This is a composite document from the series of articles published as Blog Posts on our site in 2023-

2024. The original articles were submitted by a player, Alexey, and I (Rich Hamilton) presented
them through blog posts on our website. One of the beauties of our games is that there are different
ways you can play them, and no two people are exactly alike. So, in this series of articles, you will
get a taste of both of our styles. In most cases we are in agreement, but at certain points I will
present first Alexey’s comments, and then I will follow up with my own, marked with (RH) and my
words in Italics. This is not meant to be a “manual” about the proper way to do things, but rather
an example of how things can be done. There is a certain amount of flexibility built into the engine
to accommodate different play styles, and interpreting the historic record is also subjective, to an
extent.

Out of the gate I will say that our two approaches to the system are very different. While we both
want things to be historical, Alexey likes to really dig into the numbers and analyze things in detail.
While I on the other hand lean more towards allowing the system to do a lot of the work and simply
engage and enjoy playing the game. You will see that view come out in some of my comments below.

It is important to note that if you plan to play against another person you need to discuss with them
their play style. Over time you will find opponents that have similar approaches, and you’ll establish
a good base of fellow players to enjoy the games with.

Note: Since original publication Alexey has refined his position on the Optional Rules. His further
comments have been inserted at the end of that chapter.

This document was updated on April 25, 2024.

Contents
Introduction to the WDS Napoleonic Battles Series: ..................................................................... 4
Basic Training ......................................................................................................................................... 5
Mastering the Basics ......................................................................................................................... 5
Optional Rules ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Specialist Training ............................................................................................................................... 21
Infantry Deployment Principles and Tactics ............................................................................. 21
Understanding Musket Firepower Values ......................................................................................... 22
Battalion Size Impact on FP ............................................................................................................... 22
2-Rank Infantry.................................................................................................................................. 27
Optimizing Your Infantry Deployment .............................................................................................. 30
Artillery Deployment Principles and Tactics ............................................................................. 32
Firepower .......................................................................................................................................... 32
Artillery Deployment......................................................................................................................... 36
Stacking, Protecting and Escorting Batteries .................................................................................... 38
Field Artillery Types: Horse, Foot and Howitzers .............................................................................. 41
Ammo ................................................................................................................................................ 42
Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 43
Cavalry Deployment Principles and Tactics .............................................................................. 43
Battle Deployment ............................................................................................................................ 44
Charging ............................................................................................................................................ 45
Cossacks ............................................................................................................................................ 48
Advanced Training ............................................................................................................................... 50
Defense in Depth .............................................................................................................................. 50
Infantry Division deployment in defense .......................................................................................... 51
Forward Line (FL)............................................................................................................................... 53
Main Resistance Line......................................................................................................................... 57
Reserve Line ...................................................................................................................................... 58
Position assessment .......................................................................................................................... 58
Offensive Strategy and Tactics ...................................................................................................... 60
Formation by Echelons...................................................................................................................... 60
 Local FP superiority ........................................................................................................................... 63
Spotting the Vulnerability ................................................................................................................. 63
Axis of advance ................................................................................................................................. 64
Skirmishers ........................................................................................................................................ 66
Combined arms ................................................................................................................................. 68
Patience and persistence .................................................................................................................. 69
The Power of Diversionary Attacks ................................................................................................... 69
Timing................................................................................................................................................ 70
Consider widening the frontage ....................................................................................................... 70
Napoleon’s offensive art ................................................................................................................... 74
General Staff...................................................................................................................................... 80
Preparation Phase ............................................................................................................................. 81
Mapping Phase.................................................................................................................................. 83
Planning Phase: Defining the orders ................................................................................................. 86
ETA Measuring Phase ........................................................................................................................ 90
Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 93
Special Topics ........................................................................................................................................ 97
Rearguard Actions ............................................................................................................................ 97
Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 100
Navigating the Emotional Challenges of PBEM ..................................................................... 100
Methods of Play ............................................................................................................................... 103
Cooperative Play ............................................................................................................................. 104
House Rules..................................................................................................................................... 105
Envoy ............................................................................................................................................... 106
Introduction to the WDS Napoleonic Battles Series:
Unleashing the Spirit of Napoleon's Era on the Virtual Battlefield

Step back in time to an era of grand military campaigns and epic battles that shaped the course of
the Napoleonic era. Welcome to the world of Napoleonic simulations, where you can immerse
yourself in the art of war, recreate historical conflicts, and chart your path to victory! The WDS
Napoleonic series undoubtedly stands out as the most historically accurate simulation of Napoleonic
warfare, backed by a dedicated community that constantly contributes to its evolution and
improvement. This commitment to precision and ongoing development ensures an immersive and
authentic gaming experience that brings history to life like never before.

In this series of articles, we embark on a journey through the strategy and tactics of the WDS
Napoleonic series, catering to both novices and seasoned veterans of the genre.

We begin with the basics, laying the groundwork for understanding the mechanics that define the
Napoleonic simulations. From there, we progress into the discussion and the impact of Optional
Rules.

Then we advance further, exploring the nuances of handling special arms of infantry, cavalry and
artillery. We then venture into more advanced topics, mastering the art of defensive and offensive
operations, which followed by complex topics of handling large operations and out maneuvering your
PMEB opponents in campaign mode. Finally, there are a few special topics on rearguard actions and
dealing with the morale factor in Play by Email (PBEM) mode.

Throughout this journey, we will weave in historical context, drawing inspiration from the brilliant
military minds of the Napoleonic era. You'll experience firsthand the challenges and triumphs faced
by commanders of that time, gaining insights into the strategies that shaped the course of
Napoleonic era campaigns.

So, whether you're an eager novice or a seasoned veteran seeking to refine your skills, hop on board
this adventure into the realm of Napoleonic simulations. Together, we'll unlock the tactical aspects
of WDS Napoleonic warfare and bring the spirit of Napoleon's era to life on the virtual battlefield.
Prepare to plan, strategize, and conquer as we embark on this exploration of warfare in the
Napoleonic age.
Basic Training
Mastering the Basics

When it comes to tactical warfare, it's not all about jumping in guns blazing with excitement. If you
want to be a real battlefield master, you've got to build a strong foundation and tackle each situation
with a cool, calculated strategy. So, in this chapter, we've got 10 tips that'll level up your tactical
game and help you outsmart your opponents with confidence.

1. Embrace the Manual: The Key to Progress

Reading the manual may not sound like the most thrilling task, but it is the gateway to success in
tactical warfare. Open it alongside your scenarios and refer to it as you play. There's no shame in
needing to look up modifiers or specific rules; this approach ensures you understand the mechanics
and sets you up for victory.

2. Practice Makes Perfect: Test Various Tactical Situations

Control both sides in a small scenario to replicate different tactical situations. This hands-on
experience will reveal the outcomes of various melee and fire combinations, reinforcing your
understanding and boosting your confidence.

3. Unravel Optional Rules (OR)

Understand the impact of optional rules, which may vary depending on the agreement between
opponents. Negotiate with your opponent on preferred OR to ensure a fair and challenging
experience. More in depth analysis and guidance on optional rules is provided in the next chapter.

(RH) There is a "Default" set of OR's that can be used, so if two players wish to engage it can
be a good starting point - and modified as desired in future matches.
4. Command and Control (C&C): Maintain Order for Victory

Maintain the organization of your army, as disorder can

significantly impact its effectiveness in combat.
Maintain C&C at all times, even sacrificing minor
tactical gains. The Strength dialog under the Info menu
shows the % of the units in good order. It is 98% for the
Austrian Armee v. Italie in the image below meaning the
other 2% of the army is disordered. Some seasoned
players consider this disorder metric crucial for winning
battles.

Avoid breaking up brigades or divisions unless absolutely necessary. Division is the basic
operational unit within the game as it was historically: if divisional C&C is broken up the division
typically becomes a one-off tool only good for one off short action.

Operationally, when considering your options at larger scenarios on large maps, favor a plan which
assumes reuniting divisions under its corps/wing/army commander. If this cannot be achieved keep
in mind the limitations of such isolated forces being out of command.

(RH) There are a variety of tools included in the system to help you keep your forces in order.
The image below illustrates several. The Highlight Organization (Hotkey Q) is activated, with
the Divisional commander, GDiv. Donzelot, selected. All of the units under his command have
a yellow highlight around their base. He has an orange highlight, and his upper-level
command also has an orange highlight - both Corps and Army command levels. We also have
the Command Range (Hotkey C) selected which displays all of the hexes he has under his
influence, or within his command radius. So, if his Brigade commanders are within his
command radius then they will not become Detached and in turn have the ability to receive a
bonus from him - assuming he passes his Command Check at the beginning of the turn. And
finally, from this screen shot we see that he did not pass his command check this turn, which
is indicated by the yellow D next to his portrait, in the Hex Info Area. If he had passed then
that would be a white D.

Further, there are movement commands within the game that allow you to move your forces
as cohesive units. You can read more about this in section 5.2.12 of the User Manual.
5. Leaders and Wagons: Keep Them Protected

Always stack your leaders and wagons with formed units. Although it may be cool looking to
maintain a parade like formation, the enemy is likely to take advantage of this flamboyant behavior
sooner or later. The loss of leaders and wagons can severely impact your formations' combat
readiness. Use zoom out in 2D mode and
turn off Leaders on Top (L hotkey) to
prevent leaving leaders unstacked with
formed units and exposed to enemy capture.

(RH) The image above has Leaders on Top

activated, so you see every hex that has a
leader in it. The subset at left shows a
portion of that view without that option
selected - so several key leaders and supply
wagons are not stacked with combat units in
this image.

6. Maintain a continuous front

To maintain a continuous front, make use of Zone of Control (ZOC). It's essential to avoid leaving
any gaps within your line, as skilled opponents will exploit these weaknesses to their advantage.
This topic is covered further in the chapter covering in depth defense formation.
7. Gather intelligence: Watch the Enemy’s Turn Replay

Always watch the enemy's turn replay to avoid surprises. The replay speed can be adjusted via bar
menu. Replay can also be paused via F9 button. Ask for your opponent politely to turn off on-map
results so you understand what's going on and what happens during enemy's melee phase. This will
also provide some info on the headcount of the enemy formations involved in melee and can be used
in your planning to counter attack them during your melee phase.

(RH) I personally only watch replays when the battle really get's hot, or there is some key intel
I wish to glean - such as suspected enemy activity far away that I have set units up to spot.
There's a few reason for this - it shortens the amount of time I have to allocate to playing a
turn - and time always seems to be an issue these days, but additionally I feel that we already
have an exponentially larger amount of data available to us than our historic counterparts -
so this adds an extra level of Fog of War to the situation. I also exclusively use "On Map
Results" when I play for the same reasons.

8. Systematic Turn Execution: Avoid “I forgot” Mistakes

Develop a habit of systematically going through your line, i.e. starting from the left flank to the
right. Use the "Next Stack" (N hotkey) button to ensure nothing is missed or forgotten. Ideally each
turn, you should move from division to division wearing a hat of a divisional commander and
reassessing the tactical situation in divisional sector.

9. Master the Mechanics: Engage in the Melee Outcome Dialogue

Understanding morale checks, fire and melee calculations is like understanding what happens
under the hood. There are formulas behind melee, Fire Power results, and morale checks, all detailed
in the manual. Try turning off on-map results and focus on the FP/melee result dialog. While not
necessary, those who want to go deeper can crunch the numbers in reverse to grasp how melee
calculations work. As you gain experience and understand the modifiers, you'll develop a feel for
melee odds. A skilled player should be able to assess their forces and the situation to get a good idea
of their chances of success.

(RH) While I agree, it is good to read the manual and understand what is
happening - really essential for when you begin so you can get a handle on what
will work and what wont - and why. For those who don't want to do this
continually there are features in place - such as the melee prediction. With Fog
of War (FOW) in effect after you commit forces to a melee a dialog box will pop
up giving you a general prediction of the outcome. This is not a guarantee - but
it is a guideline on what to expect - and it can save you from executing a melee
that you are destined to lose badly!
10. Stay Cool and Calculated: Take Your Time

Finally, play it cool. Don't rush through your turn. While it's undoubtedly exciting to witness the
enemy approaching your carefully laid ambush and be eager to jump into the melee phase ASAP,
resist the urge to rush. Take a moment to consider various possible combinations and evaluate
probabilities. You've got the luxury of sitting in your comfy leather chair, enjoying the air
conditioning, and holding a warm coffee mug in your hand. In real life, commanders had to make
real-time decisions while sitting on a horse, sweating, smelling the smoke of battle, with no bird's-
eye view of the map, and cannonballs flying all around. So, keep a steady and cool-headed approach.
There's no need to hurry – take your time and enjoy the experience.

Optional Rules

Opinions vary on the subject, yet in this chapter, I deep dive into the Optional Rules (OR) and aim
to rationalize their selection, with the aim of enhancing historical accuracy. This discussion relates
to version 4.08 of the game. Presented below is my subjective yet justifiable take on the OR. Below
is the image with proposed OR settings:
Manual Defensive Fire (MDF)

Auto Defensive Fire (ADF)

When it comes to trying out Manual Defensive Fire (MDF), some players might have concerns,
especially if they're worried about it slowing down play in PBEM games. In fact, there is still one
email per turn as long as this OR is paired with Auto Defensive Fire OR being ticked. Considering
the combination of this ORs is the preferred method of play they will be referred as MDF + ADF
going forward.

Effectively, this combination of ORs breaks each turn into phases:

Movement Phase
Defensive Phase
Offensive Phase
Melee Phase

The Defensive Phase is handled by AI, so you don't need to send defensive fire email to your PBEM
opponent. As of 4.07 the AI does a very decent job in picking up the right targets, so it will not do
embarrassing things like picking on a lonely pioneer unit when being threatened by a cavalry
regiment.
In most cases, the AI tends to prioritize firing on enemy artillery batteries rather than engaging
enemy formations. However, this behavior aligns with historical accuracy. There are numerous
accounts where gunners preferred targeting threats that directly endangered them, and often this
meant targeting enemy artillery. At the Battle of Waterloo, for instance, Wellington experienced
frustration as his gunners consistently shifted their focus to counterbattery fire, despite being
ordered to engage French infantry and cavalry.
One big advantage of the phased approach is that it discourages players from trying to manipulate
the game's mechanics by rehearsing moves beforehand. Thus, with MDF + ADF active, outcomes
become less predictable, which adds a level of uncertainty that reflects the realities of historical
warfare.
(RH) It is possible to corrupt a game file if you stop and reload it repeatedly to get a better
outcome - so your opponent will eventually be made aware of this behavior. It is also not in the
spirit of play. Someone who does this will eventually find themselves without opponents, as
word spreads.
This setup of optional rules also has the effect of slowing down the game's pace, which in turn reflects
the more deliberate tempo of battles, considering the communication limitations of the Napoleonic
era. Orders took time to transmit, and a slower flow of actions aligns better with historical accuracy.
Napoleonic battles, lacking real-time communication technology, typically spanned extended hours
and had a relatively unhurried pace.

