Austrians: Tactics

[Blathergut]

I thought I'd start a couple threads about tactics.

First, MikeK's collection of points previously made about the Austrians:

Hints on Austrians (from past posts):
“The Austrians throughout the period never do get this business of integral skirmish companies quite right. They did it a bit but not enough and not in enough numbers nor trained very well nor were they sound in their use of specialist light infantry or pure light infantry - which was woeful. My view is that the Austrian army was at its best relative to its opponents in the 1790s. But it has good artillery and good cavalry and in later periods can be used in Corps mixed in with divisions from other nations.” (Mike Horah)

Unreformed infantry without Skirmisher attachments is best in Large Units so they can take hits while advancing to Close Range or Assaulting.

Advancing on Unreformed opponents such as Austrians to shoot them at medium range can force them to enter close range, giving you the first close range volley on them and possibly weakening them enough for an assault. “My Austrians have been soundly thrashed by tooled up (ie attachment rich) British veterans using these tactics.”

“For what it is worth, Austrians are currently my favourite army to play under FoGN. I seem to have no less success with them than with my French Line Corps. [Among my most successful armies are] an Austrian Reserve Corps (Grenadiers and lots of cavalry, especially Cuirassiers). The Reserve Corps is fun to play, and a particularly difficult force for opponents to face. As previously mentioned, use of cavalry and large units can minimise the effect of enemy skirmish fire. However you do need a degree of courage to push your unreformed troops forwards to close range when on the offensive. Makes for exciting games. Most importantly, the Austrians (Reserve Corps aside) usually outnumbers their reformed opponents.” (Brett)

Large units of the best troops are expensive. “The French veteran Light infantry come in at almost 3 times the price of the Austrian conscripts. That's 3 of his units against one of mine.”

Terry Shaw argues the Austrian army has some strengths to compensate for its weaknesses:
“> They are 20% cheaper than their (French) opponents.
> It is strong in Artillery
> It can have one mixed division in which every line unit can have a skirmisher attachment (making them the equivalent of 'reformed' for firing).
> It can have up to 22 bases of cavalry without using a cavalry division.
> It can have almost all units in 4's or 6's.
Austrians can't use the same tactics as most of the other nations and have to develop their own. They can work well though, and if anyone wants to play the earlier period battles, it's a skill that will be needed, because most nations have 'unreformed' infantry prior to 1810.”

[Blathergut]

I am getting a sense (from 4 games with the rules, using French (1812 & 1813) against the Austrians (1813) that:

-Austrians need to be very aggressive. If they sit and wait for the French, the French have the luxury of wheeling artillery and troops up to just within 6MU, without fear of charges from infantry, setting up and then firing away.
-cheaper price = large units for the ones that will be charging in
-combined arms is essential...horse beside infantry means you have the potential to hit the French at 6MU out

When I try to set my French corps up like this it becomes too costly.

[SirGarnet]

It can have one mixed division in which every line unit can have a skirmisher attachment (making them the equivalent of 'reformed' for firing).

Though only if the corps contains neither available light infantry regiment - so the maximum is 8 bases of light infantry units or 4 bases of skirmish attachments.

How have the Austrians been faring in their attempts to get to close range when the French could station cavalry behind their artillery ready to deter a close advance or charge out if the Austrians advance not in square?

[deadtorius]

If the Austrians could learn to roll dice like the Froggies I think we would be fairing much better. Hopefully our next game I can start rolling better. And not forget the lessons form the other games

[Albion1]

I am getting a sense (from 4 games with the rules, using French (1812 & 1813) against the Austrians (1813) that:

-Austrians need to be very aggressive. If they sit and wait for the French, the French have the luxury of wheeling artillery and troops up to just within 6MU, without fear of charges from infantry, setting up and then firing away.

Were the Austrians especially aggressive in 1813? Not nearly as aggressive as the French I believe.
So is something fundamentally wrong with the rules?
Clearly Blathergut is right - with limited firepower, Austrians must be aggressive, yet their factor is 1, ensuring they will be defending most of the time.

[Blathergut]

I don't see a problem. Once in the battle, as the defender (whatever that might mean), they can't simply sit back is what I was saying. I see the attacker/defender initiative more of a pre-battle thingie as opposed to specific tactical roles on the battlefield.

[Albion1]

I think it has real consequences. The 2, well 3, unopposed moves by the attacker allows him to dictate aspects of the battle.
Also the there is the historical aspect - in 1813 the French tended to attack, not the Austrians.
I would suggest that if the opposite has to happen then something is not quite right.

[BrettPT]

The 2, well 3, unopposed moves by the attacker allows him to dictate aspects of the battle.

In my view the 'no move for 2 turns' rule is pretty unbalanced, especially for tournament play.
We ignore the first 2 turn movement restrictions when we play, unless the attacker rolls 3 higher initiative (ie it is a genuine attack-defence game).

