Lead Adventure Forum

Miniatures Adventure => Age of the Big Battalions => Topic started by: chalimacos on August 17, 2025, 09:55:52 AM

Title: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: chalimacos on August 17, 2025, 09:55:52 AM

Reading one of the wargaming pioneers always gets one thinking. This time the book was Terence Wise's American Civil War Wargaming (Airfix, 1977). In the rules in this book smoke is simulated and has effects on line of sight and charges. Wise has quite a convoluted system that links smoke movement to a unit's rate of fire (in a way, smoke has a proprietary unit!). What I found really thought provoking is his "Charging through smoke" section that forces a unit to use this fabulous charge deviation template:

(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtWHT-bVCpixrTxmmdEN2euCd2XsN_P5Q1quyBNgmhnkPlOntq32CUb_MFyqYU6EEkERKV4q669RcfALJf1X-qSS2P4HSePvFDKbejcYOc-Y9aaj3_pooxkTjvAbN5l3mqLZy0UlsssP8XLKOwRjEbWeqY71jZwbbNnAJjAao0QM40FnBKY0Ennu0EXrX6/w400-h238/deviation.jpg) (https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgtWHT-bVCpixrTxmmdEN2euCd2XsN_P5Q1quyBNgmhnkPlOntq32CUb_MFyqYU6EEkERKV4q669RcfALJf1X-qSS2P4HSePvFDKbejcYOc-Y9aaj3_pooxkTjvAbN5l3mqLZy0UlsssP8XLKOwRjEbWeqY71jZwbbNnAJjAao0QM40FnBKY0Ennu0EXrX6/s650/deviation.jpg)

Therefore, the unit can get completely lost, charge the wrong unit, expose a flank, etc. How cool!
Is simulating smoke worth the time and hassle? Wouldn't it force the players to establish wind direction, strength and changes like in a naval wargame? However, by not doing it, are we not ignoring an important factor that was often decisive? These are the questions that crowded my head. To see if something (relatively) simple could be done, I drafted this quick smoke rules (the distances are scaled for Simplicity in Practice, but the concept could work in any ruleset).

• Only the densest clouds are tracked.
• There's no need to track wind direction and speed until someone actually generates some dense smoke.
• When a unit fires in addition to its usual fire dice, it rolls a D10. On a 10 the unit has generated a dense cloud. Place a cotton marker as wide as the unit on it's front.
• Now is the time to establish wind direction and speed.
• • Wind direction: Roll a d8: 1N, 2NE, 3E, 4SE, 5S, 6SW, 7W, 8NW
  • Wind speed: Roll 2d6

• At the beginning of each turn all clouds of smoke on the table drift the wind speed in cm in the direction of the wind.
• If firing at a unit though smoke, the unit counts as in cover.
• If moving through smoke, use Wise's deviation template.
• Smoke lingers until it drifts out of the play area.
• OPTIONAL. A 1 on the "smoke dice" (the d10) dissipates the smoke cloud closest to the firing unit if there is any.
• OPTIONAL. If firing artillery against a town, a 10 on the d10 sets it on fire. The town generates a dense cloud every two turns.
• OPTIONAL. The above assumes a constant wind speed and direction. If you want to go full simulationist, track each turn changes in direction and speed by this method:
• • Wind direction: 1 Backs anticlockwise one step. 2-5 No change. 6 Veers clockwise one step.
  • Wind speed: 1 Reduced by 1cm, 2-5 No change, 6 Increased by 1cm 

   What is your take on this? Is it going to far? Have you ever tried something similar?
 

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Moriarty on August 17, 2025, 10:37:06 AM

While the idea appeals, the execution doesn’t. Looks nice on the table, and I’m going to use smoke to indicate those units that have fired, but don’t plan on adding complication for its effects.
I’d think smoke would affect everyone equally, unless the wind was from an inconvenient direction. Perhaps a Chance Card result rather than a standing rule?

