Napoleon's Battles'

Misuse of Combined Arms

by Dennis Daughetee


Napoleon's Battles, the Napoleonic miniatures rule set published by Avalon Hill has gained enormous popularity because of the balance it strikes between realism and playability. It has its share of critics who argue that the game misses on one side or the other of this debate; but, for me Naooleon's Battles is a remarkably enjoyable Napoleonic rule set (at the grand tactical level) which has rekindlcd my interest in gaming this period.

This is not to say that Napoleon's Battles (in my opinion is not without flaws, however. And like many gamers, I have resorted to adopting house rules to address my perceptions ol its shortcomings. In attended HISTORICON for the past several years I have discovered a number of other gamers who have also solved problems with the rules by the simple expedient or adopting house rules. While this practice has itself engendered debate, it continues to be the easiest means of salvaging a game design. Of the variants played, several seem to enhance the game without adding complexity.

However of all the criticisms I have heard regarding this gaming system, the only major flaw and it is significant, going to the heart of Napoleonic wargaming is in the area of combined arms, " i.e., the use of infantry with artillery and or cavalry. Because this is truly the essence of Napolconic warfare, setting it apart from other periods, it is an element of the simulation worthy of examining in detail.

1. The Problem

Napoleon's Battles' Rule 8.4.4 states that when an enemy cavalry unit charges into contact with a defending infantry unit, the defending infantry unit cannot attempt to square if another enemy infantry unit is within one inch. The game mechanic which has evolved as a result of Rule 8.4.4 is the straight forward tactic of pinning a defending infantry unit with infantry (moved to within one inch but not in contact) and then moving in for the kill with cavalry against the same defending infantry unit (which hy definition cannot square).

The presence of the pinning infantry prohibits the defender changing formation from its ability to fire and threaten melee. The usual result is the routing of the defender and a subsequent roll for an uncontrolled advance by the attacking cavalry.

The design theory seems to be that the pinning infantry (within an inch of the defender) is close cnough to interfere with an attempt to square by the defending infantry unit, but not close enough to actually participate in close combat. But this seems to conilict with the game design notes (sec top of page 13 of Napoleon's Battles' Introduction to Miniature Wargaming) which indicates that mass firepower and melee (and/or the threat of these) is represented in the game by base to base contact, not the being within one inch (100 yards).

This conflict is exacerbated by the 'zone of control" design of the movement bases themselves. The design notes indicate that the bases do not represent homogeneous soldiers evenly spread over the area represented by the movement stand, but rather subunits somewhat randomly placed within the geography of the stand.

Consequently, the theoretical distance between the troops represented by the pinning and defending infantry stands could be even more than the measured distance between the stands. This partly explains why the designers define actual contact as more than melee. At the same time, however, it increases the unlikelihood that units even more than one hundred yards apart could realistically prohibit enemy infantry formations from even attempting changes. The historical data supports the notion that close proximity to the enemy was essential to produce effective firepower.

The extreme end of the pinning range (one inch) seems extraordinarily long during the black powder musket period to support the game design prohibiting all chances of formation changes if due to firepower, even taking into account brigade level artillery activity. From a design standpoint, however, measurements of fractional inches would have been cumbersome at best, and a focal point for constant disagreements at worst. However, requiring contact between the opposing bases to prevent the defender from squaring, on the other hand, eliminates this friction, as well as being more consistent with the game design. It is curious that contact was not required-not only because of the simplicity in game play, but because of the harmony in the stated game theory and thc historical consistency.

2. Historical Support

Historical research suggests that the more prevalent tactic was for the cavalry to move within charge range forcing the defending infantry unit to square, thus providing the attacking infantry and artillery a more susceptible target formation. Dr. David Chandler in The Campaigns of Napoleon, page 364, described battlefield tactics used as follows

    ...The first cavalry charges were designed to defeat the hostile cavalry and compel the enemy infantry to form squares rather than to achieve an immediate breakthrough. This task was left to the hurrying infantry columns, which under ideal circumstances would have moved up to close range before the horsemen fell back, and before, therefore, the enemy could resume his linear formation....

