1700 to 1762

[hazelbark]

I think one of the things that SYW suffers from a lot is sterotype...as do most gaming periods.

Certainly it was the "linear period" but that is more a tactical description. I gamed it a lot with "Age of Reason" which is very beer and pretzel set. But once you imposed scenarios it was quite good.

Look at Frederick's battles. Almost none unfolded with two armies approaching each other in linear fashion like say the great battles of the thirty years war which were very set piece.

Torgau, Zorndorf, Kunersdorf, Rossbach, Leuthen and so on had very unorthodox deployments and battle approaches that in many ways are quiet modern. But the infantry and cavalry deployed their tactical formations very linear style. The deployment exception is Mollowitz in War of Austrian Succession and that wasn't fun for Frederick's infantry.

[shadowdragon]

It would also be necessary to consider whether or not to focus the rules on the 7YW or to include the period all the way to 1700. If you go back to 1700 (WSS) then you have to include differences in cavalry doctrine - firepower vs. charge at the trot vs charge at the gallop and infantry doctrine - fire by rotation or fire by platoon. By the 7YW, the main armies had more or less come to an agreement on those things but not so in 1700.

[shadowdragon]

Which is another point - who do we want to use these rules - existing afficionados ( who will be relatively fewer in number than Napoleonic I would guess) or people wanting to try it out who have not done so before and so to spread interest? The former will be harder to please totally - as I was even with my own rules in FoG(N) being a dedicated Nappy Nerd The latter will want something easy to use - er - and fun rather important .

I have WSS armies which originally were based for Principles of War (e.g., 4 bases in 2 ranks for the French and 3 bases in a line for the Brits), but when FoG(R) came out I re-based to the FoG(R) standard (i.e., foot units with 6 bases in 2 ranks - I have an extra pike base that allows me to use the same figures for 1690's army lists - not quite the same uniforms but sometimes you have to be pragmatic), because I liked FoG(R) and so far have only used some minor rule modifications (e.g., foot get the same bonuses that musket/pike get in the earlier century) and list modifications. I haven't yet tried to superimpose a more rigid command and control structure than FoG(R) uses (e.g., Brigades) or change how Grand Tactical formations are defined in FoG(R). On the latter FoG(R) uses a checker board to fast movement to combat range with the units closing the gaps as the come into combat range. This might not be so far off what's reasonable as my understanding is that when a formation was deployed in two lines of battalions the second line was sometimes staggered to cover the gaps that might appear in the first line. The notion of a long line of battalions advancing in a one long continuous, shoulder to shoulder line is a myth. Some on-line info for the WSS has a typical 4-rank battalion being 140m wide with about 100m between battalions to allow the passage of lines.

I guess this business of maintaining intervals between battalions is something that FoG(N) has side-stepped since the basic unit has multiple battalions. On the other hand most battalion level games allow players to ignore the importance of that gap. This is from a US 19th century military historical review of military deployment....for the wars of Louis XIV, "The usual order of battle was in two or three lines; the infantry in the centre, and cavalry on the wings. The lines were from 300 to 600 paces apart; having intervals between their battalions and squadrons, in each equal to their front, so as to execute with ease the passage of lines. The importance of keeping some troops in reserve, to support those engaged, and also to be used for special objects, as turning the flank of an enemy, began also now to be acted on." For Frederick the Great, "Frederick adopted invariably the formation of three ranks for his infantry, and that of two for his cavalry. From the preponderating value given to the effects of musketry, his dispositions for battle were always with lines deployed, and so disposed as to favor an easy passage of lines." Something to think about if the "battalion" is the basic game unit.

As for look and feel - I do like the look of the 6 bases in 2 ranks if a unit represents a battalion for the period (WSS) but perhaps I'm being influenced by the massive re-basing job I just did....and still am in the process of for FoG(N)!!!

A final point, one similarity, in my view, between war in Europe and North America is the importance of depots and supply lines and how these influence when and where battles were fought. So one might one to consider how this would influence the tabletop game. The period cries out for a campaign system! Now that would be interesting - a set of miniature rules designed from the campaign level with tabletop battles used to resolve engagements.

