Anglo-Portugese comments

[Greenjacket]

Some comments after going through the Anglo-Portugese 1810-11 list:

British Light Infantry – what are these supposed to represent? The only Light Infantry Brigades were the untested brigade in 7th Division (which was not veteran or with rifles), the KGL Green Rascals (who are covered elsewhere in the list), and of course the two brigades in the Light Division (who are covered elsewhere in the list).

Why are KGL Line rated as Superior Veteran, but the Green Rascals are rated as Average?

The British cavalry is very strange. The numbers are way OTT. I mean up to 8 bases of heavy cavalry and 12 bases of light cavalry?! Wellington had a total of three British cavalry brigades in this period, and only ever fielded a maximum of two cavalry brigades at Fuentes d'Onoro, so the numbers should be 0 to 8 bases for the cavalry.

The only Dragoon Guard regiment in the Peninsula at this time, 3rd Dragoon Guards, was brigaded with 4th Dragoons – and apparently there was no difference at all in function or status. Very odd. Delete Dragoon Guards. (Of course, this also goes to a related issue, which is that functionally there was no real difference between dragoons and light dragoons at this time - the Royals were quite happily brigaded with light dragoons, and the role of 3rd Dragoon Guards and 4th Dragoons in Estreadura at this time was undertaking an essentially light cavalry role).

I am not sure why KGL Dragoons are in the list given that they didn’t join Wellington until 1812! Similarly, I am perplexed at the inclusion of British Hussars who didn't arrive until later the next year! Delete options for KGL Dragoons and British Hussars.

Highlanders presumably this is supposed to be a generic thing to allow for (allegedly) better quality battalions such as the Old stubborns or the Connaught Rangers?

British Light Division – this consisted of two fairly large brigades. Should be 6 bases per unit, with Rifles, and a Maximum of 12 bases.

British Horse Artillery should be Horse Artillery?

How should Portugese Infantry be represented? Portugese Brigades consisted of two (fairly small) regiments and (usually) a battalion of Cacadores. Should this be represented by two 4-base units or one 6-base unit?

Portugese Cacadores were single battalions attached to either the Light Infantry Brigades or Portugese Brigades.

I had a laugh at the rating of Portugese Dragoons. Obviously needs ot be changed to Poor.

Rockets didn't arrive until 1813. Delete option for 1810-11.

[AlanCutner]

I don't understand British dragoons being compulsory at all pretty much throughout the penisular campaign. They were available occasionally.

However I can understand the problem of how to represent cavalry in the peninsular army. Cavalry have to be attachments, in a mixed division, or in a cavalry division of at least two brigades. The latter, possibly with an officer attachement, is suitable for some battles but not all. Neither of the other options represents Anglo-Portuguese use at all - but then how do you represent small numbers of cavalry otherwise?

[david53]

I have found just how hard it is to work a real OOB into a rules OOB.

Maybe thats why the list are only a representiation of roughly what can be used, small numbers are very hard to work into a playable list. A very hard job to make work correctly.

Dave

[philqw78]

I had a laugh at the rating of Portugese Dragoons. Obviously needs ot be changed to Poor.

In your opinion, perhaps not in others, certainly not mine.

Should be 6 bases per unit, with Rifles, and a Maximum of 12 bases

Or 3 units of 4 bases?

Rockets didn't arrive until 1813. Delete option for 1810-11.

Strange that Wellington was writing about having used them across the Tagus in 1810 then. But he wasn't called Wellington then so perhaps he didn't and he probably didn't light the fuse.

[MikeHorah]

The list in the main rulebook probobaly should not have been labelled 1810-11. Mea culpa. It started off from that draft list ( which will be one of several in the second list book) but got broadened, so British players could learn to use the rules with a broader set of types pending the Main lists. But I will review the wisdom of using such precise and exclusive dates before we put them to bed. Maybe " early middle and later" acknowledging or even having date overlaps would be better. The way the Portuguese were integrated and developed over time has been a main factor that we have tried to model and not so much a rollcall of units and we don't want to put dates in the left hand column " not before,.. " not after". Another issue has not been to make the lists too "samey".

If we bracket types together then what you call them is up to the player eg Lt Dragoons and Hussars, KGL and British light infantry. Choice is important. No-one has to have the Light Division and players are free to model it a different way using the core and optional troops. Across the lists there are a number of such formations - Lasalle's Infernal Brigade, Luzow's freicorps, the Black Brunswickers in 1809 - all optional - take or leave.They are how we would model them using our system. If you feel different the lists are flexible enough to let you do it yourself whether you give a formation those titles or not.

