Slitherine

Fortescue’s A History of the British Army Vol.8 pp262 states:
“Soon after 2 o’clock in the afternoon wellington formed up the Fifth and Seventy-seventh - about a thousand bayonets jointly – into a single square, with the Twenty-first, which had by this time come up, in another square in advance, and ordered a retreat… the Fifth and Seventy-seventh were left to bring up the rear alone. … More than once they [the French cavalry] dashed close up to the bayonets, but fell away at the critical moment before the steady fire of the infantry. Meanwhile Picton, having with some trouble withdrawn his three battalions from the intricate ground around El Bodon, joined Colville’s brigade; and the whole continued the retrograde movement in square, much harassed by the French artillery, but presenting always an unshakeable front to the cavalry.”

Fortescue suggests there were around 1000 men in the 5th/77th square. This is about half the average British brigade for that period.

Fortescue suggests the British foot as a whole retired in square.

These units combined are equivalent to a single unit in FOGN.
There are a couple of quotes from Grattan's "Adventures with the Connaught Ranges" relating to the retreat of this 'unit':
"During the whole time the French cavalry never quitted us, and six light guns, advancing with them and taking the division in flank and rear, pouring in a frightful fire of grape and canister. General Picton conducted himself with his accustomed coolness. He rode on the left flank of the column, and repeatedly cautioned the different battalions to mind the quarter distance and the 'tellings off'."
and
"The clatter of the horses and the clanking of the scabbards were so great, as the right squadron moved up, that many thought it the forerunner of a general charge. Some mounted officer called out, 'Had we not better form square?' 'No,' replied Picton; 'it is but a ruse to frighten us, and it won't do'.

2 particular entries:
> "Quarter Distance" - is only used for troops in column
> "Had we better not form Square" - self explanatory
This leads me to believe that we have their movement correct in FOGN:
The 'Unit' retired in tactical (actually in quarter distance column)
The unit was prepared to form square if it was decided that the French cavalry were going to charge (i.e. as a reaction to an assault)

Sokolov sumerises the use of skirmisher companies and light infantry like this in 1811 from Davouts instructions:

"not only the voltigeurs but all the companies must be trained to fight as skirmishers. To help the voltigeurs the battalions should send companies of line. "
It seems there is no difference between line and light units All the infantry was doing the same job as the voligeurs or light inits in the past.

On squares :

he discribes how to form squares of 1, 2 , 3 or 4 battalions
when forming several squares these should be formed in echelon
wagons or artillery carriages should be put on the corner of the squares if available and the voltigeurs should be placed there.


Apparently there was n evolution between 1805 and 1811 in 1811 things were less rigid, troups moved in attack column, formed line where needed, moverd, changed to attcak column with great ease

terrys wrote:These units combined are equivalent to a single unit in FOGN.
There are a couple of quotes from Grattan's "Adventures with the Connaught Ranges" relating to the retreat of this 'unit':
"During the whole time the French cavalry never quitted us, and six light guns, advancing with them and taking the division in flank and rear, pouring in a frightful fire of grape and canister. General Picton conducted himself with his accustomed coolness. He rode on the left flank of the column, and repeatedly cautioned the different battalions to mind the quarter distance and the 'tellings off'."
and
"The clatter of the horses and the clanking of the scabbards were so great, as the right squadron moved up, that many thought it the forerunner of a general charge. Some mounted officer called out, 'Had we not better form square?' 'No,' replied Picton; 'it is but a ruse to frighten us, and it won't do'.

2 particular entries:
> "Quarter Distance" - is only used for troops in column
> "Had we better not form Square" - self explanatory
This leads me to believe that we have their movement correct in FOGN:
The 'Unit' retired in tactical (actually in quarter distance column)
The unit was prepared to form square if it was decided that the French cavalry were going to charge (i.e. as a reaction to an assault)

Thanks, Terry. That's clear. I agree with you that you have it about right. I suppose FoGN could have dispensed with the 'square formation' entirely since the philosophy is that the formation of the battalions within a FoGN unit are whatever the commander thinks is suitable for the perceived circumstances of the unit. Technically that would include square formation but from a visual look and feel perspective it just wouldn't feel like a Napoleonic battlefield without units in square.

