Sunday, 4 October 2026

Planning the armies of the 1813 campaign


 

Typical corps

 

I explained last week how I found myself with a large collection of painted figures, from which I now wanted to create all of the major armies of the 1813 campaign.

I had a very clear idea what I wanted to achieve, but not how to do so.

I wanted to use every figure in my collection in a series of campaigns

So do so I wanted to use them in sequence, with one allied nation in each campaign

I had 160 infantry, 16 cavalry and 4 guns in each allied “army”.    This was to be a fictional campaign based on 1813.  But I wanted to make it “feel” and look like a Napoleonic campaign.   So the basic army had to be a corps.  It would be very unusual for a French army to have just one corps, so my existing figures would have to represent three or four corps.  My wargames table was built by using nine 2x2 foot squares.

They were three wide and three deep.   I found that if I divided each army into four corps they would fit one corps to one square.    Thus I could have three corps wide and one corps in reserve for each army.

Fortunately my armies provided 4 infantry, 1 cavalry and 1 gun for each of the new four corps.   You will see what I mean in the photograph above.   Each corps would have 4 brigades of 8 infantry, one brigade of 4 cavalry and one corps artillery of one gun.   The four infantry figures left over would provide skirmishers if required.

I based the infantry and cavalry two figures to a stand.    This means that my infantry brigades could form column of march, column of attack, line and square.    My cavalry could form column of march and line.   I had to get used to 8 figures representing a brigade of infantry, but that was an acceptable compromise.  

Before leaving the UK I had discovered Le Feu Sacre (LFS) rules, which I really liked using.  However they are designed for a one corps game, with 12  infantry figures representing a battalion.  I decided to design my own rules, relying very heavily on the principles of LFS.   The only difference was that I replaced their orders of battle with my own 8 infantry figure brigades, 4 cavalry figure brigades and 1 gun for corps artillery.

These rules rely on command and control very heavily, which I liked.  It rewarded historical Napoleonic tactics.   Their command figure was brigade and division.   Mine would be corps and army.

I am very pleasantly surprised to find that the original planning back in 2008 has largely survived 18 years of frequent Wargaming.   We always have a game on the table and have a couple of moves four or five times a week.  It usually takes us about 10 to 14 days to complete a 12 move game.

The only major adjustment is that we soon adapted to three corps games.   This meant that each mini campaign order of battle would consist of slightly different armies as I switched the four corps to provide armies of three corps.

Next week I will consider designing the wargames table, which would be the foundation of the orders of battle and the campaign maps.

8 comments:

  1. Another fascinating insight into your thought process behind your campaign, look forward to reading how you designed your table.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Donnie
    Thanks for your comment
    Glad that you enjoyed the post
    The table was the most important element
    The size decided not only the orders of battle, but also the campaign maps

    regards
    Paul

    ReplyDelete
  3. That was interesting Paul. It's always good in my book to adjust and adapt a set of rules to suit one's purposes and resources. Opting to go for brigade/corps level games has give you a lot more scope. Eighteen years of frequent wargaming is a real testament, as you say! Playing a wargame out over several sessions really adds to the enjoyment and allows time for reflection doesn't it?
    Best wishes, James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi James. Thanks for your comment. I think all of us who have wargamed for some time have had to change and adjust as a result of the actual gaming to maintain our interest. There may be some wargamers who still use Don Featherstone or WRG rules, but I suspect they are in a minority. Personally I changed and adopted commercial rules for more than 30 years before finally writing my own rules. And even then I adjusted those rules as a result of game play. I am a great believer in "to each their own" and would never say one approach is better than another. Indeed it says a lot for the hobby that there has never been one rule set accepted by everyone. I am fortunate that my wife is my opponent, because I only have to convince one person. And, of course, she always has the final say!
      regards
      Paul

      Delete
  4. This all sounds very interesting?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ray.
      Not sure whether the ? should be there? If not, glad you are finding it interesting.
      regards
      Paul

      Delete
  5. Thistlebarrow,

    For some reason Feedly didn’t notify of this latest - and very interesting - blog post.

    I must admit that I’m very taken with the way you organise your corps, and if I ever get around to getting my Napoleonic gpfiguresoutof storage, I may well reorganise them along similar lines.

    All the best,

    Bob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Bob.
      Nice to hear form you again

      I am very pleased with how well the corps organisation is working. It was driven by necessity, given that the aim was to use all of the figures in my collection. I am quite used to the size of the brigades and corps, but I can well understand that it would not suit everyone. From a wargame point of view it works really well, particularly with the three game objectives and the winner being the one who holds at least two. It allows a lot of flexability, particularly to the attacker. He has to attack all three objectives, but can create a reserve and support the two most likely ones.
      best regards
      Paul

      Delete

I have set the settings for comments to come to me before posting so that I will not miss any