Mixed Divisions: Number of Units???

[Blathergut]

The rules (page 17) state:

A Mixed Division must contain...but no more than 4 of either [infantry or cavalry units].

ToN (page 158) states:

A mixed division...[but doesn't state any maximum number of infantry or cavalry units].

Any ideas on which to follow?

[panda2]

I'm not sure there is any great conflict. The rules limit you to 4 units of cavalry plus 4 units of infantry and a unit of artillery in a mixed division. ToN tightens the limit to 2 units of cavalry unless otherwise specified in the list. I can't see any reason why they can't both apply. i.e. unless the list specifies otherwise you can field 2 units of cavalry, 4 units of infantry and one unit of artillery in a mixed division.

Andy D

[Blathergut]

Was toying with running 5 infantry units in each mixed division.

[panda2]

I can't see anything in ToN that explicitly states (or even implies) that the maxima for infantry units in mixed divisions in the rules no longer applies. As you say ToN is totally silent on the issue. I can only suggest you hold back on your "grande" plan until Terry returns from his holiday just in case. Without an explicit statement from an author (or agreement from your opponent) I'd always be inclined to play it safe and take the more restrictive interpretation.

Andy D

[donm]

I think you will find there are notes within certain army lists.

I know that there is in the Prussian lists.

Don

[deadtorius]

Aside from a maximum of 2 cavalry units and a single artillery unit there does not seem to be any cap to how many infantry units a mixed division can have. Guess if you wanted to you could put all your infantry in a single mixed division. Saves on commander points but, talk about unweildly. I suggest Blathergut should try it, with his usual habit of sending his division commanders off with a single unit to help in the attack command and control should be enough of a nightmare to help the Austrians out

I think so far I have managed to kill 3 of his divisional commanders in combats

[Blathergut]

Aside from a maximum of 2 cavalry units and a single artillery unit there does not seem to be any cap to how many infantry units a mixed division can have. Guess if you wanted to you could put all your infantry in a single mixed division. Saves on commander points but, talk about unweildly. I suggest Blathergut should try it, with his usual habit of sending his division commanders off with a single unit to help in the attack command and control should be enough of a nightmare to help the Austrians out

I think so far I have managed to kill 3 of his divisional commanders in combats

Except the rulebook stating maximum of 4 infantry.

[terrys]

I'll be updating divisional composition for use with lists in both ToN or EaE with the following:

Infantry division: At least 3 units, up to one of which may be field or horse artillery. No cavalry units are permitted.
Mixed division: At least 2 infantry units, plus either 1 or 2 cavalry units, plus up to 1 field or horse artillery unit.
Cavalry division: At least 2 cavalry units plus up to one horse artillery unit. No infantry units are permitted.

These compositions may only be modified by the specific lists special instructions.

[hazelbark]

Did this get put into the Errata or FAQ or anywhere?

[terrys]

Did this get put into the Errata or FAQ or anywhere?

It now in the errata for ToN and EaE that I'll be sending off this week.

[BrettPT]

Hi Terry

1. It might be worth considering an errata to both army list books saying something like:

"Where an army list specifies that units must be used in fortifications and the player is the attacker, the fortifications may not be used however the units may be deployed as normal."

- or alternatively clarifying that such units cannot in fact be fielded when attacking, then stating whether they are counted as lost, or whether the initial ACV is re-calculated to exclude them.

2. The 1815 British list cops a degree of criticism at our club, the most valid being the British/KGL cavalry minimum. Perhaps a line that says something like "The British and KGL cavalry, and British Horse artillery minimums only apply if any British, KGL or Hanovarian cavalry units are fielded" would be worth considering.

This would represent an English based force that does not include elements of the cavalry corps and would allow players an option to free up points for allied contingents.

3. It would be nice to be able to field an 1815 Anglo-Dutch force that is mainly Dutch (not possible in an 800 point game under the 1815 British list). Could I put in a plug to allow the Army of the Netherlands to field an allied infantry division of Brits/Hanovarians; plus if desired the (allied) Optional Brunswick Division on page 139?

Waterloo allies are one of the most popular armies and at the moment the practical options for what you can field at 800 points is reasonably restrictive. It would definately add colour to the 1815 allied armies to free up the lists a bit and enable a greater variety of divisions to be able to be fielded at 800 points. The simplest change to allow a Dutch-dominated allied force to be fielded, would be to allow the Dutch army to have allies.

At the moment we have British players who have carefully painted Dutch & Brunswick units that don't get fielded at 800 points.

4. Lastly, just for your interest, we are using the following amendment to E&E armies at tournament here in NZ next weekend, and at the Nationals to be held at Easter. The amendment is driven by trying to get rid of compulsory artillery units in British Peninsular lists, but the same issues apply to many E&E lists. It represents an option for a player to allocate all their artillery at a regimental level, rather than being required to mass some of it at divisional level.

All lists in Emperors and Eagles have the following amendment:

For every artillery attachment chosen the required minimum of that type of artillery in a unit is reduced by 1. The maximum of that type of artillery allowed is also reduced by 1.

You may field as many attachments as allowed under a list, no further deduction is made from the artillery unit minimum/maximums after these reach 0/2 for that type of artillery.

