|
Post by ooiittee on Feb 13, 2016 3:59:34 GMT
Rules generally break down combat effectiveness into Nationality or quality/experience when determining ability of forces to score hits.
I play alot of Empire (V) which uses morale grades for shooting chances. A Guard unit at short range hits with a 24%x number of figs firing, while a Veteran hits at half that.
This has me thinking. Musket and shot came to be in that units of large numbers could be drilled and much more effective with little training over thier pike and spear brethren. If this is the case how is it that there can be such a disparity between troops. 300 man firing in one direction has a certain random factor to it when determining casualties that I would think applies to both considerations.
Other games have nationality as a rating. This makes at least some sense I remember reading how many shoots were fired in training by the average nation per trooper. Alot of countries had between 1 and 10 shots fired in drill where the British had over 50 making sense as it was a shooting army.
Which side do you sit on and what other historical factors need to be considered in this discussion?
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Feb 13, 2016 6:20:11 GMT
A couple of thoughts. Leadership - the Austrians were good fighters but often poorly managed and led. And the era - the 1805 Austrians were led by incompetents and their excellent cavalry was handicapped by poor organization.
But by 1809, Charles had rebuilt the army into a serious opponent. Much less difference in quality between these troops and the French. The result was Napoleon's toughest campaign until Russia. A French loss at Aspern-Essling and the brutal battle at Wagram could have gone either way.
So, two different eras, but rules don't always account for how much better the Austrians had become. Or the Prussians at Jena, then later at Waterloo. The Russians at Friedland vs Borodino. Etc.
i also wonder about guard units vs veterans. The Old Guard were tough, but did they get a bit rusty being held in reserve so often as time went on? Were they that much better? Thinking out loud here. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by tim on Feb 13, 2016 14:36:37 GMT
To my way of thinking quality of troops should not effect fire factors very much at all. You have 600 guys firing at another 600 guys both armed with basically the same inaccurate weapon. It don't make them a better shot because they are an elite unit. When they are an elite unit has more effect when they are taking fire and able to stand there and hold together and still dish it out. Bruce has a very good point on the Guard units, very rarely committed into action so probably a bit rusty, while the veterans who were always at the front line had to depend on their skills to survive. My two pence worth Tim
|
|
|
Post by ooiittee on Feb 14, 2016 2:24:51 GMT
Yeah Tim I agree totally. Quality affected morale more than combat shooting.
Hand to hand is a different story though, I think we can all agree on that. Experience and training combined with strong resolve would win more often than not over an opponent with lesser qualities in these factors.
That said alot of lines broke before battle was joined anyway. Bayonets had that effect on men. It was more feared than a shot or cannon.
So basically if a game has rules for the quality of troops firing rating different then it's a bit broken. Nationality should factor into the game more so.
Bruce comments on command are valid in the scheme of things but in lab conditions there is little difference between troops of other quality shooting. There is a major difference in command ei getting them into the fire fight.
|
|
|
Post by brighty on Feb 15, 2016 23:52:22 GMT
Hi guys, you also have to take in to account the amount of campaigning they were taking part in, also fatigue. As a re-enactor when you are on the field of battle you could not see a lot due to smoke. This caused a lot of misses as you were firing blind. There is only one time that l heard the best advice was on the film the patriot, which was "Aim slow aim low" which for most of the time they did as they could only see the enemies legs. Also they had to contend with powder smoke in there eyes. In modern films this is not seen as they use smokeless powder. I could go on and on, but I won't
|
|
|
Post by ooiittee on Feb 16, 2016 2:37:12 GMT
This is an interesting point you bring up Brighty, sustained firefights. I have never seen a rule set that covers off firefights over multiple turns. Smoke and noise would impeded accuracy and command ability. Anyone seen any rules for this in games?
|
|
|
Post by brighty on Feb 17, 2016 0:06:32 GMT
The only rules that I have seen that comes pseudo close is the ACW rules Fire & Fury, when the units lose bases they go from fresh to worn then spent. I am not sure if Age of Eagles, which is the Napoleonic version is the same.
|
|
|
Post by ooiittee on Feb 17, 2016 0:14:34 GMT
Sorry I mean rules that cover smoke from sustained fire.
|
|
|
Post by brighty on Feb 17, 2016 0:19:36 GMT
There isn't any that I can think of. If any rule writers at there please take note...
|
|
|
Post by tim on Feb 17, 2016 6:46:06 GMT
I would think its built into a units fire factor. It's the same for both sides. Some rules give a bonus for the first volley which makes sense.. The first line to fire would have a clear shot but thier opponents would have to fire through a wall of smoke.
