.jpg) |
| Locations of the corps of both sides at the conclusion of the campaign. |
OK, I'll admit it here. This little project was not an unqualified success, and - I have to face it - was a bit of a mess. Very tiring it was, too, and set off a number of niggling small ailments that discouraged writing the thing up for nigh-on a week.
It was too ambitious. I now think the scale of the theatre was too large for the size of the table - considerably larger, withal, than the Waterloo and 1912 Army Exercise map games I played out earlier. Having said that, though, it was certainly worth a try! I think the opening moves of the 1809 campaign might prove a better topic for this sort of project.
A word on game mechanics. As I began this campaign we still hadn't got this quite right. I used priority chits to move each individual command (plus Napoleon himself), rather than the IGoUGo systems of the previous games. The added complication didn't seem to affect the flow of the action at all.
I used my own system of determining hits and losses, with each turn (representing one day) ending with a 'reconciliation' of losses to both sides.
Hits and losses were determined by dice:
1 = artillery
2 = cavalry
3 = cavalry
4 = infantry
5 = infantry
6 = command
If the command were hit, a die roll (for each hit!) determined whether the general or marshal stayed in command or was rendered hors de combat.
If there were none of a particular arm available to be hit, the result was ignored. This makes a cavalry corps interesting, because it ignores infantry hits. However, its own combat dice does include one for the infantry arm.
The number of dice thrown for a given command was the total number of figures, including its command, plus one more for each of the three 'arms' represented - infantry, cavalry and artillery. Napoleon himself got an extra die when present; and so did the Imperial Guard just for being the Imperial Guard. Not that it helped them much: the guard was a very small corps.
Where a die's pip score was matched by an enemy's, both were cancelled, one for one. Note that an infantry hit (4 or 5, say) would be cancelled only by the identical score. A '4' did not cancel a '5' or vice versa. So only excesses resulted in loss of figures. The following pictures, in which Brunswick scores a significant victory over Davout during the fighting around Saalfeld and Grafenthal, furnishes an example:
From the number of dice rolled, you can see Brunswick's whole army was up, and heavily outnumbered Davout's IIIrd Corps (about 2 to 1). This was to be no 'Auerstadt'! Removing duplicates left us with the next picture...
The French lose 2 infantry, a cavalry and a gunner; the Prussians lose one cavalry. Marshal Davout also took a hit - fortunately not enough to take him out of the fight.
At the end of each turn (day) the total of that day's losses for each arm were added separately, and both sides received back the lesser of the respective totals for each. So if in all the day's combats the French lost 9 infantry, 2 cavalry and 2 gunners; and the Prussians lost 6 infantry, 6 cavalry and 1 gunner, both sides would receive back 'overnight' 6 infantry, 2 cavalry and 1 gunner. The French net loss would be 3 infantry and a gunner; Prussia's would be 4 cavalry.
These returns I distributed as seemed reasonable; I didn't apply the returns on any pro rata basis of who lost what.
However, I rather botched the thing early on, which is the only explanation I can come up with why Prinz Louis's command survived so well its early drubbing by Murat's cavalry. I also found that this method so reduced the overall rate of attrition that decisive battles were hard to achieve, as the next day the defeated enemy corps, reconstituted overnight left the victors with it all to do again. Probably the big victories were Murat's over Prinz Louis, Bernadotte and Murat over Hohenlohe and Blucher, Brunswick over Lannes, and Ruchel's over Augereau, for which the latter exacted his vengeance a couple of days later.
The attrition among commanders was so concerning that I began half way through to treat them the same way as the losses in other arms - both sides got back 'overnight' the lesser number of commanders 'lost'.
The attrition rate has gone from the extremely high rate of the Waterloo campaign to the extremely low of the Jena. Some sort of compromise seems to me indicated. The method I came to is that for each arm that incurs a loss, one such loss is permanent, and only then the remaining losses reconciled as above. Using the suggested example, then
(a) French: of the 9 foot, 2 horse and 2 gunners, one of each arm is permanently lost, leaving
8, 1 and 1 for 'reconciliation'.
(b) Prussian: of the 6 foot, 6 horse and 1 gunner, one of each arm is permanently lost, leaving
5, 5, and 0 for 'reconciliation'.
Both sides, then get back 5 foot, 1 cavalry and no gunners.
French net loss 4 foot and 1 horse and 2 gunners
At the end of each turn (day) the total of that day's losses for each arm were added separately, and both sides received back the lesser of the respective totals for each. So if in all the day's combats the French lost 9 infantry, 2 cavalry and 2 gunners; and the Prussians lost 6 infantry, 6 cavalry and 1 gunner, both sides would receive back 'overnight' 6 infantry, 2 cavalry and 1 gunner. The French net loss would be 3 infantry and a gunner; Prussia's would be 4 cavalry.
