Towards TSC: Chef de Bataillon

A while ago, on our group's blog, I mentioned that I'd like to pursue the idea (which is mine, I think), of the 'Telescoping Scales Concept'. This is to play a game of a battle at several scales concurrently. The concept is clear in my head, but yet to be tried in reality. 

I picture a small table with small-scaled figures that plays out the entire battle (at the grand tactical, possibly even elements of strategic, level). Then there is the main, largest table on which the majority of the game/battle is played at the tactical level. Lastly, a second, small table on which individual, key sections of the battle are played out in minutia at the level of individual action.

Unlike most(?) wargamers I am not after the game to be completed in a few hours, but am aiming squarely at a large, self-indulgent affair that is left set-up and played out over numerous sessions in a wargaming 'binge' or over weeks or even months. It remains to be seen whether any of my wargaming friends will be interested to join me in this!

A photo from a preliminary test of rules for the individual action part of the telescoping scales concept—more on this below. I wanted the thumbnail image for this post to be one of figures, hence putting it here!

I'm beginning to try out parts of the telescoping scales concept, which has always been intended for Napoleonic wargaming. It all fits with going back to my wargaming roots. This blog is a big part of it, focussing entirely# on the Napoleonic era, the main (but not only) focus of my wargaming-related activities.

Step one is to decide on the scales of figures that I'd like to use for the different scales of the game. This is an easy decision as it is pre-determined by what I have! I plan to use mainly 1/72nd (with some 20 mm and 25 mm) figures, plus some 2 mm. The former, larger scale figures will be for the smaller scales, representing the tactical and individual action, while the 'little fellas' will be great for the grand tactical stuff.

Next step is consideration of sets of rules to use for the different scales of the game.

To me, part of the joy of trying this concept is that the myriad of Napoleonic rules sets becomes a smorgasbord of opportunity. Not only does it enable the use of rules that are aimed at different scales of Napoleonic wargaming, but also to use different options depending on the level of detail that I wish to apply to the particular scale.

Let me illustrate this with a few examples of candidate sets of rules for each scale of the game/battle.

Tactical

For this I am looking at rules where the battalion is the basic unit of manoeuvre. Shako-ANF, Revolution & Empire, March Attack, General d'Armée and de Bonaparte à Napoleon (DBN) are all rules that I will likely use for this scale of the game.

Shako-ANF (i.e. Shako with some aspects of Shako II included, plus our own edits and additions) is well-known to me and is a fine set for a large game with tactical level manoeuvring and combat, but simplifies much of the detail in fast-play mechanics.

Revolution & Empire is the latest (circa 2003) development from Empire by Scott Bowden with Matt DeLamater and Todd Fisher. I have only recently acquired a copy and like what I read. I am getting the same sense of excitement that I felt when I first read Empire (III) back in 1983. There is gratuitous detail, but they should still be playable, definitely challenging and enjoyable. Not fast-play in the least.

March Attack was clearly developed as a playable version of Empire (though it does not admit to the obvious heritage). As such they include the essential aspects of order activation, manoeuvre elements (re-named 'Major Formations'), simplified skirmish combat, two-stage combat mechanics, fatigue and morale (combined as valour et discipline, VED) and morale of major formations (though, sensibly for infantry only). In a piece of brilliance, a unit's size and morale class are combined into a combat value which is then the basis of the unit's strength and level of loss (class is included in the VED though). I have read them several times and they seem excellent, so am keen to give them a go soon. 

General d'Armée seems, from the blogs that I follow, to have been taken on by many Napoleonic wargamers since they were released last year. David Brown has combined key, recognisable, mechanics from numerous set of rules for Napoleonic wargaming (none of which are mentioned) with his own concept of a stylised aide-de-camp as a representation of command and control or 'commander attention'. I played them late last year and was far more impressed that I expected to be. They are in the mix for me.

I purchased de Bonaparte à Napoleon many years ago and was immediately interested. While the DBN initialism is a deliberate one (elements being effectively companies in a battalion), they are not a Napoleonic version of a well-known set of rules that I do not like. I translated them, for ease-of-use, a few  years ago, so am keen to give them a go. In a game played at multiple scales (TSC) they could be used either as a detailed tactical set or perhaps as a less detailed set for the individual action.

Grand Tactical

For me the grand tactical level will be about representing the entire battlefield so that there are no off-board forces and no doubt as to where a particular formation is in relation to the main action. For example, representation of Lestoq's and Ney's forces in a game of Eylau or of Ney's force in a game of Bautzen.

Marechal de l'Empire is Polemos' grand tactical rules set. Unit blocks represent regiments, brigades or perhaps even divisions. Being written for 6 mm figures, they are ideal for me to use with 2 mm figures and should be perfect for a grand tactical scale in a TSC game.

Napoleon's Battles is a familiar set to me having used it several times with 'Marc' of the One-sided blog fame. They are a brigade-scale set that would be ideal for the representation of forces, command and control and manoeuvring at the grand tactical level, while most of the battle is played out at the battalion level.

Single action

For this scale of the game I am seeking rules that include loads of detail, expect lots of figures, but few units. I envisage representing a brigade maximum at this scale, more likely a few battalions, squadrons and guns.

I have played General de Brigade a few times and find them, on the whole, to be a beaut set of rules. Personally I am not keen on the commander 'blunders' which are fun in a club-game, but highly abstracted for an historical game. I think they will be perfect for the lower-scale of a TSC game, especially if a larger number of units are involved in the section of the battle being focussed on.

For the detailed, 'zooming in' on a single combat within a battle I am initially trying out Chef de Bataillon (thanks to John from the Serpentine War Game Club for suggesting them to me).