So, the only change I would see is adding some comments in the description of 'tactical formation' to include 'faster' moving squares. These 'faster' moving squares must have been more vulnerable and required better trained troops to avoid gaps in the square to be exploited by the enemy. It's hard to see conscripts doing this easily. The current game mechanism whereby 'tactical' covers a range of formations with a reasonably good chance for (71% for veterans, 56% for drilled and 33% for conscripts) to form a game (i.e., more tightly formed) square in the event of attack by cavalry seems about right. I wouldn't think it should be 100%, even for veterans. Moving squares have been used all through history. They weren't all successful.

In terms of movement allowances and formation changes, what's now in the rules is consistent. If we make changes for squares to tactical then we have to be consistent with other formation changes as well.

If we should make it significantly easier for squares to move about the tabletop, it doesn't take much testing or foresight to see that suddenly mobile squares will become a highly favoured formation for infantry. I can't see that having the look and feel of a Napoleonic battlefield. If it's not significant change then why bother making things more complex for an insignificant change. Surely academic satisfaction is an insufficient reason to make the game more complex.

Jilu wrote:Sokolov sumerises the use of skirmisher companies and light infantry like this in 1811 from Davouts instructions:

"not only the voltigeurs but all the companies must be trained to fight as skirmishers. To help the voltigeurs the battalions should send companies of line. "
It seems there is no difference between line and light units All the infantry was doing the same job as the voligeurs or light inits in the past.

Of course "must be" and "should" does not imply "were" in all cases. Surely not all line regiments or even regiments labelled "light" in all armies should be considered "light" regiments in FoGN. Yes, it's true that some French ligne regiments were trained sufficiently to be treated as light regiments and not all legere regiments were sufficiently trained to be considered "lights". What is that people are proposing? That French armies have no "light" regiments? That all French ligne regiments should be "light" regiments? Both seem a little extreme. We already have a problem with light infantry being over "egged" as Terry says. Indeed Terry is considering that, unless otherwise specified in an army list players would be allowed no more than one light unit per division. That would seem to settle the issue for competition games. For historical battles, be a little flexible folks. If you think a legere regiment wasn't capable of operating as a light regiment classify it as a line regiment. If you think a ligne regiment is capable of operating as light infantry classify it as one. Keep in mind that the French army lists don't say "Ligne" and "Legere" but "Line" and "Light" with appropriate capabilities. Do we really need to have the words "Ligne et Legere" for both entries in the French lists? As for other nations, I'm less convinced that many line regiments could operate as lights even by 1815.

Just as an example, d'Erlon's Corps in the 100 days campaign has just one legere regiment in all four infantry divisions. When playing out parts of this campaign I fully intend to give three of the divisions each one light regiment as I think this is a better representation of the corps. It's also still compliant with the French 1815 list.

adonald wrote:I am pleased you have looked at the Haythornthwaite book on British infantry tactics. Why, then, did you decide that the shoot as reformed, move as unreformed was a sensible position?

Alastair Donald

It would be a bit odd if British troops were classified identically to the French. Even it there is an academic argument in favour of that, it just wouldn't feel right in a game. There is the issue that the British are too expensive and that is likely being addressed in some ways. Terry has already made a proposal for unreformed troops which brings them closer to reformed in several ways including the critical outcomes move facing. It remains to be seen if any adjustment in points is warranted after evaluating these changes.

In any event we must be careful to not make super troops. The British infantry already shoot as reformed, have lots skirmisher attachments and generally are of higher quality. Do they need to be the best at everything? Even if they were - which, of course, is always arguable, it's not very satisfactory from a game balance perspective - keeping in mind that we have a proposal on the table to better balance unreformed and reformed.

And just to throw out a random paraphrased quote from an 18th century general, "anyone who said he has stood to receive a first volley from an enemy is a hero and anyone who has said he has stood for a second is a liar", which signifies nothing but it seemed like a cool quote.

In any event we must be careful to not make super troops

If the British would be made into super troops by making them reformed, and the French are reformed already, doesn't that make the French the super troops you are talking about? And the Prussians? And the Russians? And the German States?

