Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Continuing on the never-ending subject of OR choice.
There are two opinions expressed in this WDS blog post and I would like to explore the selection of OR presented by RH (italics in the blog post).
https://wargameds.com/blogs/news/introd ... les-series

There seem to be a different approach to 5 optional rules described in the blog post in italics:


It appears that there is no disagreement to the Movement Threat Disorder as both perspective advocate for this to be ON, but it is added here for the purpose of wider context. All the rest of OR seem to be in line and agreed on, but these 5 are the most common where there is no general consensus (manual defence fire in this case is assumed to be combined with automatic defensive fire, so there is only 1 email per turn)

Now what I would look at this at the lower tactical level (battalion-brigade) and from the perspective of two infantry doctrines: Musket FP Focus vs Mass Melee Focus, where:
a. FP focus represents relying more on musket FP: fighting more in line formation, hence the with less density per hex and relying more on musket FP.
b. Mass Melee focus represents relying more on Mass Melee with high-highest density per hex, where infantry battalions are formed into heavily stacked columns massed into 1 hex to maximise the odds in melee.

ASSUMPTIONS
There are a few the assumption which are made from historical perspective:
1. Fire focus is more historical and generally it can be stated that musket FP was the primary infantry tool of the day.
2. Bayonet attacks (represented by melee in game turns) were not common. Typically, a column would approach the enemy and then deploy into line to use their muskets. So this is can be done within 1 game turn mirroring the historical approach.
3. It was not common for entire infantry brigades to be formed into packed columns on 100 by 100 meter space for mass bayonet charges.

OR SELECTION TO DRIVE FIRE FOCUS
Based on the above assumptions we can attempt to select optional rules to drive more historical flow of battles, that is with more Musket focus and less Melee focus. And this is completely in line with what is suggested in the blog in italics:



1 Movement threat disorder ON and 2 Columns pass through fire ON – both rules make approaching the enemy line for mass melee riskier and more costly, hence its Negative impact on Melee focus.
3 Flank morale modifier encourages deploying battalions into solid “shoulder to shoulder” line (+going into extended line as of 4.07) which maximises musket volley opportunities as units battalions are deployed into one line.
4 Line movement restriction OFF certainly favours FP doctrine as there is less risk in maneuvering in line.
5 Manual Defensive Fire OFF statistically increases the number of musket volleys and skirmishes firing at the approaching enemy.

IMPACT ON ATTACKER and DEFENDER
Then we can also add the impact on the Attacker and the Defender:


It’s obvious that optional rules 1 and 2 makes it risker and more costly for the attacker to approach the defending stack, hence Negative. The rest is close to neutral to me.

DISSUCSSION
The selection of OR presented in the blog post by RH does seem to drive more historical flow. However, what remains uncertain is whether this selection of OR makes it extremely difficult for attacker to assault enemy defensive line packed with artillery.
Infantry formed in line does not stand a chance vs artillery at point blank. Hence the only option to assault the enemy position is with melee (Melee Focus).
The defender optimal response to Melee focus would be forming large stacks packed with the following units:



This is nearly maximum stack (~1750), with a tremendous FP from the 8gun heavy battery and with a decent chance of stopping an enemy attacking column made of 1750 troops with a leader. The potential losses from the one-off volley by the battery at point blank (with column pass being OFF) are 112 out of 1750 attackers. This means the rest will make it to the melee (assuming no disorder from the defensive fire) representing the odds: 1.83 attackers to 1 defender. In such melee the average losses would be: 147 for the defender, 134 for the attacker.
The exact formula determining the melee outcome is hidden by the developers , but generally the attack needs 2 to 1 advantage to have a decent chance of succeeding. 1.87 to 1 is probably also ok but its on the thin line. Adding the chance of disorder by the defensive fire and both stacks are close to being evenly matched in melee.

