A wargaming Christmas... plus 2018 reflections and projects for 2019

2018 is ending and it's time for a small tradition I've seen over the various miniature wargaming blogs... that of reflections on what has been done in this year what projects are ahead for the next one!

First of all, I'm closing the year with a truly "wargaming" Christmas... a short illness prevented me from actually setting up and playing a game these last few days, but this truly was  a Christmas where presents took the form of wargaming minis and equipment...

I received several 1/72 Napoleonics sets from various manufacturers (Plastic Soldiers Review for each is linked so you can see what's inside):

2 from Zvezda: Russian Grenadiers and Russian Guard Heavy Artillery.

Zvezda is surely doing some outstanding job, producing excellent sets that truly stand out in terms of historicity and sculpting... I already had their beautiful French Voltiguers, and I'm sure to take more sets from them in the future.

3 from Italeri: French Dragoons, French Imperial General Staff and Prussian Light Cavalry.

The Italian company has its headquarters near my home city and I visited them once. The French Dragoons are a truly excellent set and the French Imperial General Staff is a nice addition (too bad the other command sets aren't up to this standard, even if I'll take them sooner or later anyway...). The Prussian Cavalry (actually dragoons) set is described on PSR to have several sculpting and size issues and I had some doubts before, but they cover an interesting subject that isn't easy to find elsewhere and after seeing them in my hands I feel they are not bad at all. Probably the only real thing that stands out negatively is the horses' poses - some are a bit ridiculous, but that won't be enough to stop me using and painting them anyway!

All these sets complement the ones I had taken in November (Waterloo's 1815 very good Prussian Hussars, Hat's Austrian Artillery and Austrian Cuirassiers), I feel I'm reaching a very good stage in variety and quality.

Plus, I also received a modeling kit (I never had a complete one and used less-than-perfect means for cutting sprues and flash...) that is already being put to good use!

Finally, since this remains a blog that started over Risorgimento Wargaming, I've recently purchased this book on Risorgimento battles. Not many details over each single battle, but a good, quick overwiev of the campaigns and some very interesting reflections on the armies and how they fought.

Reflections on 2018...

I rediscovered miniature wargaming in 2017 (IIRC) thanks to Neil Thomas' One Hour War-games and started this blog in February this year... 24 posts (25 with this one) were written, with a lull during the summer months due to other commitments. Not bad for a first year... I started some projects, continued some, left others and started some more; overall it was satisfying because it build a small niche for personal fun. I discovered more rulesets I didn't know and lots of wargamers that play great games and paint even better. My blog is small, just a reflection of the few time I can devote to this hobby nowadays, but it was really exciting because, as they say, the best is yet to come...

...and projects for 2019

And speaking about what is to come, what are my projects for 2019?

I will probably leave the Colonial project aside, at least for a while. I'm currently concentrating on Napoleonics and want to playtest my ideas for fast Grande Armee. I aim to recreate the battle of Dresden (1813) this year, I already have most minis (I just really miss some French Young Guard, Austrian Grenzers and Grenadiers and a few other smaller bits) but I need to paint them. As usual, I'll play even if not everything is painted and even if not everything is correct (I prefer playing with proxies than not playing... because after all playing remains the real aim!).

Still, most of my time will be about painting the minis for that - and in the meanwhile play smaller games to test the rules and see if they really fit my needs.

Finally, I hope to at least write some more scenarios for Risorgimento battles, maybe continuing the Barolo campaign I have started this year...

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all of you!

Making Grande Armee fast... or, at least, faster...

I've tested my Napoleonics SiP rules a few more times... and as it often happens when you really playtest something, I can now see what it does well and what it doesn't.

Pros: it really is a fast ruleset, that mirrors the original SiP system and gives a more Napoleonic feel. You can easily use it for OHW's scenarios, or for other teasers.

Cons: 

- the shooting rules have to be a bit changed, because they provided for too many casualties. A unit could just stay back and shoot the enemy until it breaks, without the need for close combat, because it's safer and usually assures destruction, even if not quickly. Close combat is useful only if you are in a hurry and/or if the enemy is already really weakened or in a bad tactical situation. Unfortunately, this may be not enough historical, as under this scale, skirmishing fire was a good thing to soften the enemy but close combat was what effectively drove the enemy away. A solution for this would be to reduce the likelihood of hitting for each die by 1: normal 5-6, skirmishing advantage 4-6, ancien regime 6. Or even reduce it even more to normal 6, skirmishing advantage 5-6 and no fire for ancien regime armies (which would actually fire more under close combat circumstances anyway). This would make it more likely for players to choose to close attack when near the enemy, while still allowing the skirmishing effect.

