1700 to 1762

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Napoleonics.

Moderators: hammy, Blathergut, terrys, Slitherine Core

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10282
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Oct 23, 2013 4:22 pm

Rekila wrote: I will suggest that FOGR could be extended to cover up to 1740.
Which is interesting as I was never entirely happy that we ran FoG:R beyond the end of the TYW/Frenc-Spanish War period (call it 1660 for round numbers).
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Rekila
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: Galiza

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by Rekila » Wed Oct 23, 2013 5:05 pm

Yes, FOGR without pikes seems odd! But when I got the “1660-1698” supplement I was surprised how much some of the armies (Late French, Austria or German states) look like the ones we used on our FOGR SYW games. And even without pikes FOGR works well. :D

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10282
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:58 pm

Glad it works for you :D
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2045
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by shadowdragon » Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:04 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:Which is interesting as I was never entirely happy that we ran FoG:R beyond the end of the TYW/Frenc-Spanish War period (call it 1660 for round numbers).
Nik,

Ignoring the point that few people are ever "entirely happy" unless they have "no expectations", what specifically were the reasons for your unhappiness about FoGR for post 1660-ish battles? :D

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10282
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:59 pm

shadowdragon wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Which is interesting as I was never entirely happy that we ran FoG:R beyond the end of the TYW/Frenc-Spanish War period (call it 1660 for round numbers).
Nik,

Ignoring the point that few people are ever "entirely happy" unless they have "no expectations", what specifically were the reasons for your unhappiness about FoGR for post 1660-ish battles? :D
Not convinced it gets the right feel for warfare from the later C17th onwards. Armies get much bigger than they previously were and I think a different C&C mechanism could better get the feel of larger armies (no idea what though). The increasing dependence on and effectiveness of musketry - we see the start of this in the later TYW and the increasing use of large bodies of commanded out shot for important tasks, not to mention we also start to see shot seeing off horse in the open on occasion even before bayonets arrive. A different set of rules would also allow different "special rules" such as for the Great Northern War Swedes (perhaps) rather than just have them use something developed for different troops.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2045
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by shadowdragon » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:22 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
shadowdragon wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Which is interesting as I was never entirely happy that we ran FoG:R beyond the end of the TYW/Frenc-Spanish War period (call it 1660 for round numbers).
Nik,

Ignoring the point that few people are ever "entirely happy" unless they have "no expectations", what specifically were the reasons for your unhappiness about FoGR for post 1660-ish battles? :D
Not convinced it gets the right feel for warfare from the later C17th onwards. Armies get much bigger than they previously were and I think a different C&C mechanism could better get the feel of larger armies (no idea what though). The increasing dependence on and effectiveness of musketry - we see the start of this in the later TYW and the increasing use of large bodies of commanded out shot for important tasks, not to mention we also start to see shot seeing off horse in the open on occasion even before bayonets arrive. A different set of rules would also allow different "special rules" such as for the Great Northern War Swedes (perhaps) rather than just have them use something developed for different troops.
Thanks for that.

I agree about the C&C mechanism. It needs something different from both FoGR and FoGN ones but I don't know what either.

For WSS musket only foot Richard's suggestion that WSS foot get "protected" status seems to work at least in the games I've tried using a modified FoGR for WSS. I think it's good enough and has a better foot vs mounted effect than the current FoGN rules. Although FoGN close combat which has more to and fro-ing through it's outcome moves seems a better fit for the period than FoGR's close combat that ends with one side or the other broken.

A big problem are villages. In FoGR regular foot in villages don't do well, but in the WSS of villages are key points in the defensive line. The FoGN rules work fairly well for this.

