 6:21 a.m. PST |
McLaddy, Could you please give examples where this formation was used in th FR? thanks |
McLaddie | 01 Nov 2019 8:44 p.m. PST |
There were some who felt that this was what Stewart's 2nd Division should have done earlier in the battle, and Colbourne's Brigade would not have been destroyed. Rod: According to Harry Smith, Colbourne's Friend, that is exactly what Colbourne intended, but Stewart changed the orders, which is why the 3rd, ready to move as a column on the flank, instead deployed to the right with the grenadiers ending up on the left and why the 33rd was in column where they were when the French cavalry caught the brigade in flank. |
McLaddie | 01 Nov 2019 9:19 p.m. PST |
Could you please give examples where this formation was used in th FR? Brownand: In the Feb 1793 Amalgam/convention, 1 regular and 2 conscript battalions were joined into a new formation of three battalions: Demi-brigades. For instance, the 14th line's second battalion was joined with the 6th and 10th Manche battalions to form the 28th Demi-brigade. This sought to combine the discipline and experience of the line troops with the elan and patriotism of the new volunteers. Often the Demi-brigade would form the less able recruits in columns advancing with the regular battalion in line between them, an ordre mixte. It was really an defensive formation against cavalry. This was often used, such as Massena's division at Castiglione had all demi-brigades formed this way with the flanking battalions in double-company [division] columns. But not always. For instance, At the Piave River, the 21st Demi-brigade battalions all formed columns and at Tagliamento, one division used the ordre mixte and another had a Demi-brigade with one battalion in skirmish order with its flanks covered by columns. [From pages 62 and 74 in Steven Ross's From Flintlock to Rifle: Infantry Tactics, 1740-1866] Paddy Griffith also has some pages on this in his The Art of War of Revolutionary France, 1789-1802 and John Lynn's Bayonets of the Republic also covers this, as do several other books. |
shadoe01 | 02 Nov 2019 12:31 p.m. PST |
The points made by McLAddie and others are spot on. Having recently picked up all 7 volumes of Oman's Peninsular War on kindle, it's my normal bedtime read this year. I'm on volume VI and there are a number of times when infantry chased off cavalry by volley fire rather than form square. The context of the situation matters as to whether that's advised or not. It should be noted that there's not a lot of difference between the face of a square and front of a battalion in line or column. The difference is the square has no flanks or rear which is why the other two are more vulnerable. Cavalry was trained to use its mobility to head for gaps, flanks and rear. Have a look at the Obscure Battles map for the Battle of Elchingen. Great maps! link One might note that in the early 18th century battles that forming square was rarely done. It makes sense since the musket with bayonet entirely replaced the pike. The OP asks about BP versus GdA. I don't know of any set of rules that requires infantry to form square when attacked by cavalry. Whether you do or not will depend on I don't have BP but I do have GdA, so I worked out the odds for GdA via a mix of calculating probabilities and simulation (the simulation part wass due to how GdA manages supporting units which give re-rolls). I used a British veteran battalion in line with 2 supporting battalions on the flanks (in column since that's what was mentioned in the OP as the formation) attacked by a French dragoon regiment with another in support. Assuming that the cavalry win if they close to melee the dragoons won 20-25% and were driven off or defeated 75-80% of the time. Even if the infantry lost their discipline test, the cavalry still had to take defensive fire from the now unformed battalion and also the two supporting battalions. It's a better bet for the cavalry to wait until the infantry have taken losses and had their formation broken up. Whether those odds are the precise ones for GdA they're close enough. Whether they are the correct odds to represent the situation is more difficult since we have more historical anecdotes than statistics. |
Brownand | 03 Nov 2019 4:01 a.m. PST |
McLaddie; John Lynn only says that it is not clear that 'the North"ever used l'ordre mixte. Further, according to the definition of the amalgame the companies of the 3 battalions were mixed; so after the formal amalgame there existed no ex-regular battalion and 2 volunteer/conscrpit battalion anymore. Paddy Griffith isn't very cleas about the use of l'ordre mixte using frases as "supposed to be", "allegedly combines" etc. ans shows a picture of a theoreticall'ordre mixte'layout with more common/practical arragment. |