Cheers
Brett

[panda2]

In my experience with the Austrians they key thing is not to be passive. You can't sit and wait while the French (or anybody else) builds up enough medium range dice on a unit (or units) to destroy their cohesion (8-9 dice per turn on a large unit will in the long run be exceedingly difficult to cope even with 2 generals doing recovery).

If you see that the enemy is likely to get this sort of concentration of fire in the near future then you have to act immediately. This does not always mean being aggressive. Sometimes the correct thing to do is to retire to buy time, on other occassions it may be to bring up artillery or cavalry support from reserve. Only in situations where the enemy force is composed of infantry in tactical at medium range (with no medium range artillery support) would I close to short range. If the enemy infantry are in already in extended line or have medium range artillery support already deployed, closing aggressively is likely to get you shot up even more quickly.

As for the defender- attacker question, I personally prefer defending as Austrians. As long as you keep a Division with a decent amount of infantry and some artillery in reserve and don't insist in deploying your whole army as far forward as possible in a line, then you can generally concentrate troops at the point of the attack as quickly as the attacker can. In deed, since you are likely to be fighting in Central Europe, if you are clever with terain placement, you can often use well placed roads, double moves, brigade moves etc... to give you an advantage. Most of my successes playing Austrians have come from counter attacks.

Andy D

[Blathergut]

This sounds right. We are slowly getting foggy brains around the terrain and movement of units. Reserves seem critical for sure.

[terrys]

In my view the 'no move for 2 turns' rule is pretty unbalanced, especially for tournament play.
We ignore the first 2 turn movement restrictions when we play, unless the attacker rolls 3 higher initiative (ie it is a genuine attack-defence game).

One problem we've found with defenders is that they often deploy their army the maximum distance forways - This leaves them with no space to manouevre.
It you deploy the bulk of your amry 1move (6MU) back, then you leave yourself with space to redeploy - apart from forcing your enemy to take an extra move to get to you.

[deadtorius]

Another lesson I have learned from playing defender for most of our games. Also don't forget to measure where your free hill lands, poor Blathergut never thought about that his first time defending and had to spend 2 turns on the rear slope since he did not measure where the hill was when he placed it.

[MikeHorah]

..... Most of my successes playing Austrians have come from counter attacks.

Andy D

It's my observation after 40 years of wargaming that in equal points games ( whatever the scale and period) the ability to defend and then counter attack a weakened and over committed attacker in a timely way is often a key sucess factor. Do I do it myself ? Nah- your'e kidding! My blood still gets up and like Lee on the third day at Gettysburg I get tempted into costly attacks leading to defeat or at best to Pyrric victories or draws. But an army that has good defensive qualities helps cool agressive ardour and forces you into that mode of thinking which can be useful.

[shadowdragon]

..... Most of my successes playing Austrians have come from counter attacks.

Andy D

It's my observation after 40 years of wargaming that in equal points games ( whatever the scale and period) the ability to defend and then counter attack a weakened and over committed attacker in a timely way is often a key sucess factor. Do I do it myself ? Nah- your'e kidding! My blood still gets up and like Lee on the third day at Gettysburg I get tempted into costly attacks leading to defeat or at best to Pyrric victories or draws. But an army that has good defensive qualities helps cool agressive ardour and forces you into that mode of thinking which can be useful.

Ah! But if you're lucky you'll look brilliant; and, as we all know, there's a fine line between real brilliance and just being plain lucky......noting that Napoleon said he preferred generals that had a knack for being lucky.

[deadtorius]

Alas in our games it is the French who seem to be luckier.....

[MikeHorah]

..... Most of my successes playing Austrians have come from counter attacks.

Andy D

It's my observation after 40 years of wargaming that in equal points games ( whatever the scale and period) the ability to defend and then counter attack a weakened and over committed attacker in a timely way is often a key sucess factor. Do I do it myself ? Nah- your'e kidding! My blood still gets up and like Lee on the third day at Gettysburg I get tempted into costly attacks leading to defeat or at best to Pyrric victories or draws. But an army that has good defensive qualities helps cool agressive ardour and forces you into that mode of thinking which can be useful.

Ah! But if you're lucky you'll look brilliant; and, as we all know, there's a fine line between real brilliance and just being plain lucky......noting that Napoleon said he preferred generals that had a knack for being lucky.

Luck !!!

An inability to throw 7 on two D6's on a regular basis ( which should be 50% of the time) eludes me far too often ( three double ones in a row this weekend and then a double two next!). Napoleon's generals never had to deal with that. I have a regular foe who scores 4 x6's from 15 dice on a pedictable basis - this is Grand Manner where every 6 is a hit.

And in FOG(A) death rolls seem to turn up ones for me far too often ( I think three in a row in one multi unit melee phase where I was winning the mellees!)

