The Hazard and Doubtful Chance of Wars: Part II

A couple of posts back I summarised my thinking on the development of my Seven Years War rules. I also gave an overview of the Command & Control mechanism and the overall turn sequence. This post digs a bit deeper into the combat mechanisms. Before I go any further, I should have said in the previous post that the rules were really designed for the SYW in central Europe. They weren't intended to cover any of the 'colonial' conflicts in the Americas or in India. They're suitable for the War of the Austrian Succession (again in central Europe) but not for the Jacobite Rising. Similarly, they might not be suitable for the smaller scale actions in the Baltic region (Prussians v Swedes; and Russians v Swedes) of the period. Also, before I continue apologies for the length of this post and for the dearth of relevant images. If I'd been more organised at the time I'd have taken photos of combat scenario testing. So here is a gratuitous plan of the Battle of Prague courtesy of Britishbattles.com:

The aim in battle during this period was to break the will of the enemy army and force him to quit the field.  This was done through a combination of inflicting direct losses (casualties – i.e. dead and wounded) and breaking the cohesion of the enemy’s forces and therefore his ability to resist further pressure.  Armies generally represented large investments in training and equipment for the fledgling states of the time, and the consequences of loss of a war weren't as dramatic as in other centuries, so no prince would want to risk their army's complete anihilation. European trained regular forces tended to be relatively stoical in the face of danger but all ultimately had a breaking point.  All combat tended to erode the ability of units to continue to carry out the commander’s wishes.  Forces tended to be either fought to a standstill or were broken, but there was generally not the ebb and flow seen in other periods and theatres (e.g. US Civil War where units could be “broken” but might return to the fight).

Superfluous Gratuitous Graphic ("SPG")  II: The Roman  Goddess Fortuna as seen in https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortuna_(mythology)

In this game the cohesion of a force is eroded through “Attrition”.  Attrition causes units to lose cohesion and confidence.  There are 2 types of Attrition: Unsteadiness and Losses.  Unsteadiness (shock or disorder) is temporary and can be rectified either by removal of the cause or by rallying. Losses (casualties) are permanent. Markers or counters could be used to mark Attrition: Unsteadiness with say a singly based standing figure; Losses with a casualty figure. 3 losses will result in the base's removal. Any other combination of 3 Attrition markers will result in it breaking.





The Combat mechanism works by modelling the relative performance of whole units against each other in close contact (i.e. base to base), taking into account tactical situation, relative strength, Troop Type, Troop Discipline and Troop Temper*.  The impact on the whole unit is modelled rather than removing individual figures.  This is fairly similar to the Polemos Napoleonic rules, but I wanted to create something which had more 'period flavour' to represent the SYW as I saw it. The Polemos combat system ingeniously incorporates multiple dice rolling which smooths out peaks and troughs of good and bad luck, whilst reflecting the ebb and flow of attack and counter-attack.  I wanted my mechanism to do the latter former, but with a more 'linear warfare' feel. I also wanted cavalry and infantry to feel different from each other. Polemos rewards combined arms tactics; cavalry alone against infantry is not effective, but cavalry PLUS infantry and/or horse artillery is at a distinct advantage against infantry. Other than that cavalry and infantry behave very similarly.

SPG III Fortuna's pal Bellona from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bellone_Monument_des_Braves.jpg

* More on these Troop classifications in another post, if you are unlucky.

So I broke down in my mind's eye how mid-18th century combat unfolds. How does cavalry behave versus cavalry, compared to how it behaves versus infantry, and how does infantry versus infantry differ? I worked through the potential scenarios, based on my understanding.

Cavalry v Cavalry
When one mounted force (A) intended to attack another (D) a number of things could happen when A charged.

1. D might 'flinch' from contact and A might charge home and if he hit D he would be at an advantage. 
2. D might stand and A might then decide 'discretion is the better part of Valerie'** and flinch away. Result no hand-to-hand combat.
3. D might counter-charge and A might charge home, resulting in a clash.
4. D might counter-charge and A might decide he had urgent business elsewhere. Result either no clash if D is't quick enough or A might get caught at a disadvantage.
5. D might stand and A charges home. Result: hand-to-hand combat.

