The next scenario in the series of
One Hour Wargames scenarios that I am playing through is Scenario 26, called 'Triple Line' and based on the
Battle of Bladensburg. Here the attacking force must defeat a deep, layered but uncoordinated defence. There has been a lot of modifications to turn this battle into an interesting scenario, primarily substituting strength (or lack of it) for morale (or lack of it).
In this re-fight, the Hanoverian Army is in defence and the Franco-Jacobites are attacking.
The Forces:
Hanoverian Army: 4 bases of Infantry, 1 base of Artillery, 1 base of Dragoons
Franco-Jacobite Army:
Hanoverian units are not permitted to move or take any action until/unless Franco-Jacobite forces approach within 2BW.
The Set-Up:
 |
The defenders, in three lines
|
The Battle:
 |
The Franco-Jacobites arrive. Two brigades of infantry, two bases of artillery, two regiments of cavalry.
|
 |
The Irish Brigade deploys
|
 |
The Scottish infantry are overmatched by the confluence of French artillery fire and Irish musketry; Leven's Regiment routs
|
 |
Leven Regiment runs from the bridge...
|
 |
Given the disordered state of Fergusson's Regiment, the Franco-Jacobites take a risk and the Jacobites charge over the bridge...the Scottish battalion runs...
|
 |
The Franco-Jacobites re-deploy over the bridge, then begin a second advance with the Royal Eccossais leading on the right, followed by Normandie.
|
 |
The Franco-Jacobite build up continues, whilst Royal Eccossais pins the next defensive line by fire (top-right)
|
 |
The artillery superiority of the Franco-Jacobites leads to the destruction of the British guns...
|
 |
Trading space for time, the British regroup on the hill for their final stand
|
 |
The Franco-Jacobite infantry storm forward (right), supported continuously by the French artillery
|
 |
The British regiments are no push over, extracting a toll on the advancing Irish Brigade...but the Franco-Jacobite fire proves too intensive for Seymour's Marines...
|
 |
Perhaps surprisingly, the British beat off the next attack - the Irish brigade therefore retires slightly to rally and reform, whilst the other infantry brigade attacks the flank of the hill (top-right); this proved decisive and the remaining British units broke
|
 |
A wider shot
|
 |
Another view of the endgame
|
Game Notes:
Relatively straightforward for the Franco-Jacobites, although military skill is not solely measured in the ability to win in really difficult circumstances - dealing with a straightforward problem neatly & efficiently is also an important thing! Superior numbers and firepower on the one side, with severe co-ordination issues on the other, with no counter-acting appreciable difference in troop quality for the latter side, gave the 'grammar' of this action.
Once again, I really noticed the difference between how this played out with Ruse de Guerre compared to others of the sets I play relatively often. In Neil Thomas-type rules, the need for attrition to work would have potentially meant each stage of the attack would take longer. In Polemos General de Division the firing alone would be tremendously unlikley to cause such damage, there would have to be more advancing with the bayonet to clear out positions. But Ruse de Guerre combines effective firepower which scales linearly with potentially quite quick collapses at unit and formation level. I make no judgement about which approach is most historically accurate in a given period, but the tactical dynamics are very different. More on this in a full series round-up, perhaps.
Figures by Baccus 6mm.
:strip_icc()/pic2450648.jpg)
:strip_icc()/pic4967644.jpg)
You highlight an important observation from your series of OHW replays. That observation is that OHW is basically attritional in nature and the scenarios are designed with that combat engine in mind. Different rules play differently and may not always produce the same type of game or outcome that Thomas envisioned.
ReplyDeleteLooking forward to your series round-up.
Yes; I think the key factors here are the range of expected costs in time and strength and how these map between rulesets...but more on this in its proper place.
DeleteGood post game comments and I agree with what Jon has already said. I've found some of the scenarios are really tough, depending upon the rules used and the period played. So quite often I've had to tweak things if playing the SYW for example, with quite slow troop movements, artillery pretty immobile etc compared to say a Napoleonic game. However they do make a good basis for games but you do have to take time to considere any adjustments one might need to make.
ReplyDeleteYes, quite right. It isn't an exact science of course (although maybe it should be?!?) and there is a danger of over-correcting...in any case, I think it is almost as true to say that the scenario and the rules play the players as vice-versa...
DeleteLess loftily, I think embedded within the design principles in early wargaming was almost a wilfully agnostic assumption that if one could write an accurate scenario and play it with accurate rules, it would give an accurate game. It doesn't seem to work like that, what it depends on is how long in turns it takes the models to move to a certain place, and how much time it takes them to overcome opposition, and how trivial/impossible is it to recover from non-fatal damage to units/individuals...