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

Napoleonic Wargame Rules - Command and Control

Command and Control

I've always liked command and control mechanics with a traditional command radius + initiative rating for subordinate commanders, often used in miniature (Napoleon0s Battles) or board (Battles from the Age of Reason by Clash of Arms) wargames. I found it simple and realistic, and the individual leaders rating put some historical perspective on armies, as good commanders (like Davout, or von Seydlitz) can operate well even outside their OC radius, while poor ones would struggle. Problem is that such a system usually ends up becoming a complicated exercise in micromanaging distances as each general is placed at carefully measured distances in order to maximize army control: in short, it becomes an exercise in measuring and all too often it takes up valuable game time and scenario exceptions need cumbersome ad-hoc rules to work.

In the end, however, we have to keep in mind that any command and control system leads (or should lead) to the same end result: an army with good generals and/or a good staff and command system can manage and move its forces more readily, more efficiently and in a more coordinated way than an army with poor generals and/or a poor staff and command system. The only difference across the various ruleset is how many rules the game designer felt were needed to get to that same result.

Napoleon at Borodino - by V. Vereshagin

Therefore, in order to keep rules quick and yet obtain the same historicity, I decided to drop command radius and individual unit initiative ratings. If using scenarios which already state restrictions for command (like many scenarios in One Hour Wargames - OHW), players may stick to those and not apply anything else - or risk altering scenario balance. If no indications are given, or players anyway prefer to introduce an additional effect, then we can use NT's command rules from W19thCE. Each army is rated for its command level (mixture of leaders quality and staff work): Poor, Average and Good. This should be evident from historical references, but in case of doubt or disagreement, just stick with Average for both armies (or Good for both if preferring a more controlled game).

At the start of each own turn, the acting player rolls 1d6 and checks a table which gives him/her the number of units that are "in command" during that turn depending on his/her army command quality. "In command" means that they can function at full efficiency, either because they are within the chain of command or because a good leader is leading them (or both). After rolling, the active player names which units are "in command".

"Out of command" units are not idle however. They can move up to 1/2 movement allowance and fire using 1/2 the normal dice. They can't attack (go into close combat with) the enemy, but they fight normally if attacked. This is taken directly from NT's W19thCE.

For example, for a 10-unit army:

		Army command quality
		Poor	Average	Good
1d6 roll	1-2	2 (20%)	4 (40%)	6 (60%)
	3-4	3( 30%)	5 (50%)	7 (70%)
	5-6	4 (40%)	6 (60%)	8 (80%)

If armies are not composed by 10 units, use the % in brackets, rounding to the nearest whole number. So, for example, for a 6-unit army (like those for OHW when no particular rules are indicated):

		Army command quality
		Poor	Average	Good
1d6 roll	1-2	1 (20%)	2 (40%)	4 (60%)
	3-4	2( 30%)	3 (50%)	4 (70%)
	5-6	2 (40%)	4 (60%)	5 (80%)

Generals

The above emphasis on avoiding traditional command & control rules means traditional bases with general figures are mostly unnecessary (except for aesthetic reasons). However, I feel there may still be place for having a general miniature with some effective use. In this, I take ideas both from Blucher and from Steven Whitesell (of the interesting "Sound Officers Call!" wargame blog), in particular from his One Hour Grand Tactical rules.

Therefore each army still has one general base/model, roughly representing the Army Commander or anyway relevant commanders. Every turn, it can do one of three different things, and is placed accordingly so that players immediately remember what the leader is doing:

1) Command: General is at HQ and is concentrating on leading the battle, including with the help of his staff and subordinates). The general base is placed anywhere (likely behind his lines) but without touching any unit. The army has +1 "in command" unit this turn. Note that it's +1 unit, not +1 to the die roll. So for example a 10-unit army with an average command quality rolls 1d6 and gets 3: it should have 5 units "in command". But its general is performing its Command ability so it gets 1 more unit "in command". It therefore has 6 units "in command" this turn.

Wellington at Waterloo - by R. A. Hillingford

2) Lead unit: General is directly leading one unit, increasing its élan and leading it against the enemy, either in attack or defense. The general base is placed in contact with the friendly unit (only 1 unit!), which can be a different one each turn if so desired. That unit gets a close combat bonus for this turn (see Close Combat rules). If the unit is routed/eliminated (i.e.: gets to 4 DPs) then the general is lost and can't be replaced. The army effectively has to do without a general from now on. This represents both the loss of a key leader (not necessarily the army CO) or of several valuable officers (or both), limiting the army's ability to coordinate and perform effectively as replacements struggle to take control of the situation.