Coordination between units during this time was remarkably challenging. Witnessing different
units working together in complex ways—like one battalion repelling enemy skirmishes, another
quickly approaching to deliver a musket volley, followed by artillery firing canisters with precise
timing, and then a cavalry regiment charging the same enemy unit—all within a mere 10-15
minutes— such coordination within that short timeframe would have been unrealistic.

Even for modern military forces, achieving such coordination would be difficult. Nevertheless, these
kinds of actions are often observed in games, unless the gameplay is divided into phases through
the activation of MDF + ADF.

Also, turning on MDF + ADF eliminates the possibility for blitzkrieg tactics, which some players
have criticized in the past. Finally, the phased play puts more emphasis on skirmishes and skirmish
order was a key part of the Napoleonic warfare, often causing delays and disruptions for larger
military formations.

(RH) I prefer to use the Optional Melee Resolution OR instead of MDF. This for several
reasons - having the melee sub-phase removes the "Blitzkrieg" argument from the table - as
players can't melee and then pour units through a line. And as I go down my line there's
certain tasks I want to do with each unit - some move, some fire - being able to do that all in a
single pass is desirable. Additionally, having actions spread out into separate phases allows
units to move across open terrain and end up in a defile, out of LOS, while suffering no fire
effects. To me that's not acceptable - while I agree the tempo of the battlefield was pretty slow,
it was not that slow. Many changes have been made to the engine in recent years to resolve
many of the long standing arguments for phased play - but, as I said in the intro - people can
play any way they wish!

Victory Points for Leader Casualties

Turning on Victory Points for Leaders (VPFL) makes sense for a reason. It's a way to discourage
players from using their leaders recklessly, where there's a lot to gain but little risk. Just like in real
history, losing a leader had a big impact on the battlefield. So, having VPFL on would penalize
players for being too aggressive with their leaders. The victory points loss is a reminder to be careful
about how leaders are used in the game.

Rout Limiting

Flank Morale Modifier

These two optional rules are discussed together since both fall under the category of morale-boosting
rules, leading to a shared outcome: the virtual soldiers becoming exceedingly determined to fight
until the end. The eagerness of digital battalions to fight without giving up pushes players to act
way more aggressively than what was ever seen on real battlefields.

With both rules enabled, there is an excessive boost to morale and shields for the units, which
prevents chain routs and encourages unrealistic strain on the units. The combination of both active
rules favors the utilization of large packed formations: they receive a bonus due to covered flanks
and have no fear of rout contagion.

This leads to massive, all-out attacks, which must be met with a similar concentration of forces. It's
no surprise that major battles can be decided by turn 20 after a huge mass melee involving large
masses of troops and resulting in atrocious non-historical casualties. However, as historical casualty
ratios suggest Napoleonic era battles were about breaking the enemy morale and organization, not
about annihilating the enemy units to the last man.

Chain routs were frequent occurrences. Theoretically, if any battalion in the first line broke, the
battalions from the second line were expected to take their place. However, quite often, the broken
battalion from the first line would flee toward the second line, causing disorder within it. This would
result in panic spreading like an avalanche, gaining momentum.

In many cases, those who initiated the retreat and inadvertently spread fear, which then escalated
into panic, had a valid or at least a reasonable justification for their actions. For instance, if an
officer got hit and started running toward a rear first-aid station without communicating to his unit
why he was leaving, his soldiers would follow him, causing the line to collapse. Others who hadn't
witnessed the officer's sudden departure might see someone else in flight and decide to run as well.
This chain reaction happened quickly since fear is contagious. The sight of one person fleeing could
trigger a rapid wave of fear among nearby men.

The sight of one's own troops fleeing in panic often overwhelmed the soldiers in the second line. As
a result, commanders typically preferred to maintain a gap between the first and second tactical
lines, providing some time to react if the situation deteriorated in the first line. The distance between
the first and second line of battalions ranged from 100 to 400 paces. The size of these gaps depended
on the specific circumstances of the battlefield and the terrain. Battle conditions were fluid, soldiers
were under tremendous stress, and panic could take hold at any moment.

Having rout limiting OR and flank morale modifier OR activated tends to encourage side-by-side
linear tactics and doesn't support the historically accurate echelon positioning with gaps of 200 to
300 meters in between. Disabling morale-boosting optional rules, on the other hand, encourages
commanders to adopt more historically authentic tactics. This includes maintaining a second line
positioned behind the front, having a local reserve, creating gaps between units, being more
cautious, and rotating disordered and damaged units. On the defensive side, this approach also
encourages in-depth tactics: placing too many soldiers in the first line maximizes firepower but also
raises the risk of panic spreading and creating gaps in your defense.

(RH) While I completely agree with not using the Rout Limiting OR, I do tend to prefer to use
the Flank Morale Modifier - as this is Linear Warfare and units where trained to fight in Lines
and as a cohesive unit. A unit must have friendly forces on Both flanks in order to receive this
bonus. So, the FMM will only benefit the core of each organization. A couple other factors for
me - I prefer to use Mixed Organization Penalty which discourages massing units in a big
blob. I also tend to keep an empty hex between commands, like pictured below.

Isolation Rules

This optional rule effectively addresses the challenges of being surrounded, making it a topic that
doesn't usually spark much debate. It's definitely recommended to have this rule enabled.

Optional Fire Results (OFR)

Optional Melee Results (OMR)

Turning off both of these optional rules is advisable to capture the randomness that often determined
the outcomes of battles. War isn't like chess, where outcomes are predetermined by rules or numbers.
Every volley and melee were influenced by numerous physical, emotional, and random factors. Each
soldier had their own story of the day, whether they were sick, tired, or simply scared. All of these
elements contributed to less predictable results on the battlefield.

Melee Terrain Modifiers (MTM)

Most players tend to prefer enabling this optional rule but arguments can be made from both
perspectives.
Firstly, during the Napoleonic era, it wasn't a common practice for commanders to position their
troops in obstructed terrain due to challenges with command and control. Troops from that time
fought in tightly-knit formations under the close supervision of their NCOs and officers. Achieving
this level of organization was often difficult in areas like villages or rough, wooded terrain.

However, the melee terrain modifier in the game suggests the opposite, encouraging players to
deploy units in obstructed terrain for melee benefits. Some could argue that the advantage of
obstructed terrain is already represented by the protection it offers against enemy cavalry. Thus,
introducing an additional melee modifier might provide an unjustified double benefit.

On the other hand, it's also true that obstructed terrain posed challenges for attackers. It could
disrupt and halt the momentum of their advance. Taking both viewpoints into account, it's
reasonable to conclude that both sides have valid arguments. Therefore, this feature isn't hard-coded
into the game, but rather offered as an option to accommodate the preferences of different players.
Further discussion on this is below under column movements restrictions OR section.

(RH) This rule can also be mitigated by Maneuver. While not always possible, it is and was a
valid tactic to bypass a strong position and threaten the enemy's rear, supply lines, etc. This
then forces the opposing commander to either let his troops sit and potentially become isolated
or pull back to address the new threat the opposing force presents. Napoleonic warfare held
maneuver as a central tenant - and many initial positions would be abandoned in response to
the opposing force moving around them. Where a problem arises would be on a small map,
with the "map edge" forcing a players decision process.

Column Pass Through Fire (CPTF)

Target Density Modifier (TDM)

Enabling CPTF optional rule raises a valid concern on why three smaller battalions of 250 men each
should suffer more casualties than a single larger battalion of 750 men. From a density perspective,
both scenarios have 750 men in a hex, which shouldn't affect casualties. To push this idea further,
think about six pioneer companies fixing a bridge. All six could be wiped out by an eight-gun horse
battery rolling forward and delivering a canister volley at point blank. The Target Density Modifier
optional rule already addresses this density factor, and it should be enabled. But the density doesn't
depend on how many counters are packed into a hex.

Since version 4.07, there's a welcome change where casualties are halved for units being present in
the same hex but not being originally targeted. This somewhat improves the illogical situation
described in the previous paragraph. However, it still doesn't justify casualties of other counters, as
casualties should be influenced by the density level, which is already handled by a separate optional
rule.

Another reason why this optional rule remains popular among players is due to its roots in the early
days of the series. Back then, the melee phase wasn't separate from the movement phase, resulting
in aggressive blitzkrieg tactics involving mass melee, allowing multiple lines of defense to be
breached in a single turn. In that context, artillery often became an easy target with limited
opportunity to cause any substantial damage on the advancing enemy mass infantry stacks. Thus,
back in the days CPTF optional rule assisted artillery in responding to blitzkrieg mass melee tactics.
Today, with the engine advancements over the past decade, blitzkrieg tactics are no longer a
problem, and artillery poses a significant threat on its own making CPTF optional rule obsolete,
hence it is recommended to switch it off.

(RH) I prefer to use the CPTF rule as it encourages players to not stack up to the level a hex
will hold. While it is possible to move large amount of men through a 100 meter x 100 meter
space over a period of time - doing so in a combat situation should come at a price, IMHO.

No Retreat Overruns (NRO)

It's recommended to deactivate this optional rule to prevent a gamey tactic where players encircle a
substantial infantry group or a cavalry regiment with a weaker skirmish unit. This maneuver could
effectively trap the larger unit, preventing it from retreating through the weaker skirmish force.

Movement Threat Disorder (MTD)

This optional rule effectively simulates the frequent breakdown of morale and order that occurred
as units moved closer to the enemy. It captures the chaos of war when formations became disordered
under the looming threat, an occurrence more common than actual close-quarter combat. Despite
all the bravado, Napoleonic era troops weren't overly enthusiastic about engaging the enemy at close
range and facing a brutal death. Therefore, it was often the case that the advancing side halted at a
certain distance from the enemy. Confusion would ensue, and the advancing unit might be routed
long before making contact with the enemy.

Naturally, the greater the perceived threat, the higher the likelihood of a disorder and rout. This
optional rule introduces an additional layer of historical accuracy to aggressive combat scenarios. It
introduces the risk element that things might fall apart even before the actual contact is made.

Night Movement Fatigue (NMF)

This optional rule primarily comes into play during extensive multiday scenarios. Without a doubt,
fatigue accumulation should occur during night turns, as our digital units already exhibit inhuman
endurance. Let's consider the Waterloo scenario (006), comprising 388 turns with standardized PDT
15-minute turns.

Within a day, there are 72 daytime turns and 6 night time turns. If we assume no movement during
the night turns, an infantry battalion can cover 72 km per day by roads and pikes. No breaks for
lunch and no fatigue. A distance of 72 km per day is a level even modern armies might struggle to
achieve while advancing into enemy territory.

Remarkably, cavalry can cover an astonishing 115 km in a single day, enough to make even modern
tanks envious. Events unfold too swiftly as players can afford to ignore the issue of fatigue. The
average speed of Napoleonic troops was more like 25-40km per day with a later one being a forced
march having consequences on the combat readiness due to fatigue and stragglers. Having this OR
ticked at least mitigates this shortcoming of the large scenarios.

(RH) I agree completely with using this OR, but a few comments on movement rates. That is
given circumstances of no obstacles, and confidence in a lack of enemy forces. The player that
does choose to move at these rates without complete knowledge of their surroundings will likely
 pay a high price. This is why Visibility is set to 22 hexes in the game - to force players to Scout
and discover what is out there!

Column Movement Restriction (CMR)

The debate about this optional rule is similar to the reasoning behind Melee Terrain Modifiers.
During the Napoleonic era, commanders avoided using difficult terrain because it made it hard to
control and direct their troops.

Historically, obstructed terrain was an area belonging to skirmishes and this rule ON simulates this
very well. However, most of the game scenarios were designed in the old days without this rule in
mind and this may make some of them unplayable as cities / villages can now be extremely difficult
to assault and control.

On the defense, commanders are better off to take defensive positions in obstructed terrain like
villages creating a strategic safety island virtually impossible for the attacker to assault: a village
hex can be packed with a large formed battalion boosted with a 6-gun battery and a couple of
skirmishes companies. It’s a show stopper for an attacker.

In fact, the melee terrain modifier OR already penalizes the attacker as is and motivates the
defender to occupy villages and woods despite the disorder and the necessity for reordering. Hence,
it is rather concluded that it is best to have this OR unticked but to have melee terrain modifier
enabled.

One problem remains however if disabled – players can conduct unhistorical flanking maneuverers
through woods which were not really passable in reality for large masses of men. For more advanced
players seeking further realism, the way to discourage woods flanking maneuvers is to agree with
your opponent to adjust PDT file so infantry columns in woods can cover only one hex per turn,
demotivating unhistorical behavior of marching through woods. This can be easily done changing
one line on the PDT file corresponding to the relevant scenario.

(RH) At least in the "Standardized" PDT files a unit in Column can only move a max of 2
hexes in a Forest... 1 if there's an elevation change. The Standardized PDT subject is discussed
in this blog post.

Weak Zone of Control (WZOC)

This optional rule provides units with a limited ability to move in front of the enemy, rather than
becoming completely immobilized. There isn't much debate on this rule, so it's advisable to enable
it.

Partial Retreats (PR)

No Melee Elimination (NME)

NME should be enabled to prevent unrealistic zone of control (ZOC) kills that can lead to entire
brigades being eliminated in just a single turn. The Partial Retreats optional rule should not be used
in conjunction with NME as they will effectively work against each other.
Line Movement Restriction (LMR)

The difficulty with advancing in lines was their sensitivity to terrain and order. The irregularities
of the terrain caused the ranks to become ragged; the battalion bowed in the middle and sometimes
broke completely in half. The long line made the troop more difficult to maneuver and to turn. For
these reasons, commanders used lines only for short distances and over open terrain with no serious
obstacles. There was always a risk of disorder when advancing in line formation.

Enabling LMR should encourage players to adopt historical tactics, using columns for maneuvering,
as using the line formation becomes risky.

(RH) I think using this rule encourages players to move their forces in Column too frequently,
which then leads to more melee - as fire power is greatly reduced in Column formation. Also,
with both terrain elements causing Disorder and use of the Movement Threat Disorder OR we
get a healthy amount of Disorder taking place as it is. So, for these reasons I generally prefer
not to use this rule.

Multiple Cavalry Melees (MCM)

It's recommended to enable it in order to provide cavalry with the impactful charging power they
deserve. Charging cavalry possessed substantial momentum and often faced difficulties halting their
charge, as seen in the ill-fated British cavalry charge at Waterloo.