Trialling Chef de Batailion

Chef de Bataillon was published back in 1995. I faintly recall them coming out and thinking, back then, that they were of no interest. Why would I want to play a game with just a few battalions a side? Now they seem to be just the thing that I am looking for!

Written by Scott Bowden and Jim Getz, of Empire fame, they are not a scaled-down version of Empire, but a completely different system. The only elements of Empire in the rules are the morale classes of the units (names and values) and the concept of an ACE (actual combat effectiveness), but the way that these factors work is completely different from how they do in Empire.

The best analogy that I can come up with is that they are like a set of naval rules for land warfare. In a multi-player game the intention, as the name suggests, is that each player commands a battalion. The detail involved in managing one's small command is similar to a ship in most Napoleonic naval rules. Player(s) transmit orders to their formation, manoeuvre their battalion, squadron(s) or battery, company by company in the case of formation changes, and then try to get them to follow the intention of his (the commander's) orders in coming to grips with the enemy.

The rules comprise 180 US-letter pages, printed (kindly) in quite large print. There are 124 tables, including those for terrain, engineering and house fighting, but not the appendices of leader and unit qualities. This sounds daunting, but the tables are easy to use and several flow together to determine a particular result (for example the command initiative level described below).

These are not rules for a big battle. The aim is to play out a single action or discrete section of a battle—perhaps something that would be decided by a single throw of the dice in a tactical wargame—as the entire game. That describes my aim with the single action part of a TSC game.

The rules include several scenarios, most of which are sections of historical battles. The first three, called Basic training, Basic training continues and Expanded training are nondescript affairs involving a few generic units and are designed to familiarise players with the rules. Seemed a great place to start.

For my version of the Basic training scenario, 'somewhere in the Peninsula', I imagined a section of a Peninsular battle, perhaps on a flank, where a British line battalion was holding a position on a low ridge that was being attacked by a French légère battalion.

A system of basing is suggested in the rules—the one for Empire—but they stress that this is flexible and up to the players (with the usual caveat that both sides have to match). I adapted it to fit my three-figures to-a base basing used for Shako. Each of these, interestingly called an 'element' in Chef de Battalion is combined into a company; three in three ranks for the French and two in two ranks for the British. The two units involved in my 'basic training' are a six-company (54 figure) battalion of French légère and a ten-company (60 figure) battalion of British line. This means that I am using a figure scale of about 1:10, as opposed to the 1:5 suggested by the authors, but on bases that are comparable to theirs, so I should not have to adjust the distances.

Terrain is classified in a particularly clever manner in Chef de Bataillon. The base terrain is classified by a 'universal terrain class', representing dead flat, featureless marchfeld (UT1) through to rough ground (UT6). These impact on movement and combat. Every part of the battlefield needs to be classified by one of the six classes. Terrain features are located on top of these terrain classes. These hills, towns, rivers, streams, bridges, woods and so forth are obstacles, cover and/or impact on visibility.

For my game, as the scenario guidelines recommend, I kept the terrain to a minimum with most of the ground defined as open ground (UT2),

...and a small section of broken ground (UT5) to make the area a n0-go zone.

The low ridge, the only terrain feature, was also classed as UT2.

The game begins with the activation of 'order intentions'. That is the intention of the formation's commander (or higher commander) for what the formation should do. This is done from a base activation according to the class of the unit that is modified according to the terrain class that the unit is on and, fortunately, increases with the number of turns that the order is trying to be activated. For my 'crack line' troops the base was 24%, so I naturally failed the first roll. I then re-read the rules and incorrectly thought that if I attached my colonel to the battalion he could issue the order intention directly. I later realised that this Empire-style mechanic is not in these rules. The idea of the delay is to represent getting the order from the senior commander to the junior officers and NCOs so is impacted by the morale and training of troops. The inherent delay at first seems befuddling, but the duration of a turn (which is not specified), is obviously a few minutes at most.

My first activation rolls were unsuccessful, for both sides.

I decided, incorrectly, to attached the leader so as to make the activation 'automatic'. this is not part of Chef de Bataillon as the colonel or equivalent is always with the battalion. Activation represents the reaction time of the formation.

Once a formation has activated its command intention the battalion, company or equivalent commanders are free to issue order 'actions' to carry out the intended order. The next step is to determine the command initiative level (which is used in combat). This involves rolling six D20 dice. Values that are less than or equal to a critical level (determined by consulting tables for the unit morale class and quality of leadership, adjusted for the terrain that the formation is in, the quality of the highest-ranking commander who is attached, morale state and casualties and level of disorder) are deemed to be 'good' dice. Once again, this sounds involved, but it is not a difficult process.

I did reasonably well with my first CIL dice, scoring three 'good' dice against a critical point of 14.

For movement, I was able to roll three D6 (determined by formation status x terrain, type of movement to be conducted). This gave me a total movement allowance of 120 yards or 12".

The légère advanced to change formation to attack column.

The British line watched, holding its fire.

In fact, no chance to fire as they were beyond the 240 yard (24") range.

Attack column formed, the voltigeur company went into skirmish order (I later re-read the section and realised that I should have had seven skirmishers, not nine).

Having played a few turns, with quite a few mistakes, I decided that I would start again and work through the game a bit more quickly so as to complete my 'basic training'. It will be interesting to see whether how activation plays out when I do it properly. I hope to do play the game in the next couple of days, so keep your eyes out for more—I know that you are on the edge of your seats with this one! 

My boys and girl are good company in the wargaming rule, joining me as I paint or try out rules.

A spectacular sunset recently.

#The blog is entirely about Napoleonics, except for the odd aside, like these.