Wednesday 2 December 2020

Battle for Rahden : Conclusions

A couple of posts ago, we left the battle for the 'Soldier King' campaign town of Rahden interestingly poised after seven turns, with the defending Prussians  expelled from the eastern hill in front of the town, and attacking Austrians hoping to press home their advantage.  After a longer than expected hiatus, with the opposing troops snarling at each other inside their storage box, I was able to unpack them, re-set the battlefield and resume the game. 

Turn 8 :  Austrians advance

The picture shows the situation at Turn 8 - the defenders have a problem, in that their Fusiliers East of the road are facing two Austrian battalions, and being bombarded by artillery. That battery took a few turns to get the range, but once it did, things got tricky. Meanwhile on the other flank, Prussian Horse Grenadiers face twice their number of Austrian  cavalry on the hill.  The Horse Grenadiers didn't lack courage, making three charges in the next three moves - sadly they were  'bounced back' twice and then suffered 1 SP loss. But they certainly kept the Austrian horse busy!  The supporting von Kleist infantry fought well,  keeping up a steady fire - for example repelling an Austrian cavalry charge and coolly volleying to force the  2nd Botta battalion to retreat, all  in one turn. 

Turn 9 also saw the Austrians really get stuck in - taking advantage of the road, their  remaining Jaeger infantry battalion charged the Prussian guns! There followed several rounds of suprisingly inconclusive close combat as the gunners stuck to their guns behind the shelter of the wall,  and neither side would give way. 

Turn 9 : Intrepid Jaegers charge Prussian guns
 

In Turn 10, things really heated up, with the Austrian gunners getting their eye in and hitting the Prussian Fusiliers - who could not risk retreating from their protected position, and so had to take a loss of 1 SP. To make matters worse, musketry from 1st battalion Botta also hit them, and took another 1SP.  The Fusiliers gave almost  as good as they got,inflicting 1 SP loss on 1st  Botta, but it was a bad turn for the Prussians and left the losses at 7 SPs  each.  

The Prussian infantry defended stoutly, their mustketry repeatedly finding its mark, but the Austrian gunners were even more effective, hitting the Prussian Fusiliers every turn- and those Fusiliers couldn't give up their position, so the casualties kept on  mounting.  On Turn 12 the cannonade  left them with only one SP strength remaining, and then  a volley from 1st  Botta battalion  scored another hit - the fusiliers finally retreated, to avoid destruction. At which point, the Austrian Jaegers were able to take advantage, jumping over  the vacated wall.  

Oops -  by making that move, I had broken a rule.  The Jaegers had been in contact with the Prussian gunners, and according to Bob's 'Portable Napoleonic Wargame' rules,  'if a unit is being faced by an enemy unit that is in an adjacent grid area..it can move..providing it does not move into a grid area that is adjacent to another enemy unit'. So they shouldn't have been able to move adjacent to the retreating fusiliers, only to withdraw away from the guns.  Oh dear!  I only realised this when looking through my notes to write this account, so at the time the game simply went on.  Maybe that's the best way to deal with rules mistakes - just keep calm and carry on. It's possibly both an advantage and a disadvantage of solo play - no aggrieved opponent annoyed at being 'cheated', but equally no second pair of eyes on the rules to point out mistakes and prevent them happening.  Oh well, c'est la (jeux de)  guerre.

Jaegers over the wall : oops, illegal move!

 

Also in turn 12,  the Prussian Horse Grenadiers charged yet again, and finally took 1SP from their Austrian opponents - some reward for their persistence. That left the losses at Austrians 10 SP, Prussians 9 SP - and crucially the Prussians reached their Exhaustion Point. 

Prussian General von Gehirne could use his brains, and knew the game was up - the best course now was to retire with as much as possible of his force intact.  Starting from  turn 13 the Prussian gunners limbered up their pieces and began to retire, while the von Kliest foot and Horse Grenadiers pulled back slowly, with the brave Fusiliers holding position, keeping up constant fire to deter the Austrian follow-up - their Jaegers were repeatedly hit and forced back.  But the rest of Dachs' attacking force made a general advance, the guns limbering up and moving forward to East Hill,  and both their cavalry units charging the Horse Grenadiers, inflicting casualties on them.     Turn 15 effectively ended the game: with all Prussian units near table edge, a volley from 1st Botta finally forced the Fusiliers to retreat off-table, taking their commander with them. 

At this point I called a halt, with the Prussians retiring  and the Austrians taking possession of the town of Rahden.  Casualties were even - 10 SPs lost each, though of course that was enough to bring the Prussians to their  Exhaustion Point.  Both sides had one 'veteran' ( i.e. average ) infantry  unit destroyed and a scattering of SP losses shared evenly  among  various units - though the Prussian Fusiliers were hard hit, losing 4 out of their 5 SPs. All this needs considering in terms of the campaign - it's not just a one-off battle, there are consequences, and I hope that's part of the fun. 

The End of the Affair - two remaining Prussian units retire
 

Many of the units should easily replace their losses, but the Fusiliers will need longer to recover. A simple scheme suggests itself - I'll say that  replacements and recovery of the wounded can restore 1 SP per unit per campaign turn, for the moment - only a very small amount of book-keeping will be required.  I've decided that the two routed/destroyed units are gone for good, their survivors having scattered to the four winds, or perhaps been allocated to make up losses in less depleted units.

