Start of Cordova Campaign Phase

 

Central Germany – Campaign Phases 

Cordova is set in southern Spain and follows the French invasion under the command of marshal Suchet and the Spanish defence led by General Giron.   This is the fifth phase to be fought in southern Spain.   The French won three phases and the Spanish only one.

Of all five campaign areas this is by far the most difficult to model.   As you know my 1813 campaign is designed to provide interesting battles to wargame.   That means giving both players a reasonable chance of winning each of the wargames fought.

In previous phases I have tried to weaken the French by including the guerrilla war, which played such an important role in the historical campaign.   The French had to detach large numbers of men to protect their lines of supply, which were under constant attack by the Spanish irregular forces.  

This war within a war had a critical strategic bearing on the campaign.   French supplies had to travel hundreds of miles, and were under constant attack.  However by and large they did arrive.   However the French commanders had to disperse their armies in order to supplement these supplies by living off the land.

It did not however have any real tactical effect.   I can’t think of any battle in the Peninsular which was affected by the guerrilla war.   And my primary interest in the campaign is the wargames which is produces.

Gaming the lines of supply and the guerrilla war has taken up a lot of time and effort, for relatively little reward.    And as the French won three of the previous four campaign phases it clearly did not balance the French and Spanish armies on the wargames table

Cordova Campaign Map

For this campaign is am trying out a new idea.   The Spanish will have considerably more brigades than the French.  There will be nine French corps against 16 Spanish corps.  

All armies are based on the number and type of wargame figures on my shelf.   Apart from the Spanish all French and allied corps (in wargame figures) have four infantry brigades of 8 figures, one cavalry brigade of 4 figures and corps artillery of 1 gun and 4 figures.   So all corps have the same number of infantry, cavalry and artillery.

The Spanish have two such corps, but the other two do not have any cavalry.   Many years ago, long before I created my 1813 campaign, I replaced my Minifigs 28mm figures with Foundry figures.   This allowed me to buy exactly the number and type of figures I wanted at the time.    My infantry units 16 figures, 4 skirmishers and 1 mounted officer.   My cavalry were 8 figures.  

For some long forgotten reason I did not apply this logic to the Spanish.   They included a mixture of regular, militia and guerrilla figures.   But they only had two cavalry units of 8 figures, unlike the other nations which had four such.

Spanish corps (including cavalry brigade)

In each wargame the French will have 9 infantry brigades, 3 cavalry brigades, 3 corps artillery

The Spanish will have 16 infantry brigades,2 cavalry brigades, 4 corps artillery

This is a huge advantage in numbers .    To balance the infantry will be almost entirely conscript and poor quality skirmishers.   The cavalry will be trained, as will the gunners.   Otherwise both would be virtually useless, particularly in later games when they have casualties.

I anticipate that the major difference will be artillery.   The attacking French will always be outgunned.   Yet to press home an attack they will have to advance and risk artillery casualties.   Their slight advantage in cavalry will help, but probably only in the early games of the campaign.

The main Spanish disadvantage will be the poor quality infantry.   If the French can rout one brigade there is a good chance any supporting troops within 4” will fail their morale and join them.

However if the Spanish guns can cause casualties to any of the three cavalry brigades, or the three corps artillery, the French will be unable to deliver an attack with any hope of success.

I have no idea how all of this is going to work out.   As always it will depend on the luck of the dice.   I suspect I may have to reduce the quality of the Spanish cavalry, which would be correct in historical terms.   Hopefully I will not have to do the same for the Spanish gunners.   My understanding is that they were the best of all three arms in the Spanish army.   But more important it would make it very difficult for the Spanish player to win.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming campaign.

End of Nordhausen Campaign Phase

Central Germany – Campaign Phases

Nordhausen was the fifth campaign fought in central Germany since the Sixth campaign began in June 2020.   The Russians won three of the five campaign phases.   Out of a total of 29 battles/wargames fought, the Russians won14.   All of this would appear to indicate that the balance between armies is about right.    However in the Nordhausen campaign the Russians won all six battles/wargames.

Central Germany – Battles Fought 

This is the first time this has happened since the 1813 campaign began in April 2009.   Since then there have been 97 campaign phases and 519 battles fought.   I can’t remember a since phase when one side won all of the battles.   Even in southern Spain the French did not manage to do this even once.   Most Spanish victories were of a technical nature, with the French failing to achieve the battle/game objectives within the 12 hours/moves allowed.   But this is allowed because the relative strengths of the two armies make it necessary to set an artificial target, rather than the destruction of the enemy army.

