Rules for the WSS

[toxicpixie]

Just a thought on "big bases" where they're reflecting a brigade or at least a larger accumulation of various sub units - the actual base may be square but that doesn't mean the figures mounted have to be - if said base represents a number of battalions drawn up in line it may also represent the DEPTH of them too.

So not to imagine them as base = four battalions in line abreast, but possibly it's four battalions in two up, two back (or chequerboard, or one front in line and three behind in column or whatever the period & doctine suggests!).

One thing that's hard to do visually and in ground scale on the table is depth - even a four rank deep line is what, about six yards deep? Or in 1cm = 75 m about 1mm deep? Very hard to do... Accepting some abstraction there means either weirdly deep (in real world ground scale) lines, or possibly using the "brigade base" to model multiple lines of units in one, or assuming it's a "space for manouvre" or accepts the rear area and supply wagons etc etc.

[Chad]

I agree that would be possible. Assuming 300 paces between lines and a pace at 30 inches, this would give a base depth of roughly 30mm. So two ranks of single figures would look quite good. The only problem would appear to be that if you want a dual scale basing method, i don't think it would work for a small scale pick-up game where the unit as based represents a battalion. Having said that, if the small scale bases were say 15mm deep, then placing one battalion immediately behind the other on a 30mm deep sabot you could probably achieve the brigade effect.

Chad

[Chad]

This looks interesting. Publication date 15 September.

http://www.helion.co.uk/new-and-forthcoming-titles/early-modern-systems-of-command-queen-anne-s-generals-staff-officers-and-the-direction-of-allied-warfare-in-the-low-countries-and-germany-1702-1711.html?___SID=U

[Bernie]

Hi

We went through a similar discussion when doing our rules for WSS. Wanted to resolve battles of 6-8ft table in 3-4 hours before returning to a campaign system. We wanted to use descriptions we found in the histories: threw in 10 battalions, committed 30 squadrons etc so we used 1 base = 1 battalion or a couple of squadrons and emphasised the importance of reserve lines and committing of them to the fray. We mulled over brigades but they were to adhoc and in battle it broke down into committing handfuls of units rather than discreet brigades

See attached link for pictures of a few games we did at SELWG few years back

http://s1213.photobucket.com/user/BernardGanley/slideshow/Malbrough%20Wargame%20Rules%20for%20the%20Spanish%20Succession/SELWG%20War%20of%20the%20Spanish%20Succession

As we did not want clutter the units defined quality: no flag on base = poor, flag on base = average, flag on base and a separate officer base = good

[Hwiccee]

On the idea of using 'brigades' of 2 lines of say 2 battalions the main problem is this is not what was done at the time, or at least generally.

'Brigades' usually formed as a single line of battalions and then what you might later call a 'division', a group of brigades was a line of 'brigades. So if say you had 32 battalions in 8 'brigades' and 2 'divisions'. You would have thought it would make sense to have the end 4, 2  from each line as the 1st brigade, next 4 (2+2) as the next brigade, etc. Withe the 4 'brigade' on the left as one 'division' and the right ones as the other. But what they actually was the first 4 battalions in the front line would be the 1st brigade, next 4 in the front the next line, etc. All 16 battalions/4 'brigades' in the front line would be 1 'division', the ones in the back line would be the other 'division'. They did sometimes use a 'brigade' in 2 lines but this was very much an exception and usually because of some kind of special circumstance. For example at Blenheim one real brigade (of 5 battalions) deployed and fought in 2 lines of 3 +2 battalions, all the others were in a single line. But this group was supposed to be in a single line as was normal but when it got to its place in the line it discovered some marshy ground and so switched to double line.

This by itself doesn't rule out using a double line on the table but you then have other problems of various types. These vary depending on your view but one that perhaps illustrates a basic problem is the number/composition of lines used and the way they were used. I said previously they always used 2 lines but they were not necessarily 2 lines of the same type. Also they often used more than 2 lines and not an even number of them.

So if you look at the Confederates at Blenheim you will see that in the various sectors of the battlefield you had varying numbers and types of lines. So from left to right you have 6 lines (4 infantry and the 2 cavalry), 4 lines (1st Infantry, then 2 of cavalry and the last infantry), 3 lines (all cavalry) and finally 2 lines (all infantry). Clearly some of the sectors will be easy to do with the double line brigades idea but others are going to be difficult.

