|
Post by bruce on Oct 10, 2017 1:46:01 GMT
Lately I have been wondering what the terrain in Europe really looked like, generally speaking, during the Napoleonic era. It looks like agriculture had cleared off most of Europe, especially in the west, and southern Britain by 1800.
So - should a generic terrain set up be mostly tilled fields and crops? Maybe some grassland as well. Not a lot of wooded areas, trees here and there? Of course its possible to get some ideas from old maps online for specific battles. But can we assume pretty much everything was either pasture or crops? How much farming terrain do you represent in your own terrain set ups? Do you just stick to some basic features so the gaming is unhampered by too much scenery? Bruce
|
|
|
Post by davidsh on Oct 10, 2017 7:49:47 GMT
It's a good question Bruce. There would have been a variety of landscapes, especially in the west of Europe, with much more pronounced cultivation. Further east would have been a greater extent of grassland. Depending on the season, different crops would have been evident. Much of the lower lying areas at Quatre Bras and Waterloo were covered in head high wheat. How often do you see that depicted on the table? The Marchfeld at Wagram was a huge cultivated area over the Danube north of Vienna, again with areas of wheatfields. Although some would be eventually trampled, large areas still remained.
Woodland was largely cultivated and managed by this time, more so in the West perhaps, but some would still be extensive - hence the concern of some in Wellington's army at Waterloo at having the Forest of Soignes at their backs. Plus Napoleon passed through thick forest to attack the Bavarians at Hanau in 1813.
So, more terrain features called for!
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Oct 15, 2017 21:07:58 GMT
The much taller varieties of wheat stand out as Davidsh says. In the first Schleswig-Holstein war (and I assume this would have been true in Napoleonic times battlefields were marked by small fields with numerous hedges and ditches. I'm got 10mm armies for that war although I haven't yet given them a run out but had thought about how to represent the very broken terrain. You could also give thought to different national characteristics in the face of different terrain. Ottoman cavalry, for example, were good on broken ground.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Oct 16, 2017 2:40:17 GMT
So...sounds like lots of fields, some with boundary obstacles, and plenty of wheat to get through and maybe serve to obscure vision as well. We have touched on this before. I have a static grass applicator to make wheat fields, grassland. Have also made other kinds of fields.
What kinds of rules might evolve from movement through such terrain? Hedges, tilled ground, tall crops all might impact speed and formation, walls, some fences, would give a defensive advantage. How far would a reasonable person ( perhaps this doesn't include me) take this so as as not to have too many terrain rules while still capturing some of the impact of terrain? Bruce
|
|
|
Post by keithabarker on Oct 16, 2017 13:39:56 GMT
I guess you would also need orchards and vinyards and olives - depending on where you are fighting?
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Oct 16, 2017 19:05:46 GMT
I suppose the only other thing to add is that by and large generals tried to choose their ground so adverse effects of terrain would be minimised for them and maximised for their opponents. This seems to me to speak to one of the key differences between wargaming and history. Most (by no means all) of our battles are one off affairs and often hinge on the damage we inflict on the other side. Napoleonic battles were usually contextualised by a campaign in which domination of territory was more important than killing opposing soldiers (although an aspect of Napoleon's modernity was surely that he would set out to destroy armies) and manoeuvre more important than fire power. This makes the effect of terrain both more and less important depending on whether you look through a strategic lens or a tactical one. Wellington's ability to chose ground and use terrain over the course of a campaign (as in Spain and Portugal especially) was surely a key to his success. So it seems to me that although we should try to understand how landscape has changed in time and reproduce some of that we should also allow for the practices of generals who tried to fight over the most favourable ground possible.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Oct 18, 2017 0:32:18 GMT
Good points! I agree and terrain assessment is critical for officers at every level.
Just using the salient terrain features for historical scenarios is generally what we do. I am now thinking about Bruce Weigle's amazing terrain. I have never really seen anyone game his terrain boards, which are accurate in great detail, so I don't know how the rules and the terrain interface. Can you have a smooth running game with so many fields, hedges, fences, trees etc presenting movement and line of fire challenges on every turn? Bruce
|
|
|
Post by davidsh on Oct 18, 2017 19:08:43 GMT
I think you would need an overall adjustment factor to cope with 'difficult going'. Otherwise there would be endless factors for wheatfields, orchards, vineyards etc. All would have one basic effect - rendering impossible a cohesive formation whilst passing through. Some will also provide an element of cover, including enabling some undetected movement.It's just the difficult going can be represented on the table with some variety other than a muddy field.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Oct 20, 2017 2:22:51 GMT
This sounds very sensible David. Perhaps there could be additional movement allowed for a unit facing a clear path, rather than penalties for units passing through common terrain features. Bruce
|
|
|
Post by profjohn on Oct 26, 2017 21:21:41 GMT
I like that idea of giving a bonus to a clear path and making obstruction to norm a great deal. I think it would be a very realistic modification.
|
|
|
Post by bruce on Dec 8, 2017 4:43:33 GMT
I have come back to this topic after some thought and I am giving a trial run to having a movement allowance to which is added a bonus for any clear path movement. No reduction for any of the various obstacles of landscape other than to designate certain areas, like swamp, impassable. So far I am liking this - no need to refer to a list of terrain movement factors. Troops in obstructed terrain may plod along, then break free on a open field, seems quite natural.
The question arises, can a table be too busy? Too much scenery spoils the game? Bruce
|
|
|
Post by Orlog Subedai on Dec 18, 2017 19:31:23 GMT
I would say that as a rule of thumb, pre-industrialisation battlefields -especially in Europe- would be less crowded with terrain than later...however, most of the terrain features would be natural rather than man-made, so hills, any kind of woodland, scrub, marshes and streams/rivers would predominate. (I don't know if any of the European countries had their own versions of the Enclosures Act like in England, so maybe away from the beaten track, open heathland would be the most commom feature.
I've never been a great lover of over-factorising an issue so a blanket plus for open land seems to be a good idea, maybe even a randomly diced for movement bonus for a bit of variety and maybe even a little tension. After all, most rules take into consideration redressing the lines so on open ground this may not happen as often.
|
|