- army command and control. It works fairly well for a OHW- or teaser-like scenario of 10 units each or less without reinforcements, but is less useful when battles are more complex or with more units. Somehow the idea is sound but some of the flavor is lost and if reinforcements arrive, you have to recalculate the number of units each side can control.

Conclusions: good rules for fast, small games, but only if you take the modifications above for shooting. And the command rules may prove unsatisfactory to some players or in some battle scenarios.

Grande Armee rules, by Sam Mustafa

I've been looking for alternatives and I've found the Grande Armee rules, by Sam Mustafa. They are the predecessors of Blucher, and they are not supported anymore, but I think they do lots of things better than Blucher - but not everything. The way it deals with skirmishing, in particular, is excellent, better than in Blucher and fits my needs perfectly. Still, some other parts are less good, like the close combat rules, where Blucher definitely shows improvements. Also, the movement rules are a bit cumbersome. The command system is sound and interesting. I guess Sam moved to Blucher to improve the game - and he did in several areas - but also had to sacrifice some historicity (the volley fire part in Blucher is no more a part of close combat, which doesn't really make sense...) for more gamey solutions that would appeal more to wargamers.

In order to get a ruleset for larger battles, that would be less easy to fight with Napoleonic SiP, I'm toying with a fast versione of Grande Armee (no, not the Fast Play Grande Armee system that Sam Mustafa once wrote, because the rule changes don't give the same feel and don't appear "fast" at all...)

Therefore, I think I'll use the Grande Armee framework, starting with the Command and Control system, even if I'm thinking about a more elegant way of recording Cps spent than using the counters.

Blucher rules, by Sam Mustafa

The skirmishing and artillery fire part is good and would be used "as it is". For close combat, I would use the system from Blucher, which is more elegant, and for movement I'd use the SiP/Neil Thomas conventions, which make it much faster and straightforward, speeding things up.

Also, I would give up the training rating for units, keeping only the SP rating, just as Blucher does with the élan.

The biggest plus of playing with Grande Armee or Blucher is the great amount of author- and player-made scenarios available, which are easily adaptable to either!

Going to playtest this soon and see if it really works!

Small painting update

A short update on my painting. Sometimes it takes quite a lot for me to finish a units, while in other times it takes me just a few sessions: this time I got both things, as I started painting two cavalry units and then left them aside for some months... only to take them back to the painting table and finish them quickly.

Recently painted units

Recently, my painted units included 2 units of French Line Infantry, 1 unit of Polish Lancers and 1 unit of British Hussars. 

Polish Lancers (Esci)

French Line Infantry (Italeri)

The Hussars had a complicated painting sequence... I knew very little of British Hussar uniforms during the Napoleonic Wars, and I started painting them as Crimean War hussars, since that's how they were labeled in their box image (Lord Cardigan's 11th Hussars). Then I read their entry on Plastic Soldier Review and found out the sculpts actually were more accurate for the Napoleonic Wars, not Crimea, but the uniform colors were wrong... especially the trousers. In short, I made a quick search or the correct colors (this mainly impacted the trousers, the bugsby and a few other details and repainted the relevant parts...) and I managed to convert them to the 5th Cavalry Brigade during the 100-jours campaign, with half painted as 7th Hussars and half as 15th Hussars.

British Hussars 1815 (Esci)

Now I will probably turn to artillery, in particular Austrian Artillery. I also have French Hussars, and French Voltiguers mounted and ready for playing and painting... but I still have to decide in which order I'll paint them!

Radetzky - Milano 1848

A few days ago I played with my brother at a new boardgame with a distinct Risorgimento theme: Radetzky: Milano 1848, which deals with the "5 giornate di Milano" (5 days of Milan), the uprising which saw the Milanese people start a 5-day unrest from March 18 to March 22, 1848 which ultimately saw Austrian Marshal Radetzky evacuate the city and retreat east towards the Quadrilatero fortresses. During the uprising, King Charles Albert of Piedmont-Sardinia declared war and started the 1st Italian Independence War. 

The game is a cooperative one, with 2-5 players playing the Milanese people against the AI (which controls the Austrians) in a struggle to win city district after city district. Players win if they control 5 districts and the Austrians have less than 5, while Austrians win if they control 5 districts before the Italians do it or if both Italians and Austrians end up controlling 5 districts in the same turn. Austrians also win if almost all their soldiers have been deployed (this happens later in the game if players didn't eliminate them effectively enough). Players have to confront an enemy which starts to send more and more soldiers against them, but they can muster resources (including the historically decisive barricades) in order to limit the enemy moves and turn the tide. The Austrians have a special "Radetzky" mounted counter that moves each turn and makes it harder for the Italians to take control of the space he's in, but also allows some more benefits if he's defeated. Historically, as the historical notes included at the end of the rulebook correctly note, Radetzky stayed inside his HQ, the Castello Sforzesco, and never went outside until the retreat, but the variation in the game allows some interesting game mechanics and challenges for the players.

