When you look at accounts of the battle, the individual head-space of the corps commanders -- more the French than the German, but the German to some extent -- of the Corps commanders. This could be represented by making resolve a corps rather than a division attribute. It also could cut down on how much we represent?
Note Volley and Bayonet tracks hits by regiment, but exhaustion by division -- not that different a concept.
Note that, in the interest of keeping markers and labels to a minimum, I plan to denote which corps is which by the color of the tracking die. For the German, that might mean some added patterns -- probably matching that used on the epaulettes of the infantry of each corps. Since these dice are not for rolling, any effect paint might have on rolls is unimportant.
23 July 2012
18 July 2012
Corps command stands - worth it?
Given the difficult nature of communications in the late 19th century, it makes a lot of sense to know where your senior commanders are. The very top is simple: for the Germans, the All Highest and his staff plus two army commanders; for the French, there is "our glorious Bazaine" at the very top.
For a muti-player game three players is fine for the Germans but one commander is lean for the French. For that matter, the German armies were not equally represented.
The problem is that our next lower level, the Corps, is a small number of stands - 3 for the Germans, 4 or 5 for the French. There are also quite a number of Corps (16 or so counting both sides), so in a multiplayer game a team member is not going to play just one.
On the other hand, these people are interesting, and their personalities and rivalries influenced the battle. Is that a detail that deserves capture, or just something the player should bring to the game himself?
For a muti-player game three players is fine for the Germans but one commander is lean for the French. For that matter, the German armies were not equally represented.
The problem is that our next lower level, the Corps, is a small number of stands - 3 for the Germans, 4 or 5 for the French. There are also quite a number of Corps (16 or so counting both sides), so in a multiplayer game a team member is not going to play just one.
On the other hand, these people are interesting, and their personalities and rivalries influenced the battle. Is that a detail that deserves capture, or just something the player should bring to the game himself?
17 July 2012
More research
The Too Fat Lardies are doing the wargames community a great services by publishing modern editions of the 1824 and 1862 Kriegspiel rules. I have charted data from the 1862 edition infantry fire table to consider the professional expectations of the time concerning breachloader performance.
First, performance as a function of range
The vertical axis is the mean of six results corresponding to a 1d6 roll. Points in the context are a figure of merit that inputs into a second computation concerning target density. More or less, multiply by 4 to see how many enemies an infantry company can kill in a two minute turn. On the range axis, the original chart is in hundreds of Prussian paces of 0.75m
An easy target is a body of troops advancing in the open; a hard target are men in cover or obscured. The key point here is the knee of the curve between 250 and 300m -- an inch more or less on our table.
The second chart shows the expectations that harder targets get even harder at long range
This is the ratio of the values charted above. The point to note here is that out to 250m or so, they expect fire against a hard target to be 2/3rds as effective as fire against a target in the open; but long range fire is disproportionately less effective against hard than against easy targets.
Now, while the first chart is going to be very different for a chassepot vs a dreyse, I have to ask myself how the second chart will change.
First, performance as a function of range
An easy target is a body of troops advancing in the open; a hard target are men in cover or obscured. The key point here is the knee of the curve between 250 and 300m -- an inch more or less on our table.
The second chart shows the expectations that harder targets get even harder at long range
Now, while the first chart is going to be very different for a chassepot vs a dreyse, I have to ask myself how the second chart will change.
16 July 2012
Trade-off
Just a minor point: if my choice settles out to one between having an enjoyable game and fitting into a two hour window, the duration criteria will be what suffers.
15 July 2012
Rules and reserach
As I mentioned a while ago, we want to pack 12 hours of battle into 3 hours of play (and less would be better). Actually, that's optimistic; on August 16 a day at Metz is just 10 minutes short of 14 hours. I can't really suggest a process to sort out how much time it would take one side to move or otherwise act with the units under its command. All I can think of to start is to grab a number out of a hat, try it, and refine from there.
So, we will start with turns representing three hours of action and work from there. That would give a five turn game, which would certainly require players to get quickly to the point. Anyway, I will look at Mars-la-tour and Gravelotte in three hour episodes and see how a game would flow on that basis.
As for the research part
I've been looking at the Volley and Bayonet rules. Although they are a stand=regiment set and so two command levels lower, they are clean grand-tactical rules. There are two mechanisms I paticularly like:
So, we will start with turns representing three hours of action and work from there. That would give a five turn game, which would certainly require players to get quickly to the point. Anyway, I will look at Mars-la-tour and Gravelotte in three hour episodes and see how a game would flow on that basis.