Multiple Infantry Melees (MIM)

On the other hand, when it comes to MIM rule, it's advised to disable it. This prevents the use of
blitzkrieg tactics, where multiple infantry units can attempt to break through the same enemy unit
one after another. Such coordinated actions would be highly unlikely, especially on foot and
considering the 10-15 minute turns.

(RH) Agreed - if you want two battalions to attack a single hex, have them both melee at the
same time.

No Opportunity Fire Against Skirmishers

This OR holds no significance when playing with MDF + ADF enabled, regardless of whether it's
turned on or off.

No Detached Melee (NDM)

This OR simulates the leadership factor at the critical moment of the battle as by all means melee
was the ultimate morale test for a unit. Charging forward to face a brutal death was not for the faint
of heart. As mentioned earlier melee was a rare sight of Napoleonic warfare.

Similarly, just as white-collar workers today often exhibit greater enthusiasm in their tasks when
their CEO walks into an open space office, the presence of a general and being under the watchful
eye of a high-ranking officer made a significant difference in motivating units to act aggressively
and engage in melee. In summary, this OR not only adds a historical touch that enhances realism,
but it also discourages players from being overly aggressive ignoring the personal motivations of
their pixel soldiers, and highlighting the importance to maintain command and control.
 (RH) I agree with the use of this rule but two important notes on this. 1) Cavalry is exempt
from this rule - so if you have some squadrons on a long-range raid they will be able to capture
supply wagons, for example. 2) Detached units are not able to capture Objective Hexes. If they
aren't under the direct control of their superior officer then they aren't going to be making
strategic decisions like what key points to take and hold. This reinforces the underpinning of
all period armies - they had specific command structures for a reason. You can however detach
a unit to hold a position. The smallest cohesive unit is the Brigade. If with their leader the
units will be in command. The leader may be Detached from his superior, but that does not
impact his forces in this regard.

Mixed Organization Penalty (MOP)

This rule effectively portrays the downsides of coordinating units from different organizations. This
issue persists even in modern military operations, as there isn't the same level of cohesion between
different units as within a single unit. In Napoleonic times, this challenge would have been even
greater, considering the lack of real time communication tools and strong sense of regimental loyalty
("esprit de corps") resulting in the rivalries between different regiments, which often hindered
effective coordination.

To demonstrate the cohesion and coordination problems consider two infantry battalions from
different brigades or divisions tasked with assaulting an enemy position: the first battalion is to
attack head-on, while the second is to flank the enemy.

If you're the commanding officer of the first battalion, you might hesitate to rush into the assault.
Instead, you'd likely be more cautious, allowing the flanking battalion to engage first. This seems
reasonable, as the flanking battalion should endure fewer casualties, so letting them to initiate the
action makes sense. By charging ahead first, you risk drawing enemy fire and bearing a higher
chance of personal failure, while the flanking battalion may join later with fewer losses and claiming
the victory.

A battalion commander concerned about his career would be reluctant to push hard forward without
waiting for the second battalion to attack. The issue is, the second battalion commander faces the
same incentives. Consequently, both battalions might proceed cautiously, causing the brilliant plan
of engaging the enemy head-on and flanking them to fail.

When both battalion commanders are from the same regiment, they're likely to have cooperated
successfully before, building the necessary bonds and trust through various combat situations,
bivouacs and social gatherings. If they're from the same brigade but different regiments, their
shared experience and personal connection might be limited. Moving up, away from the brigade
level, the chances of effective cooperation diminish further at accelerated rate.

Adding to the complexity, battalion commanders lead hundreds of individuals, each with their
motivations to avoid the risk of leading the charge. Orders were never executed with mathematical
precision, consistency, or standard timing. Anyone who has served in the military knows that factors
like personal motivation can lead to varying levels of effectiveness.

Overall, this OR simulates the reduced level of cohesion via morale mechanics inevitably leading to
a reduced combat effectiveness of units from different brigades stacked together.
Optional Melee Resolution (OMR)

With the MDF optional rule enabled Turns are already broken down into phases so this OR becomes
obsolete. In case you have exceptionally strong feelings about MDF and disable it, it is strongly
recommended to have OMR rule enabled as it prevents historically inaccurate blitzkrieg tactics.

(RH) - This is my preferred rule and in fact it renders MDF "obsolete", as it was introduced
much later!

Strict Line of Sight (SLOS)

In the game, players already possess a notable advantage compared to historical commanders since
the in-game maps are flawlessly accurate. In reality, commanders relied on their own cartographer
units to survey potential battle areas and reconciling it to whatever maps were available and these
were often of a questionable quality.

Furthermore, obviously Napoleonic era commanders lacked the ability to instantly pinpoint
locations and gain immediate Line of Sight information. Assessing sight lines required a staff officer
to be dispatched, who would either conduct the assessment themselves or delegate the task to a
nearby unit. This process consumed time as messengers had to travel back and forth.

Hence, this OR eliminates the unrealistic "god's eye" effect from the game, making it more in line
with historical realities.

(RH) - As mentioned, we have a mixture of agreement and disagreement - but the beauty is
that various combinations of the OR's can be used in order to make the game system behave
the way you wish.

Follow up comments as of 1/20/24:

Since creating the original article, I've reevaluated my approach, influenced by recent Play-By-Email
(PBEM) experiences.

A major drawback of using Manual Defensive Fire (MDF) is that it permits units to move from one
dead zone to another without facing any fire, as the defensive fire occurs only after the movement
phase.

Another downside of phased play becomes apparent in rearguard actions or tactical situations,
where a small unit of up to ~50 men can project Zone of Control (ZOC) and block larger formations
from advancing within the turn. However, in Turns mode, such a small unit is likely to be eliminated
by offensive fire within the turn, clearing the way and making battles less predictable and linear.

My second reflection concerns the flanking morale modifier. The morale-boosting impact of this rule
is in fact limited since units pushed back by melee rarely find support from both flanks. On the other
side the benefit of this optional rule is that it allows holding positions and advancing in solid echelons
while under enemy artillery fire, with less likely of being routed by a single lucky shot.

Another consideration is the column pass-through fire. After some further testing post the 4.07
patch, I am convinced that having this optional rule ON improves the game flow. The primary reason
is that it penalizes players for using less historical tactics of moving large stacks of infantry and
relying on deadly mass melees. Also, in the 4.07 patch, the losses of units within the stack not
originally targeted have been reduced by 50%, and after extensive PBEM testing, I believe that this
optional rule strikes the right balance between artillery firepower and reliance on melee.

The final change in my perspective pertains to line movement restriction. Disabling this optional
rule creates extra motivation to deploy into line, leading to a more positive impact on the flow of
battles, as players now have an additional factor encouraging reliance on firepower over melee.

Regardless of the choice, the beauty of the WDS optional rules system lies in its flexibility, offering
players a choice in their preferred gameplay style.

Below is my version of the OR for Turns mode:

Specialist Training
Infantry Deployment Principles and Tactics

(RH) This section was written prior to the release of 4.08. So, most of the details pertain to
4.07x, but the concepts apply to 4.08 and beyond.

In this section we step into the smoke-filled battlefields of the Napoleonic series and dig into the
heart of Napoleonic infantry tactics, focusing on musket firepower (FP) covering the basic and
advanced principles showcasing the remarkable historical accuracy of WDS Napoleonic series.

We begin with fundamentals of musket FP values, listing the factors players should be aware of and
emphasizing the importance of tailored tactics based on the capabilities of your troops.

Advancing into more advanced topics, we navigate the complexities of battalion formations,
uncovering the impact of company sizes on overall FP value. We also explain the significance of the
1/3, 1/4, and 1/5 column modifier PDT values, demonstrating how battalion sizes influence the
effectiveness of musketry. This offers a behind-the-scenes glimpse into the incredibly realistic design
of the game engine.

We then take a deep dive into the 2-rank British formation, examining its unique features and the
tactical implications for players leading the British army. This section covers battalion sizes,
frontage limitations, and details the reasons behind the British preference for relying on musket-
based combat over melee.

We conclude by sharing tactical tricks and tips for optimizing your infantry deployment specifically
for musket use. Whether it's detaching skirmish companies or deploying into extended line
formations, we provide players with the knowledge and a practical guide to make informed decisions
on the virtual battlefield.
Understanding Musket Firepower Values
Starting with very basics; the musket FP output is driven by four aspects:

I. The musket FP PDT values. These are found in the PDT dialog and WEC files with musket FP
values ranging from 2 FP at 1 hex for conscripts (any nation) to 6 FP for British infantry. The
common musket FP for standardly trained infantry is 5.
It is important to be aware of the FP values of each of your divisions and it should be the driver
behind your chosen infantry tactics. When starting scenarios, inspect the FP values of your units.
For units made of conscripts with musket FP of 2, don’t expect them to win any firefights or cause
any material damage to the enemy. Bayonet is to be used. Likewise, leading the British army with
FP of 6 should make you think twice before you commit your redcoat battalions into a melee.
For standard trained infantry (FP 5) the weapon of choice, if the tactical situation permits and all
things being equal, should also be the musket. This is especially true for long scenarios and
Campaigns where losses are carried over from battle to battle. Using muskets spares fatigue and
causes enemy losses without damaging your own units which is always the case in melee.
Nevertheless, various operational and tactical considerations, such as timing, enemy reinforcement
positioning, the threat of enemy artillery, and many others, also play a crucial role and each tactical
situation is unique.

II. There are also FP modifiers to be aware of, which can be found in the user manual. These
modifiers can be grouped into several types such as terrain modifiers found in PDT dialog, disorder
status, fatigue, the type of targeted enemy unit and the quality of the unit firing. For example, A-
quality units have +20% incentive to prefer musket use over melee, as their FP is adjusted by a
quality modifier. Refer to the user manual and PDT files for further details on firing modifiers.

III. The formation factor is the easiest to grasp as there are only four:
• The Line: with some possible FP penalties due to frontage limitations discussed further
below.
• The column: with FP penalty being determined by PDT parameter: Column Fire modifier
being 1/3 or 1/4 or 1/5 depending on the game or scenario.
• The square: with -75% FP penalty.
• The skirmish formation: with -25% FP penalty.

IV. The last FP aspect is a battalion size and is a more complex topic covered below.

Battalion Size Impact on FP

A company constitutes the lowest tactical unit in the game series. Players have direct control over
skirmish companies, operating as separate counters, but do not get to see and control the companies
within their formed battalions. The breakdown by company is handled in the background, and the
aspect of company sizes plays a significant role in the battalion's FP ability.

All infantry battalions are composed of 6 or 10 companies, depending on the title and determined by
PDT parameter below:
What this parameter means is that in this case, formed infantry is assumed to be composed of 6
companies, 1/3 of which take the position in the front as shown on the image below:

There are four battalions in the image of 6 companies each, formed in column and having two (being
1/3 column modifier) companies in front.

While in column formation, infantry is always assumed to have two companies in the front. In the
case below the game [Campaign Eylau] assumes that battalions are made of 8 companies in total
and likewise only 2 (being 1/4 column modifier) companies are taking the front:

Hence, a battalion in column would have its companies positioned behind the scenes in the following
manner:

Similarly, in case of 1/5 Column modifier from PDT [in the case of Campaign Waterloo], battalions
would be made of 10 companies, with 2 companies taking the front and 8 companies positioned at
the back.

Now let’s see why this matters and how it impacts FP values. For the purpose of the FP mechanics
explanation, the discussion below will take the example of 1/3 column modifier where all infantry
battalions are assumed to be composed of 6 companies.

Naturally the battalions’ size directly impacts the company’s size. For example, a 1100-size battalion
consisting of 6 companies, each made up of 183 troops [1100/6]. Similarly, a 6-company battalion of
540, will have its companies made of 90 troops [540/6].

Another consideration is the frontage, represented by a 100-meter hex, which allows a maximum of
540 troops to be deployed in line formation covering a 100m front to use their muskets effectively.
Below is an image of a 540-size, 3-rank infantry battalion formed in line, composed of 6 companies
of 90 troops each:
In this case, a 540-size battalion maximizes the use of the 100m hex, allowing its troops to effectively
use their muskets, resulting in a firepower of 2700 [540 * 5 FP musket value].

For any 3-rank infantry battalion exceeding the size of 540, it would not be possible to fit all troops
within the 3-ranks positioned along the 100m front. Consequently, some troops must be positioned
to the rear. This is behind-the-scenes process handled by the engine algorithm and players are not
involved in managing company level formations.

The placing of soldiers to the rear of the first three ranks is not carried out at the individual soldier
level but at the company level, which is the lowest tactical unit within the game. The image below
illustrates how the formation would appear for a 720-sized battalion:

Each company consists of 120 troops. Only four companies can fit into a 100m front. As can be seen
in the image, the 5th and 6th companies cannot be accommodated within the frontage and must
take positions at the back, which means they are masked by the first three ranks and unable to use
their muskets. As a result, their firepower is effectively wasted, and only the 480 troops from the
four companies at the front can fire their muskets, yielding a firepower of 2400 [480 * 5].

Now taking the most extreme example of 1100 battalion size:

It gets worse. The companies are now 183 troops in each. Only two out of the six companies can be
positioned at the front, while the remaining four must take positions at the back. This results in a
9-rank deep formation. Consequently, the battalion's firepower output is reduced, with only 1830
FP from the 1100 troops [183 * 2 * 5].

This is how the game engine handles formed companies within each battalion for the purpose of
musket FP calculation, showcasing the remarkable realism of the WDS Napoleonic series. While
these behind-the-scenes details may not be apparent, understanding them can significantly enhance
your decision-making during a battle, allowing you to deploy your infantry with maximum efficiency.

Below is another image showing four battalions of different sizes formed in line over one hex front
and PDT Column Fire modifier being 1/3 [means there are 6 companies in each battalion]:

(RH) There is a mechanism within the engine that will allow you to break large battalions in
half in order to occupy two hexes, if you wish, and not have “wasted” firepower. It is called
“Extended Line” and essentially gives you two separate units. They are however one for
administrative (command) purposes and so there is restrictions upon them. Namely they must
remain within 3 hexes of each other at all times. If one part routs away, it can only move closer
to the other half.

As evident, a larger battalion may not necessarily possess a higher FP. It's not merely about the
number of men but, more importantly, the number of companies that can be deployed along the 100-
meter front. Below table summarizes FP metrics for various battalion sizes composed of 6 companies
each:
(the table is for 3-rank infantry, PDT musket FP value of 5 and PDT column modifier being 1/3)

For titles with PDT Column Fire modifier 1/4 and 1/5 companies would be smaller [8 for 1/4 and 10
for 1/5], so more companies can fit into the 100m frontage but the concept would be the same.

