I know this post summary is going to sound odd, as i dont yet own a 'Field of Glory Napoleonic' book, seeing as know one i know yet plays it and i havent invested the money in one (i know its not that much im just saving all my pennies at the moment). Therefore i am unsure of the exact rules for the creation of a British army. However i own a fair amount of Napoleonic British (all perry miniatures) and wondered if the army composition (shown below) is suitable, and advisable, for the Field of Glory Napoleonic game. Thanks in advance for any comments and advice (bar saying "just get the book" )
1st Division
DC1 (Competent) Commander - Campbell - Small - Average - Drilled - Line - No Attachment Number of bases 1
Line Infantry (reformed) - Coldstream Guard - Large - Average - Line - No Attachment - Number of bases 6
Line Infantry (reformed) - KGL - Small - Average - Drilled - Line - Attachment Skirmish - Number of bases 4
Light Infantry - 79th Highlanders - Small - Average - Drilled - Line - No Attachment - Number of bases 4
Medium Foot Artillery
3rd Division
DC1 (Competent) Commander - Picton - Small - Average - Drilled - Line - No Attachment Number of bases 1
Line Infantry (reformed) - 45th Regiment - Large - Average - Line - No Attachment - Number of bases 6
Line Infantry (reformed) - 5th Regiment - Small - Average - Drilled - Line - Attachment Skirmish - Number of bases 4
Light Infantry - 9th Portuguese- Small - Average - Drilled - Line - No Attachment - Number of bases 4
Medium Foot Artillery
4th Division
DC1 (Competent) Commander - Cole - Small - Average - Drilled - Line - No Attachment Number of bases 1
Line Infantry (reformed) - 27th Regiment - Large - Average - Line - No Attachment - Number of bases 6
Line Infantry (reformed) - 23rd Regiment- Small - Average - Drilled - Line - Attachment Skirmish - Number of bases 4
Light Infantry - 1st Portuguese - Small - Average - Drilled - Line - No Attachment - Number of bases 4
Medium Foot Artillery
Cavalry Division
DC1 (Competent) - Cotton - Small - Average - Drilled - Line - No Attachment - Number of bases 1
Line Infantry (reformed) - 3rd Regiment - Small - Average - Drilled - Line - No Attachment - Number of bases 4
Light Cavalry - 1st Hussars (KGL) - Small - Average - Drilled - Line - No Attachment - Number of bases 4
Heavy Cavalry - 1st Dragoons - Small - Average - Drilled - Line - No Attachment - Number of bases 4
I plan on having 6 infantry per base and 2 cavalry per base. Thanks again for any help or comments on this army list.
Hi Warmat, I know you don't want to hear it, but I think you will need to get a copy of Empires & Eagles if you are putting together a peninsula list.
There are about 6 'British' peninsula lists in E&E. However given the mix of troops you seem to have available, you are probably looking at the 1810-11 list (if you have early figures - stovepipe shakos, bicorne and tarletan cavalry) or the 1812-14 list if you have later unformed troops (Belgic shakos, helmut and shako cavalry).
The list you have put together has a number of problems regarding troop classification.
1. You have more average drilled infantry than the lists allow. At least some units would need to be veteran
2. British Guards, Highlanders, Cacadores and KGL troops are not average drilled.
3. You have too many artillery batteries for an 1810-11 army.
4. You don't have enough skirmisher attachments
5. Brits cannot have 4 competant divisional commanders.
6. Your list comes in at more at far more than 800 points, if you classified the troops correctly.
We have 3 british players in our club. It's hard to generalise, but generally the strength of a British FoGN army is seen in its infantry. Small units of veterans tooled up with rifle skirimishers and/or artillery attachments, some high quality light infantry and minimal cavalry and artillery. Probably 3 divisions rather than 4.
A tooled up British infantry line puts out a heap of firepower at 6MU. Playing the 'lots of dice at 6MU' game is probably the best tactic for a British army. I have learned by bitter experiance that you cannot expect to advance a body of infantry frontally against such a British line and win.
The flip side is that British armies (unless an 1815 list loaded with hanovarians) tend to be very small. Probably 22-26 ACV (rather than 33 ACV as in your list). The best way I have found to beat them is, rather than trying to take them on frontally, to load up a flank and come in at an angle against an end of the British line. However many of the British E&E lists have high agression and will be the attacker in many games, which should allow a good British player to avoid getting a flank ganged up on.