As for the research part
I've been looking at the Volley and Bayonet rules. Although they are a stand=regiment set and so two command levels lower, they are clean grand-tactical rules. There are two mechanisms I paticularly like:
- Straight line movement. Deployed units move in a series of straight line segments, with facing changes (with some exceptions) costing a significant proportion of the movement allowance. we are talking about stands equaling a division, with multiple layers of interlocking formation having to work together to attain an objective. Low level concepts such as wheels and formation changes are meaningless to the army commander, but Chadwick and Novak's method allows a simple way to represent the costs of maneuver through difficult terrain, or trying to work around an enemy flank.
- March column represented by "spacer" stands extending the division over the occupied length of road. Even this is a significant simplification but it is visually clear and gives a role to marching figures, wagons and the like that are pretty on the playing table.
14 July 2012
A bit more meat on the divisional bones
As you have noticed, I have been messing steadily with basing. Here's the latest comparison:
On your left, 50mm square; on your right, 40mm square. I'm going with the 50mm since I can organize more interesting min-dioramas with supports and firing line or the like.
I'll set up brigades and artillery on a 25mm front - 20mm is too cramped, but a 60mm front is getting too big.
I had been using 40mm since I have plenty from previous projects, but since this will be a less common base for me I'll order the new one from Minibits in 2mm mdf.
I'll set up brigades and artillery on a 25mm front - 20mm is too cramped, but a 60mm front is getting too big.
I had been using 40mm since I have plenty from previous projects, but since this will be a less common base for me I'll order the new one from Minibits in 2mm mdf.
13 July 2012
Happy with Infantry, Less so Guns and Horse
From the post yesterday I am happy with one stand per infantry division or (mostly) four regiment Cavalry division. I am less happy with other aspects.
First, Artillery. Lets compare a three-division French corps with a two-division Prussian.
For the French, each division has (according to Weigle, who abstracts things a bit already) 2 organic 4 pounder batteries, and 1 organic machine gun battery. Note that the tactical employment of the Mitrailleuse was as a form of light artillery.
The French Corps then two more reserve 4 pounder batteries, 2 Horse artillery batteries, and 2 12-pounder batteries. Total corps assets are therefore 3 Mitrailleuse, 8 foot 4-pounder, 2 horse 4-pounder, and 2 12 pounder batteries.
The Army of the Rhine has a further reserve of 8 4-pounder horse artillery and 8 horse artillery batteries in addition to the 2 batteries with each reserve cavalry division.
Each Prussian division on the other hand has 2 6-pounder and 2 4-pounder organic, with a corps reserve of the same plus 2 horse artillery batteries. The Army has no Reserve artillery!
Now we are working on a Corps level game, so the detailed effect of organic divisional artillery is best left aside -- the divisions of the Corps shoudl be working to the same objective anyway. If we arbitrarily allowed one Prussian "Corps Artillery" stand for our supporting firepower, representing 6 6-pounders and 6 4-pounders regardless of the model or models on the base, where does that leave the French? Well setting aside the Horse Artillery not that different.
While we are on a roll, lets abstract out the attached cavalry regiments of the infantry divisions. We can allow that they are included in, say, a superior ability to establish the real content of an unrevealed enemy stand. This gives only the Cavalry divisions to worry about. These either have 4 regiments, or 6 (ok, one has 5). Where there are 6, 2 are Cuirassier. Since the only way to get Cuirassier uniforms on the field would be to split them out, we will provide added brigade stands for those divisions. Basicly, we will then have 1 figure per cavalry regiment, although the stand for a division should really only have one type on it for appearance's sake.
Here's how that all works out:
For the first time, I feel like we are dealing with manageable scope. Note the whole thing if all the stands were laid side-by-side covers a tad less than 5 feet; in more sensible formations with supports and reserves there would be some room for maneuver.
Here's the French side
The Guard artillery has far more horse artillery and no 12-pounders; a horse artillery stand could represent them well. The reserve would work well as one horse artillery and one 12-pounder with the corps stands all 4-pounders.
In terms of packs from Pendraken, rounding up (more to allow for command figures and the like than anything; Pendraken is very good with special orders and partial packs) we are talking
Or, at projected prices, just under $150 Canadian. That is quite manageable over 3-4 months with my current figure budget, and fewer figures than I have already painted for my Not-Seven Years War armies.
First, Artillery. Lets compare a three-division French corps with a two-division Prussian.
