"Amount of Bavarian Artillery, 1809" Topic

Am doing 1809 with the Blucher rules. Everything fine up to now, the odd question which I have worked out.

Then I decided to do Bavaria, and found they seem to have an awful lot of artillery.

The rules, at 'Grand' scale state this;

1 base is
Infantry 3000-5000 men
@ 6-9 battalions

Cavalry 2000-3000 men
@ 12-18 squadrons

Artillery 24-36 guns
@ 4-6 batteries

This has been perfectly fine up to now.

However, Bavarians…

I am using "French Army at the Outbreak of Hostilities l809
l April l809" from Nafziger, 809DAE.

This is listing each Bavarian Corps
Each division is
1 light and 8 Line – so 1 base
6-8 light cavalry squadrons… Hmm too small for 1 can base, so make the infantry 'mixed' – enemy 'skirmish' bonus negated, and a bonus in close combat.
Then…
3 foot (1 heavier) and 1 horse battery, each of 6 guns, so 24 guns.

Did the Bavarians really have this many guns? Because that is 3 infantry bases, 3 artillery. That's an awful lot of artillery.

I think you have alighted on a standard problem that arises when actual tactical units get abstracted by rules into 'bases' or whatever.

I don't have a lot on Bavaria in my library but it appears that they had 12 2-battalion line regiments, 6 single-battalion light regiments and six or seven weak cavalry regiments for a likely strength of about 21,000 regulars. There was a single artillery regiment with a foot and a horse battalion with four 8-gun batteries apiece. So they had 64 guns per 21,000 men, which is just about 3 guns per 1,000. This guns per 1,000 men is a fairly typical ratio for the era, so if your rules allow it, I would give Bavarian forces a similar artillery outfit to French, Prussian etc.

I can do it to your suggestion, I'm just wondering about the Nafziger list.

I checked ….

Die bayerische artillerie von ihren ersten anfängen bis zur gegenwart: Nach authentischen quellen bearbeitet
Hauptman Luitpold Lutz
München : Teodor Ackermann, 1894
page 46 et seq.
link

The tally is the same as Mr. Nafziger's order of battle. The work gives all the commanders' names, all the various support vehicles, etc.

According to Gill, the 7th (Bavarian) Corps in 1809 comprised:

1st Division:
9 battalions – 7294 men
6 squadrons – 794 men
2 line (foot) batteries and 1 light (mounted) battery – 18 guns

2nd Division:
9 battalions – 7119 men
6 squadrons – 1012 men
2 line (foot) batteries and 1 light (mounted) battery – 18 guns

3rd Division:
10 battalions – 7821 men
8 squadrons – 1070 men
2 line (foot) batteries and 1 light (mounted) battery – 18 guns

Reserve artillery:
3 12pdr foot batteries and 1 light horse battery – 24 guns

So your infantry bases are significantly under strength, you seem to have the solution for the cavalry, but the artillery doesn't fit at all. In particular, you appear to need a separate reserve artillery base.

Here's the other problem, do I take Gill or Nafziger?

Actually, thinking about it, that might be the way to go. 6 infantry units, each with integrated gun and cavalry base, plus one reserve/corps artillery base.basing the infantry on the 3000-5000 men, not the 6-9 battalions.

I assume the battalions are bigger than the 600 or so men envisioned in the rules. The Nafziger gives strength by an, not head count, and I couldn't find an alternative to guide me.

For the infantry, at the Grand scale, it wouldn't be out of order to have two stands per division, all with the "-" modifier.

You could remove the cavalry from their divisions and create a single cavalry base.

For the artillery, 78 guns in total, you could have a central reserve stand and add an attached artillery marker to each infantry brigade. (Or decide that the "-" modifier and the attached artillery bonus cancel out).

Do you have to break them down to divisions? I'd take the entire corps:
5 or 6 stands of infantry
1 stand cavalry
2 or 3 stands artillery
If you have to go by division give each:
1 infantry
1 mixed
1 Artillery

Taken from Saski volume one Campagne de 1809. Not the easiest to read, but it looks like, as said before, 18 cannons per division and 22 for the reserve.