Oh I get few clustered sixes too but they never seem to be when and where I could really use them to make a differnec and they are just overkilll! Pyrrhus ( or Macdonald) is definitely in my blood . I need to be billiant sometimes to overcome such persistent ill luck or my opposition inept by comparison. Maybe I need the equivalent of a runner in cricket to roll the dice for me....or sacrifice a chicken! I am thinking of donating my dice to the nuclear industry - in a million years or so they will be safe to handle... Eiether that or my wargames cabin needs a fungshui expert....

[terrys]

When we first starting working on these rules I contemplated making 1's good and 6's bad, but we all know what would happen then......

[shadowdragon]

Ah! But if you're lucky you'll look brilliant; and, as we all know, there's a fine line between real brilliance and just being plain lucky......noting that Napoleon said he preferred generals that had a knack for being lucky.

Luck !!!

An inability to throw 7 on two D6's on a regular basis ( which should be 50% of the time) eludes me far too often ( three double ones in a row this weekend and then a double two next!). Napoleon's generals never had to deal with that. I have a regular foe who scores 4 x6's from 15 dice on a pedictable basis - this is Grand Manner where every 6 is a hit.

And in FOG(A) death rolls seem to turn up ones for me far too often ( I think three in a row in one multi unit melee phase where I was winning the mellees!)

Oh I get few clustered sixes too but they never seem to be when and where I could really use them to make a differnec and they are just overkilll! Pyrrhus ( or Macdonald) is definitely in my blood . I need to be billiant sometimes to overcome such persistent ill luck or my opposition inept by comparison. Maybe I need the equivalent of a runner in cricket to roll the dice for me....or sacrifice a chicken! I am thinking of donating my dice to the nuclear industry - in a million years or so they will be safe to handle... Eiether that or my wargames cabin needs a fungshui expert....

The trouble is that by playing in a way to anticipate bad luck one likely will end up being cautious or deliberate, which are not necessarily bad but it can slow your play down to the point where your enemy can anticipate your moves. Generally I prefer to have "just been" where the enemy is "just now aiming". Sometimes playing for the "lucky roll" is okay if the benefits will far out weight the cost of losing the roll (e.g., it might be only a 1 in 6 chance, but if I win the whole enemy flank will roll up like an expensive Turkish carpet). Of course, most often you will lose but I love the fun of losing that - since no real lives are at risk.

[MikeHorah]

Ah! But if you're lucky you'll look brilliant; and, as we all know, there's a fine line between real brilliance and just being plain lucky......noting that Napoleon said he preferred generals that had a knack for being lucky.

Luck !!!

An inability to throw 7 on two D6's on a regular basis ( which should be 50% of the time) eludes me far too often ( three double ones in a row this weekend and then a double two next!). Napoleon's generals never had to deal with that. I have a regular foe who scores 4 x6's from 15 dice on a pedictable basis - this is Grand Manner where every 6 is a hit.

And in FOG(A) death rolls seem to turn up ones for me far too often ( I think three in a row in one multi unit melee phase where I was winning the mellees!)

Oh I get few clustered sixes too but they never seem to be when and where I could really use them to make a differnec and they are just overkilll! Pyrrhus ( or Macdonald) is definitely in my blood . I need to be billiant sometimes to overcome such persistent ill luck or my opposition inept by comparison. Maybe I need the equivalent of a runner in cricket to roll the dice for me....or sacrifice a chicken! I am thinking of donating my dice to the nuclear industry - in a million years or so they will be safe to handle... Eiether that or my wargames cabin needs a fungshui expert....

The trouble is that by playing in a way to anticipate bad luck one likely will end up being cautious or deliberate, which are not necessarily bad but it can slow your play down to the point where your enemy can anticipate your moves. Generally I prefer to have "just been" where the enemy is "just now aiming". Sometimes playing for the "lucky roll" is okay if the benefits will far out weight the cost of losing the roll (e.g., it might be only a 1 in 6 chance, but if I win the whole enemy flank will roll up like an expensive Turkish carpet). Of course, most often you will lose but I love the fun of losing that - since no real lives are at risk.

I always travel hopefully and so do not assume ill fortune but I do I plan on the assumption of average results not good ones and then try to get the numbers/quality on my side in a given tactical situation or position but better still use manouvre to find or create a flank or concentrate on a weaker point in the enemy line . The trouble is that numbers can sometimes be totally nullified by the fortunes of the d rolls - on either side - and I find when I can no longer manouevre I am much less successful.

Amen to no lives lost. Our tin men neither sweat nor shed their blood for us and that is a blessing indeed. Though the odd miniature bayonet or steel pike has shed mine through careless handling!

[shadowdragon]

Amen to no lives lost. Our tin men neither sweat nor shed their blood for us and that is a blessing indeed. Though the odd miniature bayonet or steel pike has shed mine through careless handling!

Seems like the basis for a murder mystery....notable wargamer so-and-so found dead, lying impaled on a phalanx of "firmly fixed in place" wire spears. Authorities suspect "foul play" - just to keep this on the topic of "Austrian tactics".