These returns I distributed as seemed reasonable; I didn't apply the returns on any pro rata basis of who lost what.
However, I rather botched the thing early on, which is the only explanation I can come up with why Prinz Louis's command survived so well its early drubbing by Murat's cavalry. I also found that this method so reduced the overall rate of attrition that decisive battles were hard to achieve, as the next day the defeated enemy corps, reconstituted overnight left the victors with it all to do again. Probably the big victories were Murat's over Prinz Louis, Bernadotte and Murat over Hohenlohe and Blucher, Brunswick over Lannes, and Ruchel's over Augereau, for which the latter exacted his vengeance a couple of days later.
The attrition among commanders was so concerning that I began half way through to treat them the same way as the losses in other arms - both sides got back 'overnight' the lesser number of commanders 'lost'.
The attrition rate has gone from the extremely high rate of the Waterloo campaign to the extremely low of the Jena. Some sort of compromise seems to me indicated. The method I came to is that for each arm that incurs a loss, one such loss is permanent, and only then the remaining losses reconciled as above. Using the suggested example, then
(a) French: of the 9 foot, 2 horse and 2 gunners, one of each arm is permanently lost, leaving
8, 1 and 1 for 'reconciliation'.
(b) Prussian: of the 6 foot, 6 horse and 1 gunner, one of each arm is permanently lost, leaving
5, 5, and 0 for 'reconciliation'.
Both sides, then get back 5 foot, 1 cavalry and no gunners.
French net loss 4 foot and 1 horse and 2 gunners
Prussian net loss is 1 foot, 5 horse and 1 gunner.
I think, though, I would exempt commands from this automatic loss of the first casualty.
I'm also thinking of changing the combat roll of '6' to include infantry as well as command. Otherwise, it seems to me that infantry are rather underrepresented in the combat results...
I think, though, I would exempt commands from this automatic loss of the first casualty.
I'm also thinking of changing the combat roll of '6' to include infantry as well as command. Otherwise, it seems to me that infantry are rather underrepresented in the combat results...
Interesting. I think further experimentation is in order. Perhaps the 1809 campaign, or perhaps the beginning of the 1813 campaign in the spring. It would also be interesting to see how this would play out in Spain, or Eugene's campaign in Italy in 1809.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, Mark, I think the main problem is that my 'terrain pieces' don't really suit this type of game! But I do believe that it would work better with a more limited theatre - say, less than 50 miles square, rather than the 120 miles square for this campaign. An alternative might be to redraw the parameters, moving the Thuringerwald south 2 hexes, and pushing Dornberg northward two hexes. The east-west axis could be stretched westward such that Bad Kissingen and Memmingen are right on the map edge. I think that would have helped.
DeleteIn the Spanish theatre, probably the best operations for this treatment would be Soult's counter-offensive to relieve Pamplona, and maybe the Bidassoa crossings. 1809 operations around Barcelona might offer something of interest, as well.
I know too little about Eugene's 1809 campaign to make a judgement, but a good deal could be made of Napoleon's operations in Italy in 1796.
Basically, the whole concept works best (I think) with lots of separate corps running around - a bit like those Snappy Nappy 'Campaigns in a day' style of thing.
Cheers,
Ion
Well it was a very entertaining read despite any misgivings you had regarding the mechanics! Chapeau, Sir.
ReplyDeleteTipfer tat, eh, Maudlin Jack? :-)
DeleteIf it was an entertaining read, then perhaps I can after all count the thing a success. It did have its points of interest, and something could be got from it, at least.
Cheers,
Ion
Well, it looked magnificent and I will, at some point, set it up and try it myself, although I will have to appropriate the dining table for a couple of days. Getting the attrition rate right is hard, but critical. For Waterloo I did the casualty loss and recovery on an individual Corps basis, and no more than half recovered per recovery phase. So a beaten Corps stayed weak thereafter, unless reinforced from another Corps. I quite like the Cavalry Corps being immune to 'Infantry' hits. It makes them interesting units and compensates for their low numbers.
ReplyDeleteDo you know, Martin, I seem to recall now mentioning the 'half recovered' in an earlier post, and completely forgot about it. It involved rounding UP infantry losses, and DOWN cavalry and artillery losses. I think that might well be better - certainly simpler - than my amended method suggested in this posting. I'd still make combat 'sixes' include infantry as well as command, and halves in command losses would be rounded down as well.
DeleteI also seem to recall that when making returns, priority be given to who lost most (per arm of service, of course). I seem again to recall offering examples. I might have to collate all these ideas with a comprehensive 'rule set' for this kind of game. Perhaps we (and others) could collaborate on this.
I agree with you about the cavalry corps. My one caveat is that I don't think Murat's corps really behaved as it did in my map game, and at the outset probably ought to have split it up in some way. I found the tiny, Division-sized Cav Corps in the Waterloo campaign interesting to play with, though!
Cheers,
Ion