@Paskal
'Shako & Bayonet' is an unofficial version of HFG. This is what the introduction says about the proposed game:
Suggestions for Shako & Bayonet 1791-1850
Wanting to shoot people with muskets on a large scale I mused on the form that the future ‘Shako and Bayonet', as one of the companion rules set to HFG, might take.
Rather than idle speculation I decided to write up the following by way as a suggestion for the rulesgiver.
I have based this upon the scraps of information we have about S&B, ie virtually nothing but the idea that it will show units in formations and that battalions will be depicted by two elements.
In writing these up I have tried to translate HFG to the new scale and second guess how the particular problems of this translation might be solved. In parts this has involved creation of whole sections of rules, such as formations, but I have tried not to change just for the sake of change. Guidance was sought from DBR and DBMM when a new mechanism was needed. New or altered sections are in red. Mostly. I have moved about a few sections, necessitated by removal or increasing detail to suit the new scale.
Stripping out the 12 HFG troop types not appropriate for the S&B era did reduce complexity and word count, but not by much. I have taken the liberty of creating only a few extra troop types; that of ‘Revolutionaries' which are poor quality but enthusiastic foot emblematic of the era, ‘Elephants' and ‘Skirmishers Ahead'. Elephants are treated as broadly analogous to Cuirassiers but with some special strengths and weaknesses. Skirmishers Ahead are those assumed for Bayonets and Light Infantry in HFG but not depicted separately. They are linked to such types in S&B and must remain in close association with them. Artillery can be ‘Howitzers' or fluky ‘Rockets' in addition to their other grades. ‘Pioneers' are included as a train variant to build or destroy field structures.
The class of Dismountables has been removed as only Dragoons would be members of it. Those few mounted formations that dismounted in battles, rather than for the occasional special task, have this capacity noted in their army list and an appropriate foot type is nominated for them. Rules for mounting and dismounting are included.
Firelocks have been retained to cater for non-Europeans that may fit the type. Laager has also been included even if its prime users are not significant in the era. Strong Points have been altered to match the new game scales.
Formations of Line, Square and Assault Column are included for those infantry types using them, some other foot or mounted types may benefit from Assault Column.
Most but not all foot types must be depicted in ‘units' of two elements that never separate. Such a unit represents a battalion or similar formation of roughly 500-800 men and officers (so 250-400 per element). Some types, such as supporting artillery not in concentrated batteries must be single elements while the remaining types have a choice of being in units or as single elements depending on their historical organisation. Mounted having a choice to be depicted as singles or units recognises that there was great variation in nations' organisation of their cavalry squadrons into larger regiments or similar groups. If nothing else it allows a small number of cavalry to pose a threat to foot.
Ground scale is set by the troop scale at 40mm, one element width for 15mm troops, equalling 100 paces. This has had several consequences for translating HFG. Firstly the move rates of all troops has been scaled back; a) to keep playing table size manageable and troops making outcomes from exiting the table too easily and b) the more tactical feel of S&B does not always suit wide sweeping ‘semi-strategic' marching.
A consequence of changing these scales is that the time scale should probably be condensed slightly, although none is here suggested as move rates represent initiatives not theoretical marching speeds.
A more profound change triggered by altering the ground scale and reducing move distances is that the HFG requirement for some advancing troops to formally stop and compute shooting before close conflict is not needed. But these moves may cost more PIPS. Players must use their tactical skill to avoid or maximise shooting. The option to press forward after shooting may be too generous at the new scale, any feedback on this is most welcome.
Combat outcomes have likewise been altered to cater for the changed troop scale and the new formations. I have not altered troops' basic combat factors for consistency with HFG but have altered other charts. The combat charts themselves have been separated into close combat and distant ‘shooting' combat sections for ease of use.
Play should be on a table of at least 1200mm x 900 (4 feet x 3 feet), expect your troops to be hotly engaged early in a game. Terrain size and number of pieces has been altered to suit the ground scale.
Scale Issues Unresolved at this stage
Any need to separate out Lancers as a sub-type of LCav LHorse???
???perhaps but only against Foot in the open/in square/in rain???
It looks like horse and portable artillery are separate things but I think Zamburak "wasps" camel gunners whose name and what can be gleaned about their role suggests an emphasis on mobility could be both Portable and Horse. The effect would give them a reduced range compared with other horse artillery. The Persian Shah had 400 of them described by one European source as part of his guard, at least two provincial rulers had 200 man formations.
Larger battles may need the troop scale altered to 1 inch = 100p, I have not tested this and there may be unforeseen consequences.
???note that this is approaching ground scale in Age of Eagles and Napoleon's Battles???
Army size.
I surveyed 180 European Napoleonic armies in battles but not sieges to gauge their size characteristics. Where accounts of numbers differed I averaged them. The numbers are presented with some rounding up of the lower percentages.
0-10K men 7%, 11-15K men 13%, 16-20K men 12%, 21-25K men 10%
26-30K men 7%, 31-35k men 10%, 36-40K men 10%, 41-45K men 5%
46-50K men 5%, 51-55K men 3%, 56-60K men 3%, 61-65K men 2%
66-70K men 3%, 71-75K men 3%, 76-80K men 2%, 81-85K men 2%
86-90K men 2%, 110-120K men 3%, 121K+ men 6%
I suspect there is a bias against the smaller end at say fewer than 15K men as these tend to be reported (in generalist publications) only when they are particularly interesting or important for some reason.
Next I took pairs of combatants (but excluding those conflicts where a victor mops up an enemy that has recently lost as major conflict and often has a massive numerical disparity) and averaged the numbers of the two armies. The idea here is to take out variability for position, troop quality and similar.
Using this method armies tend to ‘group' at the following six numbers;
16K men, 23K men, a 35-43K clump, 55K, 75K, giant 120K battles.
At the S&B scale of one manoeuvre item of two elements per 1000ish men, the first four groups up to 55K should be manageable under the rules. The 75K group lends itself either to a large S&B game or HFG. Clearly HFG comes into its own for the titanic 120K men per side battles.
The above sizes might be a useful guide to the various AP totals for play.
David Brown