Questions I have plagued with since reading the rules

[Rod MacArthur]

In Blackpowder, "attack columns" are assault formations, while "march columns" are for manoeuvre but get penalised heavily for fighting in.

QED British should not be able to form "attack column".

Actually contemporary regulations did not use the term March Columns. What Black Powder calls March Columns were called Columns of Route in the British 1792 Regulations and Colonne en Route in the French 1791 Regulations. In both sets of regulations these are described as full distance columns, ie the distance the column takes up from front to back is the same as its length when in line. As Black Powder quite correctly states on page 15 such columns were poor formations for fighting purposes. These were therefore used for non-tactical movement only by all nations in the Napoleonic era and not for movement on the battlefield, by the British or anyone else.

That same page of the Black Powder rules defines an "Attack Column" as a battalion advancing in column of companies or column by division (ie on a two company front). The British use of battlefield close columns (ie closed up to one pace between companies) or quarter distance columns (ie closed up to one quarter of the frontage between companies) is completely within this definition. The reason for the very frequent British use of quarter distance columns is explained in their 1792 regulations Part 3, Section 178, paragraph 10 " If the battalion is marching in open ground, where it is necessary to be prepared against the attack of cavalry" and goes on to state that it should march in a column of companies at quarter distance, and explains the drill for forming square from this formation (it took less than 20 seconds). British memoirs mention being in quarter distance column more than any other formation. Line could be formed fast from this formation or from Close Columns.

The French used columns of companies, just like the British (often closed up to only half-distance because this fitted their method of forming square best), Close Columns (Colon Serree) virtually identical to the British, Columns of division (ie double company frontage) and Columns of Attack, all of which could form line or square just as fast as the British, using similar drills. As mentioned in an earlier posting a French Colonne d'attaque (Column of Attack) was not designed to actually attack in that formation, but was merely had a particular order of companies within the column to facilitate speedy deployment into line from both sides of the column simultaneously, as is made entirely clear in the French 1791 Regulations, Ecole de Battalion, cinquieme Partie, Article 13, Colonne d'attaque (pages 382 to 387 in my copy of that manual). A French Column of division and a French Column of Attack look exactly the same, apart from the order of companies, but the former normally formed line on one flank only. In fact in 1808 Napoleon ordered that battalions operating with one or both of their flank companies detached (ie whenever the voltigeurs were skirmishing) should form columns of companies, not columns of divisions (the reason for this is that a French column needed a minimum of three complete rows of companies (or divisions) in order to form square).

All forms of close column, quarter distance columns and half distance columns by all nations fall within the Black Powder definition of Attack Columns.

The fact that the French sometimes attacked in columns of companies or columns of division, without forming line, was an abberation, not actually in their regulations. It worked sometimes but not against steady foes. Unfortunately the use of the term Colonne d'attaque, like that of the similar Prussian Angriffs Colonne have led many people to incorrectly assume that they were designed to actually attack in that formation, which they were not.

Rod

[Cubster]

The fact that the French sometimes attacked in columns of companies or columns of division, without forming line, was an abberation, not actually in their regulations. It worked sometimes but not against steady foes. Unfortunately the use of the term Colonne d'attaque, like that of the similar Prussian Angriffs Colonne have led many people to incorrectly assume that they were designed to actually attack in that formation, which they were not.

Rod

I think this is what the rules are representing by Attack Columns - the ad-hoc procedure that some commanders used to maintain the momentum of an advance, but not to be found in any training manual. Yes, well trained firing lines shredded this type of column, especially when topography, effective skirmishing screens or soldiers lying down masked how close the line was and made it hard for the commander to know when to redeploy into line. But as you stated, the French especially did enjoy some success with this against many of their early opponents and if there's one thing harder than pushing a new idea into a soldier's head, it's dragging an old one out.

The looser formation columns I believe are represented by line formation in the game. There are limitations on how much micro-management can be achieved by models on a table and I see this as a representative compromise, like so much else in any set of rules. Like skirmishers being represented as skirmishing, without half the unit being in line a few hundred yards to the rear. It's not completely exact, but that's fine because it's a game and this is simply a representation.

Black Powder is not a micro-management type of system and you won't find exact translations of every possible formation or action.

[Happy Wanderer]

Perhaps this begs the question.

Given that two attack columns can usually attack one unit in line formation, then perhaps the advantage to the columns of their +1 save (unless hit by artillery fire) is to generous?

