Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

I would be interested in hearing everyone's views on the Quality of the Prussian troops in the 1806 period. In the very good HPS Jena game they seem to be superior quality wise in virtually every arm. I think it makes for an interesting game (my favourite of the series so far) but were the Prussians really superior?

Cavalry - I pretty much agree with the ratings on this one.

Artillery - many of the Prussian gunners are rated A quality, from what I have read the Prussian artillery of 1806 is some times referred to as a museum piece. As the French gunners were reasonably renowned by 1806 is it accurate for them to be rated lower. Perhaps HPS have done this for game balance?

Infantry I cannot agree that the Prussian infantry is consistently higher quality or at least equal to the French. The French infantry of 1805 and 1806 was the best Napoleon ever commanded and was consistently better than any other infantry in Europe at that time. The training at the camps of Bologne (I think it was) followed by the experience of the Austerlitz campaign would ensure the veteran infantry of the Grande armee were better than their Prussian opponents by 1806.

I realise the superior French command system is a huge advantage and in many ways reflects the French morale but an interesting debate none the less.

I look forward to the comments. Please feel free to lambaste, correct or maybe even agree with me.[:D]

Regards




Colonel Colin Knox,
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur
La Jeune Garde
IIIe Corps ADN
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

There was a deliberate attempt made to use the combination of Command and Morale to give a particular "effect". So, the Prussian combo of higher morale but lesser command creates an army that has some staying power, but can still be fairly brittle.

If you just want to look at the simple troop quality in an "objective" sense, then I'd fully agree the French should outrate the Prussians, and by a fair margin. These are not Old Fritz's soldiers (and even in his day, the army he left to his heirs was not remotely the army that was left to him. The wars had done a major number on it). The Horse of course was among the best in Europe (especially the Saxon Horse).

However, the real question is how to represent that in the confines of the engine.

Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Bn
Allied Coalition C-in-C

Thanks Gary I think I agree with you that was what I thought must have been the case

regards
Colin

Colonel Colin Knox,
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur
La Jeune Garde
IIIe Corps ADN
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Gary hits the nail on the head. Please note the NUMEROUS amount of extra French leaders that give them a one morale bonus as well as rallying benefits as well.

So the French will rout a bit more often perhaps but they will recover from disorder and rout better than the Prussians.

The Prussians can stand for some time under fire but once they rout they recover from both disorder and rout much slower as my MP game of Jena with Dean and Paco (Marco Rietveldt is my partner). My Prussians hold up very well but once they disorder or rout they are harder to bring back.


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)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill, I don't recall if we'd discussed this way back when (a brain like swiss cheese, that's what I have), but the one concern I have with this approach isn't if it's effective in doing what is desired, it is, but in the "first glance" response of a player, especially a new one to the system, who buys the game, loads it up and voila! the Prussians are "better" than the French. I don't recall if you explained this in your designer notes, but that's something which will seem counterintuitive to new players, and frankly, offputting.

Feldmarschall Freiherr Gary McClellan
Generalissimus Imperial Austrian Army
Portner Grenadier Bn
Allied Coalition C-in-C

Thank you gentlemen I like the solution that was developed within the engine. I agree with Gary Bill. That it may be worth explaining the logic somewhere if you have not already.

In the Jena games I am playing I think its quite a good tactic to try and disorder the Prussians even if you lose a melee. As once the become disordered they tend to turn more rabble like. [:D]

Regards

Colonel Colin Knox,
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur
La Jeune Garde
IIIe Corps ADN
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Concerning force-disorders in the game (you attack just to disorder) Paco noted and I concurred that the attacker tends to lose more in the long run. Using a cheap bn. (300 men) to attack one of those 700-800 man bns. of the Prussians/Saxons ends up costing you more in the long run.

The only time I do this is when my opponent and I have not discussed such attacks as illegal AND when it can force a position that is lightly manned to fall apart.

Practically suicide if you do it against a prepared position.

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)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Hi Bill
No I only do it around 1-1 odds or maybe 3 to 4 at worst. I am selective about it. Basically I like to deliver a series of attacks that spread disorder and defeat at my various attack points. The key being the integratiion with a well thought out operational plan.

With sufficient mass the odd loss does not matter and it builds the pressure on the attack points.

It's worked well so far [:D]

regards

Colonel Colin Knox,
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur
La Jeune Garde
IIIe Corps ADN
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

I do note that attacking just to disorder is not in keeping with the period. Its rather gamey at best and I do attempt to avoid doing it in most games. I did some of these attacks against Colin Gaskell in our NRC game and frankly I came out on the short end of the stick.

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)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill I can't agree that a 700 man btn attacking a 750 man btn is not in keeping with the period. Or even a 600 to a 700.

When launching for example a fixing attack this kind of pressure was common

regards

Colonel Colin Knox,
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur
La Jeune Garde
IIIe Corps ADN
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

<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 />Bill I can't agree that a 700 man btn attacking a 750 man btn is not in keeping with the period. Or even a 600 to a 700.

When launching for example a fixing attack this kind of pressure was common

regards

Colonel Colin Knox,
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur
La Jeune Garde
IIIe Corps ADN
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm



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

I agree that 700 men would attack 750 men. John's engine/melee resolution needs help in this area.