Page 110 is key to understanding how to construct specific historical orbats for which points values should be irrelevant. Base Maxima and minima are as much a game design system for equal points based games as anything else. In battle specific historical orbats they can be ignored as can other limitations such as the number of mixed divisions, and the number of artillery units in a division.

Our approach has been to avoid being anglo centric but players will want to be able to use the British army in the Peninsula against non Peninsluar opponents so it's unusual - and somewhat refreshing - to be challenged for having been over generous or overrich in a list . One's first instincts were to be conservative but that has had to be overcome to make these rules and lists more successful as games.

[Greenjacket]

Greenjacket wrote:I had a laugh at the rating of Portugese Dragoons. Obviously needs ot be changed to Poor.

In your opinion, perhaps not in others, certainly not mine.

Then what of the opinion of their own commander? And the track record of Portugese cavalry was not exactly stellar was it.

Rockets didn't arrive until 1813. Delete option for 1810-11.

Strange that Wellington was writing about having used them across the Tagus in 1810 then. But he wasn't called Wellington then so perhaps he didn't and he probably didn't light the fuse.

True! A small detachment of RN sailors fired a few at some boats moored on the Tagus in 1810, and they were then withdrawn. The RA rockets landed in 1813.

The list in the main rulebook probobaly should not have been labelled 1810-11. Mea culpa..... players will want to be able to use the British army in the Peninsula against non Peninsluar opponents so it's unusual - and somewhat refreshing - to be challenged for having been over generous or overrich in a list . One's first instincts were to be conservative but that has had to be overcome to make these rules and lists more successful as games.

Thanks for the response Mike - much appreciated!

[adonald]

I agree with the initial posters views on the list.

The rating of the British cavalry as Veteran is pretty suspect. Veteran implies above average control and handling, and that’s something the British Cavalry were not renowned for. They were capable of beating the French in one-up fights, so I would rate them as Superior Drilled, rather than Average Veteran, which seems to be the opposite of what they were like.

As the FoGN impetuous rule doesn’t reflect the British Cavalry’s problem of control (they charged when they were ordered, they just didn’t stop), I’d just leave it out of any British cavalry ratings (like an obnoxious relative that’s not invited to a wedding).

The Portuguese Cavalry could be seen as overrated, (D’Urban was quite critical of the Portuguese, except at Salamanca), so the choice of Poor Drilled or Average Drilled would be better, as opposed to just the Average Drilled at present. The British tended to measure the Portuguese Cavalry against their own Light Cavalry, which were mounted the same as the Heavy Dragoons, and did not behave much as light cavalry. They were poorly mounted in comparison, and many of their regiments did not have a full complement of mounts in any event. To expect them to act as main line battle cavalry, which the British Light Dragoons and Hussars did, was asking too much, and the British officers were probably overly-critical.

There would be a good argument to rate the British light cavalry as Heavy Cavalry, as they were not good at scouting, were mounted on the same sized horses as the Heavy Dragoons, and used the same drill. Apparently, they later got better at screening the army after learning from the KGL. Long range recce was provided priimarily by the Corps of Guides and later the Cavalry Staff Corps.

The KGL Dragoons should be rated as Superior Veteran due to their performance (Battle of Garcia Hernandez) even though they had not been in theatre for long. The same could be said for the KGL light cavalry.

The Dragoon Guards are not guards, they were the same as any British heavy Dragoon. The name reflected their previous titles (Horse). British guard cavalry are the Life Guards and the Royal Horse Guards.

I am not sure what reasoning led to an option for the British Heavy Dragoons to be non-shock. Did they have poor mounts at one stage?

The British Light Infantry unit is probably a reflection of the 7th Division’s Brunswick Oels and Chasseurs Britanniques battalions, even though they were in separate brigades in the 7th Division (and not British...). There is no equivalent actual British brigade. It is even stranger to make them compulsory.

The same can be said for the Portuguese Cacadores unit. No such brigade existed, Cacadores were individual battalions in Portuguese Infantry Brigades, and would be best modeled by a Skirmisher rifle attachment.

The compulsory artillery unit is also suspect. British artillery was rare in the Peninsula until Vittoria (where there was a ‘grand battery’ used). Artillery in the Peninsula is best modeled by gun attachments.

Too many compulsories, and of the compulsories, some are fictional.

However, it made a interesting list for the National Wargames Convention in New Zealand over Easter. To my shame I used the Cacadores as one flank guard, matched by the mythical British Average Veteran Light Infantry (in my defence, I was forced to use them).

Alastair Donald
Auckland
New Zealand

[pcas]

British Cavalry was much better than you think, it was Wellington who was not good at handling it.

