The first axis of troop differences I identified as having to be addressed in a Napoleonic rule set was the tactical roles filled by various troop types. This has been dealt with already.
The second was tactical doctrine, by which I mean the differences in behaviour for ostensibly identical troop types across different armies, and even the same army at different time periods. It includes also the effects of differing cultures and social relations between members of different armies. The relations between officers and men were quite different, for example, in the British army as compared with the French, for the societies they came from were founded on different principles. Likewise for Austria, Russia and so on. The differences discussed below are all expressed on the battlefield as simple bonuses and deficits applied to certain troop types.
Before discussing national variations, I must address the mechanism for reflecting, in a fairly abstract way, infantry tactics below the brigade level, which are in principle applicable to all nations. I hinted at this in the previous article - here are the details. I wrote earlier that as a corps commander, you will not, in general, be paying attention to whether the men are in column or line, whether they have formed square properly etc. If the use of such formations were identical across armies, I would leave it out altogether, I think, but since different armies apply such formations in different ways, it becomes an opportunity to add a little international texture.
The mechanism in question, reflecting low-level formations and tactical difference, is called "stance". Each of the five stances corresponds approximately to the adoption of a certain formation by component battalions, but they are not exactly equivalent. The stances are:
Defence vs Cavalry: provides a +1 close combat bonus to defending infantry whose primary attacker is cavalry. Corresponds to square formation.
Defence vs Infantry: provides the same when the primary attacker is infantry. Corresponds to line formation.
Defence vs Artillery: provides a -1 modifier to artillery fire against the brigade (both roundshot and canister). This represents adopting open order, and perhaps lying down.
Assault: provides +1 bonus to attacking troops in a close combat. This applies only to the primary attacker - all supporting troops can only add their usual +1/brigade bonus. It reflects the tactical doctrine of armies who emphasise aggression in the attack, the use of the bayonet etc.
Ranged Fire: This represents the deployment of numerous or highly-trained skirmishing troops.
Stances are applicable only to infantry in the open. Troops in cover of woods or built-up areas may not have stances applied to them, and automatically lose any that they already had before moving into such cover.
Importantly, not all stances are available to all nations. This is how the national cultural / social / tactical differences are reflected in the game. In alphabetical order, the major nations have the following abilities:
Austria in 1805, along with Prussia in 1806 and Spain at all times, is often denigrated by English-language writers (I am thinking particularly of Chandler and Oman) for their rigidly old-fashioned linear tactics, which are held partly to blame for their inability to resist the modern French army. The same writers praise the English for their devastatingly effective linear tactics, which allowed them to defeat the French, so we should perhaps not read too much into this except that they join Flanders and Swann in singing that The English are Best. Something that linear tactics do very well, of course, for they were designed to do it, is inflicting great execution against attacking infantry. Defence vs Infantry is therefore available to Austria, as in fact it is to all nations, for everybody had the musket line as one of their core tactical tools.
I might as well say at once that Defence vs Cavalry is also available to all nations at all dates, for similar reasons. Similarly, Defence vs Artillery is generally available, but forbidden to some nations for reasons of national pride (see below).
Austria is a special case, though, with respect to Defence vs Cavalry. The army reforms completed following the 1805 debacle introduced (or completed the introduction of) the Battalionsmasse formation, which became the standard formation of manouvre in the 1809 campaign. It had the effect of a mobile square - able to manouvre as a column, but to present a solid wall of bayonets in all directions at a moment's notice. From 1809, therefore, Austrian infantry in the open are assumed to be in this formation unless otherwise stated. It gives the same bonus against cavalry (+1) when defending in close combat, but reduces the number of muskets that can be brought to bear, so that ranged fire suffers a -1 penalty. Unlike DvC, these modifiers are not lost when the brigade moves, although they can be overridden by specifying another stance or by being in cover.
Austria is also permitted to disperse against artillery, but may not make fierce attacks, nor boost firepower of line units by skirmishing. They do, however, have specialist grenadier and light infantry able to carry out these functions.
Bavaria had traditionally played a balancing game between Austria, Prussia and France, and at the beginning of the century organised its army along Prussian lines, although without the military tradition the Prussians derived from Frederick the Great. From 1809, as members of the Federation of the Rhine, it became in effect a client of France, and re-organised the army along French lines, including the introduction of integral light troops into all battalions. In early years Bavaria therefore has available the core three stances (Defence vs Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery). From 1809 it gains significantly enhanced skirmish capability, and therefore may apply the Ranged Fire stance.
Britain in this period is famed for its infantry firepower, both the disciplined accurate volleys of the line troops and the even more accurate fire of the numerous light troops, and especially of the riflemen of the 95th. British infantry is therefore automatically given the benefits of both Defence vs Infantry and Ranged Fire, unless some other stance is in force. This applies even if the infantry in question is in cover. Neither of these stances may therefore be selected explicitly, but Defence vs both Cavalry and Artillery are available.
France is of course the premiere army of these wars. They were renowned for their flexibility, for the ferocity of their attack columns, and for the clouds of skirmishers they were able to throw out before their lines. The French are therefore the only army that can apply any of the five stances.
