Campaign Lessons

Location of eight corps at start of battle

We have just completed the Bayreuth Campaign, which is the 29^th phase of the 1813 campaign and the sixth phase set in central Germany.   The French won again, as they have done in five of the six phases.

The French won three of the four battles fought, making it a pretty one sided campaign phase.  This does not matter, became it is currently a solo campaign.

At this stage of the campaign I usually review the completed phase, so see if there are any lessons to be learnt.  

First there was the problem with Army and Corps commanders, which I have covered in the previous blogs.   They are now resolved, or at least I hope that they are.   It is usually easy to come up with a solution, but it is only when play tested for a couple of games that I can be confident that the problem is solved.   It is not unusual to create another unexpected problem by changing the original rule.   And this only becomes obvious after sufficient game play.

The second problem is more difficult to solve.   

Although there are four corps per side in each campaign phase, it is unusual for all eight corps to take part in one battle.   One or two corps per side is the norm.   Even commanding both armies it is quite difficult to concentrate all eight corps for one battle.   This is largely because of supply problems, or the direction of retreat due to losing a previous battle.

The final battle of the Bayreuth Campaign phase was fought with four corps per side.   It has happened before, but this time it highlighted the problem of transferring them from the map to the table.

On the map only one corps can occupy each map square.   On the wargames table only one corps can fit comfortably on one table square.   The table is three squares wide and three squares deep.   So at least one corps, and often one per side, will start the game off table.  

Each game lasts 12 moves (equal to 12 hours on the map).   It takes 4 moves to cross one table square.   So the reserve does not arrive until the start of move 5.   This is not a problem for the defender, but it does not allow the attacker sufficient time to move it into contact with the enemy.

This appears a simple problem, but a solution is not immediately obvious.   It upsets the whole balance of the rules, and gives the defending player a considerable advantage.

I have already given it some thought, but have not yet arrived at a solution which works well on the table and on the map.

The Portable Napoleonic Wargame

Some people appear to be able to scan a new set of rules and master them with ease.   I am at the opposite end of the scale.   The last set of rules I bought was “Le Feu Sacre” in 2005.    Reading the rules made no impression on me, I had to play with them four or five times before I could understand the basics.   Having mastered them I enjoyed playing with them for about two years, before I started to find fault with them.   This has been standard practice for me since I first bought “Charge or how to play wargames” in 1969.

I have just received a copy of “The Portable Napoleonic Wargame” by Bob Cordery.  He has named me in the acknowledgements as having helped him to write this book.   It is extremely kind of him, and I am very grateful.   He goes on to say that this blog and my 1813 campaign blog helped him.   Again very kind of him to say so.

I have never considered myself, or my various blogs, to be of any great influence.   My original intention when starting to blog was to record my wargame interests and in particular my 1813 campaign.   I wanted a permanent record of the campaign for my own benefit.  I have always kept written notes of previous campaigns, and blogging provided a more efficient way to do so.   I also hoped that my efforts might encourage others to get involved in wargame campaigns.

When I changed the 1813 campaign from solo to PBEM in 2009 the blog really came into its own.   The campaign and wargame rules were already online, and were now easily available to the campaign players.   The campaign blog became a diary of the campaign, with daily updates and battle reports for each of the five campaign areas.

Bob and I share a similar introduction to wargaming, along with many other UK wargamers of a certain age.   Like me, his first wargame book was “Charge”.   Like me he was greatly influenced by Don Featherstone.   However Bob became a leading light in Wargame Developments, whilst I continued to be fixed on Napoleonic wargaming and the period in general.   I have never belonged to WD, but have long been aware of it in the background of the hobby.  I have always considered it to be the intellectual side of the hobby.

My first impression of his book is that it looks very Old School.   This is a compliment, as I consider myself to be very much “Old School”.   Both physically and mentally.   The cover could easily have been one of Don Featherstone’s books.  There is a lot more photographs than Don ever managed, but they are in black and white as were most of Don’s books.  

I have never used the grid system favoured by Bob.   He mentions Joseph Morschauser’s rules, so perhaps that is more a USA rule mechanism.   I see it used quite a bit in the various blogs I follow, so it is obviously popular with some.

I am particularly impressed that he favours small numbers of figures for his games.   For anyone considering Napoleonic wargaming the scale, size of cost involved must be very discouraging.   This type of game may well encourage them to take the plunge.

