Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Bill is right the Cossacks were rubbish in a battlefield situation and I think the ratings in HPS Austerlitz are accurate.

And I am from New Zealand [:D] where the French launched a terror attack on us back in the 80's [:)][:D][:)][:0]

General de Brigade Knox
Grand Duc d'Austerlitz et Comte de Argentan



Escadron Mamelouks
Chasseurs a'Cheval
Division de Cavalerie la Vieille Garde.





CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

"The fairy tales of the French and FrenchLovingAmericans are not a reason to forget our own glory." - Anton

These be fightin' words, General.

How 'bout we get a third party to make a scenario ... say for NRC where the only units are French (not French Allied) cavalry v. Cossacks. hmmmmm.... Can you win that one, or is just fairy tale dream of glory? [:D]

Al,

It's always a pleasure to fight with you! Would you like a historical battle (Molevo boloto, July 1812, Sebastiani's 2 Light Cavalry Division vs. Platov's cossacks corps) or a fictional battle? Would I be allowed to organize cossacks as I believe to be correct? No A+++ ratings, golden morale and T-34s of course. You will be provided with oob before we start it. If it is a historical one I'll provide you with a map as well. I suggest it to be a blind scenario - both of us will receive started game protected with password so that both will have doubts about the enemy.

Bill,

It's strange. As far as I'm concerned Russian sources generally do not even pose a question of whether cossacks were better or worse than enemy cavalry. All of the XIX century works are written as if both the author and reader well know strengths and weaknesses of this sort of cavalry. Phrases like "taking into account the nature of the force" are extremely common. But they are not to be understood as "cossacks were bad cavalry", but just as "cossacks had their own way of fighting". Sometimes it was extremely effective. If the model does not allow for this way of fighting to be carried out then it is a problem of a model.

At the same time conclusions like the following are nothing but uncommon:
"This action [Mir, June 27-28 (old style) 1812] had great consequences in moral aspect. In cavalry either they always beat, or always get beaten. It all depends on the first success. Platov had to smash the enemy at Mir in order to stop the bragging and impudence of poles. Only one more time at Romanovo was our rear guard attacked, but it annihilated completely the first horse jaegers and one grenadiers regiment of the enemy, but thatnks to that the army [2nd Army of the West under Bagration] never heard about formidable, as they say, polish cavalry, of which Napoleon had 20 thousand. His advance guard did no longer pursuit but only observed the 2nd army."
Written by a future field-marshal Paskevich, at a time commander of 26th Div/7th Corps. In 1812-13 cossacks could attack enemy almost twice as strong as them, defeat and take a lot of trophies - generals, guns, colors, supplies, valuables. The examples are numerous! Do you really need a list? Did you never meet descriptions of events like that in those Russian sources you use?

It does not coincide with the image of useless cavalry we have in the games. Everyone tells cossacks were great for small war. But I can't see this great light cavalry in huge scenarios! Please tell me how on Earth one can "send a joined party of [3 cossacks regiments], not more than 100 men altogether" against two enemy squadrons and expect to see "both these squadrons were completely destroyed and taken prisoners: 1 captain and 152 men with their horses" (quotes from report of GM Wintzingerode to Alexander I about the action of Benkendorf's detachment). Is it possible with E-rated leaderless units? The description of cossacks could be tolerated earlier with no major battles involving them. Now with the release of Austerlitz such a state of affairs is simply ahistorical.

That said I have to stress that I do enjoy these games. I do think that HPS in general and Bill Peters personally have made a huge job. I do see how you progress over time and do value that. As well as I value the customer support and constantly developing engine. I have no desire to put labels or offend anyone. At the same time, as someone who works professionally with mathematical models of reality, I understand that every model has it's limitations. "Cossacks question" is the place where it does not fit the real history well. It does not fit at all! I'm not telling "You all are fools and the game is trash!" I say "The game is not as good as it could be. As it deserves to be, considering the amount of work done."

When I see a body of French heavies charging up front and causing 50+ casualties on 100 man strong cossacks unit I'm surprised. When I see the next turn the same French cavalry regain order because they were A+ and had a leader with them, while my cossacks rout away, unrout in 3 turns and remain disordered for long hours (try doing it faster if the only leader has 25 subordinate units, most of them acting independently), I'm in stunned. When a troop of cossacks is meleed, disordered, then it is isolated by another cavalry units because the disorder decreased their speed, then arty is brought in and the whole troop is annihilated by fire, I'm in rage. I do not blame opponent - he did everything within the rules and I would do the same. I blame the engine that allows such a behavior. When I'm told it's the historical situation I start writing posts full of sarcasm that offend everyone around.

