It is always nice to get a little bit of gaming in over a Bank Holiday, and this weekend's was no exception. The first game was a refight of the
Battle of Breitenfeld. I had wanted to do this for a while, but it took me a little while to clear a table from work and home detritus! Anyway, it is one of the most important battles of the Thirty Years' War (maybe along with White Mountain and Rocroi? - and Spanish speakers often seem to mention Nordlingen too - might think about this a little more at some point) and I have never played it, so was looking forward to it. I had also seen a game of the battle done this year at Partizan - in 15mm, by one of the Scottish clubs I think - and that had also inspired me to give it a go.
As usual in this series, I am using the Twilight of Divine Right rules and the associated Europe's Tragedy: Thirty Years' War scenario book.
As an aside, I actually met Nick Dorrell briefly at Joy of Six - he seemed like a nice, friendly chap. I wanted to tell him how much I was enjoying the rules and the scenario books, but he was called away briefly, and then I left early so I didn't get the chance! Maybe next year...
Anyhow, as a very rough indication of forces:
The Imperial Army:
14 Tercios, 1 Musketeer regiment (n.b. some of these Tercios were particularly large)
15 Cavalry units, 3 Light Cavalry units
4 Guns
The Saxon Army:
6 Tercios, 1 Musketeer regiment
8 Cavalry units
2 Guns
The Swedish Army:
7 Brigades, 1 Musketeer regiment
15 Cavalry units, 1 Dragoon unit
2 Guns
Both sides are looking to defeat the other, but the Allied Saxon and Swedish armies win if there is no result.
The Set-Up:
 |
The Imperial Army at the bottom, the Allied Army at the top: Swedes left and centre, Saxons to the right.
|
 |
Pappenheim's Imperial Cavalry
|
 |
Pappenheim's Imperial Cavalry face off against Baner's Swedish Cavalry on the Imperial Left.
|
 |
The Imperial Centre and Reserve
|
 |
The Imperial Right under Furstenberg
|
 |
The Saxon Army on the Allied Left
|
 |
Another view
|
 |
The Swedish Centre, under Gustavus himself
|
The Battle:
 |
The Imperialists begin the battle with an assault on the Right against the Saxons - the Imperial Horse lead the way, with some Tercios following up (left)
|
 |
The Imperial Centre launches a partial attack on the left flank of the Swedish contingent, to disrupt the slow Swedish advance
|
 |
The fight with the Saxons on the right intensifies - but so far, so good for the Saxons in holding off the Imperial attack
|
 |
| Swedish cavalry troopers pit their mettle against that of the Imperial
tercios - there are losses on both sides; note the elements of Commanded
Shot amongst the Swedes |
 |
The fight in the centre begins to develop, as the Swedish infantry push up into range of their muskets and crucially, their regimental guns
|
 |
Fierce fighting around the hill - the Saxons are losing, but not by much, and not quickly
|
 |
The Imperialists are facing a torrent of fire in the centre, but their tercios on the right have driven off the Swedish cavalry and are trying to turn the line - they aren't very manoeuvrable though! Gustavus calls up a couple of cavalry regiments from the Swedish Right (left) to stave off disaster.
|
 |
The 'crumbling' attacks on the Saxons continue, although the Imperialists are suffering losses too
|
 |
The fighting in the centre is intense - can the Imperialists' flank attack tell before the centre gives way?
|
 |
The Swedish Right charges, hoping to increase the pressure all along the line
|
 |
The Saxons are hanging on...just
|
 |
The Swedish Left (i.e. the left of the Centre) begins to give way!
|
 |
The Saxons have caused quite heavy casualties amongst the Imperialists, but the gaps are becoming wider in their ranks - it is only a matter of (not much) time now...
|
 |
It looks bad for the Swedes, except their Horse have destroyed the lead tercio (extreme right) and are threatening the flanks of two more tercios...
|
 |
The Saxons can take no more, and flee!
|
 |
As do the Swedes!! Their attacks have not been sufficiently effective, and now it is sauve qui peut...
|
 |
...in the centre
|
 |
...and on the left
|
Game Notes:
Very exciting stuff! The Saxons seemed to fight much harder than their historical counterparts, but the Imperialists also seemed to fight a little harder in the centre and when they got some luck, they made the most of it. But it could easily have gone either way.
