Units too small for the game, but historically important

Started by Last Hussar, 04 December 2024, 12:05:41 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Last Hussar

Hi all,

How would you deal with a unit that is important historically, but too small for the game scale?

My example is for 'Blucher', but feel free with good examples of what you do from rules you know.

So Blucher has 3 scales, Small Scale where a tabletop infantry unit is 1,200-2,000 men, Normal, 2,000-3,000, and Grand Scale, where a unit is 3,000 to 5,000 men. The rules are the same, it's just what is being represented changes - Peninsular you are looking at 'Small', Leipzig 'Grand'

If you are doing Waterloo, you are looking at 'Grand Scale'.

However the farmhouses such as La Haye Saint are important, yet they are defended by a force too small to represent - La Haye Saint had only 600 men in.

How would you represent it's importance?

I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain why you are wrong.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

GNU PTerry

Westmarcher

Give it the "super power" of a larger unit's attributes - but only whilst it occupies the historically significant terrain feature.
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.

Chris Pringle

It's not the unit in LHS that's important, it's the terrain feature. Make that give a +1 to the unit that is on top of it/next to it (or however the rules work).

Last Hussar

Hi Chris,

The rules do have a bonus for inside a built up area, that can be accounted for. It's just what you do when the size of force is too small in game terms to fit into the game. LHS had about 600 KGL in, when a unit is 3-5,000.

Westmarcher, I started down that train of thought after posting, so say call LHS a unit with a set firepower. Maybe if the result of an assault (and only an assault, no firing effective) forces a defender retreat, it is a 'lost' unit - it doesn't reform?
I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain why you are wrong.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

GNU PTerry

streetgang

Perhaps a house rule to create a "detachment" and tweaking their stats to reflect their size? I've done this with other rules.
2015 Painting Competition - 2 x Winner!
2015 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up!
2021 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2022 Painting Competition - 3 x Winner!
2022 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2023 Painting Competition - Winner!
2023 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!

fred.

QuoteIt's not the unit in LHS that's important, it's the terrain feature. Make that give a +1 to the unit that is on top of it/next to it (or however the rules work).
I'm with Chris on this. 

When you zoom out you need to abstract the terrain as well as the units. 

Histories tend to focus in a fairly small areas - as then you get the human story, and I think British histories often focus at the battalion level, because of the regimental system, this is where many of the histories are recorded. 
2011 Painting Competition - Winner!
2012 Painting Competition - 2 x Runner-Up
2016 Painting Competition - Runner-Up!
2017 Paint-Off - 3 x Winner!

My wife's creations: Jewellery and decorations with sparkle and shine at http://www.Etsy.com/uk/shop/ISCHIOCrafts

Last Hussar

But how to abstract LHS?

In game terms it has a 1/5 of a unit in. There doesn't appear to be other units nearby in a game meaningful sense - and in this example it is about the effect it has on a game table. In the actual battle it became surrounded, and the 500 defenders held off 2000 infantry.

As stated above a unit in Blucher is 3-5000 men. Yet LHS was considered an important point by both Wellington and Napoleon.

LHS is important to the Battle, but the rules don't account for this as it is a singular situation.  I am quite happy to put in scenario specific rules, I just don't know how to represent it.

(For clarity,  this is an example,  I'm not actually planning Waterloo,  but for the sake of illustration I'm running with this.)
I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain why you are wrong.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

GNU PTerry

kipt

Perhaps no unit of troops in it, but give it a defensive value that the attacker needs to beat.  Comes down to die rolls...

Orcs

I think we are missing the obvious here.

The representation is at too higher level. You need to make the basic unit represent a battalion.  So in small scale Blutcher make each unit represent a a battalion.

That solves the problem. You can have a unit defending LHS with an additional defensive factor.

You now just need to double the number of stands in all your armies. (I am sure Walt will be pleased) :d  :d

 
The cynics are right nine times out of ten. -Mencken, H. L.

Life is not a matter of holding good cards, but of playing a poor hand well. - Robert Louis Stevenson

Duke Speedy of Leighton

Fight it as a separate sub action on a different table.
You may refer to me as: Your Grace, Duke Speedy of Leighton.
2016 Pendraken Painting Competion Participation Prize  (Lucky Dip Catagory) Winner

Gwydion

I use Volley and Bayonet (First edition with tweaks -not Road to Glory), infantry units/bases on table represent c1,500- 3,000 usually. Quarter size bases are used to represent skirmishers/detachments of c500 men - ideal for LHS. LHS is represented by a base which holds the 1/4 scale unit (all villages designed like that).

They lose some benefits when concentrated in buildings - not longer hard to hit in dispersed formation but they get bonuses for being in buildings when under fire and in melee. Also they are no longer swept away in the open when attacked by brigade (normal size) bases of infantry or cavalry and need not retreat automatically.

Depending on your view of how tough a nut a particular piece of terrain was to crack you can add factors to morale and combat without putting too much strain on the whole system across the rest of the battlefield.

I haven't played Blucher but it sounds from other people that it is slightly more abstracted even than V&B. Don't know if you could create a rule for a detachment to occupy LHS or if, at this level, you should bite the bullet and ignore it, and let the fighting rage around it regardless. Sacrilege I know but if you are happy using the abstractions at this command level you have already sold your soul.

Last Hussar

Quote from: Orcs on 04 December 2024, 11:58:44 PMYou now just need to double the number of stands in all your armies. (I am sure Walt will be pleased) :d  :d
 

Triple the number... you [deleted][censored][just no] and the horse you rode in on.

Gwydion - I'm moving towards a 'this farm has an understood combat value of x - if a retreat is forced there is no unit, it just becomes an empty building'. I am wondering how to make it project the importance that both sides placed on it - Napoleon REALLY felt he needed to capture it, and Wellington REALLY felt he needed to keep it, to the extent that forces were committed to keep the supply route open.  Maybe if the terrain objective is given a 'too high' firing factor - that is one that is actually in excess of what is there historically, to reflect it really is a PitA, and needs to be taken out.

Blucher is quite happily abstracted - Sam Mustafa makes it clear that the Strength of a unit is in no way the men remaining, but rather the effectiveness. This means you don't have to worry with historical 'breaking the rules' - Sam

The other factor I have here is if it is able to be integrated into the map movement pregame for non-historical scenarios - how do you define whether such a building exists?
I have neither the time nor the crayons to explain why you are wrong.

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
Franklin D. Roosevelt

GNU PTerry