Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. Nicofig
   Member

   Hi,
   we have a godd review about Lasalle in the last VV (n°90); The author, Jean-Philippe Imbach, is an old gamer and specialist for napoleonic rules and history.

   For him, there are only 4 little defaults:

   - the max for Artillery are too short.
   - there are no regimental gun (for a tactical game ?)
   - no moral test for an unit (if a grenadier unit rout or if a general is killed, the units near this evenement haven't some check to do)
   - some bataillons can build some retranchement since the battle in openfield.

   But Jean-Philippe write : "Lasalle is an excellent rules". Maybe Sam could tell us his ideas for this 4 little defaults.

   Posted 2 years ago #

2. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   [Maybe Sam could tell us his ideas for this 4 little defaults.]

   Sure. Thanks for asking.

   1) "- the max for Artillery are too short."

   I assume you mean the maximum ranges? That is explained in great detail on page 45, under the heading: "Are the Artillery Ranges too Short?"

   2) "- there are no regimental gun (for a tactical game ?)"

   I thought about it, but couldn't find a single historian who argued that they were worth anything. Every army during the Napoleonic period abandoned battalion and regimental guns as being useless. Napoleon is perhaps the only exception of an army actually adopting them in mid-war, and he only did so because he had all those spare (captured) Prussian and Austrian guns after 1806... and then he regretted taking them into Russia because they slowed things down and required more baggage, so he dropped them, too. (In fact, as the horses began to die, Napoleon got rid of the regimental guns very quickly. It's not clear if any of the French units still had their regimental guns by the time of Borodino (although a few do appear on some OBs.)

   3) "- no moral test for an unit (if a grenadier unit rout or if a general is killed, the units near this evenement haven't some check to do)"

   If you can find me a single historical example of a unit routing because a general was killed, then I'd love to see it. I realize that it is an old wargaming standard mechanic, but I have no idea why. I have never read a single account of a battle in which a battalion ran away because a brigadier was killed. Now, perhaps if the unit was also being charged, or took heavy losses from fire, and then the general was not there to rally or steady them... I would agree to that. But that's already part of the game mechanics, because you can't Recover if you're out of command.

   Similarly, I can't think of any examples where a unit broke because it saw a unit that was "better" than it, breaking. I realize that we all have the Romantic 19th-century stories like "La Garde Récule!" in our heads, but by now we all know that probably nobody actually saw that happen (very few people would have been close enough, or in a position to see it happen, and the "elites" weren't necessarily recognizable from a distance anyway), so most of it is just myth. It stretches the imagination to believe that a unit of militia would recognize a particular regiment and think "Oh crap - that's the 123rd Dingbat Fusiliers, and everybody knows they're tough bastards! If *they're* running, our shit must really be in the fire!"

   There are plenty of examples of units becoming panicked, particularly when surprised or exhausted. And of course Lasalle does have the mechanic of requiring a Discipline Test when a friendly falls back through you, to see if you are Disrupted, too. But my philosophy for the game is: Units break because things happen to *them*.

   4) "- some bataillons can build some retranchement since the battle in openfield."

   I'm not sure I understand this.... Perhaps a translation issue?

   Entrenchment is an Advanced / Optional rule that is used by certain armies in certain situations. For example, the Spanish infantry: they often entrenched in the open, and it often made the difference between victory and defeat. (The Battle of Tamames comes to mind, for example.) The Ottomans can do it, too, for obvious reasons; that was a standard infantry tactic for them in the Balkan Wars.

   If you're referring to the use of Engineers to entrench *any* unit... that is an Optional Rule, along with all Engineering activity.

   Posted 2 years ago #

3. Nicofig
   Member

   Thank you Sam, it's clear now. It is a pleasure to have an author who responds to players' questions thoroughly and respectfully.

   Posted 2 years ago #

4. J.-Ph. IMBACH
   Member

   Hi,

   I’m the VaeVictis’s reviewer. First, thanks for replying to my remarks and thanks to have produced a good set of rules. However, I maintain my remarks and I would like to explain them thereafter. I've tried to mention my sources.

   1) Ranges for artillery are too short:

   Obviously, I’ve read your text about that on page 45. The problem is that the artillery ranges are too short for canister and 12 pdr. I calculated the terrain scale with one 600 men medium battalion (4 bases) and two feet by man. Thus, we have a round 30BW for 1000 yards.

   Normally, the 12 pdr send canister up to 500 yards (15BW); 6 pdr up to 400 yards (12BW) and 3 pdr up to 300 yards (9BW). That’s respectively 5BW, 4BW and 3BW more than the rules (+50% in each case).

   The “right” long range is more difficult to find because it depends of the nationality of the guns. For example, the Artillery Equipments of the Napoleonic Wars (Osprey MaA 96) gives only 700 yards for the effective range of the Austrian 12 pdr, but 700-900 yards for Russian and 900 for Prussian and French guns. The more recent Osprey New Vanguard about Austrian artillery gives an effective range of 760-885 meters (830-970 yards) for the same Austrian guns. General Gassendi wrote in his manual for French artillery’s officers that the ranges for the 12, 8 and 4 pdr were respectively 900, 800 and 700 meters (980/870/760 yards). In Lasalle, the maximum ranges for heavy/medium/light guns are 22/20/18BW (730/670/600 yards): the range for the heavy guns is too short.

   2) No regimental guns:

   Your answer is very surprising.