Solving the problem will most probably require recoding the engine and recalibration of parameters. Apparently it has to be done if you want to portray campaigns of 1812-14 well. If you ever need a constructive criticism I would give it.

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Adjutant Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

Anton,

Molevo boloto, July 1812, Sebastiani's 2 Light Cavalry Division vs. Platov's cossacks corps.

That works for me.

Colonel Al Amos
1ère Brigade Commandant, 2ème Division de Dragons "Gare aux Dragons!"
Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie "Vae Victis!"
L'Armée du Nord

Anton the Cossack

It has a ring to it what do think gents? [:D]

regards
The Mamaluke!

General de Brigade Knox
Grand Duc d'Austerlitz et Comte de Argentan



Escadron Mamelouks
Chasseurs a'Cheval
Division de Cavalerie la Vieille Garde.





CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Colin,

I'm hoping to make it 'Anton the CAPTURED Cossack'. That sounds better, imo. [:D]

Colonel Al Amos
1ère Brigade Commandant, 2ème Division de Dragons "Gare aux Dragons!"
Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie "Vae Victis!"
L'Armée du Nord

No, its not a problem with the model. Based on reports on how the cossacks fought on the battlefield, they are rated correctly.



Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club

Bill,

Apparently we won't manage to change each other's mind. Helga, some lemonade here!

Al,

You have an advantage. In case you are captured the phrase "Albert the captured french postman" won't surprise anyone.[:p][8D][;)]

Colin,

Ethnically I'm not. By a place (and right) of birth I belong to Don Host.

BTW, if you take so much care in the action would you mind being our umpire? I'll send the files and instructions. You'll need only to place units on the map. Half an hour of work at most.

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Adjutant Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

BTW, I just received a heap of books from James Arnold, including Crisis on the Danube. It would be interesting to know his opinion. Although there is a lot of work I took a look at his Battles for Empire http://www.napoleonbooks.com/battles_for_empire.html

All the units are rated using two parameter rating. Letter (Militia-Regular-Veteran-Elite), which governs units special abilities and numeric from 1 to 10 which is a probability to rout without bonuses applied (n*10%, where n is the raiting). It can be with some limitations translated into our quality raiting system. Our E(66% in brackets is a probability of unit to fail morale check with no bonuses applied) is M3(70%), D(50%) is M5(50%), C(33%) is R7(30%), B(17%) is V8(20%), A(0%) is V9 or E9(10%), the higher ratings being E10 (Arnold does not use them).

After a slight look at the scenarios I noticed that:
1. French infantry are generally Bs. Some As, some Cs if the units had lots of conscripts, low morale, etc.
2. Allied infantry are generally Cs, grenadiers Bs and As.
3. French and Allied light cavalry (hussars, chasseurs a cheval) are Bs.
4. Both Russian and French Dragoons are rated Cs. Russians by the reasons Bill so often advocates here, French because of their very poor performance (questions to Mr. Arnold). Sankt-Petersburg dragoons are V9, that is A.
5. Cuirassiers are As and Bs.

And finally, the reason to write all this, cossacks and Austrian Insurrection hussars are rated the same - M7. M means they are not actually able to fight as a regular cavalry - a charge in closed formation was unnatural for both of them. 7 because the war spirit as well as horsemanship in both the types of cavalry were very high. As I got it authors suggest to decrease significantly irregular cavalry charging bonuses. At the same time they are compensated with enhanced movement in closed terrain (forests).

One more important point is a chain of command. Every regiment has it's commander included. Hence Russian and Prussian cavalry has one leader for every 5 or 10 squadrons (depending on regiments size) instead of one leader for 25 and more squadrons that is so common in CPE and CPA. French still have a slight advantage in this one - 1 leader for 3 squadrons on the average.

Sounds so natural. A clear system is outlined. Every case is considered individually and changes are introduced. As a result Sankt-Petersburg dragoons are As (instead of C), great irregular cavalry is actually a great irregular cavalry with it's own pros and cons while Itallian Garde d'Honneur is M5 (D) as a unit consisting of the wealthy youth willing to have beautiful uniforms (not A+ as we have in Wagram).

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Adjutant Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>

I have been studying the role of Cossacks during the Napoleonic Wars for a number of years. I will have to dig out some of the research and references which I have collected to support Anton's concerns about both the game system and western historians under valuing Cossack cavalry.

