There is a distinct problem inherent in most Napoleonic wargame rules currently in vogue and this problem centers on the disparity between the unit scale and the actual battlefield scale it attempts to recreate. Much of the "liner and attraction and even the challenge of a Napoleonic battle resides in the fact that the real life commanders were fighting on a truly grand scale -- even leaving out the super battles like Leipzig or Borodino -- commanders frequently fielded and directed 50-60 battalions and 20-30 squadrons in a single engagement. Those represent the parameters of the battlefield scale. Most wargame rules with a 20:1, or even 40:1 figure ratio, would require something like 1,000-2,000 figures PER SIDE in order to truly represent a spectacle of such magnitude. Most wargamers, and even most wargame groups, cannot hope to produce this number of figures, and even if they could, there would simply not be enough room available over which to slug it out. This is the problem between unit scale (i.e.), what you have available -- regardless of rules used or organization employed) and battlefield scale. Now some dedicated wargamers have come up with interesting answers to this dilemma. The most common approach is to ignore it, treat such questions as academic and play all your games strictly based on what rules will allow. If in your table scale, the battle of Wagram will only allow 3 Austrian battalions to physically fit on the table -- so be it. Play the game as an exercise in rulemanship and if you really get pushed on the historical accuracy question, simply mumble something about "collapsing time scales", or "inherent counterbalancing" or "it's an asymtope dummy." Such games, I have found, tend to be extremely unbalanced with the "ideal" troop type dominating the game in overly-profuse numbers. The ideal troop type, of course, is a product of what the rule designer felt were the most important aspects of the tactics of the period and can run the gamut from the arcane to the mundane. Enough of this type of game. Other players take a more historical approach and attempt to recreate the actual feel of the situation simply by reducing by a set percentage the troops on both sides until the game becomes manageable based on the resources of the playing partners. In fact, one ingenious method utilizing this approach is simply to say that the basic units "double-up" for higher level units; i.e., your infantry battalion now becomes a regiment or brigade, or even a corps -- thus allowing, in theory, the largest battles to be reenacted. Problem The main problem with this approach is that unfortunately the rules used are often incapable of such an accordian effect and you find entire divisions destroyed by a single cannon shot or by 2 companies of light infantry, who have also suddenly become the infamous Light Division -- all in one turn. These situations are possible, I've actually witnessed a few, and they do serve to remind us that each level of such "doublingup" takes us farther away from accuracy rather than towards it. A third method, which we have tried, is to divide the overall battle up into segments (wings really), and play out each game separately with the idea that after all the smaller battles were done, we could extrapolate the result of the whole battle. It was an idea that had some merit, we could use the available troops, keep the scope of the rules consistent with the units and not worry that one unusual die roll would break a "doubled-up" major unit. It goes without saying that the idea was a flop. By taking in the whole battlefield (and we used a fairly compact one, since we played Aspern-Essling) and simply dividing it into thirds, we forced the commanders into very arbitrary divisions of their forces. They approached the battle as three separate, almost unrelated games instead of one fluid situation. Worst of all, the time lag between games (3 weeks each) proved fatal to the enthusiasm of even the staunchest campaigners. Out of Chaos Out of all this