|
Post by bruce on Mar 20, 2016 2:48:52 GMT
Not to worry Captain, this thread has been an excellent ramble as we all grapple with variables and try to understand what it might have been like. The list of variables is long and makes for great discussion.
I think that you have to take each era in historical context and consider rules related to national characteristics for each period. Suchet is right to warn against generalizing the French. The 1815 French are not as good as the 1805-07 French. The French in Italy in 1796 are still motivated revolutionaries, the French in Spain later on are a mixed bag. Settings and eras matter. Good thing Wellington wasn't waiting for the 1806 Prussians at Waterloo. How would the 1815 British do against Napoleon in 1809? Charles and the 1809 Austrians against Napoleon at Marengo?
All of these armies are of a time and place, which affects their qualities significantly. Many rule sets do consider this and provide helpful guidance. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by suchet on Mar 27, 2016 8:07:21 GMT
Dear Captain (and others). We have been doing some a very heavy period of 1813-14 gaming for the last year, which has lead to some minor modifications of the rules, especially regarding the command structure of artillery. If you (or anybody else for that matter) is interested send me a PM.
I think to some degree I like descriptions of unit capabilities better than national factors. I Champ d´honneur, we use the following values for an infantry unit:
Officers tactical value, combat, training, skirmishing, morale
In 1806 a french infantry battalion would have the following values: 7,6,6,7,6 meaning that the can qucikly change formation at will (officers value), that they can maneuver and fight in line (training), that they are good skirmishers and hold up well to casualties.
A french provsional battalion at Lutzen might look like this: 3,5,3,5,4. The unit wil have to maneuvre in column or square - and will propably stay in square after forming it. The have good fighting and skirmishing capability, but dissolves quickly upon casualties.
A british 1812 regiment would look like this: 7,6,7,6,7. The are very steady in line, fight really well and absorbs casualties and disorder without loosing to much combat effectvenss. They will however in our rules be classified as a linear army meaning that they have a restriction in the use of attack columns, they will usually form column of peleton for maneuvre to march forward and deploy into line - this is not an attack formation as is trated like a march column for simplicity. The division into linear and non linear armies are basically the only thing that is close to a national characteristic, and is mainly operational. Prussians, Austrians and russian are linear until about 1806-7, The French are non-linear from the start of the revolution.
|
|
|
Post by captainchook on Mar 29, 2016 5:48:16 GMT
Suchet, I have started looking at the rules again. I think there is a lot of good stuff in them. I agree that the French are difficult as they have both some of the most experienced veterans and some of the least experienced conscripts. There is also a lot of mythology as to the characteristics of various armies. But there was still a difference of doctrine, particularly in the early wars. I think you have enough variables/unit characteristics that you cover these differences. The national characteristics are less about racial character and more about training. But I do suspect that culture affects training - what a country expects of their soldiers and what they are willing to endure in training and in battle. It's a poor analogy, but I think about rugby, where New Zealand, a small country, constantly dominates the sport. Our society and culture demands/expects a lot from its rugby teams; they tend to adopt a different ethos and have the "habit of victory". The actual material is the same as that available to any other country. You could just say it is training and experience, but many other international teams have the same degree of training and experience. There is some other quality. And this is what may be termed "national characteristics" in a wargame. This is not a case of national chauvanism, by the way. Our other characteristics include the worst and most inconsiderate driving among other, less desirable traits.
|
|