Slitherine

So what is the point of this – some sort of hatchet job? Let us hope not. My intention is to review E&E from the point of view of the history of the Peninsular War as I see it. I do not intend to go into much detail on the areas which I know have already been covered, except to add some different thoughts and I apologise for any posts that I have not read and referred to.

Where do we start? An overview seems a sensible place. E&E is a great set of lists. The armies are not covered by one fits-all lists. We see the different armies progress over the years. The French progress from the utter dross of the Corps d’Observation of 1808 to the excellent quality of the middle years and then the decline of the later years as defeats and the draining of veterans to other fronts take their toll. Also, we see that Suchet’s army of the East Coast is included with the various elements that make it special. As a wargamer with an interest in the full ambit of the Peninsular War I look forward to refighting Baylen and Castalla. As an aside, the rest of the armies in the book are awful – what do you think you are doing tempting me with so many other delicious possibilities? I need to concentrate on my Peninsular armies – resist, resist, resist ...

Please bear in mind this overview as we move to more detailed comments where there is inevitably going to be some disagreement. I am building Anglo-Portuguese and French armies (and longer term want Spanish) so I have no bias for any particular side. I will use the armies at Salamanca as my base detail but the points should be valid on a more specific basis. Some of the points are rather important (IMHO) and others just picky details but I will allow the reader to decide which is which.

Quantity of artillery. This has been covered by many others. It is clear that artillery is grossly over-represented in these lists. At Salamanca each Allied division has one battery, there is an RHA battery with the cavalry, the Spanish have a few guns and there is the Portuguese 24pdr howitzer battery in reserve. With the rules as written this means all the artillery is artillery attachments. My take is that I would like to see single batteries as valid units and not simply factored in as artillery attachments. Clearly this would need a small rules re-write. Individual batteries should be able to join to form an artillery unit as currently defined. At Salamanca we see, for example, the cavalry RHA battery acting with the battery of the 3rd Division in its initial assault on the heights above Miranda de Azan.

British Light Division. Again this has been covered to some extent in other posts and Terry has responded. I feel that, far from discouraging the British player from taking the Light Division with all its funny rules, we should be positively encouraging its use. Historically if we look at all the smaller ‘Corps’ sized actions by the Northern army the Light Division will be there. A good example includes the pursuit of the French from the Lines of Torres Vedras. British units most involved were the Light Division followed by the 1st and 3rd.
1. Terry has written why he feels they must have an exceptional commander. However, Crauford was not always there; at Sabugal in 1811 the Light Division fouled up an outflanking move (of the type envisaged by Terry) because they were led by the inept General Erskine who barely qualifies as Competent and Black Bob himself was mortally wounded at the assault on Cuidad Rodrigo in Jan 1812 so clearly is unavailable after that date.
2. Why is the Division not allowed an artillery unit? At Salamanca we see that none of the Allied Divisions have an artillery unit but they are allowed/forced to have one under the army lists. Presumably they have borrowed a battery from another division to make up the artillery unit. Why not allow the Light Division to borrow the RHA battery from the 7th Division to go with its own RHA battery and so form an RHA artillery unit?
3. Why do you have to put the rifles in skirmish order? Typically the two brigades in the Light Division were each one British light infantry battalion, one rifles battalion equivalent and one Portuguese cacadore battalion. To my mind these are two wargames units of light infantry with a very generous rifle capability. The lists seem to envisage deconstructing the brigades and then setting them out again with the light infantry, rifles and cacadores as separate units. I wonder why this approach?

9pdrs as heavy artillery – it is clearly something of a judgement call as to where you cut off heavy artillery. Wellington definitely wanted more of the heavier 9pdrs over his original 6pdrs but does this make them ‘heavy’? I would argue not because we see these same 9pdrs being used as horse artillery at Waterloo. I note that heavy horse artillery is not a legitimate classification. Perhaps the classification of 9pdr as heavy is intended to be a comparative for the Peninsular? At Salamanca the French had at least 41 pieces that were 3pdrs, 4pdrs or light howitzers. Certainly the 9pdr would be heavy by comparison. However, if we are going for general categorisations I would treat 9pdrs as non-heavy.

Size of Allied Divisions – the Allied divisions were typically pretty small by the standards of the armies in Central Europe and yet quite a number of their lists restrict them to 3 divisions. This may be for game play balance but does not seem historical. What is so special about the Allies for 1810-11 that they can have 4 divisions?

British cavalry as impetuous – has been discussed by others and Terry has replied but I fail to see how this rule covers the action of British cavalry. A special ‘very difficult to prevent pursuit’ rule - yes, a special rule that drags along supporting cavalry in a cavalry charge - maybe, but the current rule of using your commands to prevent unauthorised charges – no, it just is not realistic even if Terry would have us believe it actually represents something different.

British Army in Portugal 1808 – where are Trant’s Portuguese? In an army this small they ought to be available and quite possibly be compulsory.

Spanish Allies in the Allied list of 1812-14 – I will touch on Spanish classification below but where are the Lancers of Castile? Two regiments strong and with Wellington at Salamanca (the only Spanish cavalry present) and during 1813. No light infantry? What about the Tiradores and the Cacadores both of Castile which constituted 2 of the 5 Spanish battalions at Salamanca?

