Two Columns vs. One Line « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Rules Questions

Two Columns vs. One Line

(42 posts) (17 voices)

Started 2 years ago by Sam Mustafa
Latest reply from trailape

Tags:

12 Next »

Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

I'm redirecting all the "Two Columns Versus One Line Angst" topics here for a consolidated discussion.

I honestly think that people are making too much of the *possibility* of this tactic, imagining a little 2-1 charge and then assuming that it's a sure-thing, game-winning, loophole.

You've got to have some faith that the playtest groups tried a LOT of combinations and that after each session Chuck Hamack and I went through a LOT of number crunching about the odds of this or that outcome.

More importantly, you need to play the game against a variety of opponents, with a variety of armies, and in a variety of settings. Something that might be a good tactic against the Austrians is not necessarily a good tactic against the Russians. Something that's a good tactic on a wide-open board with lots of open fields of fire, is not necessarily a good tactic on a terrain-heavy or congested board.

I probably saw the 2 Columns vs. 1 Line attack happen in three-quarters of the playtest games that I observed personally, and I know it happened in the blind playtest groups, too. And yet the overall Win/Loss record still dramatically favored the Defender until we introduced that "attacker's bonus" units in the Core lists.

First, Lasalle armies are basically equal in size. So if you're bunching up tightly to get a 2-1 attack, that means there's probably a defending unit with nothing to do. If your opponent has any sense or skill, he's not going to sit there and watch.

Second, if you really are bunching shoulder-to-shoulder columns in the attack, then you obviously can't Wheel prior to a charge. (Because doing so would interpenetrate a friendly, and you can't interpenetrate if you're charging.) So you can only go perfectly straight forward. That means that a defending Line, seeing your approach, can easily oblique a little, or wheel a little, or do any number of small adjustments to prevent you from landing that perfect 2-1 frontal attack that would enable you to use all your dice. One of your battalions will probably get only half dice.

Third, if the defender has Experienced troops and a Vigorous subcommander, he has a very good chance of simply Falling back and avoiding your attack, in order to then set up some counterstroke of his own, presumably on your flanks because you're so bunched up in a Phalanx.

I could go on forever with examples, such as the joy my friend Rob might experience with his Russian Infantry division, if he took a Reserve Artillery support choice and then used the "Home Field Advantage" rule and got to watch the Phalanx advance across the length of the board while his five artillery batteries did their execution.

Suffice to say: YES, in any given game an opportunity might arise to score a coup when some tactical situation allows for a true 2-1 attack. But NO, it's not a sure-fire, always-reliable, game-winning loophole in the rules.

Posted 2 years ago #
seldon
Member

Well am I right that if two columns attack one line they will take 2 disruptions before reaching? When they come into fire range 4 attacks on average 2 hits meaning 1 disruption, then another 4 attacks when closing to combat that is another disruption, then combat will be 14 ( 16 - 2 disruptions ) attacks on 8 attacks, less than 2:1 so the average result would be an inconclusive loss for the line ?

We had this in our game yesterday when we chose to charge with only two columns a french line, we were going to charge with three units but finally did it with two hoping for good dice and we were repulsed. Not using that third unit meant we didn't win that decisive combat and cost us the game.

I don't think the line versus combat is onsided, you need to have a 2 to 1 advantage to expect an inconclusive win, in other napoleonic systems I've tried I've experienced the same idea that attacking is not that easy so I am quite ok with this.

just one view...

Francisco

Posted 2 years ago #
zel
Member

Dont forget the columns get to shoot as well prior to thier charge...and they shoot just as well as the line (2x2 dice) so the line is most likely to have 7 dice

Hey I'm not saying the columns will win every time..bad rolling will see the columns bounce....but thus far using Sams historic lists..they have steamrolled for me...Lassalle doesnt seem to have a simple mechanism to stop the double columns (unlike say Shako where you can bounce back any attack with shooting) ..Sams suggestions of obliquing a little/breaking off seem like stop gap mechanisms (which to me) is a fundamental failing in the system..

Posted 2 years ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

zel

What have you tried so far to stop it?

Posted 2 years ago #
seldon
Member

I forgot about that zel. You are correct, so that means 14 against 7, odds means the columns should win. However it is the expected result, I wonder how the full prob distribution works. I'll get out my excel montercarlo app and run some numbers...

