Marching Square: a historic truth...

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

Dear players and developers,

Question :

Changing the formation from

Column -> Square costs 10 movement-points
Column -> Line costs 5 movement-points
(…)

After the changing into the square there is only 1 (one!) movement-point.

Why?

That is really incomprehensively. After (!) changing the formation, a square is a mobile body like all other formations.
(fortunately I have found a nice painting with this theme: Marching Square)

So it is better to understand, that the last three squares of the Old Guard covered the retreat in the battle of Waterloo…. I think it was not a creeping walk.

And the prospect of using a disrupted square with one movement point after an attack is not really a stimulus to change from column or line in a square.

This decision would be very “unhistoric” in a historic question of “survive or not”.

For players which are not so informed about the movements please have a look to Fig20 and Fig21 and than compare the historic manoeuvring speeds in Table15.

What is your opinion?

[Gary McClellan]

The idea of the 1MP, is that a Square is then limited to the ability to move One Hex per turn. (Regardless of # of MP, a unit can always move 1 hex).


So, the key number, you post a picture of a "marching square" but nowhere in your documentation do you show, what is the "rate of advance" of a unit already in square.

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

The idea of the 1MP, is that a Square is then limited to the ability to move One Hex per turn. (Regardless of # of MP, a unit can always move 1 hex).


Hi again,

eeehm, maybe it is my bad linguistic knowledge, but this is only the repeating of my described problem, isn't it?
My question is again: Why is this so? Why is it not possible in Squareformation to move 2 hex...or more ...in the next turn like a column....?
(Of cource I know that this is a limitation of the engine....)

So, the key number, you post a picture of a "marching square" but nowhere in your documentation do you show, what is the "rate of advance" of a unit already in square.


Yes, it is obviously my bad linguistic knowledge:paperbag:: Sorry, what means "rate of advance".... I try it to translate it with my translater, but I do not understand. Does it stand for "speed" or "agility" or something like that?

[FM WarB]

What that table shows (Taken from Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets, a book I've studied so much it needs rebinding) is that 1/2 MPs (5) cause infantry to take too long to change formation of any kind. 2 MPs for any formation change would be about right.
Squares should probably be able to move at same speed as infantry in line, perhaps with optional rule chance of disordering. Given that french squares were known to be mobile, the Prussians and Austrians had batalion mass formations which were mobile squares and the Brits had four deep lines, simply giving all squares such mobility might be the easiest way to address the situation.

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

What that table shows (Taken from Nafziger's Imperial Bayonets, a book I've studied so much it needs rebinding) is that 1/2 MPs (5) cause infantry to take too long to change formation of any kind. 2 MPs for any formation change would be about right.
Squares should probably be able to move at same speed as infantry in line, perhaps with optional rule chance of disordering. Given that french squares were known to be mobile, the Prussians and Austrians had batalion mass formations which were mobile squares and the Brits had four deep lines, simply giving all squares such mobility might be the easiest way to address the situation.

I think that is absolutely right and it is my opinion too ... in a much better English ;)
Thank you

[wlh]

My opinion:

A square formation is a cumbersome formation that requires a lot of practice. A guard unit could possibly have a higher movement rate than a regular unit, but, any faster than 1 movement point over irregular terrain would cause the square to get disordered and possibly rout.

Bill Harrell

[rahamy]

Outside of the end of the Waterloo battle, how many instances did the armies use Square as a mobile formation? I feel pretty confident in saying that it was not suited for mobility nor intended as such - it is a defensive formation specifically against cavalry. For all other actions there are other formations that are more appropriate.

So, while I could see (possibly) raising the movement allowance to 4 (2 hexes in clear terrain) I certainly couldn't see more. And I question this even really being a worth while change, as the vast majority of the time players are not going to move their forces around in square. Programming time would be better spent on other things...IMHO.

