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 This should be evident from historical references, but in case of doubt or disagreement, just stick with Average for both armies (or Good for both if preferring a more controlled game).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

Wargaming Italian Colonial wars 1885-1900 (1): Historical sources and different campaigns

In addition to my Risorgimento Wargaming, I've been lately interested in Italian Colonial Wars in the 1880s and 1890s, which culminated in the (in)famous defeat at Adowa (or Adwa - Adua in Italian) against the Ethiopians. It was a rather short period (less than 20 years) but full of political intrigue, battles and encounters small and large, and therefore it offers lots of wargaming possibilities.

Historical sources

Aside from looking at actual historical sources (chronicles, memories, etc...), the modern wargamer (especially if Italian) can rely on two main books. The first is "Le Guerre Coloniali Italiane 1885-1900" (Italian Colonial Wars 1885-1900), by Raffaele Ruggeri, edited by De Bello. The De Bello series is a sort of Italian-made Osprey-like books, but with more pages and more extensive information - more like a campaign book than a MAA, for example. It's in Italian, but all photos, maps and pictures have both Italian and English captions, and at the end there's an extensive English summary of the main concepts in the book. While premium for Italian-speaking readers, it can give some info to the English-speaking ones too, and is currently the best one regarding actual information on military operations and battles. It has Osprey-level images (by the Author himself) that are very accurate and a large amount of historical pictures. I'm lucky to have it (thanks to my father) but it's currently out of print and can be found only 2nd hand or through specialized bookshops.

De Bello book

Ruggeri is so good that he was asked by Osprey to contribute to their book on Adowa too. The "Armies of the Adowa Campaign 1896" is by Sean McLachlan, but images are again by Ruggeri and his work by De Bello is cited. McLachlan adds more information about the actual place and more details about Adowa battle in particular and about the organizations of the two armies, so in my opinion the two books nicely complement each other.

Osprey book

Personally, I don't own the Osprey book in English, but its translation in Italian by LEG (Libreria Editrice Goriziana) which has a license by Osprey to translate its books in Italian and does a very good job. LEG usually puts an ad-hoc cover but otherwise it's 100% the Osprey book, including the illustrations inside.

Translated Osprey book by LEG

Different campaigns

The whole period can be divided into roughly 3 phases, all of which can provide plenty of both historical and fictional (but plausible) wargaming opportunities. The events described below are just a short summary to give a minimum of context and the years shown for each phase are indicative.

1st phase: 1885-1888

It's the first phase of Italy's colonial adventure. Great Britain, faced with the difficult Mahdi revolt in Sudan and not trusting the Ethiopians on the south, approved Italy's enterprise in and near Massaua (current Eritrea). It would ultimately prove to be a good idea for Great Britain (see second phase below). This phase saw the initial Italian penetration into the region at a time of major divisions between the local tribes and Ras. While nominally under Negus Johannes, the Ethiopians are actually divided. A bad Italian defeat at Dogali by Ras Alula in 1887 saw a decisive response by the Italian government with a major expedition of Italian troops that ultimately saw Negus Johannes negotiate peace in March 1888. Native troops used by Italy are mainly local tribes and bands ("Black Bands" and "Bashi Buzuks") under their own leaders, often unreliable (even changing side in a few occasions).

Wargaming: there are several options for exploring missions and expeditions, and small and large battles against locals and Ethiopians.

2nd phase: 1890-1894

In 1888 most of the Italian troops are sent back to Italy and regular units of Ascari natives (English: Askari) are created. They will prove capable and generally very reliable, with several reports of endurance in combat and loyalty to their Italian officers. They will replace most of the tribal bands of the first phase, even if some groups are still employed. 

During this phase the Ethiopians are mostly involved in internal disputes: Negus Johannes is killed in battle while facing the Sudanese Dervishes, and Menelik starts his rise to power and ultimate establishment of a unified Empire that culminates in him becoming Negus Neghesti in 1889. Due to this and the Treaty of Wuchale of the same year between Italy and Menelik (which also marks the official creation of the Italian colony under the name of "Eritrea"), the Italian colony is able to organize and expand, exploiting the divided local rivals. In 1893 Menelik repudiates the treaty, opening the path to future war. During this phase, however, thanks to an agreement with the British government, Italy faces for the first time the Sudanese Mahdists. From 1890 the Italians win several victories (mainly using Ascari troops, which prove their worth time and again), especially a major one at Kassala in 1894 which is cheered even in London at a time when British forces in the north were still struggling. The Italians used different tactics from the British and the Dervishes were surprised by this. The Dervishes will still occasionally attack the Italians until 1896 at least but less threateningly. Some British scholars argue that the Italian victories in 1894 ultimately drained Mahdist forces and proved to be a key factor in allowing the British to win later on. Italy will eventually give back Kassala (in Sudan) to the British in December 1897, given the costs and difficulty of keeping a garrison there due to its position so far away from the Italian main base in Eritrea.

