|
Post by captainchook on Aug 8, 2016 5:17:38 GMT
I have just seen on another forum a comment about creating an accurate footprint for artillery. Why do people worry about this when the far more common units, infantry and cavalry, do not, in any way, have accurate foot prints? In column my 15mm infantry have a frontage of 54mm and a depth of 75mm. In 6mm a column for me is 40mm wide by 45mm deep. A line in 15mm is 162mm by 25mm deep. In 6mm 120mm by 15 deep. And lets not mention cavalry. To get a column to clear a gun line is already bad enough given the exaggerated depth. If the limbers and caissons are added for realistic depth it would take several turns to clear the artillery if passing through or around.
The inaccurate depth of regiments already causes some unintended problems without selectively adding realism to another type of unit.
|
|
|
Post by captainchook on Aug 8, 2016 5:42:30 GMT
I just dug out my Waterloo Companion. The diagram for the 1st battalion 92nd Ligne (paper strength 553) in column of attack at half distance has a frontage of 45m and depth of 45m. The same battalion in line is 125m frontage and 5m depth.
To go back to my 15mm figures based for General de Brigade and to use d'Erlon's attack at Waterloo as an example: Donzelot's division had nine battalions in his column. This means , even if they are stacked one behind the other, a depth of 9x25mm = 225mm. A line moving through difficult ground moves at 50mm. Being generous, the grand battery might occupy 200m in depth (200mm in GdB). To completely clear the artillery and caissons it would take 9 moves (200+225) /50= 8.5. If realistic gaps were left between the battalions, even 10-20mm would add another 2 to 3 moves. This would be half an day's, if not a day's, play of GdB before d'Erlon could even think of launching his attack.
|
|
|
Post by silent on Aug 8, 2016 10:54:23 GMT
Some good thoughts Captain. I personally just go by sight; If it looks right, then that'll do so to speak. Running campaigns, units inevitibly shrink in size anyway. And in my view, Siborne's Waterloo model didn't look right...so what hope have we. The museum should've provided opera glasses at the very least!
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Aug 9, 2016 19:48:30 GMT
Hello Captain! I agree with you both, and I feel like scale concerns are sometimes too fiddly. How it looks and the feel and flow of play are what matters for me, quite subjective. For me, the whole thing depends on finding your own balance and making compromises.
When troops move around on thick platforms, carrying their own shrubs with them, etc. I tend to just enjoy the show. It's all very stylized. Seems too picky to worry about actual measurements for scale to such a high degree.
What could troops be reasonably expected to be able to do? How long should it take in order to fit in with the game structure? What modifiers apply? It's a game, and you can make it do whatever you think looks right to you. Heresy for some perhaps! and I get it, quite subjectively! Bruce
|
|
|
Post by keithabarker on Aug 10, 2016 10:08:51 GMT
I agree with the above replies. Unless you play something like Sharpe Practice you will always have problems with the footprint of units as well as things like houses and bridges. Pick something that looks good and you are happy with, and then stick to it all the time; don't mix different footprints.
|
|
|
Post by davidsh on Aug 10, 2016 17:44:08 GMT
Whether attempting to pass units through or around the guns, it is probably a matter of style how these are represented. You could still have limbers and assorted paraphenalia on the table (as I do) and just modify movement if that would create large distances for units to cross. This depends on the rules of course. There is much evidence, particularly from written records from both sides at Waterloo, that other units did not pass through a gun line, but went around. This does make sense since passing through would mean the guns having to cease firing for quite a while, whereas the rate of fire of the French grand battery at Waterloo virtually doubled in advance of d'Erlon's attack.
|
|
|
Post by suchet on Aug 17, 2016 18:28:15 GMT
Captainchook - the scale is not the problem, the movement rules are the problem!!
|
|