25 May 1813 -
Southern Germany - Day 5
Marshal Massena prepares to defend Obersdorf, Kufstein and Worgl.
7th army deploys east of Obersdorf
8th army retreats to Kufstein
9th army battle of Worgl
General Schwarzenberg continues to attack
1st army prepare to attack Obersdorf
2nd army occupy Sankt Johann
3rd army attacks Worgl
Battle of Worgl
Both armies lost heavy casualties during this hard fought battle
The French moved forward to attack, rather than wait for the Austrians
to do so
The Austrians held their ground, and repulsed the French]
However they lost too many casualties to then attack the fortified town
French lose 9 infantry, 7 cavalry and 1 gunner casualties (4400 men)
Austrians lose 10 infantry and 5 cavalry casualties (4500 men)
Comment
For some time our wargames have involved the defending side deploying either side of the town, with the commander taking a couple of elite brigades from each corps to reinforce the town. The attacking army would also create an elite attack force in the middle, often including the artillery from at least one of the corps, and would attack the town.
This was driven by the campaign supply rules. This required each corps to stay within supply distance of its main supply town. This was usually the one behind the town being attacked. To build up the forward towns as the main supply base risked losing everything if they lost the battle.
However the result was really a wargame consisting of a short siege followed by the storm of the town. This game was a deliberate attempt to move away from this model.
Worgl is one of the three most westerly towns in the campaign, so there was not a town further east to become the main supply base for 3rd army. It is also just one days march south of Kufstein, which is the main supply base for the whole French army of central Europe. So the defending French army could be deployed in front of Worgl, and one of the two corps would still be within one day’s march of Kufstein.
You will see from photo 2 above how this looked on the wargames table. The French are deployed in the three centre squares. Worgl is behind the centre of the French position, and is held by two militia brigades. The Austrians started the game off table at the bottom of the photo, but entered the table at the start of move one.
Jan (who commanded the French army) decided to attack the Austrians as they entered the t able. This was not in my original plan, but it did add an interesting edge to the game. The result was a very hard fought battle, and one in which neither side could use their artillery effectively. This photo is taken at the end of move two, and already a cavalry melee has been fought. This is because both armies are moving towards each other.
The result was a short, but very hard fought, wargame. It finished at the end of move 8 (out of a possible 12 moves. By then most brigades of both brigades were in rout, or very close to doing so. This is partly because they all started the game with casualties from earlier battles, but also because there was a lot of close combat fighting very early in the game.
I enjoyed it, and it has prompted me to consider changing the orders of battle. At present there are two corps in each army, who deploy across three scenic squares on the table. This was done to create a lot of space to manoeuvre. But it resulted in both armies having to create a “reserve” under command of the CinC. I am looking at the option of increasing to three the number of corps in each army. This would allow one corps to deploy in each of the three scenic squares. It would also allow the commander to create a real reserve to reinforce any breakthrough or concentrate elite troops to create the breakthrough. This is all at the planning stage at present, but is looking very likely. It is likely to be introduced for the next campaign phase to see how it works on the table.
Thistlebarrow,
ReplyDeleteIi is interesting that such a had fought battle could end up with neither side actually winning, although both sides will no doubt claim it as a victory. It is also interesting how a series of battles can throw up situations that make one rethink some aspect of the rules or organisation you are using.
My current ‘Franco-Prussian War of 1810’ is a case in point. After the first few moves of the campaign, I realised that the rules needed a few tweaks, and the first battle showed me that the casualty replacement mechanism was actually going to be less effective (I.e. simple and easy to use) than expected, with the result that I have now changed it for something that should work easier and which places limitations on how long the participants may feel able to carry in fighting.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob
DeleteThanks for your comment
I have been thinking about the same problem. I think it is because the wargame is linked to the campaign. One move on the table is one hour in the campaign. A wargame lasts a maximum of 12 moves. This has worked well for many years. However as the games get more complicated 12 moves is sometimes not long enough.
If the defending army fights in front of a town which has a full garrison (two brigades) it can take all 12 moves to defeat the main army in front of the town. In doing so the attacking army is spread all over the table, and can not concentrate to attack the town. Nor is there any time left to do so.
The obvious answer is a second day of battle. But that is usually a very short battle, as the defenders have been broken the previous day. So perhaps the answer is the defenders claim victory, but then retreat the next day. This is how I have solved the problem in the past. But it does mean that the "loser" actually wins the battle!
I have also struggled long and hard with your current problem about wargame casualties affect on the campaign. I have found that if all wargame casualties go into the campaign, it is very likely that the side which won the first battle will also win the campaign. This is because in a wargame the side with the most troops, and particularly the most cavalry and artillery, has a huge advantage in subsequent wargames. Even more so if one side has no cavalry or artillery, and the other has. MY solution is to replace all casualties, less 10%, in each brigade, but over a rest period when the corps is not in contact with the enemy, is in supply and is not moving. This disadvantage lasts for the remainder of the campaign.
regards
Paul