|
|
|
Post by brighty on Feb 17, 2016 10:58:17 GMT
It wasn't only their opponents as the next shot by the instigators was just the same, but now it was also harder to hear any orders as they were partly deaf from muskets be fired in close proximity of there ears. As re-en actors we have to wear ear plugs for health and safety reasons, but we still have a load ringing in our ears. Imagine what it was like for those all them years ago. Colim
|
|
|
Post by ooiittee on Feb 17, 2016 12:20:01 GMT
Truely terrifying comes to mind...
|
|
|
Post by brighty on Feb 18, 2016 1:13:35 GMT
Yes must have been horrific. But, for us we can go to the bar after the battle, although it gets a bit surreal talking to infantry, cavalry and artillery from both sides and that includes the officers. It's worse at multi period events when it is everything thing from hoplites to Vietnam.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Feb 18, 2016 2:47:00 GMT
Yikes Brighty, but sounds like fun! These insights remind us of the reality of the experiences these men went through.
All of our games and rules make compromises and if we factor in too much, my tired old brain cannot keep track. There is an option that addresses some of these issues.
Carnage & Glory is a computer software system that has been around for a long time, has been updated, and helps account for some of the factors. You enter unit quality data into it, and it automatically tracks things like fatigue, morale, ammunition, weather, etc. as the players move their units and do battle, and it changes unit capacities accordingly. It has been used to fight some pretty big battles and often needs a game master to run the data entry. I believe their Yahoo group fought Waterloo at West Point last year. But it is also touted as a useful tool for solo players. Its longevity speaks to its viability and success.
I have had C&G for a while, but I have not used it because I have been too lazy to enter the unit data. It does come with preloaded French units and tutorials on building your own armies. Maybe not for everybody but an interesting concept. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by brighty on Feb 19, 2016 10:00:23 GMT
Hhmm, I don't play computer games as I find they take up a lot of time and they can be addictive. But with computer games a lot of things can be written in to them. There was a Tv series a while ago that pitted two teams of four against each other, one overall general and the sub commanders that had to get permission to do a certain move all carried out in real time. As a one off special they had four British Army Generals and four Wargamers, the wargamers slaughtered them. The generals were concerned with casualties and the wargamers winning. At the end the wargamers said "we put our casualties in a box and take them home, you bury yours, so we had no worries" It's the same with re-enacting, you are a lot braver when you know you will be going home at the end of the weekend. So as you said earlier, Just imagine what was going through the mins of the soldiers back then,"will I see my wife/children/home again. Will I return whole" that must also play a part on how they functioned as a unit, also with a mixture of old hands and new recruits.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Feb 19, 2016 23:21:18 GMT
Good point Brighty, and one I often think about. What we are doing is play, in tribute, I think, to those who experienced the realities.
FYI Carnage & Glory is used with miniatures on the table, so it's not a computer game in the usual sense. It does track the various factors which have an impact on performance as units move and fight. Once it is set up and the initial data entered, games apparently go very smoothly, with a nice fog of war aspect, and convenience for the players. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by brighty on Feb 20, 2016 1:28:40 GMT
Could be something to look into, but unfortunately I don't have a gaming table. Still trying to get round the wife, it's only been the last 15 years... So I do my gaming at my local club, of which I am Vice Chairman and a friends house on a Friday. The club has 120+ members and was formed in 1977, of which I became a member 6 weeks after it was formed. We also have our show in November, Warfare this year will be our 38th show. I also attend various competitions and this year we have now started a 6mm set of Blucher comps. Of which I won the last one with my Russians. Next one is March 20th.
|
|
|
Post by suchet on Feb 22, 2016 13:15:06 GMT
I tink most Napoleonic rules miss the point that when one side advanced it had three outcomes: Defender runs away, defender counterattacks and attacker runs away or - most often - attack stalls in a firefight. Often rules use melee as an outcome even if this practically never happened. I have a set of rules called Champ d´Honner in which a firefight is the most common result. Units are tied in the firefight untill one side has had enough and quits. This can take anywhere from a few minutes up to more than an hour. This means that infantry attacks against infantry that is reasonably fresh will often end in a stalemate of attrition leaving any victor susceptible to a counterattack from fresh troops.
The rules are in prepublication for free online publication, and anyone interested are welcome to have a copy if they send me PM.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Feb 23, 2016 1:23:37 GMT
Greetings Suchet, nice to hear from you again!