Now lets assume Column pass through fire is ON (more losses for the attacker) + Manual Defence fire is OFF ( more volleys from the battery albeit at 50% FP).
It is likely that the attack will fail. This would make a defensive stack with 8 guns nearly immune to infantry attacks. The defending infantry within the stack is also immune to an enemy artillery fire at it is masked by the friendly 8 gun battery. Only counterbattery fire (need FP superiority for this) and/or a cavalry charge can help. Cavalry charge is not possible in this case as the defending stack is positioned behind a stream.

SUMMARY
In the above example with the selection of OR from image 1 it seems like attacking the defending stack via:
- Fire Focus will certainly fail (the battery will always outgun any infantry unit).
- Melee Focus is likely to fail as described above.

While the selection of OR above indeed influences the historical battle's flow, the question remains: how to storm strong enemy artillery positions? This would be especially relevant for later Napoleonic Campaigns in 1812 and beyond. As the Napoleonic Wars progressed, the number of guns per 1000 men ratio was constantly increasing from 2-3 guns per 1,000 men in earlier campaigns, culminating to 6-7 (and above) guns per 1,000 men in 1813-1814. This is particularly true for the allied side, especially the Russian army. Anyone who has played Eylau as the French can appreciate the challenge.

Another route which can be considered is questioning whether artillery is overpowered in the first place. This was explored by Hans Boersma mode here https://1815.deds.nl/ with across the line artillery FP reduction and by H&R mode back in 2011.

As the main game goes, at this stage, the only tool we have to reduce artillery FP is via disabling Column pass through fire. However, the other side of turning this rule OFF, is that it encourages unhistorical Mass Melee focus with entire brigades formed into near maximum stacks and storming the enemy positions.

I am sure there is a wealth of experience within NWC to address some of my concerns above and show me how the attack can be handled with this selection of OR. I would love give these OR a run via a short testing game involving heads on assault. This is posted on the opponents’ finder forum:
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=17292

_________________
General-Mayor Alexey Tartyshev
Kiev Grenadiers Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
2nd Grenadier Division
8th Infantry Corps
2nd Western Army

(I don't play with Rout limiting ON)

May I throw in that my selection & recommendation of OR is, besides trying to simulate history, also considering the simply effect a rule has by just being in effect.

By turning on a rule it should effect the style of playing, if you ignore the effects then you simply have to take the effects of the OR. But it's not like you have to, you simply have to adjust your style of playing.
That is why I use density fire and column pass through ORs, because players should usually not stack infantry units and if they do and also do it massively they just have to pay, that is simply the effect of such concentration, historical examples for this D'Erlons corps at Waterloo or McDonalds corps and Wargram.

Using Line Movement Restriction seems just logic, besides probability is usually not that high and a disorder once in a while seems OK.

I also use it because I don't use the Movement threat OR, that OR just doesn't work in a logic way because it's based purely on range and ignores terrain & visibility.
I like the idea behind it, it just has to get more detailed.

And manual defensive fire, well I'm just into phased gameplay and would rather use MDF & ADF and be just as quick as in turn gamplay.


Now while artillery gets more numerous, the question is do I have to march straight onto such a position or have I other options? Sure sometimes you need to but then you may also try to soften it up with own artillery and threaten it with cavalry to make it more prone to infantry assaults.
I think there are different options out there about when an assault should really take place. Instead of unloading my knowledge at you I point to a section of the very fine webpage "Napoleon, His Army and Enemies."
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infan ... ack_charge

There were some differences between the French, Austrian, Prussian, British and Russian regulations concerning the bayonet attack, but basically it was all about weakening the enemy, physically and emotionally, before contact was made.
The French regulations from 1805 stated that bayonet attack is to be used "as a coup de grace against enemy that is disorganized by fire", and physically and emotionally worn down.

