Historic OOB and attachments

[paulbg]

Looking at using historic OOBs to build my army.

Given that many list by Brigade its somewhat disjoint having to go back to Regiment although this does allow for some combining of formations into a unit suitable for FoGN.

e.g. Bavarian Division has 2 inf brigades and a Cav Brigade
each Inf brigade has 2 regiments and a light battalion, so for FogN I get 5 regiments ( 4 line infantry and 1 Light - combining the 2 batallions) but I am not sure that really reflects the historical use.

The issue I have is on attachments. What does an attachment represent ?
Artillery - 1 battery (6-8guns) ?
Skirmisher - battalion, 1 or more companies ?
Cavalry - squadron ?

Many OOBs show artillery batteries that were directly assigned to the divisions (direct support) so I assume that these would be represented by attachments. Also some (particularly British) show attached skirmish companies so these become attachments.

e.g. Picton at Fuentes , 1st Brigade: commanded by Colonel Mackinnon: 1st/45th Foot, 1st/74th Foot, 1st/88th Foot, 3 Cos 5th/60th Foot.

Where a division has cavalry but not enough for a unit (ie less than 500 men, say only 250) do I make this an attachment ? look to combine with a unit in another division ? Is 250 men 1 attachment or 2 ?


Paul

[terrys]

e.g. Bavarian Division has 2 inf brigades and a Cav Brigade
each Inf brigade has 2 regiments and a light battalion, so for FogN I get 5 regiments ( 4 line infantry and 1 Light - combining the 2 batallions) but I am not sure that really reflects the historical use.

In this case you first work out how many men there were in the brigade, then convert this into FOGN units. If your brigade toals less than 3000 ment, this would be represented by a single unit. If more than 3000 men it would be represented by 2 units. At full strength I'd expect it to be 2 units. The light battalion would never be a seperate unit. It would either be used as a single attachment to one of the regiments, or possibly as 2 attachments if you can justify it's being allocated by company to both regiments.

The issue I have is on attachments. What does an attachment represent ?
Artillery - 1 battery (6-8guns) ?
Skirmisher - battalion, 1 or more companies ?
Cavalry - squadron ?

?
> Artillery - 6-8 guns
> Skirmisher - usually a couple of companies - 3-400 men, maybe less if you felt they were particuarly effective. Where a single battalio of lights is combined with line battalions in a unit, we usually count them as line with a skirmisher attachment, but use one 'standard' light infantry base in the unit to represent it.
> A squadren or 2 is usually enough to count. Really anything that's too small to count as a unit in its own right.

Many OOBs show artillery batteries that were directly assigned to the divisions (direct support) so I assume that these would be represented by attachments. Also some (particularly British) show attached skirmish companies so these become attachments

e.g. Picton at Fuentes , 1st Brigade: commanded by Colonel Mackinnon: 1st/45th Foot, 1st/74th Foot, 1st/88th Foot, 3 Cos 5th/60th Foot.

Single batteries and companies of skirmisher should normally be shown as attachments.

Where a division has cavalry but not enough for a unit (ie less than 500 men, say only 250) do I make this an attachment ? look to combine with a unit in another division ? Is 250 men 1 attachment or 2 ?

If they're in different divisions I'd normally take them as 2 attachments. However, you could combine them with another 1/2 regiment to make a unit if you think that it makes historical sense or if their performance justifies it.

[hazelbark]

Many OOBs show artillery batteries that were directly assigned to the divisions (direct support) so I assume that these would be represented by attachments. Also some (particularly British) show attached skirmish companies so these become attachments

e.g. Picton at Fuentes , 1st Brigade: commanded by Colonel Mackinnon: 1st/45th Foot, 1st/74th Foot, 1st/88th Foot, 3 Cos 5th/60th Foot.

Single batteries and companies of skirmisher should normally be shown as attachments.

This taken literally would come close to eliminating separate artilery units in a LOT of armies. I can think in the early Pennisula for example the english rarely had more than 6 guns to a division. And not much more than 12 guns in the army reserve. So none or 1 artillery units.

