Sunny days ahead

It looks like the English Summer has arrived and I’ve got a few days off work to make the most of it. So far, the omens are good. Yesterday I made a day trip over to Calpe Towers to catch up on the latest news with Peter F. He’s really pleased with the vulcaniser that he’s had built and is pressing on with sculpting the masters and making the moulds for the upcoming releases. The eagle-eyed among you may have spotted an advert in the latest issue of Wargames Illustrated for the vulcaniser and the new casting machine – so they’re on sale for those who’d like to order one!

Peter’s workshop is full of figures for the next few releases. I’m not going to go into specifics of what troop types will be covered by these releases but I do want to say a bit about the general nature of what to expect from Calpe Miniatures over the coming months. From memory, I can think of at least five sets of figures that are almost ready plus several others that are work in progress. What do I mean by a set? Well, a good example is the Saxon musketeers in march-attack pose – i.e. it’s a complete group of figures that’s enough to make up a whole unit of figures in a given pose. You may recall that this Saxon set included over 50 different figures, so that gives you some idea of the log-jam of new figures Peter has stocked up.

After all the investment of time and resources in the vulcaniser and casting machine venture, Peter is keen to start releasing the new sets but don’t expect a “big bang” release of everything at once but rather a measured programme of releases over the coming weeks and months. A lot of our conversation centred around the order in which releases might happen and Peter’s got a couple of decisions left to make about small details like head variants and some definite ideas about how certain sets relate to each other. He also wants to target the early release of sets which will sell well. I know this all sounds cryptic but I can guarantee that these releases will be very popular with Calpe customers and I predict that one in particualar will cause quite stir of excitement.

I took along my copy of Republic to Empire for Peter to see and he was really impressed with the production quality of the book. I think Barry can look forward to another sale! I also had a rummage through Peter’s library and discovered that the range of plates created by the Knötels is even more extensive that I realized. I knew about Bands (Volumes) I to XVIII and two of the Neue Folge (New Series) that followed. So you can imagine my surprise and delight to find plates from later Bands up to and including XXIII in Peter’s files. Several of these are of especial interest to Prussian fans – one shows foot artillery battery No. 6 sporting “Prussianified” British uniforms in September/October 1813! But the one that was particularly relevant and informative for me shows four soldiers of the Pommeranian infantry regiment, including a detailed depiction of a volunteer jäger. I’ve never seen scans of these plates online anywhere before, unlike the lower numbered volumes.

And the good news didn’t end there. When I got home I discovered that my replacement Litko plywood bases had arrived. Nice and flat this time!

And another thing, or three…

One of the spin-offs of the recent series of posts about organizing Prussian forces for Republic to Empire was a spate of comments speculating about the correct terminology for ad hoc formations placed under a sub-commander by Prussian brigade commanders for specific tasks. There was no definitive conclusion so I’ve been asking around about this and had feedback from Peter F., George Nafziger and Peter Bunde as well as some of the regular BfK readers.

The upshot is that nobody is aware of a specific formal term that was used by the Prussian army. However, consensus is that the German word Abteilung would have been understood and recognised at the time. While this is a helpful conclusion, it does leave one final difficulty because Abteilung is used in many different senses by Germans and therefore has a range of possible translations into English depending on the context. General opinion is that the most appropriate translation under the circumstances I’m thinking of is detachment. So now all I’ve got to do is decide if I prefer to use the English or the German…

Elsewhere, my attention has been drawn to an article in the current issue of Miniature Wargames that compares four horse and musket rulesets: Sam Mustapha’s Lasalle, Black Powder, Foundry’s Napoleon and, the much admired in these parts, Republic to Empire. I scanned through the article at the shelves of W H Smith yesterday and came away feeling a bit disgruntled at what I view as some shoddy handling of Republic to Empire.

Of course, it’s fair to say that I only skimmed the piece and that reviewers are entitled to their own opinions – even ones that differ to mine 🙂 However, I did get the impression that the reviewer went into the venture with pre-conceived notions and looked only for things that confirmed his initial position. The main criticisms are ones that I’ve seen voiced on TMP by people who, by their own admission, have never even played the rules. Namely, a mistaken belief that Republic to Empire is overly complicated, hard to learn and too time consuming to play. As somebody who’s had the privilege to participate in a game at Salute I can tell you categorically that such criticisms are bunkum.

Back to the Miniatures Wargames piece – at least they did attempt some playtesting of each ruleset, so credit is due there. However, I think that the nature of the playtest (for example, it only being on a 4ft x 4ft table) was almost doomed to show Republic to Empire in a poor light. I think that to give any ruleset a fair crack of the whip you need to be sensitive to the conditions under which its authors intended it to be used.

Finally some sad news this week. Wargames, Soldiers and Strategy AKA The Spanish Magazine has announced suspension of publication of its English language edition. It’s a magazine for which I have a high regard and affection. I think it shook up the complacent competition and I’m fortunate to count some of those involved with it among my regular correspondents. As far as I understand, the magazine will continue to be published in Spanish but the current financial climate has made it uneconomic to continue in English at present. I sincerely hope this is a case of adieu and not goodbye.

