Anglo-Netherlands Army 1815 - army building questions

[terrys]

So... Not as bad as 1815 Prussians, where I make the core list (with Generals) about 750 points!

The ToN errata reduces the amount of compulsary artillery in this list. I now make the total complulsaries about 520 plus Commanders.

[madlemmey]

This is my list attempt at a list thus far, any hints gladly appreciated,

His Nibs (Rowland Hill) 50 Daddy Hill as his troops called him!
Two foot generals 100
Cavalry general 30 what? You're expecting a British cavalry general to HAVE any control!
4 x superior veterans with rifles 78
2 units of 6 average vet with rifles 177
4 average vets with rifles 62
2 artillery 40

6 average drilled Hanoverians with rifles 70
4 Hanoverian landwehr 20

6kgl dragoons 60
6 dragoons 72
2 horse artillery batteries 48

That should come in at 797!

[bahdahbum]

but is the British cavalry compulsory too? It doesn't seem to leave any room for either the Dutch or the Brunswicker once all the minima are purchased, or am I missing something...

I think mandatory BRITISH cavalry is a mistake . What would solve many problems is to have mandatory cavalry division but either British or "allied" . By allied I mean Brunswick and Dutch-Belgian . The dutch-belgian cavalry was organised in heavy and light brigades ( divisions for game simplicity ) . So we could field a mainly british infantry force backed up by Dutch Belgian cavalry as it happened at Quatre-Bras and some part of the battle of Waterloo .

[shadowdragon]

but is the British cavalry compulsory too? It doesn't seem to leave any room for either the Dutch or the Brunswicker once all the minima are purchased, or am I missing something...

I think mandatory BRITISH cavalry is a mistake . What would solve many problems is to have mandatory cavalry division but either British or "allied" . By allied I mean Brunswick and Dutch-Belgian . The dutch-belgian cavalry was organised in heavy and light brigades ( divisions for game simplicity ) . So we could field a mainly british infantry force backed up by Dutch Belgian cavalry as it happened at Quatre-Bras and some part of the battle of Waterloo .

I would think that the army list is intended to reflect the overall composition of the British-Hanoverian army in the campaign. There were 6 British-Hanoverian divisions (about 37,000 infantry with division strengths ranging from 4,000 to 7,000) and 8 British-Hanoverian brigades (about 10,000 cavalry with brigade strengths ranging from 1,100 to 1,600 - about the size of most French cavalry divisions in the campaign). The list requires a minimum of 26 British-Hanoverian bases (11,440 infantry or about 30% of the total infantry strength of the army) and it also requires a minimum of 12 cavalry bases (1,980 cavalry or just less than 20% of the total cavalry strength). This seems to be a reasonable reflection of the overall British-Hanoverian army's composition. It would be strange to have no British cavalry minimum in the list.

At 800 points if you take the minimum number / quality of British-Hanoverian troops you can just squeeze in both a Dutch-Belgian infantry and cavalry division.

With respect to re-fighting the battle of Quatre Bras, real orders of battle ALWAYS take precedence over the lists. This battle has 6 Anglo-Netherlands divisions counting Merlen's D-B cavalry brigade as a "division". I calculate that it's about 1,600 points - with 0 British cavalry bases - and is probably best played as 2 "corps".

[bahdahbum]

There was NO british-hanovrian army but an allied army composed of many nations, an anglo-allied army is a better definition . All corps , infantry and cavalry , where mixed . The Dutch-Belgian made up almost 30 % of the army and fielded 3 cavalry brigades . So why, except for british pride, impose british cavalry, cavalry which fought only at Waterloo, and not give the possibility of DB cavalry .

The minimum of 12 british cavalry bases is exagerated and makes the DB cavalry a bit redundant . You could easely field a mix of DB cavalry and british cavalry . It would feel better for us belgians and ...feel more historical .

[shadowdragon]

There was NO british-hanovrian army but an allied army composed of many nations, an anglo-allied army is a better definition . All corps , infantry and cavalry , where mixed . The Dutch-Belgian made up almost 30 % of the army and fielded 3 cavalry brigades . So why, except for british pride, impose british cavalry, cavalry which fought only at Waterloo, and not give the possibility of DB cavalry .

The minimum of 12 british cavalry bases is exagerated and makes the DB cavalry a bit redundant . You could easely field a mix of DB cavalry and british cavalry . It would feel better for us belgians and ...feel more historical .