The enemy could be disorganized, or weakened, by:
1. - artillery fire (Napoleon once said, "Columns don't break through lines unless with superior artillery.")
2. - surprise (for example sudden appearance etc.)
3. - threat to the flank (flank attack was the most decisive form of attack)
4. - being in the process of deploying
In 1815 at Ligny, battalion of Prussian infantry delivered a volley at French battalion.
The French attempted to deploy and to return the fire. The Prussians however fired
another volley and attacked with bayonets throwing the French back.
5. - difficult terrain (for example advancing uphill, crossing a ditch etc.)

_________________

Well, that seems to be the case in the case of the 8guns + Infantry stack shown in my post above.
With Column pass through ON it Density ON this stack is well positioned to withstand an infantry assault. So, it has to be either:
1. threatened by cavalry or
2. outgunned and “softened” by artillery.
3. Or the attacker should try his luck somewhere else.

I guess there is always some trade off. Large infantry stacks meleeing anything out of their way is a bigger evil to me and it has to be discouraged by Column pass and Density ON.
So, I am leaning towards RH choice of OR in the WDS blog post. Just want to try it in PBEM first.

_________________
General-Mayor Alexey Tartyshev
Kiev Grenadiers Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
2nd Grenadier Division
8th Infantry Corps
2nd Western Army

(I don't play with Rout limiting ON)

Seems like the advantage would be with the defender but it just seems so because such a hex would suffer from column pass through fire & density, even so small but numerous infantry units like in your example combined with 8 artillery pieces should let density kick in.
A hex like that would be a nice target for some pounding by heavier artillery pieces on long range and some horse artillery positioned out of the front firing field for close range & possibly enfilade fire.
Bring in cavalry and you force the infantry into square what gives +50% for the artillery fire on it.
Once they are shacking and the defenders artillery is limbering up to flee you have your chance to carry out a proper infantry assault.
Not sure if such a position can withstand combined arms tactics if they are properly conducted.

_________________

This is a very good point. I tested it, and indeed, density applies to the defending stack even if targeting artillery only. Infantry cannot be targeted, as they are masked by the battery, but their mere presence drives the density and gives an advantage to the attacker's FP. In this case, the density FP bonus to the French artillery firing at the stack would be +46%. It shouldn't take long before the Russian battery is outgunned, even by lighter pieces.

I had never considered that density applies to artillery stacking as well. Thanks for pointing this out.

P.S. Cavalry is not much of a help in this case as the position is covered by the stream

_________________
General-Mayor Alexey Tartyshev
Kiev Grenadiers Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
2nd Grenadier Division
8th Infantry Corps
2nd Western Army

(I don't play with Rout limiting ON)

Thanks for testing.

Looking at the manual:
"5.3.15 Pass Through Fire
Normally fire against a stack of units in a hex only affects a single target unit. However, when
Infantry in Line formation is fired upon by Artillery, all such units in the target hex are
affected by the fire. This represents the ability of artillery fire to penetrate several lines of
infantry. When the Column Pass Through Fire Optional Rule is in effect, this rule also applies
to Infantry in Column and Square formations. "

I assume an unlimbered artillery is treated like a line, so even without the Column Pass Through Fire did the infantry get any damage too?

_________________

Nope. The infantry is masked by a battery of 8 guns and above as of 4.07. So regardless Column pass through OR, only the battery will take the hit. However, the density modifier would apply as there is also infantry within the stack.

Bottom line: if you see some artillery stacked with infantry, this should be your priority target for counterbattery fire. This is assuming Density OR is ON and to my experience there is pretty much consensus that this OR should be on.

_________________
General-Mayor Alexey Tartyshev
Kiev Grenadiers Regiment (Grenadier Drum)
2nd Grenadier Division
8th Infantry Corps
2nd Western Army

(I don't play with Rout limiting ON)

Interesting, I thought you are only unable to direct fire on such a masked unit, but that pass through fire could reach it because... well it passes through.

Now if notes for 4.07 are correct:
"So if a unit is Masked (prevented from firing) it can not be fired upon either, unless targeted from the flank or rear."
then fire from flank should be able to even reach the masked unit.
I wonder if any pass through fire effect would happen in such a case.

_________________