Gunfreak | 03 Nov 2019 5:26 a.m. PST |
Perhaps you meant somewhere else, or another Marshal? Davout only had a part of his Corps present and the forced marches of ?90 miles in 3 days/ nights must have be It was the division detached to another corps. |
Chad47 | 03 Nov 2019 8:28 a.m. PST |
Brownand You beat me to it. The difference is demi-brigade as a formation and Demi-Brigade as a completely new 3 battalion unit. Although the amalgame was prescribed in 1793, political concerns about the possible influence of the Ex-Royal line battalions resulted in the full amalgame being deferred until the end of 1793. Lynn also mentions that some of the anew Demi-Brigades consisted entirely of volunteer units. |
Brownand | 03 Nov 2019 9:31 a.m. PST |
Chad47 you are correct; afaik there weren't enough old regular battalions to combine with volunteer/conscript battalions so some demibrigades consisted of only volunteer/conscripts |
McLaddie | 03 Nov 2019 10:05 a.m. PST |
Well, we are talking about a rather messy time for the Republic. I never suggested it was 'uniform' or that all demi-brigades used the mixed order, only that it was common. While the idea was to 'mix the regulars with the recruit battalions, it didn't happen all that uniformly, or at once. Commanders didn't want to lose the reliability of the regulars by diluting them with the volunteers. Brownand simply asked for examples of it being used and I gave some background. |
Lion in the Stars | 03 Nov 2019 2:18 p.m. PST |
In "RPS" games they are generally on the move from the start of the game and don't stop until they attack some infantry not in square or run into some other cavalry. In other words they are motivated by modifiers, not history. I don't think a historical cavalry commander spent his day trying to find infantry not in square and then sneak up on them before they could get into square. I dunno, that sounds about like descriptions of British cavalry… Seeing a target and going racing off to attack it, and being utterly useless for the actual battle. |
La Belle Ruffian | 03 Nov 2019 5:01 p.m. PST |
Markconz, it's a very broad question you're asking. If I'm playing in a game which assumes that units are in the optimal formation at all times then you'd better give me enough units and space to feel like an army/corps commander. Likewise, if the game actually features unit formations as an issue for the player to consider then I'd hope that the game is set at a level where a couple of units being caught out of formation is a decisive event in that sector in the battle. The problem, as ever, is when rules and players want to play what is actually a sector's worth of a battle and call it the battle. It's only a problem if you let it be though. In the case of bathtubbing we're already making a bunch of compromises so I'd let normally let players make a decision but use some scenario-specific restrictions if necessary, rather than treating all armies across twenty years the same. As decisions about grand flank attacks or when the commit the Guard or several divisions of heavy cavalry are not usually part of a bathtubbed game due to space or insufficent figures, you need to give players other choices. |
14Bore | 03 Nov 2019 5:17 p.m. PST |
Always played if flanks are secure ( as well as a neighbor unit in square buildings or other obstacles) and your line is good. |
4th Cuirassier | 04 Nov 2019 3:25 a.m. PST |
@ Glenn Around the turn of this past century "New School" rules started to appear. Most of them don't use modifiers for formations. In fact most don't even bother players with formation problems. It's considered to be dealt with at a command level below that of the players. Such rules are surely aimed at people who aren't interested in the history or who are boardgame players manqué. In abstracting away everything distinctive about the era, you just end up die rolling. An ECW, SYW, AWI, Napoleonic, Crimean, or FPW game would provide exactly the same playing experience as one another with little or no period flavour, like playing Risk or Campaign. This isn't everyone's cup of tea… @ LBR decisions about grand flank attacks or when the commit the Guard or several divisions of heavy cavalry are not usually part of a bathtubbed game What figure games are not bathtubbed? You can fit about 300 28mm figures per side on an 8 by 5 table. You then deem 300 figures to represent an army. You can either kid yourself that ten 30-figure battalions are an army or that 6 figures are a brigade and have 50 of them on the table. The same applies to any scale, just a different bathtubbed number. The only way to do Borodino or anything similar on a table of that size is as a boardgame. |