It seems it is right at the edge.. still doesn't torture me much since it would seem the line might still get a good chance of kicking them back.It is true that there is no chance of preventing the contact of units through shooting, but why assume that this means that shooting cannot stop the enemy ? An inconclusive result with the attacker loosing might mean exactly right as some shooting is subsumed as part of what we call "close combat" in the rules.

Oh well time will tell, I am happy with the outcomes I've seen so far...

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

[..Sams suggestions of obliquing a little/breaking off seem like stop gap mechanisms (which to me) is a fundamental failing in the system..]

My suggestion was to play the game against a variety of enemy army types in a variety of settings. It seems a bit premature to declare that the system has "failed" after two victories against the same opponent, but I will at least give you credit for reviewing the game AFTER playing it! That is surely a welcome development.

My other suggestion was to review the rules about Victory and the role of cavalry; and the rules for armies that get the "Home Field Advantage" and to consider what would happen if your opponent had tons of artillery, or was entrenched, or wasn't waiting around for a cavalry reinforcement, but instead had four cavalry units on the board right there at game-start, and to consider what would happen if you had to defend instead of attack, or what would happen if he simply pulled back his line a bit, or wheeled it a bit, forcing you to attack at an angle (which you couldn't do because you're bunched up so tightly, or what if he got on your flank, or countercharged you, etc, etc, etc.

Hopefully you'll have a chance to encounter some of these variables, because it can be fun.

Posted 2 years ago #
rstoebick
Member

Hi Sam,

Kudos to you on the game and your efforts thus far. I understand the questions regarding this topic, but I tend to think we wargamers have a bad habit of thinking of past rule sets we've played as being the "proper historic" results and if the mechanics don't work the same way in a newer, fresher approach in a game, then something is wrong. The second difficulty is that being a much smaller tactical level and time scale, you are not relying on a single throw of the dice to be hugely decisive, afterall, I suspect most people have been playing grand tactical games and the fate of entire brigades are resolved on a single die.

A lot game design of days gone by seems to have followed the practice of setting up "what ifs" in an isolated circumstance, then added die roll modifiers until they more consistently got the results they thought they should have. All this really does is create super armies and formations when properly used and a warped sense of why various armies were successful. Getting away from this old approach is something I welcome.

Guys- I really think this is a non-issue, the Brits (or anyone else) are not going to be outnumbered 2:1 and therefore will have fresh units as flank and rear support. Yes, if you place 1 unit on the table and tho other guy has 2 units attacking it, it could be tough going, but it should be. :)

-Rob

Posted 2 years ago #
zel
Member

I'm not gonna get drawn into arguments...I'll just report my results/findings till moderated out ...I am not here to attack the system but improve it ...(NB Sam in his previous thread has already hinted he was already considering modifiers to correct the imbalance so its not like it hasnt come up just his data set hasnt identified it). In two games our group has already managed to get two entries into the errata so we have nack for seeing flaws in systems...i suspect once people play it more with competition sharks then they will see people will pick on a weaknesses in the system...but maybe as Sam said if I play it more I wont get the spurious results I have thus got ...but for me if the system wont work for 2 classic historic match ups why would I persist with more ahistoric concoctions...(esp if they are the only 2 armies in 28mm we have)??

Err Rob have you seen the Peninsula list vs Peninsula french attacking??....it is effectively 2:1.

Posted 2 years ago #
Borodino
Member

i've faced French and Prussians in my 2 games so far with Russians; both losses against a seasoned Napoleonic player (i'm new to the period but not gaming)

1st game i used Russian infantry with a Reserve Cuirass battalion

2nd game a Grenadier Division with Reserve Cuirass battalion.

On both occasions my opponent attacked in multiple attack columns.

My initial observations:

a. shooting in attack columns helps his cause no end; the Russians are being outshot by multiple attackers with the SK advantage.
b. i need to consolidate around the objective more, restricting his lines of attacks and allowing time for my reserves (he used an organic reserve and i had my hands full esp as mine didn't arrive until T12.)
c. i think its my tactics rather than anything else. I'm also hampered by having to use what i have and i'm loathe to put down markers etc
d. artillery isn't effective or at least its not in my hands; i need to think how to get the most of two Positional Batteries when using Grenadiers (i have the Pavlovs, what can i say)

Thinking cap on. d

PS Sam - love the game by the way. Its perfect for what i'm looking for in Naps.