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Harry Faversham on August 17, 2025, 10:42:49 AM

'Simplicity in Practice', clue's in the name, don't overthink it!
 :o

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: chalimacos on August 17, 2025, 10:44:30 AM

Quote from: Moriarty on August 17, 2025, 10:37:06 AM

I’d think smoke would affect everyone equally

The effects would be for any unit that tries to fire or go through smoke. The problem I see in my rules is that tracking changes in direction and strength each turn may actually be necessary to avoid players treating smoke as a moveable and predictable cover. I agree on the aesthetic effect.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: warwell on August 17, 2025, 10:55:56 AM

If you go this route, also consider the length of time that a turn represents vs. the time for the smoke to dissipate.

From my days (long ago) in Civil War reenacting, it seems that smoke dissipated pretty quickly and that it was never a serious issue. But my memory may be foggy, and we also used less powder I believe.

Still, if a turn represents 15 minutes or more, is smoke an issue?

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: chalimacos on August 17, 2025, 11:29:54 AM

Quote from: warwell on August 17, 2025, 10:55:56 AM

it seems that smoke dissipated pretty quickly and that it was never a serious issue. But my memory may be foggy, and we also used less powder I believe.

Still, if a turn represents 15 minutes or more, is smoke an issue?

Very true. Rather than generating lots of smoke and having it to dissipate quickly, in the rules above I treat it as rare event (dense accumulations) and let it drift away (so as not having to track turns).

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: traveller on August 17, 2025, 12:18:58 PM

Interesting post! I need this kind of rule mechanics. I only managed to start in the other end  :)

(https://i.postimg.cc/c4RBLFdD/Test-5.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/tYgxrtZP)

(https://i.postimg.cc/9XZRtv3p/Test-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/0r5y9XyM)

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: chalimacos on August 17, 2025, 01:08:10 PM

Quote from: traveller on August 17, 2025, 12:18:58 PM

Interesting post! I need this kind of rule mechanics. I only managed to start in the other end  :)

Amazing!

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: jon_1066 on August 17, 2025, 01:16:09 PM

I think smoke is better as a marker.  Eg GdA2 where a unit that has lost fire discipline is marked with smoke and suffers from an inferior volley.

Similar in Sharp Practice.  It marks uncontrolled firing.

Complex rules tracking each cloud is time consuming.  Having said that one idea I had was roll 2d6 for the initial cloud size.  Each turn roll 2d6 for each cloud.  If it’s higher than its current length it dissipates and is removed.  Otherwise change it to the length rolled. 

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Ray Rivers on August 17, 2025, 01:55:41 PM

I remember we used to use smoke in our ACW games. I don't remember what the exact rules were though, because it was a house rule.

I believe we made a wind speed chart for the start of the game in which you rolled a 6 sided die to determine. Essentially, in still conditions smoke would last 3 turns. As the wind speed increased, the smoke would diminish much faster. The number of smoke lines between units was a modifier to the casualty tables. Six lines of smoke (worse case with still wind) would obscure line of sight and no firing or charging was allowed. We didn't move the smoke due to wind speed or direction.

For the most part, smoke had only a small effect on the game. Where it was most pronounced was with the targeting of artillery.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Redshank on August 17, 2025, 02:09:06 PM

I can think of plenty of battle accounts where smoke gets noted as important, like Zorndorf or Waterloo, or Von Bredow's charge at Mars-le-Tour.

Even if it would be important for both sides, it still might be decisively advantageous for one or the other side at a given point. You could just say that's all wrapped up and abstracted in the rest of the rules, but that seems to give up a bit of flavour. That said, having loads of smoke markers wafting around feels like too much extra rules cruft for the payoff.

Quote from: jon_1066 on August 17, 2025, 01:16:09 PM

Complex rules tracking each cloud is time consuming.  Having said that one idea I had was roll 2d6 for the initial cloud size.  Each turn roll 2d6 for each cloud.  If it’s higher than its current length it dissipates and is removed.  Otherwise change it to the length rolled.

