Is there a leaning in Napoleonic wargames towards massed infantry columns that bear no real resemblance to historical formations? How many tabletop engagements have seen one player massing as many infantoses so loses nothing for the packed formation. The disadvantage is a lack of room for manoeuvre and a distinct vulnerability after melee. If the columns are forced to close to melee (which they would most probably) the entire formation would be left unformed and therefore extremely vulnerable to an enemy counter-attack. However the player using the formation had no other worry than that.

I felt a modification was needed to General de Brigade in order to encourage the greater use of regulation Napoleonic formations on the wargames table. I decided to apply appropriate penalties to the use of massed shoulder to should formations. Firstly I confirmed the regulation deployment distance for infantry columns. Out came the trusty Nazinger (an excellent source for the regulations of the day) and other reference volumes. The standard regulations stated that columns deployed with enough space between each other to allow each column to deploy into line without hindrance from other columns. Full deployment distance could be around 150 yards or greater, enough to allow a battalion to deploy fully into line from either flank. Or the distance could be around half that, providing enough space to allow a column of attack to deploy into line from the centre companies, deploying half the rear companies to the left and half the rear companies to the right respectively. Thus the minimum spacing required allowing such a manoeuvre was around 75 yards. Thus I thought it not unreasonable to introduce a minimum deployment spacing between infantry columns of 8cms for 15mm figures which roughly equates to around 80 -100 yards under the rules, (5i for 25mm figures). Columns deployed with this spacing received their full movement allowance and received no extra penalties other than the standard modifier for receiving fire whilst in column formation (+ 1). However restrictions were placed upon columns that did not maintain this minimum pacing. These were classified as in Massed Column formation.

Massed Columns in General de Brigade

Definition: Two or more infantry columns with a gap of less than 8cms (5") between each other. The penalties for such deployment were: An extra +1 fire modifier applied to units firing at the formation, in addition to the standard column modifier. (This additional modifier would only apply if the firer could hit at least two columns within the formation and casualties caused are spread evenly as possible between the targets). Charge movement reduced to that of line movement.

The extra fire modifier helps to represents the increased casualties that such a formation would suffer, thus the wargamer may choose to adopt massed columns but is now required to think a little about the tactical benefits of such a formation. The reduced movement rate is included to represent the fact that two independent units are co-ordinating their movements. Although the initial advance towards the enemy line may not present too many problems for the battalions commanders, once engaged upon the final advance upon the enemy in a co-ordinated attack, alignment becomes important if both columns are to attack in conjunction with each other. Thus a reduced movement rate in the charge phase to that on line seemed reasonable.

Several games were played to test this new amendment. A sudden and dramatic difference was apparent! Suddenly routine shoulder to shoulder column attacks were a thing of the past. Brigades advanced in column formation with perfect spacing between each battalion, players judiciously measuring deployment spacing each turn in order to keep that extra +1 modifier at bay. Not only did the formations look correct on the tabletop but also players soon realised that correct intervals between battalions allowed supporting brigades to advance through the deployment gaps in the forward brigade.

A standard Napoleonic manoeuvre that had escaped notice before the Massed Columns ruling. Massed Columns did occasionally reappear for close assaults on villages or particularly tough defensive areas, where the attacking player was prery columns together into a small a space as possible and launching one mighty assault against his unfortunate opponentis line. Usually this unfortunate opponent can only manage to muster a couple of battalions to meet this threat and is lucky to hold the massed columns at bay. I can remember playing a huge 25mm enactment of the battle of Wagram using In the Grand Manner rules. In the struggle for the village of Aderklaa I followed the advise of the day and formed a massive 'column' of French battalions three battalions wide and three battalions deep, all shoulder to shoulder with no spacing whatsoever in between the units in preparation for the assault. Apparently this unwieldy formation was the necessary tactic to achieve success.

Is the deployment of such mass columns, deployed shoulder to shoulder contradictory to the regulations of the period? Napoleonic battles do provide a number of examples of very large, almost divisional sized, massed column formations. Macdonald's 'square' at Wagram and Girard's mass assault at Albuera spring to mind. However upon closer examination these formations seem far removed from wargame equivalents. Macdonald's formation had the front ranks deployed in line with the sides of the formation deployed in successive columns. While Girardis formation consisted of four battalions columns, one behind the other, flanked by two further brigades deployed in mixed order. There is no reference to battalion columns standing shoulder to shoulder within these famous formations.

Lower tactical formations such as the Prussian ibrigadei deployment also provides an example of multiple column deployment, but here each column is deployed at the correct interval (or at least half interval) with no trace of shoulder to shoulder formations. However I did come across one description of a very confined attack column formation by a Chef de Brigade Dedon. He describes a formation consisting of two battalion attack columns separated solely by the distance of just a single section (half a company).

What does seem clear, however, is that column formations that deviated from the 'standard' regulation deployment where rarities (hence the remarks when peculiar column formations are drawn up) and only employed for specialist tasks or breakthroughs where high casualties where tolerated in order to achieve the objective. Such packed formations would present an excellent target to enemy artillery and musketry and the resulting high casualty level cannot have encouraged their regular deployment on the battlefield. It is more than likely that most Napoleonic battlefield commanders sought to avoid such costly formations.

Is the use of massed column formations and potentially high casualty level either represented or sufficiently penalised in wargames rules? Currently in General de Brigade the massing of infantry columns shoulder to shoulder is permissible and holds both advantages and disadvantages. The advantage for the formation is that each individual column is treated as a separate unit for fire and movement purppared to take the extra casualties and time require to close on the enemy in order to bring as many troops into action as possible. Under these circumstances massed columns deployment seem reasonable and not unhistorical. This slight adjustment to the basic General de Brigade rules appears to have the desired effect, encouraging players to adopt Napoleonic regulation formations for much the same reasons they were historically.