Wargaming: both Ethiopians and especially Mahdists/Dervishes are possible enemies for Italian (both Europeans and Ascari) troops. Fictional "joint efforts" by Italian and British troops are possible too, if players so desire. Playing the expedition to Kassala could be an usually under-played but interesting topic to explore.

3rd phase: 1895-1896

Starting time could be debatable (first clashes happen in 1894), but anyway it mainly deals with the 1st Italo-Ethiopian War. After the treaty of Wuchale has been repudiated by Menelik in 1893, fights start between Italians and local leaders, and at the end of 1894 Italy starts the conquest of Tigray, with several victories in 1895. Menelik finally calls the Kitet (general muster) in September 1895 and prepares to counterattack against the Italians who receive reinforcements from Italy (mainly unenthusiastic troops). The campaign will culminate with the battle of Adowa in March 1896 and the decisive defeat of the Italians. The later period between 1896 and 1900 is mostly uneventful, due to Menelik being unwilling to crush the Italian colony (which he thought would have caused a renewed, larger invasion, see the British reaction against the Zulus after Ishlandwana) and the peace talks. The war officially ends in October 1896. In the subsequent years Ethiopians concentrate on expanding the Empire to the south while Italians reorganize and deal with local rebellions. The Italian colonial adventure will continue in Somalia shortly after 1900 and Libya in 1911. Italy will conquer Ethiopia only in 1935, but that is another story.

Wargaming: the Adowa campaign is the main theme here, both the big battle and smaller encounters. Several what ifs about Italian troops quality or command, and/or Ethiopian squabbles between various chieftains (ras). Various kinds of side actions (real or fictional) are possible.


Part 2 will deal with possible 1/72 plastic minis that can be used for wargaming and which rules I'll use.

My wargaming projects

Some thoughts about my wargaming projects.

As looks evident from my previous posts, the Italian Risorgimento is a primary interest for me wargaming-wise, especially regarding scenarios and playing games (mainly with Neil Thomas' Wargaming 19th Century Europe rules). Can't do much about it now regarding minis, because 1/72 plastics scale there're very few kits that touch this topic and those who do are not easy to come by. Of course there're good 28mm (Mirliton, Cibo's Little Dudes, Gringo40s...) or 15mm (Mirliton) metal sets, but the cost (especially for 28mm) compared to 1/72 plastics is a no go.

Another two projects concern Napoleonics and eventually 7 Years War, both (especially Napoleonic) are well covered in 1/72 and I already own several sets, which I'm currently painting at a slow pace and use for proxies for 1848. I'm still thinking about which ruleset to use, however.

Finally, I'm considering Colonial warfare, in particular Italy vs Dervishes and Italy vs Ethiopians in the 1880s-1890s. Few proper 1/72 options exists, but British colonials could work as acceptable proxies for Italian regulars, while Egyptians and Sudanese regulars could work for Askaris. I guess I may find something valid for Ethiopians somewhere... Dervishes are instead already covered. Besides, the same minis could work for other Colonial theaters too (Sudan, NWF, Zulu Wars...). Rules would be The Men Who Would Be Kings (TMWWBK), which I've already ordered and should arrive soon.

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.

1848 Mincio Campaign - Battlefield at Goito

After tackling the crossing at Valeggio of the main army, now it’s time tackle the crossing at Goito, which historically was more challenging for the Piedmontese. Again, some tweaking of the actual terrain will be needed, because the area around Goito is very flat.

I will use Grant’s original first tabletop teaser (Bridge Demolition) as a basis because it represents the historical situation well. Austrians are defending and trying to blow up the bridge in order to slow down the Piedmontese. As I told here, however, the Piedmontese actually arrive earlier than historical, forcing the Austrian Brigade under Wohlgemuth to try to contest the advance more than historical.