I like this a lot. Depending on your game scale, you might say "smoke" affects the whole battlefield, or only a zone. It reduces visibility, fire effectiveness etc. proportionate to cloud size (visibility reduced by cloud size in inches or something). And it would work for fog, smoke from burning buildings etc. as well.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: chalimacos on August 17, 2025, 02:20:42 PM

Quote from: jon_1066 on August 17, 2025, 01:16:09 PM

Having said that one idea I had was roll 2d6 for the initial cloud size.  Each turn roll 2d6 for each cloud.  If it’s higher than its current length it dissipates and is removed.  Otherwise change it to the length rolled.

Very nice mechanic!

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: fred on August 17, 2025, 03:01:06 PM

I do think that modelling smoke should be part of a game.

There are a few games that abstract it a lot on the assumption there is just lots of smoke and dust around (thinking Battlefront which requires a spotting roll always - but WW2 smoke and dust feels a bit different to linear warfare)

Other rules use it to represent reloading, or volleys that negate movement. Which feels more like using smoke as a natural marker, rather than modelling what effects smoke has on the battlefield.

Regarding wind, I do a lot of cycling so am very aware of wind, especially heads winds! And wind strength and direction doesn't vary that much over a few hours - so I think rolling for wind direction and strength at the start of the game is probably sufficient. If your game coves a whole day, then perhaps checking every few hours of elapsed in game time might be useful.

But I also suspect that with lines of firing troops wind effect is going to be less noticeable, as even if your unit's smoke drifts away, you will just be getting the smoke from an adjacent unit drifting in-front of you. Wind strength likely matters, on a still day smoke will just sit there, but on a windy day it will disperse.

Anything that involves rolling for each cloud of smoke feels excessive. But some randomness feels useful to avoid too much player knowledge.

Which kind of leads me to modelling for effect - so top down, rather than bottom up.

Roll for wind strength at start of game (say 1 = still, 6 = windy)
When units fire put smoke in front of them
If its windy it comes off at the end of the turn, if medium, then the end of the next turn, if still it stays in place)
If they stay in place and fire again, just push back the removal time, don't place more smoke

Then decide what effects you want from the smoke - I do like the charge deviation idea!
And shooting accuracy reduction makes sense (though I assume with linear warfare, one of the expectations was a lot of smoke, and a target straight in front). But knowing your opponent is drifting away feels hard to know.

One downside to all of this is that it slows things down - which I suppose is up to you to decide if that is a good or bad thing for a game.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: chalimacos on August 17, 2025, 03:44:49 PM

Quote from: fred on August 17, 2025, 03:01:06 PM

I do think that modelling smoke should be part of a game.

[...] And wind strength and direction doesn't vary that much over a few hours - so I think rolling for wind direction and strength at the start of the game is probably sufficient.

Many thanks for your interesting ideas! Yes, I've read from naval wargamers that too frequent changes in wind direction, besides being unrealistic, kill all strategy. In a land battle, however, the question is how to avoid turning smoke into a moveable and predictable cover. To reduce rolls, I'm thinking of using the same roll that 'creates' smoke clouds to dissipate them. Something like:

A 10 on the "smoke dice" (the d10) places a smoke cloud in front of the unit.
A 1 on the "smoke dice" (the d10) dissipates the smoke cloud closest to the firing unit if there is any.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: aphillathehun on August 17, 2025, 03:51:32 PM

Great as a marker.

I used to play a rules set (GaPa) for WSS that had the battlefield overall get smokier as the fighting got more intense.  So after a certain number of units fired in the same turn, the range for visibility and, hence, command, reduced.  That was simple, effective, and kind of elegant.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: fred on August 17, 2025, 03:55:56 PM

Quote from: aphillathehun on August 17, 2025, 03:51:32 PM

Great as a marker.

I used to play a rules set (GaPa) for WSS that had the battlefield overall get smokier as the fighting got more intense.  So after a certain number of units fired in the same turn, the range for visibility and, hence, command, reduced.  That was simple, effective, and kind of elegant.