chaos, however, we did make progress. We found, that by adhering strictly to our ground and unit scale without forcing the "accordian effect" on the basic units, we could achieve a fairly accurate wargame representation of a part of a much larger battle. By giving up the desire to "do-it-all" and by dividing up that whole battle into arbitrary segments, we also found out that we could devote our attention exclusively to those critical areas on the battlefield where the battle was going to be won or lost. Here was born the Maxi-Battle. In the Maxi-Battle, each commander must treat the whole battle situation as a single entity and prepare for all the eventualities. Each commander is given the situation leading up to the battle, along with a complete order of battle (or the number of points allowed to choose his army) and a tactical map many times larger than the available table top space. He then must divide his commands up over the available area, assigning specific missions to each major subordinate unit (we usually consider divisions as the smallest such subordinate unit) from the following prescribed list: Attack; Defend; Engage; Withdraw; Attack in Support; Defend in Support; or Reserve. Obviously, combinations are allowed, i.e., attack, seize the objective and then defend; Engage the enemy to your front, but withdraw if attacked; etc. Each commander's overall battle plan should be written down and consistent with regard to the overall strategic situation. At this point the umpire (or both CIC's in lieu of an umpire) must examine the plans of both commanders and decide which would be the area(s) most critical to the outcome of the battle and have them translated to the table top. Although this may sound difficult, it is not too hard to figure out once both plans have been prepared. As a general rule-of-thumb, areas where strengths (in units or points) are equal or between 1 and 1.5 to 1 need not be considered, since experience has shown that a minimum of 2-3 to 1 is necessary for a decision. Also, a chief deciding factor is the DENSITY of the troops in any given area versus the DENSITY of the other's side. This is the point at which the old method of splitting the battle into equal segments broke down. If the plans of the two commanders are such that the decisive ground is confined to a small area that lies between two of the opponents' areas, then just that area used must be reproduced -- and the consequent problems of divided command on one side will become paramount. This is the key to the whole Maxi-Battle concept. Each commander must assign forces and missions to his whole army -- thereby recreating the problems faced by generals all through history. The actual outcome of the battle can usually be focused into one or two smaller, more playable and enjoyable games without the attendant evils of ruining the scope of the rules or having to have your basic units do double or triple duty as larger and larger formations. Bavaria 1809 In order to more fully explain this concept, we have arranged to take the situation confronting Napoleon in Bavaria in 1809, as Marshals Massena and Lannes opposed the Archduke Louis and Field Marshal Hiller, on the southern bank of the Danube in the days prior to the actual historical battle at Ebelsberg on 3 May, 1809. Large Bavaria Map (slow: 145K) Jumbo Bavaria Map (monstrously slow: 920K) We will take the combattants back a few days and assume that Hiller had decided to obey the orders sent by the Archduke Charles to fall back on Linz and protect the great bridgehead there, so that the Austrian army could be reunited after their separation of 22 April after the battle of Eckmuhl. On the French side, we will assume that Napoleon regarded Hillers activity as a golden opportunity to fall upon him in force, before the main army could reunite with him, thereby opening wide the road to Vienna and even, perhaps, ending the war in one lightning blow. The available orders of battle for each side are given below, as well as a tactical map of the area around