The general view of the battlefield, seen from the north, looking south-east. |
Vandamme's III Corps storming Wavre and Nieder-Wavre assisted by the Corps artillery. Exelmans's Cavalry have been ordered down the river road, across IV Corps' front. |
Seeing a threat developing to the south, the Prussian Cavalry is directed thereto via the road through the Bois de Rixenart. |
The battle for Wavre. |
IV Corps awaits the passage of Exelkmans's Cavalry. Teste's Division is far from the action. |
Prussian Cavalry Reserve on the march. |
Nearly all of Wavre has fallen, and 11th Division has forced the bridge. |
Looking from the north: a general view. |
In the foreground, it looks as though the Prussian cavalry will reach their destination betimes. Soult's slow moving light horse has yet to cross the river. |
The depleted 15th Light Infantry, withdrawn from the battle. |
Cavalry action imminent west of Limal. |
French Cavalry build-up around Lival. |
The french horse might be in a spot of trouble, here. |
Teste's Division waiting idly to cross the river; IV Corps storming the bridge at Bierges (top). |
The proposed amendments:
Current rule: Increase the D6 die roll score of the figure base initiating the Combat by 1 for each friendly supporting figure base in the same grid area as the figure base initiating the Combat.
Amended Rule: For each friendly supporting figure base in the same grid area as the figure base initiating the Combat, cancel 1 point of reduction to D6 die roll score due to each enemy supporting figure base in the same grid area as the figure base being attacked.
Current Rule: Increase the d6 die roll of the figure base being attacked by 1 for each supporting friendly figure base in the same grid area as the figure base being attacked.
Amended rule: For each friendly supporting figure base in the same grid area as the figure base being attacked, cancel 1 point of reduction to D6 die roll score due to each enemy supporting figure in the same grid area as the enemy figure base initiating the Combat.
In effect, add +1 to the D6 score of each combatant figure base for each friendly supporting element to match a -1 to the score by an enemy supporting element. This AFTER reducing by -1 the D6 die score for each enemy supporting element.
Note that for these to make proper sense, the list of D6 die score modifications should probably be rearranged. The reduction of D6 die roll scores due to enemy supporting elements should now head the list, if these amendments were accepted.
Tyhe attack on the towns. |
2. Close combat - During this battle, parts of the French cavalry found itself fighting to exit from a town in the face of enemy horse. I reckon there ought to be a minus for cavalry fighting in unsuitable terrain - at least a 'minus-1'; and perhaps even a 'minus-2', for the side initiating the combat.
3. Initiating combat. I am assuming that in an ongoing Combat, the 'figure base initiating the Combat' belongs to whichever side happens to be moving at the time. For instance, the French charge into a town, to initiate a fight with the Prussian garrison. At the end of the turn, the two remained locked in combat. The Prussians 'go' next (say), the fight continues (no order necessary) and the Prussian figure base this time is 'initiating' the Combat. What is happening internally to the action is perhaps a local counter-attack, or some other counter-action, subsumed in the face-to-face attitude of the contending figure bases.
Consider a cavalry fight on the edge of a town, such as occurred between Soult's Division and elements of von der Marwitz's Brigade at Limal. Let us say that, seeking to prevent the French from breaking out into the open, the Prussians attacked - initiated the Combat. As their opponents are 'in cover', the Prussians take a minus (-1) on their die roll. I am proposing that, as the French horse are in unsuitable terrain, they should also take a minus (-1). In the actual game, I adjusted the score of neither side for reasons of terrain - just for accompanying generals and supporting figure-bases.
4.1 I assume, once again, that the side 'initiating the Combat' is that whose move it is. So the cavalry add the 1 in its own turn, not in the enemy's turn.
4.2 I am inclined to drop this rule altogether, not so much 'in principle' as because of a convention I developed for my own games of linking Strength Points to battalions and squadrons. That was simply a matter of convenience. I could equally well have assigned strength points for every two, or part thereof, of battalions or squadrons. if I had, the action might well have gone a lot more quickly!
4.3 If, however, the differential to be retained between horse and foot, I would again suggest that the foot and artillery take a minus, rather than the horse take a plus. Suppose a single cavalry unit, accompanied by a general, attacks a single infantry unit in the open. The cavalry adds +1 for the general and +1 for initiating combat with enemy foot, and is therefore invulnerable. Presumably in the infantry's turn, that second +1 no longer applies, but it would still be a huge advantage for the cavalry to be invulnerable every other turn. In my proposed amendment, the -1 for infantry or cannon under attack, applies (I infer) only in the cavalry's turn.
As time went by, and this is somewhat apparent in the pictures, even successful commands began to break up and lose cohesion. To begin with, it was scarcely worth rolling a die to see if orders reached their destined ears or were carried out, if but one command applied to the whole formation, it was in contiguous grid areas, and it was somewhere accompanied by its commander. Once battle was joined, the problem was still not so very apparent, if the Corps' sub-formations were closely engaged (as was III Corps, along the line of Wavre and Nieder-Wavre). It was once local successes began to be achieved, and the sub-formations becoming separated, that Corps and Army cohesion became problematic. If anything that was even more the case for the defenders.