Poland, reconstituted in the form the of Grand Duchy of Warsaw in 1808, was supplying units for French service even earlier. There were organised and trained along French lines, so generally have the same characteristics. I do not think I have read of any great exploits of firepower or skirmishing from Poles, though, so they may not use the Ranged Fire bonus. All other stances are available to them.
Portugal, during the Peninsular war, were largely equipped and trained by the British, so may be treated largely as an extension of the British army. Like the British, the Assault stance is not available to them, but all of the other four are. Unlike the British, the Defence vs Infantry and Ranged Fire bonuses are not integral - either may be selected, but must be payed for.
Prussia, until the disaster of 1806, was generally assumed, not least by themselves, to be still the military powerhouse of Frederick the Great. Aggressive, proud and fiercely disciplined, they relied on infantry firepower as the centrepiece of their tactics. They may, therefore, select Assault stance as well as Defence vs both Infantry and Cavalry. They may not, however, use Defence vs Artillery (even at Ligny, long after the army reforms of 1807 and following, Prussian infantry was ordered to stand fast under artillery bombardment, the alternative being considered to be out of keeping with the dignity and traditions of the Prussian army). Nor may they use Ranged Fire - Austrian use of light infantry during the Wars of Succession and the Seven Years's War had been regarded by the Prussians with contempt, and they were slow to develop light troops and tactics of their own.
Russia is in some ways, I think, the most interesting nation. The great Alexander Suvorov had been fond of the maxim "The bayonet is a brave lad, but the bullet is a fool!", and had trained the army accordingly. The Russian issue musket was regarded as the worst in Europe, and Russian musketeers were only cursorily instructed in its use. While Russian light troops existed, they were not up to the standards of the French, or even perhaps of the Prussians. The Russians were, however, fierce in the assault, and astoundingly (to their French enemies) resilient in the defence. This was noted already in the bitter campaign of 1807, and still more so in 1812, when they were defending Russia itself. Their lives were held cheaply both by their officers and, it seems, by the men themselves, who had little hope of ever seeing their homes again after the end of their statutory twenty years' service.
They may, therefore, use the Assault stance, along with Defence vs Infantry and Cavalry. They may not protect themselves against artillery fire, nor may they use a bonus to Ranged Fire. More than that, in fact - they receive at all times a -1 modifier to ranged fire, reflecting their weakness both in skirmishing and in accurate volleys. On the other hand, when defending on Russian soil all they always have a +1 in close combat. Additionally, if broken, all Russian troops have a +1 on rally rolls (this applies at all times, not only in Russia). This gives them a 1/3 chance of rallying, and only a 1/2 chance of permanent removal, compared with 1/6 and 2/3, respectively, for all other troops.
Spain has the most restricted pallette of stance options, with no particular strengths evident in the historical record. They are not, since many long years ago, fierce in the assault, nor are they notably skilled in shooting or skirmishing. Their pride forbids them from using Defence vs Artillery, so they are left with only two selectable stances - Defence vs Cavalry and Defence vs Infantry.
Any other nations will have the core three available, but not Assault or Ranged Fire.
That covers national differences for now. The next and final article on troop qualities will focus on, well, quality - how good they are. This is the game concept of Resilience.
Defence vs Cavalry: provides a +1 close combat bonus to defending infantry whose primary attacker is cavalry. Corresponds to square formation.
Defence vs Infantry: provides the same when the primary attacker is infantry. Corresponds to line formation.
Defence vs Artillery: provides a -1 modifier to artillery fire against the brigade (both roundshot and canister). This represents adopting open order, and perhaps lying down.
Assault: provides +1 bonus to attacking troops in a close combat. This applies only to the primary attacker - all supporting troops can only add their usual +1/brigade bonus. It reflects the tactical doctrine of armies who emphasise aggression in the attack, the use of the bayonet etc.
Ranged Fire: This represents the deployment of numerous or highly-trained skirmishing troops.
Stances are applicable only to infantry in the open. Troops in cover of woods or built-up areas may not have stances applied to them, and automatically lose any that they already had before moving into such cover.
Importantly, not all stances are available to all nations. This is how the national cultural / social / tactical differences are reflected in the game. In alphabetical order, the major nations have the following abilities:
Austria in 1805, along with Prussia in 1806 and Spain at all times, is often denigrated by English-language writers (I am thinking particularly of Chandler and Oman) for their rigidly old-fashioned linear tactics, which are held partly to blame for their inability to resist the modern French army. The same writers praise the English for their devastatingly effective linear tactics, which allowed them to defeat the French, so we should perhaps not read too much into this except that they join Flanders and Swann in singing that The English are Best. Something that linear tactics do very well, of course, for they were designed to do it, is inflicting great execution against attacking infantry. Defence vs Infantry is therefore available to Austria, as in fact it is to all nations, for everybody had the musket line as one of their core tactical tools.
I might as well say at once that Defence vs Cavalry is also available to all nations at all dates, for similar reasons. Similarly, Defence vs Artillery is generally available, but forbidden to some nations for reasons of national pride (see below).
