Simulating smoke in Horse and Musket wargames. Waste of time?

[Redshank]

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.

[SteveBurt]

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

[jaytee]

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.

[fred]

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.

[Kuropatkin]

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.

[traveller]

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 

[Redshank]

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.

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.

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.

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!

[Kuropatkin]

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... 

[Redshank]

@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.