For the moment, in the absence of any better I'm going with a modified FoGR for WSS.

donm2
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by donm2 » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
shadowdragon wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Which is interesting as I was never entirely happy that we ran FoG:R beyond the end of the TYW/Frenc-Spanish War period (call it 1660 for round numbers).
Nik,

Ignoring the point that few people are ever "entirely happy" unless they have "no expectations", what specifically were the reasons for your unhappiness about FoGR for post 1660-ish battles? :D
Not convinced it gets the right feel for warfare from the later C17th onwards. Armies get much bigger than they previously were and I think a different C&C mechanism could better get the feel of larger armies (no idea what though). The increasing dependence on and effectiveness of musketry - we see the start of this in the later TYW and the increasing use of large bodies of commanded out shot for important tasks, not to mention we also start to see shot seeing off horse in the open on occasion even before bayonets arrive. A different set of rules would also allow different "special rules" such as for the Great Northern War Swedes (perhaps) rather than just have them use something developed for different troops.
I also am not sure that either rule sets can model the main style of battles in the SYW. C & C forms a far more important element of battles than in the other periods. I can't think of many wargamers sitting still while a Prussian army marches around its flank to a point of major advantage. I also don't see many wargamers be very patient with Sackvile while he decides to move or not.

I for one am beginning to play rules that don't allow you to do everything you want. I miss the old DBM C & C problems when you threw low on your pip dice. I have been playing Black powder for the Napoleonic period for this very reason.

Generals didn't have full control over all their troops, so why should we.

Just my three pennies worth.

Don

donm2
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by donm2 » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:50 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
shadowdragon wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Which is interesting as I was never entirely happy that we ran FoG:R beyond the end of the TYW/Frenc-Spanish War period (call it 1660 for round numbers).
Nik,

Ignoring the point that few people are ever "entirely happy" unless they have "no expectations", what specifically were the reasons for your unhappiness about FoGR for post 1660-ish battles? :D
Not convinced it gets the right feel for warfare from the later C17th onwards. Armies get much bigger than they previously were and I think a different C&C mechanism could better get the feel of larger armies (no idea what though). The increasing dependence on and effectiveness of musketry - we see the start of this in the later TYW and the increasing use of large bodies of commanded out shot for important tasks, not to mention we also start to see shot seeing off horse in the open on occasion even before bayonets arrive. A different set of rules would also allow different "special rules" such as for the Great Northern War Swedes (perhaps) rather than just have them use something developed for different troops.
I also am not sure that either rule sets can model the main style of battles in the SYW. C & C forms a far more important element of battles than in the other periods. I can't think of many wargamers sitting still while a Prussian army marches around its flank to a point of major advantage. I also don't see many wargamers be very patient with Sackvile while he decides to move or not.

I for one am beginning to play rules that don't allow you to do everything you want. I miss the old DBM C & C problems when you threw low on your pip dice. I have been playing Black powder for the Napoleonic period for this very reason.

Generals didn't have full control over all their troops, so why should we.

Just my three pennies worth.

Don

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2045
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by shadowdragon » Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:58 pm

donm2 wrote:I also am not sure that either rule sets can model the main style of battles in the SYW. C & C forms a far more important element of battles than in the other periods. I can't think of many wargamers sitting still while a Prussian army marches around its flank to a point of major advantage. I also don't see many wargamers be very patient with Sackvile while he decides to move or not.

I for one am beginning to play rules that don't allow you to do everything you want. I miss the old DBM C & C problems when you threw low on your pip dice. I have been playing Black powder for the Napoleonic period for this very reason.

Generals didn't have full control over all their troops, so why should we.

Just my three pennies worth.

Don
That will be six pennies for the double post, Don. :lol:

MikeHorah
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:57 pm

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by MikeHorah » Thu Oct 24, 2013 4:34 pm

I think donm2 has some very good points about the behavioural characteristics of commanders not just in this era - what in other fora are referred to as " cultural" factors. In general terms miniatures gaming finds it hard to reflect those at the command level, reasoning perhaps :? that players bring their own sets of personal cultural attitudes to the table, some helpful to success some not whether the rules ay them down or not!

That is why I am beginning to think the initial battle set up for the Age of Reason might be the best way to capture some of this . Thoughts on that would be interesting. What sort of things, prescriptions and proscriptions do those who have already got a lot of insight into this era, think might reflect that but still give a good gme?

shadowdragon
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2045
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Manotick, Ontario, Canada

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by shadowdragon » Thu Oct 24, 2013 5:27 pm

MikeHorah wrote:I think donm2 has some very good points about the behavioural characteristics of commanders not just in this era - what in other fora are referred to as " cultural" factors. In general terms miniatures gaming finds it hard to reflect those at the command level, reasoning perhaps :? that players bring their own sets of personal cultural attitudes to the table, some helpful to success some not whether the rules ay them down or not!