We played two games, one with basic rules (where we lost) and one with advanced rules (where we won). Good coordination among players can be useful to win the game, and if ends up being too easy (but we felt it was nail-biting to the end!), players can limit communications between them to make it harder to win. Players win individually, not just as a team, but we didn't care for it. If we had done it, maybe it would have resulted in less cohesion and, possibly, in defeat...! Well, in the end it looks like our Milanese were able to overcome their political differences for the common good!

Overall, a good game that I really enjoyed playing!

First game: too many Austrian soldiers (black blocks)
and too few patriots around!

End of first game: Austrians get control of 5 districts,
while patriots only control 3... this time Radetzky wins...

End of second game: a nail-biting victory as Italians control
5 districts while Austrians have 4!

Radetzky's March Battle Report

After the short review of Radetzky's March, I played the main historical campaign.

It was really fun. The Piedmontese kept 4th Div (Ferdinando) east of the Ticino, threatening Abbiategrasso and Magenta, and this forced the Austrians to send the full I Corps (Wratislaw) north to face it. Appel's III Corps also went north, but then turned west and crossed the Ticino at the ford (then bridge, thanks to pontooners) near Bereguardo.

The few units from Ramorino's 5th Div actually performed admirably, slowing the Austrian advance and allowing Piedmontese reinforcements to get to Mortara and Vigevano, with Bes' 2nd Div actually getting as south as S.Siro (roughly as historical). Perrone's 3rd Div followed Bes as support, while Solaroli's Independent Brigade reached Vigevano to both act as rearguard and protect the nearby Ticino crossing (to ward off any attack from Wratislaw who was fighting Ferdinando on the other side).

After finally eliminating the delaying units, the Austrian organized their advance west of the Ticino in this way: Appel's III Corps on the right aiming for S.Siro and then Vigevano. D'Aspre's II Corps in the centre aiming for the main road to Mortara, but helping Appel's Corps with some troops (this ended up slower than planned, with almost 1 division being held up by Piedmontese troops near S.Siro for almost one day), Thurn's IV Corps on the left, making a wide flanking march to reach Mortara from the south and, in the meantime, screen Ramorino's off-map Div. In the rear, Wocher's Reserve Corps moved late and slowly to support the attack. It then detached some troops to mask Ramorino (freeing IV Corps troops) while the Cavalry, Grenadiers and Artillery supported the main effort, especially towards Vigevano.

West of the Ticino

East of the Ticino

In general, the slow Austrian advance allowed the Piedmontese to concentrate, slowing the Austrian advance considerably more, but the Piedmontese, in turn, were forced to feed more and more troops, especially in front of Vigevano where the battle was fierce around Borgo S.Siro. Both Bes and Perrone had to be put in first line. Ultimately, the arrival of Wocher's Reserve Corps Grenadiers and more focused attacks by Appel's III Corps allowed the Austrians to break the enemy line and defending units became interspersed. Solaroli's brigade was moved south to check the enemy advance on Vigevano, while a Reserve Div brigade of cavalry held the town. Rest of the Reserve held the center in front of Mortara, blocking D'Aspre's II Corps, but ultimately Benedek broke through at the end of the 2nd day.

Austrian breakthrough

At this point, third day, the battle became one of survival for the Piedmontese. 2nd and 3rd Div lost many troops and Solaroli's Brigade too. Austrian troops advanced towards Vigevano. It was a slow crawl, as defenders held on with all their valour, but ultimately couldn't stop the enemy, superior in number.

Finally, Appel's III Corps surrounded Vigevano and it fell. As the third day closed, the Austrians prepared to march towards Novara, sending some cavalry north to try to cut enemy supply lines (I probably did a gameplay error, not checking their supply status - you can't move a unit voluntarily out of supply). Both Bes and Perrone were able to rally one brigade each to re-establish a sort of line north of Mortara which still held, dspite Durando's 1st Div (reinforced by some units of Vittorio Emanuele's Reserve Div) being ultimately hard pressed by Thurn's IV Corps.