What I dont agree with is the idea of a "fixing attack" being translated into disordering a guy, i.e. knowing what it does in game terms. The assault by a 700 vs. 750 bn. was a known quantity in those days that it could succeed. In the HPS engine unless its Guard vs. Ldw it probably will fail.

We both know that the tactic is to render your opponent disordered. That was not the goal in those days - it was for fire to disorder an opponent and then the assault would go in.

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)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]

Bill we have different opinions on this and I fully respect yours.
But that does not make me gamey because my opinion is different from yours

Regards

Colonel Colin Knox,
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur
La Jeune Garde
IIIe Corps ADN
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Well what about successive cavalry charges against a defender? I have seen this tactic as well. The first charge goes in, and if it fails, then another charge follows. The effect is the same as the "fixing attack" that you two are discussing. The game engine allowd multiple melees by cavalry.

The embedded melee rule would disallow this type of attack but I generally don't use the embedded melee rule since we got the "No Melee Elimination" option.

The attacker here may gain the hex, but how many units become disordered? The player must judge for themselved the trade-offs.

I can still whip "gamey" French players. It works both ways. [;)]

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

Gentlemen,

A couple more thoughts on the relative qulaity of the two armies. In discussing this it would be useful to understand two terms from US Army Field Manuals (I assume they're still there anyway). The terms are agility and flexibility. These terms must be looked at both in terms of physical and mental prowess (or, in the case of the 1806 Prussian Army, lack thereof). Agility refers to being able to do the various maneuvers necessary in a controlled and fluid manner as well as being mentally able to conceive what maneuvers might be appropriate. Flexibility refers to the ability of the troops and leaders to react appropriately to battlefield or campaign events as they unfold.

On the operational and tactical level the French drastically outperformed the Prussians in both of these characteristics. Starting with the officer corps, the French were by this time trained to skillfully execute Napoleon's revolutionary war making. They responded to opportunites that were presented to them without waiting for committee decisions or orders from above. On certain occasions, they might even disobey an order to exploit an opportunity/situation that was not foreseen at the time an order was given. Prussian officers couldn't even conceive of such a thing. The agility of the French forces was such that the campaign developed with such rapidity that the Prussian officer corps were thrown totally off balance early on and never regained their footing. One of the challenges of modeling this in a game is that the gamer cannot be expected/assumed to be as inept as the Prussian officer corps so at least at the operational level and above the Prussian army ought to perform better than it did in reality. In this campaign and even the battle as it unfolded, once a path/course of action was chosen for a given formation, this was seldom altered as the situation changed (except perhaps with paralysis/total inaction). At the tactical level the lower leader ratings are probably a good way to model history.

On the level of the actual troops on the field, the Prussian troops were fairly well disciplined in terms of executing orders and performing parade ground maneuvers. Hence the units that would stand for hours and be mowed down in rows before breaking. On the other hand they could not be expected to show the maneuverability and flexibility of the French. On top of this consider that they were organized such that even road marches were slower than the French as their organization/formations were ponderous and slow. On the strategic level consider Napoleon's "battalion carre" as he advanced through the forests on three paralles axes with the ability of any one to stand and repel an attack against it while the other two were in a position to envelop and destroy such blocking or attacking force -- the Prussian foces were incapable of coordinating their movements/actions sufficiently to match such a maneuver. On the battlefield, consider Davout's troops coming out of the defile into action and smoothly and seemlessly going through a series of maneuvers/formation changes to respond to the changing battefield situation. Their discipline, flexibility and agility served as force multipliers that allowed them to not only withstand but rout a superior force. To model this I feel that French infantry movement rates should be higher than the Prussian and that formation changes should have a much lower cost. This would show that the French were more adept at responding to the changing tactical situation while still leaving the Prussians with the ability to withstand a significant amount of punishment before crumbling. (A similar concept should be considered in all games with regard to morale class relating to cost of formation changes, as poorly trained troops took longer to perform a maneuver than did higher quality units. Better units should be more maneuverable/flexible. This is modelled in part by the greater propensity of untrained troops to disorder when attempting to change formation, but assuming they succeed they still do it just as fast as a guard unit -- this ought not be so).

That's emough on the subject for now.

Regards,



General Theron Lambert
Grande Duc de Montereau et Duc d'Angers
Cavalerie du
VI Corps
Armee du Rhin
Commandant Grenadiers a Pied "les Grognards"

<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 />Bill we have different opinions on this and I fully respect yours.
But that does not make me gamey because my opinion is different from yours

Regards

Colonel Colin Knox,
Baron de l'Empire
2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur
La Jeune Garde
IIIe Corps ADN
http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm



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

Colin - noone is accusing you of being gamey. The thought is that just making an attack to disorder a unit is not what a "fixing attack" was all about. It was to keep the enemy pinned in one place by advancing on them to keep them from moving to some other sector of the field or interdicting the movements of your army across their front.

I believe that the Hougomont attack should have been a fixing attack instead of a full blown assault.

Anyway, I have used the disorder tactic several times. You can call me gamey if you like! [:D]

Hmm, speaking of which its time to hit the shower ... sort of smelling gamey at this moment!

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)

[url="http://www.fireandmelee.net"]Fire and Melee Wargame site[/url]