In summary, nothing wrong with the troop mix you have or proposed basing, it is just that you have more than you need for a 'standard' 800 point list.
I would encourage you to get a copy of E&E, which is a good read in itself.
Thanks ever so much Brett for taking the time to give me a detailed and throughout reply. Very much appreciated. I will indeed grab myself a copy of E&E and make some changes to the overall plan I described. Frankly having a smaller army is a good thing as all the models are unpainted, so less for me to do. I will take on board your advice and get cracking with making some changes.
Again thank you for your speedy and well thought out reply,
The War in the Iberian Peninsula lists for the Anglo-Portuguese in Emperors and Eagles (E&E) are not accurate.
One way of determining whether the ratio of different arms in army lists are correct is to evaluate them against the actual battle orders and strengths, and determine the ratio of bases (in the case of FOGN) to the actual troop levels. It doesn’t matter whether the E&E lists allow too many bases or not (that’s a function of the Rules figure conversion ratios), but it DOES matter when the relationships between different arms is out of proportion. When that happens, the army on the wargaming table can bear little no resemblance to its historical prototype, making a mockery of having army lists in the first place.
The following is an analysis of the E&E lists against reported battle strengths. Again, what we are after are whether the ratios are similar. They don’t have to be exactly the same as the some of the lists cover a number of battles. Given the nature of these army lists, the ‘keystone’ arm is the British Infantry – the numbers of which should determine the bases of the other arms.
E&E British Army in Portugal 1808 List
Vimero. British Infantry 115%, Artillery 350%, Cavalry 100% Here, the artillery is far too numerous. The infantry and cavalry ratio looks good.
E&E British Army in Portugal 1809 List
Corunna I could not analyse this list as I did not have the British Army returns for the Corunna battle.
E&E Anglo-Portuguese Army 1809-10
Talavera. British Infantry 100%, Artillery 233%, Cavalry 89% Here, the artillery is far too numerous. The infantry and cavalry ratio looks good.
E&E Anglo-Portuguese Army 1810-11
Bussaco. British Infantry 69%, Portuguese Infantry 100%, Artillery 125%, Cavalry N/A Too much artillery.
E&E Anglo-Portuguese Army 1810-11
Albuera. British Infantry 147%, Portuguese Infantry 157%, Artillery 250%, Cavalry 200% Too much artillery. The cavalry numbers are acceptable as they are on small numbers in any case.
E&E Anglo-Portuguese Army 1810-11
Fuentes de Orono. British Infantry 81%, Portuguese Infantry 85%, Artillery 125%, Cavalry 300%. Artillery and cavalry are too many, but this battle had a very small number of allied cavalry anyway.
E&E Anglo-Portuguese Army 1810-11
Field Army. British Infantry 71%, Portuguese Infantry 52%, Artillery 167%, Cavalry 109%. Too much artillery.
E&E Allied Army in Spain and France 1812-14
Salamanca. British Infantry 103%, Portuguese Infantry 77%, Artillery 233%, Cavalry 150%. Too much artillery.
E&E Allied Army in Spain and France 1812-14
Vitoria. British Infantry 66%, Portuguese Infantry 52%, Artillery 140%, Cavalry 60%. Too much artillery.
E&E Allied Army in Spain and France 1812-14
Autumn 1813. British Infantry 73%, Portuguese Infantry 59%, Artillery 233%, Cavalry N/A Too much artillery.
E&E Allied Army in Spain and France 1812-14
Orthez. British Infantry 118%, Portuguese Infantry 94%, Artillery 233%, Cavalry 150%. Too much artillery.
E&E Allied Army in Spain and France 1812-14
Toulouse. British Infantry 138%, Portuguese Infantry 89%, Artillery 233%, Cavalry 188%. Too much artillery and cavalry.