RtoE Prussian musings: part five

If you’ve followed this little series of posts about organinzing Prussian forces prototypically for the Republic to Empire rules – well done, you’ve got great stamina. If you haven’t, this is the final part (unless something else springs to mind in future) and you can choose to pick up the thread here or, if you’re a masochist, you can follow my “thinking out loud” through the previous four parts:

Part One.
Part Two.
Part Three.
Part Four.

In this last musing session, I’m going to recap on the decisions I’ve made (without repeating the line of reasoning that led to them) and demonstrate the various ways a wargamer might apply them the an 1813 Prussian brigade under his command (recall that a Prussian brigade is an all-arms force that’s about the size of a division in other armies). So here we go…

I’ve devised the following conventions for the organization of a Prussian brigade under the Republic to Empire rules:

1. A Prussian brigade commander is treated as equivalent to a divisional commander in other armies.
2. A Prussian brigade commander may have up to three sub-commanders beneath him, each of which is treated as equivalent to a brigade commander in other armies.
3. Each such sub-commander may command a formation that comprises a total of between three and five tactical units (i.e. infantry battalions, artillery batteries and cavalry regiments count towards this total but not volunteer jäger detachments). Exceptions to this may be made under special historically accurate circumstances and must be agreed by all players at the outset of the game (for example, a smaller formation of two tactical units might be assigned a special role such as garrisoning a fortification).
4. The infantry battalions of a Prussian brigade must be placed under the command of the brigade sub-commanders rather than under the direct control of the brigade commander.
5. By default, a Prussian brigade’s artillery battery (there’s usually only one) and cavalry regiment (there’s usually only one) are placed under the direct command of the brigade commander. If the brigade commander wishes to assign artillery or cavalry to one of the formations commanded by one of the sub-commanders, he may do so – but only at the start of the game. Once such an assignment is made, it cannot be reversed during the game.
6. A Prussian brigade’s artillery battery may be split into two half batteries – but only at the start of the game. Each half battery is then treated as a seperate tactical unit but does not suffer the split fire penalty as long as all guns in the same half battery fire at the same target.
7. A Prussian brigade’s cavalry regiment may be split into detachments no smaller than two squadrons each – but only at the start ofthe game. Each such detachment is then treated as a seperate tactical unit.
8. Volunteer jäger detachments are treated as specialist light infantry detachments, which are already catered for under the rules. Any volunteer jäger detachment must be placed in the same formation as its parent battalion.

Now let’s examine the realistically flexible options these conventions offer a Prussian brigade commander. To illustrate this, we’ll examine von Borstel’s 5th brigade as it stood on 10th August 1813 (note this this brigade’s OOB changed in subtle ways during the course of the Autumn 1813 campaign):

• Pommeranian grenadier battalion.
• Jäger detachment of the Pommeranian grenadier battalion.
• 1st musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
• Jäger detachment of the 1st musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
• 2nd musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
• Fusilier battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
• Jäger detachment of the fusilier battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
• 1st battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.
• 2nd battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.
• 3rd battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.
• 1st battalion, 1st Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.
• 2nd battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.
• 3rd battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.
• 4th battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.
• Pommeranian hussar regiment.
• Foot artillery battery No. 10.

The first option is the most conventionally obvious one where the three infantry regiments are each placed with a sub-commander while the artillery battery and the cavalry regiment remain under direct control of the brigade commander. That would look like this:

von Borstell (commander, 5th brigade):
Pommeranian hussar regiment.
Foot artillery battery No. 10.

Sub-command I: von Schon (commander, Pommeranian infantry regiment):
Pommeranian grenadier battalion.
Jäger detachment of the Pommeranian grenadier battalion.
1st musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
Jäger detachment of the 1st musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
2nd musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
Fusilier battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
Jäger detachment of the fusilier battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.

Sub-command II: von Knobloch (commander, 2nd reserve infantry regiment):
1st battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.
2nd battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.
3rd battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.

Sub-command III: commander unknown:
1st battalion, 1st Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.
2nd battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.
3rd battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.
4th battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.

Which is fine and easy enough to understand but, to my mind, has the disadvantage that it places all the volunteer jäger detachments and the fusilier battalion in one sub-command thus leaving the other two short on specialist light infantry. So, for a second option, I’d be tempted to shuffle things around a bit like this:

von Borstell (commander, 5th brigade):
Pommeranian hussar regiment.
Foot artillery battery No. 10.

Sub-command I: von Schon (commander, Pommeranian infantry regiment):
2nd musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
Fusilier battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
Jäger detachment of the fusilier battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
1st battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.
1st battalion, 1st Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.

Sub-command II: von Knobloch (commander, 2nd reserve infantry regiment):
1st musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
Jäger detachment of the 1st musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
2nd battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.
2nd battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.

Sub-command III: commander unknown:
Pommeranian grenadier battalion.
Jäger detachment of the Pommeranian grenadier battalion.
3rd battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.
3rd battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.
4th battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.

