Category: News

  • Command & control in one-hour turns

    The Dining Table Napoleon V3 (the changes are going to be more drastic than implied by V2.1 as I originally intended) will have a one-hour turn. I am thinking through the implications for a command control and movement system.

    First each turn will comprise a distinct episode of the battle, rather than a precise time period. They will be named after hours of the day (which helps the simulation feel), but that is only to give a rough idea of when events happen. action will tend not to spill over from one turn to the next.

    An hour is a long time, though. Six turns might encompass quite an important battle like Ligny. That creates some interesting design issues.

    Fist thought: the side with a plan – or clear intent to move – at the start of the period move first and moves farthest. Perhaps through the use of stylised orders commands (up to corps level, perhaps) can have the following status:

    1. Active: movement. Changing location, usually in some kind of march formation.
    2. Active: bombardment. Deploy artillery and fire for a prolonged period.
    3. Active: engaged. Attacking enemy units.
    4. Passive: defensive. Deployed for defensive action, and resisting attack.
    5. Passive: reserve. Awaiting events.

    To be active implies either a plan compiled in the previous period, or direct order from the commander at the start of the turn – or a lower commander on his own initiative. The former means some kind of stylised order carried over. The engaged order implies that the enemy is close at hand – within some kind of threat distance. That means close enough for an attack to be delivered without giving the enemy.

    First issue. When and how are plan orders issued? Normally this would be done at the start of the turn in a Command phase – and then made subject to activation. Beyond using a stock of CPs that might have been accumulated in earlier turns, this does not reflect the time lags. Maybe a new orders phase happens at some point in the turn before? But how to do that without making it much more complicated?

    Second issue. How are pre-issued orders given a shelf-life? Perhaps groups are given a stock of order chits, which they consume?

    Be that as it may the period (as I should call the turn, in DTN speak – turns mean something different) starts with the execution of items one and two. Active movement is carried out, and batteries deployed and (perhaps) targets nominated. These might be done simultaneously. Units in march order get quite a long way in an hour, so some quite big distances could be covered. Couldn’t the enemy intervene? what happens when units from opposite sides bump into each other. An obvious rider is that this type of movement stops as threat distance is reached. If it is stopped early in the movement phase, then further activity should be allowed. Perhaps the concept of single and double moves can be revived from earlier versions of DTN.

    Then come the attacks from category three units. If two opposing units bump into each other then it probably best to ask which come first. This could be done case by case, or one side could be said to have the initiative and move first. On the whole I prefer the latter. For impetus attacks (i.e. not skirmish firefights) we then do one round of combat.

    We then need to move into a sort of reaction phase. This involves shorter moves. it may be that the main command phase happens here. Reaction orders are issued, as well as orders to be executed in the next phase. What happens next is a series of actions that might originate from conventional command and control, or might be initiative reactions. There is another round of impact combat. And maybe some kind of breakthrough or pursuit phase.

    Finally we get into the attrition phase, where more protracted combats are resoled. This includes artillery (if targets haven’t moved), skirmish combats. There is scope for prolonged close combats too, where two high stamina combatants are deadlocked in impact combats, both infantry (think Albuera) and cavalry (I believe Friedland and Borodino featured these).

    Finally there needs to be some kind of morale phase.

    This is building up to a complex period structure with simultaneous and interchangeable initiative elements. This has strayed somewhat from my earlier idea of one side having a clear initiative, and losing it being potentially damaging to morale. That idea might come back, though.

    A further question when using a complex turn structure is whether to stick to strict phases across the table, or follow something more event driven. For example a unit delivers a charge in the first phase, and we get round one of the combat. But across the whole period this might develop into a multiphase affair, including reserves being brought in, counterattacks, breakthroughs and pursuits. There is something to be said for dealing with all this there and then, drawing in other units as required, and (taking them out of any subsequent reaction movement).  I find this approach quite attractive.

    What of command points (CPs). These played a central role to V2. But the idea of carrying them over from one period to the next loses its relevance to the longer period. Still I like the idea that these represent information, which is the basis on which orders can be made (could change them to Information points to make this explicit – though CPs are a widely recognised idea). A high stock of CPs means more orders can be issued. If the commander occupied a vantage point (or has access to one) then he gets more information. As the battle develops there might be both metaphorical and literal fog of war constraining what he can do. Information decays though. More food for thought.

    Next I want to think about what orders might mean at each level of command.

  • Vitoria historical narrative

    Vitoria Map 1

    Finishing the resources I am posting for my Vitoria project, for now, I have posted a historical narrative on the battles page, together with a brochure on the battle published by Vitoria’s tourist office on the battle.

    The historical narrative is based on an article I wrote a year ago, but which wasn’t accepted for publication. It was the first part of a two part series; the second covered wargaming the battle, and evolved into the scenario already posted. The editor wanted more wargame and less history. It is not very detailed, but gives a narrative that is much clearer, and I think more accurate than most versions that get published. That is partly because jean Sarramon provides a more complete narrative from the French side than the usual sources used by English-language authors, which throws a bit more light on things. Also my researches into the orders of battle gives a stronger grasp on the numbers involved than most. And I haven’t followed the British fashion of having large slabs of direct quotes from memoirs to carry large parts of the narrative. This can help provide an atmosphere and provide some interesting angles – but it isn’t really proper history. The historian needs to provide an opinion on how reliable theses accounts are.