That is why I am beginning to think the initial battle set up for the Age of Reason might be the best way to capture some of this . Thoughts on that would be interesting. What sort of things, prescriptions and proscriptions do those who have already got a lot of insight into this era, think might reflect that but still give a good gme?
Seems like you've convinced yourself to write a completely separate set of rules for the Age of Reason, Mike. :D

Initial battle set up will be important. As well I think that there should be limitations on manoeuvre during the battle. I like John Hill's idea for his Johnny Reb American Civil War rules of limiting the number of different orders that can be conduct by a brigade in one turn. The notion of every battalion (if battalion is the basic infantry unit in the game) in a brigade doing its own thing is far too much flexibility. By a single order I mean one or more (up to all) battalions can conduct the same movement. FoGR does this for grand tactical movement (to get double or triple speed) but allows every unit to do what it wants when moving at normal speed.

I also think that deciding on the basic representational unit (and look) is important since that will decide what limitations are appropriate. To have a go at that, here are my current thoughts with regards to infantry:

1) It should look "linear" which to me means a combat formation of a double rank of infantry. Deeper formations are for movement to the battle line but should be penalized in combat.
2) A unit equaling a brigade (like FoGN) has problems with "look". What do you do for a brigade with its battalions deployed in two lines? The FoGN unreformed unit in tactical formation doesn't look right plus a 4 or 6 base unit with it's bases all in a line isn't much fun to use in a game - way too awkward.
3) A unit in "line" about 3 bases wide and 2 figures deep looks good, but isn't as flexible as a 2 base wide unit. Seems like about right to me, but perhaps I've been conditioned by other games!
4) Whether the unit consists of 3 bases of double depth with 2 ranks of figures per base or 6 bases each of a single rank (so the deployed unit would be 3 bases wide by 2 deep) really will depend on whether one goes with attrition via base removal or whole unit removal via degradation. So far I'm agnostic on this point.

One of the issues that I've not found enough information on is the deployment of multiple lines of battalions. The drill information I've found suggests that the 2nd line of battalions would be offset to cover gaps between battalions in the 1st line. The gaps were smaller than the width of battalions, but part of the drill for replacing the 1st line seems to be that the 2nd line battalion moves through the gap and re-deploys in a firing line. However, most maps seem to show the battalions lined up one behind the other. I don't know enough to comment on that or how this should be represented in a game.

As always I defer to those with greater knowledge of the period. These are just my thoughts.

P.S. I wonder if this should be moved somewhere else since it's not FoGR or FoGN. Although initially it started as a thread on modifying FoGN it seems to have become its own beast.

Rekila
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:57 pm
Location: Galiza

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by Rekila » Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:41 am

The problem with specific rules for the “Age of reason” period is that they assume that the standard system of combat in the era is the parallel linear battle. i.e that the battle is center in the confrontation of parallel lines of infantry that use the “linear tactics “ and met each other at short distance and after delivering a number of volleys resolves the issue. In my opinion, that’s far to be the case, especially, in the latest years of the SYW. But even in the SYW initial period, that happens rarely, to advance frontally in line against a static enemy also deployed in line is to covet destruction. In the well know episode of the British and French infantry in Fontenoy , it is worth remember that the French guard after given the British the honor to fire first were almost destroyed and run away. The Prussian infantry who’s well drilled fire is so admired remains passive in Rossbach or Lobositz , and were the artillery and cavalry that delivered the decisive attack . At the beginning of the war Frederick even ordered that infantry should attack without firing. A strange decision if we assume that the Prussians win their battles by the so vaunted superiority in short distance linear fire combat. As it has been pointed here before, if a thing characterized the SYW is the importance of pre-battle maneuvers. That happens precisely because the parallel infantry battle doesn’t work at the time. As the attacker needs to get some tactical advantage, it provides for great variety of battle plans to achieve tactical surprise. It could be achieved by attacking the enemy flanks (Oblique order), use cavalry or artillery to give the decisive blow etc. (see Duffy :The army of Frederick the Great pag. 229/232). In the late years linear battle deployment is almost abandoned (the use of independent attacking columns by the Austrians), and if the battalions are still deployed in line, they are also deployed deep in echelon with various units one before another to sustain the attack at the select point/s, with the rest of the front cover by light units.
Rules specifics for the period tends to assume the linear system as standard and so make it works, forcing the parallel linear battle, so given the century (IMO) a unity that it doesn’t have, especially after Frederick enters the stage. Is for that that we were happily surprised when we begin using FOGN for the SYW. As with unreformed infantry you can´t simply advance to 2MU on a long line in front of the enemy infantry unless you wanted to lost. You need to use Flank marches, try to envelop the enemy flanks or pierce the enemy line with cavalry or artillery etc. In one recent game I was the attacker and the French occupies a strong position so I send all the cavalry in a flank march. They repeatedly fail to arrive. The French player remains for a while dubious of what to do, but as I continues to fail the dice roll turn after turn (until we were both convinced that the flank march will never show off) finally decides to attack my beleaguered infantry with all his army. Things were turning black for me when my cavalry timely arrived in what was by them the enemy rear. It was truly a SYW battle! :D