That sounds good - so total smoke is what matters, nothing more

As to players treating it as handy cover - I think if movement through smoke is somewhat randomised, then you can't really use it as a modern smoke screen. Which raises the question of how 20th Century forces moved through deliberate smoke screens without getting lost?

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Moriarty on August 18, 2025, 03:57:03 AM

Junior officers. The default position of any u it commanded by a junior officer is to be lost. As such, junior officers and smoke screens cancel each other out. Simples.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: jon_1066 on August 18, 2025, 03:58:57 AM

They generally tried not to.  It was used as a screen to prevent aimed fire from an area, not to advance through.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: FierceKitty on August 18, 2025, 05:31:29 AM

Before WRG completely disappeared up its own alimentary canal, they appear to have noticed that considering such effects as part of PIP dice or activation rolls got in practice the same results for far less trouble.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: fred on August 18, 2025, 07:47:55 AM

Which does come back to results driven design, rather than input driven design!

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: vtsaogames on August 18, 2025, 01:57:58 PM

Quote from: Moriarty on August 17, 2025, 10:37:06 AM

While the idea appeals, the execution doesn’t. Looks nice on the table, and I’m going to use smoke to indicate those units that have fired, but don’t plan on adding complication for its effects...

That's where I'm at. Looks good in photos, makes clear who already fired this turn. Anything else is too much, IMHO.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: JW Boots on August 18, 2025, 02:10:58 PM

Allow me to approach this from a different direction.

Playability is of the utmost importance when designing wargame rules. Be this a whole ruleset, house rules, or whatever. Simplifying, abstractions, etc., are just some of the things we can do. However, there is a risk. We can go too far.

The question then becomes how does one know that one has gone too far?

I tend to use a simple check: do or don’t the rules prevent/prohibit things that happened from happening? In other words, if there is evidence, as there seems to be, that smoke had an impact on outcomes, then rules should at least not prevent or prohibit this…

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Battle Brush Sigur on August 19, 2025, 08:51:46 PM

Quote from: aphillathehun on August 17, 2025, 03:51:32 PM

Great as a marker.

I used to play a rules set (GaPa) for WSS that had the battlefield overall get smokier as the fighting got more intense.  So after a certain number of units fired in the same turn, the range for visibility and, hence, command, reduced.  That was simple, effective, and kind of elegant.

That sounds very interesting indeed. Should be pretty easy to implement too in other rules sets.

My very first ACW game, I think we played Bull Run to Gettysburg, the rules had a bit about smoke. It was pretty simple too; when ever a unit in line fires two turns in a row without moving, they built up smoke and further shooting got a negative modifier (not only due to sight, but also because it's unpleasant to stand in a powder smoke cloud). IIRC the cloud didn't stay in place once the unit moved, but dissipated. Never seen that done in other rules sets though, but well worth considering. Maybe something to put into Thirty Years War games....

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: juergen c. olk on August 19, 2025, 09:44:09 PM

we did it once ,rolled wind direction ,then moved it for two turns at 6 inches a turn,,,got to bogged down.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Phil Robinson on August 20, 2025, 02:52:08 PM

Unnecessary faff IMHO. If you fire and need 4+ and roll anything but perhaps there was too much smoke about, effect of sorted.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Moriarty on August 28, 2025, 10:59:40 AM

Quote from: Phil Robinson on August 20, 2025, 02:52:08 PM

Unnecessary faff IMHO. If you fire and need 4+ and roll anything but perhaps there was too much smoke about, effect of sorted.

And your dishonest opinion? :-)

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: jon_1066 on August 28, 2025, 11:53:29 AM

Humble not honest, like Uriah Heap.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Patrice on August 28, 2025, 11:58:01 AM

As others have said, I often use smoke as markers to indicate who has fired, but nothing more (and effects would probably not be so noticeable in skirmishes).

What I sometimes do, but it's another matter, is cotton fog on rivers and streams, blocking view at the beginning of a game, that evaporates when a weather die, rolled every game turn, rolls a sun.