Champ d' Honneur is a set of rules particularly notable for their historical basis. Suchet and his team have been developing them for some time, and he was kind enough to email me a set last year. They are carefully researched and less "gamey" than some other rules as they look more to produce outcomes consistent with actual practices and results in battle. My experience is that these guys are serious and know their stuff. I like the artillery and skirmisher rules in particular as they give these forces realistic impact. Commanders do not get to micro manage their forces once they engage, but the combat outcomes are designed to reflect what was most likely to happen.
I have since gone on to obtain several more rule sets to add to my already too large collection as my obsession and indecision about rules continues unresolved. But Suchet's rules are definitely worth a look if you want to get some perspective on some of the factors we've been discussing. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by ooiittee on Feb 23, 2016 22:08:31 GMT
Very Interested in taking a look. Also how can we support the work being done on these rules?
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Feb 24, 2016 3:11:17 GMT
Ooiittee, you have raised a lot of interesting points and I sent myself back to re-read Col Elting's chapter Strategy and Tactics from Swords Around a Throne, which also connects to one of your other threads. The Colonel maintains that French skirmishers in particular really swarmed around sniping at enemy lines and could have a substantial impact, especially when they were increased by additional troops from the line. Also the French formation of battalion columns in two staggered lines at line deployment distance allowed horse artillery and cavalry to move freely between the columns and move into action where opportunity presented. By the time the columns were in range, the enemy could be pretty shook up, even ready to fold.
Firefights were tough, but short as only the first volleys had a chance for significant impact, After that smoke, fear and fatigue progressively lessened troops ability to load properly, never mind aim. Suchet has this outcome just right.
Muskets seem to have caused by far the most casualties, although it took an astounding number of rounds to cause a casualty, and this is reflected in the combat results dice rolls of many rule sets. It seems to me that melee in particular is over emphasized in gaming and skirmishers perhaps not always given their due. Bayonets inflicted a small percentage of casualties compared to muskets and artillery. Cavalry did much of its damage riding down routed forces. It apparently was relatively uncommon for opposing troops to end up in hand to hand combat, one side having usually broken before this fearful and terrible form of face to face killing, which most human beings recoil from even as soldiers, could occur. Of course there are exceptions to everything and plenty of examples of great courage and determination. But we are talking about the most likely outcomes. A lot of food for thought. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by ooiittee on Feb 24, 2016 3:33:25 GMT
That's a book that's on my list Bruce, thanks for the info. It seem interesting to me that Skirmish forces were seen to be this effective where to look at a lot of rule systems they are substandard in their effectiveness. I am very keen to see this rule set that Suchet has mentioned.
As for rules that cover all things, yes there needs to be a limit to the "Gamerfication" of the period. I am sure I have heard of on this forum, Horse Artillery charging Infantry, Infantry in line repelling a cavalry charge in hand to hand, as historical events. To have a rule set that handles every possible historical possibility would be a mammoth volume and an almost impossible game to learn and play right.
|
|
|
Post by suchet on Feb 25, 2016 11:33:56 GMT
Exceptional cases make bad law, this also goes for rulesets - I believe that rules should primarily seek to reward players who uses the standard doctrines and possibilities of the different armies in the year represented. I can recommed the new Arnold book: Napoleon at Bautzen, whoch gives a fascinating insight into the capabilities and changes the allied armies in 1813 had made in doctrine from previous years. An example is the way the prussian brigades at Lutzen instead of falling back once spend, instead melted into skirmishers and supplemented the attack - similar to Derlon at Waterloo, this capacity was newfoud for the prussians, despite of them having plenty of jaeger and skirmishers in 1806.
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Mar 5, 2016 5:28:03 GMT
Yes hand to hand very rare. I think someone (Oman?) once argued that during the Peninsular War british and French infantry only crossed bayonets once. As an earlier post said one side tended to lose heart before it came to it. Platoon based firing systems always gave the British an advantage - my understanding was that french column tactics were, in part, an outcome of the minimal training the conscripts got so they couldn't optimise their musketry by fighting in line. The Russsians tried to close if they could and for the same reason - no training meant musketry ineffective. As late as 1854 a Russian officer looked on with dismay as his regiment discharged their muskets straight into the air rather than at their opponents . It appears they knew no better and I imagine that was true in 1812 too. Where you do get serious hand to hand is Prussians v French in 1815 - they really hated each other which I don't think British and French soldiers actually did and you need a bit of animosity to go bayoneting. There are some figures for volume of lead fired at Waterloo and, if my memory serves me right it took getting on for 1000 balls to be fired for one fatality. Artillery fire a very different matter - smoke or no smoke.
|
|
|
Post by suchet on Mar 9, 2016 8:59:42 GMT
You cannot generalize the french as they have a wide spectrum from untrained "tirrallieurs en debandade" in 1792 up to propably the best trained units of the war in 1805, to medium to poorly trained, but trained recruits. In my view waragmes overemphasize musketry skills - the problems with lines was not musketry but maneuver. Columns maneuvered better than lines, but units with poor tactical control were not adept at forming line close to the enemy and had to do it outside of cannon range. In the years from 1796 to around 1809/12 depending on the unit and therater, it was common practice for french unit to form line once close to an enemy, that had no intention of retreating.
