2nd Division (Mixed) Commander – Competent
1x6 Grenadiers – Line infantry .....Average/Veteran
1x6 Hungarian – Line Infantry ......Average/Drilled
1x6 German - Line Infantry .........Average/Conscript
1x6 Dragoons – Heavy Cavalry ......Average/Drilled
1x4 Hussars – Light Cavalry .........Superior/Drilled
1xArtillery attachment
1xOfficer attachment
3rd Division (Infantry) Commander – Competent
1x4 German - Line Infantry ..........Average Drilled
1x4 German - Line Infantry ..........Average Drilled
1x6 German - Line Infantry ..........Average/Conscript
1x3 Medium Artillery ..................Average/Drilled
I decided to give myself a lot of large units so that I could get to close range without losing too much cohesion, with the 2nd division being my strike force.
In all games the Officer commanders were with large cavalry units, and the artillery attachments each went to small line infantry units.
I didn't have any time to write up a battle report for any of my games due to umpiring and general ‘helping out’. However, I’ll try to give a bief description of each:
1st game: Russian 1812. Lance Flint
The Russian army was designed with 3 commands each with a large artillery unit. (1 each of Medium, Heavy and Horse) with 1 each of Infantry, mixed and cavalry divisions (with 2 small units of cuirassiers and some cossacks). There was very little infantry (only 6 units).
I defended a fairly restricted table with a river on the left flank and woods, rough terrain and buildings on the other, leaving me with about 2ft of open (with gentle hill) in the centre.
I deployed with my 3rd division in the centre – with the large artillery unit on the hill. I placed the advance guard to their right in the gaps in the terrain, apart from the grenzers who were in skirmish formation to the far right. The 2nd division was deployed to the left of the hill, with the heavy cavalry (with officer attachment) on the other side of the river (which was shoulder-height and only passable with a CMT if the unit if led by a commander).
The Russians concentrated all 3 artillery units against the centre. With from right to left: mixed division /infantry division/cavalry division.
The Austrian heavy cavalry on the left crossed the river (with BC) in the hope of drawing off the enemy cuirassiers so that I could advance against his horse artillery with the 2nd division (of large units). Unfortunately a large unit of heavies isn’t good enough to take out a small cuirassier unit (supported by Cossacks). They dropped to wavering in the first round of combat – The BC was killed and the dragoons broke.
On the right the Russian cavalry was tempted into a charge by my (inadvertently) leaving some limbered artillery in charge reach. The artillery ‘retired’ and the dragoons ran into a unit of infantry in square. Subsequent shooting and an attack by the chevauleger forced them to retire wavering through a unit of hussars which dropped to disrupted, and was broken by the pursuing Austrian light cavalry (who’s BC had also been killed at the first attempt). On the same flank, there had been some largely ineffective firing by units in a wood, but with the threat of the cavalry now gone, the Austrian Jaegers were able to assault a disrupted Russian infantry unit. The end result was another 2 units of Russians broken in the wood.
Time was called at this point and I gained a 14-11 ‘draw’.
This game was largely a learning game for Lance, and I think the most obvious lesson was that artillery on their own can’t win battles. The lack of infantry was a big problem for the Russians, and although the artillery caused units (even large ones) to drop to wavering, he didn’t really have anything to take advantage of it. With 5 cavalry units, 3 large artillery units and only 6 infantry units the Russian would have been better in more open terrain. The cavalry would have space to operate, and the artillery would have had a better field of fire and more targets.
