A Napoleonic discussion

[Glenn Pearce]

Hello Whirlwind!

Excellent points as always with you.

Yes, I would certainly look at some kind of bonus to some French line units. In some rules that could be a “veteran”, “well trained”, or “experienced” modifier, etc. I think the important thing to keep in mind is these are fluid modifiers and can change from day to day, French army to French army, for a number of reasons. And it’s certainly not a constant modifier for every unit that justifies the notion of some kind of permanent “French superiority”.

The Prussians of course had similar units, maybe not as many and perhaps a larger number of green/raw/poor units.

As you know how you sort this all out is not easy and is often a sort of exercise in black magic. However, I think these differences did exist. I also think that understanding these differences starts to enable some to see that “French superiority”, is simply a myth.

Best regards,

Glenn

[Glenn Pearce]

Hello Thaddeus!

Well what is your definition of a winning record? What happens when Napoleon is not on the battlefield? Do you really think that Napoleon had a lock on confidence? Do the allies not have any inspirational leaders?

Sorry, but I’m completely lost on how your comments about Blucher give every French unit superiority!

Best regards,

Glenn

[Victoria Dickson]

Glenn Pearce wrote:

If you think that self-belief can consistently win battles then there is absolutely nothing that I can ever say that will convince you otherwise.

I think it’s more that self doubt loses them.  If you expect your side to lose, because you usually do or you have no confidence in your leaders, then you’ll be constantly looking for excuses to surrender, fall back or flee.

If you are overconfident I don’t think it helps all that much beyond the lack of self doubt, and any setback will seem worse than it is.  This might apply to French in the Peninsula the first few times they fought the British, in subsequent battles it could be self doubt contributing to defeat.

The best attitude is probably to be realistic and think you have a good chance but it won’t be a walkover.

I think this might map quite well onto the Waterloo campaign, the Prussians at Ligny have self doubt as they pray for the British to arrive, by Waterloo they are expecting a tough fight but are more confident until faced by part of the Guard, when the self doubt reappears till they realise it’s only part of it.

Against the British the French expect a tough fight, with maybe some self doubt for the Peninsula veterans, the final Guard attack is an example of overconfidence, and when it doesn’t meet  with success the army is demoralised.

This might work as part of a campaign, track record from previous battles modifying morale checks maybe?  And for historical time periods and opponents you could have a table showing who would be overconfident, realistic or self doubting.

I only have a passing knowledge of Napoleonics, I don’t know the details in depth (What the heck is a bricole?  Is it edible?  It sounds like a type of bread or a pastry to me) so please be gentle when you all pick holes in my views. 🙂

 

http://crazywargames.blogspot.co.uk/

[Thaddeus Blanchette]

Oh, I don’t think every French unit had superiority. I do think Napoleon’s presence on the battlefield had a huge effect, though. His adversaries were the first to admit this.

We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

[Glenn Pearce]

Hello Victoria!

I’m pretty much in agreement with most of your comments if your applying it to an individual. I don’t think you could apply it to an entire army. It also does not seem to address the issue of “French superiority”, which is the subject of this conversation.

Still, it’s certainly a great synopsis. Thanks for giving me your thoughts.

Best regards,

Glenn

 

 

[Glenn Pearce]

Hello Thaddeus!

I don’t think anybody disputes that (about Napoleon).

Best regards,

Glenn

[Thaddeus Blanchette]

AFAIK, Victoria, bricoles are a kind of chocolate covered pastry. The Austrians claim to have invented them, but the French perfected the recipe and Napaoleon’s armies marched on them.

We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

[Thaddeus Blanchette]

So to adequately model Napoleon, then, Glenn, one would need to account for his command effect and his morale effect.

We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

[Whirlwind]

Thaddeus Blanchette wrote:

So to adequately model Napoleon, then…one would need to account for his command effect and his morale effect.

Maybe.  The effect of his skills are hard to account for properly in miniature games:

His fundamental skill is in making good decisions, precisely what the player is supposed to be doing.  The easiest way to replicate this might be to make the best/most experienced player take on the role of Napoleon. If you increase the competence of French troops in general to try and create the overall effect, then the player doesn’t have to do the same kinds of things as Napoleon to win, he merely has to arrange enough 1:1 match ups.

Glenn made the same point in reverse with the Prussian deployment at Ligny: not a great deployment on not a great position.  Merely by using the historical dispositions, you have in part replicated the French advantages.

I don’t doubt that he had a positive morale effect on the armies he was with.  But a – how much (i.e. what is the kind of effect size we are talking about)? and b – Blucher and Wellington were also greatly admired by their respective armies; the respect of Russians for their Tsar seems to have approached literally religious fervour at points.  The overall effect here might be quite small, as it would in most of the main theatres of the Napoleonic theatre.  It <i> might </i> have a more appreciable effect where the difference is greater.