Thoughts on the Spanish armies as solo and as allies – My knowledge is less sure here but I will throw out a few ideas.
1. The two Spanish infantry divisions with the Anglo-Sicilian army had been trained on Majorca by British officers. They certainly manoeuvred and fought well – a case for being classified as the same training as the Anglo-Portuguese perhaps?
2. The Spanish that fought under Wellington in 1813 and 1814 were good quality, steady troops despite the fact that some had been guerrillas not so long before. They fought well on the Puebla Heights at Vitoria and in a section on the Crossing of the Bidassoa that I have just been reading in Oman, they are described as throwing out a thick screen of skirmishers. A lot of fighting in the Pyrenees required good light infantry. The Spanish fought and skirmished with the best; quite possibly those ex-guerrillas were just the men for the job. Another possible case for same training as A-P or, at the very least, a higher allowance of sk attachments and light infantry? As allies to the Anglo-Portuguese they have very few skirmishers and no light infantry.

The French – much less comment on the French individually. With Suchet’s army I would make an option of either the noted Italians and Poles or more French infantry so that the army at Castalla is covered (I have started to model this, often Suchet’s army was exactly the right size to battle on the Field of Glory – clearly the boy had read the rules). As noted, I think the Corps d’Observation Army is a thing of beauty and the perfect antidote to anyone who says the rules and lists are just written for competition play.

Apologies that this post is so long but it seemed sensible to keep it all together.

Regards
Tim

I think you make some interesting points.

having done both historical OBs and points lists I think some of your concerns get shifted in execution.

There is general problem with any points based lists that the exotic menu displayed creates a distorting effect. In practice the english armies ahve to be more constrained to be viable. So functionally an 800 point anglo-port list will look pretty historical if you have good infantry. The problem of course you can create a distorted points list that takes lots of batteries and cavalry and minimizes infantry. I think that version has problems...but it can be done.

Did you incorporate the errata changes to your thinking?
Specifically the limit on artillery bases and the light division restrictions?

I play two games this past weekend with a points generated 1810 Anglo-port list. In both I had 2 light units that I deployed and kept constantly in skirmish formation. Except when I let the KGL light get broken and routed. It rallied and came back naturally! So for a moment it was in tactical as it ralled back from broken.

I felt the game employment of the formation felt right for my reading of the historical battles. I've been re-reading a lot particularly on Talavera of late. We will be doing a re-fight at Fall-in next month.

So to a degree I am sympathethic with your observations, but I would caution they don't play out as stornlgy as you fear on the game table.

English cavalry. First I agree there is a bit "english fantasy" to the charging at everything mindset. The little skirmish action is different than the actual battles. From a game point of view the english need the point discount of impetuous especially for their heavy cavalry. The english would like to integrate their cavalry into their battle line more so than you could manage if they are impetuous. Against a coordinated infantry and cavalry force this is especilly true. But from a historical point of view, the english cavalry tended to go from a reserve to commited status. They didn't linger around as much as I feel the cavalry in the central european actions. Now those are very relative views and someone else could look at the same and think differently.

Now a French player will bring a lot of cavalry if they can. Which likely means the english cavalry must move to counter it in some fashion. My preference is to let the french dash against squares before committing my Cav. In one game the highlanders just presented volley fire and saw off the enemy.

The other problem in the french lists, is the massive compulsion and advantage for taking Guard when they essentially weren't present on the pennisula battlefields. They had profound operational impacts in a few years. But they were not at Talavera, Salamanca, Albuera, Fuentes, etc in anything like the proportion in the lists.

So I think the game when players actually field the lists feels more right than you fear.

One point that I would add to the critique, is I think the battlefield terrain is missing something. I think an obstacle or something better than a low hill for english. But i haven't gotten my finger on that quite yet.

Without getting into a point by points debate I would make a some points:
a) the overall FOG(N) game design needs not to be viewed through the Peninsular prism ( or 1815 - a tendency we Brits have some times for these wars. ) The middle of the curve is in the rest of Europe.
b) the treatment of artillery as either of position or of support is what lies behind the attachment versus unit issue - maybe that does argue for restrictions on the number of bases overall of wither type and we are looking at that .
c) the British cavalry tendency to gallop at everything has been well described as something that tended to happen with units new to theatre and there was also a lot of roulement of units by the British army in Spain.
d) as I have argued elsewhere the points of an exceptional commander for the Light division is not Crauford so much but to give it more CP capacity so it can move more effectively as a command .
e) Lists follow rules not the other way about but in the light of actual of playing experience o the lists ( we could not beta test 140 lists)
f) Other than for tournaments lists are a guide and not" law". I mess about t FOG(AM0 lists

