"Hessian Grenadier Battalions" Topic

"One of the more interesting looking units for the American Revolution war gamer would be the combined Hessian Grenadier battalions. Made up from the detached Grenadier companies of the Hessian force sent to American they are most colorful and imposing on the table top. I am looking to add some next year so have been doing some research on them…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Wow, this is amazing stuff. Once again, Mark's incredible work shines through. I find My Brave Fusiliers! to be a very valuable source.

Thanks for taking the time Mark to put this together.

And all the previous comments? Poof! They are gone like they never existed. Where have they gone?

Its like the Bumps dogs charged into the kitchen and took the turkey. Except we don't get to go outfit dinner.😮

Yes. Mark's My Brave Fusiliers! blog is excellent. He does very extensive research, is a fine painter and his games and terrain are well presented.

The Great Wall restaurant on Broad St will deliver. The Peking Duck is great.

John has a long moustache…

And Mark's blog really is quite nice. Especially if you enjoy the Crimean War, as well as the American Revolution.

Eric

This is an interesting post on his blog about the AWI Rules "Loose Files and American Scramble":

A personal observation of mine. When I have played these rules with players for the first time long time wargamers get confused or bogged down. The rules are unlike most wargamer rules out there. But reenactors or individuals who have been in reenactment regiments pick them up just fine. I find this most curious. But then I do tend to think of table top miniature games more as battle reenactments then simulations.

link

Are we supposed to always know the difference between reenactments and simulations? Also, if you are indeed just a wargamer, then why would you want a set of rules that confuse and bog you down? Alarming if only because so many standard rules can already be be sluggish and poorly written.

"Wounds my heart with a monotonous lanqour"

Many thanks for the very kind words about my blog. I appreciate it.

Mark

"Simulation" is a dirty word in wargaming, to me.
Maybe I'll start a Poll suggestion to add it to the Naughty Word list.

The rules are likely more updated in British Grenadier. They are a fusion of Loose Files and General de Brigade. They are excellent and approved by this wargamer/reenactor. 😆

"I heard two clicks! I heard two clicks!"

And this wargamer/re-enactor doesn't like British Grenadiers (the big hairy capped ones) but likes British Grenadier (the rules)…

Eric

Well played Eric, well played.

So I'll be interested what grenadier units Tango adds, but my experience is that they are a bit overrated. They look cool, but I don't recall them being significant in a battle.

SPOILER ALERT.
At Fort Mercer they were repulsed.
I guess they were repulsive.
I'm now painting Grenadier battalion von Minigerode, because "Why not?"

At least with converged battalions, you don't have to agonize over 3 flag sheets, all of whom contradict each other.

I have two battalions (each of 4 stands of four figures = 16). They are fun to paint. I have the minis and will eventually do a third and maybe the fourth. Apparently they were used sometimes to back up the bayonetless jaegers, i.e. as light infantry.

As to Fort Mercer, that's what happens when you scale the wall, only to discover that it ISNT the real wall, which is in front of you at close range and obstructed by an abatis.

I think that was the battle of Long Island where they backed up the jaegers.

Oh, the British Grenadier rules are tiring. That rules set always puts my mind to sleep. Maybe if I could find a video on how to play them.

I am liking the Osprey Honours of War better.

Speaking of boring rules. There was this guy a while back who pounded the table about these The British are Coming rules or something. Oh, they were the best, the most textured, the most thrilling. I tracked a copy down and they are such a complex, unreadable bore. I liked his passion but he must've had no other interest in his spare time but to play AWI games.

I like to move units on the table without having to do …. all those tedious things.
I'm going to try "800 Fighting Englishmen". It's the Big Battle version of Sword and the Flame.

I don't remember if it was BG or Black Powder that didn't do so well at our club… John, do you recall?

Black Powder.
I fumbled through the rules trying to find what "Warband" did. I found it the next day. That's darn frustrating.
That's one of the problems with new rules.
I'd be willing to give either one a try, with adult supervision.

42flanker,

Well played sir! Well played!

Imrie-Risley produced excellent Hessians in their American Revolution range of 54mm figures. An especially good figure was their Hessian jager.

You could also paint the Imrie-Risley figures as Seven Years' War Prussians.

They came as grenadiers, fusiliers, and musketeers.

I've picked up some second-hand and they are excellent in detail and pose.