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4188
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by terrys » Mon Nov 25, 2013 5:41 pm

1) It should look "linear" which to me means a combat formation of a double rank of infantry. Deeper formations are for movement to the battle line but should be penalized in combat.
Obviously the -1 for being in line should be removed. It's important to make sure that the game looks and feels right. In terms of 'looking' right the armies should (in general) face each other in line (often 2 or 3 lines). I'm not quite sure why lines of infantry successfully fought off attacking cavalry in this period yet consistently formed square against a cavalry threat in the later period. Was this due to better training of the infantry (fewer conscripts around) or a lesser 'shock' effect for the cavalry?.
2) A unit equaling a brigade (like FoGN) has problems with "look". What do you do for a brigade with its battalions deployed in two lines? The FoGN unreformed unit in tactical formation doesn't look right plus a 4 or 6 base unit with it's bases all in a line isn't much fun to use in a game - way too awkward.
Tactical formation would not be correct for this period. Only line, column and possibly 'road column' would be used. Infantry would not attack in column, but certainly Frederic's heavy cavalry could do so, but I'm not sure about the cavalry of other nations..
3) A unit in "line" about 3 bases wide and 2 figures deep looks good, but isn't as flexible as a 2 base wide unit. Seems like about right to me, but perhaps I've been conditioned by other games!
Bases 2 figures deep should certainly be used. Not sure whether to use 2 or 3 bases per 'unit' (with large units 3 or 4 bases). There's certainly not requirement to have an even number of bases, since tactical formation would not be used. The issue on number of bases per 'unit' is that of table size for large battles. We certainly wouldn't want a large battle to require a table more than 12ft wide (in 15mm).
4) Whether the unit consists of 3 bases of double depth with 2 ranks of figures per base or 6 bases each of a single rank (so the deployed unit would be 3 bases wide by 2 deep) really will depend on whether one goes with attrition via base removal or whole unit removal via degradation. So far I'm agnostic on this point.
Having less bases helps in speeding the game up - We could certainly have more units on the table than in FOGN, but since there wouldn't be a 'medium' range for infantry (in general) this may not be a problem.
One of the issues that I've not found enough information on is the deployment of multiple lines of battalions. The drill information I've found suggests that the 2nd line of battalions would be offset to cover gaps between battalions in the 1st line. The gaps were smaller than the width of battalions, but part of the drill for replacing the 1st line seems to be that the 2nd line battalion moves through the gap and re-deploys in a firing line. However, most maps seem to show the battalions lined up one behind the other. I don't know enough to comment on that or how this should be represented in a game.
I'd agree with this. I have some ideas that may work. Certainly 'rear support' is very important, for both infantry and cavalry. We have to look into way to make more use of command points as well.

donm2
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 219
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by donm2 » Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:24 pm

Guys,

This is a period of linear tactics, when units formed into two or three mutually supporting lines. It is not a period of manoeuvre, except for Frederick the Great.

Please remember there is no conscription and so armies are made up of professional soldiers, who where tightly controlled by NCOs. They knew they could stop cavalry charges with fire and because of the mutually supporting lines they could not be flanked by the cavalry.