Under Uxbridge at Sahagun the Hussars trounced Napoleons very own Chasseurs a Cheval of the Guard, at Salamanca the heavies under Le Marchant destroyed the French. Uxbridge was also in charge of the withdrawal from Quatre Bras to Waterloo where the cavalry prevented any interference from the French.

This reputation for poor performance is based on 2 instances of poor judgment by the 20th and then the 23rd Light Dragoons in the Peninsular and the Scots Greys at Waterloo, this was the latter's first battle of the Napoleonic Wars and little mention is made of the rest of the Union Brigade nor the performance of the Household Brigade all of which remained under control.

I do not understand why the authors have decided to make differences between Dragoon Guards and Dragoons, there appears to have been no difference in practice. Also it was generally acknowledged that British Cavalry were mounted on superior horses to the French through out the wars not something that is accounted for in the rules and that their sword drill was also superior to the French.

Can I recommend "Galloping at Everything"by Ian Fletcher for a different view of British Cavalry.

Peter

[hazelbark]

Under Uxbridge at Sahagun the Hussars trounced Napoleons very own Chasseurs a Cheval of the Guard,

I don't think that was the unit that was there. I think it was an ordinary line Chasseur regiment.

Later that month some hussars basically ambushed the chasseurs a Cheval of the Guard as they overly aggressively pursued Moore. Very different kind of action.

[shadowdragon]

Under Uxbridge at Sahagun the Hussars trounced Napoleons very own Chasseurs a Cheval of the Guard,

I don't think that was the unit that was there. I think it was an ordinary line Chasseur regiment.

Later that month some hussars basically ambushed the chasseurs a Cheval of the Guard as they overly aggressively pursued Moore. Very different kind of action.

Yes, the 15th Hussars engaged the 1st Provisional Chasseurs at Sahagun and about a week later hit the Guard Chasseurs at Benavente. Very different affairs.

[adonald]

I suppose the mystery compulsory light infantry unit MAY be the composte light infantry battalion at the Battle of Fuentes de Oñoro, where 17 light infantry companies from the line battalions, plus some rifle companies from the 5/60th and 95th, defended the village. About 1500 men under the command of the LtCol of the 5/60th. However, I believe this was only formed for this battle.

As of the British cavalry, I agree, the rules seem to have a very 1970's schoolchild view of some history, British cavalry performance (and lancers) being a couple of glaring ones.

However, I would note that the British cavalry were not as flexible as their opponents, but were great battle cavalry, which is what these rules are modelling. I think the should be Superior Drilled or Superior Veteran - big men on big horses - and that included the light cavalry.

Alastair

[terrys]

All of the lists in the rules are 'generic' amd have been deliberately modelled to allow players to field some troops and formations that are not in the 'real' list.
We have been overly generous with for example, light infantry and dragoons, because otherwise the army would be rather boring (as a single list).
In the army list book there are 6 different 'Anglo' lists for the Perninsular and an additional 4 in other theatres, so there will be far more options in selecting the army but not in a single list.

[Greenjacket]

Good comments Alastair and Peter.
I think Fletcher's 'Galloping at Everything' is a must read for anyone interested in the Peninsular War or Waterloo.

Critically, though, the amount of cavalry available to the Anglo-Portugese army was very small by continental standards. Even at Salamanca, Wellington only had four brigades of British/KGL cavalry, and for much of 1813-14 he had no cavalry at all. I appreciate the comments that the list needs to be competitive for tournaments, but it also needs to be at least partly based in history. It'll be interesting to see how the more "granular" Peninsular War lists have been dealt with in the army books.

[bahdahbum]

I suspect that an nhistorical allied peninsular list will work against a french peninsular list . But I wonder against a french 1809 - 1812 list with 12 pouinders ( those were used in spain only from1812 if my memory serves me well and in limted quantity ) ...Cavalry will be the weak link .

And never forget, Wellington had to face many French generals and high ranking officiers that did not cooperate . I wonder how it would have gone if those french officiers did cooperate ! For one allied army ( Anglo-germano-portuguese )there were 4 french armies !

But what they did is play in Wellington's hands : they attacked were and when he wanted ...he outmanoeuvred them .

[SirGarnet]

For my first 800 pt-ish test trial, it will be a shiny, spiffed up Anglo-Portuguese army in 2 divisions (one horse unit, KGL) against a mixed bag 11-unit French list drawn from the 1812 examples. The one arty only mediums, and the 3 unit cav division probably without horse artillery. Infantry Average Drilled except for a well understrength division of 2 units of conscripts and a veteran regiment in the division with the battery. 3 Divisional commanders for the foot and guns seems like a lot, but they do fill out the points total and allow 2 divisions up and the conscript division in reserve. The conscripts and the cavalry each get just a competent commnder (surely Incompetent should be an option for most armies, and for some compulsory? (wink)).