I think this very feature, frustrating as it can be, is probably what gives this Corps and Army-level Portable Games rule set its own special character.
7. Movement rates:
As I mentioned last time, I think, I am very tempted to add one grid area to movement rates in good going or on roads.
Infantry: 2
Cavalry: 3
Artillery (if limbered): 2, or 3 if exclusively of horse artillery.
This has yet to be play tested.
If Exelmans and Soult were having trouble breaking out at Limal, Gerard's IV Corps was having no such trouble at Bierges. Stengel's 19th Infantry Regiment rapidly succumbed to the French 12th Division's assault. Sixth Hussars had long since left the area to help in the cavalry fight south along the river. Having carried the town, General Gerard led 12th Division down the Limal road in the wake of the Prussian hussars, with the view to levering open the cavalry bottleneck. The following 13th Division was directed northwards, where they soon became engaged with the left flank of Prussian 12th Brigade, along with the Prussian artillery reserve.
The French had lost 21 SPs, the bulk of them from Vandamme's Corps. Around Limal, however, the outnumbered Prussian cavalry had given a good account of itself, 6 SPs lost on both sides. Everywhere else, the French tide was on the make, and it was hard to see the lone 12th Brigade holding for long.
The fall of Wavre. |
Consider a cavalry fight on the edge of a town, such as occurred between Soult's Division and elements of von der Marwitz's Brigade at Limal. Let us say that, seeking to prevent the French from breaking out into the open, the Prussians attacked - initiated the Combat. As their opponents are 'in cover', the Prussians take a minus (-1) on their die roll. I am proposing that, as the French horse are in unsuitable terrain, they should also take a minus (-1). In the actual game, I adjusted the score of neither side for reasons of terrain - just for accompanying generals and supporting figure-bases.
Most of 10th and 11th French Brigades push west of Wavre. A Landwehr infantry counter-attack stops 8th Division from crossing at Nieder-Wavre. |
4. Cavalry vs Infantry. The current rule increases the D6 die roll of the figure base initiating the combat if it is cavalry attacking infantry or artillery. I have some comments to make on this.
Yet another general view looking southeast. |
5. Command.
Because this was in effect an 'army level' action - at least from the French point of view - the extra 'layer' of command should probably be ignored, or maybe (as in the case of 'independent' formations such as Teste's infantry and Soult's cavalry) the Army commander will dice for units not part of the Army Corps structure. Because they were so distant from their commander, those Divisions proved a real problem to get into motion.As time went by, and this is somewhat apparent in the pictures, even successful commands began to break up and lose cohesion. To begin with, it was scarcely worth rolling a die to see if orders reached their destined ears or were carried out, if but one command applied to the whole formation, it was in contiguous grid areas, and it was somewhere accompanied by its commander. Once battle was joined, the problem was still not so very apparent, if the Corps' sub-formations were closely engaged (as was III Corps, along the line of Wavre and Nieder-Wavre). It was once local successes began to be achieved, and the sub-formations becoming separated, that Corps and Army cohesion became problematic. If anything that was even more the case for the defenders.
I think this very feature, frustrating as it can be, is probably what gives this Corps and Army-level Portable Games rule set its own special character.
6. The fate of generals. As it transpired, no generals were killed or injured in this battle (unlike the previous two, in which the cavalry commanders in particular seemed to live dangerously). But there were one or two occasions in which a general happened to be accompany a unit that was destroyed. The 2D6 die roll indicating no harm to the general, he rode off to join another unit of his command, if one were available. But it occurred to me that there might have been a fair likelihood of his being taken prisoner. In those particular circumstances, perhaps we could add that a score of 9 on 2D6, the general is taken prisoner, and loses all SPs.
Bierges has fallen. 12th Div heads towards Limal; 13th Division towards Bois de Rixenart. |
7. Movement rates:
As I mentioned last time, I think, I am very tempted to add one grid area to movement rates in good going or on roads.
Infantry: 2
Cavalry: 3
Artillery (if limbered): 2, or 3 if exclusively of horse artillery.
This has yet to be play tested.
If Exelmans and Soult were having trouble breaking out at Limal, Gerard's IV Corps was having no such trouble at Bierges. Stengel's 19th Infantry Regiment rapidly succumbed to the French 12th Division's assault. Sixth Hussars had long since left the area to help in the cavalry fight south along the river. Having carried the town, General Gerard led 12th Division down the Limal road in the wake of the Prussian hussars, with the view to levering open the cavalry bottleneck. The following 13th Division was directed northwards, where they soon became engaged with the left flank of Prussian 12th Brigade, along with the Prussian artillery reserve.
Prussian Divisional artillery almost surrounded. |
By this time, the 9th, 11th and 10th Brigades had been driven well clear of Wavre and Nieder Wavre, the remnants struggling to maintain any kind of line. First Kurfurst Landwehr were still trying to contest the river crossing at Nieder-Wavre, attempting several times to seize the west end of the bridge. Once they even succeeded, cutting off parts of 10th Division, and forcing the following-up 8th Division back across the river. Outnumbered as they were, they could not keep this up for long. Repulsed again and again, the Prussians were forced to relinquish their tenuous hold of the riverbank.
