To alter a set of rules written for the American Civil War to be suitable for Napoleonics, a number of changes need to be made. The first and most obvious is the range of troop types available. All of what follows (in terms of actual modifiers, move distances etc.) can be found on the Quick Reference Card. This post sets out the thinking behind the rules - the justification and reasoning, to give y'all something to take issue with.
One of the aspects of the ACW that makes it relatively simple to write quick-play rules for is the limited number of distinct troop types. Altar of Freedom makes do with just three troop types - infantry, cavalry and artillery. This is reasonable, I think - Zouaves have pretty uniforms, but do they fill a different tactical niche? No, not really. Likewise, the distinction between various artillery types can certainly be made at a technical level, but all filled pretty much the same role in battle (an argument can be made that horse artillery is different from foot, but since it played a very minor role in this war, the decision was deliberately made to ignore it). Can anybody name two ACW cavalry units, and what makes them different from each other? This same quality makes ACW games rather dull at a tactical level, so that the war is not much played (at that level, at least) outside the United States, but at this higher (grand-tactical) level that becomes less important.
One of the aspects of the ACW that makes it relatively simple to write quick-play rules for is the limited number of distinct troop types. Altar of Freedom makes do with just three troop types - infantry, cavalry and artillery. This is reasonable, I think - Zouaves have pretty uniforms, but do they fill a different tactical niche? No, not really. Likewise, the distinction between various artillery types can certainly be made at a technical level, but all filled pretty much the same role in battle (an argument can be made that horse artillery is different from foot, but since it played a very minor role in this war, the decision was deliberately made to ignore it). Can anybody name two ACW cavalry units, and what makes them different from each other? This same quality makes ACW games rather dull at a tactical level, so that the war is not much played (at that level, at least) outside the United States, but at this higher (grand-tactical) level that becomes less important.
In the Napoleonic wars we cannot altogether get away with that. For one thing, Napoleonic wargamers tend to be accustomed to the tactical scale, and to care deeply about tactics and uniforms - column vs. line, what facing colours are correct, in what year kilts were replaced with trews, or helmets with shakos. Well, sorry, guys, but a lot of that stuff has to go. I can count stitches with the best of them as a figure painter or as a reenactor, but these rules are not going to make all the distinctions you are accustomed to. As a nod to these tactical sensibilities there is, in Throne & Altar, some recognition of battalion-level formation and tactical doctrine, which I will come to in a later article, but the rules will, by and large, recognise only distinctions that will occupy the minds of corps commanders and up - that is, in particular, what battlefield roles particular troops will be called on to perform. The aim is to keep to a minimum the number of distinct troop types that will be represented, while reflecting to an adequate degree the tactical choices available to a senior commander.
Three troop types are clearly not enough. All Napoleonic infantry is not interchangeable, and the same goes for the other arms of service. There are three axes, if you like, of distinction, that need to be recognised. In this post I will deal with only the first, for this is the one that determines the number of troop types distinguished. The others will be addressed in later posts. The axes are:
- Tactical Role
Infantry
In terms of tactical roles, three types of infantry were identified during the period. Most was "line" infantry - men trained to fight in close formation with smoothbore muzzle-loading musket and bayonet. Pikes had been abandoned, in general, a century earlier, and although breech-loaders, rifles and air-guns existed, they were not considered suitable for military use (rifles were the exception, but not for another four or five decades would they become general issue for line troops). Whether designated "musketeers", "fusiliers", or simply "foot", these men formed the backbone of any army.
In addition to the line, two other distinct roles had emerged over the previous century or two. By the nineteenth century grenadiers no longer carried and threw bombs in the course of assaulting fortifications, but they were still big stout chaps who were first chosen to be put in harm's way when heavy fighting was to be done. Most nations had them integrated into line battalions as elite companies, but many also had separate grenadier regiments and/or ad-hoc (to a greater or lesser degree) converged battalions, formed of the grenadier companies of multiple line units. Grenadiers get a +1 benefit in close combat.
Light infantry was first used by a mainstream European army in that of Austria (or, rather, of the Holy Roman Empire), in the border warfare of the Turkish frontier. Designated at first, therefore, as "Grenzers", and later in many languages as "Hunters" (Jägers, Chasseurs etc.), they were recruited from foresters and highlanders, and used against the Prussians in the middle of the eighteenth century. The Prussians held them in contempt on one level, but also feared them, and some form of such troops were adopted by all armies by the end of the century. While they could (by then) function more than adequately as line infantry, their distinctive role lay in skirmishing and in taking advantage of cover and difficult terrain. Because of their skirmishing speciality, light infantry in T&A get a +1 in ranged fire. Again, line battalions typically had a company of integrated light infantry, but they generally existed also as dedicated specialist units. Some nations issued rifles to some of their light infantry troops, but their tactical role was no different from those of other light infantry, so no distinction will be made in the rules for riflemen.