In the meantime, all the contributors to this stream of posts may be interested in Alexander Mikerbidze's recent post on Peter Chuikevich's April 1812 War Plan in the Napoleon Series website:

http://www.napoleon-series.org/

Complete translation of Chuikevich's Memo (views: 223)
Alexander Mikaberidze -- 11/15/2009, 3:46 pm


Shtabs-Kapitan Bill Cann
New Russian Dragoon Regt
13th Brigade,IV Cav.Corps
2nd Russian Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Genghis</i>
<br />I have been studying the role of Cossacks during the Napoleonic Wars for a number of years. I will have to dig out some of the research and references which I have collected to support Anton's concerns about both the game system and western historians under valuing Cossack cavalry.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

If you guys want higher unit quality, why not just edit the oob and play a custom scenario or two?

FM Sir 'Muddy' Jones, KG
2nd Life Guards, Household Cavalry

Ken,

I agree with your suggestion, but I do see their point. How would you like the British infantry quality set because of its 'apparent' falling apart during the retreat to Coruna?

I think that's what the guys are trying to say to the designers, dig deeper on your research so that in the CD shipped scenarios the various armies are treated fairly and accurately as to how they are set in the oobs.

Colonel Al Amos
1ère Brigade Commandant, 2ème Division de Dragons "Gare aux Dragons!"
Ier Corps de Réserve de Cavalerie "Vae Victis!"
L'Armée du Nord

I am wondering if a fair compromise might be higher morale and quality for Cossacks but no ability to charge? Can they be coded to still have cavalry movement factor without a charge ability?[?]

I sometimes play without the charge ability as a house rule.

Lieutenant General
Ed Blackburn
Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA
3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

In short, this game needs to be played and then rated before you can make any comments about units.

Changing one Russian hussar unit is not going to change the outcome of the battle.

We played the game to death and found that the Russians could win.

Once you have played it six or seven times come back and talk to me about it. Send me your game files, let me know who played who (Paco vs. me is always a blowout so that wouldnt have been a good example - Dean vs. me is more of an even match).

So send me some game data that proves I got it wrong and I will be happy to correct the game values (victory levels).

But the armies were carefully thought out and they are correct. Cossacks were not battle cavalry and the Allied high command was just plain awful at the battle. Only one or two commanders made good decisions and that is up to the players anyway! No rating upgrade on a leader is going to improve decision making.

Some historical notes:

The usual numbers at Austerlitz were just plain wrong and I first read this in Bowden's work and then Goetz echoed it. They seemed to be the only two authors I read (Ian Castle just echoed the OB from another book) that made any attempt at setting the record straight.

Thus in fact the French nearly outnumbered the Allies! And frankly to have rated the French as six morale for their lights and 5 morale for their line would not have been right (this will be corrected in Jena btw).

What you had was a confused fight. The Allies had no idea that Napoleon was going to move up on to the heights. The French blundered into Allied formations on the heights and had the Allies had generals as good as the French the battle would have gone the other way.

Unit comparisons:

French:
Ligne - 4 morale for the most part. A few of them are 5.
Lights - 5 morale for the most part. A few of them are 6.
Comb. elites - 6 morale. And worth it!
Chasseurs - 4 morale
Hussars - 5 morale
Dragoons - 5 morale (but L class not H)
Carabiniers/Cuir. - 6 morale
Guard - well I will not go into those ratings - they are standard more or less for the series and correct.

Russians:
Musketeers - 4 morale
Jagers - 4 morale (and correct - plenty of books mentioned that they were not up to the same level as the French lights - poorly lead and equipped - the lower end of the line infantry)
Comb. Grenadiers - 5 morale (and no account I read of them showed me that they were 6 morale)
Grenadier companies of the Grenadier regiments - 5, some 6s.
Hussars - 5 - same as French!
Dragoons - 4 - not as good as French - poorly mounted at times too.
Cuirassiers - 6 - same as French

You guys are picking here to really find a case. I add in that the Austrian Hussars are rated as morale 6 at Austerlitz when in fact they performed more like 4! I probably should look over the Austrian cavalry for this battle a bit closer.

So where in the above list do you find a huge disparity? Put a leader on a Dragoon stack and you have morale 5. They only break on a 6. But no, some of you will tell me you played the game and that your dragoons routed all over the place. But then I will look at the previous turn's file and note that you didn't stack a leader on them.

First, this is all pre-play comments. Second, we can all find source material that makes units out to be glorious! All I have to do is read Marbot's book and the French Chasseurs would be ranked as 7-8 morale!

So until you have played the game and can show me plenty of proof that the Allies in the game are incorrect based on RESULTS and not armchair quarterbacking I fail to see any issue with the game.

Send me finished games. They help me out alot. Send me in-game files too. That helps even better because I can see how you got from Point A to Point B to the end game result.

