Triumph of Nations Errata

[donm]

Terry,

You had already answered that point.

The statement 'If used, guards must all be in the same mixed division' is still correct even though there is only 1 guard unit.
It does NOT say "ONLY" guard infantry. Therefore you can use other non-guards in the same division.
As you so rightly point out - the statment could quite easliy be left out.

Don

PS. Any decission on the fix for the 1815 Prussian list?

[panda2]

Don,

its in the errata which is puiblished here http://www.fieldofglory.com/ .

The minima for medium and heavy field artillery have been combined and reduced to 3.

Andy D

[Ambiorix]

Army of Naples page 134 :


Max 8 artillery attachments : up to 1 per division, if the division has no art unit.

Not sure if this is ground for an errata as 8 is very generous but not feasible : Taking into account 2 Art units are compulsory, 10 divisions will be needed to reach this maximum (with max 4 divional commanders).

[terrys]

Not sure if this is ground for an errata as 8 is very generous but not feasible : Taking into account 2 Art units are compulsory, 10 divisions will be needed to reach this maximum (with max 4 divional commanders).

I'm not sure whether or not an unreachable maximum deserves an errata. There are many lists in FOGA that have unreachable maximums.
I would certainly agree that the realistic maximum is 4 attachments.

[LeGrognard]

Ref: French Reserve Cavalry Corps, Armee du Nord 1815 (pp 128-129)

The explanation talks about the four different types of reserve Corps, but then it suddenly drops to "three types". The special instructions state,

"Cuirassiers, Dragoons and Light Cavalry must not be mixed within the same division."

Yet the 11th Division of Kellerman's III Reserve Cavalry Corps was a mixed division of Dragoons (2nd & 7th) and Cuirassiers (8th & 11th).

Was the special instruction for building the Corps a typo? Should it instead read something like, "Heavy cavalry and Light cavalry must not be mixed within the same division"?

This would allow you to field all four different types of cavalry reserve Corps as per the first sentence.

Ref: Anglo Netherlands Army Belgium 1815 (pp 136-139)

Optional Brunswick Division special instructions state that;

"Brunswick Lancers, if used, must be in a mixed unit with an equal number of Brunswick Hussars.

However, the bases per unit for Lancers is "2 or 3", with the maximum allowed now being "3" (as per the 'Errata') and the bases per unit for Hussars is "4 or 6", so you will never have an equal number, and you will go over the maximum base limit of "6" bases if you do take "3" Lancers.

Given the intent for this unit as stated in earlier posts, should the requirement for equal units be dropped, and the bases per unit for Hussars be changed to "3-6"?

This would allow a Lancer/Hussar unit to be 2/4 or 3/3 which I believe meets your earlier intent.

[bahdahbum]

The 1815 IIIrd cav corps was composed of
11th Division under l'Héritier 8th and 9 th cuirassiers ( +/- 1600 )
12th Division under d'Hurbal 1st and 2nd carabiiers ( +/- 1600 )
Those units took part to 4 bras

The rest of the corps arrived latter or
2nd and 3rd cuirassiers
2nd and 7th dragoons

No light cavalry but at 4 bras you have the cavalry division of the 2nd corps or under Piré :
1st and 6th chasseur à cheval
5th and 6th Cheveau-léger lanciers
+ some imperial guard light cavalry that Ney was forbidden to use
5 squadrons of chasseurs à Cheval
4 squadrons of lancers.

[LeGrognard]

I have edited my post in order to clarify as I missed a 'return' initially.

The question is in regards to the Special Instructions for creating a Reserve Cavalry Corps force, not the actual ORBAT.

[bahdahbum]

OK, now I suspect those instructions do represent the general tendency of 1815. The 4 cavalry corps where eiter "heavy" or "light" , the 1st corps being only lights ( lancers,hussar and chasseur à cheval ), the 2nd made of dragoons , the 3rd we have already seen and the 4th composed of cuirassiers only . So in cavalry CORPS there was no mix between heavy and light .So restrictions are OK

However I found ONE division , the 6th division of the IV corps ( Gérard ) that is composed by hussars, chasseurs à cheval and dragoons . So here you have a case for à mixed heavy cavalry and light cavalry historical division that is part of an infantry corps . Now I have not checked if it is possible in the infantry army list .

So the ORBAT says the restriction is historical .

