The Hazard and Doubtful Chance of Wars Part III - Upon the divers humours and characters of regiments

‘”What a pity!” some officers say. “The only troops we have are recruits!” As for me, I love the recruits.  They do not know what danger is, and they stand up manfully in their first battle.’ (De Ligne quoted in Duffy, The Military Experience in the Age of Reason.)

Most wargame rules classify troops in two ways. Troop type and some classification covering 'quality' which might be an amalgamation of training and experience. Sometimes in rules which tend towards the 'grand tactical' level, this second classification might also include strength in numbers. In Bellona et Fortuna, as well as Troop Type there are two qualitative factors to consider: Troop Discipline and Troop Temper. Each base will have a classification under both Discipline and Temper categories.

The idea behind having both Troop Discipline and Troop Temper is to reflect the range of possible behavioural characteristics of units in this period.  Newly raised units could be green or poorly trained, but could put up a stiff fight (British regiments were often led by un-professional officers, but were perceived as being as brave as lions).  From a slightly earlier period, we have the example of the 9 French battalions of recruits lying where they fell in their ranks at Blenheim.  This is why I have shied away from traditional wargaming terms like elite, veteran and raw.  In themselves they do not permit the variability of conduct seen by units historically.  Veteran troops are often seen as a cut above run of the mill “trained” troops – but we sometimes see historical comments to the effect that battle experience can lead to a greater forboding when action approaches and that performance can tail-off with prolonged campaigning.  Not all veterans were necessarily well trained. Similarly in some armies the “elite” troops were not necessarily more skilled at their basic task than line troops, it’s just that they might have tried to live up to an expectation of bravery without having the tradecraft to match.

I've set-out below the three ways troops are classified in Bellona et Fortuna, what the classifications are and what they mean.

Troop Type
This describes the six main types of troops and their respective main modes of operating. 
Infantry:
Most Infantry, whether known as Grenadier, Musketeer, or Fusilier, are formed in close order and are armed with a flintlock musket and bayonet. They deliver fire by volleys upon a given command and rarely have to exercise individual initiative.
Skirmishers:
Croats, Jägers, Chasseurs and Freikorps infantry.  Fight in an irregular (i.e. skirmishing) fashion.  Of limited use in open battle during this period.  Many are classed as Drilled, except real scum like most of the Freikorps which are treated as Undrilled. No distinction is made between troops armed with smoothbores and those armed with rifles, the accuracy and range of the latter is deemed to be counter-balanced by the faster rate of fire of the former.
Horse:
Cuirassiers, Gendarmes, Household Cavalry, etc. The heaviest cavalry, used solely to deliver a mounted charge.
Dragoons:
Medium cavalry, also capable of scouting and screening as well as a mounted charge.  Dragoons were often seen as a cheap alternative to their heavier or lighter counterparts.

SYY Prussians. Heaviest in front, slightly lighter behind. The dragoons at the back were painted around 30 years ago.

Light Cavalry:
i.e. Prussian Hussars after 1745 and British Light Dragoons from 1759 (shades of WRG 1685-1845 there!).  Can perform a genuine battle cavalry role as well as carrying out the scouting/screening function, albeit slightly less effective than dragoons.

Even lighter (everyone has the Death's Head Hussars right?)

Irregular Cavalry:
Unlikely to face up to a charge of regular horse, but excellent at scouting and skirmishing.  Not very reliable in mid-18th century pitched battles.  Cossacks would probably count as Undrilled Brittle Irregular Cavalry.  Most hussars are Drilled.
Artillery:
Heavy field guns used in support of troops in defence or attack.  Given that they moved and deployed on the battlefield using civilian transport, once deployed they may move at 2BW per turn.  If part of an infantry/cavalry formation in march column move at same pace. Re-deploying means guns limber/unlimber. Light pieces such as battalion guns are not represented.

The type of Cavalry is relevant in two ways. In move terms, irregular moving faster than the three regular types (4 base widths rather than 3). In Cavalry-v-Cavalry Combat there is an advantage for each weight class higher, with the following order starting from heaviest to lightest: Horse, Dragoons, Light Cavalry, Irregular Cavalry. So Horse would be on a plus 3 against Irregular Cavalry all other things being equal.

These poor chaps (Austrian hussars) are positively flimsy compared to the guys above.

Skirmishers and artillery don’t advance into combat (i.e. base-to-base) with any enemy but take part in ‘ranged combat’.

Troop Discipline
Troop Discipline concerns the troops’ ability to follow orders, change formation and to keep order.  It will also have an effect in some circumstances on a unit’s performance in combat.
Crack:
The best trained regular troops, with faultless discipline and excellent order such as Prussian Garde and some of the better Prussian musketeer and cuirassier regiments.

