Yesterday I enjoyed an English Civil War miniatures game, using my own rules, which are unashamedly based on the Commands & Colors: Napoleonics set.
The game was a lot of fun, and I may write up a battle report when time permits, but during the game a situation arose for which I have no real answer...
At one point we were working out how many Battle Dice to use for an infantry unit firing on another (that's Ranged Combat of course). My guest pointed out that, since in this instance the fire was uphill, then according to my QRS there should be a deduction of 1 die. Oh no, say I, that's a mistake; the [-1] only applies for melee combat uphill. So we check the main rules book, and - goodness me - it says that Foot fighting uphill have a deduction of 1 dice for ranged or melee. To tell the truth, I've never played it like that - I've only ever made the deduction for melees.
Anyway, we made a note that this seems odd, and the rules should probably be changed to require a deduction only for uphill melees, and I scribbled it in my Pending Changes jotter. The game proceeded on its merry way.
Since my ECW game is derived from the C&CN ruleset I had a read of those rules last night, and was surprised to find that they too insist on 1 dice deduction for firing or melee uphill - I had faithfully lifted this into the ECW version. If I'm going to be honest, I have to admit that I can't remember using the deduction for uphill fire in the Napoleonics game either. Hmmm.
Of course, I can change my own rules however I like, and intend to fix this in the next update: -1 dice uphill will only apply to Melee Combat for Foot. Before I consider amending the published C&CN rules as well, I thought I'd see if anyone can provide a really good reason why musket fire would be less effective uphill?
I'm sure there may be a lot of (cod) science involved, and in my search for illustrations I came across lots of photos of American chaps in baseball caps shooting peaceful-looking deer in all sorts of scenery, so I swerved all that.
Anyone have any ideas why musket balls really might be less effective going uphill? I'd be interested to hear any reasons - the more preposterous the better, of course. I can imagine that having the ball roll out of the end of the barrel might be a problem if shooting downhill, but uphill seems OK. If anyone feels moved to use this as an opportunity to have a rant about the stupidity of all aspects of games involving hexes then please don't bother; I've heard it all before, it's boring, and I forgive you anyway. [We know where you live.]
Well short of getting into ballistic trajectories and such scientific enquiries I doubt there is a really satisfactory answer and I doubt the data exists for Napoleonic, let alone ECW. I will however, give some observations or snippets from my own reading.
ReplyDeleteIn the C18th, there seems to have been a tendency for troops to aim too high; I recall reading of officers using partizans to level the muskets. As a direct contradiction, I have just read in Duffy where he analyses wounds among Austrian infantry by location and concludes some are due to the Prussians aiming too LOW.
I think all we can conclude is that the muskets were only aimed in a very general sense, which probably explains the erratic results from the tests that were done. What effect this would have on ballistic trajectories can only be imagined.
Coming to the fire uphill. Is this some attempt to model troops hidden by the "military crest"? Or even more crudely, an attempt to model Wellington concealing his troops behind the crest of hills? As no great student of Nappys, I have no idea if the latter concept has been demolished as C19th patriotic fiction?
Neil
And here's some interesting musings....
ReplyDeletehttps://www.general-staff.com/wargames-slopes-the-high-ground/
Neil
In an era of massed volleys, soldiers were trained to level their muskets to fire. When the enemy is on higher ground, the sharper the gradient between firer and target then the more likely the volley will fall short. There are numerous accounts of this effect noted during the ACW. I know, a good researcher would provide at least one citation. I may need to get back to you.
ReplyDeleteBack to gaming? This is a very good sign!
ReplyDeleteDon't forget in C&C the battle dice encompass combat (ranged and melee) and morale. In this case I reckon engaging in a firefight against opponents above you would be more of a psychological disadvantage than a physical one. Attempts to rationalise it as a genuine difference in shooting effectiveness are failing to recognise that: in war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one (according to some dead bloke who ought to know).
ReplyDeleteI think the previous commentators have said what occurred to me...the inaccurate nature of volley fire up until the mid nineteenth century would tend to make firing at a target on anything other than the same elevation, even less accurate than usual? The note about the intentions in the original C&C rules may also be true!
ReplyDeleteThis is a topic in which I have taken some interest. I know of several combats in the American Civil War in which a prolonged musketry duel went to the advantage of the side 'downslope'.
ReplyDeleteMcDowell (it was near dark as well)
Brawner Farm (also close to sunset)
Missionary Ridge
... are those that come immediately to mind.
In all three, the Confederates were upslope, and got considerably the worse of the encounter. Upslope was good for morale; not so good on account of troops firing high (enemy obscured by darkness, possibly, and/or battle smoke).
I believe the Peninsular War can furnish examples as well. Barossa seems probably the most notable, but I rather think Albuera and Salamanca are others such. It seems to me that this might have been another upside of the 'reverse slope' position Wellington tended to favour. So a battle like Busaco might be another instance.
Where the French came close to overcoming the British line in sustained firefights, it seems that the British were upslope of the attackers - e.g. Talavera (left centre) or Fuentes de Onoro. Unfortunately I can't figure out whether Maida furnishes a further example, a counter-example, or no example at all.
In an earlier comment, Norm mentions the possibility that the Prussians tended to fire too low. But that might be an argument for superb fire discipline that survives a close action.
If you want to confer an edge to one side in a short-ranged musketry firefight, I suggest it goes to the side downslope. That would make good war games sense for Wellington's (and Suchet's in 1815) predilection for reverse slope infantry lines even once the enemy achieved the crest line.
But you COULD confer a morale advantage to the side upslope. True, that didn't work for the Confederates on Missionary Ridge, but there were other factors involved.
Cheers,
Ion
Gentlemen - thanks very much for your input - greatly appreciated. A lot of this is relevant, though on some points opinion may be divided on which way it worked!
ReplyDeleteI checked what the ruling is in "Tricorne", the AWI game which I think is the latest C&C implementation; in this game a unit which is on a hill, and which has not just arrived this turn, gets a morale advantage (i.e. may ignore 1 retreat flag), but there is no direct impact on combat effectiveness, ranged or melee. Hmmm.
I am impressed by Neil's suggestion that in a Napoleonic context the deduction of 1 die for uphill musket fire may be connected with the reverse slope effect. For a 2-hex-deep hill, a defender on the "back" slope (the 2nd hex) cannot be fired upon, from level ground, which is reasonable and obvious, and the deduction for fire on the nearer hex (which may be fired on) might serve to simulate some partial shelter from the crest.
In the ECW, or at least my version thereof, the musket ranges and effect are so feeble anyway that there may be less need to adjust - I regard the most effective part of musketry to be the point blank stuff which takes place within melee combat. On balance, I'll leave the C&C Napoleonic rules alone (for the reasons offered), and try to remember to play them as written. For the ECW, I think I'll still proceed with making the uphill deduction for melee only.
While I think there are valid reasons for the deduction in the bulk of the Horse and Musket era, I also recall that it was observed that pointing muskets downslope often caused the less than tightly pitting musket balls to roll forward somewhat thus greatly reducing the propulsive effect of the powder ignition. veracity uncertain, however!
ReplyDelete