[shadowdragon]

OK, now I suspect those instructions do represent the general tendency of 1815. The 4 cavalry corps where eiter "heavy" or "light" , the 1st corps being only lights ( lancers,hussar and chasseur à cheval ), the 2nd made of dragoons , the 3rd we have already seen and the 4th composed of cuirassiers only . So in cavalry CORPS there was no mix between heavy and light .So restrictions are OK

However I found ONE division , the 6th division of the IV corps ( Gérard ) that is composed by hussars, chasseurs à cheval and dragoons . So here you have a case for à mixed heavy cavalry and light cavalry historical division that is part of an infantry corps . Now I have not checked if it is possible in the infantry army list .

So the ORBAT says the restriction is historical .

According to the instructions for an 1815 French infantry corps, "any number of mixed divisions may be used" but "cavalry divisions may not be created from units in this list". The core cavalry units in the list include hussars, chasseurs and chevau-legers (or should that be chevaux-legers?). The dragoons are optional cavalry units. A single division may be imported from a French Cavalry Reserve Corps, which must be either light cavalry or dragoons. If a Reserve cavalry dragoon division is used then no dragoons may be selected from the infantry corps list.

I imagine that this is to reflect the usage of the infantry corps cavalry - i.e., distributed to support the infantry rather than kept as a massed corps reserve.

[bahdahbum]

There was light cavalry in every infantry corps , except the IV corps which had 2 dragoons regiments .

next you had 4 big cavalry corps . Now that I have my army list book next to me I can say that for an historical cavalry corps, either it was all light ( the 1st corps ) or heavy .Not mixed .

But it is a game and in a battle anything could happen , one division from one corps coming to help another division from another corps ...+ the fun in the game

By the way it is Chevau-légers if you mean the cavalry unit lancers des chevau-légers lanciers

[shadowdragon]

There was light cavalry in every infantry corps , except the IV corps which had 2 dragoons regiments .

next you had 4 big cavalry corps . Now that I have my army list book next to me I can say that for an historical cavalry corps, either it was all light ( the 1st corps ) or heavy .Not mixed .

But it is a game and in a battle anything could happen , one division from one corps coming to help another division from another corps ...+ the fun in the game

By the way it is Chevau-légers if you mean the cavalry unit lancers des chevau-légers lanciers

Since the infantry corps aren't allowed cavalry divisions, there's no issue with respect to the IV (Infantry) Corps cavalry having a cavalry division with both light cavalry and dragoons. I see no restriction the prevents a mixed (infantry-cavalry) division for this corps including one unit of light cavalry and one unit of dragoons.

As mentioned, the only cavalry division in the Reseve Cavalry Corps that has mixed cavalry types is 11th cavalry division of Kellermann's III Cavalry Corps which had one brigade of dragoons and one brigade of cuirassiers. If playing with an actual orbat I would use division with both dragoons and cuirassiers, but stick with the list restrictions since the 11th division is an exception. If that wasn't there we might see a lot of divisions with a mix of cuirassiers and dragoons.

Thanks for the grammatical info. I've wondered ever since a French-Canadian colleague of mine "corrected" my Osprey book to read "chevaux-légers" but I'll have to check to see if the Osprey book was it was referring to a "unit" for to the members of the unit. I assume for the latter it would be "chevaux-légers".

[bahdahbum]

And the interdiction to create cav divisions in infantry corps seems strange to me as it was usual for the corps cavalry to be in a single division (
Domon's cavalry division of the III corps
Piré's division of the II corps
Maurin's division of the IV corps
Jacquinot's division of the Ist corps

[shadowdragon]

And the interdiction to create cav divisions in infantry corps seems strange to me as it was usual for the corps cavalry to be in a single division (
Domon's cavalry division of the III corps
Piré's division of the II corps
Maurin's division of the IV corps
Jacquinot's division of the Ist corps

I think the list intention is that, while admnistratively the infantry corps cavalry were in divisions they tended to be employed in support of the infantry versus employed en masse as a division.

[bahdahbum]

I think we missunderstand each other .

Each infantry corps had a cavalry division attached to it .
Those division were not detached from cavalry corps .
There where 4 reserve cavalry corps , 3 heavy, one light .

So has cavalry was part of the infantry corps, always organised in a single division part of the INF corps, I do not understand why it is forbidden to organise cav in a single division . In fact it should even be mandatory . There was no mixed division in 1815 . On the other hand, the rule is the same for everybody even if - in my own opinion - it is an historical mistake .