Armand,

Thanks very much for the information, once again.

K

Minipig:

So I'm curious what rules you play for AWI?

Rules are not one size fits all which is probably why I tend to develop my own.

I spent years, starting with 1776 back in the last century trying to get a set that did everything I wanted.
The problem was that I would get a new set and do it "wrong" in crucial areas the first few times.
We've used "800 Fighting Englishmen" very successfully in large colonial games for a while. I developed my own mods for The Sword and the Flame, that I call Flames of Liberty. 800FE is a Big Battle approach to TSATF. So I will at least know where to find the Charge Reaction rules.

I am currently looking for a set of rules for the AWI. Something that, like John hinted at, internalizes all the "clever" trappings of the period and simply lets the player concentrate on enjoying themselves.

It's curious that Neil Thomas didn't take on the AWI. His rules are nice and clear and easy to learn without being simple or generic.

I'm too old for "clever". I just want to kill things.
I cut my gaming teeth on "clever" board game rules back in the 70s and 80s. This transferred to "clever" miniature rules.
I took a 10 year hiatus. When I came back, I found a gloriously simple set of Ancient rules that had a name composed of letters of the alphabet. But I couldn't get anyone locally to play it. They were too happy playing the "clever" Ancient rules by the same author.
Then, like mold on an orange, the alphabet rules got more and more "clever", until you needed a 50 page manual to interpret the cleverness.

Say what you want about TSATF. But you can never accuse it of being overly "clever". It's simple and straightforward. So that's what I use now, including it's even simpler offspring. There's a lot to be said for taking 20 years to put out a "new edition".

Back in the 80s, I would have loved rules that differentiated between 3rank lines and 2 rank lines, with +2 and -2 for "friends to the rear". Today, I put them back on the shelf.

My take is that there are two levels of rules for this period – skirmish, and tactical level (battalion).

I like BG because they are tacitcal (each player is usually a brigade commander). I find when I run that at the cons that most players are more or less running the game by the third move – at least the basics. I think that indicates a good set of rules.

Minipigs – not sure if you go to HMGS cons, but I'd be happy to teach you the rules. I must admit I did a better job learning the basics playing by watching someone else's game. That helped immmensely. I find that is true with most rules.

TSATF are great beer and pretzel rules for skirmish level. That said, unless you are baking your own rules into them, they have no flavor of the AWI period.

One of the things that some players dont' like about BG, or rules similar to them, is the fact that casualties are low – you know, just like in the real war. LoL They are more about command and control not a blood bath of figures. I get some players prefer that, but heavy casualities were not a hallmark of the AWI period.

@historygamer

That's very kind of you to offer, thank you. I haven't been to a con in a long time but will let you know if it will happen in the future.

I think it is true that being taught the rules would be enormously helpful. I would spring for the caffeinated beverages. Maybe, if it suits your time and energy, a video on how to play the rules? I am surprised the rules writer never did this.

Casualties are perhaps not a feature of the AWI but why would someone want to spend their leisure time reorganizing their ranks constantly? Surely other factors could be used to provide a period atmosphere?

There dont have to be any casualties, may be just "hits" that cause reactions but the DP system makes me feel like I am struggling with myself more than with an opponent. Even if that is the main lesson of the AWI battlefield, I think I would like it expressed differently.

I think it is true that rules can become too intricate and too generalized. The argument for the generalized direction is that many dont just want to game the AWI but rather play it in a rotation. If several months elapse, some do not want to expend the energy to re-bone up on the rules. I understand there are people who just play the AWI but for the rest, if the rules are too complex, even enthusiastic people wont have the time to reacquaint themselves with the rules mechanics and, both consequently and subconsciously, they'll just gather dust.

The trend for rules seems to be simplicity. Neil Thomas springs to mind and I think the Command and Colors falls under this category. Even with the Neil Thomas rules, I note that with the support groups, his One Hour Wargames get all the attention; and I find the OHW sometimes be too generic. But free time is at a premium these days and people just want to get playing, then get home and argue with strangers on the Internet!

I remember fondly the old 1776 rules, where you had to issue orders for NEXT turn before resolving THIS turn, iirc. Challenging, and some of the same thought-processes as in, say, JOHNNY REB with the inverted order chits.

I like a lot of the mechanisms from LOOSE FILES, and have borrowed some for my own rules.