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

Hey Zel. You said "I'm not saying the columns will win every time..bad rolling will see the columns bounce....but thus far using Sams historic lists..they have steamrolled for me..."

Have you tried swapping armies with your opponent to see if you get the same result? Taking player skill out of the equation might help to test if Pen British can beat Pen French.

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
NDPerry
Member

I haven’t yet managed to get a game of Lasalle in, so I’m not going to comment on the ability of the rules to duplicate any particular result. But I’ve followed this topic with interest and think I have something interesting to add.

The British success in defeating infantry attacking in column was as much due to strategic factors as tactical. In particular, to Wellington’s (and it didn’t work anywhere near as well for other British commanders) willingness and ability to refuse combat if the situation wasn’t favourable. Hence the Lines of Torres Vedras as his ultimate fall back.

This is rarely an option in wargames, but was one of the keys to British Peninsular success.

As such I’m not surprised by the failure of lines to beat columns in “pick up” games, where the British player has to fight regardless.

What is known about Wellington’s opinions on how to beat the French shows that he knew success in beating columns would be conditional. IMHO imposing these conditions may be more appropriate for scenarios.

Nigel

Posted 2 years ago #
Chuck Hamack
Member

One could consider a line as combat advantaged over columns +1 die if it really is a problem.

Posted 2 years ago #
Howie
Member

Hey Cam, Im the 'other player'. I don't think Im that bad ;) but I agree, Zel is a very clever player and will find holes if they are there, as will all savvy tournament players. Im not saying that the test group people didn't find any loopholes but Im wondering if these rules were really fed to the true sharks out there... Theres plenty of systems already out for friendly games in which rules can be molded to fit, whereas Lasalle seems to me at least to be geared towards competition and pickup games, so it NEEDS that sort of testing. Im not as much as a historian as many, but have played in quite a few tournaments in a few different systems and people do and will exploit all these types of things...

Its not just a 2 column vs 1 line issue, its all the other ways to stack it, like Zel has mentioned, like teaming conscript columns up with veterans ones to reduce the factor penalty in combat, or targets for priority fire, and columns still firing as they advnace, etc etc...

Id say its very possible to get different results with different armies and table terrain, thats a given, but that doesn't address this problem. On a reasonably open table, with these two armies as an example, which are classic historical opponents, its very tilted towards a French win, they having so many units to bunch up into column.

Ive only played 2 games so to be fair, I do need to play more, but I wouldn't be confident in that match up again.

As i said in other posts last week, I have more issue with the HUGE command range that gives little to no command friction in the game, but I digress...

Posted 2 years ago #
tzen67
Member

Hi all,
Interesting discussion. I've played 4 games now. 3 games of Austrian v French and the last game was Peninsula. I've not found a problem with the 2v1. Certainly the large Austrian units can handle it reasonably and if you can get 2 or 3 v1 unit you should have an advantage.

When we played the peninsula game i was shocked to see how outnumbered the brits were but i had picked hills as my terrain choices. On the left flank 1 brit unit in line was attacked by 3 veteran french columns!! and......it won!!! It was on a hill. It was subsequently forced off the hill (through a mixture of deliberate fall backs and combat results) but it held off three veteran French units for all of the game. Else where the French fared better. We played 18 turns and called it a draw with neither side at Break point and the objective was intact.

So from my experience so far i don't think there is a problem with the mechanisms.
Thanks,
Andy

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

"Im the 'other player'. I don't think Im that bad ;) ..."

Then perhaps I should put it more delicately this time - how did you change your tactics after the first time you were steamrolled by the phalanx?

I have only placed solo twice, both Austrian 1805 v French 1815, and since solo games tend to not be a good test, I have no strong view on zel's views yet.

I found in the first game as Austrian I tried to stand and fire against massed French columns. If failed. Even with 6 bases, they just don't put out enough firepower to stop them.