All along the Dile River, Grouchy's command were pouring across the bridges, with by now little hope for the Prussians to contain them. At about this point I counted up the Strength Point losses. The Prussians had lost 32 - just one short of their Exhaustion point. What little was left of the 9th, 10th and 11th Brigades could scarcely even be called 'remnants'. Of 9th Brigade, only a badly depleted Landwehr regiment remained in action. I called the action at this point, with the Prussian Corps badly mauled, but the news from the west indicating to Marshal Grouchy that it was high time to pull his forces out.The French had lost 21 SPs, the bulk of them from Vandamme's Corps. Around Limal, however, the outnumbered Prussian cavalry had given a good account of itself, 6 SPs lost on both sides. Everywhere else, the French tide was on the make, and it was hard to see the lone 12th Brigade holding for long.
On the whole, I felt that the action played out quite well, though I rather think I would opt for a less cluttered battlefield another time. That the thing was set up for a French victory, I admit, and it was intended to test the Portable Napoleonic set for army level action. On the whole, I found an enjoyable action, though not one for the impatient.
"In effect, add +1 to the D6 score of each combatant figure base for each friendly supporting element to match a -1 to the score by an enemy supporting element. This AFTER reducing by -1 the D6 die score for each enemy supporting element."
ReplyDeleteOr, supporting elements cancel each other out, and whoever has the excess gets a bonus.
Supporting elements cancel each other out, and any excess supporting elements cause a reduction in the opposing side's combat die roll, but NOT an addition to own side's combat die roll.
DeleteArchduke Piccolo,
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, this is the first time PNW has been used to fight an army-level battle, and your battle report shows that it is possible to use the rules to do so.
I've read your suggestions for rule changes with great interest, and they will help me to develop the rules in the future. In the meantime, I am recommending other users read your suggestions and use them if they so desire.
If I wasn't up to my eyes building my terrain boards for CARRY ON UP THE NILE!, I'd be setting up my Hexon II terrain and fight a large-scale battle myself.
All the best,
Bob
Cheers, Bob. I thought the thing had to be possible. The Wavre battle seemed to me a fine place to try the idea out. Not conclusive, though: I'll have to look for another action to try the thing out.
DeleteI like the style of your gaming table. Where do you get the buildings from?
ReplyDeleteHi 'Whiskers'
DeleteSome building are commercial card buildings you often see with model railway layouts, others are from the Usborne 'Make this ...' books (cut out and assemble), still more are home made. What I have isn't really suited to the hex-grid set-up, but they'll do for now.
Cheers,
Ion
This whole series has been interesting.
ReplyDeleteI struggled with rolling against your own guy, a cultural thing after decades of wargaming, like high is good, low bad - a miniatures thing and common enough in board games. In the end I decided to look upon it as everyone hits automatically but you get a saving throw. Of course it doesn't change anything and the immunity thing struck me as needing to be addressed.
Thanks for your comments Ross. Once I noticed the 'invulnerability' thing, I felt that was a problem that needed a 'fix', but looked for something as close to what I believed to be Bob's intention, in order to minimise the wrench of a major change. For days I came up with a whole series of ideas, none of which, although probably workable, satisfied the central criterion of faithfulness (as I saw it) to the original concept. It was not until I started a game, and an actual close combat situation, that the solution came to me.
DeleteOn the whole I would rather the modifications increased vulnerability in some respects if it obviates invulnerability in others. The cultural thing of 'seeing what you did to the enemy' does seem to have a strong hold over 'seeing what the enemy has done to me'. But I remind myself of Napoleon's comment about combat: "Battles occur when two armies meet and try to frighten each other." So the die rolls determine just how frightened my army is compared with yours...
Ross Mac,
DeleteMy preference for 'what state are my forces in?' mechanisms comes from playing the original Kriegsspiel (where you have no idea what damage you are doing to the enemy, nor where they are most of the time) and Megablitz. In the latter, forces that were literally on their last legs would suddenly find that their opponents would stop attacking them because the opposing commander was worried about the losses they were suffering. I know that this runs counter to a lot of rules (and the expectations of many wargamers), but it works for me.
All the best,
Bob
With an umpire (or computer) rolling the die secretly, the effect is just right but of course the effect would be the same with the usual wargame approach as long as the die roll and effect were kept secret so that only the enemy's actions are known.
DeleteSomething is lost from that hidden information aspect when playing solo but I figured playing with the labels wouldn't affect the result as long as the scores and effects remained the same.
I don't fully go with the complete obscurity of how things are on the 'other side of the hill'. I believe that the behaviour of the enemy in front of you does tell you something of their state. In my view, one's assessment of the state of one's own and of the enemy is only partial, either way - but something is known, or may be guessed at, either way.
DeleteIs the enemy coming on strongly? Can we stop them? Is the enemy standing firmly? Can we break them? This can describe the troops on the ground and determine the success or failure of an attack.
Great report Ion! Good to see these tested out and some options discussed.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Mark. Trying to decide on another Army level action. Considering Quatre-Bras, maybe with d'Erlon's Corps turning up.
Delete