All infantry moves at the same base rate of 8" per turn, but light infantry is less affected than others by difficult terrain. Instead of the standard 1-6" penalty for rough going, light infantry pays only 1-3". (1)
Cavalry
Cavalry plays both a much greater role and a more diverse one on the battlefields of Napoleon's wars than on those of the ACW. American cavalry of the 1860s fought mostly as light dragoons - moving fast on horseback, then dismounting and fighting on foot with carbines. When they did fight mounted, their preferred melée weapon was the revolver rather than the sabre. Their number was also much smaller, as a proportion of troops as a whole, than was the case in Europe.
In the case of cavalry I started with, again, a tripartite distinction, but ended up with no less than five types. Two of them, in my defence, will be fairly rare. (2)
First, I should note what all cavalry has in common. All cavalry has the same movement rate - 12", just as in AoF. Man for man (and including horseflesh), they are heavier than an equivalent infantry unit, and correspondingly more effective in close combat. When attacking (but not when caught flatfooted in defence), they will therefore have a +2 bonus in combat against dismounted troops. Against other cavalry, they are assumed to counter-charge when attacked (but, note, this does not mean they move on the table - the combat will take place where they stand. It just means that other cavalry does not get a charge bonus against them). If infantry can get close enough to hit them at close quarters, and they fail to evade, they deserve everything they get. Numerically, cavalry formations will tend to be weaker than infantry ones, so this provision allows them to punch above their weight as long as they are doing their job, but if they are mishandled infantry will be able to roll them.
Heavy and Light Cavalry
The first distinction to be made is between heavy and light cavalry, a distinction that does not exist in the ACW. Neither is really intended for smashing headlong into formed and disciplined enemy infantry, although the heavies may be able to do so at a pinch. The main role of light cavalry (Chevaux-légers, Chasseurs à Cheval, Hussars, Light Dragoons) is scouting and screening. They could charge with the sabre, and perhaps were often more ready to do so than was prudent, but even on the battlefield itself, they did not exist to mix it heavily with the enemy. Some (as the name Chasseurs à Cheval implies), were trained to skirmish using firearms from the saddle, but I am not aware of any instance in which this was done with effect greater than simply having a screen of hussars, nor can I imagine, having both ridden horses and fired black powder weapons (admittedly, not at the same time), that it could have any militarily useful effect. (3) This is consequently ignored in the rules.Heavies, on the other hand, are exactly for mixing it with the enemy on the battlefield. They have two battlefield jobs:
1) Exploit, with superior speed and weight, any gaps or disorder that may appear or be created in the enemy ranks.
2) Prevent enemy cavalry doing the same.
Perhaps I should make clear what I mean by heavy cavalry. I mean cavalry whose primary role is charging home against the enemy, sword in hand, to disrupt and destroy enemy formations. I don't care whether they wear a full cuirass, a breastplate only, or no armour at all. Whether they are called Cuirassiers, Caribiniers or Heavy Dragoons, is of no interest. If that is their job, they are heavy cavalry.
These first two types, then, are represented in the game as follows:
- Light cavalry has the ability to scout - reveal the identity and (initially unknown) strength of enemy units - if they approach closely enough. AoF cavalry have the same ability, although T&A goes further with respect to battlefield concealment (of which more another time).
- Against fresh, formed infantry nearly all cavalry is at a disadvantage. All non-heavy cavalry have a -1 penalty when attacking enemy infantry with no fatigue markers, reflecting the fact that disciplined infantry with secure flanks could generally hold off cavalry (this was a principle that had held firm since it was established by Swiss pikemen and arquebusiers in the 15th century).
- Disordered infantry is another matter. For every point of superiority in fatigue between cavalry and infantry, the light cavalry gets a +1. If, for example, a cavalry unit attacks an infantry unit that is unfatigued, it gets +2 for attacking (which helps even out its probably inferior strength), but -1 for the infantry's fresh state, for a net total of +1 (after strength modifiers are applied it is likely to be at evens or worse). If the infantry has a single fatigue marker, though, the cavalry gets a +1 instead, for a total modifier of +3.
Compared to light cavalry, heavies have two deficits, and three advantages. First, they cannot scout. Second, being big men on big horses, they are easily winded by strenuous activity. On the other hand, they can make a big impact used appropriately at the right moment. What this amounts to in game terms is:
D1) They cannot scout.
D2) Any time they are in close combat, they gain a fatigue marker, even if the combat result does not call for one.
A1) They do not suffer the -1 penalty that all other cavalry does for fighting fresh infantry.