[shadowdragon]

I think we missunderstand each other .

Each infantry corps had a cavalry division attached to it .
Those division were not detached from cavalry corps .
There where 4 reserve cavalry corps , 3 heavy, one light .

So has cavalry was part of the infantry corps, always organised in a single division part of the INF corps, I do not understand why it is forbidden to organise cav in a single division . In fact it should even be mandatory . There was no mixed division in 1815 . On the other hand, the rule is the same for everybody even if - in my own opinion - it is an historical mistake .

I'm not writing about the Reserve Cavalry Corps or their divisions.

I am only referring to the infantry corps organization. Yes, each infantry corps had 3-4 infantry divisions and 0-1 cavalry divisions (VI Corps had no cavalry). However, there is a difference between adminstrative organization and battlefield employment. The lists reflect a view that the cavalry that belonged to the infantry corps were employed by distributing the cavalry to the infantry to provide direct support rather than being retained as a divisional manoeuvre unit. You might disagree with that view. One shouldn't necessarily see a "mixed division" as always being associated with a corps administrative organization. One clearly sees this with the Prussian Corps. All of the cavalry in the Prussian Corps are administratively grouped into a single "division" but they seldom fought as a division.

For the author's view to be seen as a mistake you must show both that (1) the infantry corps cavalry were organized administratively as a division (easy to show since all historical orbats show that) and (2) that they were EMPLOYED en masse on the battlefield as a division. I admit that I probably would have given the player a choice of retaining the cavalry in a division or distributing the cavalry to the infantry divisions, but I would not have mandated a cavalry division.

[LeGrognard]

Which gets me back to the first part of my original question.

Should the "Special Instruction" on page 128 read, "Heavy cavalry and Light Cavalry..." vice the current statement of "Cuirassiers, Dragoons and Light cavalry..."?

This would allow you to field a division comprising both Cuirassiers and Dragoons (historically accurate) and meet what I believe to be the authors' intent of not mixing your heavies with lights in the same division.

As it stands I cannot place Dragoons and Cuirassiers together ala III Reserve Cavalry Corps, 11th Cavalry Division but because it is not mentioned in the "Special Instructions" I can create a completely ahistorical division comprising Carabiniers with Chevau-légers.

As an aside: Shadowdragon, Bahdabum is right, the correct term for the light cavalry is "chevau-léger".

Thanks for the grammatical info. I've wondered ever since a French-Canadian colleague of mine "corrected" my Osprey book to read "chevaux-légers" but I'll have to check to see if the Osprey book was it was referring to a "unit" for to the members of the unit. I assume for the latter it would be "chevaux-légers".

The problem with your Québécois colleague is he speaks an archaic (and colloquial) type of French. The "x" went away from the French lexicon in about 1762, long after Quebec had been liberated by Wolfe and His Britannic Majesty's forces.

Check here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevau-léger

and here: http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/chevau-légers

[bahdahbum]

Hy grognard ,

There were no mixed dragoons and cuirassiers divisions, but one mixed corps with a drgoon division and a cruirassiers division . I would read the list limitation as , the division must either be cuirassier, either dragoons, either light as it was historical .

From rereading quickly the 100 day campaign, it seems that cavalry divisions in infantry corps just worked that way . Divisions . And those divisions where not temporary arrangments but official divisions .( but everybody knows how flexible Napo could be )

[shadowdragon]

Hy grognard ,

There were no mixed dragoons and cuirassiers divisions, but one mixed corps with a drgoon division and a cruirassiers division . I would read the list limitation as , the division must either be cuirassier, either dragoons, either light as it was historical .

From rereading quickly the 100 day campaign, it seems that cavalry divisions in infantry corps just worked that way . Divisions . And those divisions where not temporary arrangments but official divisions .( but everybody knows how flexible Napo could be )

III Reserve Cavalry Corps ORBAT:

11th Cavalry Division:
2nd and 7th Dragoon Regiments
8th and 11 Cuirassier Regimetns

12th Cavalry Division
1st and 2nd Carabinier Regiments
2nd and 3rd Cuirassier Regiments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_b ... erve_Corps

Looks to me like a mixed cuirassier and dragoon division and a carabinier/cuirassier division.

[bahdahbum]

Everybody makes mistakes ...

[shadowdragon]

Everybody makes mistakes ...

Don't start admitting to mistakes. You'll get booted off the forum.