Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

As I play more games using the excellent simulations we have available from HPS and BG I have come to a new opinion.

I have always on the table top been focused on the classical turning of an enemies flank followed by the decisive blow to the hinge as my game winner. The approach of a Napoleonic purist I guess.

However I have recently come to appreciate through experience the importance and arguably the preeminence of central position.

An interesting conclusion. If you study the Tondu you will find he predominantly used this approach from 1809 onwards. I find myself choosing it first more and more over the wider flank attack.

What say you Napoleonic scholars? Is the ‘mass’ advantage conveyed from central position more important than the subtlety of the flank maneuver?

Jeka, Tomasz, Paco, Muddy, Mssrs Barlow and Kosyanenko what say you?
Who else can contribute to this classical debate?

Helga a round here for anyone who joins a light cavalryman for a drink and a debate.



General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire



2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde



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

Well historically from 1809 onwards the French weren't up to subtle maneuvers. Not that some previously were subtle. We are talking here of tactical battlefield maneuvers rather than grand campaign strategy. And the allies were more reactive to such. Plus of course Bonaparte's philosophy of all risked on one big battle meant he didn't want to maneuver only to have his enemy run off. Every battle thus became a slugfest which means a central position.

As for games. Both options are open although in BG games very high objective points ensures the allies are forced to stand where they may not want to. That's why I prefer HPS in that respect. The campaign option means there's no last man standing philosophy either. So strategy in part is determined by the game engine. Either though reward the bum's rush approach if executed properly. So left right and centre at once, simply impossible to coordinate historically. Both engines allow immediate transmission and execution of orders, and that's really the biggest problem in simulating the era.

I rather like moving my little men, combat less so. So I prefer flank movements, hidden if possible.

Not sure that has exactly addressed the question but still.

Generaal
2de Brigade
2de Nederlandsche Div
I Corps
Anglo Allied Army

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Colin Knox</i>
<br />Is the ‘mass’ advantage conveyed from central position more important than the subtlety of the flank maneuver?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I can't say that one approach is superior to the other. It depends on the situation really, the position and relative size and quality of elements of your own and the enemy's army, the terrain, roads, objectives, lines of communication and supply, the weather, the nature of your opponent, etc. So much data to absorb...

I think it's good to have a few of the 'classic' tricks up your sleeve as you consider the situation, and try to visualize which ones might work for you or be used against you. You wouldn't just want to be known for using the same approach in every battle, even if you are good at it. It's nice to be the attacker and to try things, but sometimes you are just having to defend and react to one of these strategies and your success depends on reading the enemy's intentions early enough to be able to be flexible and organise your forces and move reserves to counter and to deny him the initiative. Every move can potentially be countered and so it can become a battle of minds and wills, of deception, cunning, or just brute force! Or luck...

I equally enjoy the challenges of defending and attacking, or turning defence into attack, and generally reading the situation. I often like to stop and take an overview of the situation by utilizing that right side of the brain thinking which allows you step back from words and details and pre-conceived ideas and instead see in front of you the inter-related mass of spacial relationships, shapes, energy flows and forces, emerging patterns, as well as psychological opportunities and barriers. For me it helps see things creatively and to formulate a few abstract ideas and then flesh them out with the details and see if they match any of the time-honoured strategies. Not that all this necessarily leads to flamboyant or bold manoeuvres. Sometimes a dull and conservative approach is required and works best.

I think what I am saying is that a working knowledge of a variety of strategic and tactical ploys and their relative merits is of course essential, but no more important than the skill of knowing when to apply them, of reading the situation in front of you and being open minded, flexible and creative...

Now that I've confused the whole issue I'll have a drop of whatever Colin and Andy are drinking.[8D]

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/nwc/nwc_personal_record.htm"]Brigadier General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>

The big thing in these games always turns to how many units can you eliminate without losing too many of your own.

That said I prefer to be able to flank my opponents and isolate them. The central position is nice but you end up driving them away rather than bottling them up.

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 and ... more to come)

If your center can stand a possible counter-attack, a double envelopment is a good option.

If performed correctly, the enemy flanks are turned into the center and a following center attack can yield a big win.

However, it is usually difficult to out flank an enemy force already in line of battle.

<b><font color="gold">Ernie Sands
General, 1ère Brigade, 19ème Division, VI Corps, L'Armee du Rhin
President, Colonial Campaign Club
</b></font id="gold">

It's important to understand what are you trying to get. It's important to remember that flanking by itself does not yield victory. If the enemy has enough reserves he simply brings them in and you have yet the same frontal assault. The generals considered great since ancient times would do so. Most probably they will negate your movement, cause you a little bit more casualties and claim their victory. Completely undecisive one. But really invincible general such as Sun-Tzu or Sovorov and even those being simply very good like Gustav Adolf, Prince Eugene, Lord Marlborough and Napoleon wouldn't wait for you to complete your flanking movement. They will strike your frontally engaged force with everything they have, crush it and then deal with the flanking one.

