It got me thinking I should do a post to explain my view on representing tactics and formations for this project.
My goal for the project was to be able to fight BIG battles, with flanks and room to move and allow players to think about things beyond the line-em-up-and-smash-em gamers approach.
Which is why I went for 10mm and small unit frontages, with a few stands representing a battalion.
The trade off was units would be simply repesented and unit tactics would be "below" the level that could be seen on table.
So I am basing the infantry with a central pike block, despite the fact I think they were probably more spread out at company level, and we know the Swedes sometimes created a fourth rank entirely of pikes, and ignoring the Swedish wedge formation.
Line or march column is the only tactical decision the players have at the unit level.
But why have I gone so "simple"? Am I missing out on tabletop fun, or historical accuracy etc?
Why Were The Swedes So Successful?
For me, the central question I had to answer in thinking about basing, was why did the Swedes do so well?
Was it about pike positioning, ranks, or wedge-shaped charges?
For me the answer to that is an emphatic NO!
If it was, then everyone would have copied them. They didn't.
Looking at the GNW as a whole, the reasons you see for the Swedes success were around:
1. Command ability and aggression. The Swedish commanders were more aggressive, more confident, more ready to act, kept moving, and tried to maintain the initiative, even when their troops were all over the bloody place in disorder. This came from the top-down. Lets face it Charles was a risk-taking nutter, and that's borne out by his last battle where he was shot leading a couple of battalions against an entire entrenched army....
2. The infantry and cavalry were aggressive, relentless and single minded. They had little regard for themselves (a mix of religion, belief in their cause, history and superiority, mixed I suspect with a larger alcohol ration in battle....). Quite simply, they kept going long after most other nations troops gave up. It wasn't training quality, time after time fresh Swedish recruits stormed forward and smashed even veterans...they were basically shock troops.
3. Their opponents were static at times for reasons you simply cannot fathom when you read the accounts. They also followed a firepower-based doctrine, which they often didn't get time to use to full effect, and had a focus on field fortifications which allowed the Swedes to move around them, or just hit one point.
4. A lot of the time, the Swedes opponents were quite simply, crap. They just werent' up to the job on the battlefield in terms of training, confidence and doctrine.
So my conclusions from all that is formations are minutae in the scheme of whole battles of the period, and not something to concern myself with.
I also didn't want people I game with getting fixated with visual representations. If I had put the Swedes in a wedge, or allowed them to create one, I suspect it would, as it has in the past, create certain expectations of superhuman abilities.
Firepower & Pikes
The other issue is the debate on musket and pike ratios, the effectiveness and deployment/doctrine of the pikemen, and fire tactics.
The hard facts are:
1. We have little idea how exactly the pikes were deployed.
2. We have little idea if they played a significant anti-cavalry, defensive role.
3. We have little idea how many pikes any unit had.
4. We have little idea how many units even had pikes at all.
5. Pikes or no pikes, the Swedes always charged and often won.
All we do know is the Swedes tried to ride the initial enemy volley, get close, fire themselves and then charge, hoping the shock at close range made the enemy run.
Another conclusion I reached is that yes, a five metre pike might be great for being levelled and charged with, but once it goes past the enemy ranks, you're a sitting duck with a pointless long stick. And if you stabbed someone with it, it's a hell of a thing to pull out and continue using. If they break and run, great, otherwise you could be in trouble.
My guess is, other than literally the initial charge, the pikes were either quickly dropped for swords, or the pikemen would drop back to regain their effectiveness and watch for cavalry. They simply could not break into or pursue a fleeing enemy for more than a few yards.
The conclusion is that they were actually no real bonus in the charge maybe, and I mean maybe, beyond a brief inital morale value seeing them coming straight at you. I think the image of massed, dangerous "levelled pikes" held by wild charging Swedes is mostly a gamers thing (ever seen an ECW reenactor level a pike and then try and run fifty yards with it?!), especially as units without pikes seem to have been equally successful.
So rather than worry about pike ratios (my god the madness I remember with pike ratios in ECW rules, the focus, the debate), I have boiled things down to a simple level: the Swedes success was in hitting hard, regardless of armament or minor tactics.
Cavalry Tactics
Mention the Swedish cavalry, and people will talk about wedge formations.
But was it the key to success? For me no.
The Swedish cavalry, like the infantry, and like the army, always looked to hit home with the maximum density, aggression and firepower at the key point, in the quickest time. They didn't have the numbers to mess around.
The success of the cavalry was around density, aggression, training, discipline and belief, not because of wedges piercing the enemy line, which is the classic wargamers image (think late Romans) of "killer" tactics. The truth is they would have beaten most European cavalry at that time, but not because of a wedge formation.
Why represent a small-scale tactic (company level) when a unit represents a battalion or regiment? Just made no sense to me to do it, so I ditched the idea and focused on the basics: their shock value.
So from common sense, and reading forums where horse owners have discussed military formations, I decided that the carolean cavalry could not have used the wedge for anything other than closing up for the last and actual fifty/hundred yard "charge", or they would have been less flexible and less able to move around the battlefield that their opponents. Anything more than that, with rapid movement and casualties, and it would have disintegrated into a mess.
My conclusion is why represent a formation that wasn't the key to their success, and which they only used for about 1/100th of the time they spent on the field of battle?
My Solutions
Now obviously these are my views, and I'm sure a lot will disagree, which is part part of the fun in all this.
But in terms of the games I want, I had to ignore the stand stacking, the focus on game winning formations, tactics below the level I am gaming, and focus instead on solutions that address the bigger historical factors, while keeping it simple, easy and fun.
So boiling it all down to a few key considerations, my ideas, using the Warlord P&S rules, are:
1. The Swedish command will simply have mostly higher command ratings than the Russians, allowing them to take the initiative and move forward more often, and rally the men to keep them going longer. For both sides representing the wing commanders/commanders of foot and horse, the command layer often missed out, is crucial to give both sides a chance to move and rally.
2. Swedish units will have enhanced charge (ferocious charge) and counter-charge abilities (can do both even if shaken, cavalry and foot). They will be able to keep moving more by recovering from disorder better (Elite 4+ rule).
3. Units will either have 2 firing dice, 2 with a re-roll, or three, depending on how many pikes they have. So it represents it simply with no other fuss. All units with pike get the pike company rule as well. But having pikes does not give any melee benefit.
4. The allies must use fire (especially artillery), field fortifications, and try and maintain a mobile reserve to wear the Swedes down and hit them where/when/if they get thin on the ground, or plug a breakthrough. The Swedish players must go for it. Blink and they could end up bogged down and never get moving.
So there you go. Rightly or wrongly, that's the path I've chosen, basically to step away from the tactical details I'm not convinced made any difference and look instead at the battle-level factors that seem to have played the most part in Swedish longevity.
No comments:
Post a Comment