Chad47 | 04 Nov 2019 3:31 a.m. PST |
McLaddie And I simply gave some further background to the composition of a Demi-Brigade and the distinction between the formation and the unit, which I thought might be useful. |
Glenn Pearce | 04 Nov 2019 7:17 a.m. PST |
Hello Lion in the Stars! In "RPS" games they are generally on the move from the start of the game and don't stop until they attack some infantry not in square or run into some other cavalry. In other words they are motivated by modifiers, not history. I don't think a historical cavalry commander spent his day trying to find infantry not in square and then sneak up on them before they could get into square. "I dunno, that sounds about like descriptions of British cavalry… Seeing a target and going racing off to attack it, and being utterly useless for the actual battle." I believe that British cavalry didn't move without orders to do so. I'm not aware of any of them ever getting the order "If you see a target race off and attack it". I think there was the odd occasion where they failed to respond to a recall. If that's what your referring to I don't see it having any connection to my statement. Best regards, Glenn |
Glenn Pearce | 04 Nov 2019 8:29 a.m. PST |
Hello 4th Cuirassier! Around the turn of this past century "New School" rules started to appear. Most of them don't use modifiers for formations. In fact most don't even bother players with formation problems. It's considered to be dealt with at a command level below that of the players. "Such rules are surely aimed at people who aren't interested in the history or who are boardgame players manqué." Absolutely not. As far as I can tell the vast majority of them are extremely interested in history and many of them are very experienced miniature gamers. Some of them also enjoy boardgames and some them also still play "Old School" games. They simply believe there is more than one way to enjoy gaming. "In abstracting away everything distinctive about the era, you just end up die rolling." That depends on what you feel is distinctive. There is generally a lot more die rolling in "Old School" games than there is in "New School" games. Some "Old School" games have more dice rolling in one turn than an entire game of "New School". So according to your statement OS is actually much more abstract than NS. "An ECW, SYW, AWI, Napoleonic, Crimean, or FPW game would provide exactly the same playing experience as one another with little or no period flavour, like playing Risk or Campaign." Oddly enough that's what some NS players say about OS rules. The only difference is they have played both. I don't think very many, if any miniature rule sets play like Risk or Campaign. Some comments I have often heard from players after they have played a NS game is it "really looks like a Napoleonic battlefield or a picture from a book", "really makes me feel like a Napoleonic General, not a Battalion commander", etc. I can go on but clearly the games just ooze of period flavour. "This isn't everyone's cup of tea…" No rule set is. Best regards, Glenn |
La Belle Ruffian | 04 Nov 2019 9:21 a.m. PST |
4th Cuirassier 'What figure games are not bathtubbed?' Those games which state you're fighting just a sector of a battle or one in which you're using lots of (probably smaller scale) figures to bring the scale down. Dare I say 2 or 3mm? If you're using 28mm on an 8x5 then yes, you are limited. I'm not a great fan of pretending that 300 figures operating as battalions are an army personally*, which is why I'm happy to explore other options. 'The only way to do Borodino or anything similar on a table of that size is as a boardgame' Or use smaller figures in greater numbers**. *EDIT: I don't have an issue with abstraction in itself, but if you're going to tell me that my 10 units are brigades or divisions, then they should act like that and have a bit of space to manoeuvre. **EDIT 2: I knew there was a link somewhere – battalions at around 1:4/5 and fielding up to 160 of them. It helps if you have a purpose built space and a lot of 28mm to sell off first I guess. A friend mentioned this to me after playing At Gerry's place. link |
La Belle Ruffian | 04 Nov 2019 10:13 a.m. PST |
Just to be clear, I'm using the term bathtubbing in the sense outlined here link It's not just pretending that the unit (however many figures) is a battalion in one game and a division in the next, it's using the exact same rules. It's one of the reasons I never took to Rapid Fire. I'm happy with the varying figure scale in a game, so long as the rules part is addressed. |