In boardgames, it is easier – just increase the combat value of the “Napoleon” counter, because you are taking his battlefield

[Mr. Average]

I don’t have a ton to add to this but I’ll say I’m reading with some interest, as I’ve recently picked up a copy of the TFL Kriegsspiel reprint, and it has some relevance here. Kriegsspiel seems not to have a lot of interest in simulating the officer effect, assuming I suppose that the player is the officer and that the umpire would adjust for it if necessary. Anyone had experience using the Prussian system who could comment on that? I’m pretty new to it still.

[Not Connard Sage]

Victoria.

‘Bricole’ is an archaic French term for ‘passive aggressive posts’. ‘Gribeauval’ similarly has the sense in Old French of ‘this thread is circling the plughole’.

‘Fonction ignorer’ should however be obvious even to a non-Francophone. 🙂

Obvious contrarian and passive aggressive old prat, who is taken far too seriously by some and not seriously enough by others.

[Victoria Dickson]

Glenn Pearce wrote:

Hello Victoria! I’m pretty much in agreement with most of your comments if your applying it to an individual. I don’t think you could apply it to an entire army. It also does not seem to address the issue of “French superiority”, which is the subject of this conversation. Still, it’s certainly a great synopsis. Thanks for giving me your thoughts. Best regards, Glenn

Oh, I should have said I don’t believe in any innate superiority of French soldiers, I think they at times will have a negative morale effect on their opponents, usually if the French are led by Napoleon.   I think it was coalition strategy in Germany in 1813 to try to fight where Napoleon wasn’t and withdraw where he was?  Or was it in France in 1814, or both?  I remember reading something to that effect.

 

http://crazywargames.blogspot.co.uk/

[vtsaogames]

Hi Victoria. The plan to avoid Napoleon and instead fight his subordinates was called the Trachenberg Plan. (possibly mis-spelled) When it was followed it led to Allied success. Ignored, it led to the Allied debacle of Dresden. I do believe Wellington was correct when he said the emperor’s presence on the field was worth 40,000 troops, something very hard to replicate on our table tops.

Bricoles were a type of harness for humans, used by artillery crew to drag their guns around in places where it was too hazardous to bring the horses up. Two current Napoleonic authors, one pro-Austrian and the other extremely pro-Napoleon, got into a long and tawdry online argument about who invented them (or copied them from farmers) first. The argument did no credit to either one and was the scandal of online gaming and history forums. Bricole is now used as shorthand for any extreme Napoleonic tempest in a teacup. Something about the man causes some folks to lose all sense of proportion.

It's never too late to have a happy childhood

[Thaddeus Blanchette]

Not that this is a tempest in a teacup. I use “bricoles” as a joke to simply indicate any Napoleonic discussion that starts to get into imponderables or extreme minutae.

It’s just a joking warning for folks to remember to keep it cool.

We get slapped around, but we have a good time!

[Glenn Pearce]

Hello Thaddeus!

As indicated by Whirlwind his command effect is pretty much in the pre-game show and in his ability to adjust his plans as events unfold.

His morale effect is limited to his location. In other words mainly to the troops directly in front of or behind him.

Think of him as the ultimate motivational speaker or inspirational leader. Once somebody starts to shoot at you or come at you with sharp pointed objects most of that fades away and self preservation becomes the dominate thing on your mind.

Best regards,

Glenn

[Glenn Pearce]

Hello Victoria!

I thought we were in the same boat. Thanks for confirming that.

Excellent point, I’m sure a lot of allies were very nervous about having to face Napoleon.

Yes, the strategy was first used as a collective plan in 1813 and again in 1814. Others realized the dangers in having to confront him before that and often tried to avoid him as well.

Best regards,

Glenn

[Glenn Pearce]

Hello Mr. Average!

I only played a couple of  Kriegsspiel games many, many years ago. Very interesting and enjoyable at the time, but required too much work and little action for my tastes.

Most games/rules neutralize the senior officer effect, as the players are intended to take on those roles as much as possible. The command system below them is generally built into the mechanics of the game and is generally arbitrary with minimum player involvement. Those systems that ignore this tend to drag out and become pretty boring.

Hope this helps you in some way.

Best regards,

Glenn

[Thomas Moore]

The Battle of Ligny we put on at Enfilade Convention using Shako 2 rules, the Prussians won the battle. The Guard were outflanked by two Prussian 12 pdr batteries and decimated. However this was game put on with people who are not familiar with the rules or battle.

We do on occasion for scenarios change the moral or fighting values of troops to reflect ongoing campaign  experience or lack thereof. Such as Prussian Landwehr in the 1812-1813 period.

[Author]

Posts