A Tangled Mass: Volley Fire

 

An old engraving by Adolph Menzel depicting Prussian infantry preparing to fire on (presumably) Austrian cavalry [Thank you for the confirmation!].

The Young Master and Grand Duchess are out doing mother-son things this Saturday afternoon, so before returning to the painting table and those Schaumburg-Lippe infantry, I thought I would begin sharing a bit more about the emerging and ever evolving rules for the games that my son and I occasionally stage. In much the same way as approaches to painting our miniatures, the discussion of rules and the thought behind them is a fascinating part of the historical wargaming hobby in my humble view.  So, here goes.

First, these rules -- currently given the working title A Tangled Mass -- are not revolutionary and clearly owe a lot to numerous predecessors, most notably Featherstone, Bath, Young & Lawford, a bit of the Grants, Asquith, Gilder, Protz, Purky, Hyde, Flint, and most recently Messrs. Whitehouse & Foley. 

Given all of that, plus my pwn predilections, these rules are very much 'gamey' in style than they are intended to provide a strict simulation of mid-18th century European warfare.  As I gradually concluded many years ago, the simulation route is a rabbit warren down which we don't want to head, resulting in "madness" as Young & Lawford wrote in Charge!  Or How to Play War Games (1967), one of my longtime touchstones. 

On the contrary, what I've been after for several years of playing around with and now play-testing and revising or clarifying these ideas are simple rules that can (eventually) be committed to memory, also providing reasonably quick, decisive, and fun games. Say two to four hours at most.  So, reinforced brigades rather than large armies, although that is an option if one has the table dimensions, time, and inclination to set up and clear away.

That said, a key feature of so many battles during the 18th and early 19th centuries, according to the reading I've done over many years -- Keegan, Duffy, Hughes, Haythornthwaite, Muir, Nosworthy et al -- seems to the tremendous confusion and difficulty in getting one's units to carry out original orders and attain a commander's objectives once his troops have been set in motion and come into contact with the enemy. 

So, while strict simulation is out, it nevertheless seems to me that we ought to aim for some of this same confusion and frustration -- the unexpected as it were -- in our games as tabletop commanders. A lot of that comes through the morale and related compulsory movement rules that The Young Master and I experiment with in our games.

But of that, more anon. Right now, let's talk about how we handle musket volleys in our games here in Stollen Central.

According to our A Tangled Mass rules, line infantry regiments (approximately 60-strong) consist of figures based in groupings of either six (for grenadier companies, militia, etc.), or eight (fusiliers, musketeers, etc.).  For each base of eight musketeers or fusiliers [or possibly also a base of six grenadiers] one D6 is thrown to represent a musket volley. For each base of six line figures [militia or other second or third rate troops], roll a D6 and subtract two. These rolls are modified according to distance a unit is from its target. See the chart below:

Close Range D6 = # of hits 

Medium D6 - 3 = # hits 

Long D6 - 4 = # hits

*+1 to each D6 for first volley*

At close range, musket volleys from a fresh line infantry unit can be deadly, and some might argue even excessive.  But, not necessarily thanks to the randomness of the dice.  Paul and I prefer to think of it in terms of misses, misfires, hang fires, damp powder, forgotten loading steps in the heat of battle, and so forth.  [And let's not forget that 'luck' did play some roll in battles of the era given the unpredictable, even unreliable nature of black powder weapons.]. 

All of this makes for exciting, bloody, and sometimes frustrating games.  It also means that a unit of troops on the receiving end might need to check its morale after one of these representative firefights, assuming a certain level of attrition is reached. This differs according to morale class, which, as stated previously, we'll get to later.

In our firefights, Young Master Paul and I treat all figures, regardless of type (officer, NCO, musician, enlisted man) as firing.  Odd figures can either be ignored, or each rolls a D6 with (possible) hits according to the following chart:

 Close Range -- 4, 5, 6 hit 

Medium Range -- 5, 6 hit

Long Range -- 6 hits


For each potential hit, we attempt saving throws, which are the same for all types of fire and close combat. As Whitehouse and Foley advise, saving throws give both players something to do and keep games from turning into unmitigated killfests.  [Saving throws also help children keep from getting too discouraged and/or waning attention].  For the size games that we play here, saving throws work well. Our saving throw table looks like this:

Close Range (or Close Combat) -- 6 saves 

Medium -- (or built up areas) -- 5, 6 save 

Long --  (or Earthworks) -- 4, 5, 6 save


So, there we have it. Those are the basic (highly derivative) rules The Young Master and I use right now to approximate our musket volleys.  Quick, relatively easy to commit to memory after a few games, fairly simple to work out, and not too taxing on the ol' noggin.  All things that should be a feature of any game (cards, checkers/draughts, toy soldiers, etc.) played by people of any age.

As always, please feel free to comment with your own thoughts, ideas, or observations.  As I mentioned above, tinkering with the rules we use to conduct our games is a fascinating pursuit all on its own.  And there might be something fairly obvious that The Young Master and I are missing.  A necessary rethink and revision in other words.  So please do drop us a line if the comment spirit strikes.

-- Stokes and Young Master Paul