The stand-out finding is that there is far too much artillery in the lists for the troop levels in the other arms (infantry and cavalry). The British, and later Anglo-Portuguese armies usually only had one six-gun battery per division. The Lists all require one small unit AND allow 1-2 artillery attachments, leading to the grossly inflated numbers in the E&E lists. I would have allowed ONE artillery attachment per division OR one small artillery unit per three divisions. Nothing more. Terry Shaw on Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:31 pm on the Slitherine site wrote "You are quite correct that under the rules the most likely distribution of guns for some of the smaller battles, most often in the Peninsular is represented by adding attachments to your units. This of course reduces your long-range artillery capacity. However, given the relatively large size of the target (a small unit is about 1750men), the damage caused by a single battery at long range is small. We made a decision to depict 'Artillery of Position' as seperate [sic] units, and 'Support Atillery' [sic] as attachments, as we felt that this produces a more accurate depiction of their usage and their effect. An added advantage in doing this is that it makes the game much faster to play - since we're not wasting time limbering/unlimbering/firing individual artillery batteries that have negligible effect on the game (at long range)." These lists should have applied this reasoning and the small artillery units should have been optional, and NOT compulsory.
There are not enough skirmisher attachments from 1811, when each British and Portuguese Brigade (unit) had a rifle company attached (from the 5/60th Rifles, 95th Rifles or the Brunswick Jagers). Further, it was standard practice for British Brigades to form semi-permanent light battalions from their line battalion light companies (Reid, S; 'Wellington's Army in the Peninsula 1809-14' Osprey 2004). For some reason, the lists seem to limit the number of skirmisher elements to two per division. As an Anglo-Portuguese division from this time was usually two British brigades and a Portuguese brigade, all of which would have a skirmisher attachment (the Portuguese had a cazadore battalion), there should be THREE per division.
The E&E lists have conjured up a completely fictitious unit called "Portuguese cacadores" as a brigade sized unit. This did not exist. There were certainly cazadore battalions of light infantry, one company of which was armed with rifles. They were allocated to each Portuguese Line infantry brigade, on a ratio of four line infantry battalions to one cazadore battalion. There were no separate cazadore brigades. This rogue unit's existence in the lists may explain the problems in the point in the preceding paragraph. This unit should be deleted and Portuguese infantry brigades should have an optional skirmisher rifle attachment. They were attached at the following dates: 2nd Division, Ashworth's Brigade 6 June 1811; 3rd Division, Sutton's Brigade, 8 April 1812, 4th Division Collins' Brigade, 14 March 1811; 5th Division Spry's Brigade, 14 March 1811; 6th Division Eben's Brigade 1 Jan 1811- 14 May 1811, Madden's Brigade 10 April 1812; 7th Division Colman's Brigade 5 March 1811.
The cavalry have the wrong ratings. Given their ability to beat the French cavalry on a regular basis (see Gate, David; 'The Spanish Ulcer'; Da Capo Press 1986 and Fletcher, Ian; 'Galloping at Everything'; Stackpole 2001) they should be rated as Superior Drilled, later as Superior Veteran, as the opposing French in the Peninsula as Average Drilled or Average Veteran (French Army in Spain 1810-12). The E&E 1813-14 French lists also has the French as Average/Poor Drilled, but the British superiority was established very early, during the retreat to Corunna. Even at Fuentes de Onoro, where the British Cavalry were heavily outnumbered, they held off the French cavalry at important points in the battle. There is no record of the British cavalry charging without orders in the Peninsula, so the 'impetuous' rating is wrong. The overall rating as Average is wrong, given the French Peninsula cavalry ratings.
The disappointing aspect with all this is that wargaming armies developed using the E&E lists are unlikely to look like a British or Anglo-Portuguese army in the Peninsula. They’ll be groaning under the weight of artillery that didn’t exist, using Portuguese light infantry brigades that didn’t exist and possible have too much cavalry that isn’t graded correctly. What a shame.
The army lists are not specifically designed to create an historical army list for every corps that was ever fielded for the various armies covered. (remember that they are only representing a single corps not a whole army - and that we allow additional resources to be allocated from other divisions or army reserve).
If you wish to use specific historical armies then by all means create them. The books are not large enough to provide lists for every corps that was ever fielded for the various armies covered.
As for the numbers of cavalry and artillery in each list, the following if a breakdown of the minimum bases of each troops type for each of the British lists in the Peninsular:
Year .......... Infantry ....... Cavalry ....... Artillery
1808 .......... 24 ............. 0 .............. 2
1809 .......... 24 ............. 8 .............. 3
1809-1810 ... 24 ............. 8 .............. 4
1810-1811 ... 20 ............. 4 .............. 2
1812-1814 ... 24 ............. 8 .............. 4
As you can see the (minimum) numbers of cavalry and artillery are both quite low. it's up to players to design their armies along historical lines or as a hibrid of their own choice. the reason for the grading of the cavalry of the Peninsular is more because of the poor quality of horses than of the men riding them.