Murvihill;

I appreciate what you mean, indeed the rules do talk about calculating on the corps strength. I don't feel this is right, especially to show the differences between armies.

With the Bavarians the 3 divisions that make up the corps are a rounded force, not the French style "Infantry, Infantry, Infantry, Cavalry, Artillery". Instead each division has its own Cavalry and artillery. This means they will act differently in game to the French. The individual bases will be stronger, but the corps will lack the dedicated artillery and Cavalry units.

Bavarian battalions were nominally 6 companies of 120 so 720 per battalion at full establishment. Post their 1812 losses probably substantially weaker.

One question I almost always end up asking when playing or designing rules is "what level are you trying to simulate?" With some games it is easy to figure out (in one-airplane games you are obviously the pilot). Sometimes it's obvious the designer didn't ask themselves the question, for example WW2 games where you command a company's worth of tanks but no requirement to keep platoons intact and the tanks go willy-nilly across the battlefield.
With grand tactical or strategic games this is important because you don't want to get down into the weeds of your sub-units' performance. If you command a brigade you want your battalions to perform historically but the game should not be expected to portray company performance accurately (the companies are abstracted into the battalion). If you want that level of granularity you should command a battalion or regiment, then companies should perform historically.
This concept falls into line with the military leadership theory of 1-down, 2-down. As a commander you give orders one rank below you but maintain awareness two levels below you.
I should add a caveat that people tend to 'weigh down the table with lead' and play games much larger than the rules ever intended to be played. This clouds the whole issue of what the designer intended.
So, that is the question for Blucher (Never played it myself)? If one player will command one corps then it's a valid effort to break the divisions down that granular (the player will have three sub-units, each being a division). However, if a player commands several corps you should treat the corps as an entire unit and assume the corps commander will deal with what goes on below him.
Or not, I'm sure many people won't agree with this form of game design.

I agree with much of what you say. However my difference with you is how an army commander treats corps, especially in a wargame.

Blucher, especially at "Grand" scale is very much army level – you are playing Napoleon. The corps are your major sub division, and are made up of bases representing 3-5000 infantry (see above).

There is an in game difference between 3xInfantry, 1 cavalry, and 3 infantry where that cavalry is split between the 3 infantry. The infantry in the second scenario is better, but the corps as a whole lacks the punch of the individual cavalry unit from the first scenario.

The French are very much scenario 1. There is a difference if the Bavarians are S2.

Likewise the artillery, it is a difference whether it is a separate base, or spread between 3 infantry.

Bavarian battalions in 1809 had five companies, of which one was the depot so 4 companies in the field. Gill gives average regiment strength at 1,600 at start of 1809 campaign.

ISTR at one point they had two Grenadier companies per battalion of which one was later swapped for lights – or am I thinking of a different army?

Slightly later, dated 15 June, this document shows the 2 Bavarian Division under Deroy.

I have no idea! Blucher is too high a level!

Is this Grand scale an optional rule? I seem to recall Blucher being nominally brigade scale, ie; one base = a brigade.

You could also inquire on the Honor Rules forum through Sam Mustafa's website.

The rules are the same whether you chose the default level, just the representation figures change. So yes I could play at 1 stand=2-3000 men, rather than 3-5000. However this would mean we are representing 2 corps, rather than 4.

Sam says that players should pick the scale that fits the theatres so the Peninsula would use 'small' where the base is 1200-2000 men.

The aim of the rules are to represent a battle at the highest levels.

What I am interested in here is representing the OOB that the commanders would have dealt with, as I said above a French corps of Infantry x3, 1 Cavalry, 1 battery of 30 guns plays differently than if the Cavalry and artillery are integrated into the infantry.

It could well be the same numbers, but the way they handle would be different. The French style would have the long range punch of the artillery base, and the close combat of the cavalry, but the integrated style forgoes these to make the infantry a bit more effective.

Too me it adds the extra dimension of having to handle them differently.

I agree that I would also like them separately, more variety and options for the commander.