One other thing Goya said was that in any given situation I should look at what the likely outcome would be and see if the rules match this in play, clever fellow that Goya but then he is a scientist. So, I set up the table with a French attacking force outnumbering a defending allied force by 2:1, no hills, no buildings just a straightforward set up. All things considered this looked like a scenario that the French should win.
 |
| There were 6 French columns with 4 batteries supported by cavalry and skirmishers. The allies had 2 British line units plus the Brunswickers, 2 batteries of artillery, the light dragoons and some rifles. |
 |
| The First couple of turns the French concentrated on counter-battery fire that proved very effective so that the allied gun-line was neutralised. On turn 3 the French columns advanced covered by a skirmish screen that got the upper hand over the rifles. |
 |
| The columns charge forward and take fire. I allowed 2 columns to charge each unit in line as my previous restriction on this seemed unjustified. |
 |
| The French succeeded in charging home everywhere and won the resulting melees. |
 |
| On the right the Cambridgeshire's were routed and poor Alten was felled. As you can see the new 24th ligne had a hand in this. |
So, the French did win as expected but the wider scope of the game including the use of skirmishers and the larger number of guns opened up some interesting alternatives. It occurred to me that the rules as they stand are pretty much to my liking but maybe the only thing that needs tweaking is the morale rules in relation to unit losses (another idea of Goya’s). I played the scenario again with just this change -
Strength Factors for Morale
Infantry – 21 or more figures remaining in unit +1
Cavalry – 10 or more figures remaining in unit +1
Infantry – 16 or fewer figures remaining in unit -1
Cavalry – 7 or fewer figures remaining in unit -1
 |
| This time the French had more problems closing with the lines. This was helped by the Rifles gaining ascendancy over the Voltigeurs and also by some impressive British volley fire. |
 |
| On the right the Cambridgeshire's were routed again but a spirited charge by the Light Dragoons saw off the 9th legere. |
The result was much closer with more of the attackers becoming disordered and the game played out nicely. It was interesting to see how the subtle change to the morale Strength factors influenced play. I need to do more playtesting but then I do seem to have some time on my hands.
14 comments:
You need to eradicate the cavalry as a confounding variable and keep it limited to just the infantry and supporting artillery. One thing that leapt out at me but was not commented on was the effectiveness of French counter-battery fire - it would seem Wellington was wrong to forbid this.
Two columns simultaneously charging a single line sounds like a key factor to me - I thought you were only going to change one thing at a time in these play tests? I know if forced to deploy in line they will be penalised but if that rule's not in place then this will happen far too often as wargamers tend to play to the rules rather than the historic tactics. If a melee actually takes place then I fail to see how the charging unit is not disordered afterwards (like in CHARGE!). If you had to rally after winning a combat players might think twice about committing two units to defeat one.
If you want to understand where the balance of the rules using a case of two onto one clouds the issue of whether one column is likely to win against one line - having to commit double the force to get a win doesn't seem unreasonable.
Finally if you're serious about the play test you need to either fight a large number of battles or limit the random factor introduced by the dice. In fact why not consider in the abstract a single column vs a single line and work out all variations in dice throwing. Then you can add a unit of skirmishers and a single artillery battery to either or both sides - it will build to a lot of combinations but can probably be handled in spreadsheet.
I don't like the increased number of strength categories for morale bonus / penalty; previously it could be considered as of strong, average or weak strength. I look forward to seeing more play tests and I am hoping the deploy into line rule ends up meeting the bill.
Time is one thing a lot of us have, really should get around to doing some Prussians, An excellent looking game, very pleasing. Like the idea of 2 units charging when in column. The tweaking of morale strengths seems to have given a better game.
Paul
Rob, I did away with the rule for columns being forced into line by morale as, although it led to a couple of interesting games, I think the players should make their own tactical choices. I've also seen that testing things in isolation just doesn't give the same results as a proper game set up would because of all the different interactions between troop types and reactions to threats. I want a game that is fun to play and has the feel of Napoleonic warfare, with reasons to make players choose formations etc. and the existing rules are pretty much there for me - its only morale that needs tweaking I believe.
Paul, yes I think so but I do have plenty of time for some solo games to test things!
When we replayed La Rothiere at Roy's place all those years ago, I noticed that my opponent, Stuart C, liked to lead his divisional attacks with a unit in line, with one or more battalions in column following up in close support behind. It looked like he planned to soften me up with a few volleys before sending in the heavies. My artillery fire and counter-attacks in column worked quite well against this, as it happens, but if I'd just stood there in line I'm sure he would have prevailed.
It all looked very convincingly Napoleonic, that's for sure.
I should have added - nice to see Cambridge getting a beating, but then I'm from Oxford!
WM, Stuart also had a ridiculous number of cannons as well as I remember! I think the rules do feel 'Napoleonic' to me but having the ability to leave a table set up is helping me with fine tuning. The next real test will be to play a full solo game.
It is all is a credit to you Ian- your Hintons, terrain - the Old School look of it all- remarkable! Cheers. KEV.
Napoleon did concentrate cannon and he and Senarmont had a great ete for placement. If you are Wellington with fewer artillery then you need to put them on a reverse slope and use them to give canister shot to columns appearing over the crest. Two RHA pieces abd a British volley will give a column a headache.
I also think you ought to look at the ‘Shout’ rule I proposed to give the Brits a chance to rock back the column ...or line.
One thing I have always felt missing in most Napoleonic rule sets is the undoubted advantage the British had from firing in three deep lines rather than six. I believe whatever system is being used, the British rate or effectiveness of fire needs to be increased in comparison with the equivalent sized unit in any other army. Columns often have an advantage in the attack, and fair enough, particularly if they are French, but the British rarely seem to get their historical advantages recognised in any rule set. If your British line had the same potential impact when firing as one and a half French lines firing, then its reasonable to have two columns assault one line - otherwise, the British will always have a hard job stopping the columns, which as we know from the Peninsula, was not the case in reality.
Roy thanks for that I'll give it some thought!
Rross, thanks for the comment. My rules give a morale negative to units taking close range fire from a British unit but no actual firing advantage. In my second run at the scenario I found that the morale tweaks led to several French columns faltering so that only one defending unit actually ended up fighting against two columns. It's a difficult balance to try and get the rules as 'realistic' as possible but still have a game that is fun.
We're still on version 6 over in Cirencester so might be a bit behind the curve, but can play some games when you have a stable version. Some impressions as I've not done any simulations with the rules:
1. Skirmishers are still a bit too effective against formed troops if you have a couple of companies firing, especially vs columns. Hitting on 5,6 at all ranges, combined with the greater save and no morale make them a bit too good if you don't want them as a major factor in the game.
2. You usually do need 2 columns vs a line to have a decent chance to win. That feels right.
3. Cannons are nt overpowered (mostly shooting as half a battalion. There is a tipping point around 4 batteries though that means they can really hurt.
4. Cav works well and feels effective.
5. We tried an alterative turn sequence so that initiative was nt too overpowering given the charge advantage. We tried intuitive = you can charge first but must move first in an IGO-UGO sequence. Seemed to work well.
Hi Stu, glad you're still finding the rules worthwhile. Remember with skirmishers that they must fire at enemy skirmishers first so only the excess figures get to fire at the columns beyond which will limit their effectiveness. Also, I changed the initiative rule so that the charged unit can always counter charge but without the charge bonus. This gets rid of the problem of too many cavalry units being charged whilst stationary.
Post a Comment