Moving from column to line

[Deleted User]

I believe moving from column of march to line of battle was quite a complex business to avoid gaps or overlaps.

The rules I use for Napoleonic games is ‘General d’Armee’. This states that line, recruit and large units of infantry must halt for a turn to change formation. The change is then automatic.

Would I be be too punitive to think that a recruit unit might need an additional die roll to be allowed to move from column to line? I also think that under pressure from the proximity of the enemy, moving from a “comforting” column could also be daunting for recruits, meaning a further difficulty?

I should add, we use ‘Field of Glory’ for our Ancient games. To expand a column uses such a ‘complex move test”. From experience, I’ve found you need to expand your poor units well before they come near the enemy to have them battle ready. Indeed, I often start the game with my undisciplined Gaulish hordes in battle lines, facing the Romans, to save the heartache of failed CMT die rolls.

I’m thinking Prussian Landwehr, Russian Opolchenie or French conscript line should need a similar approach.

Your views on my no doubt mistaken ideas are sought.

 

donald

[Autodidact-O-Saurus]

Certainly not my area of expertise but I’m doubtful that any except the most raw of recruits would need significantly more time for formation changes. Perhaps justifiable for ancient war-band type troops: “Hey, Alaric, git yer kin to the riber. Then we’s goin’ ta bash some Romans’ heads!” I mean… no unit training at all. But in the age of the conscript… I think basic unit manuevering is going to be de rigueur.   My experience from marching bands–and my reading of ancient history–is that as long as you’ve got fairly decent non-coms, it’s not that difficult to teach and practice fairly complex evolutions.

Now, doing it under fire may be an entirely different situation for poorly disciplined troops. I think the fear may inhibit motivation to start the formation change–and there’d be a risk of a collapse of morale trigged by the command to change formation. But once started I don’t believe it would take any greater time to complete. What precisely do you mean by ‘under pressure from the proximity of the enemy’?

Self taught, persistently behind the times, never up to date. AKA ~ jeff
More verbosity: http://petiteguerre.blogspot.com/

[DCRBrown]

D,

I’m not sure if you have a copy of General de Brigade, as this covered the aspect of attempting to change formation when close up to the enemy.

Basically the unit had to pass a “Formation Test” in order to successfully complete the manoeuvre, a fail meant the unit become unformed.

I did tinker with a complete ban on such formations changes with GdA, but in the end settled for simplicity – but why not introduce a Discipline Test for such manoeuvres once a unit is within musketry range and see how it works?

DB

 

[Deleted User]

DCRBrown wrote:

D, I’m not sure if you have a copy of General de Brigade, as this covered the aspect of attempting to change formation when close up to the enemy. Basically the unit had to pass a “Formation Test” in order to successfully complete the manoeuvre, a fail meant the unit become unformed. I did tinker with a complete ban on such formations changes with GdA, but in the end settled for simplicity – but why not introduce a Discipline Test for such manoeuvres once a unit is within musketry range and see how it works? DB

I confess, I’m a tinkerer. This is no reflection on your excellent rule set. I’ll see if I can sell the idea to my pals and give it a whirl.

 

donald

[willz]

That seems a reasonable assessment a die roll for inexperienced troops and adds more excitement to a game.

 

Willz.

[Deleted User]

I have long been a believer in mostly fielding armies with a range of morale/ability levels.

I do like a Guard unit, supported by a few veteran line battalions and even more militia-quality troops.

Gd’A encourages this approach.

 

donald

[Author]

Posts