Battle and Campaign Casualties

 

 

The only purpose of my 1813 campaign is to provide interesting battles to wargame.  Each campaign phase is now designed to provide about 9 battles

However I also want the campaign to recreate an acceptable Napoleonic strategic appearance.  This second objective has long caused me serious problems in designing and managing the campaign.

Most, if not all, historical campaigns follow the same general principles.  The attacking general aims to achieve overwhelming odds and a strategic advantage for the opening battles of the campaign.   This was particularly so during the Napoleonic period.  Having achieved this initial objective the attacker would follow up and seek to destroy the weakened enemy army.

Any wargamer will quickly realise that this is not going to achieve my objective of interesting wargames.   And certainly not six or more battles/wargames per campaign phase..   In most wargames casualties are much higher than in historical battles.   It is very hard, if not impossible, to wargame a tactical retreat.   This is particularly true if the wargame rules used rely heavily on luck, in the form of dice.  

If the winning army is allowed to aggressively pursue the retreating losing army, the second and subsequent battles will be very uneven.  This is because it is hard to win a wargame when one side starts the game with many more casualties than the other side, and particularly if those casualties are in cavalry or artillery.

It did not take me very long to realise these limitations.    And given that I wanted each wargame to be enjoyable, I have to find a way to reduce the impact of losing a wargame.   I did so by allowing both armies to be reinforced to reduce the effect of battle casualties.  

First I kept the actual wargame casualties, but moved them into one infantry brigades per corps.   For example if there were seven infantry casualties spread between four brigades, I would concentrate them all in one brigade with seven casualties and three brigades with no casualties.   This worked quite well, because both armies would have three full strength brigades and the odd casualties in the fourth brigade would mean it was non operational.

But it didn’t work so well with artillery and cavalry casualties.  There is only one brigade of each per corps, so they could not be concentrated in one brigade.   In my rules each casualty is minus 1 on morale and combat tests, so a brigade with two casualties is effectively non operational.

I overcame this problem by keeping all casualties in the brigade which received them, but reducing each brigade to just one casualty.   This meant a slight disadvantage for such a brigade of minus one for combat and morale tests.   Because both armies had similar numbers of brigades affected this worked reasonably well.   I have used this system for many years.

In my current campaign rules each army has nine corps, divided into three armies of three corps each.   These armies can only move east or west, and consequently remain opposed to the same opponent throughout the campaign phase.  If one side has more brigades affected than the other, this will remain a problem throughout the whole campaign phase.  

However recently I have become increasingly aware that even these reduced casualties can give the winning side too much of an advantage.   And particularly when the casualties are cavalry or artillery.

Using one 6 sided dice, adjusted by appropriate plus and minus factors, to decide all combat and melee tests give a fast and decisive result.   When two very experienced players regularly game together this is necessary to avoid long and protracted wargames.   But it can make it very difficult to overcome casualties.

For example in counter battery fire a total of 6 is required at long range, and 5 or 6 at close range.   If one side has just one casualty it is impossible to hit the enemy gunners at long range.   It is also difficult to prevent enemy cavalry from charging and routing the gunners.

I have therefore decided to play test a dramatic change in the rules.  In future battle casualties will be recorded, but ALL will be replaced before the next battle/wargame.   I appreciate that to most wargamers this would be too drastic to be acceptable.   And if the aim was to replicate historical campaigns I would agree with them.   But our aim is to wargame battles where both sides have an equal chance of winning each game.   Otherwise the player who loses the first battle of a campaign will almost certainly lose all subsequent battles also.

Already we start each new campaign phase at full strength.   This change will mean that we now start each battle/wargame at full strength.  I am not sure whether this adjustment will remove some of my enjoyment of the campaign itself, which is why I am going to play test it to see how we feel about it.