I do agree that in a straight-out column against line scenario this is probably correct but in full blown battle where other factors interfere my hope is that the odds are better. I’m heartened to recall that in the Vintage Waterloo game 7 units of Imperial Guard failed to dislodge the British from the ridge. Ok, so the British had a plus for being on a hill and another for being behind a hedge (never did understand where that hedge came from) and had suffered very few casualties from the French artillery but that’s my point – other factors come into play that stop the outcome being totally predictable.
So, to prove or disprove Goya’s Theory I set up the table to play a small column vs. line scenario. An Allied brigade in line held a ridge facing a French division in column trying to force them off. This is how it played out -
 |
| Uxbridge has a brigade of British infantry in line on a ridge with the Black Watch on the right and Brunswickers on the left. The British have one battery of field artillery. Across the valley Eugene has four columns of French infantry supported by two gun batteries. |
 |
| By the time the French get within charging distance they have taken quite a few casualties but their morale is holding well. The British haven't taken a single casualty yet. |
 |
| Drat, that Goya is right! The Swiss have successfully charged and routed the Brunswickers whilst on the opposite flank the 9th legere have broken the Black Watch. In the centre the Poles have been disordered by some rather devastating canister fire while the 45th ligne remain in good order. |
I played the game through 5 times with a total of 10 French column attacks taking place. The columns succeeded in breaking the lines 7 times, a slightly better result for line than the theory suggested but still showing that Goya is basically correct.
I plan to expand the test scenario to include other factors like more artillery, cavalry threatening the flanks of the columns, skirmishers etc. to see if the odds can be evened up. I’m a bit loath at this stage to tinker around with morale and melee factors as this could have unforeseen effects on the balance of the game elsewhere.
34 comments:
Ian - this was an interesting and educational post - thanks for this - went down well with the lunchtime coffee. As you are better qualified than most to know, I have a surprising lack of knowledge of, or aptitude for, such matters, but I started thinking further on the topic.
As I understand it, by far the greater proportion of the successes of the French columns in action resulted from the enemy suddenly realising that they didn't fancy this, and seeking employment elsewhere before the column arrived. From what I've read, when the French found that (for example) the British in Spain tended to stand their ground, often in sheltered positions (not having fully understood the script), the French commanders would then proceed to the accepted thing-you-do-next, which was to deploy their columns into line for a firefight (much evidence of this at Salamanca etc). OK - there is a chance they would be outshot against a British line (separate discussion), but it made me think:
* maybe there are two things happening here - there need to be some heavy reaction checks on the receiving line, to see if they will stand...
* and, if they do, the next thing that happens is probably a linear fire-fight - this may be abstracted to whatever level you wish, obviously, but it does seem that there is a turning point in the attack - if the line stands, then another situation arises - the column is at a severe disadvantage in a fire-fight, and the attacking commander has a different set of problems to address.
I apologise for demonstrating my lack of understanding at such length. I don't often think this hard so early in the day.
Nice photos too - there'll be no holding you now you have a table always available!
Interesting thoughts there Tony, I especially like the idea that the columns would deploy into line if they failed to scare the enemy away. I could possibly introduce a rule whereby if the defenders passed their morale check when charged then the column must deploy into line rather than charge home (against Anglo-Dutch forces only). I may try this out!
I agree with Goys in that Columns are too effective. One obvious change would be to make the morale +1 for advancing/charging for advancing only - this makes it more likely the column won't go in but end up in a disordered heap in front of a line of muskets. You could also make the -1 for receiving a British [12-man] volley apply to any. If the British are better than most it should be morale and a readiness to charge the disordered column after it stopped - perhaps a free, optional, charge if Brits or A class line that stops a column?
Thanks Rob more good ideas. Perhaps ditch the morale + for advancing but keep it for charging (it makes sense to me that troops who successfully charge will be feeling good about themselves). If the + for advancing was removed then it increases the chance of the unit becoming disordered under artillery fire as it approaches the line. Not sure about extending the volley fire -1 to all troops as it may lead to other troops using line formation too much which may be unrealistic. All food for thought and more play testing!
Ian - that's maybe the right way to approach it - possibly the way to set this up is to give the Anglo-Dutch line (or whoever) a good chance of standing up to the attack, but the procedure should be the same for everyone. On the rare occasions when the Regimiento de Burgos stand up to the French column, the correct procedure for the French commander would still be to get into firing line. Given the low numbers of bayonet wounds, proportionally, in these wars, I guess that normally one side or the other ran away before contact, or else the charge halted and they started shooting back. I believe there are many examples of troops being required to make an attack with muskets unloaded (Landshut, many others), to encourage the attack to be made with all possibly haste, and avoid the instinctive temptation to halt and start firing instead. That being the case, they would be in a real fix when they did have to stop, form line and load up - they would have to endure a real storm of lead while they did this.