In order to scale down the teaser to OHW-like map dimensions and army size, I decided to roughly halve the forces involved, which still keeps the original 1:1.5 defender/attacker ration. The Austrians will have 4 units, the Piedmontese 6, which is a common OHW scenario size, plus I will add one unit to each side. Therefore force ratio will be 5:7. OoB will be as follows (using Neil Thomas’ Wargaming 19^th Century Europe rules):

Defenders: Austrian Army – Brigade Wohlgemuth from I Corps

(Army Quality: Good)

Radetzky Hussars: 1 Cavalry unit (Average)

Kaiser Jagers: 1 Skirmisher unit (Elite, Smoothbore Musket)

Oguliner Grenz IR: 2 Infantry Units (Average, Smoothbore Musket, Close Order)

Artillery: 1 Artillery Unit (Average)

Ludwig Freiherr von Wohlgemuth

Attackers: Piedmontese/Sardinian Army – 1^st Division (General D’Arvillars) from I Corps

(Army Quality: Good)

Aosta Cavalleria: 1 Cavalry unit (Elite)

Bersaglieri: 1 Skirmisher unit (Fanatical, Smoothbore Musket)

Regina Brigade (9th and 10th regiments): 4 Infantry units (Average, Smoothbore Musket, Close Order)

Artillery: 1 Artillery Unit (Average)

General Federico Millet D'Arvillars

Some notes on the OoB:

The basis for the Order of Battle for this scenario is taken from the historical order of battle of the units involved, adapted for play balance. Unit quality is based on Neil Thomas' army lists, amended as described below following my judgement.

Sardinian/Piedmontese cavalry proved to be equal or superior to the vaunted Austrian cavalry in many occasions, and this was recognized by their opponents too, something that was later confirmed by their performance during the 2nd Independence War in 1859. In 1848 however their good quality and élan was hindered by the poor use the Piedmontese command made of the cavalry as a whole. The two heavy cavalry divisions were mainly held in reserve for "decisive blows" that never materialized, and as a result were underutilized. Rest of the cavalry too proved good when engaged but rarely used successfully at the strategic level - something that was corrected after the war.

The Aosta Cavalleria regiment can therefore be equated to a dragoon cavalry regiment, with Elite status due to its élan and quality. The Radetzky Hussars, on the other side, are rated Average and not Elite as in the rulebook, because I feel it's more realistic of their actual performance during the war.

The Austrians get a boost in skirmisher quality however: the Jagers performed well in most engagements and while they weren't as "fanatical" as the Bersaglieri, in my opinion they were still good enough to warrant an Elite rating. The Bersaglieri fought at the Bridge of Goito for the first time in their history, and their legend started here. They were supplemented by the small Griffini Legion (Lombard Volunteers of very good quality) and the Real Navi (marines) small battalion of 300 men. I include all these in the Bersaglieri unit.

Regarding line infantry, the Sardinians would have a major advantage over the Austrians in numbers but the need to quickly strike at the Austrians before they could blow up the bridge means they may not have time to muster the full division. Therefore only Regina Brigade of D'Arvillars' 1st Division is represented, with 4 units that roughly equate to its two regiments (9th and 10th). The Austrians have the Oguliners Grenz IR, and here I have 2 units of them roughly representing their two battalions, which is more than historical because I feel that Wohlgemuth, being closely pressed by the Piedmontese, would keep his forces united. Regarding unit quality, the Regina brigade was noted as being some of the best troops in the Piedmontese army, but they still don't warrant more than an Average rating, as do the Oguliners.

I note Army Quality in case someone wants to use the optional command rules from Neil Thomas’ Wargaming 19^th Century Europe rules. During the historical battle, both sides proved to be competent and professional, and neither proved to be superior to the other in pure generalship. Neither Wohlgemuth nor D'Arvillars showed superior generalship during the campaign, but the small engagement also means they could easily keep control of their forces in such a compressed area, justifying a "good" rating for both forces. Players willing to reduce this can make both as "Average", which may hurt the Piedmontese more than the Austrians in play balance terms due to their need to strike fast, so do this only if you feel the attackers would otherwise be too strong.

