Black Powder rules: Huge units

[Unlucky General]

Comrades,

I'm not too sure where to post this question but I do have Napoleonic armies in mind when asking this question.

I am developing a Black Powder army list for my British Peninsular army for 1810 and feel a genuine need to expand two of my battalions to a size larger than 'Large' as the rules provide for.

Let me say that I have both Albion expansion editions but not Clash of Eagles  - so if this is already covered I can only apologise.

My army is strictly according to historical strengths and at 1:20 representative troop scale (numbers). I have two battalions well and truly above the upper limits provided for in the rules for even a large unit - 46 figures and 48 figures.

They are exceptional and are paired in brigaded with only two battalions - becasue they are twice as big as anyone else. I should emphasize that's historically brigaded - I'm not making things up.

I have a strong sense that they should be called 'Huge' because the difference between them and the upper reaches of the suggested 'Large' is an entire unit's worth (albeit a 'Tiny' one).

I feel they should have a Hand-to-Hand rating of 8, Shooting value of 5 and a Stamina of 5.

Is this reasonable?  They muster twice as many muskets and bayonets as two standard size battalions which on average would have combined values of Hand-To-Hand of 12, Shooting Value of 6 and Stamina of 6.

Thoughts? I'm suspecting something like this must have been done for the Austrians in Clash of Eagles?

[vodkafan]

 It seems reasonable to me.  I also have been making my Peninsular units at 1:20  just because I like to have 1 base per company and I like to see the different organisations of the British and French. My friend wants to use Black Powder rules which means rounding my units down. We haven't gotten to play yet.
Best thing to do is just try it and have a play through a couple of times and see if it will stretch or if a "huge" unit breaks the game.
I will be very interested in your results.
Have you considered Over The Hills rules? I haven't done more than read through these rules either, but they say particularly that units can be up or downsized easily to fit historical numbers as a matter of course.

[tallyho]

Seems reasonable. I have huge units of pike for landsknechts, so why not for large battalions.

Getting hung up on historical strengths that fluctuate at any given moment seems a road to button counting madness to me though.

[Jabba]

As a matter of interest, I also have a British Peninsular force, which units are you classing as huge?

[Rogerc]

I think the simle answer is to play them as you suggest in test scenarios if you get the historicla otocme, or the outcome you expected, hoped for then as long as your opponent agreed you are fine.

[Jemima Fawr]

It wasn't unknown for particularly large battalions (e.g. the 52nd at Waterloo) to operate as two tactical 'wings', thus turning a single large battalion into two 'battalions', to all intents and purposes.  So that's always an option and a perfectly historical one.

[Warboss Nick]

Jemima makes a good point IMHO. If the units are too large they become unwieldy - both on the tabletop and I’d assume also in real life. What Jemima describes was done in the AWI (highlanders and guards ich U recall correctly) and I’m sure he’s right for the Peninsular, too. It was a known practice and makes sense tactically.

As for classifying them as ‘huge’ I’d be careful and do some thorough testing. The difference between regular and large units seems only slight, but on the tabletop I’ve found it to be quite considerable.

Another option would be to revisit unit scaling. Our gaming group also plays the Peninsular with roughly 1:20 ratios. To classify as large a unit must have at least 30 but rather 36 miniatures. That works out nicely with French bataillons of 6 companies at 36 miniatures and full strength British bataillons of 8 companies at 48 miniatures.

[Unlucky General]

Thanks everyone thus far ... this is helpful.

Firstly I'll stress that the 'Huge' units I'm considering are exceptional. I'm not interested in unbalancing the game. On that same issue, I'm not wanting the extra-large battalions to be discriminated against thorough an incomplete rule proviso.

My particular army is based on the Bussaco ORBAT and I've been fighting with this army for 20 years+ - just not with Black Powder until recent years. Under other rule systems the number of figures is easily taken care of and relative strengths are a seamless sliding scale whereas the fast-play assumptions of Black Powder require tweaking which they point out and encourage.

