Irregular Troops

[Alan Charlesworth]

Remind me to sue my optician! You are correct - there is no reference to infantry in the Warband definition on page 16

As you say it just refers to a unit. I think that the description and the reference to being 3 to 6 ranks deep convinced me that infantry were intended, but it is not explicit.

If I were doing irregular cossacks in 28mm I think I might be tempted to base them individually so that they could be deployed in Skirmish order or closed up as Warband or Line. A bit like Light Cavalry work in Hail Caesar.

My cavalry tend to be in units of twelve. I don't fancy having to do units of 16 - 18 for cossacks. Options are bigger bases with fewer figures or fewer figures individually based so they can be spread out a bit. I think I prefer the latter. Of course BP is a game of units where frontages are the only important characteristic. Numbers of figures and depths are largely cosmetic.

BP's flexibility is one of its great strengths

[ady2650]

Remind me to sue my optician! You are correct - there is no reference to infantry in the Warband definition on page 16

As you say it just refers to a unit. I think that the description and the reference to being 3 to 6 ranks deep convinced me that infantry were intended, but it is not explicit.

If I were doing irregular cossacks in 28mm I think I might be tempted to base them individually so that they could be deployed in Skirmish order or closed up as Warband or Line. A bit like Light Cavalry work in Hail Caesar.

My cavalry tend to be in units of twelve. I don't fancy having to do units of 16 - 18 for cossacks. Options are bigger bases with fewer figures or fewer figures individually based so they can be spread out a bit. I think I prefer the latter. Of course BP is a game of units where frontages are the only important characteristic. Numbers of figures and depths are largely cosmetic.

BP's flexibility is one of its great strengths

bolded out = totally agree 12 is my poison too , I had spare figures and thought I would treat myself to a different looking unit , if I had 12 figures to spread through the three ranks I would spread them across the 6 wide by 3 deep base footprint, I guess individual basing would be another very good option. (which takes me to another subject, I will create another subject post.)

[Alan Charlesworth]

Hi Ady

Re Warband. If you look at page 169 in BP the Baggara cavalry are listed as Warband, fielded in units of 12 figures. Looking at the photographs they appear to be deployed in two ranks of six. Hadn't noticed that before until Hobbitmiles pointed it out to me today.

[ady2650]

Hi Ady

Re Warband. If you look at page 169 in BP the Baggara cavalry are listed as Warband, fielded in units of 12 figures. Looking at the photographs they appear to be deployed in two ranks of six. Hadn't noticed that before until Hobbitmiles pointed it out to me today.

12 figs in two ranks it is then , saves on figures

[ady2650]

was going to post this the other day but forgot , My rational for the two types of Cossack is as follows :-

I must start by qualifying what I mean when I say Regular and Irregular.

Regular = some semblance of battlefield tactics e.g. extending their formation into a single line in order to out flank opposing cavalry or forming up in regular three rank battle formation on the flank of a 'regular' Russian cavalry regiment so that when the enemy engaged the 'regular' regiment the cossacks would attack the flank of the enemy. Take a look at page 241 Armies of the Napoleonic wars, Osprey publication. some good pictures as to what I mean.

Irregular= Asiatic tribes who were even wilder than the Cossacks and Tartars who's methods of warfare was better fitted to the Dark ages, armed with bows and arrows and often wearing mail coats and ancient helmets (P Haythornthwaite) the French were not complementary about these types either Marbot describes the Bashkir whose only tactic was a wild charge helter skelter like a flock of sheep culminating in a volley of arrows

A Complete Listing of All Cossack Formations in 1812. By Dr. Frhr. von Baumgartner makes a fantastic argument for regular and irregular cossacks/tribal cavalry. Its a great read for you Russian army lovers and is on line.

Giving choice allows a player to choose the type they naturally gravitate to or to select both.

Well there you go thats my view form the research that I have done , but that said its only one view and those that know me do know that I respect the views of others (and then dismiss them ) again as Alan says the beauty of Black powder is that it allows you to be very flexible with your troop choices.

[Jammers]

"A Complete Listing of All Cossack Formations in 1812. By Dr. Frhr. von Baumgartner makes a fantastic argument for regular and irregular cossacks/tribal cavalry. Its a great read for you Russian army lovers and is on line ..."

Thanks for that chap.Looking forward to taking on your Russians soon.