The total army sizes are way smaller than Napoleonic battles, so you would end up with less units on the table, unless you change the figure scale and represent units instead of brigades. I think the current Napoleonic lists regularly represent units as brigades.

Very little in the current rules would transfer to the SYW period and certainly cavalry and guards would need to be seriously down graded.

Just my personal opinion.

Don

Sarmaticus
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat May 09, 2009 4:31 pm

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by Sarmaticus » Mon Nov 25, 2013 10:39 pm

Fwiw I'd suggest limiting tactical to cavalry to represent the more fluid tactics of squadrons within brigades; column to Frederician cavalry; allowing line and road column to all.
Infantry of the Ancien were better able to resist cavalry in part at least because they manoeuvred more carefully, acting and moving as contiguous lines, with less room for initiative or adventure by subordinate infantry commanders, thus fewerbopportunities for cavalry to get among them. There were still cases of cavalry running down infantry lines and, cavalry being required on the wings, to guard those infantry flanks, there was likely to be fewer stray formations to spring surprises of the sort Crabbe's combined cuirasiers pulled off around la Haye Sainte in 1815.
Battles of the C18 could be big even by Napoleonic standards (eg Malplaquet). They were certainly big enough to provide the Corps sized battles that FOGN aims to service even with each unit as a brigade.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10282
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Dec 13, 2013 10:27 am

As I'm just thinking about starting a GNW/WSS army project I'd certainly like to see a FoG based set of rules that covers the period. My preference would definitely be for a more top down approach than FoG:R with a greater emphasis on C&C than R has (which is limited). Also I'd prefer to move away from the importance of the casualty removal of FoG:R and have more emphasis on cohesion as the key shooting/combat mechanism - which may be more like N, but as the period doesn't interest me I haven't looked.

BTW has anyone has any experience of Simon MacDowall's free WSS rules? http://legio-wargames.com/#/close-files-wss/4537125084 A quick glance suggests it has some of the attributes I am after but like some of his other rules could be streamlined a bit.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

MikeHorah
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:57 pm

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by MikeHorah » Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:44 am

Long silence while doing much thinking ( also about mid 19th century) ) with the proverbial towel over the head and I done much more reading ( with a much expanded library) :roll:

I have reached some tentative conclusions/ findings which Terry and I will have a first go this year at modelling using our existing 7YW 15mm figures prior to producing a first draft.

I should emphasise we have not had a discussion with Slitherine about whether and how to develop it under the FOG brand. We need something to show them first that is fit for testing:

• A data compilation of some 90 European battles from 1701-1763 indicates there is no typical (or average as in “mode”)size for a battle across the different wars and the means and medians of the ranges are seldom the same .Bell curves can be quite shallow . In the War of Spanish Succession of 35 battles the median point is under 20,000 a side and mean average 24/25,000. But for 17 Battles in the Seven Years war the average mean and median is over 40,000 men on each side . And the disparity in numbers on both sides can be large eg the Russians and Swedes in the Great Northern War (and in India of course).
• The period up to 1740 still involves some transition and variation in weapons and their related formations and tactics in some armies- more than one might initially have assumed- despite the socket bayonet having replaced the plug bayonet by and during the first decade.
• We could regard the mid part of the century – 1740-1780 – as the hypothetical mid point of a historical bell curve and design round that core period but with tailored variations.
• While Btn seems instinctively to be preferred, to do largish battles in Europe even of 25,000 men per side means the infantry regiment as the assumed base unit is the better way to design a game that you can play in 3 hours or, so , on a medium sized table with a manageable number of units. That is if that style of game is the desired endpoint.
• But if we adopt a more FOG(AM) and (R)approach ( and of other rules sets) we could simply define a “ unit” of x stands as the base formation and design the rules to support either a regimental or Btn based game based game according to sub-period and theatre and with variations to accommodate smaller engagements and “small unit” tactics as in North America for example.