My army is 28mm and based around Spencer's First Division and a Barclay's Brigade of Crawford's Light Division. I have two Guards battalions which sit on or ever-so-slightly over the 40 figure mark - so they are big but can sit within 'Large'.

I have three over-sized battalions, the fist being 1/7th Foot (Fusiliers) which come out at 43 figures. In Black Powder terms a 'Tiny' unit is 5-6 figures and as the 7th is only 3 more figures over 40 I'm confident they can exceed but remain defined as 'Large'.

Then I have the 79th Cameron Highlanders who have 46 figures. At Bussaco (according to Oman) the 79th fielded 923 all-ranks. As an entire 'Tiny' unit above 'Large' I'm having great difficulty seeing how they shouldn't bump up their fighting stats 1 pip above 'Large'.

The last offender is the 52nd Oxfordshire Light Infantry which comes in at 48 figures - fielding 975 all ranks at Bussaco.

If you examine the brigade compositions of the army most of them have 3-4 battalions of average strengths but the big boys above are fielded in pairs and obviously are expected to do the work of two battalions - rightly so. I appreciate the Light Infantry often fought differently in this particular period they also fought formed.

Black Powder offers the Standard size and then two sizes smaller (Small and Tiny) but only one larger = 'Large'. I'm sort of arguing for this extension but I need to get everyone's opinions to see I'm not missing anything. If I can get a consensus then I'll be able to finalise my ORBAT without too much controversy and play more people.

As I stated in the previous posting, a brigade of four standard size units seems to me to have distinct advantages over a brigade of two 'Huge' battalions even with my proposed stats. I'm trying to make the game deal with my army historically and if I can do this, others may benefit - at least that would be nice. I think I'm arguing for more balance - not less.

I'll re-read the Bussaco Osprey this morning and see if they were fought in anything other than a single battalion formation. I'm in quarantine right now and have plenty of time. Re-reading it will not be a trial.

Thanks again for the feedback thus far. I am interested in everyone's opinions and really appreciate your interest.

[olicana]

It wasn't unknown for particularly large battalions (e.g. the 52nd at Waterloo) to operate as two tactical 'wings', thus turning a single large battalion into two 'battalions', to all intents and purposes.  So that's always an option and a perfectly historical one.

As I understand it, British Guards battalions (being about twice normal size) did the same in the Peninsular. I've always wondered if they split their flags when doing so.

[Jabba]

We don't use a figure ratio as our armies are based for Shako II but we also use them for Black Powder. When we played Talavera we looked at the various Battalion strengths of the armies involved and divided them up into the four sizes used by BP. For example up to 200 = Tiny, 200 to 450 = Small, and so on.

[Unlucky General]

It wasn't unknown for particularly large battalions (e.g. the 52nd at Waterloo) to operate as two tactical 'wings', thus turning a single large battalion into two 'battalions', to all intents and purposes.  So that's always an option and a perfectly historical one.

I can confirm that whilst the 52nd light infantry were capable and often fought as light infantry in an array of formations and detachments, at Bussaco they certainly fought as a single formed battalion - with devastating effect.

[DCRBrown]

UG,

I've been looking at precisely this topic, would you might indicating where I should look for the reference that the 52nd fought as one unit, it will be very useful.

Many thanks.

DB

[Warboss Nick]

As I said, 48 works as a large unit for us. But I can certainly see the use of a „huge“ roadblock for Bussaco, so by all means go for it. You also make a valid point that a huge unit will be less flexible and useful than two regular bataillons (though maybe not so much at Bussaco). Please let us know how it worked out for you!

[Unlucky General]

I've been looking at precisely this topic, would you might indicating where I should look for the reference that the 52nd fought as one unit, it will be very useful.

DB,

Only too happy to oblige.

Rene Chartrand's Bussaco 1810 (Osprey Campaign 97) recounts General Crauford's concealment of the 52nd and the 43rd who popped up from their position back from the crest line. They delivered a devastating volley fire and bayonet charge which broke Loison's Brigade in column of attack which had pushed past the hamlet of Sulla. It's referred to as Crauford's Surprise (page 73).

[DCRBrown]

UGen,

Many thanks.

DB