|
Post by bruce on Mar 5, 2016 2:03:33 GMT
So...these rules are proving to be a lot of fun for smaller tactical games and allow for some easy modifications. In some of our other recent threads, we talked about the effects of volley fire, morale and melee and I realized that there was quite a bit of running away going on. Neil Thomas, like most other sources, acknowledges that hand to hand fighting was relatively uncommon, and his rules allow infantry to initiate a melee by charging only if they have a numerical advantage. His reasoning is that it is difficult to get troops to charge unless they can see they have some edge. This rule seems to put melee in a more realistic perspective.
A question on a related matter.....is it reasonable to assume that troops in line, trading volleys with the enemy (not in a melee), could be ordered to fall back in order, still facing the enemy, if the commander decides things are going to get too hot otherwise? There would be a reduced movement allowance for withdrawal, in formation, but with the ability to stop and use a turn to fire. I am wondering if this is an historically realistic circumstance and an alternative to charging, trading volleys, or routing. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Mar 5, 2016 5:41:42 GMT
Yes very historically relevant to have troops change volleys for a bit then fall back in an orderly fashion. I've posted about hand to hand earlier today on another thread but, basically, most of our rule sets allow and encourage more melees than really happened. My understanding is that many encounters went something like this. French column approaches british line in good order. British line unleashes fearsome platoon based volley. British troops then stand in the smoke making a big thing of fixing bayonets and cheering loudly. French column withdraws in reasonable order maybe shooting at the smoke. British stay where they are. I suppose the issue is that most wargames are about the defeat of an army by wearing it down and breaking its units whereas the Napoleonic generals saw victory more in terms of holding ground for longer term strategic advantage. Another way of arguing this would be that most rule sets treat battles as one off and so you can be profligate flinging you troops into highly risky melees whereas most historical battles were part of campaigns where keeping your strength up and gaining topographical advantage would have diminished appetite for risk at the tactical level. But one off battles are more fun!
|
|
|
Post by ooiittee on Jun 8, 2016 21:33:43 GMT
Bruce. Your question about break off and fire. I would have expected that the role of slowing up the enemy during a break off would be left to the light companies. They would screen the withdrawal and form up again on the rear or flanks when the battalion was in position.
To reflect this is would be allowing for any unit on the move, either towards or away from the enemy to move it's full move and fire a single die reflecting the skirmish lines advance position on the enemy.
Further more I would give a -1 to this fire for every stand the parent unit has lost to reflect losses in the light company (6 would always hit).
Oo
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Jun 9, 2016 3:27:26 GMT
Thanks guys, some good ideas here, I concur. I lately find myself inclined to avoid letting units take an unlikely action and/or get pounded too badly. There are objectives and risk/reward decisions that were made in a broader context than we usually observe in gaming. Playing solo, this is obviously easier to do than in a competitive game. And it doesn't preclude me from making the occasional crazy choice. But as I start to plan some solo campaigns using Field Commander Napoleon (there is another post somewhere on this solo campaign board game), I will likely have to take the bigger picture into account on some battlefields. Bruce
|
|