The rules seemed to handle the battle pretty well. The Imperialists used quite unusual tactical formations (1-up, 2-back) which were a little challenging in some particulars, since all the examples in the book show rear support in a straightforward column of bases. I am guessing that both units count for support, at the cost of making some of the manoeuvres significantly more difficult (like replacing a damaged unit). Not sure this is the case though, since in principle that would allow a really unstoppable column given enough units (1 unit in the lead, supported by 2 columns of 10 units each...it would be like a +8 attack & -6 to the opposing troops or something). The Swedes have some nice/clever rules to model their greater tactical flexibility and firepower, although there is a bit of me which thinks that you might do better to streamline the rules and call it +1 for being Swedish. There are quite a few factors in combat generally in these rules, although you do internalize most of them after while. They all seem pretty reasonable. I think I am still making the odd mistake with the rules, but I am getting better!
Figures by Baccus 6mm, buildings are a mixture of Leven and Battlescale I think.
Good battle! Big as well.
ReplyDeleteWhat about Lutzen? Must count as one of the important ones? Death of Gustavus and all that - even if he is overrated!
Anyway, looks entertaining.
I'm not sure about the amount of support you could count - p.19 Support example, bottom of column 1:
'An individual column of up to 7 units (with the front one being the one supported) one behind the next can be counted for rear support providing all the required support criteria apply.'
I reckon that would be 3 bonus points per column max.
And -2 per column on the enemy morale - top of second column p.19
'To get the third rear support bonus the front unit must have three extra units to the rear ie a total of 6 units to the rear of the front unit. This will give the opposing unit a -2 modifier overall in their morale test.'
So +6 on the Imperialist morale test and -4 on the enemy morale - still a lot but not quite panzer division status!
Thanks very much Guy. It was entertaining and exciting, hopefully a little of that came across. I did think about Lutzen too - definitely not going to rule it out!
ReplyDeleteEssentially, the amount of support you can get like that depends on the answer to the question, do the Imperialists get +2 for support in their unusual triangular formation at Breitenfeld, or only +1 (you can see some in the photos, but basically one unit in the lead with two units behind, side-by-side); if they can, then it is a really powerful formation, especially extrapolated into more depth; if they can't, then they are handicapped by being in a largely useless formation. And it seems slightly either/or. I could actually push the logic further: since Early Tercios already have the '1-layer back' rear support, if they get support from both rear units, then it should be conceptually possible to do the 'extra split' at any point in the column of units. Early Tercios are quite good actually, because in the RAW, you can still fill in the 'B' slot in the column and get an extra unit there (the rules give ET's automatic rear support, but don't say that this takes the place of the 'B' slot - genuinely don't know if this is WAD or not).
First of all it was nice to meet you briefly at Joy of Six. It was a shame we couldn't talk more. Hopefully we will see each other next year at the show.
ReplyDeleteAs usual a great AAR :)
On the tactical formation this is how the Imperialists formed up on the day. I think that it is likely that they were not as you have them with the 2 supporting units behind and touching. Instead I think they had a gap between them so they provide support but can move up to the front alongside the front unit or replace a damaged front line unit.
In game terms having 2 unit supporting 1 a single unit does nothing directly. You only ever get a +1 for rear support no matter how much support you have. But having the 2 units behind would mean either could replace a damaged front unit.
On the support provided the Early Tercios automatically get the 'B' slot and extra support would count as in the 'C', etc, slots. Early Tercios are tough as a single unit is a 'battle line' on it's own.
Finally to be clear if there are say 7 'lines' with Early Tercios counting as 2 'lines'. This would give your front unit a +1 for rear support. This could be the 'built in' one that Early Tercios get or from another unit if the front unit is not an Early Tercio - this is the 'B' support in the diagram. The 3rd and 4th lines are the 'C' support and the 5th, 6th and 7th the 'D' support. The opposing unit would get -2 (-1 for the C and another -1 for the 'D').
