Writing a Wargame – Your Comments

When I started this idea, I never thought that it would have as much following as it seems to be gathering! So first of all I want to thank everyone for all of their time spent in reading my ramblings and putting up with grammatical and spelling errors! Also for all the fantastic comments I’ve received not only on this blog itself but from the other sources I’ve shared the articles on (Reddit, Baccus etc).

I would like to take some of the comments that have been sent to me and respond to them in this article. I will then play test through these ideas later this week.

“Command & Control: ADCs as activation markers could be realistic and workable (other rulesets use this approach too). I have a thought about how you might be both innovative and realistic. Rather than a die roll for command pips – which I know you don’t want, and I have my reservations about it as well – maybe you could have a ‘Decision Point’ mechanism? By which I mean, a General only gets to send an ADC off with a new order when he has reached a Decision Point, as calculated by some criteria.

Deciding those criteria has a lot of scope for you to shape the game. How about basing it on a General having to accumulate enough Coup d’Oeil points to make a new decision?

A General might accumulate Coup d’Oeil points simply by passage of time, as his picture of the battle becomes clearer each turn.

Also when there is a significant development such as taking or losing a terrain item of designated value (perhaps more value closer to him).

Also more CdO points depending how few enemy formations remain undetected: a bonus point each turn when 75%+ have been detected, 2 bonus points when 100% detected? This would give extra reason for retaining a reserve, to keep the enemy guessing and limit his options.

Better Generals might need fewer CdO points to issue an order; worse Generals would need more.

Bad weather or concealing terrain might reduce CdOs; being on top of a hill yourself might help.

Formations breaking (whether friends or enemy) would also generate CdOs and prompt decisions.”
– Chris via Baccus

I love this idea, I had briefly mentioned to Chris about wanting to use ADC’s as order markers, Chris took it and came up with this fantastic idea which is simply to good to ignore!

“(General comment: to keep the game moving, defender makes one reaction choice, not with each incremental Attacker advance). Add ‘Stand’ as a reaction, with defender making a morale check. To withdraw or change form or hold fire adds dmg to the base morale, making these choices harder to execute than just standing.)” – Doug via WordPress

This seems to be a sensible solution, and would reduce the number of rolls required during the process. The reaction choice would come once an enemy unit closes to within 10cm.  The player would then choose the moment to use it and at that point roll their morale test? A failure resulting in the unit fleeing.  One thought I had about this was that as the enemy got closer a unit would become more and more nervous the closer they got, which was initially why I included a morale test for each action within 10cm – but I am willing to ponder on this further.

“The Brigade has 4,000 strength, but only the 2 front battalions in ‘Line Formation’ can fire. (4,000/2) = 2,000 men/ 200 men per die= 10 Firing Dice. (Calculating is easy with round, even numbers but could be a pain for a 3150 man unit.)” – Doug via WordPress

My Thoughts here would be for a player to have an order of battle sheet (roster) showing the units morale and Strength (rather than the number of men), through which they can refer to a quick reference guide showing the number of firing dice the unit may have.

“The brigade is ‘Steady’ (‘Experienced’ might be a better term since “Steady” suggests a morale test outcome.) meaning it needs rolls of 5+ to succeed. However as this is the first time this brigade has fired, he can add +1 to his rolls (4 + to succeed). (I like having an Initial Fire bonus for being ‘Fresh’ and having unfouled muskets.Historically accurate.) He scores 5 ‘successes’. (What does a ‘success’ represent? Because the player is again re-rolling below for hits below. This seems to be an unnecessary step. It’d likely be when a unit suffers casualties (below, with attendant screams, blood and howling) that ‘d shake a unit’s morale most).” – Doug via WordPress

The shooting process was originally 3 steps being a roll to determine how many men would not freeze or reload their weapon incorrectly (historically this was roughly 75%), then another roll to determine how many misfired (historically 20%), followed by how many hit the mark. These three rolls were broken down into two steps, “Steady” and “Fire”, Steady being the Freeze and the misfire roll combined.  I may yet rename this to “Ready” instead of “Steady”.  The successes from the “Steady” roll are the number of dice they can roll on the “Fire!” roll.

 “One idea I had in my game that I mentioned last week was that I was going to have an initial scouting phase (similar to the patrol phase in Chain of Command of you’ve played that) where you begin the game with your HQs setup on your board edge then take turns to move them up (while staying within communication range of eachother) until they meet the enemy and are frozen in place to give you a dynamically created deployment area. It allowed players to decide where they thought was the most important area of the board and try to manoeuvre to control it. Also meant that the first few turns of the gane didn’t involve just moving troops up. All this to say that your discussion of light cavalry’s role has made me think that they should maybe come into play in this phase.” – Shindigero Via Reddit

“Regarding your deployment article, I’ve got an idea for gamifying the deployment system. It could be an option to make more unique battle lines than the standard 6” from center line.

I’m plagiarizing this from Chain of Command’s patrol phase. Designate light cavalry and certain infantry as scout brigades, and move them onto the table. They can move as normal, but once they close within 12-18″ of the enemy they are frozen in place. Continue moving them until one or both sides have “locked” all of their scouts. At that point you deploy the remaining troops, who can be placed anywhere behind the scouts.

You could play a bit with this. Treat defensive locations like the Borodino redoubts as static “scouts”. There’s even a tradeoff of how many scouts you want to use: more obviously gives you better control over the initial line, but you also want some leftover scout cavalry to secure your flanks.”
– Altair1371 via Reddit

This is another great idea, where both Altair1371 and Shindigero essentially suggest the same thing. I’m considering using the number of light infantry and light cavalry battalions inside a players force as the number of markers they have available for the Deployment Phase of the game. Once their locked, this will determine a players deployment area.

“Maybe combine fire range into unit options? ‘Hold fire until Middle Range’? +1 ‘Hold fire until Close Range?’+2 Hold fire ? +3 You might also want to think about the morale impacts of being in good defensive terrain.)” – Doug via WordPress

This may streamline the entire process as instead of having the actions/reactions as described above each player may declare what they will carry out before the process begins. (i.e. Red Player – the active players may say that they wish to change move 3 times towards the Blue players unit, bringing them within 2cm, change formation into line for another action and with their final action give fire.  Blue Player responds with, I will hold and give fire at long range) They both make morale rolls for this, maybe with modifiers, each action maybe -1 morale? So they test once instead of multiple times? I will consider this further.

