Preußische Armee Kadetten-Korps
Prussian Depth Tactics
By Jason Cawley
Over at the NHWC, I once wrote a few articles on historical "depth tactics" and how to implement them in BG game terms. With some revisions, I provide an example of that again in the form of using the Prussian brigade structure. That is slightly different for the regular formations at Ligny in PTW than in BGW - though some of the brigades e.g. of III Corps at Ligny, also have the 1 line, 2 landwehr structure of the Waterloo forces.
The following is based on the typical brigade structure of I or II Corps at Ligny. Minor alterations are needed to accommodate 2 Landwehr regiments, but do not seriously alter the idea.
So what do you get in a Prussian brigade? 9 large infantry battalions in 3 regiments, 2 of them fusilier, 4 line (first 2 regiments) and 3 landwehr. Plus a battery, and some small attached units (skirmishers in I Corps, cavalry in the rest). How are they meant to be deployed and to fight, in BG terms? Here is one way that I have found useful and that follows Prussian doctrine reasonably closely.
First, lets deploy the brigade, in several "ranks" front-to-back. In the first, put just the 2 fusilier battalions of the line regiments, beside each other and in line formation. Leave a hex gap between them. If they are large, you can deploy them into extended line for a longer frontage, and whether they are or not, you can extend them to cover 3 hexes more loosely if desired, by deploying skirmishers out of them on either flank of the "formed" line (assuming you use my .oob revisions of equivalent ones yourself, that is).
On the center-line of the brigade, behind those two, place the brigade battery. If you have two (one horse, or attached from Corps reserve), you can put those on the flanks instead (slightly more historical actually) - meaning 2 hexes back and 1 to the side of the fusilier battalions.
A note about the historical accuracy of the battery placements. In reality, usually the batteries would be on-line or slightly ahead of the forward lines of infantry, at least until in close contact. But this deployment does not work properly in BG games, because of some abstractions of the BG game system and problems with it. The biggie there is that "phasing" breaks up what would be continuous movement. Infantry historically counted on being able to spring forward to help defend the guns in the same time it took attackers to close with them. The guns could also displace (or their crews could) during an enemy move on the battery. In the BG game system, only the ZOCs ahead of formed units approximate this ability. To "support" a battery in BG terms, then, you must either stack with it or cover with ZOCs the hexes ahead of it, from which it can be meleed.
Stacking with the guns doesn't work, because the BG system treats guns and infantry in the same hex as a square-negating formation, quite vulnerable to enemy cavalry. In addition, guns alone melee very poorly in the BG system. Against flank attackers that may be reasonably, but frontal charges on batteries could be very expensive in reality but are quite easy (especially with cavalry) in BG game terms. The proper thing would be some sort of "caseshot fire zone of control" that automatically triggered attacks on the frontal fire zone of a battery. (The old board game Wellington's Victory actually had such a rule.) But with the system we have, protecting artillery becomes a matter of ZOCs covering it, to reflect the ability of infantry to leap to their defense. And that does not happen in "real time", but only by placing infantry slight ahead of where it would be historically (before the enemy got too close).
One can lament all this, but it is not more historical to unilaterally leave guns that fall easily to melee ahead of the infantry to be captured at the first rush. And there is certainly evidence of this formation, as for example Thiebalt's famous battery at Austerlitz, firing when unmasked by a French bayonet push. The charge created an angle in the line and the battery was able to fire at very close range.
Next, on-line with the battery or batteries, you want the remaining battalions of the 2 line or forward regiments - in column, stacked with one another and seperated. They should be behind the fusiliers and (with central battery placement) a bit farther to the flanks as well. These are effectively your two "fists" for melee combat, when that is called for.
Next, 2 hexes back from those place your 3 landwehr battalions in column formation, spread out into alterate hexes. Attached cavalry and supply wagon can go 2 hexes further back behind even those, or alternately in one of the intervals.
A variation on the above is to put one of the landwehr battalions on-line as well, making 3 all told, and then add a 3rd 2-battalion column to the second rank, or increase the size of the column stacks to 3 battalions. This can work with the Waterloo-style, 2-landwehr-regiment, brigade structure. Meaning, landwehr - fusilier - landwehr up front in line, followed by line + landwehr x2, line + landwehr x2 big columns, or 3 2-battalion columns. Those 3 lines-ahead variations are to fight on somewhat longer frontages or with less depth (e.g. when another brigade can support from behind if needed).