The column on the far right gives you an at-a-glance idea of how effectively each battalion utilizes
its theoretical FP. It is important to note that 67% represents the maximum theoretical number of
troops that can fire in a 3-rank infantry, as the third rank is considered to masked. Hence:
 • Any battalion 540 and below will have 67% of its troops using their muskets
• For battalions ranging from 541 to 650, one of its companies [100/6=17%] is positioned at the
back, allowing only 55% of its muskets to be used with one company FP being wasted
• A battalion of size 651-810 will have two of its companies positioned behind the first four.
• Battalions of size 811-1080 will have half of the companies at the back, resulting in only a
33% FP output.
• The worst performers, in the range of 1081-1100, with only 22% (2 companies), are able to
use their muskets.

Things to note that, the battalion of 540 has the same FP as battalion of 650 (2700) and similar FP
to a battalion of 1075 (2685).

2-Rank Infantry
The above section was focused on 3-rank infantry formations. Now, let's turn our attention to the
2-rank formation used by the British infantry. The image below illustrates two companies of 90
soldiers each, arranged in both 2-rank and 3-rank formations:

In the case of a 3-rank formation, only the first two ranks would be firing their muskets, with the
third rank considered to be masked. Consequently, only 60 troops can fire (67% ratio shown in the
table further up). In contrast, a 2-rank formation allows all 90 troops to fire, yielding 50% more
firepower (90 vs. 60) than a 3-rank formation. This is precisely how the game engine handles 2-
rank infantry FP, allocating a +50% FP modifier to 2-rank infantry.

Overall, to underline the superior firepower doctrine of the British army the game engine uses two
elements:

• the musket FP is 6 at 1 range (vs FP of 5 and below for other armies).

• The FP value of 2-rank British battalions is adjusted by +50%.
Putting this into perspective, consider British elite units with a +20% quality A modifier, resulting
in a staggering 3888 FP per 360 battalion formed in line. This remarkable FP output suggests that
these elite units should be primarily rely on musketry in combat rather than committed into melee.

For the British army, lower quality troops of quality E and D should be the preferred units to be
thrown into melee. They cannot be relied upon in defense and do not have the superior FP of 6.
Therefore, bayonet assault is the best use you can get out of these troops. They can form assaulting
stacks stationed behind the main resistance line, supported by skirmishers to maximize stacking to
avoid disorder by routed friendlies. These stacks should serve as melee elements of the British army,
sparing the melee losses amongst 2-rank formation units and preserving these troops to fire their
muskets later in the day.

For the musket FP element of the British army, the following stacks should be deployed as a
standard FP focus stack: a 2-rank formed infantry battalion made of 360 troops (not above),
supported by two or three skirmish companies of up to 225 troops and positioned on top of the stack:

The Foot Guards stack on the above image yields up to ~5500 FP:

• Three skirmishes companies of 70 = 3*70*6*150%*120%*75% = ~1700 FP

• A half battalion of 351 troops formed in line = 351*6*150%*120% = ~3790 FP

(RH) It’s worth noting that the above example is exceptionally close
to reaching the stacking threshold for skirmishers where they will no
longer receive the skirmisher benefits. That threshold is 1/8 stacking
limit and in most games that is 225 men. This value is displayed in
the PDT file as well. In the event this threshold is exceeded the word
“Skirmish” will turn yellow, as in this example at left. Also, generally
speaking most armies would deploy skirmishers well in advance of
their forces, to delay and “bleed” approaching troops.

On average, the above stack will cause 41 losses when firing at the enemy infantry column on the
offensive (if moved), and 82 losses (if stationary) on the defensive when being attacked by melee. On
the defensive, such a volley can put an enemy column near the medium fatigue zone before the melee
even begins.
On the defensive, these FP stacks can be positioned on the reverse slope, side by side (especially if
you play with flank morale modifier ON), creating a solid wall of fire, selling their position dearly to
anyone daring to melee them. If you stick to in-depth positioning, even if pushed by melee, the
artillery positioned in the next line can fire canister at the attackers, followed by a counterattack
from the melee stack advancing from a reserve line defeating the disordered attackers.

The reverse slope position is also justified by the fact that British 9-lbs will mostly find themselves
outgunned by the French Artillery Reserve, made of heavy 12-lb guns. Hence, the British usually do
not stand a chance to win a counterbattery duel and are best to revert to Wellington’s favorite tactics
of taking a reverse slope position as shown below:

The suggested defensive deployment where:

1. The fire element of the division: 2-rank infantry in a line formation positioned behind the
ridge (in reversed slope). Each stack is supported by skirmishers at the top of the stack to
maximize musket FP.

2. The melee element of the division: 3-rank quality E infantry in columns positioned two
hexes behind. Each of the two hexes are stacked with 4 guns to provide canister support
before launching a counterattack. The stacks are positioned at near maximum capacity to
prevent friendly units from routing through and disordering the stack.

3. The fire element reserve: 2-rank infantry deployed in a line, ready to support the
counterattack with muskets. These two battalions are stacked with a 6-gun battery, prepared
to deliver a canister volley on the attackers.

4. The cavalry reserve is stacked at near maximum, positioned at the charging distance from
the first line.
Overall, leading the British army requires the most adaptation in tactics. It is very fragile if deployed
not to its strength. However, focusing on its strength, it can be fun to lead, and the British FP
doctrine will pay off eventually.

The downside of the 2-rank formation is its increased space requirement along the front, resulting
in a lower number of companies a British battalion can fit into one hex—limited to a maximum of
360 troops:

The frontage per company rules remains the same as for 3-rank infantry. Any company unable to fit
into the 100-meter frontage will be positioned behind the front row of companies. The example below
illustrates this for a 2-rank battalion of size 540:

Optimizing Your Infantry Deployment

The key takeaway is that if the tactical situation demands musket use, it is advisable to choose a
540-sized battalion to engage the enemy for 3-rank infantry and a 360-sized battalion for 2-rank
infantry.

While it is not feasible to shuffle troops between battalions to arrive at the optimal size, there are a
couple of tactical tricks around this. The following steps are outlined for 3-rank infantry, but the
same would be true for 2-rank infantry:

For 541-648 battalions: to arrive at the optimal below 540 battalion we can simply detach a
skirmish company to reduce the headcount below 541. This works for Non-restricted/Light/Guard
infantry. Once detached, the light company should be positioned in front of the formed battalion (at
the top of the stack) to contribute to the battalion’s FP but in skirmish formation.

For 649+ battalions: you can arrive at the optimal FP unit via two steps. Taking the example of
775 size battalion:
 Step 1: - go into extended line, ending up with two half battalions
of 388 (a) and 387 (b)

Step 2: Detach a skirmish company from one half battalion (a)

and reattach it to the other half battalion (b), resulting in one
battalion of 516 and another of 259. Step two is optional, but if
you need a unit with decent FP, then a 516-sized unit is preferred
over 387. This step only works for Non- restricted/Light/Guard
infantry.

Step 3: Half battalion [b] of

259 troops can detach
another light company and
position it in front of the half battalion [a]. This would result
in the following units within the hex, from top to bottom of the
stack: a light company of 129 [being 775/6] in skirmish
formation, half battalion [a] of 516 troops formed in line, and
half battalion [b] of 130 formed in line.

Now, with this formation, the battalion has achieved optimal FP and can rely on its muskets if
attacked, presenting a formidable target for the enemy to melee. The downside is its vulnerability
to enemy artillery, which can cause damage to both formed units. Therefore, it is advisable to seek
a reverse slope position, as shown in the image.
It's important to note that going into the extended formation takes two turns. Take advantage of the
time in the next PBEM battle if you have large battalions stationed in the reserve. Assign them the
reorganization task to optimize the battalion structure. There's also an upside in fatigue
accumulation when going into extended, as fatigue points are spread amongst more counters
minimizing the odds of going over medium/high fatigue threshold.

(RH) There are some drawbacks to operating in stacks like this. One is, susceptibility to
artillery fire, as Alex notes. Additionally, you are now covering a smaller frontage. This might
not be an issue if you have a large force – in the tens of thousands – to work with, but if you
have less troops you may very well need to cover a wider front. And relocating is not always
an option to find better supporting terrain. And finally, operating in stacks can make them
easier to surround and Isolate. And once a unit becomes Disordered and Isolated – surrender
is not far away. There’s always pros and cons to every situation, so you’ll have to weigh things
with each situation you are presented with.

Artillery Deployment Principles and Tactics

Artillery, with its ability to project formidable firepower over long distances, should play the key
role in determining the location for Main Resistance Line (MRL) on the defense and determining
the axis of advance on the offensive. Accordingly, it provides the backbone of the armies’ deployment,
and this is in line with historical realities as battles often revolved around Key Artillery Positions
(KAPs). The Raevski redoubt at Borodino serves as a prime example of a KAP strategically
positioned at the center with an advantageous field of fire.

Whether on the offensive or defensive, choosing the right KAP can create lethal killing zones, forcing
the enemy to abandon their positions. Let’s explore the essential principles and practical cases on
how to manage artillery effectively within the game.

Firepower
Beginning with the basics: field artillery comes in various sizes, ranging from 3-lb to 12-lb (or higher
in some instances). Each type of artillery has its own Firepower (FP) at different ranges. It is crucial
to familiarize oneself with the artillery park available for each scenario and to understand the FP
values each piece possesses at different distances.

To access this information, you can press F2 when in the game and open the PDT dialog, which
contains comprehensive FP tables for various nations and artillery types.

However, this can be impractical in scenarios with numerous gun types and the PDT is not the most
user-friendly report to navigate. Fortunately, for most of the titles, game developers provide
summary tables in the form of a WEC pdf (Weapon Effect Chart) found in the manuals folder. Make
sure to keep this pdf open whenever you start a scenario and have it open as you progress through.

(RH) With the release of the 4.07 updates the WEC has been incorporated with the Summary
Info document under the General Help menu option (pressing F1).
Using the WEC table is vital when deciding where to position your guns. For instance, heavier 12lb
guns, like the French 12-lb, have longer ranges and remain quite deadly up to 6 hexes (FP 4.8). At
further ranges their firepower drops off. This has implications on the artillery deployment and
targets prioritization. Elevated positions with good arcs of fire should be prioritized for 12-lb
batteries. On the other hand, lighter pieces have only marginally lower (20-25% less) FP at shorter
ranges of 1-2 but significantly lower (~-50%) at mid to longer ranges. Accordingly, it is best to deploy
these lighter batteries in positions where they are more likely to face enemy assaults, such as behind
earthworks and on the MRL.

(RH) A tool which was incorporated as of the 4.02 versions is a Range Check tool. This can be
helpful when determining placement locations for your artillery batteries, among other things.
To use simply click a hex on the map as the starting point, press and hold the Shift key and
then left-click and hold on a distant hex. The distance between the two points will be displayed.
The display clears when you release the mouse button. This coupled with the "Visible Hexes"
(Hotkey V) will give you both range and LOS data in a single image, like the one below.
Another illustrative example highlighting the importance of the FP values table is the use of
howitzers. Shorter range does not necessarily mean higher FP. Taking the example of the Prussian
7-lb howitzer: these guns have higher FP at ranges of 5-8 then other similar caliber standard
artillery. Consequently, the ideal position for a Prussian 7lb howitzer battery is 7 hexes away from
the enemy, where it can maintain FP of 4 and operate safely from the enemy's reach.

For some titles WEC pdf is not available and it is recommended to create your own table using Excel
or some other spread sheet program so it can be referred to as the scenario progresses.

(RH) We now have Fractional Fire values available in the PDT files. What this means is
instead of having a radical drop off from a "5" to "1" within a one hex space, and then
remaining at one for several more hexes until the max range is achieved - we can gradually
step this down in increments. Solid shot would gradually lose momentum as it traveled - either
through the air or bouncing on the ground - but not suddenly become less lethal over a couple
of meters. These fractional fire values have been implemented in the "Standardized" PDT files
for all titles as of the 4.08 round of updates.
Artillery Deployment
As mentioned in the introduction, dominating artillery positions often serve as the backbone of army
deployments where infantry is positioned in support of artillery, and the overall disposition is
anchored on Key Artillery Positions, abbreviated as KAPs.

Any scenario should be started with terrain analysis, identifying KAPs. The element to consider is
the arcs of fire for artillery. In fact, artillery perceived threat is as equally important as the actual.
This applies to both offensive and defensive operations, as players are rarely willing to hold positions
under artillery fire and are more likely to abandon the killing zone. Likewise, spotting the 36th
heavy gun battery positioned on an elevated site, behind a stream, with an open field of fire over 10
hexes, would effectively lock this zone for the enemy as assaulting head on would be extremely costly.

Below is the example of Raevski redoubt from the Borodino scenario. The killing zone is 6 hexes long
after which there is low ground with no line of sight. If assaulted frontally it would take the French
infantry two turns to make it through the killing zone. Maximizing the length of the killing zone
should be the top priority when considering Key Artillery Positions (KAPs).
Identifying KAPs should occur during Turn 1, before any movement takes place. Doing so earlier in
the game as a priority helps to avoid unproductive artillery movements. Thus, it is best to assign
batteries to their respective KAPs during Turn 1, before commencing the movement phase.

Key features of KAPs include:

• Elevated positions
• Positions behind impassible terrain (creeks, water)
• Positions in obstructed terrain like woods, villages (questionable from historical perspective
however) *
• Positions behind a defile: infantry can be deployed in a defile either in square or line
formation negating enemy access to the guns but also being concealed from the enemy fire
creating a formidable defensive setup.
• Positions which would enable to fire enfilade. Enfilade losses trigger -2 to the enemy morale
for the purpose of morale check and routing enemy units is the best way to break up their
formations.
• Positions behind broken terrain like walls, hedges, embankments to negate a cavalry charge
bonus.
• Positions behind field hexes which has typically higher movements cost.

* (RH) An important note regarding Artillery handling from 4.07 on. A battery may no longer
unlimber within a Forest hex or Village unless there is a Clear hex bordering that hex. This is to
replicate that the battery would be deployed along the edge of the forest in order to have the
greatest field of fire, but also room to work and have their caissons deployed within reach.
Obstructed terrain did not lend itself to smooth artillery operations. It would also prevent the
battery from limbering up quickly and moving away in the event of a threat. If a battery does
 deploy in such a hex it will not receive the terrain modifier protections (arrow below), for the same
reasons.

Concealing the guns behind your own formations and revealing the guns just before the offensive
fire phase is another historical trick which may have a devastating impact on the enemy morale.
Seeing a large battery unexpectedly appearing on the flank of the attacking force, may trigger a
decision to disengage and pull back. However, once engaged it may be costly and time consuming to
call off the attack presenting the enemy with a difficult dilemma. Sometimes it may be even worth
it to refrain from deploying artillery at your chosen KAP until the enemy is committed into the
relevant sector.

