Tactics Questions - Line and Column, Stacked or Not Stacked

[phoenix]

A long time ago I asked almost the same question about line or column, in here, and received many answers. Sorry, but I can't find the thread. However, I do remember that the collective wisdom was pretty vague in some respects. My question was whether it was better to DEFEND a melee attack in line or column. It seemed pretty clear that as far as attacking goes, to attack in column was considered best, but to fire from line was best (obviously). Generally, as far as defending went, I was told, better to defend a melee in column, but - as you were told above - I was also told that with certain English units you were better staying in line. It didn't get any clearer than that and hence I have always attacked in column, fired in line, if possible, and I have always tried to defend against column melee attacks in column. This is always after being in line as along as possible prior to the melee attack, in order to bring line fire against the attacking column unit (which tactic has meant that often I don't get time to get into column before I'm meleed....) I haven't myself come across any units where this seemed manifestly wrong (including English units), but I'm not very experienced and so it remains pretty unclear for me under what circumstances, if any, it might be best to defend a column melee attack in line formation. If anyone wants to clarify that would be great.

[TytusDeZoo82]

Hi!
I'm happy owner of North German Plain and Smolensk but I think to purchase Marengo Campaign or
Republican Bayonets on the Rhine. I have to know if all Ancien Regime armies (Austria, Prussia, Russia, Great Britain) use attack columns in this both titles and joy meale bounuses? If yes I have to think about buy some ACW title. Maybe some napoleonic veteran wargamer explain me how this linear armies work in this republican period titles?

[Nortan]

Maybe this gives a bit more knowledge about columns:
http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/infant...tics_4.htm

Thanks! I think this is exactly what I am looking for.

I agree with what was said above.

But there is one more benefition from stacking lines(in phases or standart) - If you draw your line with only one battalion per hex it would be much easier to break units if the enemy attacks you with stacked columns(and would cause you more losses). After that - your battalions would become routed(which very dangerous for the whole line). But if you would stack your lines - it would be harder for the opponent to move your troops from their hex even if your "second line" couldnt shoot.

[TytusDeZoo82]

What I've read in this article validate my guess that column was only formation to deliver as fast as possible unit in point where commander want and deploy next to line. Column very rare breakthrought throught line. Napoleonic soldiers were not Swiss pikmens or Highlanders.
Is it possible set in scenario editor that columns haven't this meale bonus?
Other things what I read about this game looking preety good.
Thank you pokeytrew for answer, but do you know some examples that Austrians and Russians in Italy until 1800 used attack columns?
This argument wth stacked columns argue me. Only really thought soldier stand on when see such mass of man with no pretty good intensions.
But other way crowded column under steady fire don't withstand a long time and wiil break. They weren't a berserkers.
But what do you think guys in general feeling battles what you win (or defeat:)) you felt that is work right?
Or Civil War series are better option?

[TytusDeZoo82]

Sorry I had to say: Nortan thank you for answer. Sorry I'm really green how this forums works and how this posts work, but I'm learning:))

[phoenix]

Before I started playing these games I had the (perhaps naive) idea that what Napoleonic warfare might mainly consist of was the enemy forming long lines opposite each other and firing away. Very occasionally there might be a close combat situation. In other words, the battles ought mostly to have been lines firing at each other. But that has NEVER happened in any game I've played, against any opponent. I never see opposing units marching to within firing range, forming line opposite each other then spending several turns actually firing at each other.

The reason why, as far as I can see, is that you almost always get a bonus - the bonus the OP is talking about - for attacking melee in column. (Perhaps the British troops are an exception here and get no such bonus, but instead get some kind of line fire bonus? Not sure.) And melee attacks are nearly always the attack of choice to shift units from territory, to disorder them, to cause large losses etc.

Plus, once you're disordered you can't change formation. So the last thing you ever want, perhaps, is to be caught in a line trying to do the Napoleonic thing with a column attacking into you. Because once your line units are hit and disordered they are going to be stuck that way for quite a while, in a disordered line, unable to move very rapidly (without continuing disorder too, if that option is selected), unable to effectively melee, unable to get much of a line fire effect because they're disordered.

So there is pressure, as troops near your own, not to form orderly lines to fire at them, but to get into columns before they hit you.

Am I doing things wrong, I wonder? Missing something?

[TytusDeZoo82]

I agree with you completly!
So is it possible to change data parameters or game script?

[phoenix]

I agree with you completly!
So is it possible to change data parameters or game script?

I'm not sure whether you can mess with these settings for all games, in the PD editor. Others will know and reply, I hope. 