The second problem is with the way the armies fought - I am afraid here I don't agree with Bernie and the brigade, the real brigade, and the lines that were made up of these were an important component of the way the armies fought. The best way to explain this to look at the second sector at Blenheim - 4 lines of mixed infantry/cavalry. What these did was the 1st line of infantry crossed a stream and secured the other side. The 2nd and 3rd lines of cavalry then crossed, passed through the infantry, fought and got driven back repeatedly.Sometimes as individual lines, sometimes together and with the original 1st line infantry as a 'back stop' to the action. So effectively the ordering of these lines were changed often in the battle as different lines moved forward or pulled back, etc. This was 'shuffling' of the lines was common and often meant that half of the proposed double line units were nowhere near the other half after the start of the battle.

So I wouldn't say that double lines of battalions on a base is impossible for this period, especially if you don't mind a bit of a fudge, but it might cause more problems than it is worth.

[Chad]

Nick

Thanks for your notes. They were very useful and clearly my impression of a brigade in double lines on deployment was incorrect. On the matter of the battalions in a brigades forming a single line supported by another brigade, I have a few questions:

1. I have read of intervals between the battalions in line, but do not know how big an interval there would be and whether or not that interval would be some form of standard width.

2. My understanding of the 2nd line of brigades is that they were to support the 1st line. They would maintain a standard distance behind the first brigade (300 paces?) and in the event of the 1st line brigade being forced to retire would allow passage of the 1st brigade through the intervals and assume the position of the 1st line brigade while the latter was reformed.

3. Does the same role apply to 2nd line cavalry brigades as well?

4. What ground scale do you use for man/horse in calculating battalion/squadron frontages.

5. Given that you would expect a brigade in line of battalions to move as near as possible as a unit, was there some mechanism in place whereby each battalion moved in response to some form of signal or did they take their cue from the battalion immediately to their left or right?

I have to say that I also do not agree with Bernie's view of brigades and there importance. All OOBs I have looked at and the details of armies in camp clearly show a formal organisational heirarchy on which transmission of orders would be based and command and control would be exercised. It seems to me that at all levels within that structure there are time and distance factors that influence how orders are transmitted and implemented.

My current thinking on command and control is as follows:

1. The initial deployment at the start of the battle/game would be set out with each 'division' and brigade being fully aware of it's orders and objectives. Once an advance begins, the elements involved in that advance will continue to move to execute those orders until they either succeed or fail. That may appear a little obvious, but I have played rules where it is necessary to 'activate' elements of the army on every move. The very length of some battlefields would make such an arrangement impractical in real terms and equally I do not believe subordinate commanders would have been given any latitude to override their orders/objectives. I accept that you would have to have mechanisms in place do deal with changes in circumstances, but these would not of necessity override the original orders. For example, although it took the Prussians (3?) attempts to achieve their objective at Blenheim, there does not appear to be any change in the execution of their original orders. From the start of a game therefore movement and actions in the execution of those orders will be continuous until such original orders are changed.

2. Because at this time I believe the transmission of orders at all levels involves questions of both time and distance, I am opting for orders from the commander in chief to be carried by couriers. This would involve the physical movement of a figure from him to the appropriate sub-commander to transmit the order. Since such movement involves both time and distance, I believe it eliminates the need for command radii and some form of activation system from a distance.

3. I am uncertain at this time whether or not to use a similar method to move those orders on down to brigades. Similar time and distance factors are present, but it may slow the game down.

4. At brigade level, I am thinking of employing a mechanism I used many moons ago. Any change of orders, either from a superior commander or within a brigade in response to present circumstances, could not be implemented until the end of the move following the move on which the orders are 'received'.

Regards

Chad

[Hwiccee]

Nick

Thanks for your notes. They were very useful and clearly my impression of a brigade in double lines on deployment was incorrect. On the matter of the battalions in a brigades forming a single line supported by another brigade, I have a few questions:

Happy to help of I can

1. I have read of intervals between the battalions in line, but do not know how big an interval there would be and whether or not that interval would be some form of standard width.

I think the short answer is no one really knows. There was certainly a consider gap earlier, up to the width of a battalion, and this had gone/been filled by the battalion guns by the time of the SYW. But exactly what happened at this time is more of a problem. I think the consensus is there was a gap but it would be relatively small (say around 20 metres) but this would vary a lot depending on the circumstances (and not just in the WSS but generally).

2. My understanding of the 2nd line of brigades is that they were to support the 1st line. They would maintain a standard distance behind the first brigade (300 paces?) and in the event of the 1st line brigade being forced to retire would allow passage of the 1st brigade through the intervals and assume the position of the 1st line brigade while the latter was reformed.

Yes the supporting line or lines would be behind the front line with the idea that they would take over when the lines in front needed. The infantry could do this by passing through the 'official' and 'unofficial' (formed by loses) gaps to do this. But probably it was more common to just pass through each other by doubling the ranks then going through. The unit literally formed into twice as many ranks as they were fighting in but on the same frontage as the fighting line. So basically there would then be large gaps between each file.