For these reasons, aim to maintain an artillery reserve to disrupt enemy plans or to rectify your own
mistakes when surprised by the enemy.

Stacking, Protecting and Escorting Batteries

As of 4.07, the maximum stacking which will produce FP is 8 guns. It is historically accurate as
batteries took up a lot of space to operate: a typical 8-gun battery would require around 100 meters
to the front allowing for the limbers, the space for the guns and intervals in between to minimize
damage from enemy counterbattery fire and which was needed to rotate guns in order to limber up.
Thus, within the game, 8-gun unlimbered battery requires a full hex to operate, masking any other
units behind it.

The implications of the above is not to stack two batteries of combined size above 8 guns in one hex
as only 8 guns will be able to fire and the rest of FP capacity will be wasted due to space shortage.
To achieve the maximum FP per hex, batteries have to be stacked in a hex making up to 8 guns
maximum, ie one 8-gun battery, two batteries of 4 guns each and so on.

The extended line function can also be used to add flexibility and in case there is a need to cover a
larger front with artillery by breaking up batteries into half batteries. This approach allows for
better coverage across a wider area.

In all cases, protecting artillery batteries from enemy attacks is vital. As a general rule, lighter
pieces are to be deployed at the MRL within the enemy striking distance and always require
protection by infantry.

An optimal one hex stack for MRL would comprise of:

• one artillery half-battery of 4 to 6 guns.

• one large infantry battalion available, formed in line to minimize casualties from enemy fire.
• a couple of skirmish companies to boost the numbers within the hex and improve odds in
melee combat.
• a leader to boost the numbers for melee purposes.

(RH) Using the above image for reference I want to make several comments on the stacking subject.
You need to be aware of the ramifications of choosing to place multiple units in a single hex.

Frontage - Looking at the arrows you will see the value "Front xx%" for both formed units. This is
the amount of the 100-meter frontage this unit takes up when considering ranged fire combat. A 5-
meter gap is calculated between units so in the above example the artillery battery, being the "top"
formed unit gets priority and so all of its guns are able to come to bear utilizing 75% of the available
space along the front. The infantry battalion that is in Line "below" it then only has 16% of the
frontage available to it for use - this is calculated by the number of full companies that can be brought
to bear - so with both the gap accounted for and the men in a full company, and the 3-rank formation
all taken into consideration we are using 91% of the available space to fire from. Unless there is only
one single large unit you will likely never see 100% of the frontage being used. In this example it is
not a huge deal, as the primary purpose in having the deployed infantry unit in the hex is for defense,
not offense. See section 5.3.9 of the User Manual for further details on the newer stacking rules.
Skirmishers - these units must be kept below the 1/8 max stacking limit set forth in the PDT file. If
they go above this they lose the special protections offered to them from the Skirmisher formation. So,
in this case the two companies pictured are considered to be deployed in front of the other units in
loose order so that fire can pass through them without causing casualties.

Leaders - only the highest position leader is used for

calculations. So, if a Divisional commander and Brigade
commander are stacked together only the Divisional commanders
values are going to be used. The leaders position is denoted by the
letter next to their picture. If there is no letter then they are a
"secondary leader" and the only effects they have on game play
are for melee resolution and determining replacement order in
the event of upper echelon casualties. However, all men are placed at risk of becoming casualties. So
it is prudent to only stack multiple leaders in the same hex if you are well out of harms way. You can
read more about Leaders in section 5.4.1 of the User Manual.

Mixed Organization - we addressed this in the first installment, and it comes into play when
creating stacks. You are making a stack to give you a defensive benefit - make sure it is a cohesive
unit, and not a mob made up from all elements of your army! (Artillery are exempt from this rule
precisely for the reasons being
illustrated in this section.)

Heavier batteries are best deployed further to the rear and may not necessarily require infantry
protection within the stack. However, it is best to maintain a distance of up to 9-10 hexes (for 10-
minute turn scenarios) from the enemy lines. This precaution is necessary as the enemy's cavalry
can cover such distance in one charge. It is a good idea to keep a couple of infantry battalions in
reserve next to heavy batteries. In the event of an enemy breakthrough, these reserve units can
move forward and block the enemy's advance using Zones of Control (ZOC).

For further details on in depth deployment refer to “Defense in depth” chapter (to be published in
the third installment).

Finally, during the march while advancing in hostile territory or moving into positions close to the
enemy, it is advisable to stack artillery with a formed unit. This tactic helps to prevent the enemy
from overrunning the guns through sudden cavalry charges.
Field Artillery Types: Horse, Foot and Howitzers
Foot artillery is generally best deployed at KAPs and/or central positions where they are less
expected to maneuver, or at least cover shorter distances in case they need to reposition.

Horse guns are best used on the flanks. They are also the preferred artillery type to be added to a
diversionary task force, which maneuver aggressively to draw enemy attention away from the main
point of the battle.

On the offensive, horse guns can be moved forward in concentrated numbers, creating a local
firepower superiority that imposes a dilemma for the enemy: either call up reserves, abandon their
positions, or be outgunned. In the image below the French player massed 21 horse guns creating a
local FP superiority over 14 Russian guns:

Over the next two turns, four Russian guns were knocked out, and the Russian artillery reserve had
to be dispatched to stabilize the situation.

Howitzers have a unique feature of being able to fire indirectly. However, this type of fire is
notoriously inaccurate and should be used:

• In emergencies, hoping to achieve a lucky hit in the middle of the enemy battle line, causing
routing and disorder.
• Whenever the enemy is formed in dense formations, taking up multiple adjacent hexes.
• And only when there are no ammunition restrictions for the scenario.

However, indirect fire can lead to a good result when its fire is concentrated:
In the above image the French used the three hexes in the defile (marked by white arrows) to
threaten the Russian earthworks behind the stream. There is no direct LOS on the French units as
they are located in the low ground. Anticipating this move, the Russian player had massed 24
Licornes for indirect fire on the defile at optimal distances of 5-6 hexes, maximizing Licornes FP:

After three turns of bombardment, the French infantry had to abandon the defile due to mounting
losses and disorder. So, indirect fire can bring results, but it requires a concentrated effort on the
narrow front.

Ammo
Last point to be considered and not to be overlooked is the ammo stock available. Some scenarios
have restricted amounts of ammo. It should be part of the protocol:

• Checking the ammo stock on Turn 1.

• Assessing the risks of ammo shortage considering the number of turns.

If the ammo stock is found to be insufficient, certain steps can be taken to optimize its usage:

1. Medium range is to be set for artillery defensive fire via Adjust Auto Defensive fire dialog
preventing ammo waste on long range targets. (From the AI Menu within the game.)
2. Targets priority discipline is to be followed which involves refraining from firing at the enemy
unlimbered batteries, skirmishes, leaders and lonely enemy units at the longer ranges.
Summary
1. Have WEC pdf open during the scenario. Create your own FP chart (example in xls file ) in
case WEC pdf is not available. Look up FP values, prioritize and assign artillery positions to
ensure the most effective use of artillery types on the battlefield.
2. Choosing Key artillery positions (KAPs) as early as possible: analyzing terrain and assigning
batteries to its positions.
3. Maintain an artillery reserve.
4. Aim to maximize unit staking numbers on MLR via a combination of artillery, infantry in
line, skirmishes. Always cover your batteries with infantry unless 10 hexes away from the
enemy. Escort guns while on the move where possible.
5. Foot artillery: best positioned on the center of the battlefield. Horse guns on the
flanks/flanking forces/diversionary attacks. Howitzers, can be used for concentrated indirect
fire if ammo stock allows.
6. Check your ammo stock and calculate ammo per turn available.

Cavalry Deployment Principles and Tactics

The Napoleonic era was the last one where cavalry played the key tactical role and arguably this
period was the high-water mark of the cavalry, where ancient warfare technology use was blended
with modern era military science. Notably, the greatest cavalry charge in history was at the 1807
Battle of Eylau, when the entire 11,000-strong French cavalry reserve, led by Joachim Murat,
launched a huge charge on and through the Russian infantry lines. After the Napoleonic wars
cavalry's role and effectiveness on the battlefield significantly diminished.

The tactical abilities of Napoleonic era cavalry are accurately depicted in WDS Napoleonic series.
Using the cavalry arm effectively is the foundation of combined arms doctrine offering wargamers a
rich experience and variety of tactical choices. In this section we cover the principles and tactics of
cavalry deployment, relating it to the historical context and emphasizing the nuances of battle
deployment, charging and leveraging cavalry effectively in simulations of this era's warfare.

Battle Deployment
Whether on the offensive or on the defensive and operating in the critical points of the battle within
10 hexes from the enemy it is recommended to deploy cavalry either to the maximum stacking (either
in the number of troops or number of counters). This is necessary to prevent friendly units routing
through the cavalry formation disordering the stack.

(RH) For the games which feature Regiments for cavalry you should maneuver over long
distances as a single formed unit, to cut down on the number of units you need to move. Break
down into squadrons when coming into contact with the enemy however. Not only is it more
historically accurate, but in the event units become Disordered you may have a couple of
squadrons do so - rather than the entire command.

For similar reason, to prevent disorder by friendlies, cavalry should always be deployed in echelons
of two or three lines deep with at least one, but ideally two hexes in between.

Historically, if too densely deployed, a whole cavalry formation was at risk of being disordered.
Factors like, poor visibility, fear, lack of horsemanship skills, horses/men hit by enemy fire and
natural obstacles created the “domino effect” and compounded the disorder. For that reason, cavalry
needed space to operate effectively, and cavalry commanders aimed to have sufficient gaps (200-
300m) between cavalry echelons (squadrons, regiments, etc.), usually attacking in waves (in lines)
rather in one massive block.

The first day of the Battle of Leipzig is one of the best examples of cavalry charging while failing to
keep distance. At the culmination of the battle, Murat led masses of French cavalry towards the
small hill where the Allied monarchs stood:

“Murat formed all his cavalry into one line of continuous columns of regiments ... either
because he desired to make a great show, or that he held in contempt the weak force which
he presumed to face him, he neglected to arrange any reserve." (Gleig)

“….the main point of his (George Cathcart’s) narrative is the incompetence with which the
attack was mounted. The French cavalry seemed to advance closely bunched together in
columns and certainly in one body only, that is, with no sort of second line or reserve.
Inadequate leadership and discipline allowed them to be thrown into confusion by an
insignificant obstacle and then seized by a panic and fly before a force of light cavalry, which
altogether could not have amounted to 2,000 men.” (Leiven)

In cavalry vs cavalry battles, keeping in depth deployment by echelons with substantial reserve is
the key. An officer of the Grand Duke Constantine Uhlans, Bulgarin, wrote that only those who have
never actually participated in a cavalry battle talk about two opposite masses or lines of cavalry
clashing with each other and fighting until one side was annihilated. Bulgarin wrote that it was not
so, usually one side attacked and the other fled, then the victor and pursuer was counterattacked by
the second line or reserves, overthrown and pursued in its turn. In such environment, in-depth
divisional level formations and reserves were the key to success and this is exactly what players are
expected to do within the game: to form cavalry divisions into multiple echelons with reserves
positioned in-depth.

(RH) Keep in mind, horses were expansive - they take time to raise & train and are very
difficult to replace. The historical commanders knew this and (normally) kept it in mind when
they put the cavalry arm to work. This is why Cavalry are worth so many points within the
game.

Terrain is the essential factor for the cavalry to operate in depth. Watch for open ground where your
cavalry can operate freely, charging and rotating in waves.

On the operational level, while playing large scenarios on large maps or in Campaign mode, cavalry
has two important roles:

• Acting as recon force: light cavalry with smaller squadrons is best suited for the role and to
be dispatched in multiple directions to locate the enemy forces.
• Acting as a main army reserve: a powerful cavalry formation can change the fate of the battle
by being dispatched to the critical points. Guard and Heavy cavalry formations at division
level and above are best suited for the role as it was historically. Generally, division is the
base formation for cavalry operations as this the first organizational level large enough to
deploy cavalry into echelons and be rotated charge after charge. Do not spread your cavalry
into brigades or regiments evenly through the line. Use mass. Divisional level is generally
the first level where the mass can be used.

Cavalry of any type can also act as a screening force shielding the deployment of artillery and
infantry from the enemy, making the enemy guessing about your dispositions and intent.

Charging
In fact, charging should be the last tool to be used by a shrewd cavalry tactician. As with artillery,
cavalry’s perceived threat is equally important as the actual. Cavalries’ mere presence can cause
substantial headache to the enemy:

• Forcing to form square, exposing them to your infantry and artillery fire in combined arms
manner. Cavalry plays the key role in combined arms doctrine where we want all arms
complimenting each other to inflict maximum damage. This tactic hinges on the effective
cavalry use thereby limiting tactical options available to your opponent. Forcing your enemy
to form a square not only makes enemy infantry less mobile but also adds +50% FP bonus to
your artillery effectiveness.
• Prohibiting the enemy from screening their force with skirmishes. Let’s look at the PBEM
example of Quatre Bras battle where 2nd Dutch division is tasked with holding the line as
long as possible until the arrival of allied reinforcements. Identifying lack of cavalry in the
French ranks, the allied player positioned his numerous light troops into a solid line delaying
the French infantry advance.
The French player rectified the situation by ordering a light cavalry brigade to join the infantry. As
soon as the French cavalry was in a striking distance the allied player had to retreat behind the
stream to the north giving up the ground. However, the precious time was lost and arguably, the
excellent Nassau troops of the Dutch division saved the day by holding the line just long enough
until the allied reinforcements arrival. Had the French had the cavalry in place earlier,
supplementing its infantry in this sector from the beginning of the scenario it could have been a
different battle.

• Imposing threat value on the enemy formations making it prone to disorder and routing. This
is especially relevant in a rearguard action: forming a mass to create a substantial threat
value and to disorder and rout the enemy rearguard.

In general, it is advised that you not commit your cavalry into a charge unless the enemy is badly
out of position or is already disordered by friendly artillery fire. Until then it is best to maneuver
aggressively, threatening the enemy lines. Remember, time is rarely a major constraint within the
game series (with the exception of some rearguard actions). Coordination with artillery and infantry
and timing of the attack should be a bigger concern vs rushing the charge asap.