But we do have accepted truth and that is what I go with. And I am bound to a certain degree to French and English and German sources. But I have found that either history is totally wrong or that the cossacks didn't fight well on the battlefield. And until all of history is proved wrong no native cossack or Russian account is going to change my mind.

For a good read on the Cossacks pick up Dr. Summerfield's work, "Cossack Hurrah" available from On Military Matters. He details out each cossack, bashkir, etc. group nicely. He probably has some inaccuracies I am sure but he did a good job of representing the Russian irregular cavalry I feel.

If we want fancified accounts of units just let me know. I can pull down plenty of exciting quotes about the French hussars and line infantry to make the Austerlitz OB into a "9" morale laden text file.

Colonel Bill Peters
Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20ème légère Brigade de Cavalerie, 13ème Hussar Regiment
HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt, Austerlitz and ... more to come)
Not the President of the Musket and Cannon Club

Bill,

You are amazing! Almost two years before we had a massive quarrel in the Tavern regarding the improvement of French morale in Jena (http://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9641). I was not the only one who said that based on our experience French morale is quite enough to provide a historically accurate battle. Now, almost two years later, we have the French morale decreased only because "frankly to have rated the French as six morale for their lights and 5 morale for their line would not have been right". It's massaging my ego to see the point of view I vindicated with such a zeal finally prevailing. But the question stands "What for?". What for was the change made back in 2008? BTW your current decision was foreseen by several club members. None of us played the games with modified oobs back in March 2008. Not always is a real experiment needed to provide a correct answer. This does not imply the experiment is not needed at all. It means only that expert opinion is also a valuable source of information.

An interesting fact: during that very discussion I wrote (and when I looked through it bumped into the post) that composition of Russian army arty coys was incorrect. You replied that with 80+ scenarios involving Russian army it's very difficult to correct the mistake. Two years later we see Austerlitz and its oobs. The composition of Russian army arty is different from the one at Jena. But it is even further from what took place in reality in 1803 and remained unchenged until the age of Nicolas I. The question is the same "What for?". What for would anyone commit himself to help improving the games if the real help already provided remains unclaimed?

You recommend a work of Dr. Summerfield. But take a closer look at the front cover of the book. It depicts a cossack in correct uniform as of 1812 (artist's name is Alexander Telenik, work first published in late 90s in "Action at Lyakhovo"; a complete picture represents also a humiliated french cuirassier [8D]). No brownish robes, no collpacs a la Santa Claus. But having this book as a primary source and artwork at hand how could you call the drawings by Joe Amoral great? I admit it was a hard work to create them. But making a historical pictures based on incorrect sources is simply a waste of time, isn't it? How could it pass by the team?

I made a Google querry with "Summerfield Cossack Hurrah". The very first link leads to review of the book by Mikaberidze (http://www.napoleon-series.org/reviews/ ... urrah.html). The very first line after the title reads as follows: "Napoleon is credited with declaring, "Cossacks are the best light troops among all that exist. If I had them in my army, I would go through all the world with them."" The whole matter is about that. As a person interested in the history I want my "best light troops among all that exist" on the map. Comments like "they were loosy in battles" won't suffice. You created marvelous huge maps and set epic operational scale scenarios. In these scenarios there is quite enough room for small warfare. Give me the best light cavalry of the era! Give me the cavalry that can face enemy night and day, hide in the woods and appear wherever possible, a cavalry that can swim across rivers sneak into the rear and capture everything that is not protected. Give me cavalry that will evade everything opposed including massed charges whatever the terrain. I see no way to depict such a cavalry within the engine we have right now but to improve their quality.

To sum up about the cossacks. It is universal knowledge that cossacks were outstanding in small warfare while only average or even poor in pitched battle. The current state of affairs depicts their poor sides very well. It does not at all depict their good sides. With operational scale scenarios involving large masses of cossacks it is a real fault of the system.

As for the ratings and qualities I'm talking not about absolute values but about relative. Russian army performed much better than Austrian. Almost at par with the French. At least at Amstetten, Krems and Schongraben. Just compare these battles to Elchingen or Memingen.

Started it in such a nice mood and concluded as always with fighting. Helga! Drinks over here! Happy New Year, Bill. It's very impressive to see you already working hard. Wish we settle these minor disagreements and finally start enjoying our hobby (i.e. capture froggies for cossacks and being captured by cossacks for froggies[;)][:p][:o)]).

PS There were no combined grenadiers in Russian army neither in 1805 nor in 1806.

<center></center>
<center><b>Eyo Imperatorskogo Velichestva Leib-Kirassirskogo polku
General-Adjutant Anton Valeryevich Kosyanenko
Commander of the Second Army of the West </b></center>