A2) Against fatigued infantry they get double advantage for every point of fatigue difference. If we substitute heavy cavalry for light in the example above, the heavies would therefore get a bonus of +4 instead of the lights' +3. If their fatigue advantage were 2 instead if 1, they would get a +6 bonus instead of +4 etc. Although infantry are resilient against cavalry when fresh, once they become compromised they therefore become very vulnerable to being ridden down.
A3) When heavy cavalry meet light cavalry they are at an advantage also. Heavy cavalry fighting any cavalry not designated as heavy have a +1 modifier.
Dragoons
Now it starts getting tricky. Frankly, most cavalry (including those classified IRL as "dragoons") can be classed as one of the above two types. There are some troops, though, that just can't, starting with dragoons. Dragoons as a category go back to the late 17th century, when they took over from mounted arquebusiers as mobile firepower. Unlike the arquebusiers they typically did not fire from the saddle, but moved to where they were needed, dismounted and fought as infantry (albeit without bayonets, which were not yet in use. There were, at first, dragoon pikemen also). They were equipped with full muskets, so from a firepower point of view could, in theory, deliver as much lead as an equivalent number of infantry.
There were a couple of drawbacks, however. First was that all those horses could not just be left to fend for themselves while their riders fought. Some men (between 1/4 and 1/6, depending on where and when) were told off to act as horse-holders, so the unit strength was immediately compromised to that degree when working on foot. Secondly, they tended not to get the same degree of training or equipment as regular infantry (not that that was all that flash, typically), so their efficiency naturally suffered. By the Napoleonic wars most armies had abandoned dragoons used as dragoons, although everybody had units so designated. In the case of the British army, units formerly designated as "Horse" were re-designated "Dragoon Guards" in 1746, since dragoons were paid at the infantry rate rather than the higher cavalry rate. The "Guards" title was a sop to their pride, to compensate for their drop in pay. By the end of the century, all British cavalry was designated either Heavy or Light Dragoons, although none fought as mounted infantry.
In 1805 Napoleon reversed this trend. Because of the difficulties he was already having in finding mounts, whole divisions of dragoons were raised and trained to fight on foot. They were equipped with muskets, and sometimes with infantry shoes and breeches, but would be given horses when such became available and expected to function as heavy cavalry. The result, as might be expected, was a bit ordinary. They were never much good either as infantry or as heavy cavalry, although there were exceptions in both roles. They served as effective counter-insurgency troops (to the extent that anybody did) in Spain. In game terms, French dragoons often, and everybody else's dragoons nearly always, should be designated as either heavy or light cavalry. Where dragoons actually act as dragoons, though, or might, they can be deployed as such, with the following characteristics:
- They have the same 12" movement rate as any other cavalry (although in some scenarios they might be restricted to infantry movement and loss of other cavalry characteristics)
- They always suffer a -1 penalty to ranged fire (to depict removal from the line of horse-holders, and inadequate training and practice with the musket)
- When permitted to act as cavalry they have the same penalties and bonuses when fighting infantry as have light cavalry.
- They may use built-up areas as cover, as other cavalry may not.
Lancers
Not commonly used in sufficient numbers to constitute a brigade, lancers are nevertheless a distinctive enough type to warrant separate treatment where they do appear, I think. They were really a Polish tradition, descended from the Winged Hussars of the 17th century, but the various neighbours (and digesters) of the Poles - Prussians, Austrians and Russians - copied them from time to time, often under the name of Uhlans. They were particularly renowned for their ability to clean up broken and fleeing enemies. I cannot, for the time being, find the reference, but I have read a contemporary remark to the effect that if cuirassiers could only be given lances, and trained in their use, one would have the ultimate unstoppable cavalry. It never happened, of course. The days of the armoured lancer had ended, for most of Europe, around 1640, although the last hurrah was the splendid charge of the chivalry of Poland against the besieging Turks before Vienna in 1683.
Be that as it may, on the rare occasions that a brigade of lancers appears on a T&A battlefield:
- They have the usual 12" movement rate.
- They may scout (many, especially in French service, were designated as Chevaux-légers before being converted to lancers, and trained as such).
- They get the same +2/fatigue difference bonus as heavy cavalry. They do not suffer the automatic fatigue penalty of heavies, but they also do not have exemption from the usual -1 combat penalty against fresh infantry.
Cossacks
I nearly left these out, treating them as lancers or light cavalry, but they really are a distinct type, and were used differently from other cavalry. They only occur, of course, in Russian armies, where they are not (with the exception of Guard regiments) part of the regular army establishment. Rather they are quasi-feudal allied contributions from the various Cossack hosts of the southern steppe, at this time still maintaining, with various degrees of success, a certain amount of independence of the empire. Being not really in the service of the Tsar, they were not anxious to suffer casualties on his behalf, but on the other hand were inheritors of a proud, and indeed boastful, warrior culture. Accounts of them are therefore very various - they could be deadly in the right circumstances, but generally avoided head-on confrontations. They were superlative scouts, and very hard to catch when they didn't want to be caught.
