Is everything pre-Napoleon really linear and limited?

[Ithoriel]

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).

Always good to have an excuse when you're losing

[FierceKitty]

I won the only modern game I've played in the last twenty years. Partly because I was up against someone who played only moderns and knew cavalry were out of date and could be ignored, allowing my Cossacks to choose their time and place to charge. SS kebabs, anyone?

[Ithoriel]

In case there's any doubt FK, I meant the Germans, not you!

[FierceKitty]

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

IanS

[FierceKitty]

In case there's any doubt FK, I meant the Germans, not you!

Ah, you're a gentleman, sir.

[Techno]

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

Congratulations, Gareth !
Cheers - Phil

[Chris Pringle]

Wow, up to 50 replies now. I'm seriously tempted just to withdraw gracefully. But since so many have taken the trouble to respond, it would be a bit discourteous of me not to at least try to reply. First a couple of general points:

Quite a lot of replies seem to be arguing against things I never actually said. I didn't say PNW armies themselves aren't interesting, and I didn't say there isn't plenty of interest and fun to be had from them. This is in part my fault. I realize that listing PNW as a 'pet hate' raised hackles unnecessarily, and wasn't a good way to start a reasoned theoretical discussion, especially as it isn't really true - it's a preference on my part but not an intolerance, and in just the past couple of months I have enjoyed playing in three good PNW games myself: Bunker Hill and White Plains (AWI using Black Powder), and a Leuthen-esque Seven Years' War game. Also, although I did mention decisions for "generals", I should have made clearer that I was talking about large battles rather than skirmishes.

I have just had a look at a list of 30+ of the largest C19 battles. I didn't initially define what I meant by a linear battle, but even if we take a very loose definition - a battle where at least one side starts deployed in a continuous line and trying to hold that line - I reckon only half of them would count. If we disallow those where a significant proportion of one or both sides' forces arrives after the battle starts, i.e. it is a more fluid situation than a true linear line-out, you get down to a third or fewer.

For instance, Mars-la-Tour (Franco-Prussian War): one army is strung out in column of march, and its smaller opponent, cutting across its line of march, has just planted a small blocking force in the way. Both armies get multiple reinforcements arriving on the battlefield from all points of the compass. This "march divided, fight united" story is quite a common theme in C19 battles but I think rare in PNW, because (Mongols excepted?) very few armies had the mobility plus the command structure to manage it. I'd welcome more equivalent PNW examples.

Some individual answers in detail:

@Fig.ht: Vienna 1683? If the launch of the Hussars is the only significant decision - in effect, the "when to commit the reserve" decision - then that doesn't work as a counter-example. But if Sobieski is also having to marshal various forces arriving from various directions during the battle, then perhaps it does. Merits further examination. (By me, I mean.)

@Subedai: thanks for engaging directly with the serious military-geometrical-theoretical point I was trying to make, and for offering a good counter-example. The Mongols did manage to overrun half the world, so they must have had something special. Perhaps they are the exception that proves my rule?

@Luddite: in late C19 games there are a lot more in-game decisions to be made. Sometimes it's about responding to the arrival of your own or enemy reinforcements from whichever direction. Often a battle is in a series of phases as particular terrain strongpoints need to be seized before the attacker can progress to the next. There may be defence in depth on a series of positions; there may be fighting withdrawals.

@Upgraydd: Jez, thanks for a couple of nice points. I agree that asymmetrical armies help to make battles interesting, regardless of period. And I appreciate that the very limitations I talked about could present interesting challenges. In the SYW game I tried recently, one thing I did like about the rules was how they seemed to reflect battered lines falling back behind a fresh second line to rally.

@ Last Hussar: ditto.

@WeeWars: see my reply to Hertsblue below.

@Pijlie: was this your Fleurus game? http://pijlieblog.blogspot.nl/search/label/Fleurus ? If so, it looks and sounds like one big line-out to me, but if you say there was lots of maneuver and lots of fun then I have no argument.

@FierceKitty: "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." Au contraire. Once you have weapons with decent range and firepower, you no longer need to form a PNW-style shoulder-to-shoulder line, since units can support each other with fire from a distance. Which is the geometrical point I was trying to make.

@Hertsblue: Rossbach, Leuthen, Leignitz are all very different battles, indeed. Here perhaps it depends where you start your game: are the interesting decisions all made pre-battle? If you start the game at the point where Frederick's line envelops his enemies at Rossbach, or already outflanks them at Leuthen, it's still a bit limited (though more fun than a straight line-out). If you make those pre-battle maneuvers part of the game, count me in. (Leignitz sort of just a double line-out?)

@barbarian. Agreed. The scale I am interested in is where generals are commanding 10s or 100s of 1000s of troops. Corps-plus, if you like.

@Maenoferren: it might not make much difference to the people in the front line getting shot, but it does to the generals, and that's the scale I'm interested in. My fault for not making that clearer to begin with.

And that's all I have time for today!

Chris

[FierceKitty]

Big distance is relative. The line just gets longer, and it becomes increasingly difficult to show a battlefield on a tabletop as you need a helicopter, then a spy satellite, to see it.

[Sandinista]

This just seems to be a "my period is better than yours" point of view

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

What do I think?

I like it all. Linear, non-linear, skirmish, air, land, sea, multi-corps, modern, ancients, wwii, early and late WWI, fantasy, sci-Fi, even occasionally non-Euclidean!

Just not keen on 28mm zombie-vampire-gunslingers.

[getagrip]

I'm with Lemmey; I'll give anything a go.  Not really found a wargame I didn't like.  Same goes for military boardgames too

[Last Hussar]

I have - BKC

[nikharwood]

What do I think?

I like it all. Linear, non-linear, skirmish, air, land, sea, multi-corps, modern, ancients, wwii, early and late WWI, fantasy, sci-Fi, even occasionally non-Euclidean!

Just not keen on 28mm zombie-vampire-gunslingers.

You're such a fascist, Will. Such discrimination 

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

I resemble that remark!
Outside, now!
If I'm not their in five minutes, start without me!

[WeeWars]

Outside, now!
If I'm not their in five minutes, start without me!

Careful, Nik, cos Lemmey could surprise you and attack from any point of the compass. Don't expect a boring old linear encounter.