For the French, each division has (according to Weigle, who abstracts things a bit already) 2 organic 4 pounder batteries, and 1 organic machine gun battery. Note that the tactical employment of the Mitrailleuse was as a form of light artillery.
The French Corps then two more reserve 4 pounder batteries, 2 Horse artillery batteries, and 2 12-pounder batteries. Total corps assets are therefore 3 Mitrailleuse, 8 foot 4-pounder, 2 horse 4-pounder, and 2 12 pounder batteries.
The Army of the Rhine has a further reserve of 8 4-pounder horse artillery and 8 horse artillery batteries in addition to the 2 batteries with each reserve cavalry division.
Each Prussian division on the other hand has 2 6-pounder and 2 4-pounder organic, with a corps reserve of the same plus 2 horse artillery batteries. The Army has no Reserve artillery!
Now we are working on a Corps level game, so the detailed effect of organic divisional artillery is best left aside -- the divisions of the Corps shoudl be working to the same objective anyway. If we arbitrarily allowed one Prussian "Corps Artillery" stand for our supporting firepower, representing 6 6-pounders and 6 4-pounders regardless of the model or models on the base, where does that leave the French? Well setting aside the Horse Artillery not that different.
While we are on a roll, lets abstract out the attached cavalry regiments of the infantry divisions. We can allow that they are included in, say, a superior ability to establish the real content of an unrevealed enemy stand. This gives only the Cavalry divisions to worry about. These either have 4 regiments, or 6 (ok, one has 5). Where there are 6, 2 are Cuirassier. Since the only way to get Cuirassier uniforms on the field would be to split them out, we will provide added brigade stands for those divisions. Basicly, we will then have 1 figure per cavalry regiment, although the stand for a division should really only have one type on it for appearance's sake.
Here's how that all works out:
| Army | Corps | Infantry Divisions | Cavalry Divisions | Cavalry Brigades | Corps Artillery | At Mars? | At Garv? |
| 1 | I | 2 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | VII | 2 | 1 | yes | |||
| 1 | VIII | 2 | 1 | some | yes | ||
| 1 | cav | 2 | 1 | some | |||
| 2 | GD | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | yes | |
| 2 | II | 2 | 1 | yes | |||
| 2 | III | 2 | 1 | yes | yes | ||
| 2 | IV | 2 | 1 | ||||
| 2 | cav | 2 | 1 | yes | yes | ||
| 2 | XII | 2 | 1 | 1 | yes | ||
| 2 | IX | 2 | 1 | some | yes | ||
| 2 | X | 2 | 1 | yes | yes | ||
| Stands | 39 | 20 | 6 | 3 | 10 | ||
| Figures | 200 | 160 | 24 | 6 | 10 | ||
| cm | 143 | 80 | 24 | 9 | 30 |
For the first time, I feel like we are dealing with manageable scope. Note the whole thing if all the stands were laid side-by-side covers a tad less than 5 feet; in more sensible formations with supports and reserves there would be some room for maneuver.
Here's the French side
| Army | Corps | Infantry Divisions | Cavalry Divisions | Cavalry Brigades | Corps Artillery | Reserve Artillery |
| Rhine | Guard | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Rhine | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Rhine | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Rhine | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Rhine | 6 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
| Rhine | reserve | 2 | 2 | |||
| Stands | 33 | 16 | 7 | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Figures | 169 | 128 | 28 | 6 | 5 | 2 |
| cm | 122 | 64 | 28 | 9 | 15 | 6 |
The Guard artillery has far more horse artillery and no 12-pounders; a horse artillery stand could represent them well. The reserve would work well as one horse artillery and one 12-pounder with the corps stands all 4-pounders.
In terms of packs from Pendraken, rounding up (more to allow for command figures and the like than anything; Pendraken is very good with special orders and partial packs) we are talking
| Infantry | 5 | 6 |
| Cavalry | 3 | 2 |
| Guns | 3 | 3 |
| 11 | 11 |
Or, at projected prices, just under $150 Canadian. That is quite manageable over 3-4 months with my current figure budget, and fewer figures than I have already painted for my Not-Seven Years War armies.