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Mar 11, 2016 11:38:56 GMT
You're right about not generalising the French, Suchet, and especially the quality of the light infantry. Your point about overstating musketry is correct. I'd also forgotten the mixed order formations which the French used.
|
|
|
Post by ooiittee on Mar 12, 2016 10:13:45 GMT
With lines most rules reduce movement rates and with the lines natural length the turning arch is further distance to travel. These things reflect the lines maneuver effectiveness.
I see how lines would not hold as well in hand 2 hand if joined but what else would make them worse than column.
|
|
|
Post by keithabarker on Mar 13, 2016 15:37:21 GMT
I see how lines would not hold as well in hand 2 hand if joined but what else would make them worse than column. There was surprising little hand-2-hand infantry combat in the napoleonic wars when in open terrain. So it was very rare for a line to meet a column in hand-2-hand.
One side generally broke and ran before hand-to-hand combat.
Most bayonet wounds/deaths would be in the back once one side broke.
Hand-2-hand commbat occurred mostsly arround towns, farms and other broken terrain. Or if the two opponents were somehow surprised and got really close without first seeing each other such as in foggy weather.
|
|
|
Post by keithabarker on Mar 13, 2016 15:53:44 GMT
Other games have nationality as a rating. This makes at least some sense I remember reading how many shoots were fired in training by the average nation per trooper. Alot of countries had between 1 and 10 shots fired in drill where the British had over 50 making sense as it was a shooting army. Nationallity as a rating makes sense because of training and temprement. The French officers encouraged their men, trying to work them up into a fighting frenzy. Shouting was encouraged. The British officers calmed their men, keeping them under tight control and discipline. Silence was required up to the last seconds. This gave difference performance.
I'm not sure I would class the British as a shooting army. Not even you mean continuos fire at 4-5 rounds per minute (except perhaps when defending terrain). What was more important was at they were taught levelling.
When the French column advanced on a British line, the British waiting in silence until point blank range, fires one (or perhaps two volleys), gave a cheer and then charged. There was no firefight as such. The French column might fire while advancing but it would not be replyied to by the line.
When the British advanced on the French they could move in column but would deploy into line in good time and advance in silence until point blank range, fire one (or perhaps two volleys), gave a cheer and then charged. There was no firefight as such. They would not stop to fire even if the French opened up at a longer range.
|
|
|
Post by captainchook on Mar 19, 2016 5:31:45 GMT
I have been away from the forum for some time and so I have been catching up over the last few days. It is interesting how National Characteristics became a dirty phrase. I suspect people confused this with racial chauvanism/racism. While there was probably a degree of this, it struck me as somewhat unusual to deny that different countries armies behaved differently. Quite simply, different armies have different training/doctrine and may have access to better or poorer recruits. We know the French had fewer officers, but they tended to lead from the front, other armies had considerably more officers in a battalion to keep them under better control. I think we could all make an analogy with a particular sport where one country is dominant, not due to the superiority of genetics or culture, but due to a superiority of training, doctrine and the habit of victory.
As far as shooting and quality. I think that most of the comments here are correct. However, I think there was a clear difference at the extremes. Overall aim might have been poor across the board, but fire discipline varied. Without going to my books to find a quote, I believe there were comments about the volume of fire from the French Middle Guard units at the end of Waterloo being heavy and causing many casualties. This, when they had advanced either in a column or square.
Command structure is important. I know many rules don't like to force a player into adopting the role of a poor commander and limiting their decisions. But to really play the period, this is an important consideration. The French corps system was, initially, superior to the organisation of all other armies. I don't think a player should be forced to play "dumb", but should be constrained by the command structure of their army. This doesn't mean fewer decisions need to be made, just different decisions.
Suchet, I must have another look at your rules. I had started reading through them over a year ago (I had offered to help proof read - on an amateur basis) but life got in the way with building and moving into a new house and restructuring my work. From what I remember, the rules seemed to read very well and had a good Napoleonic "flavour".
I hope I haven't rambled too much - post made after dinner and a couple of wines.
|
|