After Vier Arme: and a rules summary

Following-on from the action of Vier Arme, let's have a little post-battle analysis, a summary of my  'Portable Seven Years War' variations on Bob Cordery's 'The Portable Napoleonic Wargame' rules, and brief  thoughts on where to go next.

First of all, I hope everyone reading is keeping well, staying home and getting through the current 'lockdown' as best we can. One of the few upsides is the increase in frequency of postings from many bloggers - thanks everyone!

Vier Arme turn 3 : in the thick of it

Post-match punditry :  I had a great time with 'Vier Arme'  ( or rather 'One-Hour Wargames' Scenario 11, Surprise Attack by Neil Thomas ). It was all  action right from the start, such that by turn 3 the defenders had been attacked from front and rear simultaneously, only for the attackers to be immediately hit from behind themselves!  The advantage kept on swinging from one to another, and despite what looked like a very precarious position for the Austrians, in terms of rank and file  casualties it was exactly even.  But of course, the decisive factor was the death of the Prussian commander, poor old Eric Von Kleist. Disaster for the Prussians!
  
It's also worth point out that not for the first time, the dash and impetuosity of the cavalry was a problem - the Prussian Horse Grenadiers' last charge at the depleted Austrian cavalry led to a tangle with two Austrian infantry units, resulting in the near-destruction of the Horse Grenadiers,  and pushing their army past its Exhaustion Point. If the Prussian cavalry had been content to hover menacingly on the flank, and allow their comrades in four  battalions of infantry to pour musketry at the Austrians, things might have been very different.

Sources close to Pundit von Lineker's post-action intelligence report tell us that once again, the Austrian 'Grenzer' foot unit was their outstanding performer, having taken no less than 8 Strength Points off the Prussians - and in only 3 rounds of shooting - it was of course their firing that killed Von Kliest! On the Prussian side the 1st Battalion 44th Fusiliers put up a good show, their musketry scored 6 hits in 6 volleys. Only 1 SP loss to the Austrians as a result, but no less than 5 forced retreats. Just a pity that Von Kleist, while with them, stopped two of the bullets coming back the other way. That was a lovely example of a complete change of narrative, utterly unexpected but entirely plausible, dealt out by Fortune in the shape of 2D6.  Just like life, really..


Portable Seven Years War rules modifications : a quick reminder

I've tried to make only a few changes to Bob's Napoleonic 'Brigade Level' rules, but catch something of the spirit of 18th Century warfare. So, in summary, here's the current version:

(i) Infantry  Square formation  is not allowed.

(ii) Infantry in  column may not move into contact with enemy units. Column is for marching, not attacking.

(iii) Horse Artillery  is not allowed.

(iv) I removed the modifier ( +1 or +2 ) for cavalry initiating  close combat against infantry in Line - and did  not use the 'infantry in line vs. Cavalry' hit resolution table.  Infantry in line should be able to repel cavalry with their disciplined volleys of musketry.

(v) BUT Infantry in line,  in their second round of close combat against cavalry, where the infantry suffered a hit in the first round and the cavalry did not suffer a hit : decrease the D6 die roll score by 2 . The infantry formation is assumed to have been 'broken into' and disordered by the cavalry.

(vi) Musket-armed infantry firing at long range (3 grid areas):  decrease the D6 die roll score by 2

(vii) Musket or rifle-armed infantry firing their first volley in the game:  increase the D6 die roll score by 1.

And that's it. Having only actually played two games so far, the rule about cavalry breaking into an infantry formation has not been used yet, but it seems fairly sensible - cavalry get no initial advantage in attacking infantry in line, as the disciplined musketry of line infantry is assumed to be capable of giving the cavalry pause for thought, but if the horse manage to make contact and get lucky in the first close combat round, they should then gain some advantage. I'm hoping this encourages cavalry to try for flank or rear attacks on infantry, rather than risking frontal attack in the teeth of that musketry.

Turn 8: Prussian High Tide,  Horse Grenadiers try for the kill..

I had a couple of moments of uncertainty with the rules in the Vier Arme battle which are worth noting :

(a) When a unit found itself in close combat with multiple enemy units, should there be any disadvantage to that unit?
I couldn't find anything in Bob's rules , and wondered about that.

I wasn't sure if an attacking unit contacting two enemy units had to fight them both - but I had not spotted footnote 20 on page 17 of Bob's book, which specifies that when a unit enters a grid area adjacent to two or more enemy units, it can choose which enemy unit it must turn and face.  So the attacking unit can choose which enemy to attack. Luckily I had made that assumption during my game.

For a unit which is attacked by multiple enemy units, I thought 'shouldn't they have  a 'minus' on the die roll in close combat?'  But of course, as Bob pointed out, just by being forced to fight two close combat rounds in succession, they run more risk of suffering hits, so there is already a built-in disadvantage - and the attacker gets to choose which of his units attacks first.  I think that's a really nice, elegant example of keeping things simple.

(b) When the Prussian Horse Grenadiers charged the Austrian Gunners from behind, I thought 'those gunners will take a beating now',and noted that the cavalry added 'plus 2'  to their close combat die roll. But I was slightly puzzled that the  artillery unit only suffered a 'minus 1' on their die roll, for being attacked from flank or rear. So the cavalry were very unlikely to take a hit, but the artillery only slightly more likely to suffer. They needed a 4,5 or 6 to survive unscathed, and duly rolled a 4.  I was intrigued by that, and couldn't resist querying with Bob - should the gunners have had more of a disadvantage in that melee?  His answer was very interesting, and I will quote it here:

"Cavalry attacking guns is a problem on the battlefield (think of the Charge of the Light Brigade, for example) … and something that they would only do in extremis. That said, when it did happen, the gunners usually waited until the last minute, and then either ran or hid under their guns where the cavalry could not get to them. This is what happened when the French cavalry charged the British artillery at Waterloo, with many gunners literally throwing themselves under the muskets of nearby infantry squares to get away from the French cavalry". 

I'm happy to admit, I hadn't thought of that!  Very interesting, and perfectly explains why Bob's close combat die roll modifiers are set up that way. Thanks Bob!

Lastly on the rules, as a result of Von Kleist's sufferings,  I did wonder if a wounded or dead commander should result in a reduction in the die roll for Initiative?  Well at first glance, maybe yes.. And then again?  Think of turn 3 - the Prussians won initiative and their cavalry thundered into the attack from the Austrians rear.. but then the Austrians, moving second, received their reinforcements and were able to turn the tables completely with an attack on the rear of the Prussian cavalry! Is it always advantageous to take the initiative and move first?  Maybe I'm not so sure. 

The End: von Keist is down,  his troops withdraw

Finally, where next?  With one drawn battle and one outright defeat which cost them their commander, the Prussians incursion into Austrian territory has pretty much failed, and they are keen to extricate themselves,  slink back to their bases, and give old Eric 'full military honours' . But will General Dachs let them get away?  I think some sort of pursuit or rearguard action is in order.

And R.I.P. Eric von Kliest.  I had fondly imagined a long relationhip between Dachs and von Kleist, as they  took on distinct personas in the course of many battles - only for old Eric to 'bite the dust' second time out!  But that's part of the fun, you never know what the dice will serve up.   One thing for sure, the Prussians need a new commander, someone has to step up and take charge. In honour of their original recruiter, I think the name 'Eric' needs to live on.

One suggestion is for the acting Prussian leader to be the one and only Eric Diehalbebiene...  

We'll see, next time!  Keep well and safe, everyone.