Maybe the save modifier should be (-1) IF hit by artillery fire, not +1 UNLESS hit by artillery fire?

This punishes attack columns when hit by artillery fire but does not give them a benefit (+1) when a defending unit in line is already faced with two attack columns to shoot at with musketry and will often be overwhelmed with hand to hand dice attacks in the subsequent melee?

Thoughts?

Happy Wanderer

[Cubster]

It's cropped up time and again and the consensus seems to be that since the rules state that units trying to engage each other should line up as much as possible so their centres meet, it is ungentlemanly beardiness to try to find a loophole whereby two columns charge a single line. So long as the line holds its nerve when charged and the two units are the only ones involved, the line should be able to inflict serious casualties on the column, usually enough to win the engagement.

Anyone caught bending rules in this unseemly manner must suffer the indignity of having one sock removed and being radished by the prefects.

[Rod MacArthur]

The looser formation columns I believe are represented by line formation in the game. There are limitations on how much micro-management can be achieved by models on a table and I see this as a representative compromise, like so much else in any set of rules. Like skirmishers being represented as skirmishing, without half the unit being in line a few hundred yards to the rear. It's not completely exact, but that's fine because it's a game and this is simply a representation.

Black Powder is not a micro-management type of system and you won't find exact translations of every possible formation or action.

I think you are entirely correct about the game concept. It has to be a playable representation of the real tactics of the era and not a micro-management or translation of every possible formation or action. I think Black Powder does this very well and I have only given the real detail as background, not for anyone to try to replicate.

I remain convinced however that the definition of Black Powder "Attack Columns" on page 15, as representing "a battalion advancing in column of companies or column by division" would incude all forms of Napoleonic battlefield columns by all nations, including British, but clearly not full distance columns of route, which are Black Powder "March Columns". I note the definition of Attack Columns says "advancing" not "attacking". The British had not used Columns of Route (Black Powder March Columns) on the battlefield since the Seven Years War.

I do not think that Line would cover looser formation columns. A French Column of Attack was normally formed on a double company frontage at half-distance so was actually quite open. If formed on companies of 90 men it would have a frontage of 60 men in three ranks, therefore 40 yards frontage, followed by a gap of 20 yards, followed by another pair of companies, another gap of 20 yards and finally the rear two companies, so a total of some 70 yards deep, allowing for the men in the companies themselves. By comparison the standard quarter-distance British column was normally formed on a company frontage but only 9 companies were present (the light being detached to ad-hoc light battalions). If the British had 60 men per company their frontage would be 30 men in two ranks, a 20 yard frontage, followed by a 5 yard gap, then the next company and so on. The British battalion would be denser than the French one and took up slightly less space front to back (allowing for the ranks themselves). Both French and British could, and did, alternatively form close columns with only one pace between successive companies. I think that all of these are covered by Black Powder "Attack Columns".

Rod

[Happy Wanderer]

Hi Cubster

“It's cropped up time and again and the consensus seems to be that since the rules state that units trying to engage each other should line up as much as possible so their centres meet, it is ungentlemanly beardiness to try to find a loophole whereby two columns charge a single line.”

It appears there is some confusion here.

Rick Priestley wrote (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1338&start=10)

“Two onto one is not hard when you're talking about columns onto a line. It's harder when you're talking about a line onto a line - or an attack column onto another attack column - or a mix of column and line onto a line. And cavalry units don't always match so neatly onto infantry either of course. Two on one is exactly what we had in mind for columns versus line - and it’s what we aim to achieve when try to break a line. Otherwise the closing fire - chance of disorder - and same number of dice rolls makes it all a bit precarious”

Then

John Stallard wrote (viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2469)

“Hi fellas, in general, the idea is that one unit fights another unit, so one column fights a line. Other columns are there to support or try their chances if the first is repelled or to follow up success.”

And

“The advantages of the column are already impressive..small frontages, extra pip to move, even better if French AND a morale save+ crikey, if that's not enough already...Give the Brits a chance...”


Cubster said;

"So long as the line holds its nerve when charged and the two units are the only ones involved, the line should be able to inflict serious casualties on the column, usually enough to win the engagement."

I take you mean here Cubster that even if the line is not able to hold off the attack columns with fire, then two attack columns would still not be able to attack, only one attacking and one supporting – is that how you play and is that what you mean?

"Anyone caught bending rules in this unseemly manner must suffer the indignity of having one sock removed and being radished by the prefects".