3) Rally: General is busy trying to reorganize demoralized and/or disordered troops so they can get back into the fray. The general base is placed in contact with one friendly unit (only 1 unit!) that is at least 30cm apart from the closest enemy unit, and can be a different one each turn if so desired. It allows that unit to rally (see Rally rules).

These three options present a standard trade-off situation: you can have one advantage, but have to renounce to the others: either you get better control, but can't help in rallying or in a key combat; or you get a boost in a key combat situation, but control your army less well and risk losing the general if something goes awry; or you try to rally your troops but can't control your army well or give a hand in combat. In some situations (especially at start) it will be an easy choice, becoming more and more challenging as the battle evolves, like in real life.

Having the leader base moved directly in the desired position (foreign the usual movement rates, or other rules) effectively makes it a sort of "counter" that instantly shows what the player has chosen to do with it, and allows both simplicity and ease of use (and memory!).

I'm still thinking about using more than one general for larger games, but I still have to find a way to make them not too powerful, or denaturate the C&C rules.

Next: Movement, Firing and Close Combat

Simplicity in Practice Napoleonics

In my search for good and simple wargame rules, I think I’ve found an answer for Risorgimento (Neil Thomas’ Wargaming Nineteenth Century Europe – W19CE) and Colonial (Osprey’s The Men Who Would Be King – TMWWBK). Regarding Napoleonics, I’m mostly interested in Grand Tactical scale, where a player leads an entire army (which could also be as small as a Corps): the choice among commercial rulesets is mostly disappointing, mainly because it relies on assumptions that I don’t share about Napoleonic Warfare. Even Neil Thomas (NT) rules, which I’m generally a fan of, are not suitable as they look more like 18^th Century rules with some additions (mainly squares). But Napoleonic Warfare was truly different (more on this later) and it's not just "Seven Years War with some additions". 

Still, NT is right in looking for simple and yet not-simplistic rules. Blucher by Sam Mustafa is a good improvement, but his treatment of firepower is still marred by what I feel are wrong assumptions on Napoleonic firepower during battles, even if he has some really good ideas (his treatment of skirmishers is maybe one of the most elegant and effective around). As such, it would need some serious trimming that would make it revert more to a NT-like system (I actually believe that Sam Mustafa took several design ideas from NT…)

Battlegames issue n.23

I’ve therefore reverted at creating a personal set of rules, based on existing ones. I first thought about adapting W19CE, which I love, but in the end preferred using the even simpler Simplicity in Practice (SiP, available inside Battlegames issue n.23 from Wargame Vault) as a starting point. To give the proper Napoleonic feel I took ideas from other rulesets, including W19CE, Blucher and others.

In this and other future posts I will explain my rationale behind my choices (my “design notes”) always giving full credit where it’s due – you’ll see there will be little originality by myself, and lots of borrowing from others. In the end, I will attach a downloadable pdf file with the rules free for anyone to use.

Starting from the existing: Simplicity in Practice as a chassis

SiP will be my starting point and anyone who wants to understand the rationale behind it (and in general behind NT’s rules) should read the attached design notes. It’s a quick, simple ruleset that has lots of subtleties and manages to get the right feel without burdening players with minutiae. The rules aim for showing the effects of actions, not the complex calculations behind them and actually force players to use historical tactics to win, always a good thing. However, they are mainly aimed at 18^th Century warfare, not Napoleonics, so I will have to use them only as a chassis and transform them in truly Napoleonic ones. The key will be maintaining the same simple-but-not-simplistic nature. Let’s see how:

Units

Generally, units should exist as different units if they performed different roles and such roles were distinguishable on the battlefield. 

The main unit therefore is Infantry, which represents brigades (or divisions for large scale battles in order to keep number of units reasonable) composed both of close order infantry and the skirmisher screen ahead of them. The two things are not separated because they acted together. It’s their respective role and interaction that truly marks the Napoleonic period, which is much less about the line-vs-column dynamic (the one that is wrongly often cited as the main one) than about having formed infantry preceded by large clouds of skirmishers (which was the true novelty and source of effectiveness). As such, there are no independent light infantry units, because even light infantry regiments always acted in front of the formed units (in this, it is also similar to Blucher, which I feel is correct in this and takes the right approach IMO) with more and/or better skirmishers enjoy a bonus during fire, which represent their increased effectiveness. 