(https://www.midlamminiatures.co.uk/user/products/thumbnails/DieWeather.jpg)

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: FifteensAway on August 29, 2025, 07:14:16 PM

What the grognard said (Phil Robinson).  I also like Patrice's die roll idea.  Fog is very common along coastlines and some rivers but it almost always rises and dissipates as the day wears on.  And this was used in many battles over the years, using that fog as cover.  Consider that idea pinched.

But overall, keep it all as simple as possible.  Playability stomps on and pounds into the ground realism every time.  At least so if the primary goal is to have fun.  I let appropriate figures painted in historical uniforms and as historical as possible (but playable first) terrain take care of the realism.  After that, the focus is on a fun game - which means easy to learn and fast to play for me.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Kuropatkin on August 30, 2025, 02:20:52 PM

"Which raises the question of how 20th Century forces moved through deliberate smoke screens without getting lost?"

As an armor company commander at the National Training Center back in the 1980s, I took my company twice through a smoke screen.

The first time was at night while my company was still in company column while executing an approach march to an enemy position. I got off my tank and ground guided my company through the smoke. No one go lost, but it took time and we were following a road.

The second time was during the daylight with my company deployed in platoon Vs online. By the time we cleared the smoke, my company was scatter and it took 10 minutes to get the company reorganized to continue the movement.

Having participated in several major reenactments with black powder muskets and training with smoke as an armor commander, the latter is significantly denser and not a good example of the battlefield we are discussing. Maintaining ordered formations (line, column) in the Big Battalion's period is easier, especially infantry with the ability to go shoulder to shoulder. Relative position between units can get little off, but it will be mainly direction that get skewed. Speed is not generally affected and slow enough that officers/soldiers can keep position.

Cavalry would have a bit more of a challenge, given the greater distance between troopers, long formations, greater movement speed, etc. Eylau is a good example.

Generally smoke IMHO isn't that big of an issue on the battlefield at this time.   

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Redshank on August 30, 2025, 04:38:03 PM

Quote from: Kuropatkin on August 30, 2025, 02:20:52 PM

Generally smoke IMHO isn't that big of an issue on the battlefield at this time.   

While respecting your RL experience, I have to say that is not the impression I get from my reading when it comes to the black powder period.

Here are a few quotations  from Siborne's interview-based history of Waterloo (my emphases) (https://www.gutenberg.org/files/58268/58268-h/58268-h.htm):

The thunder of the Artillery continued pealing forth in an uninterrupted roll, and the scene became awfully grand. The guns having once obtained the required range, were fired without intermission. Instantaneous flashes met the eye, all along the Heights, succeeded by volumes of smoke bounding forth along the ground in front, and enveloping the Batteries in clouds.

At this time, however, Lord Hill was bringing forward Adam's British Light Infantry Brigade, having directed it to cross the Nivelles road, and to advance in Columns up the slope, in rear of the Brunswickers. ... Suddenly the summit in its front was crowded with the French Skirmishers, who were almost as quickly concealed by the smoke from the rattling fire which they opened upon the Allied Artillery and the Squares.

The Prince of Orange, perceiving the probability of the Centre of the Allied Line being forced, unless some great effort were made to check the Enemy's advance, ordered the 1st and 2nd Nassau Battalions of Kruse's Brigade to charge, gallantly placing himself at their head. His Royal Highness was soon struck by a bullet in the left shoulder; the attack failed; and the Nassauers were falling back, when the reinforcement which Wellington had provided for this part of the Line, consisting of five Battalions of Brunswick Infantry, moved rapidly into the interval between Kruse's Nassau, and Halkett's British, Brigades. But so unexpectedly did the Brunswickers find themselves placed under a most destructive fire, and so suddenly were the heads of their Columns assailed, that they were unable, in the midst of the thick smoke in which they became involved, to recover from the partial irregularities by which, under such circumstances, their advance was accompanied, and to form up in sufficient order, before they came in close contact with the Enemy: whose vigorous attack compelled them, as also Kruse's, Kielmansegge's, and Ompteda's Brigades, to fall back about a hundred paces.