I spent a lot of time pondering why this happened during my recent Christmas and New Year spent in the UK, but can find no obvious reason.   None of the battles started with an obvious winner or loser likely.   During the first three battles both sides were full strength.   During the last three both had casualties, but the Russians tended to have more because they lost the first three battles.   But the French casualties were often on elite infantry brigades or cavalry brigades. This is because those suffered the most casualties by doing most of the fighting.

I came to the conclusion that it was just a matter of luck.   I considered changing the rules, but could not see any obvious way to ensure a more equal outcome.   Once more I have to put it down to the luck of the dice.   All six games were enjoyable for both players, and the decisive melee often decided the winner and loser.   As far as I can remember there was no particularly bad run of luck for the French.  

The next campaign will be in southern Spain, which is always a challenging campaign to plan.   I have made major changes in the order of battle for this next phase, but more about that next week.

Christmas Holiday

We have just returned from the UK, where we spent Christmas and New Year with our family.   All of my wargame and campaign is on my desktop, so I have to go “cold turkey” when we are in the UK.  

It is lovely to visit the family, and we always have a very enjoyable time with them.    But after a few days I find it quite difficult to find things to do.    Christmas in Northumberland can be quite a shock after spending the rest of the year in the Costa Blanca.   It is often wet and cold, though this year we were very lucky with the mild weather.  And we returned just as the heavy snow arrived.

It made me realise just how much I rely on my computer, and how difficult it is to replace it.   My IPad and mobile phone makes it easy to keep up with news and what friends are up to, but it does not replace the couple of hours each day I spend on joint hobbies of Wargaming and my Monday Ramblers walking group.  

You will all know about my 1813 campaign, and that I spend a couple of hours most days either Wargaming, updating the campaign or writing the two blogs.   Some years ago, when it was a PBEM campaign, I transferred everything on to my laptop and took it with me.   However I found it impossible to concentrate without appearing unsociable, and of course I could not fight the battles as a wargame.   Now I just switch off until we return to Spain.   Fortunately I can keep up with wargame blogs and forums, but it is not the same.

I miss my walking group just as much.  It is a U3A group, which I have run for the past ten years.  We started as a hill walking group, but as we got older we found the hill climbing too much of a challenge.   A couple of years ago I converted it into a more gentle valley walking group.  There are 30 regular members, and we meet each Monday for a three hour walk.   I am fortunate to live in the very popular walking area in and around the Jalon valley.   I have created 30 walks, including a few easier hill walks, which we do in sequence.   We are all friends, and we miss them a lot when we are in the UK.

In addition to walking each week, I also do a blog post of each walk.  I have always recorded my walks by taking photographs and started the blog 20 years ago to keep friends and family in touch when we moved to Spain.   In recent years I have also started a group Facebook page to recruit new members.   Two years ago a friend suggested that I do a YouTube version of the blog, and I now post a video about once a month.   All of this requires an hour or so each day.

So when I return after two weeks in the UK there is a lot of work to catch up on.   All of this is a work of love, so I am not in any way complaining.   But it does explain why I have not posted for two weeks, and why I have to find a non wargame subject whilst I try to catch up on the wargame campaign.

Happy New Year to you all.  

 

Nordhausen Campaign – Day Six

 

7 September 1813 – Nordhausen Campaign - Day 6

French abandon Nordhausen
4 French army – day 2 siege of Weringerode
5 French army – abandon Nordhausen and retreat west
6 French army – defend Ebelben

Russian attack Ebelben
1 Russian army – day 2 siege of Weringerode
2 Russian army – occupy Nordhausen
3 Russian army – attack Ebelben

Battle of Ebelben – table at the end of move 2

Sixth French army is commanded by Marshal Poniatowski
Third Russian army is commanded by General Winzingerode

French – 12 infantry brigades, 3 cavalry brigade, 3 corps artillery
Russian – 12 infantry brigades, 3 cavalry brigade, 3 corps artillery

French – 8 infantry, 2 cavalry and 1 artillery casualties (3,500 men)
Russian – 3 infantry and 1 cavalry casualties (2,500 men)

There are three game objectives
Walled farm on the right
Hill in the centre
Hill on the left
The side who control at least two at the end of move twelve win the game

On the right 7th Russian corps are delayed passing through the woods
They place their cavalry, artillery and one infantry brigade on their left
The other three infantry brigades advance to the right of the farm
The French have only two brigades to oppose them, and lose the firefight
The Russian infantry, supported by their artillery, then attack and take the farm

