"Column vs Line – Manoeuvre or Firepower?" Topic

Historically, Napoleonic combat is usually framed as column vs line. How well do we realise that on our miniatures-filled tabletops?

Napoleon Bonaparte won campaigns by manoeuvre, but in my experience Napoleonic wargaming often seems to come down to short-range firefights and artillery blasting away—not elegant movement.

So where does that leave us in game terms?

Do our games actually reward manoeuvre—or just pay lip service to it?

In many rules, you can:

redeploy freely
concentrate forces quickly and precisely
launch attacks with little friction or delay

On the tabletop, that tends to produce:

rapid closing to musket range
firefights that decide outcomes
artillery softening targets before the final push

Column vs line is there—but often as a modifier, not a decision-maker.

I'm mainly thinking of the rules I use—Black Powder and Valour & Fortitude—which give quick, enjoyable games, but perhaps at the expense of making manoeuvre truly decisive.

Interested in views—do your games hinge on manoeuvre, or is it really about getting into the best firefight position as quickly as possible?

Napoleonic manoeuvre is really about getting yourself an edge before the shooting starts by, usually more and/or better troops and where possible in a favourable situation. Then to some extent any battlefield antics won't be able to make up the difference.
Wargames OTOH want clever manoeuvre on the table top to be a determining factor; having the battle pretty much determined by the starting set up would rob game play of much it attraction.
IMO campaigns with limited intelligence are the answer.

And thus was born the 54 page, single spaced set of rules, which has no bearing whatsoever on Pirates or Comanche.

Worse part of Empire 3 is getting a column to actually get to that line. Its rarely a event that happens. Maybe historical thats how it works.

Per Clausewitz (and he should know):
- Firepower is destructive
- Close combat is decisive
- Battle consists of long periods of slow, smouldering attrition (inconclusive firefights), punctuated by assaults.

Manoeuvre is important in
(a) setting up advantageous firefights (including siting your grand battery in the right place);
(b) setting up sufficient mass in the right place for assaults at the right time.
It's not really an issue of column vs line but of where to concentrate effective mass.

I'd say our games reflect this. Get these things right, plus a bit of luck, and the combination of manoeuvre and combat can indeed be swift and devastating. Plenty of examples in the battle reports on the BBBBlog:
link

I would suggest there are some excellent rules sets available that fully capture the battlefield maneuver and formation changing the OP refers to.

Napoleonic warfare is something recent enough that its well documented and understood and has been for many years now, sufficient time for wargames authors to devise rules sets to reflect the depth of our modern understanding of the period.

To be fair to the simpler, fast play, generic "horse and musket" rules sets available, and there are a number of them, they deliver to a customer need and seem to deliver well. But you're asking for a more detailed and Napoleonic specific set of needs and IMHO that isn't part of the design criteria for the fast play rules sets.

@nsolomon99 "I would suggest there are some excellent rules sets available that fully capture the battlefield maneuver and formation changing the OP refers to."

Would you care to commit to naming some?
However, you make a fair point and I'd agree there are rules that aim to model that depth.

I suppose what I'm getting at is slightly different.

Even with rules that allow for manoeuvre and formation nuance, do they actually make it the decisive factor in play or does the game still tend to resolve once forces close and start trading fire?

In other words, is manoeuvre something that:
genuinely wins a wargames' battle
or
mainly determines where the firefight happens on the table top?

I completely accept that faster-play rules aren't trying to model everything but even stepping beyond those, I'm not sure I often see games where the outcome is decided primarily by manoeuvre rather than by what happens at musket range.

Napoleon used strategic manoeuvre to put the "big battalions" where they could best hit the enemy. His officers then could utilize their talents to complete the conquest. Difficult and time consuming to put all the parts that are needed into a playable game. IMHO, of course.