“Blue will have to pass a morale test (roll less than its morale of 7) to remain where it is. If it fails by 1-2 pts (ie 8 or 9) it would result in a move equivalent to an action backwards, while suffering D3 damage.
A failure of more than 2 would see the unit make a disorderly withdrawal while suffering D6 damage.
The Blue player rolls a 9 and will suffer D3 damage and withdraw 2cm. He rolls a d3, getting 2 damage, (reducing strength by 100 men and morale by 2, bringing it to 5) and withdraws his unit 2cm. (How are losses of men tracked since fire is calculated using # of men)?”
– Doug via WordPress

Losses would be referred back to the Strength chart I’ve referenced earlier in this comment. So a Brigade would be referenced as strength 15 rather than 750 men. When any damage is taken this strength value along with the morale value is reduced by 1 point. With morale being the only value that can be recovered.

“On his next turn he can choose to use 3 actions before moving to restore his morale to 8, and then advance and fire or advance and advance on the Red Brigade. (This seems a bit too magical in effect. 150 men just died in a 10 minute period, the attack was thrown back but everybody in the unit is now back in top form? Very doubtful.) Or he may decide its a fool errand and withdraw his Brigade and bring another stronger unit in to take the position.” – Doug via WordPress

I accept your point on this, I think perhaps a better solution would be to use either 2 actions to recover 1 morale, or alternatively all 5 actions to recover 1 morale.  I’m leaning towards the latter as a player would have to bring up fresh troops to try and take the position while recovering that Brigade for 4-5 turns.

“For what its worth, I tried out many of the above concepts in my rules journey.One observation? Players didnt normally try to hold fire, instead having ‘a use it or lose it’ mentality.” – Doug via WordPress

Perhaps if the incentive was increased from 4+ to 3+ on that initial roll?

“In connection with battalion sizes, and since Clausewitz has been mentioned, let me report what Clausewitz said about the large Austrian battalions: namely that the extra men were ‘in a sense wasted’. I think he meant that the large battalions were unwieldy and inefficient at bringing all their force to bear effectively. Part of that story would be their ratio of ~50 men per officer, as against 35-40 for other major nations and 22 for British. (Per the table on ‘Rod’s Wargaming’.)” – Chris via WordPress

Another interesting point that was also confirmed by Doug, Larger battalions becoming unwieldy, and I’m willing to adjust the the units so that the maximum strength for a battalion would be 20 (1,000 men) meaning the maximum firing dice for a single battalion would be 5 Combat/Firing Dice.

Writing a Wargame – Issues with Tracking

So I’ve a number of things that I’ve had suggestions for and also some items I don’t think are entirely pinned down yet. I’ve also got an extensive work list ahead of me to get this finished.


My first question is, as has been fairly pointed out by Chris Pringle, whether I have too many points that players will need to keep a track of during the game/turn.

What’s Being Tracked?

Strength and Formation will be tracked by Brigade while Morale and Actions will be tracked by Brigade. How will this be done? Firstly let’s have a look at the potential base and solutions that may work.

We’re going for a 40mm wide base for all battalions at present along with a Commander Base which the size has yet to be decided upon. If we assume at present that the Commander Base will also be the same size as a Battalion/Squadron Base we may have the following:

Potential Base Layout

This is a potential solution using 7mm dice holders available from Pendragon to hold the dice on the bases.

For this however, it does require quite a few dice and may also mean adjusting the strength values of each unit.

The alternative option is to keep the markers for morale and actions on the commanders base, but then use a sheet with an order of battle (which I can write a battlescribe file for) to make notes on strength and formations.

Order of Battle

The only issue with this is ensuring that you know which battalion is which by the use of labels of some kind.

This method can also be used to track morale as well should you wish.

However I am worried that this may all become a tedious paper keeping exercise during the course of the battle.

Further options may be to remove formations completely like many other games, however due to the mechanics using a 1-2 combination attack being the most effective between infantry and cavalry attacking enemies and the effect it has on morale I would ideally like to keep this.

Should I drop strength and morale? I feel that morale is a key mechanic of this game. While strength may be a nice to have to track casualties etc to compare to the historical battle that you may be re-enacting.

Another option would be tie strength and morale together into one attribute. A battalion with 1,000+ men may be strength 10 hence a morale of 10, fire dice could then be tied to this by dividing the figure by 2 or 3. If casualties are then to be recorded perhaps players can record the hits made against their battalions (if they so wish) and times the value by 50 to arrive at a casualty figure.

I’m also thinking of keeping the 5 actions per turn, but then also allowing units to make 2 reactions.


For now I’m running with:

1) I’m going to keep the current strength mechanics of the brigade marked by either 2D10’s on the commanders base or on an order of battle.

2) Returning to 5 Actions AND 5 Reactions per turn. Therefore no need for tracking.

3) Formations can be tracked via a single dice on a battalion base.

4) Morale working as it currently is, with either Dice on the commanders base or on a written order of battle

I’d love to know everyone’s thoughts.

Game Test 2 – Musketry Fire and Reactions

I carried out some further game tests over the weekend, with varying size brigades between 2-5 battalions of 1,000 men.


  • All battalions started with 1,000 men.
  • Formations were kept to line formation throughout.
  • Actions were limited to; Move 2cm, Recover 1 morale, Fire and Withdraw 2cm
  • Reactions were limited to; Withdraw 2cm, Fire, Recover 1 morale and Hold
  • Brigade formations were kept with 2 battalions to the front.
  • These were head to head conditions. Should a battalion vanquish its opponent it would take no further part.
  • Brigades would only attack the Brigade in front of them.
  • The test length was 10 turns (1 hour 40 minutes – Real time equivalent) or until a unit was defeated.
  • Brigade activation is decided by Dice from a bag. A blue dice means he gets to decide which brigade to activate and a red dice the red player. There are only as many dice in the bag as there are currently units on the table.
  • Units are able to act within 10cm of an enemy depending on a successful morale roll.
  • Units received reactions depending on a successful morale roll following each enemy move within 10cm of their position.


  • Blue forces started with a Brigade of 4 Battalions.
  • Red forces started with a Brigade of 4 Battalions

This resulted in a real back and forth with the majority of the ground captured by the Blue forces.


Inconclusive – 10 turns reached.

  • Blue forces received 600 men killed or wounded.
  • Red forces received 750 men killed or wounded.


  • Blue forces started with a Brigade of 3 Battalions.
  • Red forces started with a Brigade of 2 Battalions

Another tug and war test with both units ending roughly where they began the test.


Inconclusive – 10 turns reached.

  • Blue forces received 400 men killed or wounded.
  • Red forces received 600 men killed or wounded.


  • Blue forces started with a Brigade of 3 Battalions.
  • Red forces started with a Brigade of 5 Battalions

Blue was victorious over the red forces in turn 4 of the test following a volley from the Blue Forces causing 5 damage, which then caused the Red Brigade to fail a morale test and receive 6 damage for being in close proximity.