French Voltiguers - Art by Giuseppe Rava

As units represent brigades, there’s no need to show if they are in line, or column or whatever: lower officers know how to move their troops, players represent the army and/or corps generals who give orders and just see units as coherent entities. In addition this avoids the need to represent in detail different doctrines of the various countries: their effects being relevant only in a few cases, which are represented by the firing and combat rules.

Cavalry is divided into Light and Heavy, like in Napoleon’s Battles. Dragoons don’t get a different grading, they are assumed to be included in Light Cavalry (LC). Heavy Cavalry (HC) has shock bonuses and less mobility than LC, but other differentiations are effectively irrelevant at this level.

Artillery is not differentiated by caliber. This is by design. Lower-caliber guns are often attached to brigades and assumed to be part of their firepower and higher caliber guns were anyway really effective at the level only when grouped in big/grand batteries. Artillery units represent such concentrations of guns. Again, this is similar to Blucher.

Next: Command & Control

1848 Mincio Campaign - Battle of the Bridge of Goito report

After setting up the scenario map and defining the order of battle, I was able to play the battle. Here is the report.

Scenario Deployment (Goito is on the Western side of the river)

All Austrian units deploy on the map first.

The Jagers deploy inside Goito.

Radetzky Hussars deploy near the town.

The two Oguliner Infantry units and the Artillery deploy on the Eastern side of the river, at player's discretion. Their deployment is made before the Piedmontese player rolls to see where and when his reinforcements enter.

Only one Piedmontese unit deploys at start, rest enters as reinforcements.

Aosta Cavalleria deploys on the hill facing south. It can't move on turn 1 because it's regrouping its detachments. From turn 2 it acts as normal.

Other units roll 2 dice for arrival: 1 die indicates turn of arrival; the other die indicates whether it arrives at entry point "A" (the road) or "B" (near the hill).

You roll for each of the following groups:

• 2 Infantry units (9th Regiment)
• 2 Infantry units (10th Regiment)
• Bersaglieri
• Artillery

Deployment at start

The Austrians and the Piedmontese cavalry deploy as shown. The only "challenge" is deciding where to put the artillery. Not knowing where the Piedmontese would enter, I placed it where it could cover the road. It's the more exposed part of the Austrian deployment and if the attackers come strong from that side, the artillery will be valuable.

However, it wasn't so. Only the Bersaglieri ended up entering from "A" (the road), with the rest arriving at "B". Aside from this, all Piedmontese reinforcements arrived early and sequentially (actually, all infantry was rolled to arrive at turn 1, but I decided that the order of march would have an effect, so I made half of them enter one turn after the other): 9th regiment on turn 1, 10th regiment on turn 2, the Bersaglieri on turn 3 and artillery on turn 4.

The first Piedmontese infantry seen from Goito

Goito seen from the Piedmontese infantry.

The Regina brigade is marching in, while the Austrians decide
to move some infantry forward to reinforce the defense

The fact the attackers mostly came from just one side made the Austrian guns useless in that position. At the same time, however, the attacking columns were moving cross-country and would take time to deploy and reach Goito, which in turn would allow the Austrians to reinforce the forward positions. Ultimately, they decided to keep the artillery still in order to target the Bersaglieri or in case the enemy cavalry punched through.

Opposing cavalry face each other while the Regina brigade
starts to deploy in attack formation. Bersaglieri are
threatening the flank, but they won't do much this time.

Under these rules, you can't move the troops at will, they're quite slow (especially if turning) so careful deployment from march to attack formation is vital. The Regina brigade would attack in two lines (9th rgt in first line, 10th rgt in second line) so reserves would be ready if needed, with the cavalry protecting the flanks. Artillery was to be brought up to firing range to help the infantry.

This is why I like NT's rules: you don't concentrate on abstruse rule details or endless lists of modifiers: to win, you have to employ tactics that would really work, so you have to concentrate on those - decision points shape the game and results are indeed more historical than those allowed by more complex rulesets.

The battle was really fun to play and produced realistic results. The Piedmontese infantry suffered some fire from the Jagers, but managed to take the town. The Oguliners decided they couldn't let them keep it, so counterattacked and retook it for the Austrians. The Piedmontese unit from the 9th regiment now was too spent to react, but the 10th regiment in reserve was ready to take its place and attacked Goito again, eventually forcing the Oguliners back again. I liked this back and forth.