** 'though all of her is nice', Roger McGough

So we might end up with the two sides coming into actual contact in 4 of the 5 scenarios. In this case, and if my understanding is correct, the horsemen would ride between each other's files trying to slash or stab each other on the way, and come out on the other side. They were then faced with a number of options:

1. Both might avoid further contact by moving in a safe direction.
2. One side might attempt to avoid further contact (i.e. run away) pursued by the other.
3. One side might run away and the other might rally.
4. One side might run away and the other might go haring into another nearby enemy unit in the finest Bristish cavalry tradition.
5. Both might turn and fight again (presumably moving at a relatively slow speed, being winded and having less room to build up momentum).

I therefore broke my Cavalry v Cavalry Combat phase into 3 stages:
     (a) both sides test to charge home – outcomes: flinch; charge home; crack troops v non-crack troops charge home and get bonus for flanking opponent if opponent has open flanks.
     (b) if attacker charges home follow combat resolution table.
     (c) if this results in a pass-through follow the Pass Through Options table.
 
Cavalry v Infantry
When one mounted force (A) intended to attack a dismounted force (I) a number of things could happen when A charged.

1. I might panic and A might charge home and if he hit I he would be at a big advantage.
2. I might break and A might charge home at a massive advantage
3. I might stand and A might flinch away. Result no hand-to-hand combat.
4. I might stand and A might charge home.

Similar to the Cavalry-v-Cavalry Combat, if scenarios 1, 2 or 4 occur,  a further stage in the process occurs. I.E. what happens if the cavalry do charge home.

If the cavalry do charge home they will burst through the infantry and either or both sides will take Attrition. Once the cavalry were through the infantry line there were a number of possible courses of action.

1. The infantry break and the cavalry pursue them
2. The infantry break and the cavalry rally
3. The infantry stand and turn to fire with the cavalry also turning to have another go
4. The infantry stand and turn to fire with the cavalry trying to rally
5. The infantry stand and the cavalry hares off to charge someone else
6. The infantry stand and the cavalry tries to move to a safer place.

So, like the all cavalry combat, I determined there should be three stages of cavalry-v-infantry combat but with different test/results tables:
     (a) Test to Charge Home.
     (b) If cavalry charge home follow Combat Resolution table.
     (c) Then follow Cavalry versus Infantry Pass Through Options table.

SPG IV: the Queen of Hungary's Grenzers in front of scratch built woods, with line troops in the rear

Infantry v Infantry
I think infantry is generally simpler than the other two. The first stage of the attack might result in one of the following:

1. The defender stands in good order and the attacker presses home.
2. The defender stands shaken and the attacker presses home.
3. The defender retires in good order and attacker presses home.
4. The defender retires shaken and the attacker presses home.
5. The defender stands and the attacker stands off. No further combat.
6. The defender retires in good order and attacker stands off. No further combat.
7. The defender breaks and the attacker occupies the defender's position.

1 and 2 result in a stand-up firefight. 3 and 4 in a firefight where the attacker is still advancing. 5 and 6 results in a stand-off. 7 is obviously the best result for the attacker. So in game turns there are 2 stages to Infantry-v-Infantry Combat:

     (a) Test to see if the attack is pressed home and what the defender response is. 
     (b) If it is follow Infantry v Infantry Combat Resolution table.

Stage (b) might result in one or both sides taking Losses and retreat/rout for one of the sides. If both stand, the Combat rolls over to the next player's turn.

Phew!

I had to simplify all those possible scenarios, so the game phasing for Combat boils down to three stages:
     (a) Test to charge/press home
     (b) Combat Resolution
     (c) Test for Pass-through Options (cavalry only)
But the tables for (a) and (c) are different for the 3 classes of Combat.

I ran through several tests of each of the scenarios, plus one full (solo) game. I really need to run more tests, but with my growing interest in the ECW over the past couple of years, the SYW has taken a back seat. I'm generally content with how the framework works in practice but there are a few rough edges. Also as mentioned above, there is the question of Troop Classification. What I came up with is possibly too complicated, and to date I have not tested it fully (I've gone for more 'average' troop qualities in my play-testing). I'd rather start from a position of too much detail, then edit it out, than risk missing something which is too 'vanilla'.

Oh, and the relevance of the two women in flouncy frocks (there's nothing nunty about those two)? Given the role of luck in war, and the reverence for the Classical amongst 18th century toffs, I called my rules Bellona et Fortuna. Sorry M. le comte de Foy - I couldn't think of any kitchen utensils 😉.