   Detailed tactical accounts of fights in the napoleonic era are very scarce. Thus, it’s difficult to conclude that regimental guns aren’t efficient as you did. Anyway, you added a rule for rockets that were non-efficient and rarer than the regimental guns, so why no rule for regimental guns?

   You “couldn't find a single historian who argued that they were worth anything”, but Napoleon himself stated in a letter to general Clarke, on May 29th 1809 (#1142, tome sixième, Correspondance militaire de Napoléon Ier, Editions Plon, Paris, 1876): “Tous les jours, je me convaincs du grand mal qu’on a fait à nos armées en ôtant les pièces de régiment” [quick translation: “Every day, I’m convinced of the great wrongs done to our armies by removing the regimental guns”]. And one historian — the chef d’escadron Buat — explains in his superb job about the last part of the 1809 campaign why Napoleon chose to create regimental guns: “À Essling, Napoléon avait été frappé des ravages que l’artillerie autrichienne, très supérieure à la nôtre, avait fait dans nos rangs : il était convaincu d’autre part que les jeunes troupes dont son armée était en grande partie composée, et dont la proportion allait devenir plus forte encore, avaient un urgent besoin d’être soutenues matériellement et moralement par une artillerie de plus en plus puissante” (page 27 of the second volume of De Ratisbonne à Znaim. La campagne de 1809 en Autriche, Paris, Chapelot, 1909) [“At Essling, Napoleon had been stunned by the devastation that the Austrian artillery, much numerous than ours, did in our ranks: he was convinced on the other hand that the young troops of which his army was composed to a great extent, and of which the proportion would be even higher, had an urgent need to be physically and morally supported by a more powerful artillery”].

   Thus, on May 25th 1809, Napoleon ordered the creation of regimental guns mainly to boost the moral of his conscripts. He ordered the general Songis (#1142, tome sixième, Correspondance militaire, etc.) to add a total of 78 regimental guns to the 2nd, 3rd and 4th corps. Only 66 guns (17 for Oudinot, 32 for Davout and 17 for Masséna) were ready for the battle of Wagram (page 29 of the second volume of De Ratisbonne à Znaim). I’m sure that these regimental guns were used at Wagram because Napoleon wrote in his “Ordres généraux pour le passage du Danube” (#1167, tome sixième, Correspondance militaire, etc.): “Le 5 [juillet] à la pointe du jour, toutes les divisions seront sous les armes, chacune avec son artillerie, l’artillerie de régiment dans l’intervalle des bataillons” [“On the 5th (of July) at daybreak, all divisions will be under arms, each with its artillery, the regimental guns between the battalions”]. On July 15th, 1809, he also wrote to Clarke (#1170, tome sixième, Correspondance militaire, etc.): “Mon intention est de compléter l’artillerie des régiments” [“My intention is to supplement the regimental guns”].

   Moreover, your assumptions about the Russian campaign are not correct. Most of the regimental guns were at Borodino. I have a precise OOB from the SHAT (Service Historique de l’Armée de Terre, archives of the French Army) and, on September 2nd, 1812, only five days before Borodino, 147 guns were still available for the 1st corps (Davout). This corps began the campaign with 150 guns (64 regimental guns + 70 divisional guns + 16 reserve guns). At this time, 75 of the 86 guns of the 3rd corps (Ney) were still present. Unfortunately, the numbers of guns for the 4th and 5th corps are unreadable, but it’s likely that the men of this two corps had kept their guns as much as possible, as they were considered as trophies: there were as precious as eagles.

   The main difference between French and other armies is that Austrians and Russians replaced regimental guns by divisional guns, because batteries of guns were more efficient than sections of two guns all along the front of the army. French approach was different as regimental guns were added to the existent divisional guns. That’s perhaps the reason why these light guns were efficient in the French army: they never replaced the divisional guns, but were a kind of “bonus”.

   Thus, many regimental guns were present at two major napoleonic battles (i.e. Wagram and Borodino) and at least at all fights in July and August 1812. And that’s why I think that a tactical napoleonic rule must include regimental guns. As the fire of one eight-guns battery is equivalent to the fire of a battalion, it means that the “free” (i.e. captured) light guns were worth the effect of eight to twenty battalions (for firing). In fact, I am convinced that if Napoleon had established regimental guns, that’s because they were useful. And I’m sure that if these regimental guns had not been efficient, the Emperor would have not hesitated to remove them from his army.

   Finally, you recommended in Lasalle (page 2) Rory Muir’s Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon (Yale University Press, 2000) and this author wrote “Close support from artillery often brought psychological advantages out of all proportion to its material effects, and this is one of the principal arguments for the retention of the battalion guns” (page 212).

   3) No moral test for a unit if another unit routs or a general is killed:

   As already stated, this kind of tactical details were usually omitted in after action reports, thus it’s very difficult to have some certitudes.

