Hi, just thought I would post this if you wanted to see an account of a battle we fought yesterday based on the Battle of Fuentes de Oñoro using the Lalles rules. Basically we scaled it to a brigade equals a division and a division equalled a Corp. It seemed to work very well.
http://wargaminginthesun-phil.blogspot.com/
Phil
Hi Phil..nice Battle report ....thats a new one on me though, I think its the first time that anybody as suggested the British line throw half as many dice again for shooting:)....I could see quite a few more Brits on the table with that suggestion:)
cheers Paul
Thanks Paul,
It was an idea that has been talked about on our club forum for last couple of weeks, one member commented on British Lines scoring on hits of 3+. Then another member came up with this idea of throwing more dice.
The reasoning is this, say that a French and British Battalion both are the same size 600 men. The French Line is formed in 3 ranks of 200 men with only the first two ranks only firing so 400 men shooting. The British line is formed in 2 ranks of 300 men so in fact there are 600 men shooting.
If 4 dice represent a normal French 4 base unit firing in line, then by the example above 6 dice should represent a British line firing.
When we played with this rule on Sunday I felt that it balanced out the armies but still not overly to the British (who still lost).
Hopefully yes there may be a few more British Armies on the table, we only have one regular player who plays with the British and he usually gets beaten, Lack of cavalry support, fewer units are usually the problems.
regards Phil
Hi Phil...the Brits are not an easy army to use but the more you play them and use timely fall back moves especially with a good vigor sub commander then they come into their own ....alot of the lads on the forum tend to form attack column and charge so remember the Brits usually have the best skirmish rating so fire with an extra die ...also their sub commanders are nearly as good as the French:)
and if you use the light Division the Rifles and Caccadore are really useful...I like to use a few British irregular Battalions as well, just hope that your opponent doesn't attack with cavalry in woods though very unsporting:)lack of cavalry support is a pain.... (I think I am going to have to try the optional Impetuous rule that could get the reserve cavalry on the table a little quicker as well:)
Oh and by the way my army of choice is the French.....but I have used and played the Brits plenty of times, they certainly make you think about your options!
cheers Paul:)
The reasoning is this, say that a French and British Battalion both are the same size 600 men. The French Line is formed in 3 ranks of 200 men with only the first two ranks only firing so 400 men shooting. The British line is formed in 2 ranks of 300 men so in fact there are 600 men shooting.
Conversely Napoleon favoured 2 ranks and seems to have repeatedly tried to reform the French Army to actually use "2 Ranks" as the official depth for line deployments, with varying success - but I think it's definitely fair to acknowledge the French did do this on occasion, and unlike the British did it as a deliberate ploy, rather than the result of trying to stretch the unit to cover a prescribed frontage...
I used to be a rampant Anglophile and believed all the wargaming hype about British Musketry - now I'm not convinced there is any real difference and I certainly don't think a Veteran French unit in Line - one on one - should get out shot by the equivalent British unit by default... Not to mention the French Musket was lighter, more accurate, and had a slightly higher ROF IIRC... Lesser French units (like Conscripts) might have been out shot, but they will indirectly as the rules already stand I think... :-)
Having said that it is an interesting idea, and I'm curious to see how it pans out after several play-tests... Like you Phil, here in NZ there's some thought about British being a bit of a wet bus ticket, see Tim & My comments here in a similar vein: http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/forum/topic/the-hundred-days-continues - But regardless of what really did happen historically it may give the British that something distinct for their forces in Lasalle?
Nice Game Report - lots of photos is always the key IMO. Its also great to see some large scale games with Lasalle - Cam and I were talking about this over the Easter break, and I am looking forward to it once I have a few more troops based up :-)
Good points Mycenius. IIRC Wellesley's instructions in 1808 did call for a two-rank line (buggered if I can find the reference now). Napoleon called for a two-rank line in 1814, and other countries deploying the third rank as skirmishers would have also ended up fighting in two-ranks.
