Russian Army
There are ten armies in my
campaign, most consisting of four corps.
Each corps has four infantry brigades, one cavalry brigade and corps
artillery. The Russian army shown above
shows how this looks in wargame figures.
This organisation was chosen
for a number of reasons.
First my collection of wargame
figures were already a similar organisation, though each represented a corps of
four divisions.
Second they fit on my 6x6 foot
wargames table. The table is made up of
nine 2x2 foot scenic squares. Each
corps fits comfortably on one square.
One square is also the area covered by one grid square on the campaign
map.
When I was planning the
campaign I wanted to be able to wargame a maximum of four corps per side. Three would be side by side across the width
of the table, with the fourth in reserve behind.
Start of wargame with four
corps per side
This photo gives a good
illustration of how crowded the table is when there are four corps on each
side. The four Russian corps are shown
at the start of the game. Three French
corps will enter at the start of move 1, and the fourth at the start of move 5.
There are two problems with
this organisation.
First it takes a long time for
the attacking army to arrive on the table.
Movement is tied to the campaign, where only one corps is allowed in
each square and can move three squares per day. On the wargames table there is space for one
corps on each square, and it takes 4 moves (out of 12 per day) to cross one
square. This is why the reserve corps
does not arrive until move 5.
It then takes a further 4
moves to reach the enemy in the centre of the table. This leaves only 4 moves for the reserve corps
to influence the game. It is simply not
long enough.
In addition when there are
four corps fighting side by side there is insufficient space for them to
deploy. I have always accepted this
limitation, because I consider that when the later stages of a battle were
reached it would be very crowded and difficult to deploy. However it makes for a very confused
wargame.
For the next campaign I am
considering how I can solve these two problems.
Each army will remain four
corps as at present. However I will
look for a way to either restrict battles to two or three corps per side, or
create a new reserve role for the fourth corps. This may well prove easier to describe than
to achieve.
Thistlebarrow,
ReplyDeleteI'll be interested to see how this line of thought develops. My collection needs to be organised, and I've been giving serious thought to adopting a similar formation organisation to the one that you use.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Paul,
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting issue. Squeezing multiple corps into a narrow frontage across a limited road network should probably, historically, lead to similar results as you're seeing: the last corps to arrive can only impact the battle fairly late in the day. This is fine if its role is to reinforce a wavering corps, or to pursue a breakthrough, or in the worst case to cover the retreat. In other words, classic reserve tasks. It seems to me this is already covered by your rules at present?
If that makes for a fun enough game experience is a different question of course :-)
A possible solution, perhaps, might be to launch the attack earlier in the day. As it stands, assuming 12 hours (turns) of daylight starting at 06:00, your attacking corps will be in action by 10:00 at the earliest. However, if they rise bright and early and skip breakfast, they could be in action shortly after dawn.
Such an early advance under the cover of darkness requires a good reconnaissance of the approach and of the enemy positions. So you might limit it to corps that have ended the previous day with time to spare (for example they've moved a maximum of one square instead of their full three?) and, of course, some light cavalry and/or enterprising generals to actually conduct the reconnaissance.
There are other factors to consider. An early attack lengthens the duration of the battle and may throw off your current game balance. You may also want to account for the onset of exhaustion when multiple early starts are made in close succession. An insufficiently trained, motivated and/or supplied army could not undertake an early start I think. They'd get lost stumbling around their own camp in the dark!
Anyway, this is what sprang to my mind and I thought I'd share. You know your own game best of course! I don't really have any suggestions on how to deal with "crowding" when you deploy four corps into three squares, except that maybe you just have to accept that corps in combat are messy things that don't stay neatly inside their boxes ;-)
Looking forward to see what you come up with.
Hi Yuri
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments
I think the present system is reasonably historical, but it does not make for a good wargame. As always the problem is to compromise sufficiently to allow an interesting wargame, but not to deviate too much.
I try to keep the campaign system and the wargame itself in parallel. The 12 hour campaign day and 12 move wargame day is really important. I do allow a wargame an extra move or two if necessary to resolve the game, and put this down to a battle which extends into early evening.
You also make an important point, and that is maintaining the balance. For the wargame this is very, very important. I believe it is the most important compromise required. The whole campaign is designed to produce interesting wargames, and that must remain the main purpose.
It is also very important to keep both the wargame and the campaign rules simple and avoid complicated amendments to meet particular problems. Over the years I have found that when I amended a commercial set of rules to solve a table top problem I usually created an unexpected problem is a later wargame!
I could solve the late arrival problem by allowing the reinforcing corps to arrive early, and put this down to a forced march to “the sound of the guns”. But that does not solve the problem of the crowded table.
At present I am leaning towards a maximum of three corps per side. But I dislike the idea of never being able to put all four corps on the table at once. I will just have to experiment in the next campaign phase and see what w
Hi Yuri
ReplyDeleteI cut and pasted the last comment, and left out the end of the final sentence. Should read ".....and see what works best"
Put it down to a senior moment!
regards
Paul
Hi Bob
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment
I think there are two big advantages to my organisation
First it actually works well on the wargames table. It is possible to have a fast and fun small game with one corps per side. It is also possible to increase the corps per side to give a more complicated and longer lasting game. Most important the enjoyment neither increases nor dimishes with the size of game. The larger one is just more complicated, and allows the player to carry on through one or two bad dice throws. With a one to one corps game, providing both players have a good grasp of the rules, a single bad dice throw can mean defeat, particularly for the attacker.
Second it allows a new wargamer to create and field a full corps with the minimum of expenditure. A corps has 32 infantry, 4 cavalry and 1 gun and crew. This is one one or two infantry battalions in most wargame rules. This small number of figures allows both a novice or experienced player to experience all the command and control problems of a corps commander. Fielded as four infantry brigades, one cavalry brigade and corps artillery is allows a wide range of tactical options.
The biggest disadvantage is whether a player can accept so few figures to represent a full corps. Old School used 32-36 figures to represent one infantry battalion. Current favourite seems to be 12 figures to represent the same battalion. Given the average sized wargames table a player will be hard pressed to fight more than a division sized battle, or a single corps one at a stretch. As always compromise is necessary to fight multi corps wargames. But perhaps 8 figures to represent an infantry brigade will be a stretch too far?
I will be very interested to see how you solve this problem.
regards
Paul
I have long admired the way you organise your armies into Corps Paul. Playing multi Corps sized games even on a 6 x 6 table was always going to be challenging, but you have clearly developed a system that really works for such, with plenty of open terrain for manoeuvring the armies.
ReplyDeleteHi Lee
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment
I have often wondered why Napoleonic wargamers insist on battalion wargame rules, and then on 12 to 36 figure battalions. For almost everyone this is going to restrict the size of game possible to division or single corps per side.
Yet the same wargamers all seem to want to refight Waterloo or Leipzig!
I appreciate that a lot of the appeal is visual, and also most come into the hobby using those type of rules. I read a lot on forums about 36 figure battalions "looking right". I understand this, because I also had this mind frame for many years.
But at the same time I was never really satisfied with division sized wargames. This often led to what I think was called "bath tubbing". This is calling a 36 figure unit a division. Surely that looks even less right?
I am a great believer is doing what you enjoy, and therefore what looks right to you. But I do find it difficult to understand this resistance to compromise to allow for multi corps games on the table available to you.
I think the expression "nowt so strange as folk" applies even more to wargamers.
regards
Paul