[deadtorius]

In North America supply seems to be less of an issue. You took what you needed with you an tromped off through the woods, or as in the case of Quebec disembarked from naval transports. Time was short so you get right down to the shooting and battles resolve pretty quickly.
As for campaigns, I believe the was not a large variety of military targets to choose from and most forts were fairly remote. Clashes between natives and Europeans would be limited to small skirmishes targeting settlers who were on the frontier encroaching on native lands. For the most part the tribes seemed to have chosen to join with the French or British. In the Carribean it would be different with slave revolts, or in Jamaica escaped slaves who had set up their own independent colonies in the interior mountain ranges, Ciaroons I believe they were called.

[shadowdragon]

In North America supply seems to be less of an issue. You took what you needed with you an tromped off through the woods, or as in the case of Quebec disembarked from naval transports. Time was short so you get right down to the shooting and battles resolve pretty quickly.
As for campaigns, I believe the was not a large variety of military targets to choose from and most forts were fairly remote. Clashes between natives and Europeans would be limited to small skirmishes targeting settlers who were on the frontier encroaching on native lands. For the most part the tribes seemed to have chosen to join with the French or British. In the Carribean it would be different with slave revolts, or in Jamaica escaped slaves who had set up their own independent colonies in the interior mountain ranges, Ciaroons I believe they were called.

Supply is still very much an issue. A force starts from a supply base, a town or fort, with what it needs for an offensive expedition. There's a limit to how far the force can go since the animals/people eat the supplies they carry. There's no living off the land. Due to the sparseness of the settlements / forts, they are critical to extending a side's strategic reach. That makes each post strategically very important. Rivers and waterways are "gold" since they actually allow re-supply. Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne little's expedition down to Saratoga is a really nice example.

[donm2]

Some feedback from users of the 1792-1800 lists might give us a clues as to how people feel they work in FOG(N) - those lists were not available for beta testing of the rules.

Some things "off the top of my head"....

1) Basic unit should be the battalion and perhaps cavalry squadron.
2) Greater use of battalion guns which suit more methodical, linear style of warfare
3) "Corps" is not relevant. It could be the entire army but if we go to a "battalion" as the basic unit that armies might be too big, so perhaps "wing". Although these were not designed to be balanced, all arms forces. So it should be a player's "C-in-C" commanding with the FoG(N) division commanders replaced by brigade commanders.
4) I have no problem with a double rank of figures but the options should be between "line" (i.e., four bases wide and one base deep) and "march column" (one base wide and four deep). The former for combat and the latter for moving to the combat zone.
5) Infantry should be relatively impervious to cavalry from the front - same as the square for FoG(N). The bayonet replaced the pike without the need for "squares".
6) Light troops mostly restricted to "irregular".
7) Common use of field defences by some armies.
8 ) Infantry that was disciplined and held its fire until the enemy infantry was close seemed have the upper hand.
9) Less maneuvrable 'battery" artillery.
10) We may need to think about the tactics used by cavalry of the different nations.

This is from Don McHugh's WRG lists for the 7YW (Europe), from 1992 in the section where he explains the rules adaptations for the WRG 1685-1845 rules. (By the way, Don, complains that as of that year, that there was no easy to play set of rules which reflected the linear tactics of the period.) From the Rule Adaptations section:

"The main alteration to the rules are centred around the linear tactics used by the infantry of the period and their extensive use of battalion guns, which when combined gave them the ability to repulse cavalry by fire, without the need for forming squares. This, however, required a prolonged and very high standard of training which was not possible with the hurriedly conscripted massed armies of the Napoleonic period.

"It is true that towards the end of our period the increases in artillery pieces had led to the use of grand batteries, but the use of columns, although experimented with by Frederick were far from common. Artillery had greatly increased in an attempt to compensate for the falling quality of replacement troops, but these larger numbers made armies less manoeuvrable and so created other problems. The Prussians tried to overcome this with the first attempts at horse artillery, however, this was unsuccessful as it could not move fast enough to keep up with the cavalry, but was faster than the infantry and so ended up between both, unsupported by either, and easily destroyed. The numbers of light troops increased also, but they were still employed mainly on the flanks in a scouting and harassing role or to occupy difficult terrain, such as marshes and woods. The Austrian grenze were masters of this art and caused Frederick great problems, so much so that he tried to raise his own light troops but with little success. He was, however, successful in combating their hussars, and achieved this by training his hussars to fight like dragoons and not rely on skirmishing tactics."