As the leading Column of the Imperial Guard began to ascend the slightly inclined tongue of ground that projects from that part of the ridge of the Duke's position in rear of the crest of which Maitland's Brigade of Guards was lying down at the time, it became very much exposed to the concentrated fire from nearly all the Batteries of the Anglo-Allied Right Wing, by which the most frightful havoc was dealt amidst its devoted ranks. The Line of Skirmishers which preceded it, now pushed rapidly and boldly forward up to the very summit of the Duke's position; for the purpose both of concealing by their veil of smoke the precise direction of the advance of the Columns, and of driving away the Artillerymen from their guns by the fire of which the Guard was suffering so severely.

Presently the Column halted and fired; and, in return, received a well directed volley; after delivering which, the 30th and 73rd Regiments ported arms, and, with a loud cheer, dashed forward at the charge. On reaching the ground where they expected to meet the French Guards, they were greatly astonished at discovering, through the clearing smoke, that their recent opponents were flying in a mass.

Other examples from other conflicts that come to mind: Von Bredow's cavalry charge at Mars-le-Tour, and the Prussian battalions getting within 40 yards of the Russian line at Zorndorf before they were seen.

We can say smoke is too fiddly to track separately so just assume it's handled by firing or command-friction rules; but I just don't think we can say it was irrelevant to BP era battles.

FWIW, I think it's period flavour that would be good to represent. I don't have any appetite to track smoke clouds around the table either, but some kind of smoke clock or something sounds doable.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: SteveBurt on August 31, 2025, 10:10:20 AM

Many horse & musket rules have a 'first volley' bonus to reflect properly loaded muskets and lack of smoke. So after that, you can assume there are clouds of smoke everywhere which is why firing degrades. It's much simpler than actually trying to track smoke, and achieves much the same effect

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: jaytee on September 04, 2025, 11:04:14 AM

I believe it's pointless modelling this.  It just adds something else to roll for an do.

Unless there is a strong wind or rain, EVERY black powder battlefield becomes shrouded in smoke and dust - so why model it?

Men just blasted forward, regardless of sight - how many rules do that (yes, there are a few exceptions that use patterns) - most allow laser guided shooting.

If you model smoke, you must model dust.  If you model those, you must model units firing at their own troops - which rules allow that?

Quite frankly it's a path to madness.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: fred on September 04, 2025, 07:50:17 PM

I'd also remembered first fire bonuses and thought they are a good abstraction of an initially clear battlefield.

Part of the problem is that players forget that the visibility is rapidly decreasing on the battlefield, and get to be very literal about what their little men can see (even ignoring the point that we fixate on what a unit can see at the point it has finished it's move, not that it has been gradually moving forward for the duration of the turn etc). It feels simple adding smoke markers every turn of firing would be no bad thing. As it would remind the player what is going on - after all this is a visual game 

Modelling the movement of the smoke and the duration feels far too much effort for the return.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Kuropatkin on September 05, 2025, 03:53:18 PM

While respecting your RL experience, I have to say that is not the impression I get from my reading when it comes to the black powder period.

I believe you are conflating control of troops with visibility on the battlefield. If you carefully read my post, I was addressing the ability to move/control troops on a smoke-filled battlefield. That is significantly different from being surprised by an enemy who remained undetected. The former can be addressed to some degree with rules, the latter (hidden movement/position) has always been a challenge to replicate on the wargame table.

Your examples point to 1) the problem of lacking accurate situational awareness due to smoke. 2) the problem that once disordered/disarrayed by an enemy (fire, charge), smoke complicated the challenge of restoring order; it was not the cause of the disorder. The units in your examples which were moving remained under control and moved to their intended location until enemy contact, so movement/control of units when smoke was the only variable wasn't a significant problem.