Once decided on the charge, address the following:

• Where do you plan to end the charge: remember that cavalry can continue moving and
meleeing for a total of 3 additional hexes (determined by PDT) that is penetrating the enemy
 lines further beyond his forward line. This type of movement is not blocked by ZOC making
a cavalry a punching power to penetrate deep beyond the first line and eliminating enemy
artillery if unprotected and disrupting the enemy defensive set up overall.
• However, such penetration should never be done by a lonely cavalry regiment stacked into
on hex as this would make them very exposed to isolation. The thing to avoid is the mistake
which British cavalry had done at Waterloo: a mad pursuit into the arms of the enemy’s
reserves with none of their own reserves allocated for a counter charge. Hence the first
echelon of the attacking cavalry has to be backed up by a second (and ideally third) echelon
made of both infantry and cavalry to melee and push away whatever enemy formation is in
their way. A much more disciplined charge would be to send only one or two squadrons, in
continue charge mode, ahead of the main attacking echelon forming a ZOC line ahead and
also having a second echelon of the cavalry in a striking distance ready to counterattack.
• There are exceptions, however. There may be a lightly protected enemy grand battery in
striking distance, destruction of which would generally be devastating to the opponent's
morale. In this case it may be worth it to go all-in.
• Finally, plan for the Command & Control prior to the charge: ideally the brigade leader has
to be placed in the second echelon close enough to keep the charging squadrons in command.

(RH) Keep in mind regardless of whether you engage in melee or not, if your cavalry Charges they
will be Disordered on the next turn and will require time to regroup and return to good order.
Additionally, they incur 15 fatigue points for each hex they traverse while charging. Being overly
aggressive with your troopers can leave them in compromising situations and finding themselves
surrounded and wiped out on subsequent turns. So always keep the future in mind when you
commit your forces.

Before the final charge, while approaching the enemy line from a distance light cavalry can be used
in the first line. Their job is to shield the heavy cavalry from enemy artillery and overrunning the
enemy skirmishes. As of version 4.07 melee losses vs square are halved so it may be worth it to melee
a square with a light squadron disordering it and triggering the melee check due to losses. The
heavies are to follow in the second wave two hexes behind to counter enemy cavalry counter charge
and to deliver the main charging blow.

Light cavalry is the optimal type of cavalry to be used to overrun enemy skirmishes. Hence it is best
to deploy a few squadrons at each sector and in support of the local infantry division Forward Line.
Optionally behind high quality infantry to prevent chain routes or in the lower ground to conceal
them from the enemy. If surprised, the enemy skirmishes may be overrun. Lancers are best as shock
troops used against enemy infantry but it's best to avoid using them for cavalry battles as they get
-25% in defense against cavalry.

Finally, when in pursuit of the enemy, when presented with opportunity to charge the enemy
rearguard, it is best to refrain from charging but enveloping the enemy blocking its axes of retreat
via ZOC. This way you can surround and isolate the enemy in the following turn rather than simply
charging them and pushing them one hex towards their axes of retreat.
Cossacks
Cossacks form a distinctive type of cavalry found exclusively in the Russian army. These smaller
squadrons excel as scouts and screening units. While they are not ideal for defensive roles and
cannot be relied upon to withstand charges, their notable ability for routing makes them particularly
effective as hit-and-run forces. Following a charge, they will become disordered, and when counter
charged or subjected to enemy fire, they tend to break away and rout, swiftly disengaging from the
enemy.

In comparison, regular army cavalry, is typically quality B and will not rout easily but will get
disordered, outpaced, surrounded, isolated and eliminated. Cossacks are a more likely to escape.

See is the snapshot from PBEM where 3 squadrons of Cossacks made a dashing flanking charge on
the enemy grand battery, breaking away the following turn.

To underscore their value, Cossacks are worth as many victory points as heavy guard cavalry.
Consequently, Cossacks should actively seek opportunities to charge enemy cavalry, as neutralizing
enemy horsemen presents a more significant advantage than preserving Cossack. Given their
smaller squadrons, Cossacks are well-suited for rear-guard delaying actions. Even if they get
eliminated, their loss is not a big deal. Offset by the time they have gained for your forces.
 (RH) I would just add, weigh closely the victory point cost of any cavalry - it can quickly
whittle down any point lead you may have obtained if handled too rashly...

Smaller squadrons, referred to as "sotnyas" meaning "hundred," possess a higher counter-to-man

ratio (counters per 1,000 men). This configuration diminishes the Cossacks' shock capabilities but
opens up tactical flexibility in reconnaissance and battlefield maneuver, a principle applicable to all
light cavalry units. The following snapshot from a PBEM battle illustrates Cossacks' key role in this
context.

In this engagement, Cossacks were leading the advance forming the first echelon. The main body
comprised of the regular army dragoons and line infantry followed in two echelons behind. The
leading Cossacks squadron was divided in half to absorb defensive artillery fire, resulting in the loss
of 45 Cossacks. However, this sacrifice shielded the main attacking force composed of line cavalry
and infantry.

Simultaneously, three additional Cossack squadrons enveloped the Italian right flank, posing a
threat to a six-gun battery. With the Cossacks' widespread formation, the advancing forces
presented multiple targets, compelling the Italian commander to reposition and withdraw his
artillery.

In the subsequent turns, the first attacking echelon, composed of Cossacks, charged the enemy
cavalry reserves, causing disorder among their ranks. Although the anticipated loss of this charge
resulted in losses of ~70 Cossack, the overall effect was the disordering of the enemy cavalry in the
sector, including the retreating horse battery. As the main line cavalry followed, routing some of the
Italian cavalry, the Italian forces eventually retreated, ceding the position.

Finally, in pitched battles, break down Cossacks into half squadrons and send them into the enemy
flanks using multiple routes to be a nuisance to the enemy in a small spoiling attacks. Your opponent
will have to dispatch some of his troops to keep Cossacks at bay. Any enemy line units distracted by
Cossacks and not being used in the main point of the battle is your gain.

Advanced Training

Defense in Depth

Defensive actions can be difficult to handle, as being on the defensive often means being
outnumbered and/or outgunned. This is a problem on its own which can be aggravated further by
two common mistakes.

The first one is crowding the defensive line with all available forces to maximize firepower and melee
odds. Consequently, some players find that a significant part of their army is routed after just a few
turns (assuming historical choice of optional rule settings with Rout Limiting disabled). While
there's always a slim probability of an unfortunate series of die rolls where units consistently take
and fail morale checks, statistically, the chances of such an unlucky sequence are extremely slim. It
is most likely the reasoning for such massive routing is in the faulty deployment rather than an act
of an evil spirit or “unrealistic” game mechanics. While luck most likely favors large battalions, these
have to be deployed properly in the first place.

The second mistake involves leaving gaps within the defensive line, offering the attacking side
opportunities to exploit these openings by flanking, isolating, and penetrating further to the rear,
disrupting the defensive setup. This oversight is quite common, especially among less experienced
players.

The following section covers the defense in depth concept which aims to address the defense
challenge and provide players with a tactical doctrine for an infantry divisions defensive
deployment. While it’s good to have the theory, keep in mind that in practice battlefield deployment
will be complicated by various aspects like terrain, your own and enemy force composition, timing,
weather, fog of war, command and control disruptions, etc. So, there is never a guaranteed recipe
for success. That’s the nature of unpredictability in warfare very well mirrored in the WDS
Napoleonic series. However, systematic execution of superior tactical doctrines will eventually pay
off.

Infantry Division deployment in defense

The optimal in-depth defense is where divisions are deployed into three echelons:

1. Forward Line (FL)

2. Main Resistance Line (MRL)
3. Reserve Line (RL)

The following image shows a Russian infantry division from the 1812 Campaign deployed in depth.

Note the 800 meter frontage of the MRL for a division consisting of 12 battalions. This is a rough
but critical benchmark for in-depth defense. The formula is to be kept into consideration when
assessing a frontage to be defended: 1 hex requires 1.5 battalions for defense in depth. Hence a
division of 8 battalions would ideally cover only 5 hexes. Any deployment below this standard is not
likely to hold in case of the determined assault so the critical points of the line should always adhere
to this standard. If there are not enough troops to form such density it is strongly recommended to
seek another defensive line with shorter frontage.

Pay attention to the continuous Zone of Control (ZOC) line at the MRL. There are no gaps to exploit
and if such gaps occur due to enemy action then every attempt should be made to restore the
integrity of the line.

While it is important to aim for in depth positioning to secure the front one has to keep an eye for
the flanks. Seek for defensive positions which have flanks covered by friendly forces, obstructed or
impassable terrain: edges of the map, water hexes, creeks, swamps or at least woods, villages or high
ground covered by streams. The in-depth position may stop the attackers frontally but if the flanks
can be easily exploited the defensive line will crumble. Difficult terrain swarmed with skirmishes
should demotivate the attacker from even attempting to outflank you.

(RH) I personally consider it poor form to use the map edge to secure your line, in all but the
smallest scenarios (No offense Alex!). There is no map edge in reality - if you aren't in a good
spot where you are, relocate and find another.
Pay attention to the two hexes space between FL > MLR > Reserve Line. In case any unit is pushed
back by melee and routed, the fleeing troops will not spread the panic to the next line. This is the
critical aspect for in depth positioning and mirrors the historical deployment already discussed in
the section on Optional rules, in particular Rout Limiting.

The choice of battalions for each line could be the following:

1. FL: light infantry in skirmish order and formed light infantry of quality B up to 200
headcounts in square/line formation. Their role is to delay, disrupt and to shield the MRL
forcing the enemy to maneuver “under the guns” from your MRL.
2. MRL: large line infantry battalions of no less than C quality.
3. RL: battalions of D quality (and below) quality cannot be expected to hold MRL, but in melee
and musket FP they are just as good as any other battalion hence these should be kept in RL
in column formation ready to counterattack.

(RH) Something that may not be clear to someone who doesn't play this system often is the effect
of Zones of Control or ZOC. In the marked-up image below I have placed two blue arrows depicting
French cavalry charges through the deployment. The one to the left is able to overrun the Russian
skirmish unit and proceed to confront the MRL. It is stopped before that stack however, as it is
now in one of the two forward facing hexes that comprise the ZOC exerted by those units. The
green rectangles represent each stack’s ZOC - which forms a solid line.

So, the attacking unit(s) have been halted at the MRL this round and may or may not choose to
initiate melee. On the subsequent turn the defender must adjust their forces though, either moving
the line back a hex, or bringing up reserves. If they do not then the attacking stack is able to move
through the gap and towards their RL.
 The second blue arrow is another French charge, but this time we assume the center Russian unit
has formed Square. When it does that a ZOC is exerted into all 6 surrounding hexes, and so the
charge must stop when it gets adjacent. The downside for the defenders is threefold, however. They
now can only present a 25% fire effectiveness from each side of the square; they can only move a
single hex at a time, and they are also more vulnerable to artillery & musket fire.

Let’s look at each line in detail.

Forward Line (FL)

Location: two hexes ahead of the MRL.

It is recommended to use light battalions where possible to create a FL. Once the light companies
are detached and assigned their positions, the parent battalions of below 200 men can be used to
form a FL. The light battalions are often quality B which makes them perfect outfits to deploy in the
FL for number of reasons:

• They will not rout easily.

• They project ZOC as any other formed unit.
• They do not have significant combat value being only 100-200 in terms unit size and their
loss will not hamper overall combat readiness of the division.
• They do not represent many VPs so there are not too many VPs to lose.
 (RH) As of 4.07 Light & Guard units are now able to break completely down into skirmish
companies, so you don't have to have a remaining formed unit as the parent. Multiple benefits
here and the companies can still recombine as needed. This can potentially reduce the beating a
parent unit would take when deployed forward like in this example.

The purpose of the FL is not to stop but:

• To delay the enemy.

• To disorganize the enemy main attack plan.
• To expose the main attacking body to the fire power (FP) from my MLR artillery forcing the
enemy to storm the FL under canister fire.
• To block enemy cavalry via forming squares (provided >100 headcount).
• To force the enemy to deploy their artillery batteries at the greater distance from my MLR.

A good historical example would be at the battle of Borodino a light brigade of the 27th infantry
division was positioned in front of the fletches. Historically, the French could not attack fletches
until they cleared the FL of the Russian position and this is the first obstacle a French player is
facing while attempting to storm Russian left flank in Borodino scenario from Napoleon’s Russian
Campaign.

Another alternative to the deployment shown in the image is to form squares preventively to create
a continuous ZOC in front of the FL. In this case the squares should have a leader stacked with them
to lower the probability of routing.

In a real Play-By-Email (PBEM) scenario, maintaining a parade-like formation in depth would prove
to be quite challenging. Here's an example from a PBEM campaign set in 1807:
The Russian FL is made of two squares one hex ahead of MRL. However, there is no continuous ZOC
in between as the square in the center was routed creating a gap in the FL. Also, the FL is no longer
two hexes ahead of MRL as squares were already assaulted and pushed one hex back.

To rectify the situation, the Russian commander committed two cavalry regiments to a charge from
the rear of the RL, to provide support for the FL and reestablish an unbroken ZOC line.

The first row of the French attacking body was already in a bad shape due to disorder from melee
against the FL and canister fire from MRL earthworks as the French had to assault the FL under
artillery fire. Also, the French were attacking in one body, rather than in waves (this is discussed in
detail in the next chapter), so their units are stacked next to each other making them vulnerable to
a panic spreading and disorder.

The cavalry charge was a success, and two French battalions were routed spreading disorder and
routing to numerous French units behind them. Note, the squadron of Russian dragoons (cavalry
unit with D letter on it) ahead of the FL. This one was sent one hex forward in “continue charging”
mode to create ZOC ahead and shield the rest of the regiment and the nearby square from the enemy
counterattack. This tactic was covered in the previous blog post on cavalry tactics. Consequently,
the French player had to call off the attack due to broken formation and disorder in the ranks.

In this action:

• FL did its job in holding the enemy and forcing them to assault the line under the canister
fire from MRL
• MRL provided the fire support to FL
• RL was represented by the victorious dragoons and hussars charging the disordered French
units from the depth of the position.

Critical thing to watch while deploying skirmish companies in the FL (or on the offensive for that
matter): do not expose your skirmishes to enemy cavalry, especially if you have lightly protected
batteries at the rear. Example in first image below: The French player deployed a skirmish company
two hexes ahead of the 7-gun battery, which was also without formed infantry protection (only one
skirmish company in the hex).
The following turn, a previously unspotted squadron of 145 hussars approached the French
skirmishes (yellow arrow) using the Charge function and stopped in front of the company but NOT
overrunning them. In the melee phase the skirmishes were meleed and pushed aside opening a route
towards the battery in the “continue charging” mode (purple arrow). The melee phase ended (the
second image) with the French battery being eliminated by hussars. Only a few dozen of which
survived the charge but eliminating a key artillery position in this sector. In conclusion, watch the
space between your skirmishes in the FL and your guns at the rear and protect the guns with formed
battalions at all times.