The 'Impetuous' rating doesn't mean that the unit itself will charge without orderes, but that their officers are likely to 'seize the initiaive' which MAY not be what the CC wishes - hence it's a CMT to control them, you just need more Command Points - i.e. better commanders. Only the 1808 & 1809 armies have compulsary impetuous cavalry - with 1 unit of light cavalry in each, so I don't see how this is such a problem.
If the British field heavy dragoons, they will always outclass the opposing French dragoons who are not 'shock'. The French (without guards) are therefore not likely to win a significant cavalry melee.
I would add in having created some lists and played some lists and being keen on the period and the OBs for history.
What you find in game terms is i feel a good historical approximation of how the army functioned.
The english player can try to design a mal-proportioned army vis-a-vis history. They will certainly have inferior game results. I own too many english cavalry and guns so i jumped to design lists to use them. I had mal-proportioned lists like what you suggest. Then I looked how i would fight with them and disliked it immensely. As another poster wrote, you need to win with your infantry in this army.
I can take your point that literalism has a weird look when translated. But the game effect is quite sound. There are quibbles Cacadores as you point out. But the "top-down" effect is quite accurate. And even the Cacadores I could backwards justify if i needed to.
I came from a literalist view of Napoleonics. I have a friend who has the entire Anglo-allied 1815 OB at a 1-60 scale. Every battalion is a differnet size. But in the past decade I have migrated to that is tracking logistics not employing the history for a game. I want a game that reflects history. I don't want the old unplayable D-Day invasion came on a platoon scale. It was insanely detailed to the point of well...
So see the overall effect, it plays out much more historically than I believe you suspect.
I understand the lists were not designed to specifically reflect an historical organisation or an order of battle. But they SHOULD reflect the army composition of the prototype they are supposedly modelling. It is more confusing when looking at the Anglo-Portuguese armies as they did not use a Corps structure for their infantry. In fact, initially, they didn’t even have divisions. My analysis was to show the relativities between the different arms and nationalities (Portuguese and British infantry) – and when doing that, both the minimums and maximums are important.
While you make the point that the minimums do not exceed the expected force levels for each arm, it is important to note that the MINIMUMS for artillery should be the MAXIMUM. But, rather than being the end point, they are only the starting point. Then therein lies the problem, the minimums should have been the maximum – for the artillery in any event. So, a review of the minimums was irrelevant. It’s what you can buy that counts, and that’s reflected in the maximum levels.
It’s is obvious to the casual observer that a decision was made to give each army list a compulsory artillery battery, no matter what their organisation or proportionality was. For many of the lists, this was an error.
As for the cavalry, the British were beating the French Dragoons with their Light Cavalry (Light Dragoons and Hussars). French Dragoons are rated as Heavy Cavalry. While I take your point that British Heavy Cavalry would be classed as ‘Shock’ and the French Dragoons not, it’s the interaction between the British Light Cavalry units and the French Heavy Cavalry that needs to be sorted out. Given the rule limitations, I can only see that being by rating the British as ‘Superior’. In 1808 the cavalry engagement at Sahagun had the 15th Hussars vs. The 1st Provisional Chasseurs and 8th Dragoons, then there is the Battle of Campo Maior where the 13th Light Dragoons routed the French Dragoons. And then there’s the holding off of the French Dragoons at Fuentes de Orono with the much smaller British cavalry forces. These were mostly light cavalry (14th and 16th Light Dragoons, 1st Hussars KGL, and 1st Dragoons (heavy)). It was these actions that settled the superiority of the British cavalry in the Peninsula.
I see in the Anglo-Portuguese List 1810-11 there is a compulsory small unit of KGL Line Infantry.
But at Albuera there were no KGL Line formations, ony a KGL light brigade. Why would this formation be compulsory in all Anglo-Portuguese armies?