   However, I’ve read some years ago the “mémoires” of Poirier de Beauvais, the commandant of the Vendean artillery, during the uprising of 1793 (published by Les Édition du Bocage,1994). He noted some instances where the Vendeans panicked:
   - July 3rd, 1793, some troops routed because they saw a retrograde movement of their own guns (page 63);
   - about twelve days later, same problem (page 74): the Vendeans on the left wing panicked because they mistaken a movement of their own cavalry for a movement of enemy cavalry… There was a propagation of the panic and all the army fell back;
   - Poirier wrote also: “Il n’est pas étonnant que des gens non accoutumés au feu, et se battant contre leur gré, ne soient pas fermes, surtout quand la troupe de ligne donne l’exemple de la retraite” (page 115) [“It is not surprising that people not accustomed to combat, and fighting against their will, are not firm, especially when the regulars gives the example of retreat”]. Well it seems that the view of “better” troops living the battlefield have an impact;
   - and finally, “La vue de ces deux chefs mortellement atteints [i.e. Bonchamps and d’Elbée] anéantit nos soldats ; ils perdirent le feu qui les animait, et de cet état de stupeur passèrent bientôt à celui de la crainte ; l’armée, se trouvant dans une position fâcheuse, hésita un moment, et fut bientôt après complètement en déroute” (page 147) [“The sight of these two mortally wounded leaders (i.e. Bonchamps and d’Elbée) rendered our soldiers useless, they lost the spirit that animated them, and this state of stupor soon became fear; the army, being in an awkward position, hesitated a moment, and was soon almost completely routed”].

   Another example seems to be the Cumberland hussars at Waterloo (The Waterloo Companion, Mark Adkin, Aurum Press, 2005): after the fall of la Haye-Sainte, they began to falter, refused to charge and fled the battlefield, without “things append to them” at this time.

   Well, it seems that at least irregular or conscript troops with a low moral were prone to panic. If I find another such examples, especially for seasoned troops, I will complete this list.

   4) Entrenching an unit in an open field during a battle:

   “I'm not sure I understand this.... Perhaps a translation issue?”

   As I understand the rule in page 75, a unit could be entrenched in the open during a battle (i.e. after the beginning of the battle). But the construction of entrenchments in the open was normally made before the battle starts. When I read Lasalle, it seems that some troops may react like Soviet infantry in WWII: they take some shovels and entrench themselves in the open during the course of a battle. This situation seems odd.

   By the way, I have a remark about the assault bonus that gives an engineer base in Lasalle: engineers of the napoleonic era were not usually used like the German pioneers at Stalingrad. The “sapeurs” were to valuable to be wasted in direct assault, unless special (and very rare) circumstances.

   5) Frontage of cavalry:

   In any case, the frontage of a single infantryman and a single cavalryman were not the same. Usually, there were about three infantrymen vs two cavalrymen. Thus, there’re only two options if the aim is to have an “historical” frontage for Lasalle:
   - if a small four-bases infantry unit represents around 600 men and a small cavalry unit represents 400 men, then the cavalry unit must have six bases;
   - if both small units have four bases, then the cavalry unit must represent between 200 and 350 men only.

   In fact, with a frontage narrower than in real life, the cavalry units can be moved more easily than expected on a Lasalle’s table.

   Regards,

   JPI

   Posted 2 years ago #

5. beau sabreur
   Member

   Occurs to me that that JPI's proposals re (5) may not offend conventional thinking, in that each cavalry base would rather resemble a half-squadron. But what are the implications for inf:cav combat of a 'large' cav regt being redesignated 'average', with the possibility of 'large' regiments growing to eight(?) bases?

   Beau Sabreur

   Posted 2 years ago #

6. Drouot
   Member

   Hi,

   As a french wargamer, who received VAE VICTIS (THE french remarkable wargame & miniature magazine where Jean Philippe IMBACH 'JPI', wrote a lot especially for Napoleon's minis) from the very beginning, I am surprised by the heavy critics JPI sends, especially when he wrote in Vae Victis n°90 page 59 "C'est une excellente règle, très ludique, avec des mécanismes ingénieux" ("Its an excellent rule, very fun to play, with ingenious mechanisms"). Okay everything is not reality ("quelques entorses historiques": some historical stretch to the law) but Lasalle is not a military simulator but a game. It is simple (not simplistic), accessible (especially for new born wargamers and those who have no time for long tactical system) and easy to play, so some details are not perfect. I technically agree with JPI but:

   1) Ranges for artillery are too short:
   Artillery range are not maximum range but efficiency range, which are based on a table 4'x6' that is not reality but a portion of the battle,

   2) No regimental guns:
   Regimental guns are details within 20 years of campaign, some Vendée reactions during insurrection war in 1793 do not represent the reaction of the entire napoleonic era. Why is there no 'war of 1812' reaction, as they were massively used, or 'lack of regimental guns' in 1813, 1814 where the conscripts are numerous ?
   "And I’m sure that if these regimental guns had not been efficient, the Emperor would have not hesitated to remove them from his army." that is exactly what he makes in as of 1813.

   3) No moral test for a unit if another unit routs or a general is killed:
   When Maréchal Lannes was wounded at Essling, nobody break. In Rastatt 1809 when the Emperor himself was light wounded, nobody breaks. When Lasalle (!) died during a charge in 1809, his troop continued and pursuit the enemy (more ragingly it seems, although everybody saw his beloved general killed in front of the troops !

   4) Entrenching an unit in an open field during a battle:
   Entrenching are only accessible to specific units during specific periods as Sam said before, not for every unit everytime, so it depends of the unites and give to secenrii builder a new data to dea with.

   5) Frontage of cavalry:
   I am not a specialist so I can't argued on this topic.

   CONCLUSION:
   Most of the remarks from JPI can be resolved by optional rules but are not essential to judge this modern miniature rule. Remember the shock of DBA and DBM which simplified the miniatures wargames but give them remarkable playability and that today nobody critics as not historical (what they are indeed)!