Austrian have almost surrounded Vigevano

General situation at end of battle. Austrians took Vigevano,
while Mortara still holds

Detail of situation at Mortara, with Durando still holding on
and remnants of Piedmontese units rebuilding line of
defense just north of it

Detail of situation near Vigevano. Austrian units swarm
north, pursuing the remnants of Bes' 2nd Division

East of the Ticino Ferdinando, good like his real counterpart, fought a brilliant action against Wratislaw's I Corps. 4th Div repulsed the enemy advance, took Abbiategrasso and sent one brigade (two full-strength units) east towards Milan. Even without these troops, Ferdinando was able to keep Abbiategrasso until the end, even if after the fall of Vigevano probably he would have had to return to the west bank of Ticino to protect his lines of communications. Wratislaw however was still able to send one brigade towards Vigevano across the Ticino.

Across the Ticino: Ferdinando vs Wratislaw

End of battle across the Ticino: Ferdinando still controls
Abbiategrasso, even without two units that had marched
towards Milan

It was the end of the 22nd, and I chose to end the battle. Actually, counting losses I think the Austrians had won earlier than this, due to difference in casualty levels. But it was fun to go on until darkness. The Piedmontese army was defeated, with 2 divisions shattered and one independent brigade destroyed, and losses to several other units. General tactical situation was compromised too, with Ferdinando's successes the only bright spot, and not enough to change the main battle. There had been no battle at Novara proper, and this would probably go down in history as the Battle of Vigevano, something more similar to the original historical Piedmontese plan: stop the Austrians at Vigevano and Mortara (historically, the unexpected loss of Mortara then forced the Piedmontese to redeploy near Novara)

In summary, the main action saw roughly 3 Austrian Corps (II, III and Reserve) facing off against 3 Piedmontese Divisions (2nd, 3rd, part of Reserve and Solaroli's brigade), with side battles at Mortara and around Abbiategrasso.

As in history, this time too King Charles Albert would abdicate to his son Vittorio Emanuele. This time too, Marshal Radetzky triumphed. This time too a rematch would be seen in 1859... but in the meantime, I'm sure to play this again! Great work on this game Sergio!

Radetzky's March

I recently purchased "Radetzky's March: The Hundred Hours Campaign", a board wargame by Sergio Schiavi on the 1849 campaign of Novara between Piedmontese and Austrians. It's the final campaign of the 1st Italian Independence War and Marshal Radetzky's final victory: defeated King Charles Albert decided to abdicate and further hopes of Italian reunifications were crushed until 1859.

Radetzky's March box content - not shown here there are
also counters with soldiers' silhouettes,
which help recognition

The game has a simple chit-pull mechanic, where each player has a number of command points each turn that allow him to select a certain number of unit formation chits (Corps for Austrians, Divisions or independent Brigade for Piedmontese). Each chit is pulled at random and all action done, then a new chit is pulled. Special "overall commander" chits (Radetzky and Chrzanowski) are available to activate up to 3 previously selected chits together, as if they were a single unit (very useful for combined attacks), but they can be used only every other turn. A free "independent" chit is alway available to move a few units even outside their normal command structure, as long as they weren't already activated (and they can't be activated again in that same turn).

Combat mechanics are fast and mostly intuitive, with an added "charge" mechanic that isn't as complex as in many other similar games and makes Cavalry a useful asset despite its lower combat value (as historically). After a few turns, I was checking the rulebook less and less often, until I didn't need to check it again, also thanks to a useful Quick Reference Sheet.  This is always a good sign, because it makes for a faster gameplay and is a mark of a game design that "makes sense". Combat tables are printed on the map, allowing a fast reference during combat rolls. In other words, players really can concentrate on what to do, and not on "how the mechanic to do it works", which both speeds up play and keeps it fun.

The action is fast, tense and both players have lots of choices to make: should the Piedmontese push across the Ticino towards Milan, in order to threaten it (and get victory points)? Or would they just concentrate on protecting Piedmont, especially the key towns of Mortara and Vigevano, which are right in the path of advancing Austrians? When to commit reserves? When to retreat in order to avoid casualties and regroup? When is Ramorino going to enter and threaten the enemy flank?

How many troops should the Austrians send to counter the Piedmontese moves towards Milan, if any? Where to cross the Ticino and how to organize the advance north towards Mortara, Vigevano and ultimately Novara? Would sending troops west towards Casale, Vercelli (and ultimately Turin) be useful due to the linked victory points, or would that weaken the main effort too much? How many troops to employ to screen Ramorino's division, a small but not-to-be-overlooked threat?