In the centre 8th Russian corps follow a similar deployment
Three infantry brigades attack the hill
The are opposed by three French brigades
After an extended melee the Russians take the hill

Between the two hills the French have concentrated two corps artillery, cavalry and infantry
The Russians deploy two cavalry brigades, corps artillery and one brigade
Neither side are prepared to risk an attack and there is no fighting, other than artillery fire,

On the left 5th Russian corps attack the hill with three infantry brigades
The fourth brigade support the artillery who deploy on the right to support the cavalry reserve
The French hold the hill against determined attacks throughout the day
But on move 12 the final Russian reserve attack and break the Vistula grenadier brigade
The Russians hold the hill, but we both felt the Polish infantry should have done so

Comments
The terrain in this battle is very similar to the previous one
The orders of battle are also similar, though starting with more casualties
The French have twice as many casualties as the Russian army
So it is surprising that the Russians finish the game with all three objectives

The orders of battle are similar, but the deployment is different
Cavalry and artillery are unable to fight on hill, so are not required against two objectives
The French place guns from two corps in the centre, between the hills
They are supported by one cavalry and one infantry brigade
The Russians oppose them with two cavalry brigades, but supported by the corps on either side
The Russian commander is unwilling to risk an attack against so much artillery]
The French commander does not have to attack, only to hold the approach to the town
So no fighting takes place in the centre.

Under our current rules hills are held, and taken, by infantry.
Both hills are closer to the French, and are occupied by their infantry
This gives them a definite advantage against the attacking Russian infantry

However the outcome is decided by luck
First which side moves first when the attacking infantry move within combat range
Second how kind the dice are for skirmish, musket and melee combat
With three brigades on each side the luck is usually pretty equal and balanced

The Vistula corps hold the hill on the left, and they fight aggressively against the Russian attacks
The Russian infantry lose the early stages of the combat, but are able to rally one or two brigades
As we start the last move there is one Polish brigade on the hill, and two Russian brigades
But only the leading Russian brigade will reach the Poles before the end of the 12 moves
Both brigades are elite grenadiers, both have 10% casualties, both have a commander within 4”
However the second Russian brigade is within supporting distance, which will help for morale.

The Russians chip comes up first, and they attack with a bonus of plus 1 for impact
The dice is 4, plus 1 for impact, gives them 5
The French lose 10% and are disordered
The Russians do not lose any casualties but are also disordered
The French lose the morale test and retreat shaken
The Russians do not test because they are only disordered and their commander is within 4”
So the Russians have control of the hill at the end of 12 moves.

The Russians already held the other two game objectives, so would have won anyway
But we both felt it was really unfair that the Poles had done so well throughout the game
But lost on the last move, even though it was not just down to poor dice.

A few weeks ago I wrote on here that I considered Wargaming to be a game rather than recreating historical battles. But we both felt so committed to this particular game that any satisfaction resulting from the Russians winning was overshadowed by sadness that the hard fighting Poles lost.

Playing Wargames

 

 

Over the years my style of Wargaming has changed dramatically, as I suspect it has with most wargamers.   I started off playing on the kitchen table, then as the armies got bigger on the floor.   Eventually I managed to get a permanent wargames table, and they ranged from 4x4 foot to 12x6 foot.  

My main love has always been Napoleonic, but I have dabbled with Ancient and WW2.   My first wargame figures were a handful of Hinton Hunt 20mm metal figures, quickly reinforced by Airfix 20mm plastic figures as they became available.   My ancient armies were Romans and Ancient Britons, which was all  that was available from Airfix.   My WW2 much wider ranging because of their comprehensive range of both figures and vehicles.

The first few years was a very steep learning curve.   There was not material available, and my main source was the series of Don Featherstone books, which I bought as soon as they were published.

My first armies were just a collection of figures, grouped in units depending on the current rules available.   Finding a copy of Henry Harris “Collecting Model Soldiers”.   From memory it had chapters on infantry, cavalry artillery and how to go about collecting models.  It was aimed at Model Soldiers, rather than Wargaming figures, but it prompted me to reorganise my collection into correct military organisations.   I didn’t have enough figures for Brigades and above, nor enough to attempt any historical orders of battles.   But it did give me a structure and organisation which at least attempted historical formations.