The Piedmontese attack on Goito

This was supposed to be a good picture... anyway it's Austrian
point of view after the Piedmontese take Goito

The Piedmontese artillery has deployed at short range while the
Austrians still hope to hold the road

Another view of the same situation, from the other side.

With no fresh reserves, the Austrians couldn't mount another counterattack. This was a good time for them to get the Jagers and at least one unit of infantry back across the river and try a last stand protecting the crossing - the Piedmontese artillery had finally reached close range and was ravaging the defenders. I thought they could wait one turn, but I was wrong, they were cut off from the line of retreat and even if now the artillery was redeployed, it wasn't enough.

By turn 14, the Piedmontese had cut off most defenders from the bridge and started crossing. I decided that on turn 15 the Austrians could still try to blow the bridge up (rolling on the teaser's table, but with the attackers already crossing they had a -1 modifier). They rolled a 1, which meant that the wiring was incomplete: the Piedmontese infantry finished crossing and that secured them a victory.

Endgame

One note on the side battle between the cavalry units on the Austrian left/Piedmontese right. With most attacking forces coming from the hill side, covering the road with infantry was going to be a waste for the Austrians, so they only kept the Radetzky Hussars there. Their objective was to cover the flank and exploit any opening in order to attack the enemy one. At start the Aosta Cavalleria charged the Hussars, but the latter held their ground and actually forced the enemy cavalry back, who however passed both their morale check and therefore remained a threat: the Piedmontese didn't charge again, as they now had a slight disadvantage in hits, but also forced the enemy cavalry to remain there. The Bersaglieri too appeared on that flank, but they uncharacteristically had a very bad shooting and were mostly only a nuisance. Still, they could threaten the bridge, so the Austrians wanted to charge them but couldn't exactly because of the nearby enemy cavalry. It was a game of cat and mouse: every time the Bersaglieri closed, the Hussars turned to face them and the Bersaglieri had to back off, but then the Aosta Cavalleria threatened the Hussars in the rear/flank, and they had to turn again to face them. In this way both sides protected their flanks while the infantry battle went on, but also meant they couldn't influence it. The retreating jaguars tried to help, but they were too were mostly inaccurate in their shooting. The situation changed at the end, when the Austrian infantry was so weakened that the Piedmontese artillery could turn towards the Austrian cavalry: the firepower was finally too much and the Hussars fled, just as the rest of their army was routing as well.

The Austrians are crumbling and the Piedmontese artillery
can turn towards the Austrian cavalry

Notes on the scenario: it ended up being quite balanced. The Piedmontese have superiority but their actual attack pattern depends on where they enter from and they still have to be fairly quick at advancing or risk arriving late at the bridge. The Austrians are outmatched in terms of troops and firepower, but are not powerless and can slow the enemy considerably and have some interesting questions: slow down the Piedmontese before they reach the bridge or contest the crossing? Leave Goito to the Skirmishers or put an infantry unit inside? When to retreat behind the bridge? Where to deploy the artillery? A good range of choices that can make it a different game every time.

Bridgehead at Valeggio - 1848 Mincio Campaign

The sun rose and the soldiers started preparing breakfast and packing their equipment for resuming the advance. General Bes was happy: he had taken the bridge at Valeggio - with some luck and speed, he would soon reach Radetzky's rearguard. The men of his brigade were of high morale and eager for a fight despite the recent forced march. They had been greeted as heroes and liberators at Milan, and it has been encouraging, a good start of this campaign.

"They are coming!" An aide came to him with news from the forward sentries.

"Who?" Bes replied. Was the King already here? As far as he knew, even if the rest of the army was only slightly behind him, he didn't expect the main body to reach Valeggio at least until the afternoon - or maybe tomorrow.

"The Austrians" said the aide "they are closing on our positions". It took a moment for Bes to understand. If we lose the bridge, our army will face a bloodbath in retaking it.

He smiled slightly as he prepared to give the orders for the protection of the bridgehead. His soldiers would face the enemy even sooner than expected.

"Send a messenger to General Federici at division HQ, and to the King. "Tell them we need all the reinforcements we can get to hold the bridge."