In addition to the main campaign, there are several smaller scenarios, useful to learn the rules. At first I tried 2 of them: "La Sforzesca" (which deals with action at Vigevano, roughly 1 Austrian Corps vs 2 Piedmontese Divisions) and "21 Marzo. La Risposta Piemontese" (which is the situation during March 21st, basically the Sforzesca scenario with the action at Mortara added, so roughly 2 Austrian Corps vs 4 Piedmontese Divisions). They were fun and easy to play, and I think they gave me a good comprehension of the main rules.

I then tried the main historical campaign. You'll find the report here!

Advance Guard - a tabletop teaser battle report

1809 - French and Austrian advance guards (roughly a Corps each) advance to some vital crossroads, trying to take control of both the bridge and the town, trying to get a better position for the main armies behind them. Both sides hope for reinforcements to arrive soon...

In order to playtest my new Napoleonics Simplicity in Practice variant, I've used the Advance Guard tabletop teaser from the old "Battle" magazine (you can find them all here). I adapted the scenario to a 3' x 3' setup (like the OHW scenarios), squeezing the map a bit and modifying the roads according to what I had at hand (very little changed in actual terms). 

The battlefield

I then partially reduced/modified the forces and scenario rules, according to this scheme:

The scenario is set in 1809 between Austrians and French.

Force near the town: French (army quality: Average - for the sake of playtest I wanted to check a middle situation for both sides)

4 x Infantry units (4 x Inf, all with skirmisher advantage)

1 x Light Cavalry unit (1 x LC)

1 x Artillery unit (1 x AT)

Force near the bridge: Austrian (army quality: Average)

3 x Infantry units (3 x Inf)

1 x Avant Garde unit (1 x Inf with skirmisher advantage)

1 x Light Cavalry unit (1 x LC)

1 x Artillery unit (1 x AT)

(Note: as usual, there will be many proxies and not all minis are painted)

Scenario length and reinforcements: The teasers were never precise regarding scenario length. In this case the number of game turns wasn't specified and it just said the reinforcements had to be rolled for at midday. I decided to roll for reinforcements on turn 7, and aimed for 15-20 turns. 15 is typical for OHW scenarios, but here combat is a bit slower and, with reinforcements, 15 turns may be a bit too few - a draw risks being the inevitable result just due to lack of time. I decided to play 15 turns and then see what was happening. If the game was still on the line, I would add some more turns (hey, after all I'm here to have fun, not do rule lawyering with myself!). The victory conditions are the same as in the original teaser: control both the town and the bridge.

Command rules: this is basically a meeting engagement and, at least at start, if units move too slowly the game won't reach an interesting phase until it's a bit late. So I decided that both sides have all their units In Command, due to previous orders, until one unit of any side fires and/or close combats. From the following turn, armies have to roll for command as usual.

Both sides started entering their units along/near the assigned roads, the French near the town, the Austrians near the bridge.

Austrian brigades advancing

French infantry advancing

Polish Lancers

Overall view at start

Both sides used road movement as much as they could, but soon both sides' cavalry started reaching far enough that troops had to avoid road columns and start deploying for battle.

Cavalry reached the middle ground as both sides cover their
closest objective

The Polish lancers threatened the Austrian Avant Garde brigade, but in doing so exposed their flank to the Austrian LC, which charged them and routed them. The Austrians then pursued them. The lancers tried to reform near the artillery, but were charged again and driven off from the battlefield.  Artillery then forced the cavalry to move away and keep distance, in a stand off that lasted most of the battle. Meanwhile, the French took positions all around the town in a defensive stance, while the Austrians deployed to attack.

The lancers have reformed near the French Artillery, with the
Austrian LC close in pursuit. The two armies deploy

The Austrian LC charges again and drives the Polish
lancers off the battlefield. On the French left, the Austrians
launch their flanking attack

Poor leadership makes the Austrians advance slowly on a wide front. The French have reserves but a narrower front, so the Austrians try to flank the French (French left), hammering it with artillery. The plan is simple: if the French reinforce their flank, they will be weaker at the centre and vulnerable to a frontal assault from the central Austrian division (2 units). If they remain put, they will be likely outflanked. Meanwhile, the Avant Garde and cavalry will force the French right flank to stay out of the main attack. The lack of reserves to sustain the assault is considered a minor problem as reinforcements will come soon... right?

View from the Austrian side. 

Unfortunately, the Austrian command isn't too efficient and the attack is slow to develop, while the artillery isn't as effective as hoped. To add to the problems, an aide gets to the Austrian Corps HQ informing that the Corps behind them is still nowhere to be seen - they are on their own now! The aide is sent frantically to find the reinforcements and speed them up.

On the French side instead army cohesion appear to have been better, as a new division (2 Inf units) arrives on the battlefield! The French commander takes the opportunity to reinforce the threatened left flank.