(RH) If playing with Turns and the embedded Melee phase the cavalry squadron would have
charged the whole distance and overrun the skirmishers - completely eliminating them -
ending the charge movement in front of the artillery battery (based on the number of hexes
that had to be covered). In the melee phase they could then attack the battery and eliminate it.

Outside of the elimination of the skirmishers the difference would be the fire they took. In
phases the defending player would get to fire volleys with both the target battery, and likely
the one to its right as well - and possibly others not pictured. In Turns opportunity fire would
occur while the charge was being conducted, and a final fire would likely be triggered when
the melee was initiated.
Main Resistance Line
As the name suggests this is where we aim to break the attack, and this is where we concentrate
most of our FP deploying the divisional artillery. In case of 8- or 12-gun batteries it may be worth to
go into extended line (as per the image) and keep only 4 or 6 guns in each defended hex. In case of a
lost melee the damage is less significant. Still, having artillery in the MLR is risky. There is a safer
option to deploy the artillery further to the rear along with battalions of the RL compromising the
FP of MRL.

The larger line battalions are the best to be deployed in the hexes with batteries of the MRL to
maximize the density of the hex and to improve our odds in case of melee. To boost the numbers
further it is suggested to pack MRL with 1-2 companies of light infantry as it gives more numbers
for the purpose of melee and making it costly and risker for the attacker. Skirmishes also add some
FP to the MLR. This is what the image is showing with 6-gun battery + 450 formed battalion + 58
jagers.

(RH) Worth noting that in the image above the skirmish company would be "masked" behind
the battery and the formed infantry in Line. So, while they would defend in melee in this
arrangement, in order for them to be able to fire they need to be placed "On top" of the stack.

A further comment as well - I generally play with the Flank Morale Modifier rule selected as
well as the Target Density & Column Pass Through Fire rules. Couple this with the revised
Stacking rules in 4.07.1 and I feel you are better served in spreading your forces out, a bit.
 Still in depth, but instead of 3 strong stacks I would have a frontage of say 5 battalions
deployed in Line, in adjacent hexes. My artillery would be deployed to the rear - preferably on
a higher elevation - but if on the same level I can create gaps in the line to allow fire lanes to
be used. This allows me to bring the most muskets to bear at one time on any attacking forces.
But, as in the larger discussion, reserves are imperative.

Reserve Line
To be placed 2-3 hexes behind the MRL. These units are to rotate disordered and fatigued battalions
of the MRL. There is also a counterattacking task force to be formed made of 2-3 battalions in column
formation. I tend to keep a battalion or two of the RL in line formation to add some FP to the
counterattack or ready to rotate units from MLR.

To benefit from combined arms doctrine, it is best to position a cavalry regiment behind and shielded
by RL infantry battalions. The cavalry would be unspotted and can be sent into a sudden charge
while RL’s battalions in line formation close in to deliver the volley prior. Prussian brigades typically
containing a cavalry regiment have the optimal organization for such action.

(RH) Always keep your units in the command radius of their immediate superior as well. Very
demoralizing to think you have a ready reserve only to find them unable to initiate melee due
to being Detached, or not returning to good order as they can't pass their morale checks.

It is also advisable to keep your RL out of LOS of your enemy, when possible. Think "Reverse
Slope" - might take them an extra hex or two of moving to come to the aid of their fellow troops
- but it can also help them avoid long range disruptive bombardments that can add fatigue
and crush morale.

Position assessment
The necessity to position in depth has implications beyond tactical aspects. Being unable to deploy
divisions in depth should raise a question whether the overall position can be defended in the first
place. Let’s look at an example from the Marengo Campaign where an Austrian army is positioned
on the defense.
(the divisional icons [braces] are mapped at scale to the optimal front for in depth deployment)

Although the individual strong points may seem formidable with both flanks secured by terrain and
with earthworks and the stream/creek in front, the position is divided into several sectors with
considerable distances between them, separated by challenging terrain. This makes it difficult to
coordinate the defense moving of reserves from one sector to another in time.

1. Sector 1 is quite isolated as any Austrian reserves dispatched to the area would be restricted
in maneuver due to terrain. The earthworks in sector 1 can also be easily outflanked.
Furthermore, in case Sector 2 is broken, the Austrian units in sector 1 would be cut off from
the main army with only one narrow path leading into the rear. Finally, the Austrian division
positioned in this area is lacking skirmishes needed to operate in this area effectively.
2. Sector 2 has the low ground in front of it limiting LOS and the earthworks’ left flank is
exposed. Any reinforcements within the sector have to maneuver via fields and hedges.
3. Sector 3 has a good LOS, however it is overextended with no roads in its rear but with fields
and elevations, so reinforcing the area is a problem too.
4. Sector 4 has a pike road which makes it very juicy sector for the enemy to assault: easier to
concentrate, easier to rotate disordered units and in case of breakthrough the advance into
the Austrian rear would be at double speed.

Above all, the allied position is too extended for the current force available (35 inf battalions),
spanning 40 hexes and potentially even longer if the French attempt to outflank the exposed right
flank around sector 4.

With only 35 infantry battalions available, it is not feasible to secure the entire front effectively.
Such frontage would require approximately 60 battalions for in-depth deployment (40 hexes*1.5
battalions per hex). Consequently, the conclusion is that the position should be abandoned.

By turn three, it also became apparent that the Austrian army is outnumbered and outgunned by
French 8-lb batteries. The Austrian player made a decision to abandon the position and pull back.
The three turns delay in this decision cost the Austrians about 10% of their army lost in rearguard
actions (described in the next chapter). Attempting to hold the position would probably result in a
loss of most of the army. By making the timely decision the main force made it off the map to continue
the campaign and to fight another day. No artillery or wagons were lost in the process. The decision
to abandon the position was barely made in time. Any further delay would be turning the retreat
into disaster.
Offensive Strategy and Tactics

Offensive warfare is a tough nut to crack, but it's also where the real fun begins if you know how to
play your cards right. In this chapter, we're diving deep into the essentials of offensive gameplay,
putting offensive tactics under the historical spotlight of Napoleonic warfare and doing some after
action analysis from PBEM. Let's break it all down and uncover the core components that make
offensive wargaming both a test and a thrill.

Formation by Echelons
It's quite common for players to assemble their regiments and brigades into a single large body,
essentially stacking waves of attacking units’ side by side without any gaps. Below is an example
from a PBEM rearguard action to illustrate this:
 (RH) The above image uses the Tab key to toggle the unit strength display on the map. Hit
Tab again to turn it off.

The French units advanced in a stacked formation toward a few Russian batteries. The Russian
batteries distributed their offensive fire across three separate French units, maximizing the
potential for multiple morale checks. Although directing their fire at the leading French battalion
(the closest target) could have caused more French losses, however Napoleonic warfare was about
breaking enemy morale and formations rather than annihilating the enemy. In line with this
historical reality, the game favors targeting three separate units with lower Firepower (FP) over
concentrating all (or even higher) FP on one unit. This fire discipline increases the chances of
triggering multiple morale checks during offensive fire and determined by the morale check formula
outlined in the manual.

Regrettably, there were no prisoners to report, making it challenging to determine which specific
battalions failed the morale check. Nevertheless, adjacent battalions were also subjected to morale
checks, resulting in them either joining their comrades in routing or becoming disordered:

The result of the French assault was a massive rout, with the remaining units becoming combat
ineffective due to disorder. None of the French units exposed to the fire had leaders within their
stacks, which worsened the routing situation.

In this specific case, the rearguard action was constrained in time. The failed assault essentially
determined the battle's outcome, as there was no time for the French to regroup and attempt a
second assault.

Arguably, the aftermath of this assault significantly impacted the broader campaign dynamics. The
Russian major victory in this rearguard action potentially had a domino effect, influencing a
subsequent decisive battle scenario and forcing the French into an unfavorable position with limited
options for maneuvering.
Nonetheless, there are rare situations where forming attacking units into a large body can be
justified.

The most obvious advantage of this formation is the increased threat value it poses. This can lead
to causing disorder or even routing among defenders of lesser disciplined units, particularly those
below C quality. However, the argument of maximizing threat value might hold true only when the
enemy is badly outnumbered and isn't expected to launch a strong counterattack and lacks the
required Firepower (FP) to trigger multiple morale checks. These situations mostly fall under
reargued actions. The enemy units increase the distance from the main attacking body and as they
move it decreases FP by -50% due to movement penalty (if they conduct offensive fire).

(RH) You can read more on Threat Values in section 5.2.20 of the User Manual.

Being in closer proximity to the enemy also allows for melee threats against their battle lines using
multiple units. However, in most cases, the risk of a mass rout and disorder, turning the advancing
formation into a mob, outweighs the benefits of the threat and having multiple stacks ready for
assault.

Using a dense formation can be justified if the attacking force's first line is composed of high-quality
units, like Quality B, all stacked with leaders or Quality A and above units that typically won't
retreat from a lost melee or losses from a ranged fire.

In all other scenarios, an advance by echelon is highly recommended. Let’s look at the screenshot
below with a combined arms force, comprising an infantry and a cavalry division arranged into two
attacking echelons:
 • First Echelon: A mix of cavalry and infantry, presenting a combined arms threat to the enemy
line.
• Skirmish Companies within the first Echelon: Their role is twofold, boosting the stack with
additional troops to deter enemy cavalry counterattacks and, in the event of melee, absorbing
losses to spare formed battalions. Ideally, skirmish companies bear the brunt of melee losses,
sparing the fatigue of formed battalions. Mathematically, this is a favorable outcome, as
larger units remain relatively untouched by melee fatigue.*
• Second Echelon: Also combined arms formation, positioned two hexes behind the first echelon
to take its place in case of disorder or enemy counterattack. The two-hex distance prevents
chain routs and disorder.
• Second Echelon Deployment: Near maximizing stacking to prevent the first echelon from
routing through it. Skirmish companies are used within infantry hexes to achieve near
maximum stacking.
• Limbered Horse Artillery: Positioned in the second echelon, ready to move forward with the
stack and provide fire support. Batteries are stacked with formed battalions and skirmish
companies to achieve near maximum stacking.
• Concealed Foot Battery: Positioned in the center behind the second echelon, covering the
entire formation frontage and prepared to offer canister support in the event of an enemy
counterattack.

Of course, replicating such a parade-like formation is rare in actual game situations. However, a
consistent effort can be made to adhere to these principles whenever possible.

* (RH) With 4.07 the following change has been made. Adjustment so that fatigue
accumulation is 2-3 times the loss of men, which result in less variation in assignment.
Previous values were 1-3 times.

Local FP superiority
Achieving local firepower superiority stands as a cornerstone of successful offensive tactics. This
strategic principle emphasizes concentrating your forces at a specific point on the battlefield to
overwhelm the enemy's defenses through sheer volume of firepower mirroring Napoleon’s use of
grand batteries. Refer to the chapter on Artillery tactics (in the Second Installment post) for further
details on the subject.

Spotting the Vulnerability

Begin by carefully inspecting the enemy line for weak points.
Frequently, you'll find a spot where their defensive line bends or
curves, presenting an opportunity for a flanking attack and
enfilade fire. Your goal is to pinpoint this exact location. To
illustrate, take a look at the deployment of the Russian army
depicted on the right, showcasing a noticeable bend in their line.

At this specific point, defenders become susceptible to enfilade fire

or might be compelled to expose a flank within a particular hex.
If you're unable to identify such a weak spot initially, consider a
maneuver to force the enemy into adjusting their defensive line. Once this bending is achieved, you'll
establish an advantageous position that should become the point for your offensive efforts.

(RH) The psychological effect of having a significant cavalry force demonstrating on a

defenders flank could be just the ticket to cause them to adjust their defensive position and
expose themselves to your artillery followed by an infantry assault. Combined arms don't
always have to be implemented within a tightly confined space in order to support each other.
Never underestimate the psychological effect of maneuver and demonstration.

Axis of advance
When planning offensive (and likewise defensive) operations, one crucial element to consider is the
mobility provided by roads, especially pikes, where movement costs are reduced. Attacking along
these routes offers several advantages:

• Easier concentration of attacking echelons.

• Easier rotation of disordered units.
• Easier envelopment of retreating enemy units.

Avoid planning complex maneuver through obstructed terrain, as enemy reconnaissance is likely to
detect such movements. The odds are that the enemy will counter with optimal movements through
open terrain, rendering your efforts unproductive. Roads and, particularly, pikes have operational
implications beyond tactical aspects, as illustrated in the following example from the 1813 Bautzen
Campaign (***minor spoilers***):
The allied force is divided into two isolated columns: the Prussian column approaching from the
northeast and the Russian column from the southeast. There are two white arrows indicating two
possible routes to reach the key VP positioned in Sector 1 and 2 and further to the rear. These routes
are the only possible axis of advance which offer the allies the ability to move out from the woods
into the open, to deploy their formidable cavalry and artillery. Consequently, the battle is expected
to revolve around the areas designated as Sector 1 and Sector 2. A substantial distance separates
the two allied columns, covered with wooded terrain. It is estimated that it would take at least 20
turns to cover the distance on foot.

The French presumably start the scenario with a few dispersed and isolated divisions but with a
steady flow of reinforcements. The significant advantage the French possess is the pike (marked in
red) linking the Sector 1 and 2. The French player can shift reserves along the pike at double speed,
taking a short direct route. This allows easy concentration of forces, creating a local advantage and
beating back the allied column to the south, pushing them back into the woods and denying the
Russian column the ability to deploy their powerful artillery. Then, the French player can shift focus
to the north, reinforcing his outnumbered force in sector 1, covering the distance in only 3 turns.

The allied player does not stand a chance to shift his effort in the same manner. Any allied unit from
one column moving to support the other column will have to follow a wide arc, taking at least 20
turns (for infantry) to arrive.

On a lower tactical level, always consider the road network when planning the place of your attack.
When selecting your main effort location, prioritize terrain with a road running not only towards
the enemy but also behind and parallel to your intended battle line. This facilitates maneuvering
your reserves along the front.

Also, check if the enemy defensive line has a road running behind, in parallel to their main
resistance line (MRL). In such a case, it would be difficult to catch the defender off guard, as reserves
can be quickly shifted behind the battle line, plugging holes and mounting counterattacks. Below is
the example of a well-chosen defensive ground the attacker should be avoiding:
The Prussian force is being deployed behind a stream, providing excellent line of sight for Prussian
artillery. The approaches to the Prussian position are covered with fields, limiting both cavalry and
infantry to a movement of only 3 hexes per turn. Approaching the Prussian position under artillery
bombardment and before any contact is made would take at least three turns. The stream negates
the opportunity to use French cavalry to attack the Prussians. Furthermore, there are no roads
behind the French position, only fields, making maneuvering and echelon rotations extremely
difficult. On the other hand, the Prussians can position their forward line behind the stream, while
their MRL and reserves can enjoy freedom of movement on the open ground, supplemented by the
road running parallel to their battle line.