That may not be the final word but I thought it useful to quote the thinking of someone else who attempted to adapt a primarily Napoleonic set of rules (even if it claimed 1685-1845).

Thanks guys for the mention, good to see all my hard work has not gone to waste.

Don M

[shadowdragon]

Thanks guys for the mention, good to see all my hard work has not gone to waste.

Don M

Hope you didn't mind me quoting that brief section from the intro to your book of army lists and rule adaptations.

[Rekila]

We have almost finish our game of the battle of Hastenbeck , and here are two samples of the game with linear tactics in action! I will soon post an after action report.


For our next game I’m preparing a Monongahela scenario with those armies:
British:
Comander: Bradock Competent.
1st Brigade Dumbar. Competent.
Vanguard. Light Infantry.(Small, Superior,Concript,line, Officer att)
48 Regt. Line infantry n-r (Large,Superior,drilled)
Militia. Line infantry n-r (small, average, conscript, skirmish att.)
Artillery. (Medium artillery, small, average, drilled)
2nd Brigade Halket
44 regt. Line infantry n-r (Large,Superior,drilled)
Militia. Line infantry n-r (small, average, conscript, skirmish att.)
Rearguard. Line infantry n-r (small poor conscript, officer att.)
422 pts
French:
Bajeu ( Competent, charismatic)
Left. Dumas (competent, charismatic)
Marine: Light infantry (skirmishes, small .average veteran)
4 x Indians: light infantry (skirmishes, small, average irregular)
Right. Le Marchand.
Canadians. Light infantry (skirmishes ,poor, irregular)
3x Indians light infantry (skirmishes, small, average irregular)
418pts
As always any comment should be greatly appreciated

[deadtorius]

Trying to remember is this the battle where the British commander, Braddock, dies and his troops bury him and march over his grave to conceal it from the enemy? Its an ambush situation is it not?

[hazelbark]

Trying to remember is this the battle where the British commander, Braddock, dies and his troops bury him and march over his grave to conceal it from the enemy? Its an ambush situation is it not?

Yep that's the story. Ambush and all.

[Shadowfax]

Thanks for the heads up, why not make the rules an extension of FOGR? That would allow for the early period and some of the more outlandish units available in North America, India and Middle East?

I did ask Richard about Marlborough's wars at Britcon, the year before FoG-R was published. He did say that it was stretching them too far.

However nothing is out of the question with wargames and I've liked WAS and SYW since reading Charge! in the 60's ( over half a century ) it doesn't seem that long.

I can always dust them off although they're all 25mm. SYW is a colourful period, you only have to look at the Front Rank Catalogue to start looking at an army list.

There would have to be more table depth to give manoeuver space.

Regards M-

[deadtorius]

so you would suggest shortening the deployment area?

Wider tables is a bit much to ask average at home gamers

[Shadowfax]

Quote).
A final point, one similarity, in my view, between war in Europe and North America is the importance of depots and supply lines and how these influence when and where battles were fought. So one might one to consider how this would influence the tabletop game. The period cries out for a campaign system! Now that would be interesting - a set of miniature rules designed from the campaign level with tabletop battles used to resolve engagements.

Yes! Out move your opponent to select the best position to fight. (live face to face on line or hot seat using the same PC).

Battalion level I think.
Bases, either 20mm wide x 30mm deep figures mounted 2 wide X 2 ranks deep. Or, 40MM wide X 1 rank deep.

Easy to Learn. Quick to play. And Enjoyable.
Make it flexible, so that 4, 6 or 8 bases or more can be a battalion or a brigade, just put a different label on it and alter the C3.
Call one a starter game the other the advanced if anyone wants to differentiate.
All the bases can be the same size. use inches for a battalion game and centimetres for the brigade level game.

