Army Builder Lists: What's the change from 2 Large Units?

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Army Lists

Army Builder Lists: What's the change from 2 Large Units?

(21 posts) (10 voices)

Started 1 year ago by Mycenius
Latest reply from paulus

Tags:

Mycenius
Member

Discussion point for those keen enough to give it thought - what is the 'value' of a unit per se compared to it's bases... For example, is fielding 3 Small Units identical to fielding 2 Large ones? The bases total is the same (12) and Army Morale too (6) but is there some inherent advantage/disadvantage to having 3 movement entities compared to 2, versus the disadvantages of being more brittle, etc...

A specific example - in the Army Builder British List a Heavy Cavalry (Dragoon) Brigade is 2 Large (6-base) Heavy Dragoon Regiments - this applies for the Peninsula and 100-Days - except in the 100-Days none of the British Heavy Cav Regiments were large enough to warrant large size in Lasalle (being all around 350-400 men apiece) and the Brigades had 4 & 3 Regts respectively. As I'm modelling actual historical formations for my army, I'm thinking if I do the Union Brigade of 3 Small (4-base) units for my Heavy Cavalry would that be a fair substitute for the generic 2 Large Units in a Tournament AB List (assuming the organiser/umpire was okay with it)?

Where I am coming from, and which has resulted in a bit of thought about it in general, is trying to cover both the Historical OOB and the Generic AB option without having to do extra figs or fudge units or blend 2 into one or anything like that... Napoleonics is partly all about uniforms and units - so anything that eliminates distinct units or unique uniforms is to be avoided IMO ;-)

There is conversely, probably the reverse issue with (for example) Light Cavalry and perhaps occasional Infantry for some Nations in some theatres/years which are modelled small but should be large...? Anyone had any thoughts about this as well or get any thoughts on the relative value of 2 Large vs. 3 Small (all other conditions being identical)...?

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

You could start by consulting your own bloody website!

http://awc.wargaming.info/napoleonics-1790-1840/in-search-of-points-lasalle

The points system I derived from the AB lists had large infantry worth 1.3x an equivalent small unit cost, and large cavalry worth 1.5x.

So 3 small Reg/Exp/SK2 infantry would be worth 30pts compared to 26 points for 2 large Reg/Exp/SK2. But 3 small cav would be the same as 2 large cav.

I won't bother to list all the caveats on my points - it is too long. But I would have no problem you swapping 3 small for 2 large cavalry. As well as the points system, my gut feeling is that they are about the same use.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Oh, yeah, sorry I should have mentioned my query was 'over & above' your points system - what I was looking for was an insight into whether more experienced players perceive a difference or advantage between the two (such as being in 3 places rather than 2 at once)? :-)

But I would have no problem you swapping 3 small for 2 large cavalry. As well as the points system, my gut feeling is that they are about the same use.

Right - exactly - my initial thoughts are similar...

:-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Borodino
Member

Interesting - this may be the excuse i need to paint up that 2nd unit of Russian Hussars i have doing nothing (or at least another couple of bases worth to make up the 2 x 4 Hussars plus 1 x 4 Uhlans)

I could also combine my 2 x Large Units of Dragoons into 3 x small cavalry units for variety

Posted 1 year ago #
Evil Trev
Member

Personally, if you are playing with AB lists you should stick with them as they are. However if you are playing a scenario or a friendly opponent who will accept this then that is another thing altogether.
Thats the advantage of wargaming in general over other game types. We can change things as regularly as we want to, but we have to accept the consequences of our actions, even when this upsets playability or balance.
I am sure Sam wrote the lists with historical realism and playability in mind.

Trev

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Personally, if you are playing with AB lists you should stick with them as they are. However if you are playing a scenario or a friendly opponent who will accept this then that is another thing altogether. Thats the advantage of wargaming in general over other game types. We can change things as regularly as we want to, but we have to accept the consequences of our actions, even when this upsets playability or balance.

Were you a politician in another life Trev? ;-)

I am sure Sam wrote the lists with historical realism... ...in mind

I think what Sam has actually done is written them from a very high and abstract level to provided very very generic lists that adequately cover all the periods, however as with most "Jack Of Trades" approaches they do most things adequately but don't really do any of them well - it's not a criticism, it's one of the many choices you make as a rules author otherwise you end up with army lists 20 times longer than the actual rulebook. But I can tell you the Hundred Days British stuff doesn't bear much resemblance to actual historical data, it's clearly a very generic generalised list (see my comment about the 100-Days British Infantry in: http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/forum/topic/the-hundred-days-continues ) and I'm quite dubious of the British Heavy Cavalry being large units in the Peninsula too (although I have not read anything new on that period for near 10 years so going from memory and I am open to correction...). The Brunswick "Brigade" is another example that's ahistorical. :-)
-
Sam has created good generic lists that work for the game and capture the flavour and microcosm of the armies of each nation, and are obviously loosely based on each armies structure, but I don't think any of them are especially historical in their own right... FWIW I like to play Napoleonic's to play historical games with historical opposing forces - and I don't see why I should have to build units that never really existed simply because the generic options in the rules' AB section says that's the only way I can field them for use in a Tournament or AB List game... :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
John de Terre Neuve
Member

