General de Brigade

[DCRBrown]

All,

Two versions of the Musketry Tables:

Preferences?

MUSKETRY CASUALTIES 1

0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18
10 or Less - - - ½ 1 2 3 3 4 5

11 to 20 - - - ½ 1 2 3 4 5 5

21 to 27 - - ½ 1 2 3 4 5 5 6

28 to 36 - ½ 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 6

37 to 48+ ½ 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 6 7

OR

MUSKETRY CASUALTIES 2

0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18
10 or Less - - - - ½ 1 2 2 3 4

11 to 20 - - - ½ 1 2 2 3 4 5

21 to 27 - - ½ 1 2 2 3 4 5 6

28 to 36 - ½ 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7

37 to 48+ ½ 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

DB

[amxgill]

I am not a fan of Less than 10 figures causing too many casualties - so would probably prefer table 2. Also gives some advantage to larger units, although in reality not much difference from firing a 28 man unit to a 48. Probably need to get some figures out to see how the tables work in practice.

[Ordnanceboard]

Having done a quick comparison with the current table and based on my units being 30 and 40 figure units in the ratio 3:2 and average dice throws I would support 'Musketry Casualties 1'; given my offen poor dice throwing, after having taken a few casualties my battalions would cause no damage if using table 2...........

[captain chook]

I wonder about effectiveness of fire from large units. Fire discipline must have been more difficult, therefore casualties should follow a non-linear progression.
However, I would not like to see a column having too much firepower against a line. I would prefer something allowing a reasonable chance for small formations to inflict at least a 1/2 casualty, but to have less variability or spread of casualties, ie allow a little more predictability.
As such, I would like to see a little blending of the two tables (just to be difficult!).
For example:
Less than ten, - - - 1/2, 1/2, 1,2,2,3,3. More chance of hitting, less of doing much damage.

Ants

[captain chook]

While thinking of musketry, I was wondering what the actual concept of infantry vs infantry melee involves. I know that this is meant to take into account final close range musketry. However, it seems that in open combat, there were very few melees. Do we also read this situation as ongoing fire fights without bayonets crossing?
If not, should there be a limitation on the ability of a unit to close with the enemy if there have been more than, say, two rounds of musketry. From what I have read (only secondary sources I'm afraid) it was difficult to stop a unit firing after repeated shooting as disciple broke down. In this case prolonged fire fights occurred even when troops were in close proximity. Such units also became more vulnerable (or perhaps less willing to stand) when charged.

[colinjallen]

Based on my own reading of what happened when two opposing infantry units came into close proximity in the open, I have always interpreted such infantry "melees" as actually being close-range firefights, threatening behaviour, name calling etc. This may be a "fudge" but it helps to keep me somewhere near sane.

[DCRBrown]

C,

That’s generally what they are - hence the intro to Chapter 11 Melees.

To push the point home (no pun intended ) this chapter now reads Close Combat & Melee.

DB

(Though just to be awkward I personally feel that crossing of bayonets was far more common that supposed. It perhaps was not two solid lines crashing into each other, but probably more akin to several sections actually closing in while other sections continued with close range volleys and name calling!)

[captain chook]

Yes, I did wonder whether close combat with the bayonet was more deadly than other types of combat and hence there were few wounded by the bayonet, but more actually killed. I suppose this is the problem with statistics.
There are three kinds of lie; lies, damned lies and statistics.

[colinjallen]

I rather disagree about bayonet combats. Having read a lot of first-hand accounts, one thing that has struck me is how rarely bayonet combat in the open is mentioned. There are lots of accounts of musketry, firefights, people running from the threat of bayonets (usually British accounts of the French doing so) but very few of actual melees at bayonet point.

As to bayonets being more deadly than musket balls, I am not convinced of that either. Musket balls may have been relatively soft and slow moving when compared with modern rounds but they were also very large and could cause a lot of damage on a body. Bayonets (particularly French ones) were notorious for being made of poor quality metal and were also quite soft, easily blunted and somewhat bendable. Several accounts talk of the difficulty encountered in actually stabbing anyone through several layers of clothing (including a thick wool jacket) and large leather straps. Added to that, there are quite a few accounts of people fighting in built up areas or trying to run away being bayonetted several times and it not really having too bad an effect.

I suspect that all of this goes to show that actual bayonet combats in the open were rather rare.

[DCRBrown]

C,

You surmise most accurately but one must not assume that the crossing of bayonets means actually managing to stick it in someone!

Advancing up to contact and then thrusting at a person in the open, who then either thrusts back or retreats is a true bayonet melee - but whether anyone is actually killed or even seriously wounded as a result is a different mater!

Wound statistics, as the good CC points out, relating to bayonet injuries actually do very little to prove or disprove “infantry melees” as we do not have any other statistics from soldiers who engaged in a damned good cut and thrust with an opposing regt but either were only lightly wounded or just got bad bruising from a musket butt.

When the blood is up not all soldiers run away all the time - otherwise Ancients warfare would have been very different from its accounts.

DB

[colinjallen]

I am not certain that combat in the ancient world is that useful as a comparison but I readily accept that some Napoleonic infantry may have been willing to "mix it" with enemy infantry in the open. However, there is very little primary evidence to show that this was anything other than rare.

The great difference between Napoleonic and ancient combat was the vastly increased volume of firepower, which would tend to prevent melees.

[DCRBrown]

C,

Quite true

But I suppose it comes down to a definition of what "rare" means - but best we don't go there!

DB

[colinjallen]

rare = a Neapolitan victory.

[Keithandor]

DB
If you are int he process of writing some new rules can you please look at simplifying the musketry table , remove all the extra dice rolling for half casualties etc.

I love the game , but I end up being the poor smuck looking at tables all night.