Such a maneuver may be successful only if the enemy is weak. If he does not have enough reserves. But if so why waste time? Why not to strike and crush him in frontal engagement and capture all of his army on the pursuit? These ritual dances with stretching the line and outflanking are only good when the enemy is weak and passive. But if he is not, if he understands the importance of concentration, they are simply deadly.

That said I didn't deny the fact there exist different situations. Sometimes you have forces arriving from different directions. Sometimes the enemy has one flank weaker than another. These are the situations the attacker may have his forces flanking the enemy. You may attack the enemy trying to outflank you, etc., etc., etc...

There are quite a few situations when flanking position is useful. But it shouldn't obscure the fact it's not the flanking position that solves the battle. The excessive straw breaks camels back. The essence of warfare is to have enough straw available and to put it on the right back and at the right time. The essence of warfare is to use your "fullness" against enemy "emptyness" and evade his "fullness" with your own "emptyness" (Sun Tzu Ch.6).

So "No maneuvers in sight of the enemy! Simply attack!"

<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>

Colin,
Let me remind you the most disastrous flank maneuver of Napoleonic era – Austerlitz. The plan of allies was to outflank Napoleon and crush him. You know what happened… I cannot say that I prefer flanking maneuvers or center attacks, I prefer attack – Strike first is my only rule


<hr noshade size="1">
<b>general-feldmarshal count Eugene Gulyaev aka Jeka
Club Secretary
4th Cavalry Corps

Leib-Gvardii Semenovskij Polk</b>

Gents great responses thanks. Good to see our Russian friends joining in to.

Jeka that does not surprise me! ATTTTTACCCCCKKKKKKK! I agree by the way.

Anton your explanation is exactly why I lean more and more towards central position. Well put sir.

Helga a round here for all at this table.


General de Brigade Knox
Baron de l'Empire



2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants)
La Jeune Garde



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

I am no scholar, and I have gotten spanked by Colin 3 times, but I prefer to concentrate my force when possible. If the enemy gives me the flank, I take it, but I prefer the Napoleonic principal of keeping as many troops together as possible. In these games, if the skill level of the two players is close then numbers often tell over tactics, so I prefer to have numbers when possible.

But, I really prefer counterattacking to attack. I am not a good player when attacking a prepared position and I prefer to let my opponent show his hand first. This is tricky and as of late I am getting better at it (wait too long, and you will never get the initiative, counterattack too soon, and the enemy may not be disordered enough). But I almost always play the allies (except in MOE) and I find this method of fighting to suit them well, especially the Austrians, who lack cavalry. I am more aggressive with the Russians and Prussians.

Feldmarschall Jim 'Prinz' Pfluecke
Commander, Austrian Cavalry Reserve
3 Graf O'Reilly Chevauxleger Rgt
Hahn Grenadier Bn

"You wouldn't just want to be known for using the same approach in every battle" - Antony.

Antony, if I won every battle I wouldn't mind at all.[;)]

al

I believe the choice of action is dictated on the relative strengths and weaknesses of the opposing forces, their operational stance and the ground which they are operating over.

Both are required dependant on the situation, regardless of the operational plan.

Both can be conducted operationaly or tactically, again should be dictated by the factors above.

What one is chosen and how it is carried out and reacted too will decide the action. Should the choice be the 'wrong' choice maybe the right choice in the end if the opponant chooses the 'wrong' counter.

It really is a cyclic argument that depends on the commanders ability and descions at the end of the day really.

Flexibility through preparedness from evaluation. [:D]

Col Mike Ellwood
Konig Regt
1 Bde, 22 Div
VII Saxon Corps, ADR

Mike,
You put the point across so much more clearly and concisely than I did.[:D]

<center>[url="http://homepage.ntlworld.com/a.r.barlow/nwc/nwc_personal_record.htm"]Brigadier General Antony Barlow[/url]
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/anglo_allied_army_stats/Anglo_Allied_Army_Cavalry_Corps.htm"]2nd British (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps[/url] ~
~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/dragoons.html"]4th (Royal Irish) Dragoon Guards[/url] ~
</center>

Antony,

But yours was much more interesting to read
"For me it helps see things creatively and to formulate a few abstract ideas...etc"

Figuratively your using White Phos where I'm using point detonated HE [:D].

Col Mike Ellwood
Konig Regt
1 Bde, 22 Div
VII Saxon Corps, ADR