Blue Victory – 4th Turn.

  • Blue forces received 200 men killed or wounded.
  • Red forces received 600 men killed or wounded.


  • Blue forces started with a Brigade of 2 Battalions.
  • Red forces started with a Brigade of 5 Battalions

Red was victorious over the Blue forces in Turn 9 of the test, the Blue forces had been pushed to their own table edge and another 10cm retreat would have meant leaving the table. However, destruction came first.


Red Victory – 9th Turn.

  • Blue forces received 1,150 men killed or wounded.
  • Red forces received 150 men killed or wounded.



Following this test, it was obvious from the outset that each unit was essentially receiving 10 actions per turn once in close proximity to the enemy. It has become obvious that Actions/Reactions need to be combined so that a unit is only allowed 5 actions or reactions in total. They can do this in any fashion. If they feel they need to take the fight to the enemy, they may wish to spend all five actions advancing, or 3 advancing and reserving 2 actions to be used as reactions to enemy movements.

I believe this will develop as a nice mechanic once other units and formations are introduced. For example, should I spend five actions now while the enemy is low on morale to try and break them and remove the unit from the field or reserve 3 just in case the enemy decide to press ahead. Or, should I save all my actions for reactions because I need to hold the position I currently occupy.

Brigade Size

Brigade Size, didn’t appear to have much relevance to the combat, either side has a 50/50 chance of winnning.

To revise this, I would like to take a basic Brigade morale of 7 then for each Battalion that is included in that Brigade add +1. (i.e. a Brigade has four battalions, it starts with a basic morale of 7 then adds +4 for each battalion in the Brigade bringing its total starting morale to 11). This would represent the confidence the men contain in being part of a larger Brigade.

Brigade Formations

It may be necessary to change Brigade formations, for example, a player may wish to have three battalions at its Brigades front rather than two. Any changes to the brigade formation should cost 3 actions to account for the movement.


I’ve set up a YouTube channel for the game itself, and all future tests will be shown as videos on there. When I post my first video I will post the link on this site.

Feel free to let me know your thoughts or what further tests I should carry out. There will be plenty of testing to be done in relation to other aspects such as terrain interaction etc.


Once again all screenshots are taken from Battle Chronicler. http://www.battlechronicler.com

Battle Chronicler - The best way to make war game battle reports

Writing a Wargame – Cavalry

As always for the latest rules and updates please visit the Napoleonic War Game page.


Napoleonic Cavalry had various different roles and names, but could generally be broken down into three distinct groups. These groups were split depending on the size and weight of the horse the cavalry rode.

Due to speed of cavalry and the range of musket fire, infantry would often only manage to discharge one volley from their muskets before the cavalry were upon them. This made them ideally suited for shock tactics.

Light Cavalry

4th French Hussars at the Battle of Friedland 14th June 1807

Light Cavalry included units such as Hussars and Russian Cossacks, Chasseurs à cheval and Chevau-légers. They were lightly armed and theirs role involved reconnaissance, raiding, skirmishing, screening, patrolling and tactical communications. They were also the primary units used in pursuing enemy armies once broken or to screen the retreat of their own army in the case of a loss.

Medium (Line) Cavalry

French Dragoons with a captured Prussian flag at the Battle of Jena.

Medium Cavalry units such as Dragoons and Uhlans originally Dragoons were designed to use their mounts to approach quickly and then fight on foot. However by the Napoleonic Wars this rarely happened (there are exceptions to this, on particular during the Peninsular Campaigns).

Line cavalry were used to cover the flanks of an army and as shock troops to charge the enemy.

Heavy Cavalry

French Cuirassiers at the Battle of Waterloo

The role of heavy cavalry during the Napoleonic Wars was the same as the Line Cavalry, to act as shock troops and charge the enemy troops.

Charges were in the most part carried out against an enemy’s flank with the aim to force them apart through fear and the initial impact of the charge itself. Primarily used to smash holes in the enemy’s battle line and exploit these breakthroughs.

Cavalry Organisation

All cavalry were organised in to squadrons rather than Battalions and these usually contained anything between 50-200 troopers. Light cavalry contained the most, while heavy Cavalry the least. This was due to the costs associated with raising the units. Heavy cavalry horses were the largest (which is why they have the title heavy) and sometimes there was more equipment carried by the troopers themselves such as body armour in the case of Cuirassiers.

To represent their size but combat efficiency on the table top, the strength value will likely have to changed to something closer to a factor of 1:10. This would mean that for every hit inflicted on the cavalry they would lose 10 men instead of 50 when compared to infantry. This would also be an ideal way of representing less casualties from gunfire, due to infantry only being able to fire one volley before cavalry engaged them.


A charge carried out by cavalry very rarely moved faster than a trot as can be seen from the sources I’ve cited below. They also had to work up to the gallop. Units would begin at walking pace, move to a trot and finally if needed the gallop.

On the Battlefield

Cavalry units would act in conjunction with the other arms of the military to attack enemy units. Infantry would advance on the enemy while cannon would cover their advance, cavalry would often be with the advancing troops. This would add to the enemies dilemma on how to respond to such an attack, should they form a firing line against the infantry and risk being over run by cavalry, or should they form square but suffer increased losses from artillery and gunfire.

This is what I would ideally like to represent on the table, for example and infantry attack without supporting would result in an enemy being more stalwart in its defence and also troops would be unable to run down the enemy should they break.


We have an idea of the different units roles, now we need to translate this into the game itself.


We’ve as yet not covered any hand to hand combat within the mechanics of the game itself, but currently I believe combat should be linked to the firing dice, with each 5+ a successful hit against the enemy and likewise from the enemy. These dice may be thrown at the same time as the opposition, with both units taking the relevant amount of damage. (i.e. Unit A attacks unit B in base to base combat, both units roll 6 firing dice. Unit A scores 2 hits at 5+ causing 2 strength damage to unit B, while unit B scores 1 hit against unit A causing 1 strength damage. As a result Unit A withdraws from combat while suffering an additional D3/D6 casualties). In all likeliness this mechanic will need a lot of revision before I’m happy with the way it flows and affects all the units in the game.

Cavalry v Cavalry combat rarely caused as many casualties as cavalry v infantry combat, therefore all combat where units are attempting to hit cavalry units are only scored on a 6+.


Presently, I believe that each unit will have a fatigue value before the game begins. During the course of the battle, depending on different factors, this fatigue may go down or recover after a certain length of time. Thus, troops in a prolonged running battle with the enemy will eventually tire and become less effective. How this will be tracked or presented at present has still not entirely crystallised in my mind.