With the 2-line formation, your primary means of attack is the fire attacks of the 2 fusilier battalions plus the battery. The other columns are primarily meant to wait and to provide reliefs for the lines that get tired/disordered. Just form both (or three) into line, send the relief up to the front, back up (or about face and march rear-ward) the forward line, and put the other battalions back into column (and have the relieved unit join them as soon as it can get out of line formation/reordered). Similarly, with the 3-lines ahead, you count of the firepower of 3 line battalions plus (generally) 2 batteries. In either case, formidable firepower for the limited frontage.
But when needed, the columns swing out and "punch" in melee. They are especially useful to smash counterattacks into your lines. From their placement on either flank of the forward lines, anyone meleeing one of those can be hit with a counterattack from a flank hex. Victory should mean rout, since they will be disordered, at least yellow fatigued (2 melees in a row), and flanked = check morale -4. And even if a unit wins the melee, there is another column the following turn - "if the left don't getcha then the right one will."
Avoid smashing ahead with those melees when not performing such a counterattack, unless the stacks are very high (important terrain objective, storming a grand battery, valuable or threatening enemy unit that can be hit with a surround melee, etc). That is not what they are for - save the fatigue for the counterattack role. That is what provides the "integrity" or internal defense ability of the formation.
Incidentally, you will also be able to keep up the fire combat much longer with proper use of the columns and depth for reliefs. When a regiment gets fatigued to yellow, send the landwehr up to do their spell on-line. Always having 1 of the 3 regiments in reserve (as the 2-line formation allows) means even a large rout is instantly patched. The effect you want is every turn someone stands in front of the brigade, he loses men and gains fatigue and checks morale - all from fire - and faces ordered men turn after turn like clockwork, whatever he dishes out he gets back. The brigade defeats people by routing them, after outlasting them - but can escalate to outright melee-brawling whenever necessary.
How well does all of the above work in practice? After all, terrain and tactical needs often force dispersion of the forces of the brigade over a wider area. Units rout or are lost to surround-melee, and thus are not available to fufill their role. The answer is that the Prussian brigade handles such things very well. The rear columns get smaller, but the forward roles all get performed by somebody. If you are down to 4 battalions you can continue to fight in a 2-line forward, 1 big column behind fashion after the same pattern.
Notice, the whole formation effective has great depth. The columns represent men deployed 9 deep, the lines 3 deep. The whole is up to 21 men deep, more than most other nations use (the French, if entirely in column and those in two ranks, preceded by a skirmisher screen, are about the same depth. That is as deep as anyone else fights, really). Because of this, the frontage a brigade will occupy may seem too small. Sometimes you will have to fight a bit more spread - fine, but try to get back to the proper frontage (5-7 hexes) as soon as you can, especially in places you are trying to attack.
I have fought this way as the Prussians in one all-day Ligny, and won a major victory against a solidly able opponent. The primary combat occurred on the slopes of the central ridge, were the original grand battery is located at the start. The first wave of French were from III Corps; then the Young Guard was added in a second wave; Cuirassiers helped them when they began to falter as well; finally the Old Guard pressed the same ~8-10 hexes of front. From first rush to last, the French advanced, net, about 400 yards. I had to feed forward and "cycle in" the better part of 3 brigades to hold that small length of front, along with a full cavalry brigade supporting. But hold they did - even with a brigade's worth routed in the meantime. And generally I had no more than 6 battalions along the front at any one time.
Why do such depth tactics work? A big part of it is the nature of fatigue on the defensive, and works with the big Prussian battalions. The French will melee attack with a regiment or brigade to get decent odds on a big battalion. When they do, say they win 2/3rds of the time. What happens fatigue-wise?
2/3rd win x Prussians take 3, French 2 *per battalion*
1/3 lose x Prussians take 2, French 3 "
The Prussians expect to add 3 1/3 fatigue per occasion. 2 of those will wreck a single battalion (with fire, fatigued red). But if the French have 3 battalions in each, they take 7 total fatigue per occasion, on average. Thus "burning up" regiments as fast as the Prussians "burn up" battalions. The French will run out first if they try that ;-)
(Not that the French can't try other things. The point is limited men along the frontage is *not* a weakness that can be overpowered just by overstacked melee charges - not in the long run).
I hope this is interesting. In my next, I will discuss the fire-combat tactics of the British, through the example of Picton's division in the battle of Quatre Bras and its "formation tactics".
Jason Cawley