Austria is a special case, though, with respect to Defence vs Cavalry. The army reforms completed following the 1805 debacle introduced (or completed the introduction of) the Battalionsmasse formation, which became the standard formation of manouvre in the 1809 campaign. It had the effect of a mobile square - able to manouvre as a column, but to present a solid wall of bayonets in all directions at a moment's notice. From 1809, therefore, Austrian infantry in the open are assumed to be in this formation unless otherwise stated. It gives the same bonus against cavalry (+1) when defending in close combat, but reduces the number of muskets that can be brought to bear, so that ranged fire suffers a -1 penalty. Unlike DvC, these modifiers are not lost when the brigade moves, although they can be overridden by specifying another stance or by being in cover.
Austria is also permitted to disperse against artillery, but may not make fierce attacks, nor boost firepower of line units by skirmishing. They do, however, have specialist grenadier and light infantry able to carry out these functions.
Bavaria had traditionally played a balancing game between Austria, Prussia and France, and at the beginning of the century organised its army along Prussian lines, although without the military tradition the Prussians derived from Frederick the Great. From 1809, as members of the Federation of the Rhine, it became in effect a client of France, and re-organised the army along French lines, including the introduction of integral light troops into all battalions. In early years Bavaria therefore has available the core three stances (Defence vs Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery). From 1809 it gains significantly enhanced skirmish capability, and therefore may apply the Ranged Fire stance.
Britain in this period is famed for its infantry firepower, both the disciplined accurate volleys of the line troops and the even more accurate fire of the numerous light troops, and especially of the riflemen of the 95th. British infantry is therefore automatically given the benefits of both Defence vs Infantry and Ranged Fire, unless some other stance is in force. This applies even if the infantry in question is in cover. Neither of these stances may therefore be selected explicitly, but Defence vs both Cavalry and Artillery are available.
France is of course the premiere army of these wars. They were renowned for their flexibility, for the ferocity of their attack columns, and for the clouds of skirmishers they were able to throw out before their lines. The French are therefore the only army that can apply any of the five stances.
Poland, reconstituted in the form the of Grand Duchy of Warsaw in 1808, was supplying units for French service even earlier. There were organised and trained along French lines, so generally have the same characteristics. I do not think I have read of any great exploits of firepower or skirmishing from Poles, though, so they may not use the Ranged Fire bonus. All other stances are available to them.
Portugal, during the Peninsular war, were largely equipped and trained by the British, so may be treated largely as an extension of the British army. Like the British, the Assault stance is not available to them, but all of the other four are. Unlike the British, the Defence vs Infantry and Ranged Fire bonuses are not integral - either may be selected, but must be payed for.
Prussia, until the disaster of 1806, was generally assumed, not least by themselves, to be still the military powerhouse of Frederick the Great. Aggressive, proud and fiercely disciplined, they relied on infantry firepower as the centrepiece of their tactics. They may, therefore, select Assault stance as well as Defence vs both Infantry and Cavalry. They may not, however, use Defence vs Artillery (even at Ligny, long after the army reforms of 1807 and following, Prussian infantry was ordered to stand fast under artillery bombardment, the alternative being considered to be out of keeping with the dignity and traditions of the Prussian army). Nor may they use Ranged Fire - Austrian use of light infantry during the Wars of Succession and the Seven Years's War had been regarded by the Prussians with contempt, and they were slow to develop light troops and tactics of their own.
Russia is in some ways, I think, the most interesting nation. The great Alexander Suvorov had been fond of the maxim "The bayonet is a brave lad, but the bullet is a fool!", and had trained the army accordingly. The Russian issue musket was regarded as the worst in Europe, and Russian musketeers were only cursorily instructed in its use. While Russian light troops existed, they were not up to the standards of the French, or even perhaps of the Prussians. The Russians were, however, fierce in the assault, and astoundingly (to their French enemies) resilient in the defence. This was noted already in the bitter campaign of 1807, and still more so in 1812, when they were defending Russia itself. Their lives were held cheaply both by their officers and, it seems, by the men themselves, who had little hope of ever seeing their homes again after the end of their statutory twenty years' service.
They may, therefore, use the Assault stance, along with Defence vs Infantry and Cavalry. They may not protect themselves against artillery fire, nor may they use a bonus to Ranged Fire. More than that, in fact - they receive at all times a -1 modifier to ranged fire, reflecting their weakness both in skirmishing and in accurate volleys. On the other hand, when defending on Russian soil all they always have a +1 in close combat. Additionally, if broken, all Russian troops have a +1 on rally rolls (this applies at all times, not only in Russia). This gives them a 1/3 chance of rallying, and only a 1/2 chance of permanent removal, compared with 1/6 and 2/3, respectively, for all other troops.
Spain has the most restricted pallette of stance options, with no particular strengths evident in the historical record. They are not, since many long years ago, fierce in the assault, nor are they notably skilled in shooting or skirmishing. Their pride forbids them from using Defence vs Artillery, so they are left with only two selectable stances - Defence vs Cavalry and Defence vs Infantry.
Any other nations will have the core three available, but not Assault or Ranged Fire.
That covers national differences for now. The next and final article on troop qualities will focus on, well, quality - how good they are. This is the game concept of Resilience.
No comments:
Post a Comment