Column versus line has been discussed quite a bit lately. The author of the following makes the comment..."This seems relevant in the light of Jean's comments about the lessons of Maida in the 56th issue." I'll let Jim Arnold speak for himself...MG
Column Versus Line in Generalship Napoleonics
by James Arnold
Most wargame rule systems give troops in column some sort of physical advantage when they encounter opponents in line. While the pressure exerted by rear rank troops of a column was of value before the advent of gunpowder, deep phalanges usually defeated shallow phalanges, in Napoleonic encounters the issue hinged on a combination of morale and firepower. To reflect these morale and firepower considerations, here is how Generalship Napoleonics deals with column versus line.
Troops in column have their morale slightly enhanced, an important movement advantage, and greatly restricted firepower. Troops in line have full firepower, with their morale status dependent upon whether their flanks are secured or unsecured. The question of a secured flank relates to the line's potential vulnerability to cavalry charges. Unless the line's flanks rest upon terrain impassable to cavalry, or upon friendly infantry in column or square, or friendly cavalry, the line's morale is degraded. Troops in mixed order thus have their flanks secured and their morale intact. British and KGL units are exempt from this rule.
A crucial consideration when a column is attacking is whether or not it is screened by friendly skirmishers. Unscreened, or 'naked' columns, are much more vulnerable to the line's musketry. Screened columns can be escorted into close range by friendly skirmishers and hopefully avoid crippling losses.
Using these concepts here is how a column attacks a line: the column enters'the musketry zone, if it is a 'naked' column it begins to receive fire from the line, otherwise it is sheltered when the column enters Close range, the line must test morale; if the column is screened it takes losses then tests its morale;(representing the head of the column being shot apart and remainder consequently wavering); if the column is screened it takes losses and then tests its morale; if the column passes the test (which is of course modified by the extent of its 'osses) it closes to close range action (a so-called melee).
To summarize an attacking column will usually force back a defending line if the column is well screened by skirmishers and if the line has been previously shaken by artillery fire, losses, or skirmishires. A stable line will almost always repulse or halt a 'naked' column and often stop a well screened column. The key for the line is to preserve its morale until the close range fire and the key for the column is to disrupt the line's morale before tries to close.
Comments
by Mike Gilbert
Theoretically, I agree with Jim - I'll just have to read his Generalship Napoleonics to see how the mechanics work out.
Speaking of that, I have on hand the Napoleonic Association Tactical Wargame Rules 1792-1815 - 2nd Edition, compiled by Howar Giles, 1978. Now I don't have cost or availability information on hand but perhaps the Complete Stragitist might carry them. The rules cover 35 pages and are written from a background where details of historical accuracy are thought out as much as our readers have come to expect. As expected, the rules cover a lot of ground and rather than just agree with the rule book I'll state where I have a criticism and give a broad overview.
1. Movement is well covered including exhaustion factors but lacks national differences in infantry movement, which certainly is needed when playing large games in 15mm.
In general, these rules are well done and complete. It's really up to the reader to see these rules and judge them as to his own preference in rules. That's the problem with decent rules, it's up to the individual gamer or club. There are certainly systems here that are worth looking at. In certain ways, rules seem to be lining up as to "reality". This is an interesting trend.
In Under the Table, David Morgan, (in Breakout, June. 1980 Australia) wrote an article very much in keeping with our thoughts that brought us to l5mm.
2. How many battles have been seen historically that are fought using the typical 25-30mm figure and ground scales? Morgan lists two: Lincelles: 1794, Maida: 1806. That's an average of 5,600 men on a side.
3. While frontage is usually correct, depth of an infantry formation is often highly distorted, i.e. a battalion column may often be 60 to 80 yards across by 10 yards deep whileJa typical gaming column is often. 100 to 150 yards deep. You can see where this can lead on to on a gaming table with limited space.
Basically, Morgan made the points that 15mm gives us a chance to achieve realism that 25 and 30mm armies can't, considering movement, formation and actual battle size is concerned.
Back to Empire, Eagles, & Lions Table of Contents Vol. 1 No. 58
Back to EEL List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 1981 by Emperor's Headquarters
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com