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

My opinion:

A square formation is a cumbersome formation that requires a lot of practice. A guard unit could possibly have a higher movement rate than a regular unit,

Bill Harrell

Hello Bill,

I wouldn't make a difference between the movement rate of a guardsman and the movement rate of a "normal soldier". The levels A+++ to D should be difference enough.
The lenght of a quick step is always the same and f.e. a Voltigeur of the line had the same condition like a Guardsman. The order to move was the same, the cadence of the drums was the same and they both gave their best... I think.


but, any faster than 1 movement point over irregular terrain would cause the square to get disordered and possibly rout.

Yes, it is they same risk to march in line formation over irregular terrain.
Hollering NCOs :hissyfit: and a lot of menaces and curses :curse:

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

Outside of the end of the Waterloo battle, how many instances did the armies use Square as a mobile formation?

But I think the game should allows me " as a commander" to do the physikal possible.
In the game it is possible to make a charge on a town.
I can not find a historical instance of that (there was one: 1812 , the cav charge on a redoute -as an alternative area- in column-formation...). It is possible and playable, BECAUSE it would be physically possible...with high losses (enemie fire and broken necks).
But this should be the risk of the (maybe mad) player.

I feel pretty confident in saying that it was not suited for mobility nor intended as such - it is a defensive formation specifically against cavalry. For all other actions there are other formations that are more appropriate.

That is my opinion too. But the square is one of the slowest formations on the field and that seems to be "physically" unrealistic.
And you word the result of this circumstance in you next lines:....

(...) And I question this even really being a worth while change, as the vast majority of the time players are not going to move their forces around in square.

I think, that is really fact and the reallity of our games ....it is easier to march and fight with a disrupted column than with a disrupted square.....and so the possibilities of using this special formation is a little bit unhistoric, isn't it?
But raising the movement allowance to 4 (2 hexes in clear terrain) is a good step.

Many Greetings

Andreas :halo:

[Gary McClellan]

By "speed of advance" I simply mean "how much ground can that moving square cover in 15 minutes".

Further, I have to highly doubt the numbers for formation changes. Those numbers are the ideal, under parade ground conditions. The troops are fresh, they're ready and waiting for orders, as opposed to trying to shoot their enemies. Orders are able to be clearly heard, as opposed to obscured by the sound of muskets, bullets and cannon. Parade Grounds are generally flat.

In battle conditions, it's going to take alot longer.

[Uffz_Feuerhake]

By "speed of advance" I simply mean "how much ground can that moving square cover in 15 minutes".


Hi again,

it is the same ground that a moving column cover in 15 minutes under battle conditions! To form a square under battle conditions was surely more tricky. But when the formation was done a simple movement was an easier thing.

Battle conditions: There were clearly defined drum-/ march speeds for the march, quick march and the attack... independently of the noise of the battle.
Of cource a march through a swamp or muddy field was surely done slower without to march in step.


I have among others a reprint of the Prussian Infantry Reglement of 1812, where I can read in chapter 9/ § 3 "Moving with the Square":

************************************************** ******
(...)
When the square has to march, the commanding officer rules the direction with the order: "To the Tete, the right, the left flank, the Queue - march off"

The commanding officers of the companies order the necessary turnarounds, and the commanding officer orders: "Square - march"
(...)
When the square is on the march, the whole square makes front in all directions after the order: "Halt"
A Square will march however only in the cases where a close enemy continual threatens with attack and a sudden defence after a stop is necessary immediately .
(...)
************************************************** ********

I think it should be possible to march off with a square f.e. in the direction of a saver ground / town / wood / own troops ...with the same speed of a line / column.

Every player fears the fate of Custer, a (square-)formation nailed on the ground with no hope of a fast retreat in the direction of the own troops.

So it is easier to expect the cav attack in column than in a square, indeed. And this seems to be unhistoric for me....and it is a pitty in such a lovley wargame with historic background.

But raising the movement allowance to 4 (2 hexes in clear terrain) is a good step. Maybe the losses of a repelled cavalry should be a little bit higher to make a square more "tasty" in this cases.

Greetings

Andreas