Questions I have plagued with since reading the rules

[mattban72]

Knowing me, this is totally my fault, but….1) when I read the rules on giving cmds, it indicates that units in attack column (i think that is waht they reference the 2 stand file, three rank column formation to be?) get a plus +1 when issuing orders.2) when I read the battle report between the british and french, the french get a reliable attack column/ mixed formation bonus….err….so…I assume from this that the british get a bonus for being in attack column, but NOT for mixed formation attack column while the french would get a bonus for both? am I just losing it?

[Guest]

My understanding is that as the rules read you are correct. One problem the British Army simply did not use attack columns iand I would not allow them to adopt that formation in a Napoeonic game I was umpiring. 

[rick priestley]

 No Matt you are not losing it - you have spotted an omission on my part!  I should really have added a note into the section on mixed formations that mixed lines receive order as lines - mixed columns receive orders as columns - if a column has skirmishers to its front it is still treated as a column when it comes to giving orders. Thus all units get +1 - and unit's with a bonus get a further +1.Rick

[mattban72]

thank you sir, that is helpfull.

[Rod MacArthur]

Looking at a really old posting I came across the quote below, which in my opinion has misunderstood both Black Powder rules and Napoleonic warfare. I would hope that the "Guest" who wrote it is never umpiring any Napoleonic game I am participating in.

My understanding is that as the rules read you are correct. One problem the British Army simply did not use attack columns and I would not allow them to adopt that formation in a Napoeonic game I was umpiring. 

In fact two basic types of columns were used in Napoleonic warfare:

Firstly, non-tactical Columns of Route (Black Powder March Columns) whose main characteristic was that the column occupied the same distance as its width would have been if in line (as it would be in the suggested Black Powder basing of infantry in blocks 40mm x 40mm).

Secondly, tactical Columns (with a variety of names) whose main characteristic was that they were normally formed on a company or double-company frontage but the distance between successive "elements" was either half-distance (ie half the frontage), quarter-distance (ie quarter of the frontage) or close (ie one pace - which the French called Colon Serree and the Austrians called Masse). The Prussians used very large companies so they normally formed columns on a half company or double half-company frontage (and never on two complete companies (as they could not have formed square from that formation). All of these columns were designed for battlefield manoevring and are what Black Powder calls Attack Columns.

The British used these tactical columns (ie Black Powder Attack Columns) just as much for battlefield manoevring as any other nation, and in fact British memoirs have more references to being in quarter-distance column than in line or any other formation (because you can form square from quarter-distance column in no more than 20 seconds, so it was the British "default" formation for moving whenever there was any cavalry threat). All nations' regulations assumed that these battlefield columns would form lines before combat. The French deviated from their own regulations by sometimes attacking in columns, and whenever they did so against a steady enemy (such as the British) they got beaten. The British normally formed line before combat in the open field, but did use column attacks when assaulting into a breach at sieges or against a defile or bridge. The French "Column of Attack" is much misunderstood. It was not designed as a column to actually attack the enemy but as a layout of companies within a battalion at half-distance which could form line quickly by both flanks moving outwards simultaneously (led by companies 3 & 2, second row companies 4 and 1, rear row voltigeurs and grenadiers - so when formed in line it was in correct order voltigeurs, 4, 3, 2, 1 grenadiers). The alternative French formation of a Column of Divisions was led by companies 1 and grenadiers, followed by 3 and 2 with the rear row of voltigeurs and 4. A columnn of division normally formed line to only one side so took longer to do so than a column of attack.

Hope this clarifies the situation

Rod

[grant]

Yikes! It is only a game!

What rules do you normally use Rod? I don't think Black Powder maybe has enough depth for you? Or detail? You seem to be more of a simulationist than a game player?

[Rod MacArthur]

Hi Grant,

Well, when I started wargaming in the late 50s/early 60s in Southampton I used Don Featherstones own rules (as in his War Games book) since we met at his house. Later during the 70s at the Farnborough (Hampshire) wargame club I used the old WRG rules (the first version in the red book) , but then dropped out of wargaming due to Army postings abroad. In the 90s I was living in Reading and used Newbury rules (and umpired the Napoleonic competitions at Colours using those rules for about six years). I have used various other rules for particular games such Grand Manner etc and have bought a lot of rules but never used them (Skako, General de Brigade, Chef de Battalion and many others). I moved to East Sussex a few years ago and dropped out of wargaming again but recently took it up at my local Tunbridge Wells wargame club. A lot of guys there use Black Powder and Hail Caesar so I have bought both books.