I used the term "British-Hanoverian" as it corresponds to the list which treats the Netherlands and Brunswick divisions separately. Despite it being an Anglo-Allied army, only British and Hanoverian troops were intermixed in the same divisions. They were not intermixed with the Brunswick or Netherlands troops. Which infantry divisions or cavalry brigades (treated as the equivalent to "divisions") had intermixed DB and British troops? So why do you suggest that mixing DB and British cavalry is historical - other than as separate divisions in a mixed corps? Or did you mean to type "hysterical"? The army list allows a mixed corps of British/Hanoverian, Brunswick and DB divisions (and cavalry brigades). It just does not allow an army with divisions where each division has mixed British/Hanoverian, Brunwick and DB troops. Even at 800 points I can squeeze in a DB cavalry brigade and DB infantry division by taking the minimum of British/Hanoverian troops (organized as one infantry division and one cavalry "division" (brigade).

Your argument is that you object to a minimum requirement that the Anglo-Allied army includes a British cavalry division because there were none at Quatre Bras, one of the two battles involving the Anglo-Allied army - excluding the action around Genappe the day before Waterloo. The lists, used "as is", are better suited for set-piece battles. Waterloo was a set-piece battle while Quatre Bras was a meeting engagement with considerable uncertainty on both sides as to enemy strengths and when their own reinforcements would arrive. You can re-fight Quatre Bras with the actual troops that showed up but I think it would be more interesting to run it with some randomization with regards to which divisions would show up as reinforcements. In that case a minimum of a British cavalry "division" as a plausible reinforcement might be a reasonable to include in the Anglo-Allied army. I might just do up a scenario on that basis.

By the way, my first take on this list was I didn't like it, but the more I look at it the better I feel about - keeping in mind that the authors intend the list to reflect troop compositions at Waterloo and not Quatre Bras. See Mike's comment in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=198&t=35345

"The Anglo Netherlands list is primarily a Waterloo focused list."

I personally would have chosen 8 bases as a minimum for the British cavalry, but I also would have chosen a lower core cavalry base minimum for the French Infantry Corps as well. I didn't create or have any input into these lists and therefore have no need to defend them. I merely offer a different perspective which you might consider or ignore as you choose.

[bahdahbum]

keeping in mind that the authors intend the list to reflect troop compositions at Waterloo and not Quatre Bras. See Mike's comment in this thread:

IMO It does not reflect Waterloo at all except in a very pro british point of view . You nearly have only british/hanovrian divisions .

There is no room enough for a representative corps with a good mix of British/Hanovrian division AND DB division except if you take the minimum mandatory units . Why should the british cavalry be mandatory . Why not let the choice between DB or british cavalry . And the army was organised in 4 corps, the cavalry being in ONE corps but used by brigades . If used by brigades...why is the british cavalry the only mandatory possibility ....why ignore the other nationalities . You know, the british where not the only one present and with 800 point you should take only british ( or brunswick ) .

So why mix british and DB cavalry , because they deployed in a kind of mix organisation . Ghigny behind Ponsonby, Merlen with Vandeleur ...

And have a look at : http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleoni ... wards.html


I do not like the list because it is not representative enough . I would have liked to have the choice between a more british flavour as it is now , and a more mixed flavour as it is not at all .

The legend is that the british repulsed the french middle guard ...the DB did it ...sorry guys

[shadowdragon]

So why mix british and DB cavalry , because they deployed in a kind of mix organisation . Ghigny behind Ponsonby, Merlen with Vandeleur ...

And have a look at : http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleoni ... wards.html

I wrote that the corps were mixed corps of national infantry divisions and cavalry brigades (noting that the Anglo-Allied cavalry brigades are the equivalent of French cavalry divisions). I asked why you think there should be mixed infantry divisions / cavalry brigades. What you cite is a situation of a mixed "corps" of national cavalry brigades.

Please DO make it clear if you are referring to a mixed corps of national divisions or if you are referring to divisions of mixed nationalities.

The legend is that the british repulsed the french middle guard ...the DB did it ...sorry guys

I do not understand the relevance of this quote. It seems to be based on an assumption that the list creators (or me) are nationally biased. A fairly big assumption. As for my part I am not British, Belgian, Dutch, Hanoverian, Brunswicker, etc. I am also well aware of the role of the Netherlands army at Quatre Bras and Waterloo, including the crucial role of Chasse's 3rd Division. Obviously one cannot re-fight the battle of Waterloo without including Netherlands, Brunswicker or Nassauer formations.

Yeah, it's clear you don't like the list, but if you wish to re-create historical battles - USE the real orders of battle. I would.

[shadowdragon]

Taking the minimum troops, including minimum quality, for both the British/Hanoverian and Dutch-Belgian results in 4 divisions (1 British infantry - albeit a big one of 5 inf BG*, 1 British cavalry, 1 DB infantry and 1 DB cavalry) for a total of 734 points. I find that 800 points is a rather small corps and that 1,000 points is more representative. So, for a 1,000 pt corps, that leaves 266 points for upgrades or additional troops.