The newly arrived French division marches to the town,
while the brigade previously in reserve moves to the left flank

The Austrian attack continues to develop slowly and that allows the French to reinforce all positions. The flanking move is checked but in the centre the French are struggling facing superior enemy numbers.

The Austrian flanking move is checked, but the centre is also
under attack.

The French counterattack on the flank routs the Austrian brigade there, not a moment too soon as the Austrian artillery has become effective and is pounding its opponents. In the centre, the Austrian attack is developing better and the French, despite a fierce resistance, are finally crumbling under the enemy pressure. Just a small further push is needed!

Meanwhile, action on the Austrian left/French right has so far been mostly a skirmishing battle between the Austrian Avant Gard and French troops, with the Austrian LC and French artillery facing off at distance. Both commanders thought this as the secondary theater of the battle and didn't concentrate efforts there, both seemingly pleased to keep the opposing troops there out of the main struggle. 

"Where are my reinforcements? We need those troops to sustain our attack!" the Austrian Corps commander thought, just as the Aide returned to confirm that they were coming, but they would still need time to reach the battlefield. "We don't have time! We need them now!" the commander shouted in return.

The Austrian left flank is repulsed but the French first line
is weakened too

The climax of the battle was being reached: with a final surge, the Austrians in the centre charged the French brigade, which crumbled and fled. The Austrians rejoiced, sure to have the road to the town open... only to find out a fresh French division was there waiting for them! If the French hadn't received their reinforcements, they would have been in real trouble now as they had 1 brigade broken, another nearby one on the brink and no reserves in place... while the Austrians were still in a relatively good shape. But it was not to be: in Napoleonic battles, having reserves and using them in the right place at the right time is often the key to victory!

The Austrian attack opened the road to the town... only to
show there were fresh defenders

Concentrated Austrian artillery fire finally broke another French unit, but the Austrian attack had lost momentum... so the French commander thought it was the right time to mount a general counterattack. The fresh division counterattacked the enemy in the centre, routing a brigade and effectively breaking through the enemy centre, while on the left (Austrian right) another unit marched towards the enemy artillery batteries.

The French counterattack

The Austrian general tried to reorganize his lines, pulling back the Avant Garde, but the French artillery had focused on it too, and the enemy infantry advanced too. The Austrians officers tried to make their men fall back in order, but the artillery shells exploding and the advancing enemy made all pretense of order disappear and the unit simply melted in rout.

As the Light Cavalry was trying to move back towards the bridge, what remained of the main Austrian line collapsed as both the remaining infantry and artillery were attacked and routed, just as a single fresh Austrian brigade finally reached the battlefield, too late to be of any use.

Victorious French infantry move to face the newly arrived
Austrian brigade.

The victorious French were now making a general advance and the Austrian LC tried one last charge to stop the enemy advance on the bridge, but was repulsed. Long range artillery fire shelled the ranks, almost routing the cavalrymen: they bravely stood fast, but there was very little they could do alone now. The battle was effectively over.

The Austrian LC is still between the French and the bridge,
but is subject to long range artillery fire.

Final situation, end of turn 15

At the end of turn 15, the lone Austrian LC had 3 DPs and would not resist another turn: charging the enemy infantry would be risky, and even if successful it wouldn't survive much longer anyway due to superior enemy numbers closing in. If it stayed put, it would be targeted both by artillery and by infantry and likely suffer the remaining DP next turn. Retreating would be the best - and most realistic - choice, and yet it would effectively hand the bridge, and victory, to the French, because the newly arrived Inf unit was effectively screened by a French unit and, alone, would never be able to get close to either target.

Therefore, according to my initial evaluation on scenario length, there was no point in going on, and yet this couldn't be classified as a "draw" just because the Austrian LC was still closer to the bridge than any French: the Austrians had realistically been beaten and were unable to hold any target. I rated it as a French Victory!

Final considerations

It was fun! The rules worked well and were simple enough to allow me to concentrate on (mostly) realistic tactics: (concentrating fire and troops when attacking, use of reserves). The command rules worked well, forcing each side to make choices on where to concentrate the main effort, while the Out of Command rules still allow OOC units to still act realistically. I never used the square rules, but when it charged, the cavalry unit faced a mostly fresh unit, and rolled so badly that no amount of disadvantage for infantry was going to make it a successful charge.

The scenario was great and the random reinforcements made it really fun and tense, even in solitary, despite it making quite lopsided once the French got 2 Inf as reinforcements and the Austrians had their units delayed - two times! It made for a great game narrative.

