RE: Line vs Column

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Line vs Column

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Horse and Musket: Volume I, Frederick the Great >> RE: Line vs Column

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Line vs Column - 7/26/2005 2:52:50 PM

I�aki Harrizabalagatar

Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 9thlegere

Having a stronger skirmish line would ahve helped against French attack columns but could the Spanish have deployed and used this given how poorly trained most of there troops were?

I think those are interrelated, the militia units had not the training to do that, the regular army, after Wellington was appointed Caudillo of all the Spanish forces, improved all the time, helped by British instructors and equipment, so they did at 2nd Castalla and San Marcial (finishing the job after the English fashion, charging the disrupted French columns after a volley). So my point would be, a force with enough training would greatly benefit from deploying a skirmish screen, in fact not only fighting columns, but also lines.
So, most of the time I agree with you they could not have deployed those skirmishers efectively, but sometimes they could.
So, in game terms, we could agree that skirmshers are efective against columns, disrupitng them and slowing their advance, however not all forces had the ability to deploy skirmishers

(in reply to 9thlegere)

Post #: 31

RE: Line vs Column - 11/9/2005 8:43:46 AM

akileez

Posts: 77
Joined: 10/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jagger2002

Hopefully, a line through sheer firepower will be able to halt, disrupt and even rout a column in Black Powder Wars.

Just some thoughts and any comments welcomed.

Take into consideration too who's in the Column and who's facing them in Line. A line consisting of non-battle hardened troops would only be effectively accurate firing at close range. If at that point a ferocious veteran battalion column was bearing down with leveled bayonets on them, they would likely have started falling back or fleeing before standing ground to possibly deliver that one close-range good volley -if.

The one true example of a raking machine-gun fire type of a Napoleonic Line volleying and crushing a column occured at the critical end-game stage of Waterloo. At 7.30 pm two brigade sized columns of Napoleon's Old/Middle Imperial Guard set off intending to slice through Wellington's beatup line. One column ran into hastily brought up Allied reserves and was beaten back by overwheming numbers. The next column hit another point of Wellington's line that seemed void of any enemy. Wellington was on the spot as was a relatively fresh force of British Foot Guards who at that moment lay hidden in concealing tall grass [Keep in mind too British Foot Guard Battalion units were typically heavy in manpower [800 strong] . On Wellington's command, the powerful British force in a 4 rank line rose up as one and for the next several minutes delivered rolling continouus volleys at 40 yds range- with rear ranks passing loaded muskets to front ranks. The front ranks of that Imperial Gurad column were stopped dead and annhilated as were most of the French officers [possibly about 300 hundred casualties sustained]. There was no return fire. Stunned, wavering, they were in no mood to stand up to the Brit bayonet charge that followed minutes later. The coup-de-grace came when at that same time too another veteran British battalion [of the 52nd Light Infantry]also in line and very fresh, wheeled 90 degress in Line formation to fire into the flank of the French column -and their own follow-up advance which was heartily egged on by Wellington himself.

(in reply to Jagger2002)

Post #: 32

RE: Line vs Column - 11/16/2005 6:53:36 PM

Capitaine

Posts: 1043
Joined: 1/15/2002
Status: offline

A common mistake made in this thread and in the discussion of line vs. column generally is the flawed assertion that the line formation possesses "greater firepower". It does not at all (unless the weapons are different, giving the line a greater rate of fire). A line has a greater FRONTAGE than a column, assuming the formations have the same number of men.

Both line and column may only fire from the first two ranks and both have the same distance between men in line. If the columns on one side outnumber the line on the other such that the frontage of the advancing columns matches the frontage of the defending line, the advantage in firepower would seem to lie with the columns, due to the presence of replacements from the files. In addition, because musketballs would not continue onward after hitting a soldier like cannonballs, the losses sustained frontally by both the column and line would be about the same (depth only resulting in significantly greater losses from artillery fire). One on one, a line's frontage could bring more muskets to bear than a column, obviously, but rarely would a successful attack rely on 1:1 odds, in my estimation.