The problem is that early 20th century historians tried to explain what happened on the battlefield with nice tidy tactical equations (specifically, "musket-counting", and that the two-deep line allegedly produced more firepower than the French three-rank line). And wargamers like nice neat tactical solutions as they can be easily replicated on the tabletop (as well tend to confirm certain stereotypes in the English-speaking world about phelgmatic Britons able to fight in two-deep lines while excitable Johnny foreigner has to fight in mobs).
Since the 1980s historians led by Paddy Griffith, and followed by Rory Muir, Brent Nosworthy, and others have pretty well overturned the old interpretation. The current historical orthodoxy emphasises the psychological aspects of Napoleonic fighting - factors such as shock, surprise, espirit d'corps, etc. The evidence suggests that the British at the time thought that the French were better at musketry (!), and that the British usually won because they would quickly get to grips with the bayonet (see the latest discussion by Rory Muir in "Salamanca 1812").
At Fuentes d’Onoro the hardest (and decisive) fighting was a combat at close quarters in the village where Wellington put some of his toughest meanest units (1/71st Glasgow Light Infantry, 1/79th Cameron Highlanders, and then the “devil’s own” 1/88th Connaught Rangers and the "old stubborns" 1/45th). The British didn't win because they had two-deep lines - the British won the battle because Wellington positioned his toughest meanest troops at the decisive point.
cheers
Paul
Great points Paul - and yep all in line with my thinking and reading experience!
Napoleon called for a two-rank line in 1814...
...but that is all from memory (so I am ready for correction on any point) as I have not read much on Napoleonic Tactics for some time...
P.S. And my impression is from what I've read the French were better at Musketry - their musket was lighter, more accurate, easier (read faster) to load, the balls were smaller/lighter so you could carry more for the same weight, etc... Brown Bess series muskets in general sound to have been heavy, clumsy, brutes by comparison... So I can't see really justifying giving British any shooting advantage just for being British...
P.P.S. Perhaps they (the Brits) do just need the majority (but not necessarily all - maybe 2/3) of their Battalions rated Valiant - so they can 'go in with bayonet' after a volley of musketry and have that extra 'oomph' in the combat?
:-)
John
Interesting all this discussion about relative linear firepower - I thought nobody had musketry duels in their games? :-)
On a more serious note I don't think you can analyse the firepower this numerically, i.e. count muskets, because if you do then attack columns end up with about 1 die each, which would seriously change the balance of the game.
Only when they are 1813 French Conscripts though Mike!! ;-p
P.S. You need to see the parallel discussion in the http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/forum/topic/the-hundred-days-continues thread - specifically the post by Paul (BGBEM). ;-)
"Interesting all this discussion about relative linear firepower - I thought nobody had musketry duels in their games? :-)"
Hi Mike....I've been trying to tell the lads that musketry fire is very important ....the newbies tend to just charge in attack column (and why not:))any troops with better SK values should really take advantage of a few shots ....when I use the French against the Brits its usually an Attack column and charge....when playing the Russians and Austrians who have lower SK than the French then a few units in line does not go amiss:)
Paul
Thanks for all the info and comments,
It seems from what you said about Napoleon wanting to adopt the 2 rank line instead of the 3 rank line then he also thought that it would be more effective, and who can argue with Boney in these matters ;-).
As far as I can understand, the British were the only Napoleonic Later Army to have used Linear tactics with success. Most if not all the continental Armies followed or adopted the French system to a certain degree. The point is what made it a success over the French system in the Peninsular War and how to replicate this in Lasalle.
We all know how Wellington used his troops
1) Wellington used the terrain to his advantage, keeping his troops mostly hidden behind ridges so they wouldn't be hit and softened up by the enemy artillery.
2) The British used more Skirmishers, that kept the advancing French Commanders from knowing where the actual main British line was. Sometimes the British skirmish line was so thick that the French mistook it for the actual front line.
3) The British line would suddenly rise up in front and deliver a carefully controlled volley or volleys at minimal range.
4) This wouldn't evolve into a musketry duel as the British trick was to judge the correct psychological moment to raise a shout and charge forward.