This basic description of the standard tactics of the day seems to be confirmed by George Nafziger in A Guide to Napoleonic Warfare, page 265:

    ...the attacking infantry would engage the opposing infantry force. In order to meet an infantry threat the general process was to extend into line so as to bring as many muskets to bear on the enemy. The appearance of attacking cavalry would oblige the dei'ending infantry to change formation to defend against the greater threat-a strike in the flank or rear by the cavalry. This would reduce the number of muskets that could be brought to bear on the attacking infantry to one quarter. The change from line to square provided a much denser target which was ideal for inflicting the maximum number of casualties with artillery, but provided the only protection against cavalry. The cavalry would hold the defending infantry in square and allow the artillery or attacking infantry to fire on the square until it was in shambles and the cavalry or the attacking infantry could bring it into close combat and crush it.

Certainly considering the scarcity and expense of training and maintaining the mounted arm (in relationship to infantry), it makes sense that, as a general rule, cavalry would not be used to deal hammer blows to enemy infantry which was not disordered.

Historically, then, it would appear that a more accurate set of Napoleonic rules would encourage pinning in square of enemy infantry by the cavalry with the actual attack being spearheaded by infantry (and/or artillery). As written, however, Napoleon's Battles' Rule 8.4.4 results in the oppositc tactic. Because pinning occurs when infantry moves within an inch (without contact) of a defending unit, the usual approach is to use infantry to pin the defender in line or column f'or the cavalry to attack.

3. The Fix

To correct this anomaly, Rule 8.4.4 ean simply be amended by house rule to provide that ini'antry can try to emergency square unless opposing unrouted infantry is in actual contact. The elimination of the one requirement should challege the tactical approach to combined arms to more closely mirror history by having cavalry approaching first to get defending infantry to square. This is simply because the modifying unit (when multiple units are in combat contact with one defender the one with the most stands usually will be the infantry. Since the attacking infantry will usually be forced to resolve combat with the defender, it will be advantageous to have that defender in square. Should the defender fail to square, the infantry can stay out of the combat and let the cavalry attack solo.

If the defender succeeds in squaring, and the expected results of the attacking infantry against the squared deiender fail, the cavalry will bounce out, but the attacking infantry can continue the combat against the squared defender. And should the more normal results end with the defender routing, the supporting cavalry makes a Recall roll.

As an example, a Spanish militia unit and a smaller British light cavalry unit (both in column) attack a unit of French line infantry in column in 1809. Under the standard rule, the militia unit would advanee to within one inch to pin the French unit, which would then be hit by the cavalry (at a modifier differential of 9).

Under the proposed revision, the British cavalry would advance to force the French commander to roll an emergency square. If the unit failed to square, the cavalry would close to attack (the same modifier differential of 9. If the unit sueeeeded in squaring, the militia unit would close to hit the defending infantry unit in square (at a modifier differential of 8, but Freneh fire modifiers by another -1 for firing in square, as well as the -1 for unsupported infantry attacked by cavalry). But the modifying attacking unit would be the militia, not the cavalry, and should the resulting combat not result in a rout of the defender, the eavalry would bounee. and, a subsequent round of combat would be between the squared Freneh infantry and the Spanish column (at a modifier differential of only 1 for the militia).

4. Conclusion

The proposed change-the elimination of the "one inch" from Rule 8.4.4-- should not seriously hamper Napoleon's Battles players, although it does take some getting used to. The proposed houserule should simply be:

"Rule 8.4.4 is changed to require base to base contact by attacking infantry to prevent defending infantry from attempting to emergeney square when attaeked by cavalry." How big an impact this change would have on any given game is hard to say. With the attacking infantry more likely to be the modifying unit, cavalry may end up making fewer recall rolls, and absorbing fewer casualties than before. But this is speculative. My own experience suggests that the impact on the game outcome overall is minimal. The use of combined arms will continue to be as popular and as beneficial under the house rule as before. Hopefully, however, the simulation will be more historical.

More on Napoleon's Battles

Back to MWAN #85 Table of Contents
Back to MWAN List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1997 Hal Thinglum

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