Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Gentlemen,

This morning, I was thinking about the MOE embedded melee rule and its implications. You see, I felt that I had messed up when I considered all the dimensions involved, so I took a second look at it.

We have 100 meter wide hexes. That is a constant that we must abide by. So to understand what we have going regarding the EM rule, I used the frontage of a French company at <font color="orange">full theoretical strength</font id="orange"> which in 1808 was 80 feet (or 26.66 yards) per George Nafziger in "Imperial Bayonets." That is the same as <font color="red">24.26 meters. </font id="red"> "The company or <i>peleton</i> established by the Decree of 18 February 1808 had 140 men. Each battalion was established with six companies." This decree lasted to 1815. Now, how many French battalions do you see with <font color="red">840</font id="red"> men in our games?

An attack column (or essentially a column by divisions at half interval) is a column that is 2 companies wide. At <font color="orange">full theoretical strength,</font id="orange"> an attack column is less than 49 meters wide.

Now, this <u>clearly</u> leaves room for two battalions at <font color="orange">full theoretical strength</font id="orange"> (in attack column) to pass side by side in our 100 meter hex.

The numbers don't lie.

I respectfully submit this for comment.

Rick

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

The frogs will look for any way to win....[:p][:D]

You guys think too much...just enjoy the games...[:D][;)]

<center>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com"]<b>Generallieutenant Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]

Kommandeur
3. Infanterie-Brigade and Aide-du-Camp
I. Armee Korps
Heer am Niederrhein
[url="http://www.prussianarmy.com"]Preußische Armee[/url]

Kommandeur
Garde-Artillerie
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/NWC/Prussia/Garde.htm"]Preußische Armee Garde-Brigade[/url]



GroßHerzog von Saxe-Weimar
(Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar)
</center>

Enjoying it, I most certainly am Herr Generallieutenant. [:D]

I'm not trying to start any argument. Just a discussion. [:)]

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

Could you state how your observation applies to the Embedded Melee rule as for the life of me I dont see the connection.

You are saying that two columns can exist in one hex side by side and I agree to some point. Some columns were three companies wide but for the sake of agreement I will go with what you are saying.

But what point is made where it concerns whether you allow for melees at any time in the turn or use the Embedded Melee rule where melees all take place and then once the other guy starts moving or firing units again he cannot melee?

Respectfully,

Oberst Wilhelm Peters
2nd Kuirassiers, Reserve Korps, Austrian Army

I'm not entirely sure I see what you are getting at. The issue involved isn't a matter of the formations, but using the artifical sequence of turn based play to advantage.

Depending on the unit, its status, and the terrain, a unit can more from 1-16 hexes in the course of a turn. The problem occurs when the attacker is able to create "waves" in one turn. For instance:

Wave 1: Infantry that is relatively far from the line, needs its entire turn to approach march. It runs up, using all 12MP (or whatever, depends on the game), and launches an attack, leaving a "hole" with no ZOC covering it.

Wave 2: Infantry that was kept <b>closer</b> to the line (at start) runs through the newly made hole, and repeats the attack on any "second line" units, and opens a hole in that line.

Wave 3: A stack of Cav that was kept at hand is then able to run through both holes, get all the way into the rear, and start collecting leaders, cannon and wagons, and inflicting isolation on the defending units.

this is an exteme example (but one that would make a German proud in Avalon Hill's old Third Reich), but by "staggering" the moves properly, you can bust the line wide open. It makes even less sense when you think about it in terms of time. You are really dealing with 45 minutes worth of movement in the above example (15 for each wave), because they are sequental, not all at the same time.

FML Gary McClellan
Generalissimus
Imperial Austrian Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br />Enjoying it, I most certainly am Herr Generallieutenant. [:D]

I'm not trying to start any argument. Just a discussion. [:)]

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Lol...it's ok...I know you are, I can tell by the level of debate you have going. I just enjoy busting the froggies chops that's all. [}:)][:D]

But seriously I think Gary and Bill raised an important question that would be neat to find out the answer.


<center>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[url="http://www.scott-ludwig.com"]<b>Generallieutenant Scott Ludwig</b>[/url]

Kommandeur
3. Infanterie-Brigade and Aide-du-Camp
I. Armee Korps
Heer am Niederrhein
[url="http://www.prussianarmy.com"]Preußische Armee[/url]

Kommandeur
Garde-Artillerie
[url="http://scott-ludwig.com/NWC/Prussia/Garde.htm"]Preußische Armee Garde-Brigade[/url]



GroßHerzog von Saxe-Weimar
(Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar)
</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />I'm not entirely sure I see what you are getting at. The issue involved isn't a matter of the formations, but using the artifical sequence of turn based play to advantage.

Depending on the unit, its status, and the terrain, a unit can more from 1-16 hexes in the course of a turn. The problem occurs when the attacker is able to create "waves" in one turn..........

FML Gary McClellan
Generalissimus
Imperial Austrian Army
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Gentlemen,

Thank you for your time and effort.

Oh, my goodnes. I didn't know that someone could move anywhere near that many hexes in a turn. That isn't any good at all.

I understand now why all the concern exists. It makes sense. OK, the subject is dead.

Bill,
I know that the pre-1808 French supposedly had a third company of Grenadiers to the right making a three company frontage. But as far as I know, Scotty Bowden is the only source for that.

What other nations had a three company frontage to their attack column?.

Cheers,
Rick

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

Rick, it really depends. Right now, the games are a bit inconsistant in movement rates, so it's hard to generalize, but the 16 is for Cav on a pike, and that's going to be fairly rare.

In any case, it's generally 5-6 hexes for good order infantry in column in clear terrain, and 7-8 for cav. Still enough to cause havoc.