For many, many years my wargames were a series of figures at either end of the wargames table, who would advance and fight a large melee.   There was no attempt at historical tactics, because I did not have the facilities to do so.  This was before skirmish wargames and the rules available did not have anything like orders of battle.  

As more reference material became available, and as I gained more knowledge about Napoleonic warfare, my collection began to take shape.   The games became more historical as the rules became more complicated.   But my main inclination was always the look of things, accurate uniforms and commercial period buildings.   When Wargames Illustrated arrived with its beautiful coloured photos of games from Peter Guilders Wargames Holiday Centre I, like many more, was inspired to improve the look of the table.   A couple of visits to WHC resulted in my first wargames table with sculpted scenery, though much smaller than Peter’s tables.

The games at WHC were spectacular in their scale and detail.    Waterloo looked like a diorama, with masses of figures to represent the various armies.   He did have orders of battle for each major battle, but they were not historical.   Each corps had a number of 36 figure units, but they were not grouped in brigades or divisions.   I followed this with my own collection.

It was only when I started my 1813 campaign in 2009 that I really concentrated on creating orders of battle that would not only suit the collection of figures I had available, but also fit both the campaign map and the wargames table.   The map was designed to be transferred to the table, so each map square had a corresponding square on the wargames table.    I put a lot of work into trying to transfer current road maps into campaign maps, but eventually designed my own campaign maps, working from the table up rather than the map down.   This required a lot of compromise, but the end result has worked really well.

Each wargame table is a military district on the campaign map, and each has a city or town.   These are the strategic objectives in the campaign, and the tactical objectives on the wargames table.  

Each wargames table has nine squares, and there is a physical feature on each square.   One of those is a town or city, and that is the campaign objective.   For many years the attacker had to defeat the enemy and force them to abandon the town.   This was very difficult to achieve within the 12 moves allowed, and more often than not at the end of the game the town had not been captured.   Most often the defender would retreat to the town, forcing the attacker to advance and have to deploy again.   I would often have to make a decision based on casualties or routed brigades to decide the winner.

It was only when I decided to have game objectives that I overcame this problem.  In the photo above there are nine squares, each with a terrain piece.   The town is at the top of the photo in the centre, and the defending army deploy in these three squares.   In the centre there is a hill on the left, a woods in the centre and a hill on the left.   Nearest the camera are three more squares, and these are where the attacker deploys.

So the battle for the town is fought in the three centre squares, and the player who controls at least two of the three at the end of 12 moves is the winner.   Having three objectives makes for a much more interesting wargame.  There are three corps per side, and each objectives is allocated to each corps.   The commander in chief can create a reserve by taking brigades from any of the three corps, which allows him to support one of the three corps and gives him a big tactical advantage.  It also encourages the defender to create his own reserve to counter this likely tactic.

But most important it clearly shows who won the game.  If the defender retreats he has to abandon one of the objectives, so this type of “gamesmanship” is no longer used.   It is possible, but very unusual, for neither player to control two of the three objectives.   Sometimes each player will hold one objective, but the third is still being fought over at the end of move 12.  In those cases we allow one more move, and if that does not work the game is declared a draw.   But the player with the most casualties or routed brigades must then retreat for the sake of the campaign.

I am at a loss to explain why it took me so many years to come up with this solution.   It now seems such an obvious way to decide the winner, and it also makes for a much more interesting wargame.

Nordhausen Campaign – Day Five

6 September 1813 – Nordhausen Campaign - Day 5

French start of siege of Weringerode
4 French army – day 1 of siege of Weringerode
5 French army – defend Nordhausen
6 French army – regroup at Ebelben

Russian attack Nordhausen
1 Russian army – day 1 siege of Weringerode
2 Russian army – attack Nordhausen
3 Russian army – regroup at Heldrungen

Battle of Nordhausen – table at the end of move 2

 French army is commanded by Marshal Moncey
Russian army is commanded by General Constantine

French – 12 infantry brigades, 3 cavalry brigade, 3 corps artillery
Russian – 12 infantry brigades, 3 cavalry brigade, 3 corps artillery

French have 7 infantry, 2 cavalry and 1 artillery casualties (3,100 men)
Russians have 5 infantry casualties (2,000 men)

Both armies start the battle with casualties, 3,100 French and 2,000 Russian

There are three objectives, all in the centre of the table
The hill on the left, the hill in the centre and the walled farm on the right
The side which hold at least two objectives at the end of 12 moves win the battle

The French start the battle in and around the city of Nordhausen
The Russians enter the table at the start of move one