I like BIG battalions (mine are 36 figures) and removing individual figures. And throwing handfuls of d6s. So mostly I play to my own rules.

And I very much agree that as a player I don't need to be doing a sergeant's work in keeping the lines straight.

So my 18th century rules experience goes back to playing Charge! and CS Wesencraft's Practical Wargaming rules. Oddly enough, I ended up with some of the figures from the author of Charge! that I proudly display along side the rule book.

The Practical Wargaming rules had some unique things in them, IIRC. In may ways, they were ground breaking rules.

So to the points on straightening the lines. Okay, it's not really straightening the lines per se – the DPs (disruption points) represent the friction of war – straggling, loss of formation, etc. They also keep the body count realistic. In some ways it is more like keeping track of fatigue/morale right on the table. I have never been a fan of off table bookkeeping. I want to see it all right before me.

Having led large groups of re-enactors, I can tell you that you often have to stop to reform, pick and brush, etc. I am often surprised at how little firing actually took place, according to eye witness acounts in some of these battles.

I note too that sometimes re-enactors are looking for a bit more texture than your average wargamer. Rich Hasenauer (he, of Fire and Fury fame) remarked to me many years ago that he noticed re-enactors often prefered playing Johnny Reb rules to his Fire and Fure rules. He thought that might be due to the more detailed/grainular details found in JR – though Rich's rules are excellent as well.

I remember fondly the old 1776 rules, where you had to issue orders for NEXT turn before resolving THIS turn…

Hah. I don't remember that at all.
We played it for years, and never noticed that.
Just goes to show you, hainna?
Sadly, it seems that the only way to get universal consistency in rules playing (I'm not saying interpretation) is with tournaments.
I'm fairly confident that tournament play is fairly consistent.

I think it was one of the iterations of Empire. The two authors played it quite differently, being separated by half a continent.

Johnny Reb requires placing a command chit next to the unit, all revealing the orders at the same time. When you get close it is very much a rock/paper/scissors kind of mentality. But this is required becasue move phases are simultaneous. Most games are not like that.

Practicaly Wargaming had a order sheet where you had to record your orders before the movement phase. It was not very workable as it wasn't often an opponent called out to look at your order sheet.

BG requires you to move the entire distance of the dice you roll, regardless of whether you wanted to stop at a fence or not. That models the uncertainty of when a brigade commander issues an order of whether the colonel follows it or not. I find this fairly realistic to the period given the limitations of command and control (voice, staff officer).

I believe the ACW rules Pickett's Charge addresses this by usnig only staff officers (limited based on command ability) to activate units.

John, maybe it wasn't 1776. Been thirty years. Thought it was 1776, though.

I have to agree with John about the current wave of rule sets. Some of the new mechanics are great, but the organization of the rules makes it almost impossible to follow. There is one new set that I really like. I've watched several videos of games being played (including one with the author playing). I played them a couple times now myself. I've yet to see the rules played 100% correct.

Brechtel198 – The Imrie-Risley Jδger was a great figure, wish someone would make one in 28mm in the same pose.

If the basic rules can't fit on two letter size pages (single side), it is too much.

I think what rules you use for fighting miniature battles on the table top are highly personal. There is no right or wrong rules, just what works best for you and what makes a good game in your personal opinion. And I agree with John about the word "simulation" in regards to miniature war games.

I have played complicated, hundred page rules and simple one page rule. I am always delighted to try new rules and will very happily play in any ones game. It is just that I like certain rules and games better then others. One member of our club told me after one of my games it was fun to play in a old school game. So perhaps that says where I am coming from.

For Rev War I have three go to rule sets, and an honorable mention. I usually play "Loose Files and American Scramble," "The Whites of Their Eyes (by Steve Haller)," and the Rev War version of Jim's "Fife and Drum Rules." Over the years each has given me great fun and much enjoyment as well as memorable games. I also feel you should stay with a set of rules and really learn it.

Honorable mention goes to the rule set "1776". I bought these during the 200th anniversary reenactment of the Battle of Long Island back in 1976 that I participated in. The author of the rules showed up sunday morning before the final tactical and was showing his rule set around. I think my reenactment group bought 12 sets of his rules and many of us played them for a couple years. I still gave the set although I have not played them in too long a time.

You can tell what is actually happening from what you "think" is happening by checking out events in the natural world.

