The Battle of Waterloo in 6mm: Conclusion

For some obscure reason I waited 48 years to play Waterloo! So now I have played it how did it go?

Rules:

I have a high opinion of General de Brigade and it achieved precisely what I hoped it would, a very enjoyable game with, for the most part, realistic results. It was not designed for this level of game unless multi-player but it does provide for drama at battalion level.

When playing a game of this or similar size, organisation is important when using GdB. It would be easy to lose track of the sequence of phases or forgetting which units have fired, moved, charged etc. I used the same procedures as my campaign with casualties recorded on a roster. Different coloured micro dice were used as markers to indicate which units had to take a morale tests, units that had to move in the compulsory move phase, which units could not fire etc. The 'smoke' indicated who had fired.

I did overrule the dice results on a couple of occasions where the outcome would have been bizarre. e.g. a cavalry unit had charged another unit who had retreated prior to contact. The charging unit now had the opportunity to continue it's charge into the flank of a faltering cavalry unit. It failed to charge home (I recall it was a double '1' thrown). There were no external events to stop it from charging and it made no sense.

I had no regrets omitting Skirmishers. I am currently considering introducing abstract skirmisher rules but not for large games as it would bog them down too much.

The command and control system worked reasonably well, reflecting accurately the quality of Generalship. They did throw up some problems though, particularly for the Prussians. A run of bad luck had a number of formations on 'Hold' orders, effectively stalling their advance. This was an important factor in them failing to get to grips with the French and running out of time. I am not opposed to friction in a game providing it does not spoil the enjoyment or result in implausible results. This is something I am still playing around with and definitely a work in progress.

The command and control system works in periods of 4 turns and it seemed obvious to have 4 turns represent one hour in real time. This is something I agonised over as I was concerned that there would not be enough turns to accurately portray the ebb and flow of the battle. To a degree that was the case with regard to the Prussians and it could be argued that they should have had another 4 turns to become fully engaged. I doubt though that the outcome would have been any different.

The Army Break Test is another area where I imported a system from another ruleset. In this case Grande Armee by Sam Mustafa. I have tweaked it and so far appears to be working reasonably well. I increased the French Break Test Point following the collapse of the Allied army which I felt was a reasonable reflection of the increased morale the French would have experienced from the defeat of the Allies. Overall I felt the Army Break Test worked well and the collapse of the Allied forces seemed about right.

To sum up, I felt that GdB delivered a perfectly believable outcome and highlighted the difficulties faced by Wellington.

Would I use GdB again for this size of battle? Maybe. That is not a reflection on the quality of the rules but it was a long game to play. This was a one-off for my favourite battle. In reality if I were to pick another large Napoleonic battle to play I would probably look for rules more designed for this purpose. GdB will however, be my go-to set for the vast majority of Napoleonic games.

Thoughts on the game:

I decided to have the early moves reflect those performed historically. Most notably the French 1st Corps attack in unwieldy columns, Jerome's attack on Hougoumont and the formation of the Grand Battery. Initial dispositions were also as done historically.

The 1st Corps columns were interesting to play as it highlighted just how poor a formation it was. From the accounts I have read, several French Generals who had experience of the Peninsular War and how difficult it was to break the British line, they hoped that having a column with a battalion wide frontage would be able to counter the musketry of the line. They gambled that protection from cavalry would be gained by having the soldiers on the outer perimeter of the column would face outwards forming an ad-hoc square. I experienced just how frustrating it must have been for battalion and Brigade commanders attempting to reform when it was obvious the large column formations had failed. As in the actual battle, three of the divisions of the 1st Corps were badly mauled.

A combined French cavalry and infantry attack supported by artillery on the allied formations west of the crossroads proved very difficult for Wellington to handle. The light cavalry struggled against the French heavy cavalry who repeatedly caught out infantry battalions that had not formed square in time. Once Hougoumont fell it was always going to be difficult for the allies to hold out long enough although the light cavalry on the allied right flank proved to be particularly successful in degrading the French in this sector.

Also frustrating for the allies was the traffic jams immediately behind the ridge at the western end of the battlefield. Adams' elite Brigade in particular was hemmed in on the high ground behind the ridge for most of the battle. I had been looking forward to committing the large 52nd Foot to the fray with the potential damage it could have caused but I could not get it into a decent attacking position before the allied collapse.

If I could name a 'man of the match' it would have to be Ramsey. His battery was involved from the very beginning to the very end almost continuously. I had him gesticulating towards the French artillery early in the battle not realising that for most of the rest of the game he rarely rolled below '10' on the dice. He caused a great deal of disruption to any units he targeted. I had to have his battery as one of the few to maintain good order as the allied forces broke.

The Prussians similarly had problems with congestion and that, combined with an unusual number of command failures, prevented them from making good progress.

The overall size of the battlefield I felt was about right but could have done with a few more inches at each end.

A quick word about figure scale and basing. This game has cemented my view that 6mm was the way to go. The same can be said for the basing.  It actually did not take as long as many think to move all these figures. I was particularly pleased that they achieved the look I wanted.

This was the first game where I gave a running commentary on a battle, or for that matter an AAR on a game I have just played. All the others on my blog have so far been games I have played in the past to bring the reader up to date on my current projects. As such I have had to rely on notes and photos I made at the time to remind myself what had happened. I would estimate that on this occasion it more then doubled the amount of time the game took to play. Making a photographic record of each turn, selecting appropriate photos, cropping them and resizing them followed by the updating of the blog proved to be rather time consuming. It was though a useful exercise and provided some pointers for future AAR.

What I hope to do in the future is incorporate some of the lessons learnt from this game when posting AAR's. While they may not be quite as detailed as this. e.g. I would not include the precise numbers of casualties for each action unless something out of the ordinary or particularly important. I would hope to include at least some of it to make it interesting to read and hopefully easy to follow the action.

With my painting desk now clear I can continue with my other projects. I was actually suffering from painting withdrawal symptoms in the end!

If anybody has any questions please feel free to ask. I will be covering figure painting and terrain details on my next blog relating to Waterloo.