   The different rules proposed by Vae Victis during several years ("Jours de gloire", "Pour l'empereur", "Champ d'honneur",...) and the different world famous system (DBx, HFG, NPOW, DBN, Shako,.. ), have inevitable historic stretch to the law but that was not problematic to play napoleonic. Once again, even if JPI remarks are historically right, please do not confuse perfect tactical simulator and easy, fun, playable and historically quite perfect game.

   Lasalle is resolutely a fair game, please once again do not confuse playability and details. Today we lack in France (Napoleon's country)for a good historical an playable napoleonic wargame (no napoleonic rule is a leader in France as Warhammer historical, FOW, DBx are for other periods).
   So Lasalle is undeniably a good challenger isn'it ?

   So Vae Victis ("Woe to the vanquished") but Lasalle is not at all vanquished, it is perhaps the winner who takes it all.

   DROUOT

   Posted 2 years ago #

7. J.-Ph. IMBACH
   Member

   As Sam seems to disagree with or not understand my remarks, I’m just trying to explain/precise my point of view. As I already wrote in VaeVictis and in my previous message, yes, Lasalle is a good rule, but it would have been better if some of the "problems" I mentioned had not been present in the rule.

   For artillery ranges, I mentioned only effective ranges.

   The regimental guns were not used in 1813+ because there was a lack of artillerymen and guns in the French army and the priority was obviously to rebuild the divisional and reserve batteries.

   When Napoleon was wounded near Ratisbonne (April 23rd, 1809), he quickly jumped back on his horse to show him because: “au bruit de cette blessure, la confusion se mit dans les rangs de l’armée française ; infanterie, cavalerie, rompent leurs rangs, plus de vingt mille hommes se trouvent en un moment réunis autour de Napoléon” (page 213, La campagne de 1809, les operations du 20 au 23 avril, colonel Michel Molières, Le Livre Chez Vous, 2003) [“hearing about this injury, the confusion began in the ranks of the French army; infantry, cavalry, broke their ranks, more than twenty thousand men are in a moment gathered around Napoleon”].

   Cheers,

   JPI

   PS1: even if you’re not a specialist, it’s easy to understand that a cavalryman can’t have the same frontage than an infantryman.

   PS2: as your nickname is Drouot, you should defend the regimental guns :-)))

   Posted 2 years ago #

8. Drouot
   Member

   Hi JPI,

   As nicknamed Drouot, to regimental Guns I would prefer "Grande Batterie" (joke),

   ;-)

   Posted 2 years ago #

9. Sam Mustafa
   Le Grand Fromage

   Obviously, anybody who wants additional rules for things like battalion guns, or additional Disruption for seeing an officer killed, can write their own.

   [Usually, there were about three infantrymen vs two cavalrymen. ]

   Surely you noticed that the units are scaled differently? A base of infantry represents about 150-200 men, while a base of cavalry represents only 90-120 men?

   As for artillery ranges, I thought I explained that in detail in the book. People can argue in all sorts of ways about visibility, ammunition, exhaustion of the gunners, vs. theoretical test ranges of the weapons, etc, etc.... I chose to limit artillery to a simplified "Effective Range" in all cases. And most importantly: I chose - as I always do in my games - to make the system work with its own internal logic (the relationship of movement rates to ranges and turn sequence), rather than try to make rules to reflect every possible interpretation of historical events, scaled literally.

   And if regimental or battalion guns were so indispensable, then I feel confident that more armies would have retained them. Muir writes: "...but the guns proved an encumbrance, slowing the infantry and discouraging risks. Napoleon abolished them in the French army during the Peace of Amiens; he attempted to restore them in 1809-10 in response to the declining quality of the French infantry, but few if any saw service in Spain, and when he was rebuilding his army in 1813 after the Russian debacle, other claims rightly gained priority." (35)

   Elting writes: "...in June 1809 Napoleon revived the regimental cannon companies that had been abolished in 1798.... These newly-formed cannon companies had no noticeable part in the subsequent battle of Wagram and the pursuit of the defeated Austrians... in April 1810 all regiments were told to turn in their new toys... Eleven months later, however, Napoleon reinstituted the [regimental artillery] on a slightly enlarged scale.... Many of the guns had been captured at one time or another and varied from fine Austrian weapons to dubious Piedmontese relics of 1796. Many were in poor repair... Oudinot felt that the material of his regimental artillery was "worse than could be imagined," and its cannoneers "of an extreme ignorance." Merle, who commanded a division of Oudinot's II Corps, was emphatic: "That regimental artillery has poor drivers and poor horses. It daily blocks the roads, impedes the march of the regular artillery, and deprives the ranks of seventy to eighty bayonets which would do the enemy much more damage than these poorly served cannons which cannot march." Most of the regimental guns were abandoned in Russia." (214-216)

   So... everybody abandoned them except the French, and the French did not like them, and concluded that they were not worth the trouble. I came to the same conclusion!

   As for units breaking because they saw a general die or run away, I have a feeling that trying to make that happen in a miniatures game would result in a lot of very unhappy gamers and cheesy tactics. People would begin to target officers, in the hope of forcing that morale check that would send the infantry running. And people who were doing well and winning a game but whose army suddenly ran away because a brigadier got killed, would be understandably angry and frustrated.