I actually wonder if what Sam did was to look at historical OB's and decid that he would make 1 large Lasalle unit from 2 small historical units. Dubois's bde at Waterloo is an example 1/4e cuirassiers equal 1 large unit of 6 bases. Your example of the Union bde is similar.

John

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

I actually wonder if what Sam did was to look at historical OB's and decid that he would make 1 large Lasalle unit from 2 small historical units. Dubois's bde at Waterloo is an example 1/4e cuirassiers equal 1 large unit of 6 bases. Your example of the Union bde is similar.

Hi John - yes that's quite possible and a good point - and a fair enough approach I guess - as I say I have no gripe with the AB Lists 'per se', but it would be nice to model actual historical OOBs and be able to represent units accurately, but still be compatible with AB Lists for Tournaments and similar events... :-) (This is where Cam jumps in again about his points system).

Although Dubois was an especially small Brigade - only around 600 men combined in the 2 Regiments - and I think some of them were the chaps with no cuirasses and such... The Union Brigade by comparison was near 1200 men in just 3 Dragoon Regiments - that's almost as large as the whole 13th Cavalry Division Dubois was part of (1300 men in 4 Cuirassier Regts)... But still in all these cases they still meet the criteria for small Cavalry Units (i.e. 300-500 men), even allowing for say ~10% of the men being without mounts, so no obvious reason to combine them?

Posted 1 year ago #
Evil Trev
Member

As I said Mycenius, "if you want to write different scenarios you can change eveerything you want"

You'd be suprised how much I actually agree with you!

Trev

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Hi Trev - Oh I don't doubt that - what I am searching for is solutions that will be as compatible with the generic AB stuff as possible while still being true to history. :-) But that's till getting a bit OT & philosophical - the original point of starting the thread was to explore what the potential pros & cons of '3 small units' vs. '2 large units' was gamewise - is there a potential hidden benefit to one over the other that means they aren't really the same value?

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew
Member

one big advantage is the small units are easier to move on the table and it is easier to form line abreast with a small unit than a large one.

Posted 1 year ago #
Evil Trev
Member

I think I'd rather have 3 small than 2 large units anyday......more manouevreable, more opportunties to countercharge or charge......same number of dice......

When I used to play 6th Ed WRG Ancients the winner was often the one with the most units. It tends to give the opportunities to counter your opponents moves better as you always have something left over. Even Real Madrid were crap when they went a man short last night! More units = more cost (IMO).

I think that the advantages should reflect that it is not an even exchange!

Trev

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Under Cam's points system it is... ;-)

British Heavy Brigade of 2 x Heavy Dragoons+ (2 x 19.5) and a RHA Bty (9) is 48 versus one of 3 x Heavy Dragoons (3 x 13) and a RHA Bty (9) = 48.

:-)

Posted 1 year ago #
vilcum
Member

Speaking about infantry and from a purely competitive point of view I would take the 2xlarge units before 3xnormal anyday, specially at only “1.3x” cost ( I would be even saving points!!!)

The main reason is the staying power from the big unit, 4 accumulated hits and its game over for the normal unit, that does reduce the number of possibilities (turns) a unit has to recover.

The normal unit can not charge with 3 hits, even if it charges with 2 is risking an almost sure third one in defensive fire that will mean its destruction it it loses (or draws!!!!) the melee

Advantages from 3 units? Manouverable? Perhaps given the correct instance ans opponent you can position one of the three columns in such a cunning position as to take a flank,.....but you better watch that doesn´t leave your 4-base units being charged t by a 6-base juggernaut with 50% more basic dices

For design purposes , when “translating” historical battles I tend to avoid large units , only allowing them to proved resistant ones (i.e. british elite) , We specially do not allow large units for landwher/militias as it doesn´t “feel” correct having a militia throwing 12 dices against 10 when fighting a converged grenadiers normal battalion. So we divide those large units.

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

I think I'd rather have 3 small than 2 large units anyday......more manouevreable, more opportunties to countercharge or charge......same number of dice......

Speaking about infantry and from a purely competitive point of view I would take the 2xlarge units before 3xnormal anyday, specially at only “1.3x” cost ( I would be even saving points!!!)

On that mixed advice, it seems like the points are perfect!