I mentioned earlier that cavalry would have to build up to the charge. This can be represented in game by having cavalry spend 1 action for the walk, the next a action can then be a trot, which can then be followed by the gallop. In total this would mean three a cavalry unit would have to spend three actions to use a gallop.

To limit the gallop to charging enemy and not for moving across the battlefield, we’ll have to do two things. The first is to add a mechanic for fatigue, while the second would be to limit the gallop within a certain distance of the enemy. This is open for debate at the moment, but considering we have a gallop distance of 27 cm. I’m currently going to rule that cavalry cannot gallop unless within galloping distance of the enemy and a gallop action must end a units move closer to the enemy than when it started.

Also, due to the fact that much of Napoleonic cavalry would not gallop on the charge but instead trot at most, I’m limiting the charge capability for now to light cavalry only.

Shock Tactics

To represent shock tactics in battle, cavalry within 30cm of enemy infantry units cause unrest and therefore unless the enemy unit chooses to reform into square formation they will suffer a +1 morale modifier for all tests while in proximity of cavalry. This also may need further revision once game tests have been carried out.

Light Cavalry – In Game

They were used for reconnaissance, which could be useful in gaming terms. Currently I’m thinking of having a similar system to Blucher where units outside of a certain distance are just represented by a marker. Due to the speed of cavalry this makes them ideally suited to determining enemy forces. We can cover this topic in more detail at a later date. But perhaps light cavalry would have a larger ‘spotting range’?

They can still be used for shock tactics like the medium and heavy Cavalry although they would not be as effective. Therefore we’ll need to show this through our mechanics. Perhaps heavy Cavalry would inflict a +2 morale modifier on nearby units (apart from those in square), while light cavalry and line cavalry would only inflict a +1 modifier.

Also used for skirmishing, these troops were ideal for covering the advance and retreat of formations and scaring away the enemy skirmishers. As such Light Cavalry will be the only cavalry able to use the skirmish formation and any benefits associated with that.

Light cavalry will be the only cavalry type that are able to charge.

Line Cavalry – In Game

Line cavalry would cause the same +1 morale modifier to enemy infantry units while within 30cm as light cavalry, however these units would not be able to skirmish.

The fastest pace that line cavalry would be able use is the ‘trot’, due to keeping their lines dressed for visual effect.

Heavy Cavalry – In Game

Heavy Cavalry would cause +2 morale modifier to enemy infantry units while within 30cm. Heavy Cavalry would also be unable to skirmish or gallop.

Troopers in UnitStrengthCombat/Firing Dice
Cavalry Unit Strength Table


  • Light Cavalry only can use the ‘Gallop’ pace, and only if it has used two actions beforehand in the same turn which include ‘Walk’ and ‘Trot’.
  • Light Cavalry are the only cavalry type that are able to skirmish.
  • All cavalry cause +1 modifier to morale rolls of enemy infantry units within 30cm, apart from Heavy Cavalry who cause a +2 modifier.
  • Combat will be carried out using firing dice, with dice rolls of 5+ counting as a hit against the enemy unit. Hits can only be caused against cavalry on a roll of 6+.
  • Fatigue will come into play, once the mechanic has been established.



Writing a Wargame – Deployment

I realise I’ve been getting a bit ahead of myself and getting stuck into the infantry firing mechanics.

So I want to take a step back and go over some more of the pre game stuff that would be needed before an actual game takes place.

This is a fairly short post, so apologies for those that like a meaty read. More of those are coming, I promise!


To determine how far apart our forces should deploy we need to analyse Napoleonic War battle maps to show the original disposition of the forces and the distance between them. This can usually be determined by using any scales that may be available on the map itself.

Deployment at the Battle of Waterloo

Above is the initial deployment for the battle of Waterloo. Here using the scale to the side we can determine that the right side of the battlefield the forces were roughly 900 metres apart (ignoring troops garrisoned in the villages and the farms in this instance). On the left, the forces are roughly 1200 metres apart, while at the centre they’re roughly 1500 metres apart.

That’s pretty close. But was Waterloo an exception?

Disposition of forces at the Battle of Austerlitz

At Austerlitz, using the scale provides the forces along the front vary between 1-2 miles apart.

Looking at other battles, we have the following distances:

  • Battle of Busaco – 1 to 2 miles apart
  • Battle of Jena – 1 mile apart
  • Battle of Friedland – 1 mile

So we’ve got a fairly consistent image here of battle lines being drawn up at roughly 1 mile apart.

To translate this into gaming terms is fairly simple. 1 mile on out scale of 1:5300 equates to 30cm plus change.

Therefore our armies should be deploying up to 15cm away from the centre line of the table.


Initially I’m going to use an alternate deployment method, in that the players roll off, the winner chooses which half of that table he would like to play on and then places his first unit.

In this case brigades are placed as one unit with all their battalions on the table at once. Players alternate placing brigades until all their forces are on the table.

Writing a Wargame – Strength, Firing Dice & Resolving Attacks

As always please check out my Napoleonic War Game page for the latest information on rules and adjustments to date.



After comments from user Altair1371 on Reddit about the effectiveness of firing on columns and the columns effectiveness themselves, I’m removing the +1 to hit modifier when firing at a column and giving the column +1 morale and the enemy it’s approaching a -1 morale penalty (at present). The reason for this is due to an attack column was often 50 men wide and 16(ish) ranks deep, the men inside the column felt fairly secure from small arms fire due to the many bodies around them and also it was still tightly packed enough to be enough of a deterrent for cavalry in many cases.

An attack column of this approaching a thin firing line 500 men wide 2 men deep (in the case of the British) was designed to punch through the line and effectively split the battalion in two. Also once in that position you’re already in a firing line against the rest of the line with enfilading fire. Imagine being at the point in the line where the French attack column will hit, you’ve got a couple of dozen buddies in immediate proximity against 600+ French fusiliers. Scary sight. Which was why the French used it. Many movies and TV shows show a very British point of view of the French attack where swathes of men are being cut down by fire, but the fact remained that if the column reached the enemy, the enemy would have fled, it was just a matter of time.

Ear in mind that firing from column would have been fairly ineffectual with only the first 150 men able to fire and if they did so the column would likely stutter. Therefore there will be no shooting while in column formation.


Following on from the 1st game test posted on here and further tests conducted after. The morale of 8 is a little too low for standard units and has resulted in a push and shove scenario much of the time with neither side making a large gain or even firing their muskets!