11 July 2012
German forces at stand = division
| Army | Corps | Infantry Divisions | Cavalry Divisions | Cavalry Brigades | Art - 4pr | Art - 6pdr | Art - HA | At Mars? | At Gravlotte? |
| 1 | I | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 1 | VII | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | yes | |||
| 1 | VIII | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | some | yes | ||
| 1 | cav | 2 | 1 | 1 | some | ||||
| 2 | GD | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | yes | |
| 2 | II | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | yes | |||
| 2 | III | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | yes | yes | ||
| 2 | IV | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
| 2 | cav | 2 | 2 | 1 | yes | yes | |||
| 2 | XII | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | yes | |||
| 2 | IX | 2 | 1 | 1 | some | yes | |||
| 2 | X | 2 | 1 | 1 | yes | yes | |||
| Stands | 59 | 20 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 3 | ||
| Figures | 227 | 160 | 24 | 20 | 10 | 10 | 3 | ||
| cm | 236 | 80 | 24 | 40 | 40 | 40 | 12 |
I shall add some notes on the fiddling behind this tomorrow.
Some visioning about Mars-la-tour
In a game of perfect information, without idiot rules to contain the French player, and given the actual forces present, the French should have no difficulty at least successfully forcing a passage to Verdun if not smashing a large part of the German in detail.
That is why I am looking at the full French and German OOBs. My picture of a game for Mars-la-Tour begins with establishing, for each side, the forces and mission. The players will have some pre-battle process to established what forces the have, and distinguish which stands represent troops actually present. For a fast club game, the gamer presenting the game will probably set this up in advance; or it could be a question of rosters selected at random.
It would be relatively easy, for example, to program an excel spreadsheet to pump out half-a-dozen candidate OOBs and objectives, with the player selecting from his options; or a smaller set of complementary options. An example of a generalized form of this is Novak and Chadwick's Road to Glory system from the latest version of Volley and Bayonet.
In an ideal world, both sides should be chuckling about how they will "pull one over" on their opponents.
That is why I am looking at the full French and German OOBs. My picture of a game for Mars-la-Tour begins with establishing, for each side, the forces and mission. The players will have some pre-battle process to established what forces the have, and distinguish which stands represent troops actually present. For a fast club game, the gamer presenting the game will probably set this up in advance; or it could be a question of rosters selected at random.
It would be relatively easy, for example, to program an excel spreadsheet to pump out half-a-dozen candidate OOBs and objectives, with the player selecting from his options; or a smaller set of complementary options. An example of a generalized form of this is Novak and Chadwick's Road to Glory system from the latest version of Volley and Bayonet.
In an ideal world, both sides should be chuckling about how they will "pull one over" on their opponents.
Moving up the command levels
OK, lets move up a level. If, for the French army we have approximately 1 infantry or cavalry stand per division with the Corps as the main organization unit, the our full Army of the Rhine has five prime units and 23 divisional stands plus artillery (Three more Corps of 14 divisions are in Alsace with MacMahon); what about the Germans?
A full-strength German infantry division has 12,000 bayonets plus guns and a regiment of horse. Our French division has just less than 10,000. A German Corps, on the other had, is ordinarily two divisions plus extra artillery; a French Corps (with variation) is more typically 3 divisions. The full German OOB on 1 August is roughly 16 Corps with more variation in the detail of the allied Corps.
At Gravelotte, Five French Corps were present, most of the Army of the Rhine made an appearance. For the Germans, bits of seven or eight Corps attended.
Something that does occur to me is that, since the armament and tactics of the two armies were so different, I can reasonably get away with a stand per division plus artillery stands for the Corps. Size is only one performance factor, anyway, and not the most important.
A full-strength German infantry division has 12,000 bayonets plus guns and a regiment of horse. Our French division has just less than 10,000. A German Corps, on the other had, is ordinarily two divisions plus extra artillery; a French Corps (with variation) is more typically 3 divisions. The full German OOB on 1 August is roughly 16 Corps with more variation in the detail of the allied Corps.
At Gravelotte, Five French Corps were present, most of the Army of the Rhine made an appearance. For the Germans, bits of seven or eight Corps attended.
Something that does occur to me is that, since the armament and tactics of the two armies were so different, I can reasonably get away with a stand per division plus artillery stands for the Corps. Size is only one performance factor, anyway, and not the most important.
10 July 2012
Head count - yet again
Lets take a 40mm square stand with 8 infantry figures on it as a French brigade (about 4000 men) or for the Prussians a third of the battalions of a division - again 4000 men. To make French divisions work we allow the artillery of a French division - 24 four pounder guns and a half-dozen machine-guns - as a stand.
Lets also allow one stand for a cavalry brigade of 2 regiments - with 2 cavalry figures (perhaps 3 for Prussian), a 30mm front, and about 1000 men.