I started the Mincio Campaign I talked about here. With the Sardinians/Piedmontese trying to cross the Mincio at two different locations, I decided to start with the bridgehead at Valeggio. (Note to readers: miniatures you see in the pictures are plastic 1/72 Napoleonics, acting as proxies)

I used scenario 5 (Bridgehead) of Neil Thomas' One-Hour Wargames (OHW). This is the layout:

I tried to see how it would be with some buildings near the bridge, roughly representing the town of Valeggio.

It looks much better, but I wonder how it would affect play balance (I'll talk about it later). I therefore chose to keep the original scenario layout for now.

I'm still in playtest mode, so I played the scenario two times, one with OHW and one with Simplicity in Practice (SiP) to see the difference. Normally I use Wargaming 19th Century Europe, but I wanted to try these two, the first for quickness and the second for its mechanics. For OHW I had already played several times with the raw rules (I tend to use the Rifle and Sabre ruleset, even if for 1848 the Horse and Musket ones could be technically better) so I wanted to modify them a bit to address some issues I had:

1) infantry fire range is too great. Units seem to fire at each other from unbelievable ranges, at least when they are all armed with muskets. I understand it's made to avoid having defensive fire during the charge sequence (so you can fire at cavalry in your turn before they can charge in theirs), but I chose to decrease fire range to 10cm (as in SiP) and allow for defensive fire when charged, with hits applied immediately.

2) adding a morale check when you're fired upon and suffer hits (it always happens with the Sabre and Rifle rules), as suggested in another wargame blog. So after suffering hits you roll 3D6: if result is equal or higher than your current hits, you retreat 6 cm and lose 2 more hits. i felt it would represent both the progressive deterioration of units (as losses mount, passing the roll would become harder and units would be more brittle) and allow for units pushing back their opponents with successful attacks.

Turn 1 - Piemonte Brigade (General Bes) protecting the bridge
while Austrian Cavalry and Infantry advance

Bersaglieri rush to help, while Austrian reinforcements arrive behind the woods

 The Austrians got one of the worst reinforcement schedule they could get. While the two initial units arrived near the hill - the rest of the reinforcements came on the other side, behind the woods - and given that infantry and artillery can't enter woods (they didn't have skirmisher units) they are forced to make a long detour to reach the defenders. This would have a major impact.

As more defending brigades enter, the austrian Cavalry had been repulsed
and the infantry was isolated against Bes' soldiers and the Bersaglieri skirmishers.

With the first Austrian infantry unit routed, it really took a lot of time for the Austrians
to get their other units in attack positions;
meanwhile the Piedmontese bridgehead became stronger and stronger

The Austrian cavalry has managed to charge Bes brigade in thee flank,
routing it, but was soon routed itself by other supporting units..

As I said earlier. all Austrian reinforcements arrived behind the woods. It could make historical sense: the "north" is on the left of the picture, and the bridge at Monzambano is there. Most likely the Austrians were sending troops mainly from there... but it made for a harder battle here. (Actually, I realized later that I had misread the rules and the last reinforcements should have come from the hill side, but I let it go and continued).

Austrians finally prepare to attack, but Piedmontese artillery is in position too

The two attacking Austrian units rout the Bersaglieri,
but are too battered and will be unable to make much headway

The remaining Austrians units arrive, and start to deploy

From bad to worse for the Austrians. By attacking piecemeal, they are subject to strong concentrated fire from the Piedmontese. And they are unable to bring their artillery on the front.

Despite suffering losses, this last confrontation will see
their units routed while the Piedmontese lose only one.

By turn 12, all Austrian units had been routed, and the Piedmontese had retained control of the bridge.

Ruleset comments: the morale rule was mostly a disappointment - it wasn't really a factor except for units near the breakpoint, which meant it just quickened their rout but didn't really provoke the push-back / progressive deterioration effect that I hoped for. I might have to try it again. Plus, having defending fire meant I didn't know how to apply it to charging units - roll before the charge when they suffer hits from the defenders? or after? I decided to roll it after all charge losses were assessed. It mostly had no effect anyway and therefore was a non-factor. Reducing fire range was a better choice, but maybe 12 cm would be better than 10 cm. Still unsure about it.

Scenario comments: the Austrians got to the battlefield piecemeal, couldn't coordinate and were accordingly defeated. The arrival point of reinforcements had much to do with it - without skirmishers, arriving behind the woods delays a lot.

Overall, I had fun, but somehow I didn't see the "besieged" situation I thought when I think "bridgehead". This may have been an effect of the reinforcement schedule more than the ruleset.