 Just for fun,  I played out the battle using the 'Soldier King' board game's combat system - and it was a disaster for the attacking Austrians! The fortifications of the town gave a big advantage to the defenders and negated the Austrians' cavalry superiority: after 3 rounds of combat they had lost 8 points out of 12 and only inflicted 2 points - total defeat!   Maybe I should have given more advantage to the defence  on the tabletop, but what the heck, it was a fun game. 

I hope to continue with the campaign. Let's see where it takes us. How will the Prussians respond to this reverse?   Until next time,  keep safe and well, everyone.


17 comments:

  1. Hi, David in Suffolk -
    I enjoyed this account - a fine, brisk action. It struck me as the kind of 'kleine krieg' action that occurs on the fringes of a major campaign - the size of the armies and their composition suggesting something of the sort. The Austrians seem to have been rather good at that kind of thing!

    Looking at the respective sizes of the forces, I reckon on this occasion the Austrians did very well, 'even' under PW rules. 34 SP attacking 25SP in fortifications... no easy task!

    Like the attractive, unclutterd presentation.
    Cheers,
    Ion

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much! Largely by chance, the figures I picked up from Eric Knowles collection have given a flavour of the 'kleine krieg', and I like the idea of the slightly obscure 'backwater' setting. Alhough given more space and time, I would of course be happy to 'go large'!
      The Austrians gunners did them proud, I think, and the fortifications proved something of a mixed blessing - you can't take a 'retreat' and save an SP loss, if by doing so you lose your dug-in position and it gets overrun. As a result, the bombardment eventually wore the Prussians down.

      Delete
    2. That fortifications tend to induce one to 'take the hit' is true enough, but the flip side is that if you want to attack, you have to take your lumps as well. I don't know about you, but I take the view that opposing units in adjacent grid areas are automatically in close combat, and so do not require activation. That has the effect of encouraging the acceptance of losses to sustain an attack, but also of making sense of holding attacks. It also tends to offset a little the tendency to piecemeal attacks occasioned by the activation system. Of course, in rather different tactical situations, taking the retreat is the preferred option.
      Cheers,
      Ion

      Delete
    3. Thats interesting, I did notice that with the limited activations from the card draws, I did have units adjacent to the enemy but not actually fighting becuase not actviated, and I could be tempted by your idea of 'automatic' close combat. I suppose in a real combat there might well be 'lulls' as units fall back slightly when energy flags, until some dynamic officer rallies them for another push. So maybe the activation cards could be said to reflect that..
      The Prussian fusiliers got plastered by artillery and had to just take it, but they did inflict plenty of damage in return with their musketry!

      Delete
  2. Another entertaining action. Sounds like a close run thing. The replacements rules sound sensible and simple.

    I don’t know Soldier King. Does taking the town confer any other advantages like additional resources for future campaign turns, or does it just count towards victory points?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! It was a good game, and might have gone either way. I think your question on Soldier King has been admirably answered by Neil in his comment, see below..

      Delete
  3. An engaging battle report.

    Always tough to know how tough to make a fortified position.

    As for missing a rule in the heat of battle (and I sometimes find myself accidently defying my own rules) its best put down to fog of war or the clouds of acrid smoke.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you - I enjoy writing the reports almost as much as playing the game!
      Indeed, I think missed rules are just 'part of life's rich pageant' , in fact I played on without realising, and subsequent events felt true enough to the game.
      I dislike complicated rules, and that's partly because I think they are self-defeating. The more complexity, then the more rules get forgotten, so why bother with the complexity?!

      Delete
  4. Splendid game David. Looking forward to more of this campaign

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much MJT! I think this campaign has potential to be a nice 'frame' for some good games, as long as I keep it simple!

      Delete
  5. More great action from your table , looking forward to seeing this continue...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much, Alan! Yes it will continue - I have been thinking of names for the commanders of other forces, so they need to be given a turn..

      Delete
  6. Hi David - Good to see the Austrians win against the Prussians...do like your figures and buildings- well done. Regards. KEV. (Sydney-Australia).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much, Kev. I can't take credit for the figures as most are the work of the late Eric Knowles (though I have made a start). The buildings have 'starred' in an earlier post and I am rather pleased with them.
      I gather it's been 40 degrees C where you are - hard to imagine that, here in wintry England. Hope your aircon/sea breeze is good!

      Delete
  7. Re: Nundanket's comment. Rahden is a fairly strategic location as it controls the point to point movement on either side of otherwise impassable mountains. To get the recruitment advantage, you have to conquer the whole province by putting units into each city.
    The SK rules allow units to be either full strength or reduced; perhaps if SP losses are over 50% they become a flip side unit, less recover to full strength. Eliminated units - not sure - it may be too attritional and you could run out of troops quite quickly! The SK rules would allow a replacement if the recruiting strength was higher than current number of units. The replacement would however be "levy" status representing a raw or new unit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much for a great reply to Nundanket's question!
      As you can probably tell, I am making up rules like replacements/recruitment as I go along, rather. I will have to have a look at the board game's rules for reinforcements and upgrading units - I think one factor will be that I need to keep armies quite small at the moment, as i have very limited numbers of figures to put on the ( also quite small ) table!

      Delete
    2. Thanks Neil. All clear now.

      Delete