Linz and the River Traun in May of 1809. We have contracted two veteran wargamers to command sides; Pete Sablock, who combines readily the indolence and great activity of Marshal Massena, and Dan Schorr who personifies all the worst traits of indecision and mental infirmity that categorizes the higher Austrian command. They will prepare their grand tactical plans, which we will publish along with their detail plans and the resulting decisions about the battle(s) to be fought in the next issues. If interests still are aroused, we will present the battle report in full, including after-thoughts on how things went. Order of Battle French IV CORPS - Marshall Massena Lt. Cavalry Division - Marulaz 3rd Chasseur-a Cheval (2 sqds) 14th Chasseur-a Cheval (3) 19th Chasseur-a Cheval (3) 23rd Chasseur-a Cheval (3 sqds) Baden 1st Dragoons (4) Hessian Lt. cavalry (3) Molitor's Division Bde Viviez 37th Line Rgt. (3 Btn) 67th Line Rgt. (2) Bde Leguay 2nd Line Rgt. (2) 16th Line (3) Boudet's Division Bde Fririon 3rd Light Rgt. (2) Bde Valory 56th Line Rgt. (3) 93rd Line (2) Legrand's Division Bde Ledru 26th Lt. Inf. Rgt. (3) 18th Line (3) 3rd Baden Line (2) Saint Cyr's Division Bde Cosson 24th Lt. Inf. Rgt. (3) Bde Dalesme 4th Line R8t (3) 46th Line Rgt. (3) Bde Schinner Hessian Lieb Gd. Rgt. (2) Hessian Liebt Regt. (2) II CORPS - Marshall Lannes (EDNOTE: II Corps was made up of depot Battalions) Thamau's Dividon Bde Conroux 6th Lt. Inf. Rgt (1) 24th Lt. Inf. Rgt (1) 25th Lt. Inf. Rgt (1) 5th Lt. Inf. Rgt (1) 16th Lt. Inf. Rgt (1) 27th Lt. Inf. Rgt (1) Bde Albert 8th Line Rgt (1) 24th Line Rgt (1) 45th Line Rgt (1) 94th Line Rgt (1) 95th Line Rgt (1) 96th Line Rgt (1) Bde Jarry 54th Line Rgt (1) 63rd Line Rgt (1) 4th Line Rgt (1) 18th Line Regt (1) Claperede's Division Bde Coehorn 17th Lt Rgt (1) 21st Lt Rgt (1) 28th Lt Rgt (1) 26th Lt Rgt (1) Corsican Tirailleurs (1) Po Tirailleurs (1) Bde Lesuire 27th Line Rgt (1) 39th Line Rgt (1) 59th Line Rgt (1) 6Sth Line Rgt (1) 76th Line Rgt (1) Bde Ficatier 40th Line Rgt (1) 88th Line Rgt (1) 64th Line Rgt (1) 100th Line Rgt (1) 103rd Line Rgt (1) RESERVE CAVALRY - Marshall Bessieres St. Sulpice's Division Bde Lagrange 1st Rgt Cuirassieurs (4) 5th Rgt Cuirassieurs (4) Bde Guiton 10th Rgt Cuirassieurs (4) 11th Rgt Cuirassieurs (4) Espagne's Division Bde Raynaud 4th Rgt Cuirassiers (4 sqd) 6th Rgt Cuirassiers (4) Bde Fouter 7th Rgt Cuirassiers (4 Sqd) 8th Rgt Cuirassiers (4) Nansouty's Division Bde Defrance 1st Rgt Carabiniere (4) 2nd Rgt Carabiniere (4) Bde Doumerc 2nd Rgt Cuirassieurs (4) 9th Rgt Cuirassieurs (4) Bde St. Germain 3rd Rgt. Cuirassieurs (4) 12th Rgt. Cuirassieurs (4) AUSTRIAN FORCES VI CORPS - FML Johann Frieh V. Hiller Lindenau's Division Bde Graf Hohenfeld 14th Line Rgt (3 Btns) 59th Line Rgt (3) Bde Graf Weissenwolff 49th Line Rgt (3) 4th Line Rgt (31 Jellacic's Division Bde Hoffeneck 51st Line (3) 31st Line (3) Bde Ettingshausen 45th Line (3) 32nd Line 13) Vincent's Division Bde Provencheres 4th, 5th, 6th Freiwilliger Btns (3) 5th Grenzers (2) 3rd Lt. Cavalry Rgt (8 sqds) Bde Nordmann 6th Grenzeus (2) 6th Lt Cav. Rgt (8 sqds) 7th Hussar Rgt (8 sqds) 4 Companies of Artillerv V CORPS - FML Ludwig Reussplauen's Division Bde Bianchi 39th Line Rgt (3) 60th Line Rgt (3) Bde Rothacker 58th Line Rgt (3) 1st, 2nd, 3rd Freiwilligers (3) Lindenau's Division Bde Mayer 3rd Line Rgt (3) 50th Line Rgt (3) Bde Berenburg 2nd Line Rgt (3) 33rd Line Rgt (3) Schustekh's Division Bde Kubinyi 7th Grenzers (2) 8th Hussars (8 sqds) Bde Radetzky 3rd Uhlans (8 sqds) 8th Grenzers (2) 3 Companies of Artillery II RESERVE CORPS-- FML Kleinmayer Bde d'Aspere Grenadiers (5 Btns) Bde Schneller 1st Cuirrasieurs (6 sqds) 6th Cuirrasieurs (6 sqds) Bde Clary 4th Dragoons (6 sqds) 3rd Dragoons (6 sqds) 2 Companies of Artillery Maxi Battle Part II Back to Table of Contents -- Courier Vol. 1 #2 To Courier List of Issues To MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1979 by The Courier Publishing Company. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com