I totally agree but it appears the rules of war sir are somewhat confused in this situation by Messrs Stallard and Priestley!


So if two columns can attack one column as Rick P described above (given he is the rules writer) then back to my original question and picking up on what John Stallard said about the advantages of column (which I tend to agree with), I pose the question again;

Given that two attack columns can usually attack one unit in line formation, then perhaps the advantage to the columns of their +1 save (unless hit by artillery fire) is to generous?

Maybe the save modifier should be (-1) IF hit by artillery fire, not +1 UNLESS hit by artillery fire?


Can we clear this two attack columns vs one attack column against a line issue up in view of the above question. If we allow two attack columns vs one unit in line, then it seems as though attack columns are pretty nasty. It does tend to encourage armies such as the Napoleonic French to use this as their weapon when in fact they really are using it to maneuver more effectively before deploying into line to shoot, but sometimes opted to go over on the attack or were forced to by circumstances.

I have no problem wih them moving faster but to get a morale bonus seems generous.

Happy Wanderer

[Rod MacArthur]

I do not really like rules which forbid players from particular actions (ie saying you cannot attack one line with two columns) but prefer there to be historically correct penalties for acting in a historically incorrect manner. In reality French columns normally maintained deploying distance between them, so two columns would be unlikely to attack a single line. What would probably have happened in reality was that as a battalion veered too close to another, one might have heard one battalion commander shouting out to the other "You Sir, maintain your distance otherwise you are endangering my ability to deploy" (or the equivalent in French). The resultant lateral moving away might well have created some disorder, so perhaps that should be the penalty, battalions which do not maintain deploying distance to their flanks become disordered.

Rod

[Cubster]

HW - well now that's thrown a kipper into my kettle. I didn't see that from Mr Priestly, just Rev Stallard's one and assumed it was the 'official' Black Powder response.

I agree with Rod I think, seeing as BP is not a rules-lawyer game, gentleman (and ladies, who wish to have a break from their embroidery and housework) should behave in a manner appropriate to the genre and period of the game they are playing.

Right, radishing all round I guess. I just hope I get a smooth one.

[Rod MacArthur]

There is however one way in which two columns did really close right up in the Napoleonic era and that was when they deliberately formed in what contemporary parlance was a contiguous pair of columns, so that one could deploy into line to the left and one to the right. In the real Napoleonic era it does require one of the battalions to reverse the order of its companies in the column. This is what the British 3rd Division did at Waterloo. I have not actually found a drill regulation, either French or British, positively encouraging it, but it is clearly both theoretically possible and indeed did happen at Waterloo.

So, for Black Powder, I suggest that any nation ought to be able to form a linked pair of such "Attack Columns" , but would require both a positive order to do so and it will take a move to accomplish (because of the real need to reverse the order of companies in one of the battalions). Pairs of battalions should not be able to just drift together, nor should such a contiguous pair be able to separate without a positive order to do so, unless enemy action forces it. Formation of such contiguous columns should not be allowed with more than two battalions (or if it is then they could not form line or square, because that was the real penalty).

There is a problem with such large formations which is one of the very few areas not adequately covered by the Black Powder rules, and that is that such large formations, whether of a single very large battalions (eg British Guards or Austrian Line) or a pair of linked battalions, were ponderous, slow to move and slow to change formation. This is why British Guards often formed by half battalion wings and why the Austrians sometimes split their large battalions into three divisions. I think that any large battalion or pair of contiguous linked batalions should suffer a movement penalty and formation changing penalty, which acts as the balancer for the advantages it gets in Hand to Hand, Shooting and Stamina.

Napoeon is reputed to have said that God is on the side of the big battalions, but he is often misunderstood in this. What he clearly meant was that the General with most troops has an advantage, not that large battalions were a good idea. In fact in 1808 Napoleon reduced the size of French battalions and this enabled them to change formation faster.

Real Napoleonic commanders had to constantly balance such pros and cons and, in my view, wargames should face players with the same choices.

Rod

[Wanax]

In our group, we generally just allow certain formation/nationality traits as per the rule intent. We do overlook logic loopholes, as we feel those who wrote the rules had the same goal as we do--play, have fun, drink a couple of beers, and laugh at our mistakes/misfortunes in the game.

On the attack column, we only allow the french to get this bonus of +1 just as we only allow the British to get the first fire bonus dice. Reasoning is simply that we wanted to French to be more aggressive and CC oriented and the British more shooting oriented. the games work out well that way.