5) The combination of surprise, volley and charge would have enough effect to unsettle even the hardiest veteran and usually meant the French falling back, not necessarily in rout, but certainly disorganised.
Ok so how does Lasalle replicate this tactic, well basically it can't.
1) There is no concealed unit rule in Lasalle. ok Artillery can't fire at units behind a hill but the French player will know where the British units are placed.
2) Lasalle does give the British the option for more skirmishers, although this usually means breaking up other units for to get SK3, which means the small British force becomes even smaller. Also the Skirmish rule in Lasalle deals with fire power of the actual units and not about keeping the French away from the British main line.
3) Ok this is when the French unit moves within 4BW of the British unit. In the British reaction phase a normal size unit with Sk superioty will throw 5 dice, a good chance of getting at least 1 DISR hopefully and an outside chance of 2DISR. If the SK are equal say against French veteran Infantry there would only be a chance of getting 1 DISR.
4) Now its the British move and his chance to charge the French, but wait he can't because a line can only move 2BW forward and the French unit is just over 2 BW away because the French player knew exactly where the British unit was situated. The British player may decide to make his unit fall back 1 BW away from the column.
5) The French reaction phase, okay the French can fire because the British are still within range with an outside chance of claiming a 1 DISR. In the French movement phase
he charges into contact
6) The British reaction Phase. the British player has 3 options,
a) Fire another volley but now only with 4 dice because Skirmishers don't count and maybe get another DISR but it wont stop the charge.
b) Fall back but must throw to do so.
c) Combat with a chance of being lost for the battle
okay option b sounds the best because in the move phase the British player can charge. But now its fallen into a game of cat and mouse, with both units charging and falling back until one fails on his dice roll and the only shot being fired was the original that may or may not have caused a DISR.
I think the events in Lasalle and what happened according to most accounts I have read deviate at number 4 on my list therefore may I suggest a modification that might work for the British troops in Lasalle.
"British Lines who are concealed (behind a hill etc) may move 4BW to contact any enemy infantry to their front."
Regards Phil.
okay option b sounds the best because ...
No, I think stand and fire is more optimal, and also happens to be realistic.
The French probably have 1 DISR from shooting, and you probably put a 2nd on them as they charge. In combat the odds are in heavily in favour of the line (with 2 DISR, the French have about a 1/6 chance of breaking the British versus about a 3/4 chance of falling back with a 3rd DISR).
Most likely the French will end up 1 or 2 BW from the line with 3 DISR. They cannot move backwards far enough to get out of shooting range (and can't rally if they do). They can stand, fire and rally, but will be in British charge range. This is an ugly place for the French to end up, and probably terminal if they fail to rally.
For me a 1:1 column v line attack in Lasalle does mirror what people like Noseworthy say happened. The French advance taking fire not being able to fire back effectively. The French try to close with the line, but point blank shooting stops them short. The British line then charges and the French break.
I don't think any special rules are needed.
Where things don't work so well is 2:1 charges, but that is another story.
Artillery can't fire at units behind a hill but the ...
Actually artillery can fire at troops behind a hill - but only with bouncethrough. You can't target a unit behind a hill, but if you fire at another legal unit and the bouncethrough target is behind a hill, then you can hit it.
Cam
Hi Phil
I'm not sure there is anything needed here because after 2 shots (upon the French moving in range, and during the charge) the French are most likely 2 disr down in the combat, throwing 6 dice vs 8 they are extremely unlikely (ok - don't let John throw your dice for you!) to win decisively.
There is a good chance the French would bounce copping another disr and sit there on 3, unable to charge and trying to rally with 2 dice - easy meat for a British charge or another round of musketry.
This also assumes the French don't cop any other fire from artillery etc. and hit the combat with 3 disr already (last one on the way in). Starting the charge with 2 disr means a very chancy outcome for the French.
cheers
Mike
Phil wrote:
"1) Wellington used the terrain to his advantage, keeping his troops mostly hidden behind ridges so they wouldn't be hit and softened up by the enemy artillery."
