Long silence while doing much thinking ( also about mid 19th century) ) with the proverbial towel over the head and I done much more reading ( with a much expanded library)
I have reached some tentative conclusions/ findings which Terry and I will have a first go this year at modelling using our existing 7YW 15mm figures prior to producing a first draft.
I should emphasise we have not had a discussion with Slitherine about whether and how to develop it under the FOG brand. We need something to show them first that is fit for testing:
• A data compilation of some 90 European battles from 1701-1763 indicates there is no typical (or average as in “mode”)size for a battle across the different wars and the means and medians of the ranges are seldom the same .Bell curves can be quite shallow . In the War of Spanish Succession of 35 battles the median point is under 20,000 a side and mean average 24/25,000. But for 17 Battles in the Seven Years war the average mean and median is over 40,000 men on each side . And the disparity in numbers on both sides can be large eg the Russians and Swedes in the Great Northern War (and in India of course).
• The period up to 1740 still involves some transition and variation in weapons and their related formations and tactics in some armies- more than one might initially have assumed- despite the socket bayonet having replaced the plug bayonet by and during the first decade.
• We could regard the mid part of the century – 1740-1780 – as the hypothetical mid point of a historical bell curve and design round that core period but with tailored variations.
• While Btn seems instinctively to be preferred, to do largish battles in Europe even of 25,000 men per side means the infantry regiment as the assumed base unit is the better way to design a game that you can play in 3 hours or, so , on a medium sized table with a manageable number of units. That is if that style of game is the desired endpoint.
• But if we adopt a more FOG(AM) and (R)approach ( and of other rules sets) we could simply define a “ unit” of x stands as the base formation and design the rules to support either a regimental or Btn based game based game according to sub-period and theatre and with variations to accommodate smaller engagements and “small unit” tactics as in North America for example.
For the core period in Europe
• there was a standard or common initial deployment approach ( not always followed obviously) which was two cavalry wings - numbered in squadrons - and two “lines” of infantry Regts/ Btns one well behind the other in the centre .
• Infantry and their lines were very linear so Btns in a regiment were side by side not one behind the other – so a regimental footprint is much wider than deep favouring single stands for creating the basic tactical formation . There is no equivalent of the “ column of divisions” or open column for attack. Open columns were for deploying on the field of battle enabling platoons to wheel into line simultaneously to the left or fight ( rarely by the centre). Squares were available to use in regulations but seldom unless a unit became isolated – the close range fire of the line was believed to be enough to drive off cavalry to the front ( or rear by reversing the third rank) and usually was. Most infantry were trained regulars so their fire discipline is steady compared to much later more conscript armies or with high turnover.
• There were no” Divisions” or “Corps” as such as grand tactical or admin structures. The level beneath Wing and Line was the Brigade.
• But generals were not scarce ( sometimes eg the French there was an “embarrassment “of generals hanging around HQ looking for jobs)
• The concept of mixed divisions or brigades was not generally used - infantry and cavalry were kept separate.
• Within a wing of cavalry, Cuirassiers, Dragoons and Hussars /Lt Dragoons( when present) were brigaded separately.
• Brigades are not administrative concepts so were not standing formations. Good Field Officers at Brigade level were important in keeping the brigade’s cohesion, maintaining alignment etc. But despite regulations not all armies used standard methods ( eg the French) with Regimental commanders not always adhering to the current orthodoxy- with mixed results.
• Light infantry were not part of the main line of battle ( Grenzers - aka “Croats” Frei Corps and others ) but were irregular or semi -regular discrete formations and operated off the battlefield or in difficult terrain and on the flanks , where present, in main battles .No integral light companies – grenadiers were sometimes on both flanks of the line regts or pulled out as in Prussia and Austria into combined grenadier formations so no left flank light companies of sharpshooters etc.
• The heavier artillery were literally so – a 12 pdr gun could weigh a ton , much heavier than the turn of the 19th century, so pretty immobile. Heavy guns were often in tens and usually static once laid often behind field defences. Howitzers were not as such part of company and battery formations but could be deployed as required to support attacks on defended positions.
• Most artillery was light and medium in the front line with the infantry in 2’s and 4’s . serviced by gunners with infantry doing the heavy lifting. But not usually part of the regimental infantry establishment. They could keep up with the line infantry without having to limber up but provided no concentrated artillery firepower. The guns marched together in the artillery train off the battle field not with the infantry .Artillery trains were long .Armies marched and fought concentrated . Supply and logistics critical.
• The process of deployment on the battlefield is formalised , seldom organic or improvised taking several hours. Encounter battles were rare, battles were usually expected even where Frederick did one of his flank marches.
• Deploying from the right was practised so in a game, maybe, after laying the first unit in a Wing or Line subsequent units in that wing or Line would be to their left. While the more senior units were on the right, in some it went alternate, most senior right, next senior far left etc so not really a standard approach but maybe we might require the most senior regiments not to have junior regiments to their immediate right.
• Most soldiers in most armies were long serving not commonly conscripted.( Russia the exception but long service conscription) So if applying FOG(N)categories average drilled or average veteran would be common . Maybe a more nuanced training structure is needed with more than 3 levels eg green or raw/standard/experienced and veteran with elan also in more than 3 bands based on regimental seniority .
• By the 1740’s there are few significant differences in technology although in France the Gribeauval artillery system does come in later which is more mobile.
• Leadership and elan are key variables with lists needed to reflect the relative performance of subordinate commanders in different armies at different times. Maybe we do need a “ poor “ or “ineffective “category if we model Brigade commanders
So what are the gaming skills that we might emphasise?
• Deployment – best use of terrain and the placing of heavier artillery and high value units
• Maintaining formational cohesion in the advance - of individual units and of their higher formations.
• Judging best and most timely use of cavalry .
• Making best use of command assets.
• For Btn level games best use of small unit tactics
None of this is set in stone by any means and a heads up on my thinking so far. I guess what we need from a Slitherine perspective is a sense of whether there is enough call for this for them to give it an amber light . And I would guess made available via on line downloads and print on demand with a more straightforward design and layout than the first FoG Osprey printed offerings to make that easier and cheaper. But their call I guess. If not well .....
that players bring their own sets of personal cultural attitudes to the table, some helpful to success some not whether the rules ay them down or not!