A paltry 1 point reduction in an infantry base cost does not sort out the problem that the British are reformed troops based on the comparison of their behaviour against that of the French.

Alastair

particular entries:
> "Quarter Distance" - is only used for troops in column
> "Had we better not form Square" - self explanatory

Terry, the quotes you have mentioned are about the remaining troops of Pictons division that were leading the retreat from El Bodon. The squares of the 5th/77th Foot and the 21st Line were covering those other columns that were indeed in quarter distance column. The best description for this action is in Oman's History of the Peninsula War Volume IV pp 568-570. The squares received a series of attacks early on in the retirement. Later, the French cavalry did sweep down the division's column past the two rear squares to threaten those leading march columns made up of the 94th, 2/83rd and 9th Portuguese Line. However, the French calvary were spent and could not attack. It is this that your quote about Picton refers, not the attacks on the squares.

Mobile squares keeping up with battalions in March column at quarter distance. Mobile and effective. I don't think you have it right at all. And then there's the Middle Guard at Waterloo. Time for a rethink.

Alastair

adonald wrote:

In any event we must be careful to not make super troops

If the British would be made into super troops by making them reformed, and the French are reformed already, doesn't that make the French the super troops you are talking about? And the Prussians? And the Russians? And the German States?

A paltry 1 point reduction in an infantry base cost does not sort out the problem that the British are reformed troops based on the comparison of their behaviour against that of the French.

Alastair

Now you are being silly. The super troop is in the context of all of the other benefits in the list (eg skirmishers attachments and quality). None of these alone make a super troop but all together they do.

At least I have to admit you are consistent. You've argued that the British should be the best in every category.

adonald wrote:I don't think you have it right at all. And then there's the Middle Guard at Waterloo. Time for a rethink.

Alastair

No, it's not.

Currently veterans in tactical have a 71% chance of forming square when attacked. In the game, one can adequately represent the historical situations using tactical and only moving into square when attacked. It's being pedantic to insist that you must visually have units in square moving (noting yet again that tactical does not specify specific battalion formations). The price of being visually pedantic Is obvious - many infantry units in square advancing on cavalry formations - in just about every game. Don't think it won't happen? It certainly will.

Currently veterans in tactical have a 71% chance of forming square when attacked. In the game, one can adequately represent the historical situations using tactical and only moving into square when attacked. It's being pedantic to insist that you must visually have units in square moving (noting yet again that tactical does not specify specific battalion formations).

I am quite aware of the differences between a FoGN unit and a battalion.

In a FoGN wargame the El Bodon experience could not happen. The British would retire and tactical showing their flanks and rear to the French calvary. That cavalry will then move up to with in charge reach. The British will be forced to form square and become immobile. This immediately negates the retirement that actually occurred. An unhistorical result.

Or, the British columns continue to march away from the French, who then charge those columns in the flank and rear. There is only one result in that case.

As for carrying out infantry assaults on cavalry, the cavalry could easily get out of the way of the squares. Ever wondered why cavalry didn't form the front line of an army's deployment? - because they can't hold ground. It's the case at the moment that large infantry units can move up and monster calvary anyway.

Your fears are unjustified.

As for the that tactical is everything except for an immobile square, remember my initial points around the types of anti-cavalry formations, including close column. Those formations are much safer than line, which is also modelled by the tactical unit. And still mobile. But if infantry don't form square they are highly likely to be run down by a cavalry assault.

So you can't have it both ways, a generic battle formation covering all infantry deployments with very different characteristics, or that AND a special formation called "square" that has special effects against cavalry but doent move very far. In that case, why does it move at all? Why aren't close columns modelled with a better resistance against cavalry [i initially thought they were in the "square" category]?

All I'm saying is the square should be more mobile, and we have evidence for it.

Alastair

Or, the British columns continue to march away from the French, who then charge those columns in the flank and rear. There is only one result in that case.

The British columns would continue to march away from the cavalry.
The only way cavalry can stop them is to charge.
The British would then take a CMT to form square with success rate of 55% for drilled, 70% for veteran
Light cavalry are unlikely to break even disordered squares needing 4 hits on a 5+
(assuming the unit is a small one - I suspect it may be large in this scenario)

The light cavalry break off - the squares reform into column or tactical and continue moving.