Only at Bussaco, Sorauren I and (of course) Waterloo. In Wellington’s greatest victories he was attacking (Oporto, Salamanca, Vittoria, Sorauren II, Nivelle, Orthez….).
"2) The British used more Skirmishers, that kept the advancing French Commanders from knowing where the actual main British line was. Sometimes the British skirmish line was so thick that the French mistook it for the actual front line."
As I’ve pointed out previously, this myth arises from a misreading by the great early 20th century historian, Charles Oman (who looked at the Light Division at Bussaco, and generalised that one example). The myth has been overturned by more recent historians (see Arthur Harman specifically on this subject). The French put out considerably larger numbers of skirmishers than the British (apart from the Light Division) – at Sorauren for example the French had a third of their strength in the skirmish screen! Writers at the time believed that the French were superior at skirmishing (see Arthur Harman, and also Rory Muir “Salamanca 1812”).
"3) The British line would suddenly rise up in front and deliver a carefully controlled volley or volleys at minimal range."
Only in some cases. As I’ve said above, the British were often attacking. Many times the British troops didn’t even fire but relied on the “shock effect” of cheering and the threat of the bayonet.
Cheers
Paul
G'day all,
I've been pondering this as well. A couple of points come to mind. Firstly, the Brits, sitting behind their ridge should {maybe?} be claiming a cover bonus.
Secondly, this may be a wargames terrain issue. At my club, we typically throw down some terrain and have at it. More often than not, the Brit player is sitting out in the open facing multiple French columns...teehee. However, if we took the time to think about the terrain, then I believe the nice smooth ridge which the Brit player _may_ have been lucky enough to secure should probaly be a rocky ridge. I am thinking mainly Peninsular here. Therefore the French will have at least another turn under fire because of the reduced movement up the ridge, and possibly even approaching the ridge. The extra turn of firing could be the decisive factor?
Just a thought.
cheers
Greg.
Phil: As far as I can understand, the British were the only Napoleonic Later Army to have used Linear tactics with success. Most if not all the continental Armies followed or adopted the French system to a certain degree.
Phil: "1) Wellington used the terrain to his advantage, keeping his troops mostly hidden behind ridges so they wouldn't be hit and softened up by the enemy artillery."Paul: Only at Bussaco, Sorauren I and (of course) Waterloo. In Wellington’s greatest victories he was attacking (Oporto, Salamanca, Vittoria, Sorauren II, Nivelle, Orthez….).
Yes - a good point - the old 'line up behind the ridge' thing is much overrated by most modern authors - even a cursory reading of the Peninsula campaign highlights, as you say Paul, that the British attacked at least as often, if not more often, than not. And in fact their doctrine generally emphasised the attack, despite the fact they were the only army to retain old regulations based on 18th Century Linear tactics.
Phil: "2) The British used more Skirmishers, that kept the advancing French Commanders from knowing where the actual main British line was. Sometimes the British skirmish line was so thick that the French mistook it for the actual front line."Paul: As I’ve pointed out previously, this myth arises from a misreading by the great early 20th century historian, Charles Oman (who looked at the Light Division at Bussaco, and generalised that one example). The myth has been overturned by more recent historians (see Arthur Harman specifically on this subject). The French put out considerably larger numbers of skirmishers than the British (apart from the Light Division) – at Sorauren for example the French had a third of their strength in the skirmish screen! Writers at the time believed that the French were superior at skirmishing (see Arthur Harman, and also Rory Muir “Salamanca 1812”).
Yes - the other thing is the odd occasions where they did 'seem' to haver a large number of skirmishers out (parts of Waterloo but especially I remember a battle in the Peninsula), many were from centre companies and as you've said in http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/forum/topic/the-hundred-days-continues Paul the marksmanship of those were pretty low and it was only really bodies on the ground not firepower they provided - the screen might have occasionally look 'thick' but it's firepower was not correspondingly better...
:-)
You must log in to post.