I then replayed the scenario with SiP rules. I just tested one variation, regarding close combat: instead of rolling dice and see who made a higher result I would consider hits on 4+ - as other blogs suggested. Still, I will calculate results for both systems and see if any difference is made.

The first Austrian units arrived from behind the woods again, but things then proceeded differently from the first battle, with more Austrian troops coming from the road and from the hillside.

Initial moves

Slower movement rates in SiP means more turns before contact

In OHW, infantry moves 6" or 15cm. In SiP, infantry moves 10cm. Cavalry moves 30cm in OHW, 20cm in SiP. In both cases, it's 33% less. This has a relevant effect in determining when units get in contact, because in SiP it takes some more turns. Does this affect play balance? Possibly, because sides which have to cross larger parts of the battlefield will take longer to do so, which can make some scenarios artificially harder to win unless they are adapted. Here it impacted the Austrians on the side - being unable to use the road they couldn't reach the Piedmontese and this allowed them to be reinforced.

Both sides receive reinforcements

The Austrian hussars attacked the Piedmontese infantry directly. Not a smart move (a frontal assault by light cavalry against formed close order infantry is seldom successful) but i wanted to test close combat. As predicted, odds were brutally against the cavalry as the defending infantry could claim several advantages. In this case, no difference was noted among the different methods for resolving close combat: the Piedmontese rolled more hits at 4+ than the Austrians, and the total dice result too was higher. The battered cavalry (now at 3DP) was then kept in reserve for most of the battle.

After the Austrian Hussars failed to break the enemy, it's time for the infantry to try.

The Piedmontese were able to create a defensive position roughly as an half-circle in front of the bridge, with Bersaglieri skirmishers on the left, infantry in the centre and artillery on the left. Their strength lay in depth - reinforcing infantry was ready to cover any hole that could be created. The Austrians instead had chosen to maximize firepower and concentrate on individual enemy units, but this left no reserves to exploit successes.

The Austrians are slow in deploying,
allowing the Piedmontese to create a defensive position

The firefight was intense but at first produced little results. A potential breakthrough could happen on the Piedmontese right/Austrian left. Thanks to Austrian artillery on the hill, the Piedmontese brigade on the right was weakened enough to allow the Austrians to charge it with their own infantry... the entire flank could crumble, but the attack was repulsed! Thanks to support, both attacker and defender ultimately had the same number of advantages, and the defenders won. In this case too there was no difference in results using the two resolution mechanisms. The Austrians rolled only 1 hit at 4+, while the Piedmontese rolled 2. Likewise, the Austrian die total was 1 point less than the Piedmontese one. The attackers had to fall back and would be eliminated soon after.

The Austrian infantry on the right has just failed to break the Piedmontese line
and had to retreat! In the centre, the battle is fierce.

The Piedmontese have reserves, who help keep the line intact...

The Austrians managed to destroy one Piedmontese infantry brigade in the centre, but it was replaced by another. This too was routed, but another one arrived - and it finally proved too much for the weary Austrians who had endured the Bersaglieri fire for hours.

...but Austrian fire is efficient and creates new holes.

In the end, most Austrian units were routed and the remaining ones were too weakened to have any hope of breaking the Piedmontese line, leaving contro of the bridge to King Charles Albert's men.

In the end however, it's the Austrians that have to concede,
having lost most of their units and being unable
to break the last Piedmontese defenders.

It was a more tense battle than the previous one. Firefights in OHW are really fast to reach resolution (at least with the Sabre and Rifle rules, I should have used the Horse and Musket ones instead), here they were more attritional, and it felt more historically correct.

Ruleset comments: First time I used the SiP rules and I'm happy with the result. I liked how the battle unfolded and I felt the rules drove that nicely. I feared that the slow movement rates would make the 15-turn limit too short, but the game arrived to conclusion in 13 so it wasn't an issue. Not sure if the slower Austrian approach helped the Piedmontese however. Still the game was fun.

Scenario comments: this time the Austrians arrived from different locations and it made a marked difference. They were able to mount a more coordinated attack and had some success, but their lack of reserves proved fatal as they couldn't exploit their successes. The initial cavalry charge proved to be detrimental for the Austrians: the hussars were too weak to attack again, and instead they would have been better used by threatening/charging the Bersaglieri skirmishers on the Piedmontese left - then threaten the flank of the infantry. Overall, a good battle narrative was created.

After the battle, I thought about using terrain that models the historical battlefield. I'll talk about that in a later post.