What effects of smoke do gamers wish to model? If it is the ability to target enemy units on a smoke filled battlefield, the first volley rule likely is the simplest to implement. A different rule could reduce firing ranges after so many game turns. If you wish to model the ability to move in a desired direction/to a location, I don't believe that it is such a problem that requires modeling. If one wishes to do so, some random chance can be included in movement rolls (a 12 means the unit deviates to one side or the other either). If one wishes to model the hidden nature of smoke, that is a tough effect to model. Given our satellite view of the battlefield, I don't believe it is truly possible with miniatures on a table. This is an area that computer games excellent at.

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: traveller on September 05, 2025, 04:57:27 PM

I believe in simplicity. For my upcoming One-Hour Skirmish Wargames (OHSW) scenario for Lützen 1632 I was planning to limit the spotting by a simple draw of cards. Red= you see the target and can shoot or charge, Black=no visibility, cannot shoot or charge. I also had this thought of randomly(by dice)moving around pieces of fluff material to block the contact/sight between miniatures. In the case of Lützen it was a combination of smoke from the burning town, mist and gunsmoke. Lets see how it works  :)

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Redshank on September 05, 2025, 10:38:31 PM

Quote from: Kuropatkin on September 05, 2025, 03:53:18 PM

While respecting your RL experience, I have to say that is not the impression I get from my reading when it comes to the black powder period.

I believe you are conflating control of troops with visibility on the battlefield. If you carefully read my post, I was addressing the ability to move/control troops on a smoke-filled battlefield. That is significantly different from being surprised by an enemy who remained undetected. The former can be addressed to some degree with rules, the latter (hidden movement/position) has always been a challenge to replicate on the wargame table.

Your examples point to 1) the problem of lacking accurate situational awareness due to smoke. 2) the problem that once disordered/disarrayed by an enemy (fire, charge), smoke complicated the challenge of restoring order; it was not the cause of the disorder. The units in your examples which were moving remained under control and moved to their intended location until enemy contact, so movement/control of units when smoke was the only variable wasn't a significant problem.

What effects of smoke do gamers wish to model? If it is the ability to target enemy units on a smoke filled battlefield, the first volley rule likely is the simplest to implement. A different rule could reduce firing ranges after so many game turns. If you wish to model the ability to move in a desired direction/to a location, I don't believe that it is such a problem that requires modeling. If one wishes to do so, some random chance can be included in movement rolls (a 12 means the unit deviates to one side or the other either). If one wishes to model the hidden nature of smoke, that is a tough effect to model. Given our satellite view of the battlefield, I don't believe it is truly possible with miniatures on a table. This is an area that computer games excellent at.

What you said was:

"Generally smoke IMHO isn't that big of an issue on the battlefield at this time. "

If you actually meant only in terms of command and control, OK. Even then, if smoke inhibited troops recovering order (like the Brunswickers in Siborne), surely that's still important.

Quote from: jaytee on September 04, 2025, 11:04:14 AM

Unless there is a strong wind or rain, EVERY black powder battlefield becomes shrouded in smoke and dust - so why model it?

This seems to be saying you don't think we should model things that happened in RL battles? You raise a good point about dust.

Quote from: SteveBurt on August 31, 2025, 10:10:20 AM

Many horse & musket rules have a 'first volley' bonus to reflect properly loaded muskets and lack of smoke. So after that, you can assume there are clouds of smoke everywhere which is why firing degrades. It's much simpler than actually trying to track smoke, and achieves much the same effect

It's a nice idea but what if a unit's first volley is later in the game..? Maybe just don't apply it I suppose. But then you're no longer capturing the other good things about 1st volleys for those units.

Quote from: traveller on September 05, 2025, 04:57:27 PM

I believe in simplicity. For my upcoming One-Hour Skirmish Wargames (OHSW) scenario for Lützen 1632 I was planning to limit the spotting by a simple draw of cards. Red= you see the target and can shoot or charge, Black=no visibility, cannot shoot or charge. I also had this thought of randomly(by dice)moving around pieces of fluff material to block the contact/sight between miniatures. In the case of Lützen it was a combination of smoke from the burning town, mist and gunsmoke. Lets see how it works  :)

Sounds interesting. Look forward to hearing how it went!