La Belle Ruffian | 04 Nov 2019 10:15 a.m. PST |
By the way 4th Cuirassier, what do you, personally, have to have in a game to make it feel Napoleonic, I'm genuinely curious? |
McLaddie | 04 Nov 2019 12:41 p.m. PST |
And I simply gave some further background to the composition of a Demi-Brigade and the distinction between the formation and the unit, which I thought might be useful. Brownand and Chad47: Well, that is the problem with email posts: no intonation. Because you addressed me about the content of Lynn and Griffith's books after I had suggested them, it 'sounded' like you felt I hadn't read them or were giving inaccurate information. No problem. All that you both posted is true. |
McLaddie | 04 Nov 2019 1:15 p.m. PST |
Whether those odds are the precise ones for GdA they're close enough. Whether they are the correct odds to represent the situation is more difficult since we have more historical anecdotes than statistics. shadoe01: Close enough to what? Feelings, Flavor, a few anecdotes? Until we start doing some statistical analysis, we have little idea of what 'close enough' is other than dueling anecdotes. Simulations are built on statistical probabilities, something approaching 'real' probabilities rather than whatever the designer read last. For example, GA has troops 'hesitate' on a die roll of 1-2 on a D6. Now, given no other interventions, did Napoleonic brigades 'hesitate' [whatever that represents] one-third of the time? Really? Dave Brown has been upfront in saying that he picked that probability because it worked for the game. Terrific, but it doesn't represent anything Napoleonic as a probability of brigade behavior. Folks are going to toss around 'Flavor', Feeling, etc. which is no more than 'I like'. What does it mean in game design terms when something 'oozes with period flavor?' That isn't bad, and folks can like what they like. I have a lot of respect for Dave and his designs…as well as his candor. The question has always been and is here, 'what do the rules represent and how?' IF the idea is to design a wargame that models something of the Napoleonic battlefield environment, where there is a close relationship between what CAN happen and the probabilities of combat events, then at the moment there is simply nothing to talk about other than "I like that game better than this one." Just on TMP, there have been so much information shared, but never collected or sorted for statistical analysis. It isn't impossible, just more work than designers have wanted to do. I believe that Bill Gray and his AOE has come closest to actually doing this, relying on such studies as Hughes' Firepower And yes, 1. I have a WIP where I am attempting to do just that, 2. No the game as a simulation isn't going to be more complicated, and 3. I can provide examples of what I mean and what I am doing. |
shadoe01 | 04 Nov 2019 1:54 p.m. PST |
McLaddie, I should have specified…."close enough" being not 0% and not 100% – as in never happened and always happened as a 1st order estimate. Fortunately we can go further based not only on Napoleonic anecdotes but also on behaviours of Napoleonic formations as well as results prior (18th century) conflicts where cavalry attacked fresh, good quality infantry in line and with secure flanks to see that it was likely not a good idea. So the odds of probably even or less. In end "close enough" for me as a gamer since I'm not conducting a scientific study. I'm sorry if that flippant phrase offended you. It was only my intention to figure out what are the expected outcomes for a given set of rules mentioned by the OP. It certainly lay wasn't meant as a blanket defence of the rules. I have other issues with GdA's command and control beyond the one you mentioned. I look forward to your work in progress and wish you great success with it. I am curious as to your opinion of the extent and quality of both 18th century and Napoleonic statistics in comparison to say 20th century warfare. That's not a jibe but a genuine question as I'm aware that there are statistics but there are deficiencies which leave a rules designer often guessing. Cheers Paul |
shadoe01 | 04 Nov 2019 2:19 p.m. PST |
