And a stand represents....

That's an interesting question in a lot of ways. There are a lot of things that make the wargamer's idealized OBs and TOEs a matter of fiction. But at the same time it is a fiction we must embrace. Unlike computer games, or boardgames, or even the original Kriegspiel where units can be subdivided as much a suits, miniatures have a certain size that makes it hard to break down units beyond a minimum granularity.

But so be it. I have already pretty much decided that the lowest level of commander for a multi-player game is the corps commander, and in 1870 for both armies the building blocks of corps are divisions. The way they corps are built is very different between the French and Prussian armies, but that is another post. I'll set the Cavalry divisions aside for now as well.

On the French side, a "typical" infantry division is more or less 2 brigades, each of 2 regiments of line (with the 1st brigade having a battalion of Chasseurs as well a bonus) plus 2 batteries of field guns and a battery of Mitrailleuse. Since a French battalion is 750 men at full strength, that gives line regiments of 2250, and brigades of 4500-5250.

More of less, give and take. Units can be below strength to varying degrees, battalions can be detached, battalions can be attached -- all of these things I may want, or need, to consider at some point.

Before I get into the German formations, I shoudl make it clear that I am starting with the Prussian practice, before looking at the rest of the North German Confederation, and then at the various South German allied states. Although the Prussians were more-or-less the models the other states were moving toward, in 1870 the integration was not complete and German practice in general is not exactly always the Prussian model.

Anyway...

The Prussian infantry division is a bit more complicated. It likewise has 2 brigades each of 3 regiments. The regiments, however, are made of 3 x 1000 man battalions. The Brigade therefore is 6000 men at full strength. While each French division has a battalion of Chasseurs, Prussian Jaegers are a corps asset, so one may or may not be attached to a division.

The artillery firepower is far greater, with 2 batteries of Krupp lights, and 2 of heavies. In addition, a 600-saber regiment of cavalry was integrated with the division.

This means our Prussian division at paper bayonet strength is nearly 25% larger than its French opposite number, setting aside supporting arms.

So, how to represent this?

There are several ways to go, each with it's own advantages and disadvantages.

The simplest is "a stand is a division" - nice big stand, all types of figure on it.

For the next level there is a split. We can take a uniform stand size and figure count and say "this is so many thousand men" -- So if we take 3000 per stand, a Prussian division gets 4, a French 3 and Bob's your uncle.

The problem with this is that it cannot map any historical designation by the stand for both sides. At a stand equals 3000, each stand lines up nicely with a Prussian regiment, but a French brigade is a stand-and-a-half. At 2000 men each, the French Regiments sort out nicely, but a Prussian regiment becomes a stand-and-a -half.

Is that a problem? If we are just talking about the Division and the stands are just representing states and formations within it, this should be no worse than the common practice or representing a lace wars battalion as several stands and ignoring the platoon or company organization within it.

You can tell I am waffling on this issue.

The alternative is to have each stand represent a fixed formation - say a French or Prussian regiment -- and have the difference in size represent in the base size and factors. Then I can say "That stand is the 2nd Turco Regiment, 2nd Brigade, 3rd Division." This is especially nice for the French, with their fancy uniforms.

At the moment, I am not going to worry about the Brigades of the Army of the Loire, which paired a Regiment De Marche with a regiment of Guarde National Mobiles in each of its brigades.

Except perhaps to consider it simplest to break a division up into either 4-6 2000 man stands or 3-4 3000 man stands.

the larger number reduces the number of stands, making it easier to make the time objective. The smaller lines up with the French regiments for the sake of the pretty uniforms, and make the stand or that pesky 600-man attached cavalry regiment a bit more beefy in its figure count.

In the next post, I will try to fit cavalry into this picture.

update: Ive been kicking this around a lot.  Here's the July 2012 iteration.

Implications for Scale

So what do the objectives apply for scale?

The maps in Ascoli's Day of Battle cover an area of (roughly) 9 by 6.5 miles. The short dimension is the more constrained. Converting to metric, this gives a minimum of about 86m per table centimeter. One hundred meters per centimeter gives a nice, round number on the safe side.

After a few years of experiment I have found that the smallest base size that works easily for me is 30mm square. I could end up with larger bases, but 30mm on the smallest dimension will be a basic guide.

Day length is interesting. It is easy for a North American to forget how far north European cities are. While the action proper was about 12 hours, a dawn-to-dusk struggle could easily run to 15-16 hours.

Focusing on 12 hours, however, with a six hour duration objective, we have to be able to resolve 2 hours of action each hour. At the peak, something like 20 division(ish) French units were involved. For the "Gravelotte-St Privat" battle the French Numbers are similar while the Germans have something like 15 larger and more complex divisions. At 20 "command units" a side, we would get something like:

• If a turn represents one hour, it must last 30 real minutes. Assuming movement is not simultaneous, time is shared evenly, and a two player game, that gives 15 minutes a side or 45 seconds a division.
• If the turn represents two hours, we have a minute and a half per divisions.

So, if we say a division is 5-6 stands (cavalry divisions are quite different of course).

• 4 infantry regiments (in two brigades)
• 1 double battery
• for the Prussians (with small variation for its allies) a second double battery and a cavalry regiment.
  

how long should such an entity take a normal player to move? Personally I am quite quick about such things but that varies a lot and the "not frustrating" objective suggests that I should not be unreasonable.

On the other hand a slow player with a chess timer could simulate Bazaine very well indeed.

Of course, a formation could be a deal simpler -- one stand per division, one per brigade, guns factored in or out. But that would be another post.

Considering wargame rules for the Franco Prussian War

Every project needs a well defined object. Here is mine:

To produce a set of wargames rules with which I can:

• Refight the battle of Mars-La-Tour
  
• as a fun 2 to 8 player game
  
• on a 6 foot by 4 foot table
• using Pendraken 10mm miniatures
• in under 6 hours

The rules, of course, must be usable for smaller actions in proportionately less time and space -- but not battles where the size of one force or the other falls below the basic resolution of units.

So much for the positive. There are a few negative objectives as well:

• The game must not be "fiddly." My fingers are arthritic and my vision is blurring. This means that base sizes must be reasonably large and small status and tracking markers must not be too numerous or tiny.
• The rules must not require specialized terrain boards -- they must work with more-or-less ordinary wargames terrain, preferably from my existing stock.
• No rosters. Status tracking displays I can build and put on the table or fine, but I dislike paper checklists.
• The game must not be frustrating. A game must be challenging, but the player must believe that he wins or loses based on his own decisions most of all.
  

It is also important that the rules follow as much as possible a proper point of view. It is a good general guideline for a wargame that an Army commander should control corps and know where his divisions are, and that a corps commander shoudl command divisions and know where his brigades are. While details below that level can be technically very interesting, they do not belong at this level of games. There are many tactical games that address that level very well indeed.