M- just my 2p worth

[Shadowfax]

A wider table, say 5ft. x 6ft. would give a grand tactical movement area away from field pieces and enemy cavalry or a shorter range.

I've not read anything on deployment distance of the time, but I would have thought about 800 yards, dependent on terrain and of course plan, if any.

[Shadowfax]

Those Prussians and Austrians look good. 25mm. ?

[Shadowfax]

Sorry.. French.

[MikeHorah]

Thanks for the heads up, why not make the rules an extension of FOGR? That would allow for the early period and some of the more outlandish units available in North America, India and Middle East?

I did ask Richard about Marlborough's wars at Britcon, the year before FoG-R was published. He did say that it was stretching them too far.

However nothing is out of the question with wargames and I've liked WAS and SYW since reading Charge! in the 60's ( over half a century ) it doesn't seem that long.

I can always dust them off although they're all 25mm. SYW is a colourful period, you only have to look at the Front Rank Catalogue to start looking at an army list.

There would have to be more table depth to give manoeuver space.

Regards M-

I asked him the same thing - I think at the same event .I have been doing “back to basics” research re-reading all my Chandler , Duffy, Charles Grant et al plus some new additions to my library by Digby Smith and Anderson )- all about Europe so far not India and America but I will get to them . I do not favour suggesting they extend FOG ( R) (not my call really) . While I have hardly used it, apart from ECW, what little I have suggests it is not suitable for many good reasons which I suspect underlay their thinking about FOG(R)'s scope.

I think this era needs - and justifies - its own distinctive treatment from that , and from Napoleonic. But I am starting from a blank page trying not to be influenced by existing and past rules sets FOG or otherwise. Keep the thoughts coming in this thread folks as it all helps to get sense of the scale of battle people would prefer or expect in what is after all a niche era presently ( It didn't used to be when wargaming was in its early days of course.)

[shadowdragon]

Thanks for the heads up, why not make the rules an extension of FOGR? That would allow for the early period and some of the more outlandish units available in North America, India and Middle East?

I did ask Richard about Marlborough's wars at Britcon, the year before FoG-R was published. He did say that it was stretching them too far.

However nothing is out of the question with wargames and I've liked WAS and SYW since reading Charge! in the 60's ( over half a century ) it doesn't seem that long.

I can always dust them off although they're all 25mm. SYW is a colourful period, you only have to look at the Front Rank Catalogue to start looking at an army list.

There would have to be more table depth to give manoeuver space.

Regards M-

I asked him the same thing - I think at the same event .I have been doing “back to basics” research re-reading all my Chandler , Duffy, Charles Grant et al plus some new additions to my library by Digby Smith and Anderson )- all about Europe so far not India and America but I will get to them . I do not favour suggesting they extend FOG ( R) (not my call really) . While I have hardly used it, apart from ECW, what little I have suggests it is not suitable for many good reasons which I suspect underlay their thinking about FOG(R)'s scope.

I think this era needs - and justifies - its own distinctive treatment from that , and from Napoleonic. But I am starting from a blank page trying not to be influenced by existing and past rules sets FOG or otherwise. Keep the thoughts coming in this thread folks as it all helps to get sense of the scale of battle people would prefer or expect in what is after all a niche era presently ( It didn't used to be when wargaming was in its early days of course.)

I might (and have) extended FoG(R) to the WSS. My figures are based according to FoG(R) with foot units have an extra base of pikes so that I can substitute a musket base for pikes and use the same figures for the 1690's.

What I like about using FoG(R) for the WSS is the ability to reflect different tactical methods for cavalry using the different troop types plus the representation of battalion guns. This is still a period where they are working out whether to use cavalry for its firepower or for its shock value. What I don't like are the use of the "Grand Tactical" movement rules of FoG(R) (at least I'm not sure about it) and the treatment of combat in villages. I also think the WSS requires command and control rules different from FoG(R) and FoG(N).

As for extending FoG(N) back to the WSS, it's possible but I think it would lose a lot of the flavour of the WSS.