    The Vitoria brochure is interesting. It does not provide much in the way of historical narrative, although it has the best published battle map that I’ve seen – for showing the movements of the combatants anyway. it also provides some details and pictures from a more local perspective, which helps fill out the picture.

  • Vitoria scenario and resources

    Turn 8

    I have now posted  a scenario and orders of battle for this battle, my first project for the Dining Table Napoleon. This is based on a long process of research. I am particularly pleased with the orders of battle, which are much better that the mediocre stuff that is usually published, especially for the French. Of course, it just a best guess based on triangulating incomplete information – but that is what wargamers need!

    This is one of the most important battles of the Peninsular War, and marked the end of French rule in Spain, though they continued to occupy some parts of the country after that. Strangely, though, it gets very little coverage compared to many other Peninsular battles. There is no book in English dedicated to it beyond an inevitably light-weight Osprey. Many accounts that do appear are a bit garbled. The best in English remains that of Charles Oman in his Peninsular War series – though I have not read Michael Glover’s account. However it clear from works written after Glover and referencing him that he does not come up with much that is new.

    The best work is in fact in French, by Jean Sarramon, published in 1985. This makes better use of French sources, and provides a pretty convincing detailed account – if a little pro-French. I am not a fluent French speaker, but I did manage to translate the key sections of the book.

    As a wargame, Vitoria is a bit one-sided, but nevertheless it is interesting. It is fought down the table rather than across it, with battles on two fronts eventually converging. I have also designed an alternative scenario, injecting more uncertainty into proceedings by allowing both sides to change their battle plans, and for the French to potentially have some more forces available. I haven’t played this – but I hope to get the opportunity someday!

    Also included in orders of battle are forces in the vicinity that did not take part on the day. For the French these include Foy’s division, and a nearby brigade (Birlet’s) that was available to him. A firmer order from the French command would have ensured these forces’ presence – and Wellington probably expected them to be there. In addition I give details of Clauzel’s force, whose presence was never a real possibility – Wellington timed his attack to specifically to pre-empt him. On the Allied side I give rather unsatisfactory information on the Spanish general Giron’s forces, who arrived too late, and Pakenham’s British division,

    It is too much to hope that anybody else will actually play this scenario with my rules – but I hope it is of value to any players wishing to do their own version of this interesting battle.

    Apologies for the poor quality of the picture accompanying this post – which comes the game I played last November. The original looks fine on my screen. It seems to be an issue with the way WordPress displays pictures inserted into posts. 

  • Rules published!

    I have now posted a pdf version of my rules, which can be found on the Rules page of this website.

    This is not a finished article. They are a modified version of the rules we used to play Vitoria last November, and as such are a perfectly decent and playable set of rules. One base is a brigade; one inch (25mm) represents 200 paces (150m), which we stretched to 267 paces/200m for Vitoria. One game period is about 30 minutes. Unit strength points are based on both numbers and quality, a bit like Grande Armée. My recommended base size is 50mm by 30mm, but you can use 50mm squares at a pinch .

    I invite readers to download these rules and give them a go and let me know how they get on int he comments.

    But I’m not happy with these rules, as they don’t fully fulfil the brief. Vitoria was a bit of a slog even with four players. No more of a slog than most rules (e.g. Grande Armée) would have been, but not on the spot. There are a few other things I don’t like as well – the role of artillery did not feel quite as I wanted, though the modifications should help.

    So I’m contemplating a pretty major rewrite. The most radical change would be a move to a one-hour period, like Volley & Bayonet, as well as following those rules on strength points. This has pretty serious design implications, so it won’t be quick. I may produce more updated versions of my 30-minute period rules in the meantime.

    Getting the rules to this stage has been a bit of a triumph, though. It has taken many versions to get to something decently playable, from the original evolution from Fast Play Grande Armée house rules. I owe a large debt to George Street, who helped me through the later iterations.

  • Vitoria article on the way!

    I have submitted the draft of an article to Miniature Wargames which seems destined for publication. The editor has not rejected it yet anyway – which he did to my effort a year ago. If this article does get published it will effectively mark the public launch of the Dining Table Napoleon project.

    The article is an account of the Vitoria game we staged last November, set in parallel with an account of the actual battle, and accompanied by pictures of the game. It will point readers in the direction of resources published on this site.

    My effort a year ago (which followed what the previous editor of MW seemed to want) was a much more serious effort: one article on the historical battle, and one on how to set up a historical scenario. But no actual game – and that is what readers were more interested in. It took a major effort to get that game going – but it does give the project a much better basis to bring to the public. I didn’t have a working set of rules a year ago – and was resorting to the use of Grande Armee.

    Still the original articles were quite good – and I will publish revised versions here.

    Meanwhile I need to finish those resources: the rules, detailed orders of battle and scenario notes.