3. Does the same role apply to 2nd line cavalry brigades as well?

Yes indeed but slightly different. The cavalry squadrons did have bigger gaps between squadrons which they would use to pass each other. The gaps were maybe ½ to the same size as the frontage of the squadrons

4. What ground scale do you use for man/horse in calculating battalion/squadron frontages.

Depends a little  but around 1m per man, 2 per horse.

5. Given that you would expect a brigade in line of battalions to move as near as possible as a unit, was there some mechanism in place whereby each battalion moved in response to some form of signal or did they take their cue from the battalion immediately to their left or right?

I would guess they would do both on occasion but also it wouldn't always be that much of a problem. Remember everyone moved slowly with lots of stops for dressing ranks, etc. I think they would also have 'regulating battalions' or similar, the senior unit in the brigade, which the others would adhere to.

On the command/control it seems good to me generally. My understanding, generally not specifically in this, is that subordinates have the ability to 'go slow' or 'go fast', to stop and defend against a threat that emerges or delay while seeking clarification. This seems to be basically what you are suggesting.

[Chad]

Nick

Just a quick thank you. Most helpful again.

Going to spend a bit of time on game scale considerations and whether or not the combat and morale mechanics from a old set of rules could be made to work for this period.

Best

Pete

[Last Hussar]

If you are looking at lifting mechanics from other Games, may I suggest Black Powder's 'Hits' system.

What I like about them is you aren't worried about casualties:  To many wargames have units that fight down to the last fraction of the unit.  BP has effectively a morale system at the heart of its combat

Units have x number of dice (usually 3 shooting, 6 Hand to hand)
Hit on 4+ (there are modifiers, but usually limited to +/- 1

The Target unit then gets to save (usually on 4+)

Unsaved hits go on the unit

When a unit has hits =morale level (usually 3) it is shaken.

Hits above the Morale level cause a morale test. 2d6. 7+ pass, 4 or less rout (remove from table) 5 or 6 retire.  -1 per excess hit (ie hits over morale level). After the test these excess hits are discarded.

Units can be rallied - 1 hit is removed, but never the last (or first if you will!) hit.  Brigadiers can only rally 1 unit per tur - it is their last action.

[Chad]

Thanks,but I am looking to lift combat and morale from an 80s set o Napoleonic rules. I will give more information over the weekend. I believe that their principles are in many ways period and scale neutral.

Chad

[Chad]

What follows is an overview of the Combat and Morale rules that I will be looking to apply for the WSS. Rather than go through the detailed mechanics, I am proposing to scan the relevant pages and designer notes for people to look at in detail. Comments, etc. will be appreciated. The rules, 'Vive L'Empereur' by Ned Zuparko, Are basically regimental scale Napoleonic rules published 35 years ago. Generally speaking they are game scale neutral, but obviously elements of the Combat and Morale mechanics will need either adjustment or deletion.

With regard to units, the rules use a Status Point system (SP) which is defined as follows:

" a numerical value representing a unit's quality, battle effectiveness, training and resistance potential; used in most combat and morale situations; it can be reduced by combat."

Basic SP values range from 80 to 150 to differentiate unit types and perceived national differences.

In addition artillery has a Firepower factor (FP) which is defined as:

" a numerical value assigned to batteries representing casualty-producing potential, which can be reduced through combat losses."

Infantry Volleys

Figures are used to calculate a Firing Sum to which are applied modifiers to give the number of hits. Using percentile dice the hits are converted to loss of Status Points, ranging from 0 to 30 SP losses per hit. There is a small table showing the range of dice results for each SP loss.

Artillery Fire

Modifiers are applied to the basic Firepower factor of a battery to produce a hit value and again the percentile dice table is used to calculate the SP loss. Counter battery fire is covered in detail and has different mechanics

Close Combat

A series of modifiers produce a number of hits and as before the percentile dice table is used to determine SP loss.

Morale

The Morale method has checks for Panic, Rally, Fire Combat and Close combat. The Morale table takes the unit's current SP value and applies modifiers to produce Morale Points. The Panic, Rally and Fire Combat tests use a percentile dice roll cross refernced to the morale points to give the result of the check. Close combat checks use the difference between the morale points of the engaged units and cross reference that to percentile dice roll to produce a result for both engaged units.

As I said this is a brief overview of the mechanics which I want to try to adapt for WSS. It may or may not be possible, but only testing will give me the answer.

Members who would like to examine the detail should contact me direct on my personal e-mail and I will send pdfs of the relevant sections.

Chad

PS Ned Zuparko gave me the OK to modify these rules to produce a set for late 19C. I did start but never finished them. I called them 'The Last Napoleon'. I might try again.

[Chad]

Testing the combat and morale continuing, but not entirely satisfactory. Have an alternative to try.