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Kuropatkin on September 06, 2025, 06:39:46 PM

Redshank

Thank you for your comment. Yes I did say that. I do stand by it. You offered examples mainly from one battle and they are very specific/localized examples within that battle. Let's find similar examples in all the other battles of the period and assess their effect on the outcome of those battles. You other examples:

Zorndorf: The Prussian infantry closed to 40 yards which is pretty much where smooth bore muskets could be effective. The Prussian infantry were still unable to gain an advantage and were held by the Russian line until the Prussians were attacked on the flank. In fact it was the defeat of Prussian infantry that created the situation that Seydlitz was able to turn into a Prussian advantage.   

Mars-le-Tour: My reading of the battle indicated that it was Brelow's wise use of terrain that allowed the Prussian cavalry to close with the French guns. Here is a nice discussion of the charge and that there were things happening in the French line which aided the Prussian charge. https://stracmark.blogspot.com/2022/07/von-bredows-death-ride.html

Even then, if smoke inhibited troops recovering order (like the Brunswickers in Siborne), surely that's still important

If that was a universal issue, then whichever recovery chart is used should have that difficulty already imbedded in the chart. If this is a conditional issue, then how often did this happened and can the conditions that should trigger the use of this modifier be visible on the wargame table (IBW how do the gamers determine when the modifier applies). Given the additional rules needed for the latter, does the frequency and the impact of the event justify the effort in the game?

We can say smoke is too fiddly to track separately so just assume it's handled by firing or command-friction rules;

Yes it can be modeled to a degree using techniques I previously mentioned. The question still remains whether the model skews the results of the battles and creates unrealistic outcomes. I have played rules where a realistic but minor event on the historic battlefield becomes the way to win on the wargame table. Some events/features on the battlefield simply don't need to be modeled.

 but I just don't think we can say it was irrelevant to BP era battles.

In the main it wasn't casual or decisive to the outcome of nearly all battles.

Smoke can be decisive at the company level and likely should be played to some extent (number of turns firing, units, etc.). It can have a significant impact on maneuver at the battalion/brigade level and could be modeled if one desires. It likely isn't worth the trouble for large battles as conditions would vary across the battlefield and it rarely changed the outcome of the battle. Are there exceptions? Possibility, but these should be handled with scenario-centric rules like...

From Traveler: I believe in simplicity. For my upcoming One-Hour Skirmish Wargames (OHSW) scenario for Lützen 1632 I was planning to limit the spotting by a simple draw of cards. Red= you see the target and can shoot or charge, Black=no visibility, cannot shoot or charge. I also had this thought of randomly(by dice)moving around pieces of fluff material to block the contact/sight between miniatures. In the case of Lützen it was a combination of smoke from the burning town, mist and gunsmoke. Let's see how it works.

Note in Traveler's example, it just wasn't smoke from gunpowder but from two other constant sources (burning town and mist) that affected the entire battlefield. His simple rule makes sense in the context of that particular battle. Image playing Waterloo and the French Grand Battery draws a black card for its first fire (50% chance). Now I am not saying Traveler's rule should be use for Waterloo, but only as an example of how a simple rule generally won't work for a unique event on the battlefield.

I have tried to think through smoke rules for Waterloo based on your examples and I just can't come up with anything that would work. The rules would need to be very specific in their application, which implies some complex rules; or so simple that players would exploit them in ways not support by the historical battle. In the end, it was the British tactics, French mistakes, the reverse slopes, and the Prussian arriving that won the battle; smoke was localized problem that wasn't causal to the outcome. 

If one wishes to have scenario rules to reflect the impact of smoke on specific battles, excellent! If one wishes to have small scenarios from within a larger battle where smoke had a significant impact on the outcome of that specific action, great! Otherwise...  :)

Title: Re: Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?
Post by: Redshank on September 15, 2025, 05:43:04 PM

@Kuropatkin: I think we shall have to agree to disagree on our reading of the history - in the time-honoured traditions of the hobby!

You make a number of interesting points about how all this could be brought into a game. Certainly a useful discussion, from my point of view.