Multiple lines and reserves

[Highlandbevan]

Pike and shot armies deployed in depth in a way no self respecting war gamer would - you’d prefer to extend width and wrap around the flanks.

Why?
-Terrain: they were often constrained in width by woods, rivers
And would have deployed wider than f they could
-Command: the army commander wanted to exercise control and that meant keeping troops within a short distance.
- depth: depth was important to armies in a way not often modelled in war game rules e.g. the army would rout on the first hole in the rear line, or it was easy to punch through a single line
- flanks : outflanking the enemy did not deliver in practice what the rules say.


Which factors do you think are most significant? Why don’t rules reflect this?

[has.been]

1)Wargames tables are not even close to real life terrain.
   I took part in a TEWT (Tactical Exercise Without Troops) at Bosworth Battlefield.
   It was an eye opener!  No nice secure table edge, or 'Infantry move 6", or 'It will
   take 3 moves to get through that wood'
2) Some rules do try & incorporate some Fog of War.  e.g. random movement rates,
    previously unseen terrain 'appearing'. But these tend not to be popular with us.
3) The 'Table' needs to be MUCH bigger than the 'Armies'. Then you start to worry
    about:- Flanks, where do I secure a wing, how could I cover a retreat etc. etc.

I have played some Umpire controlled Map based games. These came closest to
posing historical problems, but they don't cater for pretty toy soldiers.
 

[FifteensAway]

One way to address the 'flanks' issue in a table game is with an advance write up for the players with information about formations on one or the other flank - or even in the rear - that might show up during the course of the game.  The formation can be friendly or enemy or unknown.  Add in an admonishment to the players to ignore at their peril and that will often times due the trick.

I did this in one ACW game that was preset to guarantee a Union victory but the Union players were so worried about their flanks based on the write up that they didn't do what they had to do - push hard on the enemy without regard to losses because victory required forcing the enemy to retire with losses, their own losses would not count against them (late war attrition battle).  The Union had more and better quality troops, better quality leaders, and more, heavier, and better quality artillery - and they managed to lose the game!  It wasn't that the dice were against them - it was worrying about their flanks.  And, heck, I didn't even have figures for the supposed flank threats (at least not with me).

For the OP, I think the issue was simple - troops needed to be able to hear commands and be close together to feel 'safe' or they would not perform as desired and also melt away if too dispersed.  I think it was about the time of the American Civil War that troops started to disperse on the battlefield and still be able to perform.

[has.been]

I did this in one ACW game that was preset to guarantee a Union victory but the Union players were so worried about their flanks based on the write up that they didn't do what they had to do - push hard on the enemy without regard to losses because victory required forcing the enemy to retire with losses, their own losses would not count against them (late war attrition battle).  The Union had more and better quality troops, better quality leaders, and more, heavier, and better quality artillery - and they managed to lose the game!  It wasn't that the dice were against them - it was worrying about their flanks.  And, heck, I didn't even have figures for the supposed flank threats (at least not with me).

Nice!
I umpired a post D-Day game, set during a German counter-attack. Despite the players
being given, 'Hold & defend an expected attack from your front' orders, 'Other allied commanders are on each flank' they all panicked when two German armoured cars appeared on a flank,
spent several move redeploying to face their left flank. Boy they were NOT happy when the
forecast attack then hit THEIR exposed flank.
Give 'em enough rope & they'll hang themselves. 

[Redshank]

It seems to be where longarms (pikes) were used that depth becomes important - early modern pike-and-shot period, ancient pike phalanxes. Once firepower becomes more effective, formations go more linear (although still with a need for reserves that some rules maybe do under-emphasise).

There must be something tactical going on beyond just fog-of-war considerations. I don't know much about early modern or ancients but I can see why a long thin line of pikes might not work against a dense mass punching through. The dense block could reform and roll up the hypothetical line, faster than the line could rearrange itself. I guess this never happened because everyone knew a line didn't work.

Anyway, in terms of FoW, I don't think historic commanders always operated half-expecting a substantial enemy force to show up on their flank or rear. Especially if they had any kind of reconnaissance. Trying to pull off elaborate flanking moves with horse-speed communications was incredibly difficult. The troops were liable to get lost, especially if inexperienced. Plus, dividing your force in the face of the enemy is very risky unless you have massive numerical superiority. Clearly it did sometimes work but it seems to have been very tricky.

[Hwiccee]

Most 'historical' rules don't actually reflect even the basics of the reality of most real battles. They have two 'even, balanced sides fighting over more or less random terrain and again in theory balanced terrain. While the rules mean it better to pack out the front line & have little or nothing in 2nd or other lines or in reserve.

In real battles most of the time one side is inferior to the other and so takes up a defensive position of some kind. So the two sides are not 'even or balanced' and neither is the terrain. One side will be the attacker and the other will defend terrain/a situation that favours them. Very often this will involve the defender standing in the gap between two terrain or other feature that protects them from 'tactical' flank attacks. While no real army would ever choose not to fight in 2 or more lines and have a reserve because in reality not having these was extremely risky & was rarely done. Being in a single line with little or now supporting lines or reserves was normally only done if the army was in a really desperate situation.

The above is not restricted to a single period but to all periods, although the details & how things were done did change. So the same is true from Ancient times right up to today & not just in the pike & shot era. Most 'historical' battles are some kind of weird version of real historical battles and it can be very difficult to find real historical battles which are anythin like them - i.e. they are not really historical.

There are rules around which reflect the reality of battles but they are fairly rare & not usually the 'popular' sets in gaming. The sets I use do reflect these things. So battles are usually attacker vs defender with uneven sides but with terrain favouring the defender. Both sides will usually be in 2 or more lines and with reserves, depending on the size of the battle.

[Friends of General Haig]

Interesting question, HighlandBevan.  I would say that the 17th century pike and shot period saw the development of deploying multiple lines of troops; a system that then evolved and continued from that point. I think generals were still extremely sensitive to being out flanked in this period. I share your concern that sometimes rules do not make having a supporting line important enough.

I think Lützen in 1632 provides a useful example. The Swedes deployed their centre and both wings in two lines, as per their prepared battle plan. Wallenstein, who realised he was outnumbered, deployed in a V, with both flanks refused and took advantage of the ground to further protect his flanks. Wallenstein was expecting Gustav Adolph to try to turn a flank, his preferred tactic.  I think this shows both generals being very focused on their flanks, as well as depth. This balance was a tactical challenge in the period and something rules need to emulate.

[WillPhillips]

So here's my question, guys.

Which available rule sets did the best in modelling these historic realities of pike and shot era battles?

Specifically in rewarding players for deploying in depth and preserving their reserves (instead of the high casualty bloodbath one-off games can be)?

[AdamPHayes]

Beneath the Lily Banners uses a simple support modifier in the morale rules which does encourage a brigade to deploy in 2 lines. A unit gets the bonus if it has two members of its brigade close by, so having a friend to their rear helps to keep the front line units fighting.