Is everything pre-Napoleon really linear and limited?

[WeeWars]

Is everyone here being ironic/sarcastic?  When I read Chris' post I automatically assumed he was referring to the 18th century, was I wrong?

Mollinary 

"Anything pre-Napoleon" I would assume to be just that.

[WeeWars]

"Anything pre-Napoleon - essentially it's linear warfare, relatively limited tactical options, relatively few interesting decisions to make."

It's not the way I read how Frederick the Great viewed battle tactics.

[Last Hussar]

I played a really enjoyable game a couple of weeks ago.  Sunjester took the 'Advance either side of a impassable river' scenario from the classic Solo Wargame Scenarios, and did it as a 4 player WSS for Black Powder.

Now I think I can say we all enjoyed the game.  Looking back at it it was just lines with no manoeuvre - it was played across the table, so only 4 foot wide.  However there was always decisions to be made- as a defender at what point to I press forward?  Do I leave the battered first line, with the reserves ready to take the brunt of the exhausted attackers when the front retires, or do I pass my second line through so I can try to rally.

Of course, the battle was made interesting by my Alleged Ally deciding the best way of defending against a WSS attack was to charge forward, then wonder why his infantry disintegrated.  Luckily his cuirassiers pulled off some astounding charges, meaning the French Infantry, though unopposed, daren't break through as they had lots of cavalry on their flank

[Pijlie]

A while ago we played Fleurus (there are pictures floating around this forum somewhere) which was a very enjoyable battle with great outflanking cavalry charges, surprisingly fast troop movements (and some surprisingly slow as well) and a lot of maneuver. "despite" the fact that it was a 17th century battle.

I think the differences between Pre- en Peri-Napoleonic are a lot smaller than you think. Certainly on the gaming table where a lot of nuances are ironed away in the rulesets.

[FierceKitty]

People have that notion about 18th century battles because of two words, taken out of context and generally interpreted through the warping glass of Featherstonian cliches: linear tactics.

In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find any real battle in any period that didn't need to impose a line. Troops wouldn't be able to support each other without it.

[Hertsblue]

A cursory examination of Frederick the Great's battles would cure anyone of the notion that "linear tactics", so called, consisted solely of two rows of infantry blazing away futilely at each other. Rossbach and Leuthen both involved daring and superbly executed flank marches that enabled him to attack a small part of the enemy's force with all of his own. Conversely, his defeat at Hochkirk was the result of a brilliantly effective concentric attack by the Austrians. At Leignitz and Torgau Old Fritz actually split his army, using one part to hold off one enemy while the other dealt with the rest. Napoleon, himself, was a great admirer of Frederick, a fact that speaks for itself.

The problem is not that linear tactics are uninteresting, but that wargamers exhibit a "convention" mentality, where all units must be posted end to end and parallel to the baseline. Try re-fighting some of Frederick's battles (or Marlborough's or Charles XII's) and you'll find that there is as much tactical flexibility as the so-called "impusle armies". After all, how many battles did Wellington lose?   

   

[FierceKitty]

Leuthen was dam' near the perfect battle. It didn't depend on a stupid enemy, or on one weak in technology or discipline.

[irregularwars]

"Anything pre-Napoleon" I would assume to be just that.

Indeed. Otherwise the original post would have gone a long the lines of: "Hey guys, 18th century warefare is pretty boring innit?" But it didn't.

[barbarian]

I'd say it depends on the scale of representation you use.
WWII can be played at skirmish level, company level, battalion, armies...
Each has a different appeal, and you can ignore the range of a rifle if you play at big scales and only consider Arty and Air as long range weapons.

It depends of your ruleset and mainly on the number of troops you deploy on a fixed table size :
Any period can be pretty boring if you fill your table with troops from one end to another.

In the end, I don't play history, I play my representation of history (mainly based on "bad" movies in my case) : I have a fantasy of what the WWII eastern front should be (lots of tanks) and put it on the table because I like the idea.

[Chris Pringle]

Thanks very much for all the interesting, well-informed and informative replies so far. I'll try to respond to them all, but it may take me more than one message. First, a reminder of perhaps my key point, which I made from the perspective of a tabletop wargamer, wanting the situation to change each turn and to present me with interesting choices each turn:

"realistically the interesting decisions a PNW general has to make are limited to pre-battle ones ... The decisions a PNW general can make during the battle are more limited: - When/where to commit the second line / reserve?"

@fsn: surely Lake Trasimene supports my case? The interesting bit happens in setting up the ambush. Then the ambusher's line falls upon the ambushee's (disjointed and disadvantaged) line. From that point it's just an exercise in rolling dice to see who escapes the massacre. Realistically, what are the significant in-game choices either player is going to get to make?

@fsn: absolutely agree, variety of troop types is fascinating, their asymmetric interactions can be interesting, setting up your line to get the best match-ups and win the rock-scissors-paper contests is an art. I just don't think the in-game decisions are that interesting.

@fsn: absolutely agree not all C19 or C20 conflicts make for interesting decisions either, WWI trench warfare being the prime example. BUT generally speaking, C19 / C20 produces much more interesting in-game decisions (for me).

@Maenoferren: I'm talking about proper battles, not skirmish, and I think FIW counts as skirmish. Nothing wrong with PNW skirmish if skirmish is your thing.