Big units are powerful and resilient. But sther downsides with large units are:

* You only can rally off 1 hit per turn irrespective of unit size - with 3 small units you get 3 rally attempts per turn versus 2 for 2 large units.

* When you lose a large unit it is a pretty big % of your breakpoint gone. Being unlucky really hurts.

* Linear large units are pretty awful (which I suspect is why my derived points came up with a low 1.3x multiplier for large units, since the early Austrian list partly was used to derive the multiplier).

Personally I am fairly neutral between unit sizes, so if I was designing an army using the points I would just follow historic OOB unit sizes rather than trying to find an OOB that gave me all big or all small units.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

I was also surprised that (+) Infantry are only 1.3 using Cam's system - my experience against British (+) Rifles and Guards coming to mind!
Then again, I also appreciate Cam's point that (+) linear Austrian infantry are pretty awful (trying to wheel one of those behemoths was damn close to impossible!). It does seem rather odd to me though that Conquest Austrians are rated as (+), given that Mack's 1805 reforms were to reduce the Austrian battalions to a small size, so I'd have thought that Conquest Austrians would be normal sized units.
Maybe the points modifier should be 1.2 for linear and 1.5 for non-linear infantry?

Cheers

Paul

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

I have found large British units pretty hard to use (as with large cavalry units). They take up just enough space to require planning and thought, both of which I lack. Great standing on defence, not so good on attack where I find they get in each other's way if the enemy does not stay perfectly still.

I have not thought that the core British lists with large units is overly strong.

Certainly if I was doing points based on my view of value, I would do what you suggest and make large linear units cheaper and other large infantry units a bit more expensive.

But the main change for me would be to make Organic cavalry a LOT more expensive (and give a discount for Reserve units).

For me that is the best playbalancing device. If you want cavalry on table at the start then you can have them, but you won't get many, and the other guy will get a lot more units if he takes Reserves or Organic infantry.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
DaKiwiMike
Member

Austrian infantry battalions varied quite widely in size in the conquest and empire periods (don't know that much about numbers 1813-1814). From the early 1790s through to 1809 you see brigades with battalions 800-1000 in the same division as brigades averaging 400-600 per battalion. Certainly in the 1796 campaign in Germany they all seemed quite small.

What is also interesting is the case for large Austrian cavalry units. Although Austrian cavalry regiments were huge (1200-1500 establishment), they operated tactically in "Divisions" of 2 squadrons = 300-340 men. So for example the Austrian Hussar brigade support option could be represented as all from one regiment broken down into Divisions.

Posted 1 year ago #
Mycenius
Member

Personally I think the fragility factor of the small units is probably the more critical - but whether that is outweighed by the big units 'hard to recover' point of Cams and the less manoeuvrability (i.e. 2 v. 3 units) one of Trev's, is hard to say... Morale wise there is no real difference in my mind, except that although a big unit is a sizeable amount (3 points) you are probably more likely to loose 2 of your 3 small units (i.e. 4 points) than 1 of your 2 large ones... :-)

Posted 1 year ago #
Evil Trev
Member

We should also be careful when talking about "POINTS". At this juncture the points are unofficial. They may not be accurate to the system. I did enjoy seeing the points system as I feel that it gives players a choice to pick armies a different way, but it is dangerous to mix two army selection systems, ie points and AB. You can obviosly use points to consider the equality of two AB forces, but once again this is conjecture.

With regard to the linear tactics Austrian they cannot charge in column, but can obviosly still use it to manouvre as per any other army. You dont want to slow them down by having them in line too early. I looked at the 1805 Russians which also use linear tactics, and whilst they are'nt large units they are still quite manouvreable. You just have to remember to come out of attack column to charge. If someone charges you , then you can stop in it! Not necessarily historical but works to the game system. The same can and is being said of the British line, but I am still to see a set of rules portray this well. Probably the reason for this is that a set of rules have to be generic enough to allow any opponent (eg Brits V Austrians or Russians) when the Brits did'nt fight against them in the first place. Even Black Powder with loads of "special rules" has'nt got this worked out yet. If the rules were just portraying a single campaign (ie the peninsula) then I am sure that more specific rules would portray the line better. That is where house rules which are scenario specific should come in to provide a better re-enactment of the era. In a general set of rules covering the whole period and claiming (IMO reasonably succesfully) to be a tournament ruleset, it is unreasonable to expect them to do both well. As I am not a Napoleonic rules writer I'll leave it to Sam.

Trev

Posted 1 year ago #
paulus
Member

Trev ...I think you've hit the nail on the head, every set of Napoleonic rules seem to work well for the continental armies , then as soon as you add the Brits everybody see's them as a different ball game ....for me Lasalle is the first ruleset to come close to tying it all together:)

cheers Paul

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.