To date, I find British Grenadier rules to be a thorough and utter bore. Some people, call them enthusiasts, think they're the living end. OK, so far it's my opinion vs theirs. Maybe Im squarely in the wrong.

However, it is very hard to find reviews and videos on these rules; rules, I should mention, which have been around for a while. Could it be that they're so delicious, the players dont want to share lest everyone else runs out to play them? Mayhap.

But, somehow, other rules have oodles of reviews and videos, support groups and playas.

There is absolutely a place for niche rules for experts and historical purists but they cant tell other people that the rules are simple or popular or realistic when it looks like the gamers and bloggers aren't reviewing them.

Why is this important? Well, it isn't to me but if you want others to start playing them too then someone needs to design a set of rules which both give the period feel AND are easy to learn or do some blow by blows. What happened to the rules' author?

Now maybe British Grenadier rules give the best AWI period feel but short of nibbling on asparagus flavored ice cream to feel like you are actually part of Washington's dinner party, reality can suck; especially if it is an old timey reality.

link

I would never prejudge any set of rules till I played them a couple of times and understood them.

I would.

"my experience is that they are a bit overrated. They look cool, but I don't recall them being significant in a battle."

They played their part at Long Island and Brandywine Creek, a fairly important role in the Harlem Heights scrimmage, and a key role in the assault on Fort Washington, where they incurred heavy casualties (as they did again in the course of the following year at Trenton and Red Banks). They feaured quite prominently in Burgoyne's Hudson river campaign did they not- although not crowned with success.

I would.

Me two

It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances.The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible….

-Oscar Wilde

"They played their part at Long Island"

Yeah, against a barely trained force. Not exactly a great military achievement.

" Brandywine Creek"

They did nothing there of note. Were slow and contributed zero to the assault on Birmingham hill.

"a fairly important role in the Harlem Heights scrimmage…"

Barely a battle. I don't recall them doing much there except a supporting role.

"key role in the assault on Fort Washington"

Okay, a bit more here.

"as they did again in the course of the following year at Trenton and Red Banks"

There were no true Hessian grenadiers present at Trenton, and Rall's regiment certainly didn't rank as such, even with the Hessians.

Red Bank was nothing to post regimental trophies about. That said, they needed heavier guns. In fact, it was this battle seemed to be the final straw on how the British viewed the German troops. Not good.

"They feaured quite prominently in Burgoyne's Hudson river campaign…"

Not Hessians. Brunswick troops, that were allowed to adapt to looser formations for the circumstances. The Land Graf forbid the Hessians adopting such formations, though he did approve of them going into a two rank formation.

I really like how British Grenadier models the German troops – as second rate, more prone to be slow and always fussing about their formations (via the DPs they accumulate and how they have to get rid of them before engaging in combat).

My understanding was that Rall's regiment performed credibly at Fort Washington and after an initial check at White Plains as well. While the unit was not formed in the same manner as the traditional Hessian grenadier battalions I see no reason why they should not be considered "true grenadiers", except for being shorter.

It takes much more than size to make a grenadier…

So that depends on your rules and how you rate units. I wouldn't rate Rall's unit any better or worse that any of the other Hessian line units. It performed well in one battle, poorly in another. Thus reflecing the vagaries of combat/dice rolling in a game.

I would also point out that even the Hessians did not rate Rall's grenadier regiment (that contained a grenadier company) as equal to the rest of the Hessian grenadiers. Note that they never formed them with the converged Hessian grenadier battalions, instead placing them in normal line brigades. I think that says it all.

I would also not put the German (all) grenadiers on the same level at British Grenadiers. The combat history of the war would not support such an equivilancy. Too often wargamers want to always award grenadier untis elite status, whether history supports that idea or not.

One shouldn't compare Rall's regiment with a converged battalion.
(It's so hard for the amateur to track a regiment whose name changes with the commander.)
It's simply an ordinary line regiment that wears a funny hat. Way back, several wars ago, it had been a converged battalion, but somehow it became an ordinary regiment.

What I find interesting is that its "elite" company was converged with those of the garrison regiments. Was that a commentary on its quality? Speaking as a painter, I also notice that the coat had no lapels, like the garrison regiments. Again, a reflection on quality? Just idle speculation.
Anyone willing to follow up on this to set me straight is welcome.