Is everything pre-Napoleon really linear and limited?

[Fenton]

I remember reading in a SCiFi novel which I think was a Renegade Legion one by FASA where one of the characters says something along  the lines of

" No matter how much of a sweeping advance of classic pincer movement the generals do on their fancy maps, all it means to us on the ground is that we go head to head with the enemy"

Not sure how that helps but I hadnt written anything on this thread yet

[Lord Kermit of Birkenhead]

No help at all really, and neither had I !!!

IanS

[cbr3d.com]

Chris, may I suggest you look at Gaugamela again as I think you have misinterpreted the battle almost entirely.

As it is others have commented that nearly all battles, irrespective of period, can be classed as a linear battle whereby troops are lined up against the enemy positions in either an offensive or defensive mode, or indeed both.  The 'linear' effect held by army positions is just the jump off point of a battle.

[Westmarcher]

Fenton and Ianrs     

.... sorry ... trying to be serious again ....

Fig.ht  - good point (seriously).

[Zippee]

i think whether a game lacks decision nodes is a function of the rules, style of play and the granularity of the representation.

Leuthen for instance may indeed have grand manouvres and outflanking but they don't show up if you've got a wargame based on fielding 6 battalions.

This granularity has already been acknowledged in terms of FIW and skirmish games - different periods generate decisions at different points on that axis.

Additionally Chris's point about rules is, I think, telling - I can play DBx or FOG ancients and it's very much rock-paper-scissors with the majority of decisions made as Chris points out. When I play Impetus, however, the decisions are continuous throughout the game. Both are PNW, both have similar granularity in terms of numbers and representation but the rules give a very different game. I know which I prefer.

18th century is the prime candidate for PNW "line 'em up games" - so Maurice gives a card deck to replicate events and command decisions so that we have decisions to make about how to orchestrate the force under command. Other rules (not all of course) offer a bland decisionless arena of musketry and morale dice rolls.

Style of play is also a factor - how many Napoleonic games have you seen with tables groaning under hordes of units mushed shoulder-to-shoulder with no room to manouvre and no alternative to head-on collision stand-fight-die dice fests. If there's no room to manouvre and no option other than to step forward and roll dice then there are no decisions to be made.

So in short I don't think it's the period - it's the rules used, the style of play adopted and the granularity of the command level we're engaging with that produces a good (decisions) game or a dull (no decision) game

[Luddite]

As it is others have commented that nearly all battles, irrespective of period, can be classed as a linear battle whereby troops are lined up against the enemy positions in either an offensive or defensive mode, or indeed both.  The 'linear' effect held by army positions is just the jump off point of a battle.

Absolutely.  My previous comment echoed this view.  When you look past the period specific 'tools of the trade', there isn't much difference.

Roman soldier
1.  Advance to contact on the front line
2.  Use available arms to drive off the enemy.
3.  Back to camp for wine and medals.

Napoleonic soldier
1.  Advance to contact on the front line
2.  Use available arms to drive off the enemy.
3.  Back to camp for grog and medals.

WWII soldier
1.  Advance to contact on the front line
2.  Use available arms to drive off the enemy.
3.  Back to camp for tea and medals.

Space marine
1.  Advance to contact on the front line
2.  Use available arms to drive off the enemy.
3.  Back to camp for prayers and medals.

The only real difference i can see is armoud no.2

The Roman uses a sword (with balista support)
The Napoleonic soldier uses a bayonet and musket (with smoothbore cannon support)
The WWII soldier uses bayonet and rifle (with a whole slew of support from MGs to Flying Fortresses)
The space marine uses chainsword and bolter (with all manner of support)

So bringing it to the substantive point - that in a wargame there are more tactical decisions that need to be ade 'post-linear', for me doesn't really stack up.  I make very similar choices when playing DBM as i do when playing Bolt Action.  

'How do i bolster the failing point in my line?  How do a reinforce my successful attack? Where can i get a dice that doesn't roll '1'?'

[getagrip]

You forgot:

1)  Advance to contact on the front line.
2)  Served a cease and desist order by GW.
3)  Err....

[Leman]

So where does my matchstick firing cannon fit in?

[Luddite]

So where does my matchstick firing cannon fit in?

The gentleman's club.  In the billiards room.   

[getagrip]

So where does my matchstick firing cannon fit in?

I've got a few suggestions 

[Techno]

Do you realize that you only need another 5* posts to get promoted to Major, Gareth ?
Cheers - Phil.
*....As I write. 

[getagrip]

Do you realize that you only need another 5* posts to get promoted to Major, Gareth ?
Cheers - Phil.
*....As I write. 

Wow, that was fast.  But as Steve readily points out, I do go on a bit 

[paulr]

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!

Well said Ithoriel 

You have said, much better, what I was trying to say

Oh and Chris

@paulr: really?

Yes really!

Your generalisations about roughly 5,000 years of warfare apply similarly to the few centuries after 1789 or what ever arbitrary year you pick to mark the end of the PNW

[WeeWars]

@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?

It's difficult to assess the ebb and flow of an Ancient battle when the only accounts of the battle are by the victors. Victors who want you to believe they crushed their enemy under their mighty foot. Who says the losers who lack a voice in surviving accounts didn't add a bit more ebb than the victors would like you to believe?

Ever read Napoleon's accounts of his 'easily won' battles?

And just how many post-Gaugamela (PG) battles give you the chance to lead a commander-in-chief on a mission across the battlefield with his select companions to pick out and destroy the enemy's c-in-c to win the battle? And Gaugamela isn't wargames-friendly?

If we're talking pre-anything, we may as well start with "the earliest battle in recorded history for which details of tactics and formations are known": Kadesh. Even Egyptian propaganda couldn't disguise the tension and unpredictable outcome of the battle.

More excitement can be had from Caesar's battles who on more than one occasion thought his fight was lost before he was victorious. Ebb and flow?

Staying with Ancients, the great Battle of Cannae doesn't appear any more or less linear in plan than the wargames-worthy Battle of Leipzig. But being an Ancient battle, we know much less about the detail. The detail that gives a battle the excitement of its ebb and flow.

As the chroniclers of Leipzig could have written in the year 1813:
"We made a mighty circle, a solid unbroken line of our allied troops, around that guy Napoleon and crushed him under our (Wellington-less) boot and his army went running away back to their own land, thoroughly defeated. It was that simple. Cause we're brilliant. Don't mess with us."


Get the pre-Naps on the tabletop. Embrace the ebb, the flow, and the fun.

[FierceKitty]

I'll stick my neck out, indeed; the main reason why I don't have 1942 western desert forces is that as far as I can see, there's no longer any real scope for a commander to exercise tactical skill (as I understand a contemporary German general observed - I wish I'd made a note of his name).