We're Crack right? Prinz von Preußen. We get two stars in Duffy.

If anyone is Crack, it's us. We're the Leib-Garde Battailon. Until some button counter points out we should be in yellow breaches.

Skilled:
Very well disciplined troops who know their trade and manoeuvre with ease such as most Prussian musketeers, grenadiers, and cavalry regiments early in the SYW. Skilled status might also come from greater experience.
Drilled:
Properly trained soldiers such as most close order infantry and cavalry, but also some units who fight in an “irregular” fashion but are part the regular armies of combatants (Austrian hussars and Grenzers, jägers etc).  This may include grenadier units in some armies.
Undrilled:
Inadequately trained regular close order troops (militia, raw recruits) and often the colourful but much denigrated Freikorps.

'We may not be as smart as those colourful chaps next to us in blue, but we're Drilled. We should denigrate them.' 'Oh, get them, just because their dads were gamekeepers, think they're a cut above us.'  'To be fair though, we do like nicking stuff and don't hang around when it really kicks off.'

How might these Troop Discipline classifications affect the game? Compared to Drilled troops, Skilled troops are more likely to do what you want them to do (i.e. there are advantages on the test to change orders) and have some advantages in combat - Crack even more so. Undrilled troops obviously are less likely to do what you want. This presents one of the challenges I face in developing the rules: Troop Discipline is assigned at the regimental (i.e. base level). Where troops of different discipline levels are brigaded together, then what is the relevant level to use when testing to change orders? One option is to average out the level. Another is to ignore it altogether and just count Troop Discipline in Combat.

Troop Temper
The third classification concerns the willingness of the troops to enter and to sustain the fight. This does not encompass the impact of events on the battlefield which erode their capability, but the state of mind in which they entered the battle.  They are:
Aggressive:
Troops whose temper makes them suitable for assaults.  This will usually include grenadiers some cavalry (notably British). May also include some Austrian Grenzers for example those involved in the storming of Schweidnitz. One way I think this is a useful classification is because I think that grenadiers were not likely to be more disciplined that their colleagues in the line companies since all were trained together in their parent regiments. They might share the same Troop Discipline, but grenadiers were generally employed as assault troops and were expected to be more dashing or brave in attack.
Stubborn:
Troops who are difficult to move – either to chase away when they are in defence or to get moving when attacking.  The notable example is Russian infantry.
Phlegmatic:
Troops inured to some punishment, do not readily break but are not particularly dashing either.  Will include the majority of troops in most western style armies.
Brittle:
Troops as likely to give way as to stand.  Will include poorly led, unwilling or pressed regulars (such as the regiments of Saxon infantry and some Upper Silesian units in the Prussian service) as well as some irregulars who are more likely to evade action.  Also may include, as a scenario or campaign specific classification, troops poorly fed and poorly supplied.

As with Troop Discipline, it is worth running through what difference Troop Temper makes in the game. Aggressive troops are, as the name suggests more likely to charge or press home their attacks, and if cavalry, counter-charge so relevant bonuses are applied in these tests. Aggressive cavalry are also more likely to run amok and charge other enemy units after crashing-through enemy horse or foot. Stubborn troops will get a bonus when testing to see how they respond to an enemy attack. They will also be harder to get them moving if halted. Brittle troops will get deductions on the tests to charge home or to withstand an attack. Phlegmatic troops by contrast don’t have any advantages or disadvantages.

Ruminations
As I said previously, there may be too many classifications, and this requires more play-testing. It also requires additional record keeping/labelling since Discipline and Temper classes aren't always obvious. Are those grenadiers Aggressive or Phlegmatic? Are they Skilled or Crack? I've even had problems distinguishing between Prussian grenadiers and fusiliers (at 6mm scale it's difficult to tell how tall a mitre is). To date I have ignored Troop Temper and Troop Discipline in play-testing, keeping everything 'vanilla' flavoured.

Now are the chaps on the left the Aggressive guys and the ones on the right those unreliable Upper Silesians or is it the other way round?

The simple solution to the complexity (if it is a problem that needs solving) is to merge Discipline & Temper into one category that covers all qualitative factors. Another way of handling this might be to find ways of removing the need for extra rules regarding 'temper'. Units who would otherwise be classed as 'Brittle' say, could start the game with already penalised with an Unsteadiness Point or more likely a Loss Point. Stubborn troops might bear an additional attrition point.  Could some method be found to reflect the Aggressive character?

That's probably it for now on Bellona et Fortuna. I hope it's been of some interest or even of use. I'd welcome any critique or comments. It's already been a helpful exercise for me, because in attempting to explain the rules and the thinking behind them, it's already made me spot a few errors and omissions and I've done some tweaks and notes for further amendments.