Battle of Gadebusch
Hills have always played an important part in my wargames, and particularly since I started a campaign to provide battles to wargame.
In a campaign it is difficult to recreate mountain ranges, such as the Alps. To do so would require the whole table being covered in terrain which was impossible for corps and divisions to deploy on. In Napoleonic campaigns these large areas were obstacles to be crossed, rather than areas to deploy and fight battles. In some campaigns, such as the Iberian Peninsula, they would be the scene of small scale guerrilla combat. More suited to skirmish type wargames, rather than corps sized games.
In my campaign wargames hills are represented by largely flat topped oblong shapes, looking more like a series of ridges rather than mountain ranges. This is because I wanted to allow my corps to deploy and fight, rather than struggle through a table where they could only follow one narrow track and fight a series of skirmish actions.
All arms are allowed to cross these obstacles, but at half movement rate. Combat is usually fought as if on a ridge. The defending artillery usually deploy on the forward edge facing the enemy. The infantry usually slightly further back, to avoid the attacking artillery. This makes them a very difficult target to attack.
It also creates a lot of debate about whether attacking artillery can hit troops who are not at the front of the ridge, and therefore not in direct line of sight. And if that is allowed why not defending artillery deploying in a similar position. Then there is the question whether cavalry can charge on a hill, or up or down from a hill. All of this would be allowed on a flat topped ridge, but would not be possible on a mountain range.
We have struggled with these questions for quite a long time. One obvious decision leads to a less obvious one and so on. Finally we have decided to redefine who can do what on “hills”.
In future only infantry will be allowed to engage in combat on “hills”. Infantry, cavalry and artillery will all be allowed to move across hills, but at half movement speed. However only infantry will be allowed to fight, and will do so exactly the same as on flat ground. Artillery will be allowed to deploy on the forward edge of the hill, but nowhere else.
It will be interesting to discover whether this clear cut decision actually results in a series of unintended consequences. This often happens when we bring in a new rule to overcome problems resulting from long time game play with two players who both know the rules extremely well.
thistlebarrow -
ReplyDeleteOne idea I had for hills of the type you use (and I prefer as well) is to make the leading edge the 'military crest'. For troops on the hill and, say, an inch or more back from the military crest, the plain in front of the hill is dead ground. And for troops in the plain, anything farther back than an inch from the front edge is also invisible. They are visible to anyone on a similar or higher elevation.
You might prefer that a single contour elevation presents no obstacle to line of sight between one standing on it and one standing below. It just represents slight undulations in the ground. A second or more elevation does represent something more substantial in which the military and physical crests have some significance concerning line of sight. Having said that, you own hills strike me as something more than slight variations in ground elevation.
Cheers,
Ion
Thanks for your thoughts
DeleteMy terrain is used in many different games, 477 since the campaign began in April 2009. So it has to be adaptable, hence only one contour. I do use the forward edge as the military crest, and that works well. I now only allow attacking artillery to fire on line of sight, so anything behind the crest can not be fired upon.
The problem is that this encourages the defender to hide behind the crest, giving him a big advantage. The attacker has to take casualties as he climbs the hill, without being able to inflict any on the defender To counter this defending brigades have to test morale if the enemy is first sighted at less than 4".
I would like to reward infantry combat on hills, rather than artillery or cavalry. Time will tell whether I have got this right yet
regards
Paul
Paul -
DeleteThe Army Level scale of your battles (and my own 'Big Battles' set) suggests to me that there ought to be no huge advantage to either side when there is a sudden encounter between infantry behind the (military or physical) crest and whatever pops up in front of them. There is sufficient advantage I think in the inability of the attacker to lay on an effective artillery preparation.
Just my own view...
Cheers,
Ion
Hi Ion
ReplyDeleteGood point.
However I suggest that there are two sides to that. Apart from Wellington, most allied commanders deplolyed their troops on the forward slope, in full view of the enemy. I recall reading that when Wellington visited Blucher just before the battle of Ligny he suggested that the Prussian commander move his infantry behind the ridge, but the latter dismissed the idea as his men "liked to see the enemy". This has always struck me as significant, as it seems obvious to deploy your defending infantry out of sight. But on reflection I decided that hearing the enemy approaching, but not being able to see them, must have a considerable morale effect, especially on conscript or poorly trained infantry.
However with my lastest amendment to the rules I have removed the need for defenders to test their morale if they first sight the enemy within 4". But I will review this rule after some play testing to see how it works out.
I have found that wargaming can not always recreate historical tactics, and particularly so with a simple set of rules like mine, which rely so much on one dice roll to resolve combat and morale.
Thanks for your comment, it is always good to have a different take and to consider the implications.
regards
Paul
Paul -
ReplyDeleteInteresting you should point out the Ligny thing - that was one incident I had in mind yesterday. The thing about the 'shop window', was that it was apt to get smashed by incoming, and that is indeed what happened to a goodish part of the Prussian Army at that battle. At Waterloo, the Anglo-Dutch lines were largely protected from such attentions. Late in the battle, with the cavalry assailing the squares, but one French battery made it forward to whence it could batter the British lines. It did a lot of execution - which, I think, says something about the outcome had Ney or Napoleon bethought themselves to bring up more of the arty.
At a (minor) tactical level, the hill line defenders are likely to have a skirmish line on the forward slopes, not such a great target for incoming gun fire, and annoying to an advancing enemy. This line being driven in will alert the heavier foot of the approaching enemy, so their shakos heaving up over the reverse slope skyline won't be such a shock.
Army level games such as your own, very often subsume skirmish lines as too much 'below the grain' sensibly to be depicted with figures (I do, but my infantry tactical formations - 24 figures usually - are much larger). Skirmishers are usually incorporated in some way into the combat mechanics. It seems to be very likely that, even behind the hillcrests, units can still 'see' (after a fashion) what lies beyond.
From what I can gather, your current system seems to me about right.
Cheers,
Ion
Hi Ion
DeleteI agree with the conflict between division, corps and army level games, it is one of the most difficult things to get right when writing wargame rules. We all want to command multiple corps on the wargames table, but we also want to be able to have skirmish actions!
My rules include skirmish actions, but they are abstrated as you suggest. If a brigade halts within 4" of the enemy, and still has half of their move left, they can skirmish fire. It is decided by the roll of 1D6. They need 5 or 6 for trained, and 6 for conscript, to inflict casualties. But if they do so the enemy must test their morale. So the skirmish part of the battle, which was important, does play a part. But unfortunately no extended lines of skirmish figures on the table.
It is always a matter of compromise and trying to get the balance just right.
regards
Paul