On a more important point:-
I firmly believe that allowing squares to move faster will break the game!
I had to concede to pressure to allow squares to move even the 1MU we allow them at the moment.
However, if we allowed them to move further (4MU or 6MU) I can see players moving everywhere in squares - as the most efficient formation. This is blatantly untrue, and anything that promotes that as an option should be avoided at all costs.
The only concession I would consider is to allow a unit to move a certain distance (to be decided) during a move in which they change from square into tactical or march formations. This would simulate them forming defensive square when charged by cavalry, then moving off in 'open' square after repelling the charge.

many infantry units in square advancing on cavalry formations

I must admitt in one tournament game it is what I did , even moving only 1 MU

I wanted the famously impetuous british heavies to charge the squares and my opponent was stuck vs squares of regular line infantry while my best units went against the rest of the british line with some cavalry help .

As I wrote earlier, we need to know what we would like to change, why and how it will change the game . If, as Terry wrote, moving the squares more than 1 MU would break the game, let's keep it 1 MU .But the question needed to be asked .

bahdahbum wrote:

many infantry units in square advancing on cavalry formations

I must admitt in one tournament game it is what I did , even moving only 1 MU

I wanted the famously impetuous british heavies to charge the squares and my opponent was stuck vs squares of regular line infantry while my best units went against the rest of the british line with some cavalry help .

As I wrote earlier, we need to know what we would like to change, why and how it will change the game . If, as Terry wrote, moving the squares more than 1 MU would break the game, let's keep it 1 MU .But the question needed to be asked .

Fair enough asking questions, bahdahbum. But having asked the question and getting Terry's response we should then accept his answer. If not we are always free to design our own game or convince our buddies to change to a rule set more to our liking. For my part, if Terry proposes it I will test it.

terrys wrote: The only concession I would consider is to allow a unit to move a certain distance (to be decided) during a move in which they change from square into tactical or march formations. This would simulate them forming defensive square when charged by cavalry, then moving off in 'open' square after repelling the charge.

Even this I think will be an unnecessary change. Extra complication.

Plus it's an option the game currently to charge infantry with cavalry - not expecting to win - but to encourage them to go to square and delay their subsequent advance. A legitimate tactic, used by French at Eylau, Aspern Essling, Wagram.
The infantry commander then has the reasonably finely balanced decision to make - square or stand and shoot.

I wouldn't like to see this go out of the game by making it too easy to pop out of squares and continue an advance.

.. waiting for Al's reply, breaking out the popcorn now

waiting for Al's reply, breaking out the popcorn now

Glad to see you still have your sense of humor.

The only concession I would consider is to allow a unit to move a certain distance (to be decided) during a move in which they change from square into tactical or march formations. This would simulate them forming defensive square when charged by cavalry, then moving off in 'open' square after repelling the charge.

I think that may be too complicated.

One of the issues we have is the definition of what a tactical formation is.

It appears to be:
Close column of divisions (two companies wide), battalions beside and to the rear
Column at Quarter distance (five yards between companies - to immediately form square), battalions beside and to the rear
Column at half distance (ten yards between companies), battalions beside and to the rear
Open column (twenty yards between companies), battalions beside and to the rear

Three ranks deep line, battalions beside and to the rear in two battalion lines
Two ranks deep line, battalions beside and to the rear in two battalion lines.

The lines are more vulnerable that the columns to a cavalry attack, and there are some columns that are stronger against cavalry than other column types.

Given the rather low probabilities you refer to form a group of steady squares (only 55% if drilled, 70% if veteran), it seems that this applies to infantry in line or open-half distance column. Otherwise, the probabilities you have are out of whack with the capabilities of some of those columns to form sqaure of just beat off a calavry attack.