Also, the same formation in the 1809-10 Lists (p139) is rated as either Superior Veteran or Average Veteran (and is comulsory), in the list referred to above (p142) it is Average Veteran (no choice), and in the 1812-14 List (p145) it is again a choice of Superior Veteran or Average Veteran (and is comulsory).
1) The KGL Line weren't at every battle, so shouldn't be complusory; and
2) What happened in 1810-11 to lose their 'superiority'?
3) What happened in 1812 for them to regain it?
It’s misleading to quote individual actions from specific battles. I agree that there are examples of superior performances by the British cavalry in the Peninsular, although I would disagree that the performance at Sahagun was particularly great – and the action at Fuentes de Onoro was a delaying action at best (although well performed). There are other battles where British cavalry weren’t so impressive. (The 3nd Hussars, and 11th light dragoons at Jerumenha ford for example).
There’s a good article on British cavalry in the Peninsular here: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/etd/4345/
Definitely worth a read.
Artillery numbers can be quite misleading – since it depends greatly on how many are allocated as attachments. I take your point about minimums nor being relevant, but even the maximums aren’t that high – min/max as follows:
1808 ........ 2/4
1809 ........ 2/6
1809-1810 4/6
1810-1811 2/6
1812-1814 4/8
The lists might be more accurate if we limited the TOTAL number of bases rather than just those in artillery units, but afterthought is a wonderful thing. It’s a delicate balance between providing an historical list while still retaining enough options for players to juggle with.
I agree that theirs was not a entirely stellar performance, but the French weren't complete fools either (although their Dragoons tried to stop cavalry charges by firing their carbines, something abandoned in the Seven Years War!) and were inevitiably going to have a 'good day' from time to time. However, while the British Cavalry got into trouble on some occassions by pursuing too far (Vimiero, Campo Maior and Maguilla, but perhaps NOT Talavera) that would be better represented by a rating of Superior Drilled - and maintaing that Drilled rating for the Peninsula until, say 1812. And the French also over-pursued on occassion as well. Nevertheless, at first contact the British cavalry showed, even when Light Cavalry, that they could better equal or greater numbers of French Heavy Cavalry - hence the rating of Superior, since the French cavalry is rated as Average at this time. And being Drilled will inhibit them from responding well to command direction. The rules already had a mechanism for pursuit by cavalry - the combat outcome. The 'impetuous' rule doesn't model cavalry's (an this is everyone's cavalry) problem of halting a pursuit - it just has the British cavarly launching charges without orders - which was NOT the problem. I think you have limited the impact of this rule by reducing the compulsory cavalry that must be purchased with this charateristic, but, frankly, it would have been better never to have been put in the rules.
I have the minimum/maximum bases for British/Portuguese artillery as:
1808 2/7 (3 attachments)
1809 2/9 (3 attachments)
1809-1810 2/7 (3 attachments)
1810-1811 2/9 (3 attachments)
1812-14 4/14 (4 attachments)
It's the mixture of attachments AND positional battery(s) that's the problem
Just refering to my previous post, to give you some idea of the problem, each stand is roughly a RHA troop or RFA brigade (5 guns and a howitzer)
so:
1808 2/7 (3 attachments) Between 12 and 42 guns. Actual guns for the entire army: 18 guns at Vimerio
1809 2/9 (3 attachments) Between 12 and 54 guns. Actual guns for the entire army: 60 guns before Corunna, 12 at battle
1809-1810 2/7 (3 attachments) Between 12 and 42 guns. Actual guns for the entire army: 30 guns at Talavera
1810-1811 2/9 (3 attachments) Between 12 and 54 guns. Actual guns for the entire army: 60 guns at Bussaco, 36 guns at Alburea, 48 guns at Fuentes de Orono, 66 guns in the field army in September 1811
1812-14 4/14 (4 attachments) Between 12 and 84 guns. Actual guns for the entire army: 60 guns at Salamanca, 96 guns at Vitoria, 54 guns in Autumn 1813, 54 guns at Orthez, 54 guns at Toulouse
The problem is that the rest of the 800 point wargame force consititutes one quarter of the actual army numbers, but the maximums allowed in the lists for artillery allow ALL the artillery component.
That is out of balance. There is the possibility of FAR too many guns.
I'm tentative to dip my oar in here, but perhaps it might be worth considering an E&E errata to either:
1. reduce the minimum artillery in the relevant British lists to 0; or
2. add a line in the special rules section of the relevant lists saying "Each artillery attachment selected counts as 1 base towards the minimum & maximum of foot artillery".