But in the 2nd game my Austrian tactic was basically to always take the fall back option when facing multiple opponents. Like tzen67 above, I found this worked very well. One large Austrian unit fell back multiple times while being attacked by a phalanx of 3(!) French infantry units. They were certainly lucky to survive as long as they did (and were dead men walking - it was merely a question of when they would be broken by a charge or by shooting) but ultimately they tied up a large part of the French long enough for the Reserve Cuirassiers to arrive and help the rest of the Austrians to win elsewhere. Wearing my French hat, I found it very frustrating I could not pin down one Austrian unit with 3 of my units.

It looks to me that the Lasalle engine rewards a different playing style to many other Napoleonic rules - the solution to massed columns (particularly if defending and waiting for reserves to arrive) appears to be to not to stand and fight them, but merely to delay and disrupt them while you win elsewhere. If 1 unit can simply tie up 2 units for a while you have succeeded in "beating" the massed columns.

It will be interesting to see as a body of games is played if players consistently report that phalanx attacks work.

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

So, when the two French columns fire at the line they are rolled for separately, right?

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

No, all shooters against a target roll together.

Posted 2 years ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

I did not get that impression from the firing process Sam.

We took it that you declared a target for multiple firing units, determine modifiers for each firing unit, roll for each unit individually, then combine the number of hits for final result.

It made more sense to do it that way.

Posted 2 years ago #
Borodino
Member

Eagle65 - that's how we've been doing it too

Posted 2 years ago #
seldon
Member

As long as you combine the final number of hits before looking at the disrupt table, what is the difference ?

Posted 2 years ago #
EagleSixFive
Member

Firing two columns at one target simultaneously= firepower of one unit in line.

Rolling two dice for each column one at a time reduces the chance of rolling as well as four dice all at once would.

Gets even more silly if two columns with SK advantage are firing on one line, rolling six dice all at once!

I believe this is a distinction that is integral to the firing system working as designed. If firepower for columns is to be combined then a blanket -1 modifier should be there so they hit on 5+.

Posted 2 years ago #
seldon
Member

Well, in the rules it says that you choose a target and add all hits together before finding out total Disrpt. The one diff I see is if you have Sk advntg you get 6 dice instead of 5. That does seem inconvenient.

Other than that if you don't have Sk advtg and you roll two dice for one unit and two for the other and then add number of hits and go to the chart ( which is the way I read the rules, besides the Disrpt table seems aimed at that concept ) there would be no difference.

Maybe I am missing something?

( To me the way I look at this is if you are attacking two bats to one, then you either attack in line one behind the other - slow advance- or attack in columns - which would probably deploy to line just before colosing -one behind the ohter-, so it seems that it could be that two columns fire as one line as the close in. The Sk factor would seem off though ).

Posted 2 years ago #
Nick the Lemming
Member

The way we've played it is that you work out the dice for each unit firing on a target, and roll all those dice together to see what disruptions you cause. From an example last night, I was being fired on by a 5 gun battery of heavy artillery and an assault column of grenadiers - my opponent rustled up 10 dice for canister, lost 2 dice because he was shooting at sk2 Grenz, and rustled up 2 dice from the assault column, with no SK advantage, for a total of 10 dice. Luckily for me, Anthony is crap at rolling dice, and only one or twice managed to cause a disruption.

My Uhlans assaulting his infantry square was even better - I was rolling 7 dice, he was rolling 10 dice, I got 5 hits, he got 2. D'oh!

Posted 2 years ago #
Clint
Member

I have played two games now with my 1812 Russian Infantry. In the first I defended against French. In the second I attacked Brittish penninsula. In both games we just used the core choice with no extra reserves etc as we were just trying to get the mechanics right before we embark on bigger games. I understand the absence of cavalry may allow infantry more freedom than it always will.
In the second game I had 9 Russian infantry units plus 10 guns versus the Brittish opponents 5 and 3 guns. I had multiple situations where I had 2 columns versus his one unit in line. My opponent is an experienced wargamer, but I did find it fairly easy to manouveur into 2 on 1 situations, and roll those units.
We did see this as an issue and I joined here to see if we were missing something or if others had encountered the same issue, which it appears they had.
We were also a little puzzzled why the Brittsh firepower wasn't better than what it seems to be.
I point this out to be constructive as I do really like this ruleset, otherwise.

