The Loose Association of Wargamers

Battalion, Regiment, Brigade, Division & Corps: the constituent parts of a Napoleonic (& other) army.

The definition of the terms aren't entirely strict but I think you could accept they are, with some overlaps, indicative of a progression in size, with a discreet level of command. In military reality, they are/were vital. In wargaming are they all necessary?

Although I have participated in several multi-corps - army - level games, our usual scope concerns a small Corps ie 2, maybe 3, small divisions a side. With such, Brigade command seems superfluous. As indeed does what a regimental colonel is supposed to do. I could also mention my efforts to give each battery a battery commander whose figure often gets inadvertantly left behind when the battery moves because it is purposeless.

I have purchased a painted quite a few figures to cover all these levels & "roles" but apart from 2-3 Divisional generals & a Corps Commander, everything else is eye candy. Over the years I've tried to give all levels some role but it tends to be just needless complication IMO. You can substitute Brigade commanders for Divisional ones if you like but I don't think using both is useful.

My SYW armies have just Brigade commanders & an army general which is more or less historical. It seems to me this fits wargaming Napoleonic & ACW games as well.

Comment?

donald

I think WRG give a morale penalty for not having a general present, and a huge penalty if rallying without a general. Commanding Spanish armies where you have three wings and the CO, you feel it.

If you were fighting Megagames with people representing your subordinates, you would soon see a change in how gamers value their own figure.

The greater part of the problem is that we just assume that the slow pace of marching (musket range in 30 minutes to an hour) reflects all the C3 issues and then we gloss over them. Card activation could help here.

It depends upon how your rules handle command, commanders & the loss thereof. Playing SYW games using the Carnage and Glory computer moderated set, every brigade has a commander (1 figure base so easy to spot on the table), every division/wing likewise (2 figure base) & similarly to Corps level (3 figures) etc. Losing a commander isn't uncommon at the lower levels & causes difficulties in combat, morale and rallying, so a spare general or two to take command comes in handy.

That said, we've had the odd battle where the CinC has had to take direct command of a lower level formation because of junior officer losses. Taking potshots at the king is usually frowned upon, but more than one principality has needed a new prince afterwards!

Depends on scale of game. An army level napoleonic game, say Wagram, needs 4 french commanders, Davout and Massena on the wings, Macdonald on the second day and Napoleon in charge.

A corps level needs the commander and his divisional officers, say Davout and his 3 generals at Auerstadt. The only real reason to deploy lower on the table, is dead mans shoes.

Etranger wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 7:00 am so a spare general or two to take command comes in handy.

Indeed. This is regulated in our SYW rules. They stay in proximity to the army commander until needed & then move, at light cavalry speed, to join their new command. On some occasions, this delay has resulted in them not having a command to join.

In our Nap. games (General d'Armee) you simply move a stricken general down in competence to reflect a replacement.

I do think a general per 3-7 units is sufficient. Any more & morale is not as brittle as you'd like.

donald

The other distinction that might want to be made is that Divisional and corps commanders, commanded all arms, Brigadiers would only command one type, so a division commander or wing commander has cavalry, artillery and infantry to deal with, his brigadiers only command infantry or cavalry and artillery has its own oversight..

ochoin wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 6:21 am Battalion, Regiment, Brigade, Division & Corps: the constituent parts of a Napoleonic (& other) army.

The definition of the terms aren't entirely strict but I think you could accept they are, with some overlaps, indicative of a progression in size, with a discreet level of command. In military reality, they are/were vital. In wargaming are they all necessary?

I'll stop you right there. In the French army, and possibly other Continental forces (but not the Prussians), "regiment" was purely administrative; battalion commanders were generally more important tactically, so you could drop them and not notice any deleterious effect. The Prussians were an exception, as their brigades were almost the equivalent of a division, and hence the regiment corresponded more closely to a brigade,and was also "mixed" with the fusilier element.

FreddBloggs wrote: ↑Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:13 am The other distinction that might want to be made is that Divisional and corps commanders, commanded all arms, Brigadiers would only command one type, so a division commander or wing commander has cavalry, artillery and infantry to deal with, his brigadiers only command infantry or cavalry and artillery has its own oversight..

Certainly corps commanders led all arms, but I rather suspect that - as a rule - divisional commanders only commanded one troop type plus the relevant type of artillery. Commanding large bodies of cavalry was a fairly specialised skill, and consequently you don't often see much interchange between the two arms once you reach senior officer rank (say Lt Col or equivalent, and above). I know some armies did experiment with attaching a squadron of cavalry as recce troops, but they tended to remain under the control of cavalry officers. In WW1, the reason so many cavalry officers achieved higher command levels was not through snobbery or the usual class bollocks, but because, by that stage, cavalry officers were being taught to fight an infantry battle, as well as a cavalry one, whereas infantry officers only learnt about the former.

In armies other than the british, regiment and brigadier are often the same role.

Now, who wants to talk about the Prussians?

I think that, allowing for exceptions, it's a good place to start from.