Slitherine

Austrian Army of the Danube 1805.
You are only allowed 3 divisions. There are 4 compulsory medium artillery bases.

The first division must be the Advanced Guard which cannot contain an artillery battery, which means that the 2 compulsory medium batteries must go into the 2nd and 3rd divisions.

You accordingly cannot field a Reserve division (of Grenadiers and Cuirassiers) as this may not include medium artillery.

Suggested fix: Reduce the minima of 6lber field artiilery from 4 to 2.

The easiest soltuion is to go with one of the suggested ammendments:
>> "All artillery attachments count towards both the minima and mixima for all lists" (in Empires and Eagles only).

This will reduce the amount of artillery available to all armies, and even allow some armies to field ALL of their artillery as attachments.

terrys wrote:The easiest soltuion is to go with one of the suggested ammendments:
>> "All artillery attachments count towards both the minima and mixima for all lists" (in Empires and Eagles only).

That is what we have been doing in NZ, with general approval I believe. We've seen British peninsula armies with all artillery as attachments, and I have fielded 1805 Austrians with all artillery attached.

terrys wrote:The easiest soltuion is to go with one of the suggested ammendments:
>> "All artillery attachments count towards both the minima and mixima for all lists" (in Empires and Eagles only).

That is a pretty profound change. I think you need to carefully review the impact on some lists. Russians for example to see if that does what you desire.

I do like it as an option for minimum I am not sure it works for maximum, it might end up making artillery scarce.

Artillery should be a bit scarcer in the early period. The increase in artillery used by armies from 1809 onwards was quite pronounced.

The Russian 1805 army can have up to 14 bases plus another 4 attachments. Even if the attachments dropped the maxima, you still get 10 bases for up to 5 artillery units! By far the most amount of artillery in E&E.

That is a pretty profound change. I think you need to carefully review the impact on some lists. Russians for example to see if that does what you desire.

I do like it as an option for minimum I am not sure it works for maximum, it might end up making artillery scarce.

! appeciate the concern - Don't worry, I won't make the change without checking it's effect on all lists.
At the moment I have notes for changing some artillery numbers on a few lists (mostly affecting the Peninsular) - a 'global' change would be easier to manage, but I will check each list to review it's effect.

about changes....well as things were and will be...when will we get a "dusted up" revised edition for the basic rules on print on demand?

"soon"

Not sure if this qualifies as errata, but the 1798 Austria in Germany list doesn't allow any mixed divisions.
I think it is the only Austrian army not to allow mixed division.
Is this intentional?

Cheers
Brett

I'm confused about the Prussian army 1806-1807 that's supposed to represent Jena. According to the ORBATs in the Nafziger collection produced by the Combined Arms Research Library on the Battle of Jena, specifically this, nearly every division was a mixed division and there was nigh on as many Saxon regiments at the battle as Prussian regiments. I'm especially confused by the limit to 4 bases of Prussian Grenadiers and 4 bases of Saxon Grenadiers, each base very roughly conforms to a single battalion, yet I count 6 battalions of Saxon Grenadiers and 7 battalions of Prussian Grenadiers!

With the typical brigade consisting of either 6 battalions of musketeers plus artillery or 5 battalions of musketeers and one battalion of grenadiers, I feel basic line troops should at the very least have the option of being six bases large. Preferably 4 bases of musketeers (4 battalions, 2 regiments) one grenadier and one artillery attachment.

Chriscain wrote: I feel basic line troops should at the very least have the option of being six bases large. Preferably 4 bases of musketeers (4 battalions, 2 regiments) one grenadier and one artillery attachment.

I think part of the goal of 4 bases is to ensure these armies are appropriately vulnerable versus their historical French opponents. Also 1 battalion does not equal one base. It is manpower dictated.

I do think the 1806 Prussian list was passed over quickly. This could have been an opportunity to do a few things instead they coughed up something too vanilla. Now opinions vary on the 1806 Prussians. I actually was re-reading Hofschrorer last night who tends to poo-poo many issues.

You could have required large divisions to simulate weaker grand tactical battlefield command and control.
There are many who argue that the prussian infantry was quite well trained and disciplined. So you could have put in more vterans or more likely superior infantry.

I believe 1806 Prussians had regiments of 2 battalions, plus a couple of companies of Grenadiers (usually detached)
Brigades seem to be 2 regiments, plus a battalion made up of the combined Grenadier Companies.

At about 800 chaps per battalion (paper strength), small units are appropriate if modelling regiments, while large units should be allowed if a modelling an under-paper-strength brigade.

Definately unreformed armies having large line infantry units makes them more competitive in my view. Have you looked at the 1792-5 list? It allows large units (no Saxons though).

Cheers
Brett

The lists weren'r designed to be 'competative'. The restriction to small units is based on the 2 battalion regiments that the Prussians used.
It may be that when a 2nd edition of the lists come out we'll review the size of the individual regiments and permit a small number of large units to represent understrength brigades.