Reconnaissance by leaders

[rbursch]

Gentlemen:

I see that my opponent had carried the handling of "leader units" in the forum. This is a good idea!

This topic may be a point to the House Rules, not more. But now that this topic has been carried in to the Forum why not discuss it as such? Therefore, kindly allow me to paste my message sent to my honorable adversary with my thoughts to all of you. (English is not my mother tongue)

"...It is true that these games have little to do with the true historical life of those days. This explains the use of house rules to give the game a more realistic appeal.

What I am missing in the campaign scenarios of many hundreds of turns is the point of “information and communication”. Let me explain to you my idea.

In the days of Wellington and Napoleon scouting was vital. Scouts were sent out -out of LOS-, even until a day, if necessary, to recon the area reaching as far as hiding out in enemy territory where they would hopefully not be seen. (In our games you can see any unit which is in reach of LOS.)

The units I send scouting are leader units ranking as colonels with a wider range of MP than regular units. I have chosen the “colonels” as scouts because there do not exist any scouts at all in our napoleonic games.

Who else in our games could be more suitable to scouting than a “Leader” unit. Skm are not a solution as they count some 100 to  150 men per unit which is too large of a number for scouting and apart from this is not even historical. Cav squadrons in obstructive terrain remain “disordered” apart from their quantity of up to 100 men or more per unit - not so with leader units. Unfortunately, the lowest ranking officer is a colonel as a leader unit. Historically I would consider  scouts to be qualified soldiers not more than a handful of 3-5 men. They would be hiding wherever they would be safe enough not to be detected nor caught by the enemy. This little bunch to my view is well represented with a leader unit and therefore not necessarily to be mentioned in quantity.

In our Waterloo campaign, I am introducing the large numbers of colonels available on both sides to a more important role of information than just rallying the routed and disordered units. To my point of view, scouting gives them a more gaming and even a realistic aspect improving tactical and strategical manoeuvring by information. The argumenti of reporting or communication to HQ, I would explain in the sense that “leader units” are not more than 1-3, maybe 4 turns away from their main body. (I think a turn is about  15 minutes, or less). Time well enough to report back to HQ. The responsible leader of the bunch would send one of his men to report to HQ while he stays with the rest beyond reach of the enemy.

So you see how important I regard “information and communication” in a most realistic way as good as possible.

Therefore, I would want to keep the idea of the use of “Leader units” as scouts. I could imagine -unless you do not have an other proposal- a compromise in the sense of scouting officers not to be higher ranking than colonels and maybe not move more than a couple of turns away (still to be determined) from their main mother body. I could imagine also to determine how many "leader units" may be used to the purpose of scouting in a scenario.

Do you not also agree that “information or communication” should be a more important aspect in the games of HPS and JT of the napoleonic aera? It is a pity that this option which has been so typical for those those days has not been taken in consideration by the producers."...

Gentlemen, I agree to the idea of using "leaders" as scouts does not sound popular of what we all expect of a leader or an officer to be of. But how shall I then make "scouting" useful and close to realism other than by leader units in HPS and JT campaign scenarios of many hundreds of turns?
I would never reject the use of skm nor cav squadrons going scouting but they are never as effective as "leader units" are (see my arguments to this above) and not more realistic neither. Honestly, I would not bother having an enemy leader scouting in my affairs. I certainy would not dispatch any troopers to chase him unless it would spoil my whole setup. (Some general once said that battles are never carried out as they are planned, I think it was Nappy) I  am open to any compromises how to handle "scouting" in campaign scenarios if desired.

I would think that if scouting were not to be considered at all then I should be mentioned as siuch in the House rule. Warfare has always been the key to technical development of mankind. Why not also in our games?

I wish to you all a good day :) and alof of fun in our games.

regards,
Raymond Bursch, Southern Germany