After adjusting this value to 10 the units closed much easier and would commit to firing at each other. More test will be needed but at this point I’m using 10 as the starting morale of a unit.

Any unit that is reduced to 0 morale during the course of the battle, is removed from play as the brigade would simply leave the field of battle and refuse to fight further.


On my test I showed the full strength value of the brigade and then had to work out with some maths how many firing dice that would equate to depending on their formation.

To make this a little easier I’ve decided to change the strength number to a ratio of 1:50. Therefore a British Battalion of 1000 men will be strength 20 etc, the full list of strengths are at the bottom of this post. A hit will still have the same effect (a unit loses 50 men) but it should be easier to track this way. This may well be adjusted further if this still appears to complicated when combined with the number of firing dice.

Firing Dice

This will be adjusted to suit the strength of the unit more easily. So a ratio of 1:4 for dice to strength means the British will have 5 firing dice (20 divided by 4) full table at the bottom of this post for the values by Nation/Units. For a quick reference sheet, I’m considering including the following table:

StrengthFiring Dice
Relationship of Strength to Firing Dice


That’s the updates over, let’s get to out next part. We need to finish off the attacks a unit can carry out and by this what happens when they reach each other and touch bases?

Combat in the open very rarely happens between two infantry units as can be seen from this extract from the Wikipedia on bayonet attacks:

“The bayonet charge was a common tactic used during the Napoleonic wars. Despite its effectiveness, a bayonet charge did not necessarily cause substantial casualties through the use of the weapon itself. Detailed battle casualty lists from the 18th century showed that in many battles, fewer than 2% of all wounds treated were caused by bayonets.[36]Antoine-Henri Jomini, a celebrated military author who served in numerous armies during the Napoleonic period, stated that the majority of bayonet charges in the open resulted with one side fleeing before any contact was made.”


My first option to resolve base to base contact is to have each unit take a morale test. The lowest holds while the higher withdraws so much distance while taking 1 damage for each pip of difference between their morale scores.


My second thought was that the base that is made contact with (the non-active player) would immediately withdraw 10cm and suffer D6 Casualties (from the successful unit firing on the retreating unit).

This may have to be altered when combat is made in built-up areas or dense terrain, but my current thinking would be Option 2 for open area combat and an adjusted Option 1 for built-up areas or dense terrain. My adjustment would possibly be, the victor would still take 1 damage to represent casualties from the combat.

Let me know what you think, or whether you think I’m missing a neat rule I could implement that would accurately represent this.


Nation/UnitStrengthFiring Dice
British Line226
French Old Guard (Pre 1809)195
French Old Guard (Post 1809)164
French Line (Pre 1809)216
French Line (Post 1809)175
Prussian Line134
Russian Line123
Austrian Grenadier195
Austrian Line (German)246
Austrian Line (Hungarian)267

Game Test 1 – Musket Fire and Reactions

For this test scenario we have two brigades on each side.

For the ‘Red’ side:

  • Brigade 1, made up of four battalion totalling 4,000 men.
  • Brigade 2, made up of three battalions with 2,800 men in total.

for the ‘Blue’ side:

  • Brigade 1, made up of four battalions totalling 3,200 men.
  • Brigade 2, made up of four battalions totalling 3,200 men.

We are in the blue players turn, and neither his or his opponents units have yet fired their weapons. All red units are deployed in line formation and all blue units are currently in column formation.

Disposition of forces

The player choose to activate Brigade 1 (Blue B1) and use 5 actions to take them to just inside 4cm (3.3cm away) of the enemy 1st Brigade (Red 1B):

Result of Blue Players Actions for Brigade 1

During the blue players last 3 actions of his movement, the red player chose not to react each time (their only reactions available at this point being withdraw 2cm or change formation).

On his last move, the red player has one final reaction ,in which he can now add fire. However he chooses to hold his fire, hoping to use the +1 to ‘Steady’ modifier for ‘Keep Your Powder Dry” at close range next turn. To do so he has to take a morale test on 2D6 against his morale of 8:

Red Morale Test to Hold Fire

The red player fails, and the nervous men in the Brigade give fire early, with the rest of the line in the Brigade following suit. He has two battalions at the front of his formation in ‘Line Formation’, the Brigade has 4,000 strength, however only the front battalions can fire which is half of the Brigade. Therefore he uses (4,000/2) = 2,000 / 200 = 10 Firing Dice, ‘Steady’ usually requires a roll of 5+, however as this is the first time this brigade has fired he can add +1 to his rolls meaning rolls of 4 or more are successes:

Result of ‘Steady’ roll

He scores 5 successes, completely average. Next he rolls these successes as his ‘Fire!” dice, the enemy is at long range, and he therefore requires 6+ to hit, no modifiers are available at long range:

Result of ‘Fire!’ roll

He manages to make one hit on the enemy formation at long range. The enemy now suffer 1 Damage (50 men) and -1 to their morale:

Result of Red side fire.

As the blue side has now received fire on Brigade 1, that unit will have to pass a morale test to remain where it is. A failure of 1-2 more than 7 would result in a move equivalent to an action backwards, while suffering D3 damage. A failure of more than 2 would see the unit make a disorderly withdrawal while suffering D6 damage:

Blue Morale Test

The Blue player rolls a 9 which is 2 more than their current morale of 7 for Brigade 1, Brigade 1 now withdraws 2cm, while suffering D3 damage:


The Blue player rolls a 3 which on a D3 is equivalent to 2 damage, the Blue player now withdraws his unit 2cm:

Effects of Blue Orderly Withdrawal

Here we can see that the Blue player has now retired his 1st Brigade 2cm, and has accounted for the two damage by reducing his strength by a further 100 men, and his morale by 2 bringing it to 5.

On his next turn he can choose to use 3 actions before moving to restore his morale to 8, and then advance and fire or advance and advance on the Red Brigade.

Or he may decide its a fool errand and withdraw his Brigade and bring another stronger unit in to take the position.


The Blue attack was repelled in this instance and (for fun) during the time of 11:50am and 12:00pm he has lost 150 men.


This is my first play test of one small part of the game but my conclusions are as follows:

  • The Reactions allow a little more realism into the game, instead of waiting for his turn a player can choose to react to anything within 10cm of his unit.
  • Too many dice rolls? The Red player had to roll 2 dice for leadership to hold their fire, then their steady dice followed by the fire dice. Meaning red player rolled a total of 17 Dice for the Action. While the Blue player rolled, 3 dice for his leader ship and damage.
  • Time taken for this one action was well under 30 seconds for the red player, and less than 10 seconds for the blue player.
  • I believe I need to implement a hold test for the unit being approached (in this case Brigade 1), perhaps a morale test each time blue player moves closer?
  • Maybe also try an option where morale is set slightly higher (10?). Depends on how long you want the unit to hold for.