   If I'm not mistaken, something like 40,000 French officers were killed during the Napoleonic Wars? A staggering number. If there was a serious possibility that their troops would have run away each time it happened.... I think we can agree that there never would have been any French troops on the battlefield! Even if there's only a 1-in-6 chance of it happening, that's enough to grossly distort game results and make a bad game.

   Posted 2 years ago #

10. Rich Jones
    Member

    OK - EDIT - Sam was writing his the same time !!!

    Hi
    I defer to your excellent knowledge of all things Napoleonic, however I think the main thing here is that Lasalle treads along that fine line of being historically accurate while being 'easy' to pick up, fast and fun, something has to give. This is solely based on my game limited reviewing/designing experience and I am probably wrong:

    1) Ranges for artillery are too short:
    This I presume is mainly a game mechanic while being based on effective ranges and taking into account supply etc. On our table the range is nearly the whole width and the bounce through makes it effective without being a game breaker. Any greater and most things would be in canister range most of the time ... which from a realistic ground scale point of view may be accurate but from a players point of view not so good ... I want variation, I want bounce :)

    2) No regimental guns:
    The argument as to if, why or when they dropped from favour is way beyond my knowledge but it does seem from a game mechanic point of view they would; complicate things a lot by adding another mandatory target opportunity (lots of gamey players using them as ablative armour I imagine); having to deal with moving them etc; representing them adequately if one is already worried about the ground scale issue anyway; but mainly for me I can't see them adding anything ... doing enough damage with a battery is hard enough regimental guns being separate would only be adding dice and I think Sam has alluded to the fact he sees them as being factored in anyway.

    3) No moral test for a unit if another unit routs or a general is killed:
    Apart from the issue of historical examples if one looks from a game device point of view the test to break from seeing someone break device is in my opinion the pits ... I hate having a fresh unit run off just because someone next to them have broken and I rolled badly ... hardly any rules make one test if the unit next to them disappears in a puff of gun fire which I imagine would be equally as disturbing. Also at this level how would a unit know that the overall commander is dead. I like the way the sub commanders can die and the effectiveness suffers (the tactics rule is actually very strong when one gets used to playing with it). If it really bothered people a house fix would be to add a disruption to a unit if it is within xBW of a breaking unit, apart from that it would be hard to fit the 'test' into the game mechanics anyway.

    4) Entrenching an unit in an open field during a battle:
    No idea about this apart from the fact I can only see a limited number of armies that can do it anyway. Also I can see it being interesting trying to hit them while they are digging :)

    5) Frontage of cavalry:
    Again I suspect Sam's final consideration here is getting as close to the actual mechanics on the battlefield while maintaining ease of game play. Having the frontages the same works to stop any cheesey game play and 'discussions' in throw together games etc.

    All in all I can add little to the accuracy debate ... but in my opinion from a game point of view Lasalle is close to perfect for what it sets out to do. The mechanics are smooth and basically flawless from a game point of view. There is nothing that we have had to fudge to resolve yet and we are playing without even looking at he QRS on the whole. Also a massive indicator to me is the fact from a mechanic point of view there is nothing that we want to tweak ... which is a very rare situation with the people I play with. Even things that grated my partners to start with (like not being able to advance to contact) seem right when you look at what the big picture represents and the way the rules flow.

    I think that the discussions that are revolving around what everything 'represents' tend to not take into account the rules are enabling club throw together games between people who may not normally play together ... they need to be tight, including what bases can hit what bases in combat etc.

    Sorry about being long winded and again it is just my take on it purely from a game point of view.

    Rich J

    Posted 2 years ago #

11. MarkGrindlay
    Member

    IIRC, a Cavalry squadron would deploy with a width of about 40 m - being not a single line abreast, but with a depth to it just as with the infantry company.

    so with an average 3-4 actual squadrons present and 5 expected in each regiment, the approximate length compared to a roughly 200 m deployed infantry line is equivalent, I think.

    Posted 2 years ago #

12. J.-Ph. IMBACH
    Member

    [Usually, there were about three infantrymen vs two cavalrymen. ] [Surely you noticed that the units are scaled differently? A base of infantry represents about 150-200 men, while a base of cavalry represents only 90-120 men?]

    The ratio “three infantrymen vs two cavalrymen” is for the frontage of the units. One small unit of infantry is around 600 men, thus 150 men for a single base. One small unit of cavalry is around 400 men, thus 100 men for a single base. As the infantry normally fights in three ranks and the cavalry in two ranks, you have a single base of infantry with 50 men on its front vs a single base of cavalry with also 50 men on its front, thus one infantryman vs one cavalryman.

    For artillery, I also write my remarks using effective ranges.

    I never said regimental guns were so indispensable for every army, I only pointed that Napoleon thought they were worth their price (and I think he knew napoleonic warfare much better than you and me :-))) Thus these guns should have been represented in a tactical game.

    For the death of a general:
    - about cheesy tactics, a general can not be the target of a fire in Lasalle;
    - as I already write, I think irregular and conscript troops are much prone than veterans to rout when “things happened”;
    - only 10000 French officers were killed or wounded in the napoleonic wars. And the death of most of them (i.e. up to colonel rank) are already computed in the combat mechanisms;
    - if units don’t test in Lasalle because you “have a feeling that trying to make that happen in a miniatures game would result in a lot of very unhappy gamers”, that’s a good reason and you should have given this argument at the beginning of this thread. By the way, I played DBM for many years, such things happened sometimes, but it didn’t bother me, “c’est la vie”…

    Cheers,

    JPI

    Posted 2 years ago #

13. TodCreasey
    Member

    I'm going to play around with regimental guns tonight in fact as the Spanish split up thier batteries at Samosierria. As Sam points out this was a bad tactic (the battery got overrun by a series of charges by a single cavalry unit) but for a historical scenario it would be nice to have (it happened a fair amount in 1812 as well where many of the guns were light).