But the new title - Wellington's Peninsula War (WPW) - has some rule changes which make it more likely that infantry marching up to 'good-order' infantry will suffer a disorder check, though there's no component of that which specifically references infantry in-line - in fact,  though it works when approaching any non-disordered units, I think it's more aimed at stopping people marching columns up to cavalry formations. But it's a step in that direction. 

Even more in the direction you want is that included in that title (WPW) there are many alternative scenarios which use a different PDT file which specifically weakens the melee bonus and strengthens line fire,  precisely, I believe, with the idea of discouraging so much marching stacked columns into the enemy full blast. So that would be the title for you to get, perhaps, if any. I've never played any of those scenarios yet, so not sure how well they work. 

At the moment, as it stands, I always feel (and I'm very far from an expert) that, all other things being equal, it would be crazy to march my columns to within firing range of an enemy line, then convert my units all to line formation and start firing at the enemy, because all he would do at the beginning of the next turn is change to column and hit my vulnerable lines.

But maybe - as I said - I'm missing something about the mechanics of it.

[TytusDeZoo82]

I agree with you completly!
So is it possible to change data parameters or game script?

I'm not sure whether you can mess with these settings for all games, in the PD editor. Others will know and reply, I hope. 

But the new title - Wellington's Peninsula War (WPW) - has some rule changes which make it more likely that infantry marching up to 'good-order' infantry will suffer a disorder check, though there's no component of that which specifically references infantry in-line - in fact,  though it works when approaching any non-disordered units, I think it's more aimed at stopping people marching columns up to cavalry formations. But it's a step in that direction. 

Even more in the direction you want is that included in that title (WPW) there are many alternative scenarios which use a different PDT file which specifically weakens the melee bonus and strengthens line fire,  precisely, I believe, with the idea of discouraging so much marching stacked columns into the enemy full blast. So that would be the title for you to get, perhaps, if any. I've never played any of those scenarios yet, so not sure how well they work. 

At the moment, as it stands, I always feel (and I'm very far from an expert) that, all other things being equal, it would be crazy to march my columns to within firing range of an enemy line, then convert my units all to line formation and start firing at the enemy, because all he would do at the beginning of the next turn is change to column and hit my vulnerable lines.

But maybe - as I said - I'm missing something about the mechanics of it.

I see things like this:
Impulse/attack column tactic infantry:
-Some negative bonus in melee but better morale when they are in column.
-They pay much less when change formation or maneuvre in column formation but pay much more when they are in line, much more chance to disorder when make long marches in line more than one hex maybe.
-ofcourse much more damaae when under fire when in column but linear armies in march column much more damage.
Linear armies:
-Better maneuvres in line less chance to disorder for longer marches
-Huge damage from oprtunity fire when in column plus huge negative melee modifer when close combat in column.
-Veteran or good quality units some bonus during opprtunity fire. Plus British units should have some bonus in offensive fire(simulate they close quater salvoo and charge)

And we have greatest napoleonic wargame on PC ever! In my opinion.

[phoenix]

Well, we already have the best ever. There's nothing else out there, i think, to compare, at the operational level, even taking into account these comments.

I think how you arrange things to encourage players to follow historical tactics is, indeed, very complex. Melee has to have some extra punch - because that's what it achieved, historically. Difficult to arrange that without arriving at this situation. The rule changes in WPW are a good move.

Partly, the issue is to do with unrealistic recklessness about losses, I believe. The scoring system and the fact that it's not real (of course) encourage very unrealistic persistence in the face of heavy losses. All my games end with losses very much higher than the historical losses. There's not very much incentive to preserve life, and, this being so, you might be more inclined to go for a brutal melee attack, over and over, rather than less dramatic shooting.

The melee attacks can be a bit of a lottery, compared to shooting, and if this was real life, that isn't a lottery you would want to play. Today, for example, in an Austerlitz game, I experimented attacking 2 disordered, retreating French columns in a town hex by shooting at them with two units (from behind, out of line), and by melee with the same 2. Over four runs I got different results for the melee, but shooting nearly always produced around 30 casualties (from around 800 good-order men shooting in line into around 800 disordered men in column, from behind and flank) for no losses. Melee attacks could be very dramatic - up to 80 casualties, but always for high losses, sometimes more losses then casualties inflicted.

So there IS an incentive there to line up and fire and take no losses, and go slower. The problem is that if I had been attacking good order units like that (and in clear terrain, perhaps) then, as I said above, I would have lost out, because they could have turned and done a melee attack into my line, which would usually be a safe bet. Then I would have been very much at a disadvantage, disordered in line.

But as I say - I'm far from an expert. I'm sure there's something I'm doing wrong.