I’ve tested having the units with morale 8, and testing to make an action once inside 10cm, it resulted in 4 turns of moving forward and backwards with very little gain and no firefight. Will do a follow up test on a morale score of 10.

That’s it for now, but feel free to try this out yourself and let me know the results of what you find and how long it takes you. Please also try the morale tests once a unit has an enemy approach it. Let me know what you think!


The battlefield and units were created using www.battlechronicler.com

The 3D dice rolling was from Teal 3D Dice Roller

Battle Chronicler - The best way to make war game battle reports

Writing a Wargame – Musketry II


For Factors and attributes that have already been decided please visit the Napoleonic War Game page.


After my last post I had an extremely well made comment on Reddit from user Altair1731 making two points.

The first was that I could easily cut down the number of dice being used during firing by using a ratio of 1 die for every 200 men instead of 100. Agreed, and I’ve now changed this to match.

The second was to combine the ‘Battlefield Stress’ and ‘Misfires’ into one roll of 5+ called a ‘Ready’ roll. This also seems sensible.

The second part of the shooting would be the ‘Fire’ and would be a roll to see whether hits are made at either long or short range.

Now onto our main points of this post, which is to cover the final aspects of Musketry fire.


The following rules may adjust either the ‘Ready’ or ‘Fire’ rolls of a unit. No matter the modifier rolls of 1 will always miss and 6 will always hit.


Probably not a suitable name, but we’ll go with it for now.

Before a battle all the men in a force would prepare beforehand. They would clean their kit and weapons, before marching to the front. This is fairly simple to represent by having each Battalion roll 4+ instead of 5+ on their ready roll the first time they fire their weapons in the battle.


Another fairly simple one to represent veteran/elite experience and training would be to have veterans with a ‘Ready’ roll one pip better than standard troops i.e. 4+ instead of 5+ (note that keeping your powder dry can still apply and would improve this to 3+ the first time a veteran unit fires). They could possibly also have a higher starting morale value. Alternatively they could have one extra firing die. At present I’m leaning towards an improved ‘ready’ roll.

Elite units could have either a higher than standard starting morale value, an extra firing die, an improved ‘Ready’ stat or some kind of combination of the three.

Newly raised etc units may have either 1 firing die less or a ‘Steady’ roll of 6+. Poor morale could also be a factor, or a combination of two of these.


Hitting Skirmishers would be much more difficult than hitting a large body of men, therefore there would be a -1 to hit penalty against Skirmishers. (Note this would not affect long range as a 6 will always hit).


Shooting a body of men that numbers twice your own volume would be an easier target to hit, this could be shown by having a +1 to hit modifier on the ‘Fire’ roll at effective range. Note that I’ve kept this bonus at effective range rather then long range as you would still have to hit a target that is little more than 6′ high.

Likewise, units which are at least half in number to the players own unit would be harder to hit, as those on the flanks would struggle with a large distance between themselves and the enemy unit. This can therefore be a modifier of -1 to the effective range ‘Fire’ roll. Again, no adjustment to the long range due to having the rule of a 6 will always hit at long range.


Due to the packed mass of men, firing on a column or square would be more devastating than a unit in line formation due to enfilading fire. Therefore firing upon these formations would provide a +1 to hit modifier on their ‘Fire’ roll at effective range. Again, no affect at long range due to still having to hit a 6′ target at 300 yards.


A 2,000 strong Prussian brigade of standard infantry in line formation is firing upon a 4,000 strong Austrian brigade in column formation in effective range. This shot is their first of the game so far.

The Prussian have 10 Firing Dice and the following modifiers on their ‘Ready’ roll:

  • +1 for ‘Keeping Your Powder Dry’

They would therefore need 4+ on their ‘Ready’ Dice, resulting in 5 passes and 5 fails.

For the ‘Fire’ roll, the Prussians are rolling 5 Dice (the result of ‘Ready’) with the following modifiers on their effective range to hit (usually 4+):

  • +1 for firing at a unit twice theirs in strength
  • +1 for firing on units that are in column/square formation

The Prussians would therefore need a 2+ to hit on their ‘Fire’ dice for effective range (no further benefits can be applied either, as the Prussians are already at 2+ to hit). The result of this roll would mean an average of 4-5 successes.


With each success accounting for 50 men, the Austrians would lose between 200-250 men and 1 firing dice. The brigade would also need to take 4-5 morale pips of damage, If they had a standard leadership of 8 (This would be determined by the lowest leadership of a battalion in that brigade), they would then need to pass a morale test on a roll of 3 or 4 on 2D6 depending on damage taken.


A failure of 1-2 more than their required roll would result in the unit making an ‘orderly retreat’ towards their own table edge a distance as yet to be determined while taking D3 damage.

A failure of 3 or more compared to what was required would result in a ‘disorderly retreat’ towards their own table edge a distance as yet to be determined while taking D6 damage.

Again, none of this is set in stone and I would love to hear peoples thoughts on these rules, also, if I’ve forgotten any aspect of musketry please let me know. Thanks.

Writing a Wargame – Musketry

For Factors and attributes that have already been decided please visit the Napoleonic War Game page.

EDIT: Following a suggestion from user Altair1371 on Reddit the firing dice mentioned further down this page will change to 1 die for every 200 men.

Also, ‘Stress’ & ‘Misfires’ will be combined into one die roll called ‘Steady’ which will still be passable on a 5+.

While we contemplate the base sizes a little more from my previous post, let’s move on to another aspect of Napoleonic warfare. Namely, Musketry fire its accuracy and effect.

It is fairly common knowledge that musket fire was largely inaccurate due to a number of factors. Soldiers were not trained to ‘aim’ their musket but rather just to reload and fire. It wasn’t until after the wars that the command ‘aim’ came into effect.

How accurate was a musket? We know the ranges of the musket from my previous post Writing a Wargame – Part III. Also from that article we found a information from www.napolun.com in regards to hits at long range and effective range.

– at 160 and 320 yards out of 200 rounds fired at a large target, approximating the size of a formed infantry company, the following number of hits was obtained“:

Musket160 YardsAccuracy320 YardsAccuracy
Prussian 1782 Musket6432%4221%
Prussian 1809 Musket11357%4221%
British Musket11658%5528%
French 1777 Musket9950%5528%
Napoleonic Musket Accuracy

So we’ve some data here showing that muskets could hit 50-60% of the time at effective range while hitting 20-30% at long range. But this test was conducted under an environment where the firer could take time, not worry about approaching enemy soldiers, actually killing men in front of him, not worry about being shot by the enemy and also not have the distractions of the general sounds of warfare going on around them – in other words ‘battlefield stress’. I suspect all of these factors has an affect on whether a soldier was a) able to reload effectively and b) actually fire his musket.