From a visual point of view, I prefer FoG(R) versus FoG(N). To me the FoG(R) units seem more like battalions of 500-1000 versus FoG(N)'s 2000-3000. This I think are key considerations - What should the game visually look like? What is the representational strength of a unit - a battalion (500), a regiment (1000-1500), a brigade (2000-3000)? My view - having just completed re-basing my WSS to FoG(R) standards - is bound to be biased. With that caveat, I would prefer the battalion of foot / regiment (or equivalent) of cavalry.

So, at least for the WSS, I think FoG(R) is do-able but FoG(N) becomes too bland. I don't do the 7YW but I would expect the opposite is true for that - no to FoG(R) but FoG(N) is do-able with some minor fixes. Perhaps, as you write, the period needs its own distinctive treatment.

P.S. There were a couple of posts on the FoG(R) boards about using FoG(R) for the WSS:

viewtopic.php?f=70&t=27342
viewtopic.php?f=70&t=34328

[MikeHorah]

I agree the look and feel are crucial and that extending FOG(N) backwards will not be sufficient. For myself I would want a distinctive "cultural" feel. Many have suggested the Btn and squadron as the core units which seems logical .But that said if the game design is to be for a 2-3 hours club evening or tournament game then probably no more than 15 or so units per player can be managed in practical terms. IF ( an important IF) we want that and to allow for the two infantry lines of Btns and wings of Sqns - which were typical of the mid 18th C - to be capable of being represented in such a game we need a way to aggregate Btns and Sqns into command units without losing the visual flavour in how they are deployed. I have some thoughts but that will need some experimentation and of course beta testing .I don't think mechanisms are likely to be such a big issue ( CMTs Cohesion tests CPs etc) . Wargaming has evolved with so many useful methodologies now ,one is spoilt for choice - it's the numbers built in and the mix of those methods and the game structure that will make it distinctive.

I agree there is a real distinction to be drawn between the period up to the end of the Spanish Succession war - and Great Northern War? (and maybe up to and as far as 1730), and thereafter. In the first decade the French stuck to six rank deep lines, and some others to 4 and 5 deep lines , while the Brits, Dutch and others moved to 3 deep. (No intervals within those deeper lines) . That will have made a big difference with firing by ranks when deep and not by platoons, and narrower frontages per Btn.( Generals seem to have gauged their lines in btn frontages).But 1700 maybe a false break point as a date too. And maybe FOG(R) amended will do rather better for WSS.I confess to a predeliction for being less universalist in rules . (I think for example that chariot warfare pre 1100 BC has seldom( never?) been adequately modelled, partly because it has been so little understood and researched by scholars.)

In the first decade the plug bayonet had by then pretty much been replaced by a variety of other designs -the socket yes but also other types which were not all equally effective in terms of weapon handling ( the ring bayonet and sword bayonet , some socket bayonets that were too long or with sharp edges hampering loading etc) . But by 1730 it is pretty safe to say the “ Brown Bess “ style of musket and socket bayonet of the next 100 years plus ,and the 3 or 4 deep line are standard for European armies .

The next step before beginning to draft is to research 50-60 battles - at least - in some depth to compile comparative data on numbers infantry, cavalry, gun ratios, composition etc and to evaluate how they were fought ( their own style of grand tactics) using some common language and criteria – for the start of the battle in particular. My sense is that battles began differently to how they did much later and that forming up took a lot longer and was very regulated and precise. So the key to making battles have the look and feel may be in how the set up is structured and the restrictions laid down for that as much as in the modelling of combat .

[Rekila]

We have been playing SYW battles with FOG for almost two years by now. (25mm!) We begin with FOG(R), and even if we play a number of very enjoyable games they didn’t really look like SYW. We then tried FOG(N) with better success. With a minimum of rules change (line) games runs very smoothly, with the advantage, that (for SYW) you can deploy whole armies instead of Corps. But curiously by comparison, the games we first played using FOGR look archaic, XVIII armies that yet fight with an older mentality. I will suggest that FOGR could be extended to cover up to 1740.