So far I'm satisfied with these rules, and I'm sure to playtest them more to see if they're really solid even in different scenarios!

Napoleonic Wargame Rules - Extra rules

In this final post for my Napoleonic Wargame Rules based on Simplicity in Practice (SiP), here I deal with some extra rules and bits.

Rally

The Rally rule is inspired mostly by Steven Whitesell's Napoleonic Grand Tactical OHW Rules. If a unit has a General attached, is at least 25cm from the closest enemy units (meaning it's in the rear) and has not fought in this turn (fire or close combat), it can try to reorganize/rally. It's a slow process... entire armies usually didn't have the time to properly reorganize within the same battle, unless a lull arrived (which would mean a second game in game terms), but smaller formations could - brigades and regiments could reorganize after being repulsed (either in attack or defense) if the enemy didn't press them too closely, allowing another later effort. Successful troops instead could be spent from the effort and need rest and reorganization.

It can't be thought of as something "automatic": it took time, efforts by charismatic officers and NCOs and could fail if men were too panicked, had scattered too much, were very tired even if successful or if a good part of the lower command structure was missing - making it harder to get soldiers in formation (and at least partially motivated) again. Accordingly, you can only try to rally 1 unit at a time, with a General attached - meaning it's a trade-off, because he can't do anything else that turn too - and it's not sure it will work.

A unit with an attached General that is at least 30cm away from the closest enemy unit and didn’t fire or fight in close combat can rally. 

Roll 1d6: 1-3 = no effect; 4-5 = -1DP; 6 = -2DP.

If rally fails, you can imagine it's taking lots of time because men are scattered and hard to recall and put in formation, or fail to be motivated enough to get back into line/resume attacking. A successful unit could have its men too tired and not willing to go further, or on the brink of collapsing. You can never get back a destroyed unit - it's been routed and/or completely scattered, and reorganizing it would take too much time meaning it won't be possible until after the battle (and if it lost the battle, even that could be next to impossible if they are pursued).

Unit Morale

French Old Guard - Art by Giuseppe Rava

Keeping in line with Neil Thomas' idea that you shouldn't "duplicate" an advantage/disadvantage, I've thought a lot about how to represent Elite/Guard troops and Levy/Poor ones. In the end, so far I'm keeping the SiP rules as written: elite/guard troops considered to have 1 less DP than their real rating, and have levy troops already with 1DP at start of battle.

At first, however, I thought about making elite troops harder to get a DP (like a -1DRM when you roll for DP) and levy troops easier (+1DRM). It would make it harder for elite/guard troops to get DPs and therefore be eliminated, and easier for levy units. Then, for close combat, units would roll dices depending on their current DPs (like 4 die minus number of DPs) instead of a fixed number, which would both reflect current disorder/motivation and be influenced by the fact a guard unit would more likely be in a better shape. In this case I would take away the "less DPs than opponent" advantage, as it would be already covered, while other advantages would remain.

In this way, better troops would stand fire better, and be more effective in close combat, unless already beaten up.

In the end, I'm still evaluating this... as I fear it may break some of the assumptions behind the original SiP rules that made real tactics the best ones to employ, always a good thing. So I think I'll have to playlets the variant version, to see if it works. Otherwise, I'll keep the original SiP system. My idea could look more accurate, but if the end result is roughly the same it may not be worth it.

An intermediate solution would be to keep the original SiP system and just add the -1DRM for elite troops when they roll for taking DPs. Similar result, and would just make them harder to disorder when fired upon. Not sure if this would make them harder. Again, something to work on through playtest!

Small units/Detachments

Not sure if I'll ever use this rule, but if I do, I'm leaving it as in SiP. It works fine and there's no need to fix it, especially given the limited use it will likely have. I have no rules for oversize units either... if big enough to warrant being divided into 2 units, then it will be 2 units. If not big enough for that, it would just stay and act as a single normal unit, the size difference issue with opponents usually being mostly not relevant in front of other elements.

Napoleonic Wargame Rules - Movement, Firing and Close Combat

Movement

I think the SiP rules for movement work just fine, and therefore we can refer to their design notes. Regarding differences, with no "light" independent units, we have normal infantry can enter woods and difficult terrain too, at half usual rate. Brigades attacking woods would send their skirmishers first, and increase them as needed, but there are no instances of units being "blocked" by woods (at least as far as I know).

I'm still wondering about making the requirements for road movement a bit stricter, meaning units moving have to remain at least 25-30cm away from the enemy, because 20cm (the distance indicated in SiP) is also the cavalry rate, which would still make them within charge distance.

