"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.

rustymusket is correct- a Napoleonic game that includes extensive manoeuvre requires time & space. A 3-4 hour 'garage game' that attempts this will generally not finish.

However, in our two day Show games, we've found that the 'General d'Armee' rules allow the full experience.

‌

: a garage game

‌

‌

Ligny at the Show

"a Napoleonic game that includes extensive manoeuvre requires time & space."

Well, it's just a question of scale, isn't it. Your Ligny looks magnificent but when the table is packed with figures from edge to edge then of course manoeuvre is limited.

Alternatively, you can do it in 6mm on 6'x4' table with four players, with room for manoeuvre and consequent scope to take and resolve a series of major decisions, and finish in two and a half hours:
link

"Alternatively, you can do it in 6mm on 6'x4' table with four players, with room for manoeuvre and consequent scope to take and resolve a series of major decisions, and finish in two and a half hours"

Vade retro me, Satana.

My experience with Empire 3 follows O's observations. French lines with the help of grand batteries pulverize the British lines and would march to glory if the Brit doesn't concede to get more beer time.

That looks good too, dogtail! Maybe not feasible for a normal Monday evening at the club though.

Ochoin

Do you have a blog / website, always interested in seeing the one true scale in action ? Some grand looking figures you have there

Re the question – Napoleonic combat is usually framed as column vs line. How well do we realise that on our miniatures-filled tabletops?

Not sure that was the case for many battles, especially for the main theatre of campaigns in 1813 – 14 where both sides used columns, with skirmishers and artillery providing the fire power. Earlier armies used column for manover and then switched to line for the action. Accounts of a lot of these battles suggest a fair amount of attrition before a result was achieved

Both the rules you quote give a good game but also enjoy General D Armee for a tactical game and BBB or maybe Blucher for the higher level games, where manover is perhaps more relevant?

cheers

I'd want to see larger scale figures on smaller tabletops use reduced-size units to balance the need for maneuver space with the need for game scale movements that play fast and don't take too many liberties with reality.

I don't see why a good set of rules can't provide speedy play with "historical accuracy" and allow for fire AND maneuver to a reasonable degree. Why haven't we found this gold standard yet?

By the way, kudos to Ochoin on his St. Jerome's Vulgate Latin! I got quite a chuckle out of that!

"I don't see why a good set of rules can't provide speedy play with "historical accuracy" and allow for fire AND maneuver to a reasonable degree. Why haven't we found this gold standard yet?"

Some of us think we have. ;-)

I regularly refer people to Shugyosha's "Ultimate Napoleonic Wargame Rules Review and Comparison":
link
It's not 100% comprehensive – how could it be, with so many rulesets out there? – but it does give a pretty good overview of a lot of rulesets pitched at various levels and helps to answer some of these questions.

(Yes, I'm biased, as BBB gets a very positive write-up.)