@paulr: really?

@getagrip: nice colours matter, aesthetics matter, I approve of pretty armies. Ideally I'd like a game to offer me good-looking armies AND interesting decisions. If it's a choice, I'll take the latter.

@Fig.ht: Gaugamela again supports my case, I think. Two armies line up facing each other on a billiard table. Some preliminary skirmishing by chariots and cavalry fighting on the wings. Alexander commits his reserve and goes right-flanking and wins. That's it. Where's the ebb and flow and the interesting in-game decisions for players?

@irregularwars: tunnel vision? Possibly. I'm probably jaundiced by years of watching our tournament gamers first with WRG, then with DBM and DBR, now with FOG and FOGR, playing what looks like exactly the same stereotyped formulaic linear game. I could be conflating PNW battles with tournament games and unfairly attributing the vices of one to the other. Perhaps if people at the club played some more imaginative PNW games I'd see out of my tunnel. On the other hand, could it be that the stereotyped formulaic linear nature of PNW lends itself to tournament games?

@irregularwars: Leuktra another that supports my case, surely? Theban innovation consists of pre-battle decision about how to line up the line-up, and to attack in echelon. Two decisions. Where's the in-game interest?

@irregularwars: Macedonian warfare I don't know about. Can you cite a battle? Or is it skirmish action?

@irregularwars: I'm not claiming the armies aren't varied and fascinating. I love chariots and elephants and camelry as much as the next man. It's just that the battles they fight in generate relatively limited in-game decisions for a player.

@irregularwars: Glenmalure and Ford of the Biscuits I would discount as skirmishes, but Kinsale looks as though it could be interesting to play - basically because it is a fluid battle with reinforcements arriving to change the situation, rather than the usual line-out. Thanks for pointing it out.

I'm going to stop (pause) there. I do intend to reply to later messages as well when I get a chance. Thanks again for all the responses, and please do keep them coming.

Chris

[Maenoferren]

@Maenoferren: I'm talking about proper battles, not skirmish, and I think FIW counts as skirmish. Nothing wrong with PNW skirmish if skirmish is your thing.

Fair point however, I would argue that the people getting shot at wouldn't really see the difference

[Leman]

Know nothing about tactics but it's dead pretty.

[Ithoriel]

Chris,

I'd say my main disagreement with what you say is that you seem to think Napoleonic warfare and onwards is any different.

All wars in all eras are basically lining up troops and hoping your men hit harder, fire faster or stand fast longer than the enemy.

The real decisions are, as you say, taken long before the day of battle. Things like training, equipment and supply happen (or don't!) well before the day of decision and are merely manifestations of the political, moral, religious, etc., etc. ethos of the society they represent.

In the 5000 years or so of historical warfare I'm not sure anything has changed except the hardware. I've seen nothing to suggest that the average conscript with an AK-47 runs faster, fights harder or obeys orders any better than a conscript spearmen turning out to fight for his Sumerian god. Armies may be bigger, death may come from further afar but the decision on where to apply air-power or when to loose the "donkey carts" don't seem to me to be intrinsically more interesting to game.

Besides, lining up the troops is only part of the story, the best match-up can still result in your overconfident elite getting roughly handled by some grubby peasants at which point you need to decide how to plug a gap in the line. I'm happy to make a game out of those sort of decisions.

Deciding whether loosing the reserves now is too early or if you are saving them for a future your army doesn't have seems to me a worthwhile thing to game.

Hmm, this has turned out to be a longer ramble than I intended!

[Westmarcher]

Had a brief look at this yesterday. Had a long think. Looked at it again today to offer my own thoughts and ... crikey ... the discussions have certainly moved on apace since! I agree with what a lot of the guys have said (FK, Last Hussar, Upgraydd and many more) so apologies for covering old ground.

Anything and everything you say, Chris? Well, I've given this Deep Thought and I think the answer is 17.*

Such an all encompassing question (you scamp).  I have good fun playing SYW/WAS and ACW. These are eras which straddle the Napoleonic Wars yet, in your generalised characterisation for PNW, my decisions are essentially the same.

Arguably, most set piece battles are linear regardless of era; table-top games more so. Hastings; linear. El Alamein; linear. Even, Waterloo. We line up our forces on one edge and the other player does the same on the opposite edge. On a featureless table, two lines facing each other can look very boring. Throw in terrain that disrupts, impedes or splits opposing forces and it starts getting more interesting. Then throw in objectives, late arrivals, flank attacks, etc. and you have lots of options and decisions.

I confess I have my preconceptions of various eras no doubt influenced in part by Hollywood, line 'em up wargames, general histories, the preconceptions of other rules designers and poor research on my part.  The more I read about 18th century warfare, the more I am amazed how tactically aware, how more mobile and less rigid they actually were and when I read what they actually got up to, I realise that some wargame rules don't allow this to happen (and, in so doing, perpetuating misconceptions). 

Therefore, I would say less options do not necessarily mean less fun with good scenario design and greater knowledge of our chosen eras being the key to getting more fun out of our games.


*based on the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe and Everything (of course).

[getagrip]

Hmm, this has turned out to be a longer ramble than I intended!

But an erudite one.  Agree with all of this Ithoriel