Firing

Here's the part where I think most miniature wargames are wrong or at least not-so-accurate. I won't go into detail here, because it's perfectly explained here and further discussed here (a more general treatise on Napoleonic infantry warfare being found here instead). It's the real key of the Napoleonic warfare.

French Voltiguers - Art by Giuseppe Rava

Therefore, ultimately it makes not sense to have skirmishing fire, volley fire and close combat that is very common to many rules (including Blucher). Why? Because most long range infantry fire was by skirmishers, and volley was mostly performed at close range when one side's skirmishers were driven away, rest of that side's unit still stood its ground despite being sniped at by opposing skirmishers, and the other unit had to close. Often, units didn't even volley fire, as one side or the other just fled due to skirmisher fire and the sight of the other side's firm close order unit. When units fired volleys, it was at close range, and hand-to-hand combat between non-fleeing infantry units was nonexistent: one units would flee before that happened.

Under these premises, any "close combat" already takes into account most (if not all) volley fire. Longer range than that, it would be skirmishing fire and attached artillery.

So in this ruleset any fire is considered to be that of skirmishers and artillery attached to units, with the occasional long range volley fire (did they ever happen?), using SiP rules, with some modifiers, mainly to account for armies which had better and/or more numerous skirmishers, or armies which hadn't (like ancien régime ones).

Each unit rolls 4 dice. Each die will register a hit on the following scores: INF, AT = 4 – 6. 

+1DRM if Skirmisher Advantage

-1DRM if Ancien Régime unit firing or firing against deployed AT

In other words, units with good skirmishers hit on 3+, and Ancien Régime armies would hit at 5+ (their general lack of skirmishers being an additional vulnerability in a fight against Napoleonic French infantry. Everyone else would hit at 4+. Every unit rolls 4 dice as normal.

A battle would be attritional, with victory going to whoever had the last reserves and would use them at the right place in the right moment.

Close Combat

For cavalry, close combat would indeed include hand-to-hand combat, but for infantry, as explained above, it would be mainly about close-range volley fire and seeing which unit would be the one to keep steady and which one would flee first. It's mostly based on SiP rules, but with some modifications. First of all, you do not sum all dice, but roll each dice and see if it hits (at 4+). The one causing more hits wins the combat, with ties going in the defender's favor.

Each side rolls 4 dice, and all "advantages" afford 2 more dices each. Only attacking the flank/rear of a unit gives 4 more dice instead of 2. There are no dragoons, so for cavalry only the HC advantage against LC is counted.

Each side rolls 4 dice.

Each side rolls 2 additional dice for each of the following conditions that apply:

• Defenders with terrain advantage

• Fewer DP than enemy unit

• General attached

• INF defending against INF with same number of DP

• HC fighting LC

Each side rolls 4 additional dice for each of the following conditions that apply:

• Attacker if attacking flank/rear of enemy unit

Each die hits on 4+.

Units can retreat over friendly units, but take 1 more DP (this is taken from Steven Whitesell's rules), as long as they do not end in difficult terrain - otherwise they're destroyed. Considering a losing units already takes 2DP, retreating over friendly units may well prove fatal anyway.

French 4th Hussars at Friedland - by E. Detaille

Regarding squares, first of all even if the term "square" is more common for ease of use, actually not all armies used squares. Austria for example used "masses", so the term "prepared", as used in Blucher, may be more correct. Regardless of the exact term used - as long as all players know what is intended - there's a need for a formation which infantry can adopt to resist cavalry. During movement, instead of moving, a unit can form square/mass/be prepared (just "square" from now on for simplicity of writing). Using a procedure inspired by the one in Blucher, if attacked by cavalry while in square, cavalry units have to reroll their hits. If instead infantry is attacked by cavalry while not in square, it's infantry which has to reroll hits.

I thought a lot about this. OHW just has units in square unassailable by cavalry. This looks a bit too extreme, even if you can imagine such a situation including both confrontation and small ineffective charges - which ultimately compare to a stand-off. Anyway, while an understandable abstraction for a very simple ruleset like OHW, I prefer a simple alternative that still allows combat, including the possibility of cavalry breaking squares even if of course it would be hard. Remarkably, the effect is still similar and realistic enough: if an infantry unit isn't in square, cavalry will see it as a vulnerable target. If instead it is in square, cavalry is likely to avoid charging, given the difficulty.

One final note on moving and squares: squares can't move - as shown in OHW - but actually I'm thinking about giving them a movement allowance of max 2-2.5cm (roughly the 1" movement squares have in Napoleon's Battles) in open ground only. I'll verify through play testing.

Next: Extra Rules