FML Gary McClellan
Generalissimus
Imperial Austrian Army

Good Evening:

This discussion raises a question I have had. It is probably more for the designer then the members but would seem to resolve some of the problems with waves or minimize it a bit. Why does movement cost MP and assault(which is a function of movement) does not? You would think at a minimum that the assault would cost atleast as much MP as it takes to enter the hex if not more. And that a unit should have to have those MP remaining to even attempt to assault.

Colonel Phil Driscoll
12e Legere of the 7th Division
II Corps
ADN

Vive L'Empereur!

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Gary McClellan</i>
<br />
Wave 1: Infantry that is relatively far from the line, needs its entire turn to approach march. It runs up, using all 12MP (or whatever, depends on the game), and launches an attack, leaving a "hole" with no ZOC covering it.

Wave 2: Infantry that was kept <b>closer</b> to the line (at start) runs through the newly made hole, and repeats the attack on any "second line" units, and opens a hole in that line.

Wave 3: A stack of Cav that was kept at hand is then able to run through both holes, get all the way into the rear, and start collecting leaders, cannon and wagons, and inflicting isolation on the defending units.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Actually, it should be infantry, then cav to isolate, then another wave of infantry in echelon to collect the isolated infantry as the cavalry moves behind the line, [;)]

This is much more efficient as it requires only a couple of squadrons to annihilate an enemy division. [:0]

Then some more cav to charge full into the breach and use the 4 move melee to fan out and collect any enmy leaders, wagons, limbered artillery, etc.[:(!]

Properly sequenced, you can make a hole approximately 10 hexes deep and 10 wide by attacking with one infantry division and a cavalry brigade (preferably cuirassiers in Eckmuhl). What fun, what carnage, a 1km breach in 15 minutes! [V]



Jeff Bardon
Duc de Castiglione
Prince de Wagram
Commandant de la Vieille Garde
Marechal de France
CiC- La Grande Armee

And now you see why Jeff is one of the best in the club and I'm well...

Less than one of the best in the club.

FML Gary McClellan
Generalissimus
Imperial Austrian Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br />At <font color="orange">full theoretical strength,</font id="orange"> an attack column is less than 49 meters wide.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But don't forget that there needs to be a gap between battalions, otherwise manoeuvre is almost impossible. I think that manoeuvre on the battlefield was much more dificult than we imagine. In the heat of battle it would be difficult to keep exactly to the theoretical frontages and if the first battalion has just meleed then it will be in disorder and not too concerned with preserving a neat gap for other following units. If two battalions started together side by side and attacked together then that's fine, but for one in the second line to line itself up with a gap barely wider than it's own frontage which may not be directly to its front, this would take time, if possible at all. I think the embedded melee rule make perfect sense.[:)]

<center>Major Antony Barlow
~ 2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps ~
~ 4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards ~
</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Antony Barlow</i>
................ I think the embedded melee rule make perfect sense.[:)]

<center>Major Antony Barlow
~ 2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps ~
~ 4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards ~
</center>
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Me too. [:)]

Lastly, if two French battalions at full theoretical strength (840 men each) were to maneuver next to each other there would end up being three meters between them. So, it is <font color="orange">technically</font id="orange"> do-able --if the terrain were to cooperate like it does on the parade ground. [:)]

<center>Lieutenant Rick Motko
1er Bataillon, 33° Régiment d'Infanterie de Ligne
2eme Brigade, 11eme division
IIIe corps, Armée du Nord</center>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Antony Barlow</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Le Tondu</i>
<br />At <font color="orange">full theoretical strength,</font id="orange"> an attack column is less than 49 meters wide.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">But don't forget that there needs to be a gap between battalions, otherwise manoeuvre is almost impossible. I think that manoeuvre on the battlefield was much more dificult than we imagine. In the heat of battle it would be difficult to keep exactly to the theoretical frontages and if the first battalion has just meleed then it will be in disorder and not too concerned with preserving a neat gap for other following units. If two battalions started together side by side and attacked together then that's fine, but for one in the second line to line itself up with a gap barely wider than it's own frontage which may not be directly to its front, this would take time, if possible at all. I think the embedded melee rule make perfect sense.[:)]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Generally I think you need to dispense with most of your ideas about neat and tiny "formations" once actual contact with the enemy is made on the field. A square may resemble anything from a proper rectangle (it's almost never square in the geometric sense) to a rather irregular bunch of troops with everyone facing outwards. A line would swing back and forth in places, undulating with the terrain. A column with full distances between the platoons (as was regulation to allow evolutions) could be hard to identify at all. And in any case, whenever a group of formations would come in close contact with the enemy line it would more often than not bunch together until all sense of formation was lost. And then cavalry ... forget about being "in good order" the moment it starts moving on the field. When the Union Brigade charged at Waterloo, it passed first through a hedgerow and then through the own infantry, "mingling" with it. Yet the charge was quite effective. Bottomline, as gamers we tend to think in parade ground formations, yet on a field it was all more about command and cohesion than about formation.

<center>Général de Division D.S. "Green Horse" Walter
Baron d'Empire, Duc des Pyramides
Commandant de la [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_Walter/NWC/3_VI_AdR_Home.htm"]3ème Division[/url], VIème Corps Bavarois, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant l'Ecole de Mars, L'Armée du Rhin
Commandant de la Brigade de Tirailleurs de la Jeune Garde
</center>

Columns would not have been so close together. The minimum separation would have been sufficient to allow both to ploy into line. True, they could be in series, (one column behind the other), and both ploy into line in the same hex. But what would be the point of that? You want both battalions in line on the firing line when the shooting starts[:p]

For me, one battalion / hex is ample, irrespective of the formation.

Regards

Mark
VII Corps