The other advantage of this option is that it spreads the landwehr infantry battalions around so that they are supported by more experienced colleagues and there’s no longer one potentially weak sub-command entirely made up of landwehr infantry. Of course, there are lots of ways you could shuffle the infantry battalions around like this.

Finally a third option that shows how command of the cavalry and artillery might be devolved to a sub-commander.

von Borstell (commander, 5th brigade):
Half of foot artillery battery No. 10.
Two squadrons, Pommeranian hussar regiment.

Sub-command I: von Schon (commander, Pommeranian infantry regiment):
Pommeranian grenadier battalion.
Jäger detachment of the Pommeranian grenadier battalion.
1st musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
Jäger detachment of the 1st musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
2nd musketeer battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
Fusilier battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.
Jäger detachment of the fusilier battalion, Pommeranian infantry regiment.

Sub-command II: von Knobloch (commander, 2nd reserve infantry regiment):
1st battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.
2nd battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.
Two squadrons, Pommeranian hussar regiment.
Half of foot artillery battery No. 10.

Sub-command III: commander unknown:
3rd battalion, 2nd reserve infantry regiment.
1st battalion, 1st Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.
2nd battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.
3rd battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.
4th battalion, 2nd Kurmark landwehr infantry regiment.

This based on tweaking option 1 so that sub-command II is modelled on the formation von Knobloch commanded for the attack on Klein Beeren during the Battle of Gross Beeren – the one difference being that I’ve used a half-battery of foot artillery instead of the half-battery of horse artillery that was made available to von Knobloch in real life.

You can play around like this for ages making up different ad hoc sub-command combinations. All of which, hopefully, demonstrates how my set of conventions enable the true flexibility of Prussian brigades to be implemented for Republic to Empire. Give it a go for your favourite brigade and let me know how you get on.

RtoE Prussian musings: part four

After a short hiatus, I think it’s time to tackle the topic I’ve been procrastinating about: namely, how to treat the cavalry element of a P-brigade (see earlier posts for an explanation of this home-made terminology).

The problem here is that I’ve been torn between several apparently contradictory factors:

• It’s a historical fact that 1813 P-brigades contained a cavalry element – typically a regiment. The one I’m modelling included between two and four squadrons of the Pommeranian hussar regiment at various times.
• Mixing infantry and cavalry units in the same (conventional) brigade was normally avoided for very good tactical reasons yet we have documented historical evidence of P-brigade commanders forming ad hoc taskforces that did just this (see earlier post for an example). So how best to cater for that?
• Rather like the P-brigade’s artillery battery, its cavalry was a P-brigade asset, so shouldn’t it be under the direct control of the P-brigade commander?

I’ve been wrestling with the best way to reconcile these factors and I think I’ve finally hit on a solution – but it’s one that modifies some of my earlier thinking about artillery.

Let’s start with something easy. I’m going to assert that I’ll always treat a cavalry regiment in a P-brigade as a single tactical unit regardless of its strength (both in terms of manpower and the number of squadrons). The next thing I’m going to do is set a default that the cavalry regiment is a P-brigade level asset just like the artillery battery. The same arguments as I deployed before for the artillery battery apply here.

Having taken that plunge, I’m left with finding a way to do deal with the inconvenient truth that cavalry and infantry tactical units were sometimes grouped together in ad hoc formations. For that matter, tactical units from all three arms were sometimes grouped together this way. If you read the previous paragraph closely, you might have spotted that I’ve already prepared the way for what’s coming next with my use of the phrase “set a default”.

What I propose to do for the cavalry tactical unit (and by implication this applies to and extends what I said before about the artillery tactical unit) is this: by default, the cavalry tactical unit and the artillery tactical unit in a P-brigade will be treated as P-brigade level assets under direct command of the P-brigade commander unless, at the start of the game, he chooses to devolve command of one or both of them to a sub-formation commanded by one of his sub-commanders.

If the P-brigade commander does choose this non-default option, then then any cavalry or artillery tactical unit assigned in this way contributes to the total of tactical units in the sub-formation. This is important because you’ll recall that I set a three to five unit size range for such sub-formations.

So that’s the policy but I think a few tactical observations are merited. P-brigade commanders should think long and hard before devolving command of a cavalry or artillery tactical unit. The first reason for this is that it’s a non-reversible decision, If you suddenly find that you really need that cavalry somewhere else on the battlefield – well tough, it’s already committed. Secondly, having artillery, cavalry and infantry all in the same brigade and thus on the same orders can be very awkward.

Finally, I’d just like to mention the question of corps-level cavalry in the Prussian army. What I’ve been discussing above doesn’t really apply to Prussian cavalry at this level. That’s because the corps cavalry was organized in a much more conventional way with several clearly defined cavalry brigades attached to each corps. If you wish to have one or more of these brigades present on your table, then follow the same principles as you would for any other nation.

I think the next part of these musings will be the final one where I’ll aim to summarize my conclusions are provide examples of the various ways they could be applied to P-brigade.