    Looking at the rules the firing rules should be fine as they stand as they are done per base - the only complication would be the combat rules where guns are always 2 dice. My feeling is that 1/2 battery can be one dice and a full battery 2 so fighting unsupported with a couple of guns should be a bad idea.

    Posted 2 years ago #

14. pavlov
    Member

    JPI wrote: "As the infantry normally fights in three ranks and the cavalry in two ranks, you have a single base of infantry with 50 men on its front vs a single base of cavalry with also 50 men on its front, thus one infantryman vs one cavalryman."

    I agree with this. We have in France a tradition of tactical rules that try (too much ?) to respect the scales. Sorry, that's our "formation" ;-)))

    However, I precise that it works well with british infantry which is organized in 2 ranks and so presents for one base a front of 75 men. The ratio of 3 men for 2 horses is correct in this case, for the frontage too. I think that « Lasalle » doesn’t want two sorts of infantry basing. Why not to choose the british… After all, they are the winners :-))))
    Sorry for my english.

    Posted 2 years ago #

15. DJoker
    Member

    I had a couple of thoughts on some of these points. And so I began to write down my ideas, including counter-examples, figures from Hyde Park and Jersey artillery trials in 1802 and 1805, etc, and then decided not to bother because I realized that none of that was really important, and it could be argued and debated indefinately. In the end, only one point really matters-

    This is a game.

    I don't think Sam makes any pretense that this is a spot on, mathmatically accurate simulation. There are most certainly sacrifices made for the sake of playablilty here, but isn't that the case with every game? It's all about balance. What has to be included, and what doesn't, to find that right balance between perfect realism and enjoyable playability.

    I find it odd that no one questions the realism (or lack there of), of little lead soldiers being moved around in turns, action and reaction, phase by phase, one at a time, taking turns firing and charging, and yet finds a break in "realism" by things such as "This artillery piece should be able to fire one BW further". One can suspend their disbelief for the whole concept of models representing real soldiers , and yet can't suspend their disbelief in regards to how much space on a table those models are taking up?

    In the end, we're simply painting toy soldiers and pushing them around on a table, throwing some dice around, and leaving everything else to our imaginations.

    I think a line from a paragraph on page 6 sums it up rather well: "Although "detail", "flavor", and "period feel" are always relative to each gamer's preferences...". One can't design a game that going to fit into what everyone is looking for. Personally, I think in every one of the issues you mention that Sam has struck the right balance between what is important to include and what isn't necessary in order to make an enjoyable gaming experience. If he had gone into some of the level of detail you mention, not only do I think it would effect the balance of the system he's created, but I also believe that, for me, the game just wouldn't be as much fun. And in the end, isn't that the most important aspect of any game? The fun?

    Posted 2 years ago #

16. J.-Ph. IMBACH
    Member

    Well, I’m a player who likes fun, playability AND history, and I think these points are not opposite. I think it would have been possible to produce a fun and playable system that includes for example “true” scales (especially for frontage and artillery ranges) or regimental guns.

    I only hope that regimental guns will be included in the 18th century Honour game…

    Cheers,

    JPI

    Posted 2 years ago #

17. Howie
    Member

    Well said DJ.

    Posted 2 years ago #

18. Sam Mustafa
    Le Grand Fromage

    [I’m a player who likes fun, playability AND history...]

    Isn't that everybody?

    Seriously. Every historical miniatures player I know says that.

    People simply come to different conclusions about which specific details have to be represented in which specific ways in the game rules, in order to be "historically accurate."

    I might demand that a game have some literal representation of XYZ... but 99% of other gamers might not care about it at all. For many, it would never even occur to them as necessary.

    I think DJoker summed up my feelings, and my design philosophy, very well.

    [I think it would have been possible to produce a fun and playable system that includes for example “true” scales]

    And what about "true" time-scale, then? And true march rates? Shouldn't we be historically accurate there, too? If you're going to demand that an artillery piece fires to its historical theoretical maximum range every time, then obviously you believe in a fixed ground scale, where 1 cm = X-number of meters, right? (Otherwise, how would you know how far to shoot the gun?)

    So if my infantry can march, say, 70 paces per minute. And my ground scale is about 1BW = 30 meters.... And a turn represents, I don't know, let's say ten minutes...

    Now you have an infantry unit with a movement rate of about 17 BW per turn.

    And your cavalry can "walk" about 30 BW in one turn. If they "trot," they can cross the whole table in one move.

    Does that sound like a good idea?

    I don't have a lot of faith in these supposed "true scales" in wargames, because frankly every game designer on earth ends up fudging them and rationalizing them to get them to fit his game rules. This is why most designers nowadays have given up pretending that we're representing true scales.

    I have no problem with guys who make up numbers to get their games to play right. All smart designers do that. I just don't like listening to them talk about "historical accuracy."

    Posted 2 years ago #

19. DJoker
    Member

    JPI- I'm a player likes fun AND history as well. And personally I find LaSalle to be a very good balance of both.

