This year marks the three hundreth anniversary of this battle, Marlborough's last victory.
But the battle presents something of a problem for the wargamer and this is where I'm looking for some input if you don't mind.
The allies have to attack three types of position.
Firstly, covering the gaps between the Bois de sars & Bois de Laniere there are the fieldworks. I'm taking these to be earth banks supported by gabions an embrasured to allow the large artillery train the French had to fire.
Secondly, there are the woods themselves. Are they densly forested with heavy undergrowth to allow boars to prosper and thus make good hunting? Or are they more open like beech forsets where the fallen leaves are toxic enough to prevent shrubs and ground plants taking over?
Finally we have the parts of the woods protected by more earthworks. Are these still embankments or are they simpler types of defense where fencing is placed between the trees with some reinforcement?
I have ideas about how to play the game but there are still things I haven't quite figured out yet. In our rules line troops moving through woods would suffer a level of disorganisation making them prone to enemy fire. But how did the generals of the day manage it?
more things will crop up as we get closer to the big day, because I'm planning a refight for the battle to mark the tricentenary, but this will do for now.
2 comments:
Can't really help you on this one but 2 slightly off topic comments. Its sad to report that one of my finest moments was at a school parents quiz night and the question was asking for the names and dates of malboroughs 4 battles and i remembered the little line BROM 4689. We were the only team to get it right and it generated a huge amount of abuse!
I also recently bought a new book by Ian Castle on the Crimea war and I noticed on the fly cover that he does battlefield tours along the lines of Holts and he's arranged one to Malplaquet. Now if you could escape from the family for a couple of days you would have a fine excuse to do some on site research.
Regards,
Guy
Fieldworks I would think are pretty much as you described.
The woods issues are more of a challenge.
Too many rulesets give such drastic penalties for woods actions in mu view.
Yes the firepower is 'reduced' and distorted due to the woods effects, the 'surprise' and 'confusion' that can come about in a woods entanglement is not properly taken into account in my view either.
I am not certain of your rules set or what 'scale' the situation is set at; however here are some thoughts:
The formed bodies of troops in wooded areas will by necessity become separated from one another. It is still entirely possible to maintain volley fire under such conditions. Note that when facing other troops in woods BOTH sides are equally affected (meaning that the woods 'effect' cancels each other out = therefore = you can IGNORE any woods effect and carry on as one side does not have any 'advantage' over the other). It may sound strange on first blush, yet in practice it makes sense in smaller scale (large map area) battles where the smallest tactical unit is a battalion. This is because the tactical actions of a battalion in woods is to form small detachments (in company strength or smaller) and have them move to the flank(s) of the opponent during the volley exchanges, ideally striking when the enemy line has discharged muskets and sending the flank(s) into confusion towards the center. This makes the returning volley less effective in the next exchange. Over a 2-3 minute volley exchange this can be devastating on the force that cannot maintain the rate of fire.
Not terribly different from the open field exchange, only the chance of a 'charge' being really effective is really lower since momentum is totally reduced. This was a part of the field instructions to Brigade commanders in woods battles during the last 2 years of the US Civil war. When facing combat in wooded terrain without cavalry or close artillery support, deploy skirmish companies to the flanks and ready for volley exchange with Confederate infantry. Cavalry effect is reduced for shock effect and artillery cannot 'offensive' drive in the woods during the Marlburian period so it is likely that the 'on the spot' commanders would not consider the artillery effects.
Just some thoughts, skip the woods 'rules' when both sides are equally 'in' woods - they mostly cancel each other out anyway.
Post a Comment