When I started blogging Bob was not only a source of inspiration, but also very supportive with advice.   I still follow his blog and am impressed with the wide range of subjects he covers.   I am also impressed with his growing list of published books.

If you would like further information about “The Portable Napoleonic Wargame”, it is available from Lulu.com

http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/wargamedevelopments

Composition of Corps

Austrian army of four corps

Some weeks ago I commented that some bloggers get a lot of comments, whilst others seem to get very few.   I went on to place myself in the latter category.   Since then I have received more comments than previously.   All were very positive and supportive. 

Last week I received a comment on “Role of Corps Commander” suggesting that the four infantry and one cavalry brigades in each corps should be divisions rather than brigades.   Mike was obviously not satisfied with my initial reply and wrote a further two posts.   I don’t think he was satisfied with my replies to those either.   However there is only so much you can do in a comment section.   So I thought I would explain the reasons I choose brigade rather than division in a full blog.

I have explained in the past that the concept of my 1813 campaign was to create a fictional campaign whose purpose was to provide interesting battles for Jan and I to wargame.   I wanted to use all of the figures and scenery already in my collection to create all of the major armies which took part in the actual 1813 campaign.   I did not want to have to collect or paint any new figures.   Finally it all had to work for 28mm figures on a 6x6 foot wargames table.

It was clear from the start that there would have to be a lot of compromise to achieve this objective.   My existing collection of model soldiers had been designed for use with “In The Grand Manner” rules.   However before I left the UK I downsized the collection by about 50%.   This was because I knew I would be using a 6x6 foot wargames table, and I only wanted enough of each nation to “fill” the table.  

My existing reduced figures were organised in divisions of 4 infantry battalions of 32 figures each, two cavalry squadrons of 8 figures each and 4 guns with crew.   Each battalion had a mounted officer, plus four divisional command figures.   This gave me a total of 10 mounted, 128 infantry, 16 cavalry and 4 guns per division.

As planned this number of figures would fit comfortably on each side of a 6x6 foot table.   I wanted to field four corps per army, and to be able to fit all of them on the table.   However I planned that the initial deployment would normally be three corps in the front rank and one in reserve

Because I now wanted to field multi corps, rather than single divisions, a considerable amount of compromise would be necessary.

Each infantry battalion would become a corps, with 4 cavalry and one gun.  This would give me a corps of 32 infantry, 4 cavalry and one gun with 4 crew which is 40 figures.

The average Napoleonic corps was 20,000 to 30,000 strong.   This would give an approximate ratio of 1 figure to 500 to 750 men

The average Napoleonic infantry division was 10,000 and cavalry division 4,000

I decided that each corps would be approximately 20,000 men.   This would give me a ratio of 1 figure to 500 men.

I decided to organise my model soldier collection into ten army groups, five French and five allied.    Each army group would have four corps.

I wanted each corps to have six sub elements, four infantry, one cavalry and one gun.

This would give me a strength of 4000 per sub element.

My initial intention was to have four infantry divisions, one cavalry division and corps artillery.   However 4000 men was too small for an average division of 10,000.   I decided that the elements would be infantry brigades of 4000, cavalry brigades of 1,000 and corps artillery of 1,000

My wargame rules are based on Le Feu Sacre, and I particularly like their command and control rules.   So commanders would have to be reduced to 1 army commander and 4 corps commanders.   The corps commander figure would represent the division and corps commanders.   Each corps would have 6 brigades. 

Had I decided on a corps of two infantry divisions, one cavalry brigade and corps artillery I would have had four commanders per corps.   this would have made command and control too easy.

I fear that many of you will have found this post to be complicated and long winded. But it is the only way that I can explain why I finally opted for brigades instead of divisions.   It is quite possible that I have still failed to convince anyone, but that is not the intention.

The whole thing is designed to provide Jan and I with the type of wargames we enjoy.  They are not a commercial set of rules, so I don’t have to convince anyone else.

The whole concept took a long time to work out and implement, but has proved to be well worth the effort.   We have had about ten years of enjoyable almost daily wargaming and it has all stood the test of time.

I don’t envy commercial rule writers who do have to justify every aspect of their rules to a wide range of gamers who will all have their own prejudices and preferred rule systems.