Orders System
I am in the process of rebasing my SYW armies so I have not had a chance to play through the rules. One question that has occurred to me concerns the Orders system. Can the CinC and or the Brigadiers give a series of orders at the start of the game? For example "Approach to the west side of village A then deploy and Assault the ridge at Y and Hold it" or would the change from Approach to Assault rely on Brigadier imitative or the presence of the CinC to change the order.

If I was umpiring I would say one order at a time as per 5.5 page 21. Brigade order = Move. Move to the west of village A. Once it gets there it automatically reverts to Hold. This doesn't use up your brigadier initiative for that turn 5.10 page 22. Then you need to have your C in C in the right place to get it to attack. The best place is in base to base contact with the brigadier which gives you a +2 on your die roll. Then brigade order = Assault. Assault the ridge at Y. This uses up your CinC order for that turn. You still have one brigadier initiative order to use but this can be risky. See 5.15 page 24. I think the rules are about having a mobile CinC. He has to be in the right place at the right time to issue orders and get a brigade moving. It's a cracking game but you have to think ahead. The simplest command solution is to do what the armies actually did. But what did they actually do? I'm still working on that one.

Well thats the trick isnt it.. one order until its completed or the brigadier or CC changes it.

Sorry it has taken me some time to get back. I think you are right that we should look at how the armies behaved at the time but it seems to me that the CinC would formulate a plan and allocate various tasks to the Brigadiers, in this case "take and hold the Ridge at Y" . The Brigadier would then work out how he was going to do that. In this case by using the Column of Companies and the Approach Order until a suitable distance from the enemy and then deploy appropriately for assault the ridge. The Brigadier Initiative Roll and the CinC changing Orders I would have thought would be there to deal with unforeseen events. For Example those tedious people the Enemy not conforming to your plan. It would place something of a premium on careful planning. The 1st example in the Rule book (page 24) would cover the situation where the French had not reached the area where they were to deploy and the French Commander could not or would not react to the enemy’s actions.

You're sounding a bit Napoleonic to me. I would read "The Anatomy of Victory" by Brent Nosworthy. You have to wind your brain back 50 years from the Napoleonic wars to get into the Seven Years War. I'm not sure if brigades behaved how you imagine them at this time. It was more a case of deploy the army in two lines with the cavalry on the flanks. Moving a brigade forward by itself exposed its flanks which was to be avoided if you hadn't neutralised the enemy cavalry threat. I have a feeling that battles at this time were a bit more formalised. You processed onto the battlefield, from left to right if possible, with each battalion in column of companies(Kriegskunst rules) or column of platoons behind each other. Then everybody did quarter wheels to the left (drill book) and formed line facing the enemy. Then you bombarded each other. Then you chased off the enemy cavalry. Frederick attacked at the point he thought was the weakest. Sometimes he was able to use a cunning manoevre such as the oblique attack. That's how I would like to play it because I'm a Prussian but I'm not quite there yet. If you think like this, I think the rules make more sense and work better for you.

RDonny, I take your point about not being too Napoleonic with the Brigades but I don't think that I am, however, never having played a Napoleonic game in my life I might be wrong. I suppose the question is what are the rules writers trying to simulate? I agree that the "Omnipresent General with Perfect Communications" needs to be avoided and I think that is what is intended but thinking back to the position of an 18th Century General he would have known how to carry out the manoeuvres necessary to doo his job. That would have involved marching to a deployment area, forming his lines and then Holding or Attacking or whatever. He would not have needed the permission of the CinC to deploy from marching column into line but with your interpretation he would do. I can’t help feeling that where the CinC changing orders or the Brigadier initiative rolls come in is where the Brigade has to react to something that is outside the original orders and plan. A series of orders intended to result in the carrying out of a plan would fit in with the forward planning that the rules seem to be trying to bring out. But you would need to plan carefully. BTW I am only using the term Brigade because that is the term in the rules. Perhaps we could have a ruling from Angus on this one?

Yes I suppose wargame rules are always a compromise between historical simulation and a game. The rules are really a gross simplification of real life. I'm happy to accept the command system because it's been well tried and tested. You should make the most of what you are allowed to to within each order. For instance a Hold order means you can move anywhere to defend your brigade box. You're not immobile. Brigadiers don't require orders to change the formation of their brigade. You just do what seems sensible, like you say. Although in Seven Years War you don't have mixed order available like you do later in Napoleonics. Here again the rules simplify reality because they started experimenting with columns of waiting and mixed order during the Seven Years War - I think especially the French. However the rules are complex enough as they are, and knowing wargamers, simplicity is greatly to be desired. You will always have somebody who wants to make them more complicated. Usually so that they can completely confuse you. It's tempting when you're a Prussian because you read about what they did but the rules don't allow. The rules allow a brigadier to use his initiative, but he's taking a risk which is quite reasonable. Good generals tended to be in the right place at the right time to give orders and bolster morale etc. My CinC fig always seems to be in the wrong place, but I havn't gamed that much with the rules so I will hopefully get better. I just wish I didn't have to paint the blasted things. I wish somebody would invent a machine. But I digress. Happy gaming.

Well, you've played with the rules more tha I have as I am still rebasing my old SYW armies, but I am looking forward to trying them out. Enjoy being the Prussians, my sympathies a re with Austria although I have both a Prussian and an Austrian army (with some Russians to be mined out of the Lead Mountain) :wink:

Until a few months ago I would have agreed with the thesis of deploying in two lines. Having read Duffy's (By Force of Arms, Vol. II of The Austrian Army in the Seven Years) I am afraid that idea no longer holds a lot of water for the later Battles of the Seven years war. The Prussians used multiple columns to attack at Frieberg, as did the Austrians for at least two other Battles. The late Austrian battle plans are very reminisent of Austerlitz and the Revolutionary war period. Having tried to change Austrian orders with the current rules, I am afraid that the chances of replicating these tactics without allowing sequential orders are virtualy nil. In addition, in the later SYW battles the preponderance of artillery becomes far more marked, a trend presumably helped along by the deterioration in Infantry (and cavalry?) quality. I supose you could argue that the Scale of these rules is more appropriate to that of a single column. However, even then, the formal deployment into line is no longer appropriate.

I suppose that at the end of the day it depends on what you the player thinks gives the most satisfying game while providing a reasonable simulation of a Seven Years War battle

Yes I think you're absolutely right. The origins of the impulse system of tactics (as Nosworthy calls them) began in the Seven Years War when the difficulties of linear warfare became apparant. As always weapons technology dictates the tactics and the greater availablity of gunpowder plus the introduction of iron ramrods increased infantry firepower. Not to mention the increased deadliness of more numerous artillery. In short I think linear warfare started to mean horrendous battlefield casualties. I shall try to get the Duffy book. Thanks for the reference.