On the right 15th French corps occupy the walled farm
4th Russian corps cavalry rout the French cuirassier brigade
This allows the infantry to advance from the woods and attack the farm
They fail to do so and retreat back to the woods

In the Centre Moncey takes command of half of 5th corps
He deploys the cavalry, artillery and infantry between the two hills
But he is unable to advance to support the attack on either hill
The remainder of 5th Russian corps storm the right hand hill
They quickly rout the defending French infantry and secure the hill

On the left 15th Baden corps hold the hill and area to the right
6th Russian corps deploy to the left of the hill but do not attack
Three Russian infantry brigades advance onto the hill
After a prolonged melee the Baden infantry retreat

The Russians have taken two of the three game objectives and win the battle.

Comments
Both commanders take command of one cavalry and one infantry brigade and corps artillery.
They deploy opposite each other in the centre between the two hills
Neither can gain an advantage, and neither will attack, so it is a stalemate in the centre

The French garrison the walled farm on the right with their jager brigade.
Despite a determined attack the French are unable to shift them
The French hold the farm at nightfall

The attack on both hills in an infantry affair, and the result largely down to luck
Both sides start with casualties and both have brittle morale.
The Russians take both hills.

The deciding factor on the right, was the artillery commanded by Marshal Moncey.
He lost both his cavalry and infantry brigades, but the gunners held to the left of the farm
From there they could fire into the attacking Russian infantry columns, to great effect
They also routed a heavy cavalry attack

This battle had a very Russian feel to it, with hard fought infantry fighting deciding the winner

What is Wargaming

Peter Guilders Wargames Holiday Centre 1984 

A recent post on TMP prompted me to consider just what are we all trying to achieve, and what is the best way to go about it.   The question asked why do most rules have what he called “myths”.   For example on the table cavalry move about twice as fast as infantry, though in real life they can move many times more.   This type of question has been raised for many years, and is an attempt to justify Wargaming as a serious attempt to recreate real battle.      

I started Wargaming  in 1969 when I found a copy of “Charge, or how to play wargames” in the local library.   This was long before the age of the internet, so I have no idea how other wargamers felt, but I assume that like me they just accepted the rules without question.

At the same time I discovered Don Featherstone and Wargamers Newsletter.   I bought each of his books as they were published, plus any other books available in England.   I guess I was about as informed as most wargamers.   I particularly remember Don writing something along the lines of “wargames can never be the same as war – it is a game”.   This idea has had a long lasting effect on my approach to Wargaming.   Not just because Don has served in the army in WW2, but because it just seems so obviously true.

WRG rules was the first attempt to turn our playing with soldiers into recreating history.   Very complicated rules requiring pages of charts to add or subtract from a dice throw attempted to cover every situation encountered in warfare.   They overlooked the fact that as soon as you use a dice you abandon any attempt to recreate warfare.  I used them for many years, but they were long winded and created not very enjoyable wargames.

It has always seemed obvious to me that if you want to refight historical battles they best way to do it would be using a board game.   This is similar to the military Wargaming, which was used extensively to test battle plans, however not with any great success.   I served in the military and was well aware of expression “the best laid plans are discarded when the first shot is fired”.

I suspect that most of us are drawn to Wargaming by the visual spectacle of large numbers of well painted model soldiers on attractive terrain.   However that is the diorama effect, not the wargame itself.

All wargame rules must compromise with historical fact to be playable.   You have only to consider that most of us play on a table 6x6 foot or less.   Those of us who use 28mm figures are faced with the most serious compromise.   If we wish to have any space to manoeuvre we must  restrict each army to about 300 figures per side.   The obvious answer is that we would stick to skirmish style games, but most of us really want to be Napoleon or Wellington.   Attempting to fight Waterloo on a 6x6 foot table with 28mm figures in never going to end well!

Wellington v Soult on my table 2024 

It is however possible to enjoy multi corps Napoleonic wargames with 28mm figures on such a table, but you have to accept that to do so you are playing a game – not recreating Waterloo itself.   I have done so for more than 20 years, and continue to do so.   I enjoy my Wargaming, but consider it a game of chance, with a pleasing visual effect.

I suspect that those who try to justify Wargaming as a serious attempt to refight historical battles are trying to convince everyone else that they are not just playing a complicated game of toy soldiers.   If they really wanted to recreate the tactical problems encountered by Wellington and Napoleon they would do so using computer or board games.

Trying to justify wargame movement rules for cavalry and infantry movement is never going to work.