Their game characteristics therefore are:
1) 12" movement
2) -3, instead of the usual -1, against unfatigued troops. They will do it if you insist, but they really don't want to be there.
3) On the other hand, +2/fatigue difference against infantry more tired than they are, just like heavy cavalry and lancers.
4) They can scout in the same way as other light cavalry
5) On evasion attempts, they succeed in evading on a roll of 2-6, rather than the usual 2-5.
Artillery
Field artillery had, once upon a time, not been a matter for the state nor for soldiers, but was hired from civilian contractors. Even as late as the mid-eighteenth century its transport was typically handled by civilians even if the guns were actually operated on the battlefield by soldiers. The entire arm was militarised and standardised first, I think, by the Austrians, led by Prince Liechtenstein. Their reforms were later famously copied by Gribeauval in France, and less famously by others elsewhere. A wide range of calibres remained in use, even after standardisation - easily half a dozen for guns alone, never mind howitzers, licornes etc. All nations had settled, though, on three (or, arguably, four), roles for artillery, so T&A will distinguish three types. They are:
Light Artillery
This category includes everything from regimental 3-pounder guns up to the most common calibre of 6-pounders, and also includes (although this decision could go either way, and individual scenarios might even draw the line differently) the 8-pounders of the French army. Guns are drawn by horses to their positions on the battlefield or for distant long re-positioning, while their crews walk beside them and manhandle them in action.
Horse Artillery
These use the same range of pieces as the light (Foot) artillery - typically 6-pounders. The difference is that the crews are entirely mounted, either on horses or (in the case of the Austrian "Cavalry Artillery", which is treated for our purposes as horse artillery) on specialised seats on the guns themselves.
Heavy Artillery
This category mostly refers to 12-pounders, but also includes the 9-pounders of the British army, who employed them in much the same role. It also includes the even heavier siege guns of 16 pounds and up, although these will virtually never be seen on the battlefield. In a siege or fortress-assault scenario they would probably have scenario-specific rules written for them.
The types are distinguished in-game by two things, movement rate and range. Light and Horse artillery have the same firing range of 8", a little shorter than the 10" of AoF. Guns got both heavier and more sophisticated over the subsequent half-century, so a small penalty for most artillery seemed appropriate. Light artillery has a movement rate of 6" (the same as in AoF), so has some difficulty keeping up with infantry in the field, although of course everything has the same (reserve) movement rate on roads in the rear. Fast movement is the whole point of horse artillery, so it moves 8". Heavy artillery fires further, but moves slower - a 10" firing range means that it should get two shots in on approaching infantry before they can contact it, but a movement rate of just 4" means that you probably want to set it up where you want it in the first place, because if it is not on a road it will be going nowhere else quickly. And don't even think about taking it off-road through the forest. This would be why both Austrians and Russians referred to their heavy units as "Position" batteries.
So there it is - a total of eleven troop types instead of the original three of AoF. Cossacks will be seen only in battles involving Russians, and lancers (and dragoons?) will be fairly rare. For the most part, though, most types will be seen on most battlefields. This certainly complicates things beyond AoF, but I don't see a way around that, given the nature of Napoleonic war.
So whaddya reckon? Please discuss in the comments.
Coming next, troop quality, doctrine and national characteristics.
Notes
1) Standard AoF rules impose a standard 4" penalty for movement through rough going, with the 1-6" penalty being an optional rule. American battlefields were very often heavily wooded, so perhaps the additional tedium of having to role a die every time you move a unit outweighs the greater realism of impediments to movement not being totally predictable in their affect until you give it a go. I think the variable penalty is the better way to go in Europe. If it turns out to be too tedious and we revert to a standard 4" penalty, light infantry would suffer one of 2".
(2) Is that a defence, or does that make it worse? Both could be rolled into "Light Cavalry" if it is really too much trouble to make the distinction.
(3) Mounted arquebusiers did, apparently, serve a useful purpose in the 17th century, as did mounted pistoleers a little earlier. Both operated at quite short ranges, though - little more than the length of a pike, and specifically against pikemen, who could neither fire back nor effectively counter-charge. The age of mounted firepower was long past at the dawn of the nineteenth century.
(2) Is that a defence, or does that make it worse? Both could be rolled into "Light Cavalry" if it is really too much trouble to make the distinction.
(3) Mounted arquebusiers did, apparently, serve a useful purpose in the 17th century, as did mounted pistoleers a little earlier. Both operated at quite short ranges, though - little more than the length of a pike, and specifically against pikemen, who could neither fire back nor effectively counter-charge. The age of mounted firepower was long past at the dawn of the nineteenth century.
No comments:
Post a Comment