Tony yes that sounds right, I've got a few ideas to tweak the rules and will try them out with the same scenario - another good thing about having a permanent table!
Stryker, I did mean ditch the +1 morale when charging but keep it for advancing. Advancing does create a positive morale vibe, charging is different as you are imminently about to enter a life or death situation with a grim looking foe (e.g. Foy's comments about the silent wall of British infantry). It is very hard to get troops to close with a formed enemy as it must feel like near certain death to those in the front rank, on the other hand if the enemy are showing signs of flinching... It's all just a giant game of chicken.
Picking up your point about a "full blown battle where other factors interfere" it was almost always necessary for the French to grind down the enemy before assaulting with columns. This is where all that lovely artillery and clouds of skirmishers come in or failing that have some cavalry to force him into square. Even then French practice was to deploy into line if the enemy showed no sign of giving way.
Some interesting thoughts. I will have see how this plays out with my modified version of Charge. I have some ideas formulating that I will need to try out.
Rob, yes I see what you mean regarding advancing/charging. I think the way to go is to force columns into line if the line stands. I have some ideas on how to incorporate this but I also want to experiment with some changes to morale factors.
Thanks Mark, I look forward to seeing what you come up with!
Ah, the debate that has ruled my own attempts over 50 years to come up with realistic firing rules. Mine and everybody else's...In my rules firing effect is averaged out by insisting that the range is taken as the position of the respective units half way through the move. I think that works, except for the effect of an attack on a standing line. From having read a couple of accounts over the said 50 years, it seems to me that the essence of the debate is the ability of the defenders to withhold fire until close range. So I have made an exception to the half way range rule. Where a unit attacks a standing unit, the defender gets to throw a dice to determine whether they can withhold fire until close range. That throw is weighted in accordance with the class of soldier defending. If the defending unit succeeds in withholding fire, it almost invariably stops the attacker. If it does not, the attacker usually charges home.
This is the nub of it, Ian. Back in the earlies our wargames forebears had all read Charles Oman and Jac Weller and fervently believed that the overwhelming firepower of a British line would always beat a French column. The problem was that they loved the columns! They’re just so exciting! The invariable result was the construction of all sorts of special rules which, while ensuring British victories, made sure that in all other cases amusingly inferior foreign types would be handicapped against the glorious legions of the Emperor.
These days, having read Paddy Griffith and his disciples, we believe even more fervently that the British should always win, albeit in an altogether more glamorous way involving culminating bayonet charges.
I agree that line formations should have the edge, but that columns, well handled, must have their place. My view is that columns were primarily intended for manoeuvre. In the line of battle they acted as supports and reserves. They were supposed to be committed to the assault only when the enemy line had been suitably softened up by one’s own line, or in counterattacks. Very few rules successfully simulate this, I think.
Columns should really only get movement and initiative advantages so that can do what they're good at - moving up rapidly to establish a firing line; to relieve and replace an already established line; to act as local tactical reserves and counterattack troops; or for suddenly pouncing on disordered enemy lines which have already been shot up by other means.
Just a few thoughts
WM
Nigel, I have thought about using a similar mechanism myself because my understanding is the same as yours regarding the ability of good troops to hold fire. However Tony made the good point about columns being intimidated into forming line if the enemy doesn't look shaky as they approach. At the moment I am tending towards the latter.
WM - yet more food for thought. If I'm right, what you're saying there is that the use of columns is a bit like heavy cavalry, meant to be unleashed when the enemy's nerve is breaking. This seems likely I agree but would mean bolstering the rules to make an unshaken line more able to withstand an attack by column.
Getting the balance right without over complicating the rules is definitely tricky especially without losing the old school feel which needs to include some of those prejudices regarding the invincibility of British troops etc.
I'm remembering now why years ago I abandoned Napoleonics for American Civil War games!
Hi Ian- My knowledge of Napoleonic Tactics is very poor. I've always thought that advancing Infantry Columns made superb dense targets for opponent Artillery- and the Columns do run the gauntlet of being shot to pieces before making it to their intended target. Regards. KEV.
Yeah, try telling Mr Ney or Mr Murat that heavy cavalry is only for when the enemy is shaken...I too am impressed by General Foy's thinking and would be pleased to see how it works. The one point I would make is that it would be unfair for an attacking column to be able both to form line and fire in a single move. There needs to be a penalty for this fallback, otherwise it is just a free ticket to close range firing.
If only the "experts" could agree on the history, it would make rules writing much easier.
I have also read descriptions of Peninsular battles where firefights took place between a group of columns and a line (the columns of course actually being some 9 men deep and 50+ man wide so not looking much like most wargame columns and of course not forgetting that the thin red line at Waterloo was 4 ranks deep).)