The russians get away with a lot jsut because they had big 12-gun batteries.

But many of the French infantry divisions had 1 battery of 8 guns of 8lb. Depending on year of course. So these become an attachment. A French line Corps would have 2 6 gun 12 lb batteries. So being generous that would 1 one unit.

This thins out a LOT of artillery units in Historical OBs.

[shadowdragon]

Many OOBs show artillery batteries that were directly assigned to the divisions (direct support) so I assume that these would be represented by attachments. Also some (particularly British) show attached skirmish companies so these become attachments

e.g. Picton at Fuentes , 1st Brigade: commanded by Colonel Mackinnon: 1st/45th Foot, 1st/74th Foot, 1st/88th Foot, 3 Cos 5th/60th Foot.

Single batteries and companies of skirmisher should normally be shown as attachments.

This taken literally would come close to eliminating separate artilery units in a LOT of armies. I can think in the early Pennisula for example the english rarely had more than 6 guns to a division. And not much more than 12 guns in the army reserve. So none or 1 artillery units.

The russians get away with a lot jsut because they had big 12-gun batteries.

But many of the French infantry divisions had 1 battery of 8 guns of 8lb. Depending on year of course. So these become an attachment. A French line Corps would have 2 6 gun 12 lb batteries. So being generous that would 1 one unit.

This thins out a LOT of artillery units in Historical OBs.

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking of a brigade's units as being "hard wired" to the brigade. They weren't. Artillery are a good example. The "grand battery" could be assembled by re-assigning batteries from their divisions. In other cases, such as, the Prussians, the cavalry attached to the infantry brigades had been re-assigned from the Corps Cavalry division. When re-creating historical orders of battle, it becomes a question of how much flexibility one wants to give the players. If you follow the same grand tactics used by each side, then I'd think players should be constrained to the brigade compositions on the day of the historical battle. If players are allowed to come up with a signficantly different plan (e.g., the French try to outflank Wellington's right flank at Waterloo), then allowing some flexibility would make sense.

For the Bavarian example, is it impossible / implausible that faced with some difficult terrain that both light infantry battalions could be detached from their parent brigades? If so, then a separate FoG light infantry unit in the division might make sense. Otherwise, I agree with Terry. The presence of the light infantry battalion in the brigade should be represented as skirmisher attachments as there's not enough to justify a separate light infantry unit within the brigade.

I've been thinking about as I've been working on a FoG order of battle for Austerlitz and there's a lot of conflicting interpretations about which battalions were in which brigades. It looks to me like a lot of units or sub-components of units (i.e., cavalry squadrons or half-regiments) were re-assigned at some point prior to the battle.

[hazelbark]

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking of a brigade's units as being "hard wired" to the brigade. They weren't. Artillery are a good example. The "grand battery" could be assembled by re-assigning batteries from their divisions. In other cases, such as, the Prussians, the cavalry attached to the infantry brigades had been re-assigned from the Corps Cavalry division. When re-creating historical orders of battle, it becomes a question of how much flexibility one wants to give the players.

I agree but worry that flexiblity become fantasy too quickly. Also different armies at different periods would only consider certain kinds of changes.

Austrians at least through 09 were always taking 1/2 or 1 battalion out of a division to garrison a bridge or town. Leaving a lot of troops on their LOC.
But outside of Austerlitz where they combined with the Russians to form columns that were a strange command structure, they really didn't sweep out bits and pieces and bulk up a formation.
The French perhaps you can argue they did scoop up guns to create a massed battery. They did assemble depot and provisional squadrons into new units. But really once the campaign began they didn't take lancer from this division and add it to that.
Wellington didn't strip out batteries from divisions.
The Russians did have a preference to assigning their Yegers a tough job. But this reads more like a brigade commander attachment. The 1807 Russian "divisions" did get jumbled at times but that was usually in retreat or a failure to assemble for battle. You have them forming some combined grenadier formations at Borodino. But again these appear to have been assembled for the campaign not the employment in battle.

For the Bavarian example, is it impossible / implausible that faced with some difficult terrain that both light infantry battalions could be detached from their parent brigades? If so, then a separate FoG light infantry unit in the division might make sense.