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

[ versus the Brittish opponents 5 and 3 guns.]

Clint, I assume you mean 1 artillery unit of three bases? And not three artillery batteries?

What happened to the rest of the British army?

Posted 2 years ago #
cam_millar
Member

With only core troops it will be 1812 Russian attacking (9 inf, 2 art) v Pen British defending (5 inf [one large elite], 2 Sk, 1 Art). So it will give the Russians nearly a 2:1 advantage.

But that will not be not unusual - almost all defenders get 6 units + 1 battery for a core choice. And most armies attacking get 8-10 units + 1 or 2 batteries.

So in games using core forces only, the attacker will have a pretty big edge in numbers. The British are a bit smaller than most with only 5 core units when defending, but they are pretty good units.

As you add support forces, that edge starts to narrow. Both the British and Russians for instance add 4 battalions as infantry support. So the % difference is the number of battalions would then be smaller (13 to 9).

What 2 terrain pieces did the British take? How did they use terrain generally?

Did the British selecting a long table edge (or instead moving first) make any difference?

What did the British officers come up as and what difference did it make? With the British having a Superior commander, and better chances of good officers, did they find any ways to take advantage of those skills?

What did British do when faced with 2:1 odds in the open - stand and fight, or fall back and manoeuvre?

Cam

Posted 2 years ago #
Nick the Lemming
Member

That would be my thought for dealing with this problem too - if you're the defender, you get 2 pieces of terrain to place - make sure they're going to disrupt any attempt to send 2 attack columns at you, manoeuvre around so that the chances of 2 units lining up against you precisely are non-existent, have other units nearby and wheel them so that any incoming assault columns get 3 or so units firing at them. If necessary, keep the defending units in assault column too, and when the French get close enough to charge next turn, charge them instead.

Posted 2 years ago #
garyp
Member

I suspect that Cam's points above are a key part of the 2 columns vs one line issue - basically the Peninsular British are seriously outnumbered if using core lists only. Combine that with 50mm base widths (used by some of the earlier posters of this issue) on a 4 foot deep table and you get quick contact so the British superiority in shooting has less chance to impact and command control is quite easy for the attacker.

I am also getting a sense that the shooting/recovery balance may be a bit weighted against shooting. Basically most shooting involves 4 (4 infantry bases in line) or maybe 5 dice (plus skirmisher superiority) so the chances of putting 2 disruptions in one shooting phase onto a target are quite low (you need 5+ hits) unless you can combine shooting by several units - not easy if you are outnumbered in units to begin with - or you are firing cannister. Recovery for Experienced troops (the most common?) seems quite easy at 66% if stationary and not close to the enemy (1 dice needing 3+), or 44% if having moved (so rolling 2 dice needing 3+). Once you get close to the enemy as well (rolling 3 dice to recover - 29% chance I believe) it certainly gets harder but you can still remain stationary close to enemy and roll at 44% chance of recovery.

I suspect that playing with values such as changing the shooting hits conversion table to make 4 hits equal 2 disruptions, or adding a modifier to the recovery roll to make recovery harder, would ramp up the effectiveness of shooting but then it may become to effective. Probably needs more play by us general gamers to explore tactics to counter this but it does seem that quite a few players are finding shooting a bit under powered.

Posted 2 years ago #
Clint
Member

"With only core troops it will be 1812 Russian attacking (9 inf, 2 art) v Pen British defending (5 inf [one large elite], 2 Sk, 1 Art). So it will give the Russians nearly a 2:1 advantage."
Thats correct.

In our initial games to date we have mutually agreed terrain and ignored commanders bonuses. We will try these rules in our next game, which will also include cavalry. I am sure larger armies and these other factors will defray the issue to some degree.

I'm curious if people agree if Brittsh Infantry with SK3, ie one extra dice shooting, is adequate to represent their historical capability? (It seemed highly improbable that a Brittish unit in line (ignoring the large unit) could have stopped my two Russian attack column units.)

I didn't have a problem with my Russian shooting capability and I love my artillery!

Posted 2 years ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

Ah, I didn't realize we were speaking of only Core forces. The existence of the supporting brigades is a pretty important assumption in the game balance.

In that case it would probably be a good idea not to let the attacker have his bonus units.0

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.