Statistics and developing combat models or rules. It's fair to say that no matter how much data you have it won't be enough due to the complexity of combat. Early on in my career there was situation when the army wanted a combat simulation that was to include a high fidelity detection algorithm. The algorithm was supposed to include a variety of parameters such as weather, time of day, time of year, terrain, size of target, etc. The company that was to do the work, British Aerospace I believe, was stunned. The stated that they would have to shut all other activity to have the resources to generate the data for the algorithm. A simple calculation showed that the army's requirement was for thousands of combinations each of which would require many data samples. Maybe they wouldn't really have had to shut down all other activity, but the army had to scale back its appetite a lot. That's not a poke at McLaddie since he is right we should use the available statistics as much as possible. However, it is a challenge since a modest set of 6-10 parameters (troop quality, numbers, cohesion – for each side, orientation of approach, terrain, etc.) with an influence on combat results. Even limiting the states for each parameter to 2 or 3 means on the order of 10,000 combinations; although some may be eliminated as not a logical combination. It's also a problem with how a set of rules resolves the combat (i.e., it's structure) since will determine the shape of underlying probability distribution which may or may not historically accurate. Interesting topic…well, interesting to me. |
shadoe01 | 04 Nov 2019 2:34 p.m. PST |
The mention of Hughes book, Firepower, twigged me that this was one of the references used in the WRG 1685-1845 rules. And, yes, it is mentioned…. "We must also mention B.P. Hughes whose two recent books made an excellent starting point for reconsidering the whole question of weapon lethality under combat conditions." However, this made me chuckle, "As for the beginner, do not be overawed by the size of the rule book and its apparent complexity." At 48 pages including list….LoL |
McLaddie | 04 Nov 2019 2:45 p.m. PST |
I should have specified…."close enough" being not 0% and not 100% – as in never happened and always happened as a 1st order estimate. shadoe01: I wasn't talking about anything close to a 1st order estimate either. I was saying that you have no idea where you are on that 0-100 scale. I am saying to get on to it at all requires more than guesstimates and feelings. However, it is a challenge since a modest set of 6-10 parameters (troop quality, numbers, cohesion – for each side, orientation of approach, terrain, etc.) with an influence on combat results. Of course it is a challenge. Even so, wargame designers are not producing wargames/simulations for the same purposes, so don't need the kind of parameters you are describing…though designers are free to go for it if they want. Our hobby isn't even at square one, and there are many ways to deal with all the parameters. for instance, troop quality, numbers and cohesion can be statistically treated as one quality rather than three, which is what simulation designers do all the time. That can work 'realistically' and be validated for accuracy for a commercial wargame, but not be particularly useful for "a combat simulation that was to include a high fidelity detection algorithm." Simulations are tools, created around specific goals, not some monolithic thing with only one purpose or design. |
McLaddie | 04 Nov 2019 2:56 p.m. PST |
The mention of Hughes book, Firepower, twigged me that this was one of the references used in the WRG 1685-1845 rules. And, yes, it is mentioned…."We must also mention B.P. Hughes whose two recent books made an excellent starting point for reconsidering the whole question of weapon lethality under combat conditions." Whatever that 'starting point' meant in design terms. I was talking about what Bill G. did: testing to make sure that the design modeled what Hughes' conclusions, producing similar results. That is what you do for a simulation. One can argue the validity of Hughes' conclusions, but we know what Bill G.'s game was modeled on concerning combat and therefore what to expect…having a better idea of what we were buying in the way of history. |
Stoppage | 04 Nov 2019 3:25 p.m. PST |
What are people's thoughts on how Napoleonic rules should handle this situation? Thanks. An individual battalion should be able to do what it wants. Attacked in line – attacking cavalry can just place a squadron against each flank and spit-roast them. Steady infantry can refuse flank(s) either en-potence or en-crochet and fight the enemy cavalry off to front or flank. Steady en-squared infantry – relatively secure against any cavalry attack Unsteady en-squared infantry – in trouble against determined enemy cavalry. A revolutionary-period demi-brigade, Russian regiments 1805, Hog-s head – relatively secure against light cavalry or small numbers of heavy cavalry.