[MikeHorah]

Taking the minimum troops, including minimum quality, for both the British/Hanoverian and Dutch-Belgian results in 4 divisions (1 British infantry - albeit a big one of 5 inf BG*, 1 British cavalry, 1 DB infantry and 1 DB cavalry) for a total of 734 points. I find that 800 points is a rather small corps and that 1,000 points is more representative. So, for a 1,000 pt corps, that leaves 266 points for upgrades or additional troops.

I think this thread really highlights the genuine problems one has with fitting the allied army under Wellington in this short campaign into the FOG(N) standard game model. The French and Prussians both have readily understood clear replicable Corps structures. Wellington once said his plans were like knotted ropes whereas Napoleon's like finely made harness. He just retied them if they fell apart but Napoleon could not.His order of battle at Waterloo exemplifies that.


The Corps are too big for a stadard FOG(N) game as Terry has alredy pointed out as has also been pointed out with some insight Quatres Bras was an encounter battle at least on the allied side so formal structures are a tad otiose . I will talk with Terry about a review of the notes however and see if we can create a bit more flexibility. And/or maybe we should try to do a list for each of the Allied Corps at Waterloo rather than a generic pick-n-mix one?

If the result feels anglo-centric than I regret that as I had hoped to avoid that trap - even at the risk of being unpopular with British gamers - but it may be one has just unconciously recognised that many gamers already have lots of Brits and will be fed up if they cannot field them! Either that or one focused so much on the core campaigns in central and eastern Europe in TON at the expense of the fine detaii in this coda of a campaign.

As to who really won the battle of Waterloo -the Brits or Dutch or Germans - my own long held view is the French repeatedly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and the victors were really Germans ( see Peter Hofschroer's two volume history of the campaign which sets it out vey fully and convincingly IMHO ) .Not won on the playing fields of Waterloo so much as on the North German Plain.

[bahdahbum]

USE the real orders of battle. I would.

Me too

Ok the guard section is a bit irrelevant and sorry if I am not always % clear . next time i'll write in my mother language , french do you have any good dictionnary

If the result feels anglo-centric than I regret that as I had hoped to avoid that trap

I think the solution is easy : drop the 12 bases british cavalry , make 8 cav bases compulsory and let the player choose which cav he takes .

Next you will have enough points to buy a decent british or DB division and it will feel more historical the player having the choice to be more british/hanovrian ( 50 % of the 1st corps ) or more Mixed ( the other 50 % being DB )

As to who really won the battle of Waterloo -the Brits or Dutch or Germans - my own long held view is the French repeatedly snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and the victors were really Germans ( see Peter Hofschroer's two volume history of the campaign which sets it out vey fully and convincingly IMHO ) .Not won on the playing fields of Waterloo so much as on the North German Plain.

That's true, Wellington got beaten and the prussians saved the day ...

The peninsular war lists seem more balanced ...expecially the lovely impetuous cavalry ...

[shadowdragon]

The Corps are too big for a stadard FOG(N) game as Terry has alredy pointed out as has also been pointed out with some insight Quatres Bras was an encounter battle at least on the allied side so formal structures are a tad otiose . I will talk with Terry about a review of the notes however and see if we can create a bit more flexibility. And/or maybe we should try to do a list for each of the Allied Corps at Waterloo rather than a generic pick-n-mix one?

Not only are the Corps too big for a standard FoGN game, Wellington didn't really use them effectively as corps. Often army direction was given directly to divisions and brigades, and deployment didn't respect corps boundaries. Chasse's division, belonging to I Corps, was way off to the right flank at Waterloo with II Corps units, Clinton's division and Mitchell's brigade, in between them and other I Corps troops. The reserve, a corps sized group of divisions, wasn't a corps, but Picton, one of the reserve division's commander's was given command of forces on the left flank. Of course, the 'cavalry corps" only acted as an army reserve of cavalry brigades. Seems to me that, more or less, despite have "corps", Wellington employed his divisions pretty much the same way he did in the peninsular campaign (i.e., an army HQ directly commanding divisions).

So, it was interesting to see what you'd do with it.

[shadowdragon]

sorry if I am not always % clear . next time i'll write in my mother language , french do you have any good dictionnary

If the result feels anglo-centric than I regret that as I had hoped to avoid that trap

It's just because we risk mixing up our "mixeds":

1) In FoGN terminology, "mixed division" refers to a division with both infantry and cavalry. The Anglo-Allied army doesn't allow this except for the Brunswickers. I agree since it would imply better infantry-cavalry coordination than I think was the case.