Given that there are two column formations that provide a strong anti-cavalry capability (the close column and the quarter distance column (specifically noted to be used when under threat from cavalry), and with specific evidence that trained Napoleonic infantry can move in square, I would have thought it would not be too difficult to rationalise the following:

'Tactical' is open to half distance columns by division, used to manoeuvre in combat and form line; or lines with a supporting line

'Squares' are closed or quarter distance columns or squares capable of moving slowly, but more vulnerable to shooting (as per the existing rules) with no skirmishers deployed.

I suggest the only change is to move the 'square' quicker than the current 1 MU - as a compromise, say 3 MU.

This way, we have some more realism in how the Napoleonic infantry resisted cavalry, but without getting into the minutae of the company/battalion mechanics of what formations they are in at moments in time, in reflection of the game design parameters.

It won't break the rules, but it does make more sense.

Alastair
Brett, are you sharing that popcorn?

Hmmmm ...

I disagree about moving squares.

Another way of thinking about the mechanism is that in your own bound you are able to form a steady square without penalty. It is only in your opponents bound that you run the risk of having an unsteady square. Thus, the entire game mechanism around the process of forming a square is simply an artifice of "I go, you go".

The tactical situation that gives rise to the need to either form square or not is therefore unrelated to the movement ability of squares. By the time a decision is needed as to whether to form square in my turn or risk forming it in your assault phase, the positioning of the 'units' relative to each other is already determined. How you moved to get there is no longer relevant - whatever "tactical" formation is supposed to represent.

IMHO.

Light cavalry are unlikely to break even disordered squares needing 4 hits on a 5+

Terry, at El Bodon there were two French dragoon brigades and two light cavalry brigades. There wasn't just light cavalry. Oman, Vol IV, p564. And artillery that fired at the squares and columns as they withdrew.

Alastair

By the time a decision is needed as to whether to form square in my turn or risk forming it in your assault phase, the positioning of the 'units' relative to each other is already determined.

It would enable a player to make a call whether to form square before caring out an advance or retirement.

While you raise an interesting point, I'm not sure it addresses the issue at hand. It has been my experience that infantry face the likelihood of a cavalry charge in many of the positions they find themselves on a wargame battlefield. Even bringing one light cavalry unit into the front firing line will put at threat any infantry unit within reach of its charge. Does the opposing player then put those infantry units within reach of the calvary in square? Usually, this is not either viable or sensible if that player wishes to win the battle. If the calvary player then charges, their opponent can either stand and shoot or form square. It is surprisingly difficult to form a steady square. Trained Infantry were very good forming square - but not in FoGN. While I appreciate the square forming probabilities maybe based around battlefield conditions such as black powder smoke and intervening terrain, it wasn't THAT bad, and I am also pointing out that infantry advanced in the situations where there was a cavalry through it using dense formations such as the closed column or Austrian mass. Good field officers new when to change formation.

Perhaps another approach is to make it easier to form a steady square (or at least, not drop another cohesion level) in your opponents assault phase. Make it a pass on a four rather than a five as presently set.

Alastair

I think you are conflating several things here.

1) The game.
Unless: one of three points apply the infantry will go into square and be fine.
A) the enemy cavalry is within 2 MU,
B) their are multiple brigades of cavalry and a single infantry
c) the quality of the cavalry is high (Cuirassier with artillery, etc)

Other cases the cavalry will likely have little impact on the infantry going into square.

If there is a lot of infantry and not much cavalry, the infantry will likely just shoot, halt then wreck the cavalry in the next turn.

A single unsupported cavalry brigade will shortly regret trying to hold off multiple infantry brigades.

Now cavalry supporting infantry versus just plain infantry is effective in the game. Now you are talking multiple brigades versus multiple brigades. The issue will likely come down to the shooting either effectively disrupting and wavering then the cavalry go in or vice versa and the cavalry are nullified.

That all seems reasonable historically and in line with expectations. With one exception.

That exception is you really have few accounts of fresh cavalry formed for charging just coming up and staring at the enemy infantry from what would be a near distance. (I would say 4-6 MU for certain). You have cavalry skirmishing and delaying. You have exhausted cavalry. But the threat of say 2 regiments of cavalry just sitting 300 yards from infantry doesn't feel right. That is where I think you have the case.

Now you keep citing El Bodon. How close were the cavalry on an on-going basis? I don't have my books with me.