I think you have to be careful that we don't project thinking backwards here. Yes. I can see where a unit was asked to support another unit in an assault. I think I was reading a bavarian example of that in one of the early 1809 battles. A bavarian regiment or battalion was attacking in support of a French Regiment. But to my eye, that reads much more like the unit in game terms is providing some kind of fire or close combat support. Not detaching from the command structure.

In fact maintaining the cumbersome historic command structure is sort of needed for the game. Generals historically had to committ what they had on hand. The idea of stripping out the light battalions was not at all common.

You have the grenadiers Oudinot. Which many people view as assembling the grenadiers on the spot. But in reality this was a standing formation for the campaign.

I've been thinking about as I've been working on a FoG order of battle for Austerlitz and there's a lot of conflicting interpretations about which battalions were in which brigades. It looks to me like a lot of units or sub-components of units (i.e., cavalry squadrons or half-regiments) were re-assigned at some point prior to the battle.

Austerlitz was a mess from the coalition side. In many respects it is amazing the army marched in generally the same direction that morning. The fact it did suggests a pretty significant level of coherence at some level (detailed staff orders or battalion and regimental commanders who got with the program). IIRC correctly the Austrians with Russian support reorganized the army into "columns" the night or shortly before the final advance to battle.

[shadowdragon]

It's easy to fall into the trap of thinking of a brigade's units as being "hard wired" to the brigade. They weren't. Artillery are a good example. The "grand battery" could be assembled by re-assigning batteries from their divisions. In other cases, such as, the Prussians, the cavalry attached to the infantry brigades had been re-assigned from the Corps Cavalry division. When re-creating historical orders of battle, it becomes a question of how much flexibility one wants to give the players.

I agree but worry that flexiblity become fantasy too quickly. Also different armies at different periods would only consider certain kinds of changes.

I agree that the flexibility should be restricted and definitely something only allowed at the beginning of the game (and probably where changes should be in keeping with restrictions in the army lists) - not during the game. By the way, I prefer to reserve the word "fantasy" for games based on mythical "universes" and not hypothetical or what-if historically based battles. After all, as soon as the first outcome differs from the real battle we're into hypothetical. It's more that if one were doing Waterloo with a strong French left flank hook it would seem reasonable to make some changes like keeping the French batteries (or at least most of them) with the divisions instead of part of a "grand battery".

The French perhaps you can argue they did scoop up guns to create a massed battery. They did assemble depot and provisional squadrons into new units. But really once the campaign began they didn't take lancer from this division and add it to that.

Napoleon certainly re-assigned various divisions during the Waterloo campaign (i.e., the Guard light cavalry fought at Quatre Bras apart from the rest of the Guards at Ligny, Girard's division was detached to fight at Ligny while the rest of the II Corps fought at Quartre Bras, Soult's light cavalry division was taken from I Cav Corps to march with Grouchy and replaced in the Corps by the III Corps Cavalry division). Wellington stripped companies out of battlalions to garrison Hougoumont, but that was a specific "defend this terrain" task. Mitchell's British brigade fought at Waterloo while the rest his division was elsewhere. The 2nd KGL Hussars weren't at Waterloo although the rest of the brigade was. The Duke of Cumberland Hussars fought (or ran away) at Waterloo and probably - as far as I've been able to tell - the rest of the Hanoverian brigade was elsewhere. However, these were mostly (except for single companies being sent to reinforce Hougoumont) done prior to battle and not during. Again, I don't think this should be allowed at all during a battle, but a very limited amount prior to battle if there's a good reason that fits into the "what-if" concept that's being played (e.g., keeping the batteries with the divisions). Here a referee would be useful to rule if the re-assignment made sense. (Actually, the Principles of War had a good mechanism for re-assignment of units prior to battle but the army lists for those rules were very rigid.)

For the Bavarian example, is it impossible / implausible that faced with some difficult terrain that both light infantry battalions could be detached from their parent brigades? If so, then a separate FoG light infantry unit in the division might make sense.

I think you have to be careful that we don't project thinking backwards here.