Without getting into a point by points debate I would make a some points:
a) the overall FOG(N) game design needs not to be viewed through the Peninsular prism ( or 1815 - a tendency we Brits have some times for these wars. ) The middle of the curve is in the rest of Europe.
b) the treatment of artillery as either of position or of support is what lies behind the attachment versus unit issue - maybe that does argue for restrictions on the number of bases overall of wither type and we are looking at that .
c) the British cavalry tendency to gallop at everything has been well described as something that tended to happen with units new to theatre and there was also a lot of roulement of units by the British army in Spain.
d) as I have argued elsewhere the points of an exceptional commander for the Light division is not Crauford so much but to give it more CP capacity so it can move more effectively as a command .
e) Lists follow rules not the other way about but in the light of actual of playing experience o the lists ( we could not beta test 140 lists)
f) Other than for tournaments lists are a guide and not" law". I mess about t FOG(AM0 lists

Without getting into a point by points debate ( It's late here!) I would some comments :
a) the overall FOG(N) game design needs not to be viewed through the Peninsular prism ( or 1815 - a tendency we Brits have some times for these wars. ) The middle of the curve is in the rest of Europe.
b) the treatment of artillery as either of position or of support is what lies behind the attachment versus unit issue - maybe that does argue for restrictions on the number of artillery bases overall of whatever type and we are looking at that .
c) the British cavalry tendency to gallop at everything has been well described as something that tended to happen with units new to theatre and there was also a lot of roulement of units by the British army in Spain making that more likely - happened at Waterloo too and not just the Greys.
d) as I have argued elsewhere the points of an exceptional commander for the Light division is not Crauford so much but to give it more CP capacity so it can move more effectively as a command .
e) Lists follow rules not the other way about and that is not always easy I can aver especially after extensive rules beta testing - but in the light of actual of playing experience of the lists ( we could not beta test 140 lists) we can and will make adjustments so it is really helpful to hear from folk.
f) Other than for tournaments lists are a guide and not" law" ( sic) . I mess about with FOG(AM) lists all the time!

Sorry guys late night finger trouble and I posted two incomplete responses in error.

MikeHorah wrote:Sorry guys late night finger trouble and I posted two incomplete responses in error.

And I thought you were doing a post by post debate (versus the point by point debate you wanted to avoid). LOL

Touche!

Thanks for the various responses.

Hazelbark - Yes, I had noted the errata. In my experience we have used light infantry in formations other than skirmish quite a bit. (Though my armies are very slow in the making I have been playing with what I have and a friend's 25mm armies so we have played quite a few games). I can see no logic for forcing the rifles into skirmish and denying rifles to the other unit. As I noted, the two Light Division brigades contained similar mixes of troop types.

I don't have a problem with the French lists allowing Guard when they were in the Peninsular as they are simply an option.

Hike H
a) The only place where I am looking at overall game design is with the artillery. I am not looking at anything else through a Peninsular prism. The reason the review looks at the Peninsular is that it is my main interest and that is what I am talking about. What you seem to be suggesting is base the rules on Central Europe and squeeze in anything else to fit. I would suggest that there are plenty of other battles, particularly the Revolutionary ones, where artillery was not so thick on the ground. I appreciate that the rules need to cater for both the artillery rich later Napoleonic Central European battles and other battles where artillery was less in evidence but still very effective. It is not an easy balancing trick but I think that, for instance, a game of Salamanca would be a much poorer gaming experience without artillery represented as separate units.
c) I would be delighted to hear examples of this occurring in any of the historical battles - and by this I mean cavalry charging off without orders. I recognised Wellington's quote but I know he said a lot of sour things about all the different parts of his army at different times. He was not a pleasant man and often condemned whole sections of the army unjustly, just as he often missed out the deeds of excellent units. His remarks on the army during the last stages of the retreat from Salamanca in 1812 being a perfect example.
Not sure I understand what you mean by roulement, it is not an expression I have come across - I hope you will enlighten me (and then I will use it in the future to confuse my friends!).
To the best of my knowledge the Scots Greys did not charge without orders at Waterloo but they certainly pursued when they should have rallied. This was my point entirely but perhaps I was not clear.
d) You seem to be suggesting that even if the Light Division is commanded by the dreaded General Erskine (and historically ended up in totally the wrong place at Sabugal) it should still manoeuvre well. I cannot understand this - historically it did not manoeuvre well. Incidently, Sabugal is a good 'Corps' sized battle, very much the scale that FOGN is modelling at 800pts.
e) that's why I wrote my piece
f) Don't worry, so do I and my wargaming group. We only ever look on lists as a useful guide. That said, the point of my post as noted above is to offer some thoughts which may be useful or may just fall by the wayside.

Regards
Tim

Thanks Tim I will try to respond on all your points more fully when I am back from a wargames quiz this pm!

You need a better thought through response from me to my previous hurried one as you make many really good points which we need to consider positively - as well as hearing from others of course .

I was the one trying not to be Anglo or Peninsular centric in this work from the off and was not suggesting you might be ( no reason to assume you were a Brit for example but some earlier commentators seemed to have that flavour at times ) and maybe we have over or under compensated .

Roulement is the term we used to use in the MOD in the1970's and 80-'s' for rotating army units between Northern Ireland Germany and elsewhere. Probably a term of art out of fashion now! I have been struck by how many different British regiments took part in the Wars in the Peninsula far more than Wellington ever had at any one time so there was a kind of de facto rotation.

Better to do this over a few pints of good ale of course!