For the core period in Europe
• there was a standard or common initial deployment approach ( not always followed obviously) which was two cavalry wings - numbered in squadrons - and two “lines” of infantry Regts/ Btns one well behind the other in the centre .
• Infantry and their lines were very linear so Btns in a regiment were side by side not one behind the other – so a regimental footprint is much wider than deep favouring single stands for creating the basic tactical formation . There is no equivalent of the “ column of divisions” or open column for attack. Open columns were for deploying on the field of battle enabling platoons to wheel into line simultaneously to the left or fight ( rarely by the centre). Squares were available to use in regulations but seldom unless a unit became isolated – the close range fire of the line was believed to be enough to drive off cavalry to the front ( or rear by reversing the third rank) and usually was. Most infantry were trained regulars so their fire discipline is steady compared to much later more conscript armies or with high turnover.
• There were no” Divisions” or “Corps” as such as grand tactical or admin structures. The level beneath Wing and Line was the Brigade.
• But generals were not scarce ( sometimes eg the French there was an “embarrassment “of generals hanging around HQ looking for jobs)
• The concept of mixed divisions or brigades was not generally used - infantry and cavalry were kept separate.
• Within a wing of cavalry, Cuirassiers, Dragoons and Hussars /Lt Dragoons( when present) were brigaded separately.
• Brigades are not administrative concepts so were not standing formations. Good Field Officers at Brigade level were important in keeping the brigade’s cohesion, maintaining alignment etc. But despite regulations not all armies used standard methods ( eg the French) with Regimental commanders not always adhering to the current orthodoxy- with mixed results.
• Light infantry were not part of the main line of battle ( Grenzers - aka “Croats” Frei Corps and others ) but were irregular or semi -regular discrete formations and operated off the battlefield or in difficult terrain and on the flanks , where present, in main battles .No integral light companies – grenadiers were sometimes on both flanks of the line regts or pulled out as in Prussia and Austria into combined grenadier formations so no left flank light companies of sharpshooters etc.
• The heavier artillery were literally so – a 12 pdr gun could weigh a ton , much heavier than the turn of the 19th century, so pretty immobile. Heavy guns were often in tens and usually static once laid often behind field defences. Howitzers were not as such part of company and battery formations but could be deployed as required to support attacks on defended positions.
• Most artillery was light and medium in the front line with the infantry in 2’s and 4’s . serviced by gunners with infantry doing the heavy lifting. But not usually part of the regimental infantry establishment. They could keep up with the line infantry without having to limber up but provided no concentrated artillery firepower. The guns marched together in the artillery train off the battle field not with the infantry .Artillery trains were long .Armies marched and fought concentrated . Supply and logistics critical.
• The process of deployment on the battlefield is formalised , seldom organic or improvised taking several hours. Encounter battles were rare, battles were usually expected even where Frederick did one of his flank marches.
• Deploying from the right was practised so in a game, maybe, after laying the first unit in a Wing or Line subsequent units in that wing or Line would be to their left. While the more senior units were on the right, in some it went alternate, most senior right, next senior far left etc so not really a standard approach but maybe we might require the most senior regiments not to have junior regiments to their immediate right.
• Most soldiers in most armies were long serving not commonly conscripted.( Russia the exception but long service conscription) So if applying FOG(N)categories average drilled or average veteran would be common . Maybe a more nuanced training structure is needed with more than 3 levels eg green or raw/standard/experienced and veteran with elan also in more than 3 bands based on regimental seniority .
• By the 1740’s there are few significant differences in technology although in France the Gribeauval artillery system does come in later which is more mobile.
• Leadership and elan are key variables with lists needed to reflect the relative performance of subordinate commanders in different armies at different times. Maybe we do need a “ poor “ or “ineffective “category if we model Brigade commanders

So what are the gaming skills that we might emphasise?
• Deployment – best use of terrain and the placing of heavier artillery and high value units
• Maintaining formational cohesion in the advance - of individual units and of their higher formations.
• Judging best and most timely use of cavalry .
• Making best use of command assets.
• For Btn level games best use of small unit tactics


None of this is set in stone by any means and a heads up on my thinking so far. I guess what we need from a Slitherine perspective is a sense of whether there is enough call for this for them to give it an amber light . And I would guess made available via on line downloads and print on demand with a more straightforward design and layout than the first FoG Osprey printed offerings to make that easier and cheaper. But their call I guess. If not well .....

martinvantol
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:31 pm

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by martinvantol » Sun Jan 19, 2014 6:55 pm

What base sizes are you thinking for this period?