2) We also, have FoGN divisions of "mixed nationality". Here I'm treating the British/KGL/Hanoverians as a "nationality" (and I suppose also the Dutch and Belgians are treated as one nationality ). The ToN Anglo-Allied list doesn't allow this - you can have divisions of British/KGL/Hanoverians, divisions of Dutch-Belgians and division of Brunswickers, but not with with a mix of these nationalities (e.g.., Dutch-Belgian cavalry can't be in the same FoGN division as British cavalry). I think this is reight.

3) We can also have corps with a mix of divisions from different nationalities. The ToN does allow this for the Anglo-Allied army. The only complaint is that the minimum for British/KGL/Hanoverians doesn't leave much point room for Dutch-Belgian divisions. Mike says they'll look at it. Let's see what they come up with.

[MikeHorah]

sorry if I am not always % clear . next time i'll write in my mother language , french do you have any good dictionnary

If the result feels anglo-centric than I regret that as I had hoped to avoid that trap

It's just because we risk mixing up our "mixeds":

1) In FoGN terminology, "mixed division" refers to a division with both infantry and cavalry. The Anglo-Allied army doesn't allow this except for the Brunswickers. I agree since it would imply better infantry-cavalry coordination than I think was the case.

2) We also, have FoGN divisions of "mixed nationality". Here I'm treating the British/KGL/Hanoverians as a "nationality" (and I suppose also the Dutch and Belgians are treated as one nationality ). The ToN Anglo-Allied list doesn't allow this - you can have divisions of British/KGL/Hanoverians, divisions of Dutch-Belgians and division of Brunswickers, but not with with a mix of these nationalities (e.g.., Dutch-Belgian cavalry can't be in the same FoGN division as British cavalry). I think this is reight.

3) We can also have corps with a mix of divisions from different nationalities. The ToN does allow this for the Anglo-Allied army. The only complaint is that the minimum for British/KGL/Hanoverians doesn't leave much point room for Dutch-Belgian divisions. Mike says they'll look at it. Let's see what they come up with.

Yes we need to revist the core minima to allow a bit more headroom for the cheaper types . Its not a problem when you model the actual corps with no maxima of course - as I have just done - as you get mixed Corps with all nationalities feasible . But can you treat the Cavalry as a corps a such ?

[shadowdragon]

But can you treat the Cavalry as a corps a such ?

A good question. My gut reaction is "no", but consider the charge of the Household and Union brigades....that involved about 2,300 cavalry, which is the nearly the equivalent to the French I, II and IV Cavalry corps. If you throw in the Dutch-Belgian carabinier brigade as well.....then it's a lot. I guess I'd still say "no" and that this could be done with 1 or 2 infantry divisions and 1 or 2 cavalry divisions.

[bahdahbum]

I think we should consider the "corps" organisation as an administrative one and , foe the infantry take the divisionnal level as operational while the "brigade" level is the one used by the cavalry .

At Waterloo, they all got more or less "mixed" , the cavalry "corps" being kind of dispersed all along the battle line and the infantry corps having bits here and there ( but more organised )

The british had 30 % of all infantry bataillons, KGL had 8 bataillons or 9 % and there were 17 hanovrian bataillons ( 10 % ) . So it is pretty clear that the army is british/KGL/Hanovrian based .
The allied commander should have the choice of adding either Brunswick or DB infantry ( there was no 100% british corps ) . That's for the feeling .

And what about cavalry . KGL/British/Hanovrian had 2 of the 3 heavy brigades and a grand total of 66 squadrons compared to the 23 DB squadrons ( and the last heavy brigade ) + 5 brunswick squadrons . Interesting to note, only the DB cavalry was organised as a division ( on paper ) all the british cavalry being organised at brigade level . For a good historical feeling, as I already wrote I would have a mandatory cavalry "game terms" division . The choice of the player being the nationality of the cavalry choosen . You could choose the 2 british heavy brigades and try your luck with them or a light cavalry "division" or a heavy and light division or a dutch belgian "division" as they were "here and there" on the battle field . I would not be against mixed nationalitiies cavalry divisions as historically they charged and fought side by side on a brigade level depending on what happened and where they were .

That would feel better to me . You have the british core , you can choose to have an "allied" division , and you have to take some cavalry but you can choose the nationality of the cavalry brigades and those brigades form a command on their own or in game terms a division .

The Brunswick corps is of course a case in itself .

[MikeHorah]

I think we should consider the "corps" organisation as an administrative one and , foe the infantry take the divisionnal level as operational while the "brigade" level is the one used by the cavalry .