My point has to do with how to deal with the limitations of unit representation within the game. If you're playing a game with a unit = a battalion, then there's no problem. Each light battalion assaults the difficult terrain while remaining within its command structure. However, in FoG the unit is a group of battalions - and not necessarily one that corresponds to any command structure beneath the division. A FoG unit could easily represent an actual brigade, the amalgamation of two small brigades, or 2 units that are parts of a larger brigade (but not necessarily with each part equal an sub-command element). Some bending is always required when fitting historical orbats to a game's representation. Having said that I would still think the Bavarian brigades above should be represented as line units with skirmisher attachments. The "light infantry" unit I see as an exception that might be required due FoG's resolution but we'll see what the Bavarian Corps list allows when its published.

In fact maintaining the cumbersome historic command structure is sort of needed for the game.

Totally agree. I think we are only discussing nuances.

[shadowdragon]

I think you have to be careful that we don't project thinking backwards here. Yes. I can see where a unit was asked to support another unit in an assault. I think I was reading a bavarian example of that in one of the early 1809 battles. A bavarian regiment or battalion was attacking in support of a French Regiment. But to my eye, that reads much more like the unit in game terms is providing some kind of fire or close combat support. Not detaching from the command structure.

It's neither here nor there, but, checking some references...at the start of the 1809 campaign, 2 light battalions (and 2 squadrons of dragoons) were taken from their divisions in Lefebvre's VII Corps and sent to the Tyrol to join another light batallion and an infantry regiment under Lt Gen Kinkel. However, I don't think they had a happy time there.

[hazelbark]

Do you mean the VII Corps that was the Wurttemberg in the early phase and the Bavarians after May?

So that sounds like to Napoleon's thinking a distribution of units guard supply lines and suppress insurrectionists.

Its not assembling the best available for the next days action.

[MikeHorah]

[quote="shadowdragon"][quote="hazelbark"][quote="shadowdragon"]

[quote="hazelbark"]
[quote="hazelbark"][quote] However, in FoG the unit is a group of battalions - and not necessarily one that corresponds to any command structure beneath the division. A FoG unit could easily represent an actual brigade, the amalgamation of two small brigades, or 2 units that are parts of a larger brigade (but not necessarily with each part equal an sub-command element).

When we formed the orginal design concept it was the " demi brigade " that gave us the model along with the clear use of mutli battalion infantry regiments by many nations on the field of battle (not unknown in the 7YW ). Demi brigade and regiment were interchangeable terms for a while still in the French imperial army. Then you also read about French marshals in 1813 complaining there had not been time to carry our " regimental manouevres" for newly raised troops- and so on. So there was, I contend, a tactical command level between a Btn and Bde for many armies. So that was the model. Its not universal and for cavalry and artillery is not so apposite or clear but how you treat infantry is the key to any model in this era .

But in essence you are right.

That said other than the battalion there is no universal definition or structure for infantry in a brigade either ,or a division, or a Corps, until later in the 19th century when many nations began to standardise ( but not in the USA in the ACW) . By the later period each Prussian regiment usually had 2 btns and each brigade two regiments and each division two brigades. France and Austria-Hungary had similar if not identical structures. Sngle Btn regiments of sharpshooters were also used. By comparison a set of rules for Corps level is much easier to pitch then at brigade level and you have little option but to do that in the ACW as regiments are single Btn and varied hugely in strength. Artillery then is also pitched at divisional level and Corps level which is effectively what we have done in FOG(N) for artillery of position.

One can have similar issues when wanting to model a Roman legion in FOG(A). In most wargaming we end up with a bunch of figures being a "unit" as we define it for game purposes and then try to fit historical battle data around that. As naval gamer its so much easier as generally a ship is a ship is a ship but even than I cavill at representing and tracking indioidual destroyers or torpedo boats in WW1.

And in any wargame design you have to decide which bits you are most trying to model and which bits are out of scope in terms of pitching the scale of the operations and the size and length of game you want folk to be able to have. With Btns as the base its hard to fight a Napoleonic Corps level action with miniatures in less than 5 or 6 hours. Too many units Herr Feldmarshcal - and a lot of tin to hump in 28mm!) Divisional scale - yes you can do that in a much shorter period.At least that has been my experience. All wargaming involves compromise. You pick your compromises.

