General de Brigade

[DCRBrown]

All,

The movement rate of squares has been set at 7cms (5") for GdeB3.

Open squares have been removed and so brings open and closed squares within just one generic square rule.

Too fast?

DB

[colinjallen]

It may add complication but perhaps there should be two movement rates for squares; one when outside charge reach of cavalry, and another for when they are under threat.

[amxgill]

I would tend to agree that 7cm may be too fast. Perhaps any square moving over 50% of its move would lose the morale benefits for being in square (also modifiers for being charged) - but retain its melee advantages if it stands. This may reflect that troops concentrating on moving that fast may not have the same sense security. Not sure - but I would hate to see lots of little squares zipping about the battlefield. Tony

[colinjallen]

Tony,

I rather like that idea. I would hope that their vulnerability to artillery would prevent people developing a "nippy little square" mentality.

Colin

[Suvoroff]

I'm of two minds about squares. I've been combing the available sources, and too many of them describe considerable movement in square to ignore.

On the other hand, I'm concerned it might unbalance the game, and also I am not completely convinced that when the sources say "square" they mean the same thing as we do. I am inclined to believe that they may, in fact, be referring to closed column of companies (otherwise known as battalionsmasse).

I'd like to get my dig in here for a boosting of closed column's chances against cavalry. Closed column seems to have been an increasingly popular formation as the Napoleonic Wars progressed. I don't think this was entirely due to the fact it is an easier formation for inexperienced infantry to maneouver in. I think that in fact they were strong against cavalry - albeit not as strong as a regular square. But in the current rules they are not significantly better against cavalry than regular columns.

Yours,
James D. Gray

[Ordnanceboard]

I would also agree that the 'nippy little square' concept should be discouraged. Perhaps the 5" for square is a little too fast, it then compares favourably with the current line rates (6") and knowing players who love to advance in squares this would almost be a positive advantage as a counter to a general cavalry threat.

[captain chook]

I don't favour the nippy square either. Rather than a defensive measure, the square will become an offensive tool. However, squares could drive off cavalry. At present the squares have little fire power, often inflicting no casualties. In melee they suffer reasonably high casualties compared with what they can dish out.

I would like to see unbroken squares take fewer casualties in melee. I would also like to see squares that are in mutual support combine their firepower. This mutual fire support was the advantage behind forming squares on the oblique.

Moving squares should perhaps suffer some penalty if charged by cavalry, either to morale or combat ability. I would favour the latter.

James makes a good point about closed columns. I feel the rule regarding Austrian masses still leaves them too vulnerable. At Aspern Essling they held off repeated charges by cuirassiers.

I also feel that lancers are rated too highly against squares. Lancers were no better at breaking squares than any other cavalry, except in those circumstances where the infantry were deprived of musketry, such as in heavy rain.

Despite all this, generally, the rules are easily understood and allow play to proceed quickly.

Looking forward to the 3rd edition.

[colinjallen]

I rather agree that the representation of combat between squares (including masses) and cavalry is rather "odd" in GdB, as it is in most rules. In dry weather, if infantry in square refused to run away, then there was little that the cavalry could actually do except ride around the square looking for an opportunity. Perhaps, in this situation, there should not be a melee but the infantry should be allowed to fire at close range with their full strength, without the cavalry being able to respond.

I do think that squares should be more vulnerable to artillery fire. I never quite saw the logic behind this until someone pointed out the following to me:

"Imagine a 6 company French battalion formed in square with each side 3 deep. If the battalion is 480 men strong, the long sides will consist of about 53 files. One cannon ball going along such a side could, and probably would, take out all or most of those 53 men."

This is just like enfilading a column; both should be devastating!

As to mobile squares, I am reminded that even "rubbish" infantry seemed to be able to move (albeit slowly) in square in the face of cavalry, as shown by French national guards in 1814. Perhaps movement should be allowed but at a rate based on the unit's experience and only when out of charge reach of proper cavalry (ie not cossacks or bashkirs).

Colin

[DCRBrown]

All,

Thank you - all noted.

I'll stick with the current move for squares.

BTW to address a few points:

a) Columns have been enhanced vs. cavalry.
b) Lancers have now lost their modifiers vs. infantry and now sit akin to Dragoons on a standard +3 for vs. cav and a +4 vs. inf.
c) All cavalry inflict casualties at the losing rate - which is now 1 per 10 - vs. unbroken squares.

DB