Further on in the article I cited above from napolun.com, there is an interesting snippet on the effectiveness of muskets in combat and what factors would play a part in that effectiveness:

  • Misfires could consist of up to 20%. According to Colonel Elting during prolonged firing the soldier had often to clear the vent of his musket with a pin carried on his pouch belt, and clean the barrel which fouled after 50 or 60 shots.
  • Stress. The experience showed that the niceties of regular volleys were impracticable on the battlefield. Quite often the musketry took place outside of the real killing zone. The sight of enemy continuing his advance was enough for some and they began blasting off as soon as they had loaded their muskets. It was contagious. Once individual soldiers fired their muskets (without the order from their officers) the others began firing too. Within moments the entire battalion was covered with smoke. The fast firing relieved anxiety and occupied troopers’ minds and bodies. Some soldiers were so stressed that they loaded their rifles time after time but they never fired. (After one of the battle of Gettysburg the discarded 37,574 rifles were collected and sent to Washington to be inspected and reissued. Approx. 24,000 of them were still loaded, and 75 % of them had 2 to 10 rounds in the barrel. One rifle had been stuffed to the top with 23 rounds !

As we have no hard data to go on from combat in the era. We will have to rely on our first table while adjusting slightly for ‘battlefield stress’. At present I’m willing to go with a general 50% hit at short range and 20% at long range. But we also have to account for the 20% misfires that could occur.

The easiest way to account for all of these factors is to have a number of speed rolls when firing. when I refer to speed rolling I’m talking about the act of rolling the brigade as one group together for those at are firing.

We could then reduce the firing into a number of separate rolls to have a more realistic idea of firing in Napoleonic times. These rolls would be for Stress, Misfires and Hitting.


Our second bullet point above shows that our of a number of rifles taken from the Battlefield of Gettysburg for analysis a high percentage hadn’t been reloaded properly. 75% had more than one round inside the barrel. This makes it fairly simple to introduce a mechanic to that effect. Using a D6 or a D10 you can determine the number of men that wouldn’t fire due to ‘Battlefield Stress’. As D6 dice are more readily available i’d rather use these throughout our system. Therefore, to simulate battlefield stress, a soldier would theoretically only fire his weapon on a 5+ (which works out as 33.34% chance, slightly better than reality but usable all the same).


The first bullet point states that 20% of weapon fires resulted in misfires. Again, this should be fairly simple to show. Of those soldiers that successfully passed the first test they would roll a further D6 with a 2+ (83.35% chance) showing that his weapon was fired without incident.


Effective Range

Using our table at the beginning of this article we have the stat showing roughly 50-60% of time soldiers were able to hit the target. So let’s stick with 50%, on a D6 that would be a 4+ (50% chance)

Long Range

Using the same table, it shows that hits were only made roughly 20% of the time. Converting this into a dice roll gives us a 6+ (16.67% chance).


So let’s use our largest battalions and smallest battalions in the game, the Russians and Hungarians.

They both decide that they will spend 1 action to form their 4 battalions in to line and 2 actions to move their battalions 2 moves, bringing them within musket range of their enemy. They then would spend 1 action to give fire.

UnitMenShots (6 Shots each)‘Stress’ Successes (33.34%)‘Misfire’ Successes
Effective Range Hits
Long Range Hits
Russian Line2,48414,9044,9694,1422,071690
Austrian Line (Hungarian)5,23231,39210,4668,7234,3621,454

There are two points here, I obviously don’t expect people to be rolling 10,000 dice at a time, so we need to establish the firing dice of each unit. Also, these stats are assuming that the unit is firing on a unit formed in line also. So ignoring the second point for now let’s suggest our smallest unit would use 6 firing dice for its 600 men. That’s 100 men per firing dice.

The number of dice each Unit/Country would receive per battalion:

Unit/CountryMenFiring Dice
British Line1,07611
French Old Guard (Pre 1809)9459
French Old guard (Post 1809)8018
French Line (Pre 1809)1,04910
French Line (Post 1809)8258
Prussian Line6617
Russian Line6216
Austrian Grenadier9489
Austrian Line (German)1,18812
Austrian Line (Hungarian)1,30813
Firing dice per unit

So following on from our last post, we’d still essentially be managing our units at a brigade level, as the Brigade Commander may display the strength of the Brigade. For example a Brigade Commander may have an indicator showing that Brigades strength is 1,400, meaning we would roll 14 dice initially.

Taking our previous example of the Russian and Hungarian infantry and replacing the men with firing dice:

UnitMenShots ‘Stress’ Successes (33.34%)‘Misfire’ Successes
Effective Range Hits
Long Range Hits
Russian Line2,484248731
Austrian Line (Hungarian)5,23252171472
Example of a four battalion brigade of Russian and Hungarian infantry firing in game


So what about the unit receiving fire? Per 1000 shots fired at a unit in effective range there would be casualties roughly on the scale of 100-150 per short range volley and 0-50 on long range (very rough estimates). When accounting for an action turn of firing (6 volleys) these would equate to 600-900 casualties per short range and 100-300 per long range. These casualties would be spread across the entire enemies brigade rather than one particular unit. At present I imagine distributing any effects of firing evenly amount the forward battalions of the enemy.

So if we go with Option 6 or 7 from our previous post (i.e. commanders have dice that show casualties for the Brigade) so for each successful hit on a unit you would reduce the battalion strength by 50 men. So for every two successful hits on a brigade they would lose 1 firing dice.

However receiving fire also had an effect on the morale of the unit, and I’m toying with the idea of having morale markers on individual units where each successful hit reduces their morale by one pip or they suffer a morale marker. Every time that unit wants to advance on an enemy within range it would have to pass a morale test before doing so. Failure would mean not advancing, these failures would also prompt the other units in base to base contact with them to also take a morale test. If one other unit fails that test within the brigade then the whole Brigade moves back a certain distance while taking a certain amount of damage (D3?), if three or more fail in total then the whole brigade routs and makes a full move back towards its own deployment zone while taking damage (D6?).

Commanders of brigade can use actions to reduce the pips of morale damage on any battalions under their control.


We have set a number of factors all of which aren’t set in stone yet as I’d love to hear further opinions on this.