At Central London we have a very popular rule set called "King of the Battlefield", and it's very well established at the club. Units are all 3 bases, each 3cm wide. A base contains 4 or 6 foot, 2-3 horse. An artillery attachment is represented by a gun with crew and a couple of infantry alongside it. There are two unit formations possible: march column (3 bases behind each other) or line (3 bases alongside each other).

The reason I ask is that if your system replicates these base sizes you'd have a lot of players from Central London.

Martin

MikeHorah
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 12:57 pm

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by MikeHorah » Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:45 am

martinvantol wrote:What base sizes are you thinking for this period?

At Central London we have a very popular rule set called "King of the Battlefield", and it's very well established at the club. Units are all 3 bases, each 3cm wide. A base contains 4 or 6 foot, 2-3 horse. An artillery attachment is represented by a gun with crew and a couple of infantry alongside it. There are two unit formations possible: march column (3 bases behind each other) or line (3 bases alongside each other).

The reason I ask is that if your system replicates these base sizes you'd have a lot of players from Central London.

Martin
I suspect we will aim for for 4cm wide as that is pretty standard for many 15mm armies, with 4 figs in one rank or 8 in two and you can get three horses on it comfortably . But actually if some folks all have different standard bases there is no reason it should not work equally well with both sides using the same .It's a matter of look and feel an aesthetics (IMO) whether you think a single rank of infantry figures on a base looks more appropriate and to be honest I am two ways on that! For the earlier part of the century before 1740 the French ( and maybe some others) continued to use formations deeper than 3 ranks so two deep stands would be required for those armies at that time. ( All this from David Chandler- Warfare in the Age of Marlborough which extends to 1740 and Christopher Duffy's body of work) . But post 1740 two stands deep each of two ranks would be simply inaccurate to represent a line.

We need to research more deeply on instances of regiments forming two Btns deep but if a standard regiment is three stands that looks odd ( two stands in front one behind and having four would most likely be for a large regiment .

As I have suggested we will want to allow for a units to represent ether a regiment or a battalion for two different types of game, one less grand tactical than the other to model small unit tactics as in North America .

As it happens mine are already on the old Battle Honours bases that they used to send out with their Napoleonic figures. They are 4cm wide with 4 infantry figs . For model guns depth is an issue and less than 4cm is hard to do if you want to base the gunners with the guns. For those who want to do 28mm I guess 6cm .

Re march columns there were two types open and closed, the latter for off battlefield marches the former for on the battle field prior to deploying into line ( by the left or right usually not often by the centre.) But having stands closed up is OK I think as the platoon intervals can be implicit in the stands.


A general point or all - My own approach is to aim, as far as possible, to capture the cultural look and feel of this era and make it visually , and as a game, quite distinctive from the Napoleonic era. The nearest thing to it is to watch the annual Queens Birthday Parade on Horse Guards which owes more to this earlier era than Napoleonic when it comes to the infantry drill.

terrys
Panzer Corps Team
Panzer Corps Team
Posts: 4188
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:53 am

Re: 1700 to 1762

Post by terrys » Wed Jan 22, 2014 11:21 am

When we wrote the Napoleonic rules we permitted players to use 6 x 30mm base for a small unit and 8 for a large unit (deployed 2 deep in tactical formation - therefore 3 and 4 bases wide respectively). We also had diagrams showing this (which were remove from the published set because of space and cost).
I had my French army on 30mm bases during the whole of Beta testing, and if worked fine with and against armies on 40mm bases.
I later changed to 40mm bases for consistency.

I would certainly consider doing the same for this period - but with 'units' only being 1 base deep.
I've tested with a small unit of 2 bases of 40mm (3 bases for a large unit).
I see no reason why we couldn't allow a small unit eo be 3x30mm bases and large ones of 4x30mm....Assuming further testing doesn't come up with anything untoward.
If we go with a modified FOGN system, the number of bases and frontage doesn't matter, since all firing/fighting is done by the unit rather than it's bases, with the only size factor being 'large' or 'small'.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Napoleonic Era 1792-1815 : General Discussion”