Having to put corps/army level assets under a divisional commanders feels somewhat odd. What is the design rationale?

[deadtorius]

not looking at Peninsular OOB's to be exact but actually Austrian OOB's and the corps artillery reserve would have its own division listed. Probably more for who looked after supplies etc. For a game I suppose you could just distribute the reserve assets as you like and then assume their division commander would join corps HQ and not be represented separately. Just a thought.

[adonald]

All of the lists in the rules are 'generic' amd have been deliberately modelled to allow players to field some troops and formations that are not in the 'real' list.
We have been overly generous with for example, light infantry and dragoons, because otherwise the army would be rather boring (as a single list).
In the army list book there are 6 different 'Anglo' lists for the Perninsular and an additional 4 in other theatres, so there will be far more options in selecting the army but not in a single list.

Terry, the stark reality is that the list in the rule book is unhistorical - which, for a historical period, is just bad. What does a player use as a Portuguese Cacadore unit? They didn't exist - ever. Cacadores were battalions in Portuguese brigades (1/5th of the strength), except for the two (1st and 3rd) in the Light Division. How would a player model a fictional Cacadore unit?

What about the COMPULSORY average veteran 'British' light infantry unit? It doesn't exist. It was either the adhoc light infantry BATTALION at Fuentes de Orono or it's some unhistoric mix of Chasseurs Britanniques and Brunswickers (who were in different brigades). In any event, how does a player choose what to put on the table as models when, in painting up his army, he as used historical units, only to find the rules allowing fictional formations?

I would not have characterised the number of compulsory unhistoric units, and compulsory historic units that were not present in many battles (the medium artillery) as being 'overly generous'.


Alastair

[SirGarnet]

Valid technical points, Alastair, but I'd rather have a list in the book to see how the various formations are conceived than no list. Let's hope the army list books are satisfactory. However, with your knowledge you could easily extrapolate from what is provided and create your own list.

[Astronomican]

Its not just the Anglo-Portuguese list that has problems - the French, Russian, and Prussian lists suffer too. I cannot speak for the Austrians or Ottomans as I have no experience or knowledge of either.

I can only hope that whoever is doing the lists in the two army books scheduled for release this year have access to information widely available (not only on the Net, but in noted publications too - including ones produced by Slitherine's print-partner, Osprey) and that the resulting lists are close to historical organisations and not just created to allow "gamey" tournament-orientated armies on the table.

I enjoy playing FOG-R, especially the ECW era, and was very enthusiastic when FOG-N was announced. However, with badly-worded rules that need to be explained in an easy-to-understand language and missing traits from units (to name two problems), my enthusiasm for FOG-N has been dampened.

I got into Flames of War to feed my WW2-habit, but got turned off by the bad work inside the rulebook. Then 3rd Ed appeared. That book has re-ignited my FOW interest because the new 3rd rulebook has been produced with all the comments from the previous books taken into account - easy to follow rules, clear examples on how the rules work, a decent index (hint! hint!), and good descriptions of the units involved. FOG-N is nearly a few months old, and the items required to be included in the errata virtually grow on a daily basis! This seems to be a bad trait for Slitherine rulebooks, and I hope any future rulebooks will not follow down this path.

Slitherine guys and book authors...don't take this as an attack on your company or your products. I've invested my money to play your gaming systems and want to continue, but you need to take all this criticism onboard and fix things.


Jimi

[PerryN]

adonald wrote:

What about the COMPULSORY average veteran 'British' light infantry unit? It doesn't exist. It was either the adhoc light infantry BATTALION at Fuentes de Orono or it's some unhistoric mix of Chasseurs Britanniques and Brunswickers (who were in different brigades). In any event, how does a player choose what to put on the table as models when, in painting up his army, he as used historical units, only to find the rules allowing fictional formations?

I don't know about them being compulsory, but there are a number of "British" LI battalions such as II/51st, 85th, Chass Brit and Brunswickers that were not in the Light Division.

My source lists all of the above as being in Sontag's Brigade of Houston's 7th Div at Fuentes d'Onoro. (John Gill's 2010 study - available online)

Outside of that division at Fuentes is the I/71st - also LI but in a different div/brig with no other LI. Perhaps the issue that could be addressed by the list book is when to designate a brigade as light? Does one batt (or 2 ?) suffice to count the brigade as LI?

Nigel Perry.