    -Scott

    Posted 2 years ago #

20. J.-Ph. IMBACH
    Member

    Time-scale is very difficult to modelize and I don't ask for a precise time-scale: you should have noted that I said nothing about the lack of precise time-scale in Lasalle, because I agree to and understand this lack.

    Thus, I usually focus only on ground-scale. To explain the importance of ground-scale, I typically give an example from the battle of Waterloo: the distance between Hougomont and La Haye-Sainte is less than 800 meters and about 10000 French cavalrymen charged across this gap. When players want to recreate real battles using real maps, “real ground scale” and “real frontages” help to produce “real problems” (i.e. for example the crowding of the French cavalry in this area of the Waterloo battlefield).

    In fact, I totally accept that you justify some of your choices by playability and fun. I only replied to your first comments because, in my opinion, you tried to justify some of your gaming choices with false historical arguments or hypothesis (like “it's not clear if any of the French units still had their regimental guns by the time of Borodino” or the frontage of the cavalry is OK in Lasalle).

    Cheers,

    JPI

    Posted 2 years ago #

21. blucher
    Member

    For what its worth these are not issues for me. Im especially glad there ISNT a break test for killed officers. IMO the only time a unit would break from officers killed would be at the battalion level. That is if during an advance your colonel was sniped I think this would make a big difference. Other than that I dont feel its worth including in a game of this period/type. Regimental guns are the only thing I woudlnt mind included, though not a massive deal. Would be very easy to add them in as house rule. Just include +X dice and maybe a movement penalty?

    Thats not to say your points have no validity. I just see them as a very low priority in a club/pickup game that HAS to make comprimises like this.

    jon

    Posted 2 years ago #

22. J.-Ph. IMBACH
    Member

    [Thats not to say your points have no validity. I just see them as a very low priority in a club/pickup game that HAS to make comprimises like this.]

    Yes and that's why, as Drouot noted, I wrote that "C'est une excellente règle, très ludique, avec des mécanismes ingénieux" ("Its an excellent rule, very fun to play, with ingenious mechanisms"). Okay everything is not reality ("quelques entorses historiques": some historical stretch to the law).

    Cheers,

    JPI

    Posted 2 years ago #

23. DJoker
    Member

    JPI- Nicely said.

    -Scott

    Posted 2 years ago #

24. Rich Jones
    Member

    'you tried to justify some of your gaming choices with false historical arguments or hypothesis'

    I may be alone here but I would tend to go with someone who teaches Nap history for a living before most people ... so I would be surprised if they were either. Also it is a bit ironic that all this started from a post saying 'good review in ...'

    So let's celebrate what JPI said in the review ... excellent rules ... and I'll add 'damn fine to play' :)

    Posted 2 years ago #

25. Drouot
    Member

    Well said Rich, what a nice game !

    Posted 2 years ago #

26. Nicofig
    Member

    I agree, it's a nice game but the discussion was necessary to know the Sam's choices

    Posted 2 years ago #

27. Another_Grognard
    Member

    Hello,

    I'm very interested in chatting with everyone about what has been discussed here. However, to be honest, I need to be at home where I can look up a few facts - one of the drawbacks of not having internet at home. Because, I may have been studying the Napoleonic period for over three decades, I just can't remember/retain every little fact. However, I can recall off the top of my head that infantry was allocated an interval of 22 to 26 inches per soldier - it varies slightly among drill books. For sake of arrangement, lets just say 24 inches - infantry were formed so that they were elbow to elbow, and this is a good number to start with. Also, I can recall that cavalry on the average had an interval of about 40 t0 48 inches, again it varies slightly among drill books. For the sake of argument, lets just say 44, but it should be closer to 48.

    If we line up a single row of foot soldiers 100 yards long, and a single row of cavalry troopers 100 yards long, we get 150 infantry and 82 cavalry respectively.

    To get the three infantry to two cavalry frontage, the infantry would have to have an interval of 24 inches while the cavalry an interval of 36 inches. Anyone who has spent any amount of time around horses knows that 36 inches is close - the French manual says 1 meter (39.37 inches) but realistically it was probably around 48 inches.

    To get the four infantry to three cavalry frontage, the infantry would have to have an interval of 24 inches while the cavalry an interval of 32 inches.

    A ratio of 3 to 2 is probably more representative than a 4 to 3, but all and all, these are just rough guidelines as intervals expanded and collapsed on the battlefield.

    I'm in favor of "representation" of a unit than any precise length or number. As long as it is not completely obscure, it should work fine. If a set of rules represents 180 infantry and 60 cavalry on the same frontage, or something close to this, then it should be close enough - 180 infantry would have a frontage of about 40 yards (three ranks, 24in per soldier), while 60 cavalry would also have a frontage of 40 yards (two ranks, 48in per trooper).

    Yes, I know Lasalle doesn't do that, instead Lasalle uses 4xBases to represent about 500-700 infantry or 300-700 cavalry. At the low end of the scale it's a 5:3 ratio, and a 7:5 ratio for the top end of the scale. Still workable.

    Posted 2 years ago #

28. Another_Grognard
    Member

    change that to:
    "4xBases to represent about 500-700 infantry or 300-500 cavalry"

    Posted 2 years ago #

29. Another_Grognard
    Member

    In regards to Artillery Ranges above:

    It's to hard not say something here, but first I would like to state that I do realize that the artillery ranges in Lasalle are not adjusted for historical reason, but rather he "adjusted them because it works better as a game!" That of course is good judgment. It is common for game designers to adjust their game designs so that they have a sense of practicality and functionality for game purposes.