In summary 7 'lines' gives you +1 rear support in your test and the opposing unit -2 in their test. Hopefully that makes sense.
Thanks very much for those clarifications. One Q if you read this reply - assuming the gap is there (my games look a little more cramped visually since I use a single 60x30 base rather than two 30x15 bases), how many action tests would one of the two units to the rear need to take place alongside the lead unit?
ReplyDeleteI strongly suspect that the triangular formation doesn't work. I think that the front unit can only count support from one of the units behind it, not from both. your best fet would be to ask in the FB Twilight rules group. I've had Nick answer my questions, often on the same day. I've only played Soldier Kings version but getting ready to try Divine Right.
ReplyDeleteHi Chris. I think Nick is the 'Unknown' commenter above with the useful clarifications. I must give Soldier Kings a try at some point!
ReplyDeleteThat was a great battle report, I keep meaning to do more TYW games but it still seems quite impenetrable for some reasons. Tbh I much prefer the clean simplicity of Twilight of the Sun King, the long lists of modifiers in the later iterations just do my head in. +1 for being Swedish is much more up my street.
ReplyDeleteThanks very much Martin, you are very kind. The TYW has definitely grown on me over the years as a period. And yes, streamlined is always good. The Stephen Simpson set's in WI, which I am informed were the starting point for this series, really were very simple indeed! Although you can still see the genesis there of the 'action test' and the 'morale test' being the heart of the game.
DeleteSorry, yes this is Nick :)
ReplyDeleteJWH: It would be 2 action tests and thinking about it I think it is not that good. Looking again at the battle I think what the Imperialists are doing is spreading their foot out to match the Swedish foot and also the joint cavalry in the centre of the Allied line. So the Imperialist foot is in effect in a single line that is 'staggered' to be a kind of triangle. Something like this map (note the cavalry is out of scale) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Breitenfeld_%281631%29#/media/File:Battle_of_Breitenfeld_-_Initial_dispositions,_17_September_1631.png
So basically with the 2nd line having 'unit sized' gaps in so the 2 lines could combine. You have done something a little different in your game and that of course is the point of doing the battle. One of the times we did it we used 'triangles' but with 2 up front and 1 supporting. That worked well until it came to replacing the front line units with unmanoeuvrable 2nd line units.
Thanks very much Nick, appreciate your comments, very useful. Instinctively, the 2-up 1-back model is somewhat more appealing because although you would have to make the 'Difficult' action test to relieve a unit, the 1-back unit could provide rear support to both the two forward units (at least, I think that is what the rules as written imply, since there is nothing written that forbids a unit providing rear support to only one unit - although not entirely convinced that is as intended?).
ReplyDeleteAlways happy to help.
ReplyDeleteThe 2 up, 1 back is certainly intended and indeed a 'standard' deployment you will find on many battlefields. It does allow 1 unit to support 2 but at the cost of having to take action tests to replace the front unit, when compared to having say 2 up, 2 back.
Ah okay, thanks, that is very helpful (and very interesting). This implies that there may be some quite efficient ways of deploying troops in the 2nd and 3rd lines to maximize support.
DeleteA fine game there John and 6mm does really give the feel of a big battle. I dabbled in the TYW many years ago, but somehow it never really grabbed me. Maybe all those Tercios to paint put me off!
ReplyDeleteThanks Steve, really appreciate that. I actually didn't paint that much for TYW - mainly just Cuirassiers and Harquebusiers. I followed advice I think I first read from Arthur Harmann - just use the same troops for everything, with different command stands. So I took the standard bearers off, re-based a few units for those double-sized Imperial tercios and then created little flag stands so each infantry unit can be Royalist, Parliamentarian, Imperialist, Protestant Union, French, Swedish whatever. There is a bit of me wondering why I didn't do that for my WSS stuff to be honest, that has loads of uniform overlap too...
Delete