We have:

  • 1 Firing Dice for every 200 men in a battalion.
  • ‘Battlefield Stress’ tests for units wanting to fire (5+ on a D6), which could be adjusted depending on the skill of the unit.
  • ‘Misfire’ tests for units (2+ on a D6).
  • ‘To Hit’ Scores of 4+ at Effective Range and 6+ at Long Range.
  • Damage of 50 men per hit inflicted on the Brigade and 1 morale Pip on the Battalion.
  • Morale tests for Battalions wanting to move towards (as well as receiving fire from the enemy).
  • Commanders can use actions to improve morale of their Battalions.

As always I would love to hear any comments or ideas.

Also early days yet, but how does “Vive le France” or “Le Chapeau” sound as a title?

Writing a Wargame – Base Sizes

Factors Decided

Scale1:5300Writing a Wargame – Part II
Base RepresentationBattalion/SquadronWriting a Wargame – Part I
Base Width40mmUnder Review
Single Turn Time Length10 MinutesWriting a Wargame – Part III
Actions Per Unit5Writing a Wargame – Part III
Troop Movement SpeedsSee BelowWriting a Wargame – Part IV
Factors Decided
Unit TypeTerrainMarchQuick StepCharge
FootOpen2 cm3 cm*
MountedOpen4 cm8 cm28 cm**
FootRough2 cm
MountedRough4 cm6 cm
FootDifficult1 cm
Troop Movement Card
*Cannot be used within 20 cm of enemy units **1 Action per turn

Comments from John on Part II have caused me to revisit the base sizes for our battalions, for those who haven’t read his comment John made a very good point:

I was thinking that a standard base size should imply a standard battalion size? Otherwise your large unit/small unit mechanics have to do quite difficult things to be fair to both Russian and Hungarian battalions.

So let’s look at how we reached the 40mm base width. We had the following table that was taken from Rod’s Wargaming website:

Typical infantry Battalion Strengths during the Napoleonic Wars

Looking at the table above if we take the largest unit (Hungarian Line) at 1,308 and the smallest unit (Russian Line) at 621 we have large differences between the battalion strengths and therefore also a large difference in their footprint on the ground.

So our original table showing what footprint each nation would take up width wise is as follows (bear in mind this is based on line formation of 3 ranks apart from the British which is in 2 ranks):

NationEstablished Soldier StrengthLine Formation WidthNo. of 6mm Miniatures Per Rank
British1,0765.67 cm11
French Old Guard (Pre 1809)9453.32 cm6
French Old Guard (Post 1809)8012.82 cm5
French Line (Pre 1809)1,0493.69 cm7
French Line (Post 1809)8252.90 cm5
Prussian Line6612.32 cm4
Russian Line6212.18 cm4
Austrian Grenadier9483.33 cm6
Austrian Line (German)1,1884.17 cm8
Austrian Line (Hungarian)1,3084.60 cm9
Unit Widths at 1:5300

We have a number of options that I can think of presently to get around this issue.


Our first and most fiddly for the actual gamer would be to have accurate base widths for each nations units:

(rounded to nearest 0.5mm)
British1,07655 mm
French Old Guard (Pre 1809)94535 mm
French Old Guard (Post 1809)80130 mm
French Line (Pre 1809)1,04935 mm
French Line (Post 1809)82530 mm
Prussian Line66125 mm
Russian Line62120 mm
Austrian Grenadier94835 mm
Austrian Line (German)1,18840 mm
Austrian Line (Hungarian)1,30845 mm
Prospective Base Widths

Some of these base sizes are pretty small, with the Russian units measuring only 20mm in width at 1:5300. This scale would mean only 4 6mm miniatures per rank.


The second option is along the same lines as option 1, but adjusting our scale so that an the smaller infantry units take up 40mm in width, this would mean adjusting our scale to something almost double, but would mean a 6 foot length which is our aim would represent 3 miles instead of 6. Which would not make large scale battles feasible.


Build in a mechanic to represent unit strengths on 40mm base. At the moment this is completely open, it could be anything from the number of men in a battalion divided by 100 to represent HP:

French Old Guard (Pre 1809)9459
French Old Guard (Post 1809)8018
French Line (Pre 1809)1,04910
French Line (Post 1809)8258
Prussian Line6617
Russian Line6216
Austrian Grenadier9489
Austrian Line (German)1,18812
Austrian Line (Hungarian)1,30813
Prospective HP of Units

If HP is used how would this be tracked for 100+ battalions per side? In all likelihood, HP would have to come into affect even if Battalion width was adjusted to suit their relative footprint as well.

Also does this need to be divided by 100, if tracked easily can it be divided by 10? Thus when a HP is lost, 10 men from the unit are presumed dead or wounded?


We use both realistic unit width and Health Points for each nation to more actually represent their strengths of the battalion:

NationEstablished Soldier StrengthBase WidthHealth
British1,07655 mm11 or 108
French Old Guard (Pre 1809)94535 mm9 or 95
French Old Guard (Post 1809)80130 mm8 or 80
French Line (Pre 1809)1,04935 mm11 or 105
French Line (Post 1809)82530 mm8 or 83
Prussian Line66125 mm7 or 66
Russian Line62120 mm6 or 62
Austrian Grenadier94835 mm9 or 95
Austrian Line (German)1,18840 mm12 or 119
Austrian Line (Hungarian)1,30845 mm13 or 131
Unit Strengths and Base Widths

The idea of being able to say for example “the British suffered 11,000 losses and the French 5,000” does appeal to me on a statistical level post game. If you were trying to recreate some of the engagements at the time and wanted to see how you stacked up against your real life counterpart this would be something to consider.

But this would require either two or three D10 markers per base, and if you multiply that by the number of battalions that will be in game this would result in 200-300 dice per side……


A number of counters on each unit to represent HP lost. Again, would result in a lot of counters….


We revert to a brigade system like many other game systems, but then that would mean going through what size base is best for a brigade.


Instead of Battalion HP, could we use Brigade HP which is marked with the commander of that Brigade. A brigade may be made up of 4 Prussian units each roughly 660 men in strength, meaning a total combat strength for that Brigade of 2,640. Could this then be divided by a factor of 10 and represented on three D10’s? With each hit on a unit in that brigade reducing the value by 1?

There’s a lot to think about here, and I really would like some further opinions from people on what of the above options they think may be best? Or even if there’s an option I haven’t considered. At present, I’m leaning towards having accurate base widths, but using the Command stands to represent Brigade strength as a whole on 3 D10’s.


The same as above but with all units base widths represented as 40mm.



Have battalions of all nations standardised at a certain strength according to the campaign they take part in and keep 40mm bases.


Have battalion strength incorporated into the combat ability of the unit and keep the units on 40mm bases.