"Brigade Commander Scale - tactically fun?" Topic

So, the two main scales that battles are wargamed at are broadly called Tactical and Grand Tactical.

Tactical scale puts the player in command of a division or corps, with the basic unit (be it one base or multiple bases) representing a battalion/squadron/regiment.

Grand Tactical goes a level up, and the basic unit is the Brigade.

Now, what if we went smaller? Where the players takes the role of a brigadier, with a couple infantry battalions and a battery, maybe with some attached horse. The basic unit could be the company, and you'd still have 10-20 units per side, but the total force would be much smaller.

So, finally coming to the question, is there enough there tactically to warrant a whole rules system. Something like RF&F or GdA can handle that scale, they're just quick, very quick games. What is gained by going one level lower and focusing on the actual company drill .

Thoughts?

If you are still maneuvering regiments, probably not a lot of gain. Unless your turns are very, very short "drill" will just be "formation changes cost 1/2 move" or something like that.

If you're a brigadier in a larger battle probably not a lot of fun. But if you are fighting a smaller scrap (think of smaller battles in the Trans Miss) then companies might be more independent. But at that point you can just tweak a regimental set to account for smaller, presumably more brittle, units and have at it.

For the past 60 or so years, Grand Tactical meant to me fighting battles at brigade and higher levels on the tabletop. (Strategic if at a higher level than just one battle.) Tactical was at lower levels than Brigade. Was wondering when that changed.

Was following a similar thread on a FB page and the conversation gave me the impression that there are folks out there that believe that what happens below Brigade level does not have an impact on the battle, that the Regiments, Battalions, companies did not exercise any command authority at all! I think those that believe that are getting their history from the rules sets they play more than any honest study of the period! Of course, all those organizations exercised COMMAND over their formations! Throughout history, the rule of thumb has been that one man can only control 10 others, (max!) directly under them. How those men were organized, trained and employed won or lost battles.

Your question about going down to company level and still having 10-20 units per side sounds just fine to me. Recent readings of the 7 weeks war (or the Austro-Prussian War of 1866) shows just how important companies of men were in securing terrain objectives and hold until reinforced really was. Perfect examples of tactical operations!

I say, "Go for it!"

v/r
Tom

A thought that occurs to me is that, at the level you are interested in, skirmishers become important enough to represent on the table.

I've always found that the lower the level the more complicated it gets when it comes to rules.

Or put another way, the more problematic it becomes to try and represent what went on in the ever broadening pyramid of command, below the level of the players representation.

At some point, either up or down the chain of command, not black boxing big chunks of the knowledge employed, decisions made and varying amounts of time taken to enact them hits the wall!

There are really no "company" level actions that include artillery batteries and cavalry.

Try looking at Rebels and Patriots for a more simplified rules set that might give you a smaller game.

Otherwise you are plating with basic unit as the regiment.

Kim

"There are really no "company" level actions that include artillery batteries and cavalry."

But there are plenty of actions involving a Brigade per side, or smaller pieces of bigger battles where one Brigade took on another (or rough equivalents). Going by the "care about stuff two levels down" mantra, if the total force is a brigade then you'd want to maneuver and fire with companies.

Swammey,

You can certainly "Zoom In" on any battle to get a small action. First day Gettysburg 4 regiments of Archer's Brigade was hit head on by 4 regiments of the Iron Brigade as they were crossing Willoughby Run in Herbst Woods.

Yet the action was still fought at the regimental level, not the company level (each side had 40 companies) in an area of around one-half square mile.

They did not maneuver and fire at the company level. The 2nd Wisconsin probably took 30% casualties from confederate fire with the opening volley at 50 yards maximum.

It was NOT a skirmish, but a head long fight that lasted no more than 15 to 20 minutes.

Even if you did one turn equal 3 minutes you're looking at a 5-7 turn game. This is the reason their are no rules at this level, as there is nothing to be represented in such a time span with this many men involved in a fight (1200-1500 men a side.)

Again, Look at "Rebels and Patriots". These rules are more abstract, but will give you the kind of game you want to play.

Good luck

Kim

Kim makes an excellent observation. During the Napoleonic Wars (and the ACW) tactical decision-making basically stopped at the battalion level. Battalion commanders received orders from their superiors about where to go and what to do and then they decided how best to carry out those orders and issued the proper commands to make it happen. Company commanders were NOT making any decisions at all. (Except if they were deployed as skirmishers and operating semi-independently). When a company commander got an order from his battalion commander, the drill regulations told him EXACTLY what he was supposed to do with his company and there was no latitude at all in what he could do.

The Complete Brigadier rule set published in 1982 covers this level of game excellently. Long out of print, but copies turn up occasionally. More info and a user review at Boardgame Geek link

"Battalion commanders received orders from their superiors about where to go and what to do and then they decided how best to carry out those orders"

Scott, I have often wondered in terms of Napoleonic commanders, about them having a lot less discretion than their ACW counterparts.

I've always felt Brigade level was more inclined to be the stopping point in the Napoleonic era, due to tighter tactics and less flexibility in formations.

Part of my wondering is because ACW examples are far better recorded, for all manner of reasons, I don't have as many comparative examples from Napoleonic sources, about dealing with terrain, artillery fire from all over and more mobile opposing Battalions.

So it strikes me as more of a problem for the ACW Battalion commander than his predecessors. Hence more allowance/opportunity required to think on your feet being required.

It seems to me the Napoleonic Battalion CO had much the same options as those you attribute to Company Commanders, only he had 6 – 10 Companies to get in place and then stay there, not one!

Johhny Reb is at the 'lower end' of the scael, units are Regiments (battalions in reality) and gun sections. Each player commands a Brigade or two.