(1) is a simpler errata, (2) requires more words but is probably better.
In practice, I doubt if many British players in practice would consider maxing out on artillery. Minimum artillery units and as many artillery attachments as you can find spare points for seems to be more common.
1. reduce the minimum artillery in the relevant British lists to 0; or
2. add a line in the special rules section of the relevant lists saying "Each artillery attachment selected counts as 1 base towards the minimum & maximum of foot artillery".
(1) is a simpler errata, (2) requires more words but is probably better.
In practice, I doubt if many British players in practice would consider maxing out on artillery. Minimum artillery units and as many artillery attachments as you can find spare points for seems to be more common.
I'd agree that option 2 is the better one.
I also agree about maxing out on artillery. It's a mistake that only new players are likely to make. Infantry firepower, enhanced with artillery and skirmisher attachments are the way to go.
I'd agree that option 2 is the better one.
I also agree about maxing out on artillery. It's a mistake that only new players are likely to make. Infantry firepower, enhanced with artillery and skirmisher attachments are the way to go.
That, I think, would be a good resolution.
The Anglo-Portuguese 1809-10 list seems out of kilter with the other lists in this series in artillery. It allows two artillery attachments per division, but in 1810 there were two RHA troops, six RFA brigades, two KGL FA brigades and two Portuguese FA brigades. In 1810 there were eight infantry divisions and one cavalry division; a ration of 9:12
In 1811 there were four RHA troops, six RFA brigades, two KGL FA brigades and five Portuguese FA brigades. These supported nine infantry and two cavalry divisions, a ratio of 11:17. Yet this list only allows one attachment per division. The artillery didn't change much after that date, nor did the division count, but the 1812-14 list allows two attachments again.
Either the 1809-10 and 1812-14 lists are overly generous, OR the 1810-11 list is miserly... As the ratio for artillery in these periods is around one and a half batteries per division, it is finely balanced, but if the lists tend to err on generosity, (which they seem to do), then the Anglo-Portuguese lists for 1810-11 should have the Attachments section modified to allow two artillery attachments per division (the modification proposed above would elinminate the problems of having positional batteries and attachments). This would then alighn it with the other lists in this series.
I like the view of "british superior light cavalry defeating the french dragoons" . So now what do we do about those french chasseurs, 10th regiment, who did beat the british light dragoons ( 23 regiment ) at Talavera de la Reyna ?
No they just charged the light dragoons who rolled a bunch of 2 ... Ok it's a joke ..but the story is truth : the 10th chasseur did crush the 23rd light dragoon
French cavalry was far from bad and british cavalry not a supercavalry . There is even a fench cavalry charge that routed KGL heavy dragoons but I cannot remember a which battle in Spain .
I wuld guess bith side wer emore or less equal in quality .
bahdahbum wrote:No they just charged the light dragoons who rolled a bunch of 2 ... Ok it's a joke ..but the story is truth : the 10th chasseur did crush the 23rd light dragoon
French cavalry was far from bad and british cavalry not a supercavalry . There is even a fench cavalry charge that routed KGL heavy dragoons but I cannot remember a which battle in Spain .
I wuld guess bith side wer emore or less equal in quality .
In reserve : the french they had more cavalry ! but did they use it wisely !
Wellington did not beat the french, they did it to themselves by not cooperating and attacking strongh defensive positions . When Wellington really did attack, the french were too disorganised to resist . Good strategy .
And some people have a tendency to forget the numerous spanish armies
I like the view of "british superior light cavalry defeating the french dragoons" . So now what do we do about those french chasseurs, 10th regiment, who did beat the british light dragoons ( 23 regiment ) at Talavera de la Reyna ?
Skipping a bit of the detail there, weren't we? The fact the the 23rd had first crashed into a hidden ravine, that the Chassers (not just the 10th, there was also the 26th Chasseurs) were formed up BEHIND French infantry squares, where the 23rd chared the Chassers, were alowed to ride through by the French (who no doubt thought they had them trapped), but who turned around and cut their way back out of the trap, passing the French squares again. It's suprising any returned. The charge was NOT unsupported (KGL Hussars), but the ravine caused this to become detached.
)