I am probably more into serious Military History research than wargaming, although I enjoy painting my wargame figures (just finished Blakes Spanish army at Albuera, over 400 figures) and enjoy wargames, provided the rules have a reasonable historical basis and are not pure fantasy. For me a wargame should face the players with the same sort of tactical decision making that which the real situation did, but I fully recognise that too much fine detail of historical accuracy makes an unplayable game. I think that Black Powder does have the basis to be quite realistic in that respect yet very playable. The reason for my posting on the subject of columns was that I felt that the "guest" who wrote it did not understand Napoleonic tactics, nor did he understand the Black Powder rules, yet was saying he was umpiring Napoleonic wargames. I was just trying to explain that a Black Powder "Attack Column" is not at all the same thing as a real French Column of Attack, but is a much broader definition of all forms of battlefield columns. The last sentence of the description of an "Attack Column" on page 15 of Black Powder makes this entirely clear. For our "guest" to say he would not allow British to use Black Powder "Attack Columns" is therefore rubbish, since the British used battlefield columns all the time, and our "guest" is completely misunderstanding a perfectly good set of rules.

Rod

[grant]

You certainly sound knowledgable Rod! Way more than me. I have a degree in history, but certainly prefer my rules to be light and fun. My group has been BP since it came out, and we have had a lot fun with it. We don't get too hung up on the things that you describe. I once got a playtest credit on the Blitzkrieg Commander rules, and a research credit on the Canadian military on the GHQ website (where I am a moderator). I served in the Canadian army as an Armoured Officer. Not for long mind you, but I did my bit.

I read mostly Russian military history, especially the Civil War, and Canadian military history at school. Napoleonics are new-ish to me, and also I have been dabbling at the Sudan. So I certainly don't have the depth and breadth of experience that you have! I don't know Donald Featherstone, although I have heard of him. WRG pre-dates any gaming I did; I did play DBA for a while.

I am most certainly more of a painter than a gamer, and a light rules gamer at that. Simulations are exciting to think about, but often bog down in the rules when played.

I have never played a game with an umpire - all of my group would rather play!

[Rod MacArthur]

Hi Grant,

But I am sure you would get "hung up" if you were playing a British Napoleonic commander and your opponent told you that British could not use Black Powder attack columns (ie all your movement had to be in lines or march columns), because that is what the "guest" above said, despite the fact that such attack columns are perfectly allowable by all nations within the Black Powder rules, and if one reads the last sentence of the rule on page 15 carefully, it clearly defines "attack columns" as a battalion advancing in a column of companies or a column by division (ie double-companies). In other words Black Powder attack columns are not just French style Columns of Attack, but are a simple game system for all other forms of battlefield columns.

That is what got me "hung up" because some people reading these posts might think that the "guest" who says he umpires Napoleonic games was actually correct, when he clearly is not, either in terms of Black Powder rules or historical reality.

I was a Royal Engineer but saw several Canadian Armoured units in Germany when serving there and also lived with the Royal Canadian Dragoons at Gagetown for a couple of months when we did some training there. A nice bunch of guys. My son-in-law was also cavalry, Royal Dragoon Guards, served in Iraq but now left the Army.

Rod

[Greenjacket]

Well Rod, it depends on how one defines 'March Column' and 'Attack Column' in the rules! I am not sure what you mean by "tactical" column - I've never read that term before.

The British manoeuvred in column of companies and deployed to fight in line. Obviously the British column of companies (1 company wide and ten deep, with various distances between the companies) was in no way a column for attack, and only for manoeuvre, agreed? Of course, it was a "tactical column" (as you put it) because it was used to manoeuvre troops on the battlefield, but it was certainly not for actually fighting in! So wouldn't you therefore rate it as a 'March Column' in Black Powder?

Of course, an "attack column" as used by the French, Prussians, Russians etc was two companies wide and three or four companies deep, so it bore little resemblance to a British battalion in column of companies. To put it simply, a column of companies is 1x10 while the "attack column" is 2x3!

In Blackpowder, "attack columns" are assault formations, while "march columns" are for manoeuvre but get penalised heavily for fighting in. And I think we both agree that the British never deliberately fought in column (British battalions in battle did on two or three occassions in the Peninsula engage the enemy while in column, but that was f*ck ups and the battalions immediately deployed as soon as they could).

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