It is possible that the historic generals, being aware that future generations would wargame their battles, went out of their way to make it hard.
Kev, yes you're right but what I'm finding is on average they are not being shot to pieces quickly enough under my rules which is probably due more to a problem with the morale rules than the firing rules themselves.
Nigel - perhaps all heavy cavalry charge forward on a die roll of 6 if Ney or Murat are on the field?
My current thinking is that the process would be -
Column declares charge
Unit charged tests morale - if morale is good then the column halts and forms line that turn instead of charging so will have a whole turn when they cannot fire back.
If the charged unit becomes disordered then the charge proceeds as usual.
Ross, you have it there, a real problem I think is the lack of first hand accounts from the period that might give us a greater insight!
A couple of points:
Tge French and others used giant columbs too. At Marengo? the Austrians advanced in a large column ( a la Minden?) and at Wageam Mc Donald formed a huge column which finally got tge Austrians back from the low ridge. There is something about sheer mass tgat keeps units going. Was this what the Imperial Guard were trying at Waterloo when they were stopped by tge 52nd swinging on t i their flank?
The best use of column to line to square is probably Davout against the Prussians with the well trained units of tge Grande Armee. I am not at all sure that lesser skilled units, even tge French could manage their way through such evolutions which is why they were set up en masse and sent on in after there had akready been a substantial artillery bombardment.
Following Griffith and Chandler, the Brits in the peninsula had more skirmishers than the French. So much so that the French thought the thick skirmish line was the British line of battle which was actually behind the crest. Winning the skirmish battle enabled the Brits to damage the columns and to hide and protect their own line. I have read that earlier armies facing French skirmish lines lost a lot of officers to tge voltigeurs which can hardly have enhanced the chances of their line standing. Later Austrians, Russians abd Prussians firmed in a line of small columns, giving a much deeper formation than the old three deep.
The resistance of the British line was very much tied in with one , two or three volleys, a shout and then a charge. That suggests that the furst volley or two stops the advancing column. Now whether you do this by testing the column after it has taken casualties or testing the line after it has inflicted, doesn't really matter as long as the outcome is applied to both. For example, line stands, column deploys to line, line stands, column stands. line charges column retreats, line retreats, column takes the ground. However, it does get complicated. The old Newbury Napoleonic rules worked it all out in detail, but it did take time. I suggest it needs a quick test..more in line with Muskets and Marshals philosophy
You could ignore the casualties and do a ‘shout test’ . Column advances to short range, Line volleys and causes casualties. Line then Shout Tests .
Roll one die.
1-2 Feeble Shout Line retreats
3 A shout Both stand, next move Column forms line, but without shooting. Line can shout again next move.
4,5,6 A great shout . Line charges Column breaks and runs taking 3 casualties.
Modifiers + 2 A class +1 B class, -1 D class for line
-2. A class -1 B class. for column.
Just adjust the numbers to achieve the result you want.
This is getting a bit involved as it's only tweaking a morale imbalance that's required - after all we just want line to be a bit more successful against columns not crack the holy grail of a perfect Napoleonic rule-set.
If the line fails its 'being charged' test then all is fine. If it passes it's now up to the column to pass its morale test and charge home - this is currently too easy - if they pass then the line would be rattled by an enemy who appear untroubled by fire and determined to close in which case the column deserves its advantages in melee. Infantry melee in the open is really just a rule mechanism for who flinches first when bayonets are crossed. So all that's needed is to make it a bit harder for the column to pass the morale test on being fired at one the way in and you're sorted!
BTW I would eliminate the morale +1 for charging for everyone (incl. cavalry) but keep it for advancing. Charges stuttered to a halt without contact more often than you'd think. Also the -1 receiving volley fire should not just a pply to Brits.
Thanks to Roy and Rob for your contributions - all interesting stuff!
I had this from Goya himself -
Our understanding is very heavily based on British and French sources and we have theories from these as to why the British infantry were so historically effective. I seem to remember from Muir that there are very few sources from other nationalities. Does anyone know of any which may explain why the French won so often?
I did look at the trigonometry of the number of people in a line that could reasonably turn and fire at a column and it’s relatively few in a reasonable range. I therefore don’t think that it is a firepower effect.
I’m also not convinced about the number of skirmishers. The French had more LI regiments than the British and more light troops within the battalion (1 in 6 companies vs 1 in 10). The Russians and Prussians had 1 in 3. It maybe that as Roy has said, that rifle fire was more effective in picking off officers. Perhaps the French didn’t use them as skirmishers but it all becomes a bit of a stretch.
Ultimately, I incline towards making it a morale issue. Perhaps increasing the effect on morale of the number of casualties suffered immediately before making contact could help.