I have always understood the line, and the 2-deep line in particular, to be a crutch for armies lacking in manpower, as the British were noted for, in order to cover the necessary or desired frontage on the battlefield. As noted above, lines would also tend to minimize losses from artillery fire due to the much shallower ranks, so given the typical advantage in artillery of the French, the British use of line on defense also was advantageous.

To cut to the chase, then, I believe that the success of British against the French had less to do with any innate superiority of the line formation than it did with the tactical context of a given confrontation (tactical defensive, defensive positioning, better quality troops than non-French continental armies, leadership, etc.).

(in reply to akileez)

Post #: 33

RE: Line vs Column - 11/16/2005 8:46:25 PM

Le Tondu

Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

Just a quick reply here.

Remember that the line and the column were really nothing more than tools that local commanders used. How any tool is used can greatly effect its effectiveness. Its still possible for an inferior commander with superior troops to loose to inferior troops with a superior commander, don't you think?

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Capitaine)

Post #: 34

RE: Line vs Column - 11/27/2005 5:52:42 AM

Vipor1

Posts: 2
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Gents:

I just started playing again... after many years of absence... Napoleon period computer games.. I used to play SSI's Battle's of Napoleon (wasn't that on Dos?). I did not play it for the graphics.

I liked the phased turns and use them in HPS's Waterloo. I do miss the ability to set calvary units for #charge. However, because of this when I see a potential for a calvary charge I recall skirmishes and set up squares...

I am impressed with the depth of knowledge you people have about Napoleon tactics. I have been sitting here reading for over an hour and learning... Question: do u think the phased based turn allows for more realistic period tactics than the turn system? Also, what Napoleon game was it that allowed in the Defense phase turn to change formations, defensive fire and # charge?

Roland

(in reply to Waldo_slith)

Post #: 35

RE: Line vs Column - 11/27/2005 6:22:32 PM

Le Tondu

Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

I remember that it was one of the BG games that allowed the defensive phase turn actions that you mentioned. Definitely BG Waterloo & maybe BG NIR?

Yes, I do believe that a phased turn based system works better than the expedience of the non-phased for more historical and realistic tactics. One has to admit that what constitutes those two important aspects of Napoleonic gaming can be argued about forever when it comes to a turn-based game. (Did things really happen as they do on the screen or was it a mix where it all happened at once?)

The most historical and realistic way of playing a Napoleonic game will be how this game (BPW: Battles of Napoleon) will play. That is because it is what is called "we-go." I've been playing Combat Mission for years and there is no better system for wargaming, IMHO. Say goodbye to all the concerns of phased turn or non-phased ways of playing. The tactical AI will take care of everything. Charges and counter-charges will happen when they're supposed to. Units will meet in realistic ways. Events will happen in ways that are more realistic.

This game will be light years above the previously mentioned turn-based style of games. No doubt about it.

Cheers,
Rick

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Vipor1)

Post #: 36

RE: Line vs Column - 11/27/2005 7:53:24 PM

sol_invictus

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Kentucky
Status: offline

Agreed Le Tondu, as long as the AI can handle it. This game has really gotten me excited!

(in reply to Le Tondu)

Post #: 37

RE: Line vs Column - 11/27/2005 8:41:43 PM

Le Tondu

Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline

One excellent thing about this game is Frank Hunter. He has experience making we-go games, so I'd say that our chances are pretty good.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to sol_invictus)

Post #: 38

RE: Line vs Column - 11/28/2005 3:02:40 AM

Vipor1

Posts: 2
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline

Rick:

was able to locate and install SSI's Battles of Napoleon this morning... Once seeking it...this was not the game I was speaking about. Had to be Battleground (BG): Waterloo or BG: NIR... and yes I look forward to BPW ... it should be incredible. I am enjoying HPA ... but I would like to have seen more of a phased I go - u go... with fractional movement per phase or pulses... and where u can set the AI reaction for different divisions, or perhaps lower units in chain of command?

I appreciate your response... '
Thank you,
Roland

(in reply to Le Tondu)

Post #: 39