- Note- : Concentrated artillery was something that developed later in the period. Most E&E lists allow players - by maxing out on both artillery units and attachments - to field historically unheard of quantities of artillery. The amendment also allows players an option to spread all their artillery out as individual batteries (attachments) rather than being required to concentrate some batteries into pairs (units).

[terrys]

Hi Brett,

Replies as follows:
1) A solution may be to allow the field fortifications to be placed as normal – but only up to the minima specified. Any others selected above the minima cannot be placed nor any artillery units that would be in them. The ACV is recalculated as if these units lost were never selected.

2) The current proposed amendment is to allow all Dutch-Belgian units to count against the minima of equivalent types of British and Hanoverians in the main list. At Waterloo allied cavalry was spread across the battlefield, and it would be unusual for a corps sized command not to have a cavalry component supporting it. I’m therefore reluctant to remove the restrictions on compulsory cavalry.

3) See above.

4) This needs a little more consideration. A number of armies had significant numbers of guns in an artillery reserve or train. It would be perfectly reasonable for these to be assigned to a single corps if the tactical situation required it. Reducing the maximums would therefore not necessarily be the correct thing to do. Allowing attachments to count towards the minima may well be more reasonable.

[hazelbark]

Regarding the Waterloo Campaign.

I would suggest you look at what a Corps game that began at Quatra Bras might look like.

IIRC the Dutch Belgians were there and in FOGN game terms the English division(s) arrive later. For the first 800-900 points on to the battlefield the most the English-Hanoverians had was a single foot division. Picton I think.

[hazelbark]

Regarding the Artillery.

I think there is a wide variation in the early period. Currently re-reading Jim Arnold's 1800 campaign book. I did not realize how much of the French Artillery had not gotten through the pass to join the army by Marengo. In qty terms it is hard to justify any Battle Groups and precious little for attachments. Although at the very end of the day for Desaix's counter attack Marmont strips all the remaining guns scattered across several Corps to create about 20 guns to fire to disrupt the Austrians.

[BrettPT]

2) The current proposed amendment is to allow all Dutch-Belgian units to count against the minima of equivalent types of British and Hanoverians in the main list. At Waterloo allied cavalry was spread across the battlefield, and it would be unusual for a corps sized command not to have a cavalry component supporting it. I’m therefore reluctant to remove the restrictions on compulsory cavalry.

Thanks for the reply Terry.

Your above proposal would work a treat I think. I had a quick play with the 1815 Anglo-Allied list using the proposal above and it is possible at 800 points to field 2 Dutch divisions, a British division and a Brunswick division. A good result.

You would make a lot of 1815 Brit players happy chappies if you include this amendment in your forthcoming list errata.

Cheers
Brett

[BrettPT]

1) A solution may be to allow the field fortifications to be placed as normal – but only up to the minima specified. Any others selected above the minima cannot be placed nor any artillery units that would be in them. The ACV is recalculated as if these units lost were never selected.

I think that the allies at Toulon are the only army that has compulsory fortifications, so would work for them.

For anyone else considering taking fortifications, it would be a gamble. End up as attacker and you would lose (say) 50 points from your army list.

Both myself and Mike (another club member currently painting Ottomans) are of the current opinion that we would not field the heavy artillery/fortifications if there is a risk of not being able to field the guns.

I have not seen a game where fortifications have been ued (has anyone?) but my feeling is that they are pretty good. My thoughts are that fortifcations are a 'gimmick' and I wouldn't like to see them become a norm in tournaments - so perhaps your idea is a good one Terry. Take them if you wish, but there is a reasonably high level of risk involved.

Cheers
Brett

[BrettPT]

4) This needs a little more consideration. A number of armies had significant numbers of guns in an artillery reserve or train. It would be perfectly reasonable for these to be assigned to a single corps if the tactical situation required it. Reducing the maximums would therefore not necessarily be the correct thing to do. Allowing attachments to count towards the minima may well be more reasonable.

It's actually the minima requirements that are the concern as players don't tend to max out on artillery anyway (I can't recall ever seeing anyone here in NZ field the maximum allowable artillery in any list).

Allowing attachments in E&E lists to count against the minima would cover the issue for practical purposes.

Cheers
Brett

[KendallB]

I can't recall ever seeing anyone here in NZ field the maximum allowable artillery in any list.

My 1807 Russians came pretty close with 5 units of artillery. I think I could have still bought another unit.

[hazelbark]

(I can't recall ever seeing anyone here in NZ field the maximum allowable artillery in any list).

Interesting perhaps we move this to a different thread, but I'd like to hear more.

Is it the maximums are just too high at 800 points but there are still people with a goodly amount of artillery?
or
People tend to minimize artillery as not cost effective?

I can see it varying by the list but I have found particularly for the unreformed armies they need artillery not just as detachments.

[deadtorius]

I always max out arty attachments for my Austrians but have given up on the large arty units as being too wide, so my Later Austrian lists with 5 max guns (not counting horse guns) has seen the table a few times but won't likely end up being used again. However with the 1805 list you have to have 4 guns which is both the maximum and the minimum, although 2 of them can be heavy if you have the Grenadiers, which I had in our last game. Guns worked well, the cuirassier were a slightly different story....