After Friday's gladiator games, on the Saturday morning we dug out Steve's delightfully sculpted Waterloo terrain for a 6mm clash between the French ...
... and the Austrians (at Waterloo?).
This game was a follow-up to our first attempt (Link) to use Neil Thomas' Napoleonic Wargaming Rules (NTNWR) with 6mm figures, but using a brigade of 4 units, each of 4 bases, to represent what is a single unit in the rules. As we're still tweaking, Steve commanded the French and Martin the Austrians (including a few of his beloved Bavarians) while I took notes on anything we felt wasn't right and suggestions for changes.
After two turns the table looked like this ...
... I like to think this looks like a Napoleonic battle, or at least a contemporary print of one.
In the foreground of the above, the French heavy cavalry ...
... and their Austrian counterparts ...
... while the Austrians seek to take up a more advanced defensive position[1].
And, in the far distance, at the top right, the Bavarian cavalry are seeking out an opportunity to turn the French left flank.
Inevitably, it was the cavalry on both flanks that first came to blows. The honours were roughly even with the French heavies prevailing ...
Observation 1: heavy cavalry combat is more lethal than that between lights as they throw twice as many dice in combat. I see no reason why an even fight between two bodies of heavy cavalry (HC) should be bloodier than one between light cavalry (LC). Also, cavalry on cavalry combat usually results in few losses until one side ends up being pursued by the other. I propose making all cavalry fight on the 'default' one combat die per unit (like LC) when fighting mounted opponents of the same type. I am also considering making defeated cavalry rout, removing the option to simply fall back facing their opponent when defeated.
While the cavalry on both flanks were whittling each other down over several turns, the French voltigeurs (open order light infantry) won the race to Hougoumont; occupying it just as the Austrian infantry rocked up[2].
The resulting Austrian assault on Hougoumont was repulsed with loss.
In the centre, the Austrian guns were still advancing to get into position, while the French guns, taking advantage of 'Wellington's ridge' (La Haye Sainte in the background) were already starting to inflict losses[3].
... the heavy cavalry fight, courtesy of their higher lethality, had ended leaving the victorious French heavies unopposed.
This in turn forced the Austrian infantry that had been rebuffed from Hougoumont to form square or face the consequences.
The French infantry, in the centre, had still not reached the Austrian line ...
... which had now shaken itself out into some sort of order and finally got their guns into action.
The much-anticipated infantry clash did not take place; the French brigades (units) being unable to close as the rules do not allow formed infantry to charge formed infantry unless they are stronger i.e., they have more units.
Observation 2: without a significant artillery advantage this makes it difficult to put in an attack that is strong enough to go in after advancing through the enemy's artillery and facing defensive musketry. I haven't formulated any rules mods for this yet, and maybe I'm okay with it as is.
After realising their attempt to whittle down the Austrians was only going to be a case of mutual annihilation the French chose to pull back to their ridgeline, ...
... take up a defensive position, and challenge the Austrians to attack if they fancied their chances were any better.
The French, were heavily influenced in their decision to not press on by the presence of the Bavarian cavalry (at the top left table-edge in the above) that were now wandering unopposed in their rear having finally disposed of the last few French chasseurs à cheval.
With the Austrians declining the invitation to attack, the battle ended indecisively in a draw - not surprising for a contest between two, supposedly, matched forces.
Post Mortem
Overall, I felt the rules gave a convincing game with few exceptions. First, expanding on the two observations made in the narrative above:
Observation 1: in addition to the earlier comments, the cavalry combats dragged on far longer than I would expect. The rules say the defeated side in a combat chooses to retreat either half a move facing the enemy or full move facing away from the enemy. The former means the cavalry just bounce off each other and then try again. The proposed rule to make defeated side (not if a draw) in a cavalry vs cavalry mêlée do the latter (I shall call it 'rout') solves both these issues.
Observation 2: while I agree with the rule writer's view that formed infantry will be unwilling to close with formed infantry unless they believe they have an advantage I think troop quality to be as important as numbers. Here I propose that higher quality units would, only for the purpose of determining whether they will charge, be treated as having an additional unit for each level of quality they are higher. For example, an elite brigade charging a levy brigade, being two levels higher, could still charge even if weaker by one unit. Poorer quality brigades wishing to charge would ignore any quality difference i.e. they just take account of numbers. I may even allow generals, attached to chargers, to be counted as an additional unit.
Additional observations.
Observation 3: limbered artillery getting the same, generous, saving rolls as deployed artillery seems very wrong. This is a simple fix; just reduce the effectiveness of their saving throw when limbered, but I need to give some thought as to how much to reduce it.
Observation 4: the rules are unclear as to whether brigades (units in the rules) can, or should, split their fire between targets to their front. I am leaning towards enforcing the ±45° arc of fire for each unit (base in the rules) but otherwise letting them choose their target.
Observation 5: there appears to be nothing stopping brigades / units fighting to the last man / figure or 'hit'. These remnants, especially cavalry, will find it easier to slip through gaps and to get round behind the enemy and be a severe nuisance. I propose that any brigade reduced to one unit may not attack and must retreat to avoid combat that would result in the enemy throwing three times as many dice in combat. They would retreat before contact in the opponent's turn such that they do not impede the opponent's move.
Observation 6: on more realistic terrain, like that we used in the above game, not allowing cavalry and artillery to at least pass through woods and towns (impassable in the rules) is very restrictive. The proposed change is that such troops stop on reaching the terrain, then in their next turn, just one unit is placed on the other side. In the turn after that it is joined by the rest of the brigade, and can move off in the next turn after that. The single advance unit that passes through first, if engaged, fights on its own (discount the rest of the brigade). If it does not win the mêlée it must retreat to rejoin the rest of the brigade which takes a morale test. This passage will not be allowed if the terrain is occupied by enemy, but is allowed if occupied by friendly, formed or light, infantry. Only one brigade may pass through in a turn.
I hope to try out these rules again soon to see if these proposed modifications deliver the desired effect. Watch this space.
Notes:
[1.] Doing this in the face of an imminent French attack was risky, but necessary to avoid fighting in their deployment area and suffering from the bane of all wargames, the table edge!
[2.] The Austrians had set out in line, and only changed to column en-route. Had they been in column when deployed they might've got there first.
[3.] We had finally realised that in NTNWR only the troops and guns of the player whose turn it is can fire (with the exception of defensive fire when charged). This was why we had found artillery and musketry overly bloody in earlier games.
.jpg)
