<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by bkimball</i>
<br />Bill, On the return to Squadrons in Jena, the Prussians of this period had 5 squadrons for the Cuirassiers and Dragoons (except the Konigen and Auer which had 10 split into 2 "Battalions"). The Hussars had 10 (2 Bns used here too), except the von Bila Hussars (#11) which consisted only of 5 Sqdrns. The Towarczy Regt consisted of a 10 Sqdrn element and a 5 sqdrn element..or 3 Bns.
I am sure you know this, but it would seem inappropriate..unless game mechanics don't allow it..to use 4 and 8 sqdrns.
Lt Col Beric Kimball
Cdr, 2d Bde, Cheval Legere, II Cps, AdN
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
What can I say Beric. You justify my going to squadrons. However, there are always going to be those that like to mass a 800 man regiment together and push it around.
Some folks dont like the longer road columns that the squadrons produce. They contend that the infantry likewise needs companies! And then there is the entire discussion of road columns where the cavalry and artillry used the road while the infantry slogged along on the side of the road. What can I say? I have lobbied for a revision of the entire road system for some time. I also am going to continue to advocate that cavalry and infantry can mix without disordering AND that all infantry types could coexist as well together without the same.
But yes, I know what you are saying. The Prussian Towarczy Bns. as well as other units had 5 units. Then you look at the French and they had 3s and some 4s. Add in that the Austrians in Eckmuhl had 6 squadrons and other combinations come up too. We beat this issue pretty well dead. Not much I can do. Popular opinion is divided between having larger formations and squadrons.
There is one way to fix this: if John could introduce a way for squadrons in Jena to reform into a larger formation we could have our cake and eat it too. From the Panzer series: in the OB file you can build formations that have lower order units. Thus in Sicily '43 you can have Para companies that build up to battalians. The company is listed in the OB under a battalian heading.
Here is how that would work in our system:
I would list out each squadron. They would then fall under a "F" type formation. That formation type would allow all of its components to build up into one unit.
Right now we have:
A - army
W - Wing
C - Corps
D - Division
B - Brigade
Here is how a typical formation would look (taken from the halle OB):
D Reserve Cavalry
Begin
L 3 3 199 Pr.v.Wurtemburg
F Hussar #10
Begin
U 144 6 L S 95 32 3 Sq/HR#10
U 144 6 L S 95 32 4 Sq/HR#10
U 144 6 L S 95 32 5 Sq/HR#10
U 144 6 L S 95 32 6 Sq/HR#10
End
F Dragoon #9
Begin
U 140 6 H S 97 34 2 Sq/DR#9
U 140 6 H S 97 34 3 Sq/DR#9
U 140 6 H S 97 34 4 Sq/DR#9
End
F Dragoon #10
Begin
U 140 6 H S 97 34 2 Sq/DR#10
U 140 6 H S 97 34 3 Sq/DR#10
U 140 6 H S 97 34 4 Sq/DR#10
End
End
Thus what you would have is:
1. In the Scenario Editor you would lay out all of the individual components. You could then form them into one regiment if you like.
2. While as squadrons they would be able to breakdown into 2 components (the platoons that Al Amos advocated some time back).
Thus you would get the best of both worlds.
Is this possible? I dont know. I do know that if we went to this it would solve one the dilemnas we have now concerning cavalry.
I also would like to see cavalry in column or line. Column for road movement and line for field deployment. If you fight in column vs. line your opponent would gain a flank benefit of 10 percent or better. To simulate the old days of the Austrians fighting in column vs. the French line and so on.
Capt. 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]
|