At Waterloo, they all got more or less "mixed" , the cavalry "corps" being kind of dispersed all along the battle line and the infantry corps having bits here and there ( but more organised )

The british had 30 % of all infantry bataillons, KGL had 8 bataillons or 9 % and there were 17 hanovrian bataillons ( 10 % ) . So it is pretty clear that the army is british/KGL/Hanovrian based .
The allied commander should have the choice of adding either Brunswick or DB infantry ( there was no 100% british corps ) . That's for the feeling .

And what about cavalry . KGL/British/Hanovrian had 2 of the 3 heavy brigades and a grand total of 66 squadrons compared to the 23 DB squadrons ( and the last heavy brigade ) + 5 brunswick squadrons . Interesting to note, only the DB cavalry was organised as a division ( on paper ) all the british cavalry being organised at brigade level . For a good historical feeling, as I already wrote I would have a mandatory cavalry "game terms" division . The choice of the player being the nationality of the cavalry choosen . You could choose the 2 british heavy brigades and try your luck with them or a light cavalry "division" or a heavy and light division or a dutch belgian "division" as they were "here and there" on the battle field . I would not be against mixed nationalitiies cavalry divisions as historically they charged and fought side by side on a brigade level depending on what happened and where they were .

That would feel better to me . You have the british core , you can choose to have an "allied" division , and you have to take some cavalry but you can choose the nationality of the cavalry brigades and those brigades form a command on their own or in game terms a division .

The Brunswick corps is of course a case in itself .

I have had go at the full Waterloo Allied order of battle ( based on strengths and order of battle on that day itself) and sent it to Terry for review with some notes . They reflect on and match many of the things you and Shadowdragon have been saying . Subject to Terry's views ( and Slitherine's) I'd like to make it generally available for comment and use.

That is a separate issue/thing to the Allied army of TON as that is not supposed to be just for Waterloo. I think we need to see the divisions as the building blocks, from a FOG(N) game perspective. You can create virtual cavalry Divisions and if you wish a virtual Cavalry corps. It's the issue of the particular model for FOG(N) as opposed to other game designs where Btns and even Sqns are the building blocks and where sometimes there is no real Division or even Corps structure allowed for and where the implied or actual fgure ratio is much lower than FOG(N).

In Napoleonics we have not had the long ( and tortured ) history of rules debates that WRG Warhammer and now FOG(AM) generated ( just compare the sheer number of posts even allowing for the time factor) so we are unused as a niche wargaming group to trying to matching lists to games designs.The rules drive the lists is a key point . We also have so much more detiled historical order of battle data to absorb , debate and apply than for Ancient and medieval. Probably more for the 23 years than the whole of the AM period combined. We are going back up the learning curve quite fast but in a way we may be getting back to where we were up to 40 years ago.

[bahdahbum]

but in a way we may be getting back to where we were up to 40 years ago

I must admitt I do notunderstand and 23 years ago I was playing Napoleon's battles

[MikeHorah]

but in a way we may be getting back to where we were up to 40 years ago

I must admitt I do notunderstand and 23 years ago I was playing Napoleon's battles

Sorry I meant the 23 years of the Napoleonic period 1792-1815 compared with over 2,000 years of Ancient and Mediaval history.

And the 40 years is a reference to where wargaming was 40 years ago whch is how long I have been gaming. One positive review I have read recently seemed to argue that was what we were doing with FOG(N) and welcomed that. It was not our plan but there may be some truth in that.

[shadowdragon]

That is a separate issue/thing to the Allied army of TON as that is not supposed to be just for Waterloo. I think we need to see the divisions as the building blocks, from a FOG(N) game perspective. You can create virtual cavalry Divisions and if you wish a virtual Cavalry corps. It's the issue of the particular model for FOG(N) as opposed to other game designs where Btns and even Sqns are the building blocks and where sometimes there is no real Division or even Corps structure allowed for and where the implied or actual fgure ratio is much lower than FOG(N)

....in a way we may be getting back to where we were up to 40 years ago.

Definitely the infantry divisions should be the building blocks. I think a virtual cavalry corps is going too far in the sense of seeing a corps with only cavalry/artillery and no infantry; there should be at least one infantry division in the corps. BThe list already allows virtual cavalry divisions and that's okay as the actual cavalry brigades are at best only equal to small FoGN divisions (i.e., 2 small units each). The only question is whether or not you should allow a cavalry division that has Dutch-Belgian and British/KGL/Hanoverian cavalry. Since it's a virtual cavalry division, there's no real life order of battle argument that can be used. The counter-argument is that we don't see these nationalities mixed together in any formation below the "corps" level and perhaps that's how it should be in the list.