Zippy Little Battalions in Horse & Musket Games

[Glorfindel]

Our black powder (SYW) games use 30 strong Battalions that are two figures
deep and 15 wide.   I've always thought they looked pretty impressive and
reasonably representative.   

The link below ('Unit Frontages in the Age of Reason' by Dave Millward),
however, makes me realise how wide of the mark our games are in terms of
reflecting what a Battalion looks like when fully deployed.   I know that they
cover an earlier period (WSS) and that wargames will always be a compromise
but, looking at the frontages below, makes you realise how ridiculous some of
our intended maneouvres are !   

http://www.wargames.co.uk/RandomS/Library/Frontages.htm

For example, a three deep Battalion is quoted as 160 yards long when
stationary and all of 240 when moving !   Can you imagine trying to keep
control of such a beast while moving forwards on a flat surface, let alone
taking account of the effect of terrain, battlefield smoke and the chaos of
combat ?

It also explains why it can take many hours just to complete deployment !

Another factor we rarely take into account - the sheer scale of battlefields
(Blenheim is quoted as covering a five mile frontage while Ramillies covers
seven). These are simply huge numbers.   

Your Friday night knockabout on a 6x4 table doesn't perhaps represent
something on this scale but I would love to see a game that did.   Where
you can't make out the detail of the Centre let alone the opposite flank
That would be something !



Phil

[FierceKitty]

I've read that the advance in column was inevitably about five times as fast as the advance in line over real terrain. NEVER seen a set of rules that reflects this.

[Westmarcher]

You are correct. I've spent ages in the past agonising over the 'optimum' wargame battalion that would combine 'realism' with the pragmatism of not having to paint too many figures and over the years have had 12 figure, 16, 24 and finally 32 figure strong units. Then one day I stopped fretting when I came across the following link for a 1:1 unit which blew all of my concerns away and underlined that whatever we do, no matter how large we make our miniature battalions, they'll never look as good as 'the real thing.'

http://voltigeurs.populus.org

Click on the various headings under "Rubriques" on the left of the page to see the unit in the various formations.

I've read that the advance in column was inevitably about five times as fast as the advance in line over real terrain. NEVER seen a set of rules that reflects this.

French Napoleonic doctrine is often criticised because of its poor track record in Spain of column v. a British line. However, its only when you see how advantageous it was for columns to manoeuvre over real, non-billiard table terrain that you begin to understand why moving in column was so prevalent. I am inclined to believe that most French commanders of reasonably good quality units would have tried to form into line when making contact with the Brits but because of the Brits deployment behind a ridge (and the effectiveness of their skirmish screen in masking their position up to the last minute), the French encountered the Brit line much sooner than expected, leaving the French commander with the dilemma of changing formation under fire or rushing forward (with the latter, we are told, being the preferred option). In addition, when reading Adkins' Waterloo Companion, I got the impression that the British not only manoeuvred in column of companies but may also have stood in that formation for long periods during the battle - not only handy as a launchpad for changing into line or square when the nature of an impending assault becomes clear, but would help explain why so many battalions could be squeezed into such a relatively narrow battlefield (compared to Blenheim & Ramillies) and why in one incident, one French cannonball killed 24 men.     

[fred.]

It does seem that wargames units are generally too deep, and not wide enough. And they are generally far too manoeuvrable under battle conditions.

I suspect the problem is that making them more realistic then makes playing any kind of game very hard. But the more game like it becomes then the more un-historic situations can occur.