Brigades of steady infantry in line – with secured flanks – will shred anything in front with musketry
Versus lone flanking squadrons – can repel by en-crochet-ing end platoons. Versus many flanking squadrons – get rolled-up. Brigade destroyed. You must form square rules spoil the fun. |
shadoe01 | 04 Nov 2019 3:42 p.m. PST |
McLaddie I have no idea what WRG meant by "starting point" either. My post had nothing to do with what you were writing about. It was merely a…"oh yeah, WRG mentioned it in their foreword". More nostalgia than anything else. I'm not arguing about simulation design, combat modelling, etc. but I remain sceptical about the quality and sufficiency of data. There will be gaps and uncertainty; and, yes, there are techniques for dealing with those things too. I'm all too happy to be proven wrong about that. FYI – commercial wargames can, for some purposes, do better than those used by the military. The military ones are intended to test options for equipment, concepts of operation, etc. They are not so good for predicting casualties. Back when in the days of Desert Storm I used a commercial set, Combined Arms, to contrast with the military simulations. Combined Arms produced results very close to the actual results. Paul |
SHaT1984 | 04 Nov 2019 4:13 p.m. PST |
ugghh.. here we go. Umm, "relying on such studies as Hughes' Firepower"- that has been debunked several times over. Even his arithmetic is incorrect. As for WrG 'citation' well that says it all- rules for a millenia and able to reproduce very little history. They died in this era because so many actually do read some history, not available 30 years earlier when these were written. And barrack room lawyers going by the rulebook seem to have pleasantly become a rare commodity. Best they go play tennis or golf to prove their prowess over others… d |
McLaddie | 04 Nov 2019 6:05 p.m. PST |
Shadoe01: I know you weren't disputing with me… And I agree and have seen your FYI comments first hand. When I was designing training simulations, I had the opportunity to talk to military designers at various simulation conferences… way back in the 90's. [Is it really nearly 20 years ago?] I was just pointing out that the WRG comment is empty unless they establish how the information was used in the design. I do appreciate the issue about the quality and sufficiency of data. Yes, there are and will be gaps and uncertainty. No doubt about it. However, those are givens and as 'recreating' history has to be based on data, evidence of various kinds, it is just an issue of how to generate the best use of it. ALL statistical analysis faces those problems, so it isn't something restricted to history or wargames or simulations. |
McLaddie | 04 Nov 2019 6:10 p.m. PST |
Umm, "relying on such studies as Hughes' Firepower"- that has been debunked several times over. Even his arithmetic is incorrect. Agreed. A simulation can only reproduce what information is used as a template. Bill's wargame did produce the 3% casulaties Hughes felt was supported by his evidence. His description of the Albuera engagement is sooo wrong. They died in this era because so many actually do read some history, not available 30 years earlier when these were written. It is amazing the primary sources available today vs when Hughes was writing. In some ways, you can't blame him for a lack of sources…but only in some ways. I can't think of many Napoleonic or black powder wargame designers actually taking advantage of this new treasure-trove. Dave Brown has to some degree, but not many others. |
4th Cuirassier | 04 Nov 2019 6:31 p.m. PST |
@ LBR: I like a Napoleonic game to show the subcomposition of units, I. E. the elite companies that pretty well all armies had: I like the unit type and size to be identifiable at a glance, with which the previous helps, and if the units had regimental distinctions I want to see those, otherwise they are just counters. I like a bit of animation in units although not too much otherwise any unit looks like a section. Tactically I need to see skirmish lines and formation changes. Auerstaedt, Eylau, Wagram, Waterloo would all have gone differently had the wrong formation been picked. If this is abstracted away then the decisions you're left with are going to be the same regardless of period because period differences have been processed out. I like casualty removal because a number of moderately successful commanders of the era – Wellington, that Corsican guy – thought they mattered. Wellington went out of his way to minimise them and at Hougoumont and Aspern he and Napoleon reinforced strong points depleted by casualties. I have heard it argued that there's no need to remove them but between the above and the importance of frontage I think this overlooks something important. Of course not removing casualties does make basing easier. Oh yes, and no elaborate overbasing. You don't go to an art gallery to look at the frames. And broadly, historical doctrine should work tactically and ahistorical practice should not. I think that's about it :-) |