The French march on Moscow is one my favourite periods of the Napoleonic Wars. The return trip, where the Irregular Cossacks really came into their own, less so ..

[grecian1959]

Ady i would also recommend
http://napolun.com/mirror/napoleonistyk ... ssacks.htm



If Napoleon had had Cossacks in his army
he'd have been Emperor of China long ago."
- Cossack officer to Caulaincourt in 1812



it throws up some points of interest eg; cossack lance was 1.5 feet longer than polish etc,their use of firepower for noise mainly --tactics etc etc.

looking a the regular/irregular variations both yourself and Alan are trying out - i'd generally agree and will try out myself.definitely the Kalmucks ,Bashkirs etc should be warband with the others regular and skrmish.I play on a 9x5 table and use 12 fig cav units so find when deployed in 2x6 ranks space isnt such an issue but 1x12 leads to no space particularily for cossacks to outflank , since you cant charge a flank if starting in a frontal arc .I think cavalry should be allowed in some sort of battle column too, to reflect the closer formations used esp if terrain or quality of troopers restricted fully shaken out deployments eg; Murats deployments at Liebertolkwitz 1813. Both of you say they can charge only shaken or disordered opponents isnt that the general rule for cavalry v Infantry in BP anyway,or are you extending it to enemy cavalry/artillery?


The Germans used new words in their prayer, "Save us Lord, from Cossacks".
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still feel they should have a FEAR,LOOT and BOOTY special rule when in the rear of the enemy. Maybe a -1 to their opponent morale saves when in charge range.While the cossacks themselves could suffer an additional -1 to command rolls when in the vicinity to enemy baggage or any unoccupied buildings/built up areas as they MAY want to go loot and check out the local bootylicious talent


which brings me to one final thought based on games played if you use unreliable for infantry eg; Landwehr but game with all 8 rated generals(not using any personal characterisrics as in book) its actualy not too much of a hinderance while they are kept in column .Its very hard to game with 7 rated generals or less,as they can often do nothing all battle.So any ideas to represent the usual of Allied generals /staff especially in the earlier years being inferior to the french,while not making the game uneventful for any Alled player.

[Cubster]

I think it's alreayd been mentioned about the fact that the usefulness of light cavalry was mostly off the battlefield. The skirmishing, raiding, scouting and harrying they did between battles is what really made them invaluable. Would the same sort of terror a baggage guard felt as he saw cossacks on the horizon, or a picket felt when they heard the soft thump of hooves and a muffled whicker of a horse in the dark, would that really apply in the same manner to a formed unit facing cossacks in broad daylight?

[Big Al]

A question, while you're there giving these Cossacks additional rules. It's one thing to give them Fear, or causing fear, when they are attacking baggage train guars or small units of skirmishers and villagers, but would larger units be that frightened of them? Would they shake in terror at being charged by them, I wonder, or would they just stand and fight them off? Safety in numbers and what have you. What I am getting at is, perhaps that fear factor should only apply in certain conditions or against certain units. Maybe green units would be affected by their reputation as well?
I don't know enough about them to make an outright objection, or anyhing, so I thought I'd pose the question in the hope that it renews the perspective.

[grecian1959]

Al and Cubster firstly let me expain i game mostly 1812-15 so by then the cossacks reputation was large amongst a demoralised and untrained conscript opponent army generally. I dont believe formed enemy would be terrified of cossacks to their front BUT perhaps cossacks to flank/ rear could be another story.They are not battlefield cavalry but IF put ontable they need a purpose -what im looking at is their limiting effect on Franco allies and yet also their own limitations ie; lets go looting, or unless we outnumber our enemy we aint going in.
Their real value was harrying,disruption supply and re-inforcements, pursuit,evasion,exhausting your opponents cavalry and above all else DEMORALISATION and threat -be it raids to berlin,ransacking kassel etc etc.Whick is all offtable stuff i know.
So if we game with them we have to remember they WERE at all the main battlefields. YES probably doing very very little except lurking a bit like the imperial guard in that case.We all field light cavalry in our games, who doesnt love hussars or the poor relation chasseurs a cheval yet they werent also meant to be battlefield cavalry! Imagine after Ligny if the french had cossacks rather than grouchy,they might have helped Old Marschall Vorwarts go home really quickly .
and i have bought n painted about 3 units of cossacks so i want to use them
going to paint a unit of Neapolitan infantry too I am a masochist