That's sort of what I'm getting at. I don't think columns should be forced into line - it should just be incentivised by the rules. I agree with Rob in thinking there should be a higher probability that a column trying to make contact with an unshaken line of good-quality troops will be stopped and disordered before it gets there. This would leave it vulnerable to either additional close-range volleys or a countercharge by the defending line in the following move. This ought to incentivise players not to try this too often! It should be a different story against shaken and/or poor-quality troops, of course. I think you'd end up with games which look a bit more like what Clausewitz describes - a grinding firefight followed by assaults which really start to smash up the weaker side.
Having said all that, massive corps-sized column attacks a la Wagram, etc., should still be possible, if only because even the best lines couldn't absorb wave after wave of column attacks for ever, particularly if they'd brought guns up with them.
WM
Before you make any more changes, I'd just try re-running your column vs line trial game eliminating the +1 for charging and allowing all to fire volleys that inflict a -1 on morale. This alone might e be enough to do it.
WM - I have a lot of ideas to try out but I want to make sure that players feel there is enough advantage using columns that they will want to employ them. If I'm not careful I will end up with a game where everyone deploys in line! I agree that it is the morale that needs tweaking not firing. One possible change may be to give the '+1 for advancing' only to troops in column whilst removing the + for charging as suggested by Rob?
Rob, you could be right as this is a minimal change but could tip the balance. What about +1 for advancing only if in column? There needs to be an incentive to use realistic tactics.
I like the idea of the +1 advancing only if in column, the only other way to encourage column is to make them faster - do you really need a march column - troops should be in a tactical formation long before they get engaged. Part of the problem is the bare (parade ground) nature of the wargame table that makes lines so easy to us, perhaps make line movement random (e.g. D3+1) to account for all the irregularities in the ground that aren't modelled? This may slow the game down a bit too much.
Rob, I don’t like variable movenent because its too restrictive on players attacking ( whether its realistic or not). A player who is trying to move three battalions in line, forward towards the enemy, should be encouraged by the rules, If we penalise line movement it discourages attacks. Lets remember that it takes several moves to get across the table to reach the enemy and making that slower and more disjointed only detracts from the time available for decisive action.
Roy
Secondly , the point that was made by Griffiths and Chandler about relative skirmisher numbers was that Wellington had more than his French opponents. This was because of the number of Portuguese Cacadores deployed.
Brilliant discussion and I'm not going to go on too much! Certainly the comments re the British in the Peninsular deploying more lights in a skirmish screen v the French are accurate and hence the usual French tactic of their voltigeurs driving back the enemy lights and then harassing the enemy formations are largely nullified.
Regards the comments that if you make line too strong then in the game everyone will start using it - this is really a question of morale and troops being comfortable! Dare I take you back to the WRG rules where troops in line other than British (etc) are penalised in morale when faced by a French column.
National characteristics may not be the line you want to go down but in this situation then maybe a nod to them may be required.
Finally remember we are not generally talking about individual French Columns they generally advanced on a broad front in a grande division finally don't forget the French tactic of mixed order where a French line had Columns deployed on the flanks! Generally not very effective as instead of delivering the advantages of both formations it delivered the disadvantages
Conventional wisdom is that you need three to one odds for an attack to stand a good probability of success. Charging into enemy lines at one to one odds in a frontal assault should be a recipe for being repulsed nearly every time. You need to maneuver so that you have good (or better yet, overwhelming) odds at the point of decision. If this can not be done (sometimes because we tend to line up fairly balanced forces), or because of a constricted position (e.g. Waterloo) then it should come as no surprise that most attacks will fail.
In our scenario creation, we should give the nation on the offensive some advantage in numbers or quality, or position, to make a game of it.
In Andrew Fields’ book, Prelude to Waterloo, he gives the French credit at the battle of Quatre Bras for trying a new tactic (that they did not use in Spain); namely deploying into line and firing at the British/Allied troops. See page 174. So, I would not make this something that automatically occurs. The rules should allow it, and doing so should be a tactical innovation on the part of the player. Much like deploying behind the crest of a ridge and then moving forward, firing and charging into the opposing enemy should also be something the player does, and not something that British troops automatically do all the time.
I would try it again, perhaps removing the “infantry in column vs line or square” bonus. They should get the charging bonus, and the are getting to move faster for being in a column. Try that and see what happens.
Captain Nolan
Great discussion.
A bit more radical because I'm getting too old for lots of morale tests: why not have one morale test that gives one outcome for both attackers and defenders e.g.
- defenders rout and attackers take the defenders' ground
- defenders stand and attackers attempt to deploy disordered
etc
Have these suggestions been incorporated into version 6.2 yet? I’m intrigued......
Anon, I haven't updated the rules yet as I am still play-testing.
Post a Comment