So, at that rate, here is the Army of the Rhine, as commanded by His Imperial Majesty Napoleon III
The infantry of the Army of the Rhine, aside from the Guard, is pretty much all line troops - zouaves, turcos and the like were with Macmahon. The 14 Cavalry brigades can be organized as near as matters by type as follows. This is really a compromise for the Guard, but having one horse figure of each type would be a bit "naf"
On the cavalry front, at least, it all looks quite colorful.
But is a total of 91 stands in 28 formations (divisions and corps) just too much? For a game that is supposed to play in 2-3 hours with uncertainy and approach marches, even assuming half the stand are blinds, are there too many decision points? Do we have to get down to corps as the working units, and divisions as stands? On the other hand, this is the whole OB. Mars-la-Tour proper was a bit smaller action. This is also still a viable scale to do a short game of some of the smaller battles.
Lets also allow one stand for a cavalry brigade of 2 regiments - with 2 cavalry figures (perhaps 3 for Prussian), a 30mm front, and about 1000 men.
So, at that rate, here is the Army of the Rhine, as commanded by His Imperial Majesty Napoleon III
| Corps | Division | Infantry | 4 pdr | 12 pdr | Cavalry | 4 pdr HA |
| Guard | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Guard | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| Guard | cavalry | 3 | 1 | |||
| Guard | reserve | 2 | ||||
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 2 | cavalry | 2 | ||||
| 2 | reserve | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 3 | cavalry | 3 | ||||
| 3 | reserve | 1 | 1 | 2 | ||
| 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 4 | cavalry | 2 | ||||
| 4 | reserve | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| 6 | 1 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 6 | 2 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 6 | 4 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 6 | cavalry | 3 | ||||
| 6 | reserve | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
| Army Res. | 1 cav | 2 | 1 | |||
| Army Res. | 2 cav | 2 | 1 | |||
| Army Res. | art. | 4 | 4 | |||
| Stands | 32 | 22 | 8 | 17 | 12 | |
| cm | 128 | 66 | 24 | 51 | 36 | |
| figures | 256 | 22 | 8 | 34 | 12 |
The infantry of the Army of the Rhine, aside from the Guard, is pretty much all line troops - zouaves, turcos and the like were with Macmahon. The 14 Cavalry brigades can be organized as near as matters by type as follows. This is really a compromise for the Guard, but having one horse figure of each type would be a bit "naf"
| Type | Brigades | Figures |
| Guard Chasseur a Cheval | 1 | 2 |
| Guard Lancers | 1 | 2 |
| Guard Cuirrassier | 1 | 2 |
| Chasseur a Cheval | 3 | 6 |
| Dragoon | 5 | 10 |
| Hussar | 1 | 2 |
| Lancer | 1 | 2 |
| Cuirrasier | 2 | 4 |
| Chasseur d'Afrique | 2 | 4 |
| 17 | 34 |
On the cavalry front, at least, it all looks quite colorful.
But is a total of 91 stands in 28 formations (divisions and corps) just too much? For a game that is supposed to play in 2-3 hours with uncertainy and approach marches, even assuming half the stand are blinds, are there too many decision points? Do we have to get down to corps as the working units, and divisions as stands? On the other hand, this is the whole OB. Mars-la-Tour proper was a bit smaller action. This is also still a viable scale to do a short game of some of the smaller battles.
08 July 2012
Now this is interesting
The July-August Strategy and Tactics magazine includes an article by Christopher Perello on the Battle of Konnigratz. In that article he claims that Prussian practice in 1866 was to concentrate the Fusileer battalions of each division into the advance guard. Effectively the division commander operated with three formations of four battalions rather than two brigades of six battalions. If that is still true for 1870 than that means the Prussian working formations were roughly the same strength as French brigades. This gives us a transparent view on the tabletop of a Prussian division with three infantry stands and a French with two stands.
Of course, I could split the units of a Prussian division that way anyway, but I like to have some accord between what is on the table and how the formations were actually operated.
Addendum:
Henderson notes that the Prussian practice of placing between a quarter and a third of the infantry in the advance-guard was much criticized after the campaign of 1870. Which is confirmation enough for me.
Of course, I could split the units of a Prussian division that way anyway, but I like to have some accord between what is on the table and how the formations were actually operated.
Addendum:
Henderson notes that the Prussian practice of placing between a quarter and a third of the infantry in the advance-guard was much criticized after the campaign of 1870. Which is confirmation enough for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)