In a previous post I tested out a scenario and rules for the Battle of Rivoli, 14 January 1797, see here.
The aims of this scenario test are:
- To test using the division exhaustion for the whole of the Austrian wing attacking the Trombalore Heights versus Joubert's division, instead of the individual columns (Liptay, Koblos and Ocksay).
- To see the impact of raising the minimum unit strength to from 2 to 3.
- To try out potential division exhaustion counters (very much in the rough!).
- To be happy that there is playability for both sides.
The Test
For the these purposes, I just needed to trial the engagements on the Trombalore Heights to the north and west of Rivoli. Not the whole battle.
The initial deployment. The French commanding the heights, with the Austrians to the left of the photo. |
Now looking from the opposite end of the height. The Austrians are engaging pretty much along the whole line. |
The Austrian's have sent one unit back and now look like they might just punch through at San Marco. Meanwhile in the centre, the attack has been repulsed. |
The two Austrian units lining up to breakthrough at San Marco. As seen from the French point of view. |
At the far end of the heights, two Austrian units are turning the French flank after throwing the 85th Demi Brigade back towards Rivoli. |
The French prepare to regain their hold on the heights, but this brigade is close to exhaustion itself. |
Analysis
I'd seen enough by this time to reach some conclusions in relation to my aims.
Aim 1 - I was happy that this provided a better and fairer engagement, with the Austrians attacking the heights showing more durability in maintaining it's assault.
Aim 2 - The increased minimum unit strength of 3 worked nicely. Only exceptional dice now seems to take out a unit in one go.
Aim 3 - The division exhaustion markers helped to keep a ready tally. I tend to keep a paper roster anyway, so this is more for the benefit of the players.
My army rosters for this test |
Aim 4 - the above have helped. It is still very hard for the Austrians, but more "do-able" with a degree of good timing and luck. Plus, in the wider game other columns would be arriving.
Next Steps
The units in Liptay's column on the Austrian right have a morale grade of 4. I'll probably lift this to match the rest of the columns at the better grade of 5. This will hopefully resist the compounding of disadvantages in assaulting a defender in superior positions.
I might try using division exhaustion for each of the Austrian columns and on the three brigades that make up Joubert's division. Just to see how this works in comparison.
Conclusion
Napoleon was right to order Joubert back onto the heights in the early hours of the 14th January. Having the position, the Rivoli plateau and the central position was key.
Postscript
While the toys were on the table, I immediately proceeded with trying out the "next steps". My subsequent findings were really helpful.
Raising the unit morale for Liptay's column was a good call. It made the engagement closer and more tense. But the more interesting development was altering the division exhaustion to apply to the smaller columns/brigades on both sides. This made for increased nervous tension as lines and assault ebbed and flowed and buckled. This concentrated the mind more on how to keep the attack and defence alive without ruining the army. It meant that repositioning and regrouping became an active part of the game. Whereas playing the exhaustion based on the larger wings meant that this tension was not engendered, as each side could just stand and batter each other.
I look forward to presenting this to the Rejects... who will find their ways of testing it all to destruction!
Looks great and glad your amendments worked out
ReplyDeleteThank you Neil. The time and planning seems to be bearing fruit.
DeleteHaving studied the battle and fought Rivoli on the tabletop several times, I find your experimentation and analysis fascinating.
ReplyDeleteThank you Jonathan. I must confess that I do enjoy this side of things.
DeleteKindred Spirits!
DeleteReally looking forward to giving this a go Rich.
ReplyDeleteHopefully soon after Lee has done his show game.
DeleteThat's a lovely looking game and you wouldn't know they were mdf figures at first glance. Interesting tweaks and analysis too:).
ReplyDeleteThanks Steve. From a normal playing distance they really just look like any 6mm figures.
DeleteA nice experiment and it brought back fond memories of one of Jonathan's participation games from a couple of years ago. It will be great seeing the full run-through.
ReplyDeleteMaybe we should plan something like that again?
DeleteThanks Lawrence. I look forward to doing it. There are some battles that are worth repeating.
DeleteLooks like you have given your ideas a thorough test run Richard...like Ray, I look forward to seeing how the Rejects handle the challenges you have set them in this scenario!
ReplyDeleteCheers. I feel that I can sometimes be a little too pedantic. I'm looking forward to the Rejects playing this... and probably breaking it too!!! One thing is for certain - with Ray's dice rolling at the moment it's a guaranteed defeat for him!
DeleteThe level and detail of your testing is to be admired. Really interesting to read too!
ReplyDeleteThe effort in scenario design and testing is always worth it, not to mention being a really interesting part of the whole, as you have said. It adds so much to one's appreciation and understanding of the history doesn't it?
Regards, James
It really does James. I've played enough games to know that a poorly conceived or planned scenario can really spoil the gaming experience. Good planning and a flexible umpire who responds in-game are priceless.
Delete