The Battlefield:

The original map from Grant's Teaser looks fairly good already, and I used it as a basis for my scenario. At first I  decided to include a road (mentioned but not shown in Grant's map) that forks so it can connect both attackers' entry points A and B, reducing the hills to only one - the real battlefield being mostly flat with some small heights roughly there. The result was this one:

I liked it but after checking the historical map from the Habsburg 2nd Military Survey, I noted the road doesn't fork where I thought.

The roads link a bit farther than the town. So I revised the map to look more like the historical one:

Historically, Piedmontese troops converged on Goito from the road, but then in the end deployed in a half circle while their point units attacked the town and bridge. I will keep the original teaser random entry to add some uncertainty to the scenario. The two possible entry points of the attackers are the road (entry point "A") and a point slightly to the right of the hill (entry point "B") which roughly corresponds to what Grant states in his teaser and fits the historical scenario well. I will roll for random reinforcement arrival as in the teaser.

Initial deployment will see the Austrians all deployed on map, on both sides of the river, while a single Piedmontese cavalry unit will be on the hill. Rest will get to the battlefield from turn 1 onwards, depending on die roll. The Piedmontese have 14 turns to reach the Bridge. if They can't cross the bridge by that turn, on turn 15 I start rolling for the explosion, using Grant's table from the teaser.

Stay connected because the battle report will follow soon!

Plastic 1/72 miniatures

I love 15mm for wargaming, I’ve used them a lot for years for DBA, DBM and Fields of Glory, mainly thanks to my brother’s large collection (and my limited one). I still have lots of them unpainted, especially Essex Byzantines, Turks, Arabs, Macedonians, Persians, Classical Greek and even a bag of Old Glory SYW Austrians. But being married and with 2 twin kids means I have to cut a bit on hobby expenses, therefore I’ve turned to 1/72 plastic minis. I have a lot of them since childhood, mainly Esci, but also a few old Airfix and Atlantic, and more recent Revell and Italeri (I also had one box of Zvezda Cossacks, but I can’t find them anymore). They are mainly Napoleonics, but also several WWII and a few ACW, TYW and other periods.

They have now become my go-to scale, due to the fact I already have many, their cheapness (I can more easily afford a new set from time to time) and also generally good quality and increasing number of available sets. Quality varies between sets and between producers (see PlasticSoldiers Review, an excellent resource), but overall I’m pleased and willing to pass over errors – after all, my main aim is to play!

Lately I’ve (re)started painting them too. I never had a great hand, even if I was still able to produce some passable work. Now, with fewer time and worse eyes and hand, I’ve stuck to Bruce Quarrie's famous quote:

“But do, please do, make some effort to paint them. Even if your hand isn't as steady as you would like, it isn't so much to ask of anybody a black shako (hat), red or blue jacket, and gray or white trousers, with perhaps a touch of pink for face and hands, and black shoes and musket – is it? If painted in batches of a dozen or so at a time, doing all the hats first, then all the jackets, and so on, it does not take long, and the result in terms of tabletop appearance well justifies the slight effort”

Quarrie, Bruce, Napoleonic Wargaming  (Patrick Stephens, 1974, p.6)

So yes, I’m just going with basic colors (mainly Vallejo) and reducing details to a minimum and painting in batches of 24 at a time (2 bases as I use them). I've seen that around 20-25 figures at a time are something I can easily adapt to – not too many that I get bored by painting a single color, but not too few that I'm eager to paint more and can't. In addition I also found a trusty help in something I’ve bought some years ago and never opened until now: the Army Painter Quickshade. Even a basic, plain paintjob like I do gets a considerable boost with it, and results have been really satisfying.

1813-1815 Prussians (Revell)

IR9 with Leibfahne (right), IR10 (left), mounted officer

I have a general-purpose Strong Tone, even if for Austrians or others with white uniforms maybe a Soft Tone would be better – unfortunately one can is already quite expensive and therefore I think I'll stick with the Strong tone only, at least for now. At first I thought about giving a matte finish with a spray, but I’ve so far chosen otherwise: the lucid effect QS gives may look a bit strange, but it really makes colors shine and emerge, which I like.

Ok, if you really look at them close-up, you’ll notice several errors and a few points where I’ve been sloppy. But from the tabletop, at “wargame distance”, they look great. Bruce Quarrie was right, you don't need a great paintjob to create a visually-pleasing game. And so far, it's all I'm looking for.

Moreover, this has renewed my enthusiasm with painting minis, and that is a good result by itself. As practice increases, maybe my technique may even improve a bit.