[shadowdragon]

Do you mean the VII Corps that was the Wurttemberg in the early phase and the Bavarians after May?

So that sounds like to Napoleon's thinking a distribution of units guard supply lines and suppress insurrectionists.

Its not assembling the best available for the next days action.

VII Corps in the Tyrol - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrol_1809_Order_of_Battle

Assembling troops and commanders at the last minute has never made for a highly effective fighting force. As an aside, Kinkel surrendered his force to the insurrectionists.

[shadowdragon]

And in any wargame design you have to decide which bits you are most trying to model and which bits are out of scope in terms of pitching the scale of the operations and the size and length of game you want folk to be able to have. With Btns as the base its hard to fight a Napoleonic Corps level action with miniatures in less than 5 or 6 hours. Too many units Herr Feldmarshcal - and a lot of tin to hump in 28mm!) Divisional scale - yes you can do that in a much shorter period.At least that has been my experience. All wargaming involves compromise. You pick your compromises.

All modelling is an abstraction and requires a degree of compromise. It seems you've made very good choices with FoG(N). I have no problem with the basic unit being "a group of battalions". I prefer to think of FoG(N) not as a "regimental" game but as a "Corps" game since that is the command level of the player. The bits that the player should "command" (i.e., direct) are the next subordinate command level (i.e., the "division"); and you've nicely reflected that through an elegant system using CP. Other games do this through "orders", which have (often) hard to remember instructions as to what the "units" in the command can do or not by type. I've had other problems with that in that changing the "order" is often randomized resulting in a game that's decided on a couple of dice rolls. How to represent the units of the subordinate commands is another question and the basic options there are to go with fixed sizes of units (i.e., small and large) or to accurately represent subordinate force structures. The former has the merit of better consistency in game mechanics for unit interactions at the price of abstraction. The latter "looks better" (well to some wargamers) but has real problems representing very small and very large units consistently plus there's the problem that most rule sets don't adequately restrict how these units act collectively (e.g., we've all seen games with several columns attacking shoulder to shoulder) nor do they adequately reward players with battalions in line for having a second line of battalions in support (the mathematics of attrition game mechanics tend to reward putting everything in the shop window). You've nicely avoided that with the "tactical footprint". It seems to work.

[hazelbark]

Do you mean the VII Corps that was the Wurttemberg in the early phase and the Bavarians after May?

So that sounds like to Napoleon's thinking a distribution of units guard supply lines and suppress insurrectionists.

Its not assembling the best available for the next days action.

VII Corps in the Tyrol - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrol_1809_Order_of_Battle

Assembling troops and commanders at the last minute has never made for a highly effective fighting force. As an aside, Kinkel surrendered his force to the insurrectionists.

That wiki OB says April but the Bavarians were fighting near landshut. It is after the April battles (eckmuhl, Landshut, ratisbon, etc) when Charles begins retiring that the bavarians go to the tyrol. I think.

You're right those Vandamme i think is 8th not 7th corps my error there.

[shadowdragon]

Do you mean the VII Corps that was the Wurttemberg in the early phase and the Bavarians after May?

So that sounds like to Napoleon's thinking a distribution of units guard supply lines and suppress insurrectionists.

Its not assembling the best available for the next days action.

VII Corps in the Tyrol - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrol_1809_Order_of_Battle

Assembling troops and commanders at the last minute has never made for a highly effective fighting force. As an aside, Kinkel surrendered his force to the insurrectionists.

That wiki OB says April but the Bavarians were fighting near landshut. It is after the April battles (eckmuhl, Landshut, ratisbon, etc) when Charles begins retiring that the bavarians go to the tyrol. I think.

You're right those Vandamme i think is 8th not 7th corps my error there.

Wiki can be wrong!!!

Actually the wiki orbat says the "returns" of the VII Corps are from 16 April, while the text mentions them entering the Tyrol in mid-May.