    That being said It would be a pointless sort of exercise to debate the maximum range of cannon during the Napoleonic wars. Most contemporary as well as modern sources give us plenty of data on the maximum ranges for various types of cannon used during the period, and these are readily available. However, these ranges are quite impractical because there is no point in firing off round shot (the standard type of artillery ammunition) to a distance of some thirteen to seventeen hundred yards if the gunners cannot identify what they are firing at much less see where their shots land. All aiming was done exclusively by the human eye, and it was the limitations of visual ability that considerably reduced the range and effectiveness of Napoleonic cannon. So, when discussing ranges at which Napoleonic cannon can fire, it should be understandable that we must keep this limiting factor in mind.

    At what range would a gunner consider it worthwhile to fire his cannon? It will be one based on if the crew can identify their target (friend or foe) and observe the impact of their shot so that the aimer can make corrections, and the battery commander can assess the damage to the target. On a clear day, one can make out a fair distance when aided by a hand held field telescope, but we are dealing with a period that used black powder, and even a single discharge from a 6lb cannon resulted in a dense cloud of whitish smoke. When the battle was underway, the battlefield would very rapidly be covered with clouds of whitish smoke and/or smoke haze. This of course reduced visibility to sometimes only 100 yards, which Captain Mercer (1) nervously discovered at the Battle of Waterloo when he detected a body of French cavalry which could only be observed when they were within one hundred yards of his battery. It will also be good to point out that actual battlefields are dissimilar from those we see on flat gaming tables. Real life terrain is rarely anything like this, and even slight ground depressions or rises on the field coupled with tiny groups of trees/bushes would cut down on visibility (2).

    Before discussing canister ranges it is important to recognize that canister, also known as case-shot, is not the same as grape-shot (3). And when it comes to canister shot, there were basically two types; one heavy and one light. The difference being that heavy canister had larger but fewer projectiles while light canister had lighter but many more projectiles within the thin metal case or canister. Another aspect we need to consider is that when canister shot emerges from the muzzle, it immediately breaks up after leaving and starts to spread out (4). It is important to note that these deadly projectiles do not fly out on a horizontal plane, but rather a cone shape from the muzzle. This means, some of the projectiles will plough directly into the ground or fly up over the top of the intended target. Using a target that measures 100 feet wide by 6 feet high and applying basic physics/geometry, we can roughly calculate that 50% effectiveness for 6lb firing light canister (about 86 projectiles) is reached at about 250 yards depending on initial velocity and spread angle - keeping in mind that a smaller charge was usually used for firing canister then what was used for round shot - which is close to what B.P. Hughes has indicated in his exceptional book "Firepower". For larger cannon, this range will be extended slightly, but a range of about 300 yards would be about right for effective range, I think, for most cannons. However, it has been recorded in history that heavy canister was fired out to 500 to 600 yards in some battles. At that range, we are looking at about 12% to 9% respectively. That works out to about maybe 3 to 2 unlucky soldiers being hit by a 6lb cannon firing heavy canister, and maybe 5 to 3 hit by a 12lb cannon firing heavy canister. In gaming terms, such light casualties might not be worth the extra paperwork required to keep track of all the finer details - are these mortal wounds or just light wounds? So yes, canister can reach out there, but was it practical (especially in gaming terms)?

    Up close, canister can be most lethal as Captain Mercer discovered at the Battle of Waterloo when his battery loaded double shot with a combination of canister and round shot and fired at a French cavalry charge at a range of 50 or 60 yards. He wrote, "The effect was terrible. Nearly the whole leading rank fell at once: and the round shot, penetrating the column carried confusion throughout its extent. The ground, already encumbered with victims of the first struggle become, almost impassable."

    Hmmm... I wonder if anyone actually takes the time to read these longer posts?

    - - - - -
    Foot Notes:
    (1) Captain Alexander Cavalie Mercer of the RHA (Royal Horse Artillery) wrote an incredible account of the part his battery played during the Waterloo Campaign and the Battle of Waterloo.

    (2) Take for example the Battle of Antietam - I know, not a Napoleonic Battle - when the Union infantry formations approached the Confederate positions at the sunken road. As the union regiments advanced, the confederates lost sight of them momentarily only to see them re-appear not far from their position. This was due to the slight depression in the cornfields through which the Union troops marched.

    (3) Grape-shot consisted of number of small iron balls packed around a center column attached to a base. The whole thing was covered with canvas and tied with rope giving the shot grapes on a vine look. While extensively used at sea, it was rarely used on land.

    (4) The phrase "Turning the cannon into a giant shotgun" is mistakenly used by many historians/authors because what occurs is not at all the same thing that takes place when a shotgun is fired. In a typical 12 gauge shotgun, using normal shot, the pellets are forced individually down the barrel and spread out from the muzzle being not as great as that which results from the break-up of canister shot upon leaving the muzzle. As a result, the spread from canister shot was wider in comparison to a standard shotgun. But the analogy is pretty close and I presume that is why it is used.

    Posted 2 years ago #

30. Eugene dB
    Member

    AG,

    Rest assured I took the time to read your post!

    Regards,

    Mark

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply »

You must log in to post.