(RH) When he says, "negating the opportunity to attack with the cavalry", what he means is
they will Disorder when they cross the stream which effectively removes their charge bonus.
They are able to cross, however. Only a Creek or full water hex river would prevent them being
used entirely.

Skirmishers
In 1807, on the eve of the Battle of Friedland, Marshal Lannes confronted the full might of the
Russian army with a single corps. Employing a skillful delaying tactic, Lannes deployed a thick
screen of skirmishers to hold the line, gradually yielding ground and disrupting the enemy's
momentum. This historical feat resonates with WDS Napoleonic battlefields, where players often
employ skirmish screens to similar effect.

When confronted with such a deployment, one effective response is to counter the enemy's
skirmishers with your own cavalry. Yet, circumstances might not always permit this tactic due to
terrain limitations or the presence of substantial enemy infantry and artillery behind the skirmish
screen.

In such scenarios, consider engaging the enemy skirmishers in melee with your own. One on one
company melee is the way to go. Even though this most likely will lead to your skirmishers losing
the melee and the defender retaining control of the hex, it's a viable tactical choice. While losses
might amount to only 1 or 2 men on each side, the enemy's disorder and potential routing can offset
this negligible setback of losing a couple of soldiers in melee. Next turn, you can repeat the melee,
rotating your skirmish companies and assaulting with fresh ones until the enemy skirmishes are
routed or forced into retreat.

The defending side is less likely to rotate all disordered skirmishes companies, leaving them
vulnerable to follow-up assaults. Should they choose not to rotate, disordered skirmishers will have
diminished Firepower (FP), and disorder status making them more susceptible to routing in the
subsequent turn. If rotation occurs, their offensive FP is further reduced by 50% due to movement
penalty.

(RH) As of 4.07.1 Skirmishers will incur fatigue at the same rate as formed units. So, tactics
like the above will have slightly higher consequences. As with anything in (virtual) war, you
have to weigh the cost and rewards...

When the enemy lacks a skirmish screen, your own skirmishers can adopt an aggressive stance.
While friendly skirmishers typically have lower FP than infantry formed in line, they can be
supported by cavalry using a combined arms approach. Threatened by a cavalry charge, the enemy
will be likely forced to form squares, drastically reducing their FP to 25% of the line FP. On the other
hand, your skirmishers targeting squares will gain 25% FP boost.

It makes sense to maximize your skirmish line to the maximum staking of 225 * skirmishes per hex
for two reasons: to maximize the FP and to raise the stakes for the enemy cavalry in case they choose
to charge and overrun your skirmish stacks. The cavalry will have to outnumber the skirmishes
within the hex in order to overrun them.

(RH) * This value is PDT dependent and may vary from game to game and scenario to
scenario. You can check the actual value for the scenario you are playing in the Parameter
Data Dialog from the Help menu, or by pressing F2.

The screenshot below demonstrates the use of skirmishes in probing the Italian defenses:

Turn 1: The Italian infantry had to form squares due to the cavalry threat.

Turn 2: Two Russian battalions in skirmish formation approach the squares, unleashing lethal fire
from around 1,000 skirmishers across 5 hexes, establishing local FP superiority over the Italian
squares.

Turn 3: The French player does not have any good choice out of the situation. He commits a light
cavalry regiment, (being his only combat ready cavalry reserve in the sector), into the charge
overrunning one stack of the skirmishes out of five. The cavalry charge is supported by an infantry
column attacking another skirmish stack. The damage was substantial with close to 200 Russian
skirmishes cut down by Italian chasseurs, two companies routed and one more disordered.

Turn 4: However, the Italian formation is now vulnerable to a counterattack due to its consolidation
into a single formation without any gaps between echelons. The Russian main body made up of a
cavalry regiment, along with two large infantry battalions initiated the attack, resulting in the
Italian cavalry pushed by melee into a hex held by Italian infantry, mixing up the formations causing
disorder and routing.

The final outcome of the action resulted in the Italian line becoming disordered and routed incurring
heavy losses. This routing had a cascading effect, disrupting the second echelon of Italian infantry
and leading to a general retreat. In the subsequent turn, the Italian units in the sector were in a
compromised state, with a majority of them disordered and pulling back to safety behind the stream.

The Russian assault, driven by an initial probe of skirmishes, proved to be the first step in an
attempt to disrupt the Italian defense line. Losses in this sector were approximately ~350 infantry
and ~20 cavalry for the Russian force, compared to ~500 infantry and ~40 cavalry for the Italians.
The position was won by a combined arms approach, with skirmishes playing a key role
spearheading the assault. Their involvement not only lured out the enemy reserves but also
compromised the integrity of the Italian defensive line.

Cavalry is not always available to force the enemy into forming squares so enemy infantry is likely
to be formed in line. In such cases, an infiltration tactic can prove effective. This involves advancing
between the intervals of the enemy's line infantry, positioning skirmishes for an enfilade firing
position on the enemy infantry formations arranged in line. The defending side cannot afford to
ignore this tactic. They are compelled to make a choice: either withdraw a hex back to maintain the
enemy skirmishes in front, or counterattack with reserves and potentially giving up the intervals
between the units making the whole formation prone to mass routing.

To summarize, skirmishes introduce a wealth of tactical flexibility on the offensive:

1. To probe enemy positions, compelling them to react and to break their line.
2. To repel opposing skirmishers and gain advantageous positions.
3. To gain local FP superiority over enemy columns and squares (do not count on winning a fire
fight vs infantry formed in line).

Combined arms
As demonstrated in many previous chapters, combined arms focus is the essential element of the
tactical art. This short section is largely focused on a general theory and is pretty much drawn from
an old but still valid post from Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) forum. The post was made by a
veteran NWC member so it is shown here almost as a direct quote with only minor amendments.
(Explore various clubs that play WDS games here.)

"Terrain driver dictates the tactical mix over which you will fight. For example, a wooded area has
no need for cavalry and limited need for artillery. An effective combined arms attack or defense
hinges on appropriate terrain for free cavalry use and effective artillery positions. Essentially if you
can see an area that would offer great artillery positions and allow your cavalry to fight freely you
have found a combined arms hotspot.
In essence combined arms is all about making sure that each of your arms bears the load of the
tactical battle in a local area. Ideally a hotspot allows your guns to work well with your other forces
and your cavalry to roam freely charging and reforming in waves as appropriate.

However, before plunging forward and seizing the hotspot you have identified you need to do some
planning. You need to define your force mix and battle groups. Napoleon always did this often-
interchanging units from corps to corps as appropriate. Your combined arms forces may take
differing shapes depending on the specific situation. Perhaps you need some heavy batteries from
the army artillery reserve to outgun the opposing artillery in this sector. Or maybe the local infantry
division lacking light troops which are needed to secure some woods on the flank, so it needs a boost
in a form of light infantry brigade from a nearby division. Or there is plenty of open space suitable
for your heavy cavalry corps to smash the enemy line. Defining the organization of each group early
as part of your plan will be essential. You need to consider the force mix appropriate for the terrain."

(RH) Again, be sure to always keep Command & Control in mind. Don't detach units from
their commanders for anything other than a static defensive position. And watched the "Mixed
Organization Penalty" when things heat up. It can be challenging, but if you don't stay on top
of this aspect your forces will fall apart when you need them most. The methods to do this have
been touched on in previous sections and will be covered more in depth in the next chapter.

Patience and persistence

The heart of success lies in the patient and persistent process of wearing down defenders by inducing
disorder and routing among their ranks. The combined effect of these actions accumulates over time
and reaches a pivotal point where the enemy's defense begins to crumble. Achieving this lies with
skillful deployment and application of reserves, the effective reorganization of forces via maintaining
C&C, and the rotation of tactical echelons.

Once a frontal assault is initiated, it has to be sustained without breaks. Send your divisions forward
wave after wave. Most likely the enemy is outnumbered as you have the initiative, so the battle of
attrition works in your favor. The negative victory points (VPs) trade off due to losses can be set
aside at this stage. The benefits, which may come later as the enemy's defensive line cracks, justify
the “initial investment” required to penetrate the enemy line. As enemy units that become isolated
in this process and end up eliminated, this will restore the balance of the initial drawbacks.

As echelons advance, artillery can be brought forward, cementing dominance in the area through
firepower. If the enemy mounts a counterattack, the presence of artillery behind the first echelon
serves as a deterrent against further costly attempts.

The Power of Diversionary Attacks

The core objective of a diversionary attack is to divert the enemy's attention and reserves, generating
a dilemma for their headquarters. If an opportunity emerges to unsettle the enemy's equilibrium,
it's usually a wise move to capitalize on it. This introduces an additional layer of decision-making
for the enemy HQ, potentially leading to a miscalculation or oversights—another element to
potentially overlook.

In all likelihood, the enemy will find themselves off-balance while responding to the diversionary
attack: dispatch a division, and they might need a division to counter it. If the enemy chooses to
react with a corps, you effectively draw their material reserves into the secondary sector. If they go
for a brigade-level response they will likely be outmatched, with compromised command and control,
and consequently causing another crisis in their battle line.

Timing
In most cases, the game won't run until the very last turn. One side's morale usually breaks before
that happens and one of the opponents surrenders. If you're not aiming to be the one whose morale
breaks, then time is on your side.

It's unusual for large scenarios to have number of turns as a constrain. This mostly comes into play
in smaller rearguard actions where time is really tight. Hence, don't just charge at any enemy
position you see simply because you can. Instead, focus on maneuvering to get an advantage. Take
your time. Work on your overall battle plan and the strategy for a specific attack. Try to coordinate
different attacks so they hit at the same time from both flanks.

This strategy might stress out the enemy's command and control; their top commander won't be able
to manage all directions at once. Being able to reorganize and rotate disordered units is super
important for successful defense. You also don't have to move every single unit every single turn,
even if it feels strange not to. It's alright if some units stay put and wait for others to gather. For
more tips on coordinating bigger operations in the game, check out the section on General Staff
which will be covered in the next blog post.

Consider widening the frontage

Always consider the frontage of the operations on the offensive. Let’s take the example from the
battle of Quatre Bras, scenario #203 from Waterloo title which uses an alternate deployment and
some adjustment to OOB and PDT. For further details on the changes refer to: http://1815.deds.nl/
From the first glance the narrow front of the allied position behind the stream creates a perfect
defensive line for in depth defense deployment with concentrated artillery fire and optimal C&C
cover mitigating the weakness of allied command structure.

There are three French infantry divisions and one cavalry division facing one allied division:

• 9th ID on the left flank,

• 5th ID division on the right and
• 6th ID further to the rear approaching via the main road.
• 2nd CD in at the center

The French can throw their three divisions into the frontal assault but this is what every allied
commander is hoping for, turning the battle into a costly meat grinder. If the allied commander
plays it right and manages to hold out for 7-8 turns until British reinforcements begin to arrive and
deploy in depth, it is extremely difficult for the French player to capture the crossroads considering
the forces are roughly equal in size.

The alternative way to approach this battle by the French is to widen the front via the following
battle plan:
 1. 9th ID division is to be tasked with enveloping the allied right flank via Bossu woods and 2nd
brigade is to push towards crossroads frontally while the 1st brigade is to deploy its skirmish
regiments in the Bossu woods itself negating a few allied battalions in this area from joining
the rest of the allied division.
2. 5th ID is to order its 1st brigade to march north-east and to secure the bridge across the
stream opening a route of advance further north. The 2nd brigade is to cross the stream to
the left of Materne Pond and to secure a bridgehead pushing further towards the main road.

Such French moves create a difficult dilemma for an allied player.

Firstly, the 2nd Dutch division is partially out of position through its original deployment as it was
historically.

Secondly, even in case the allied player manages to concentrate behind the stream, the division
would be thinly spread. There is ~22 hex frontage behind the stream to be defended. The 2nd Dutch
division has only two brigades with its leaders’ command radius of 3.

From C&C perspective the optimal frontage 2nd Dutch can cover is 11 hexes (3 hexes 1st brig + 3
hexes 2nd brig + 5 hexes divisional leader radius). Any 2nd Dutch unit outside of 11 hexes frontage
would be detached and out of command. Up until the British reinforcements arrival, the allied
commander can effectively provide C&C cover to only 11 hex frontage, while the above-mentioned
orders for the 5th and 9Th French divisions would increase the frontage of the battle line to ~35
hexes all of which is easily covered by the French C&C!

Hence, the French goal is to extend the frontage even further as much as possible utilizing its
command radius superiority and attempting to overextend the allied formation causing its
disintegration. The other benefit of such a maneuver for the French is shifting the effort to the fields
north of Materne Pond which is more favorable to their superior cavalry.

Spreading two allied brigades over a wider front would prevent the Allied commander from
deploying and building its defense in depth: with forward line, main resistance line and reserves
behind. Accordingly, the French should have an easy time to achieving a breakthrough, disordering
and isolating the thinly spread Allied battalions.

Finally, there is only one wagon per division available and ammo shortages will become another
Allied problem very quickly.

Once 2nd Dutch division is dealt with, the French commander can proceed with a wider plan:

1. Ordering 9th ID to envelope the crossroads from the left, either via the road and through the
woods directly. This move would be widening the front further, disrupting Allied C&C and
intercepting any British reserves moving towards the crossroads via the main road from the
north-west.
2. The 5th French ID can push further north keeping the crossroads to its left presenting the
Allied HQ with a difficult dilemma where to dispatch the arriving British 5th ID under Lt-
General Picton. Its either splitting this division into parts compromising its already weak
C&C or to allow the French to envelope one of the allied flanks.
3. The 6th ID is to assault the crossroads frontally with most of the artillery and with 2nd
cavalry division in support to create pressure the allied position from the pike.
To summarize: always aim to stretch the front of the attack. The defending side has to cover all
possible directions. The attacking side has the luxury of concentrating only in certain areas.
Narrower front favors the defender due to artillery concentration and the ability to deploy in depth.
Stretch them as much as you can.

Napoleon’s offensive art

Let's review the above-mentioned points through the prism of Napoleon's offensive strategy, using
the Battle of Borodino as an illustrative example supplemented by PBEM after action analysis from
Marengo Campaign WDS title. From the first glance Borodino battle may seem like a frontal clash
between two armies, however there is a great deal of operational aspects to understand about this
battle and it serves as an excellent case for study and analysis.

Napoleonic era battles most often hinged on major roads, crucial for supply and communication with
the rear. Denying the enemy access to these routes meant cutting off their supply flow. The
implications were significant: the enemy would either be compelled to surrender (as seen in the 1805
Ulm campaign), or they would have to resort to retreat using rural roads, as seen in Suvorov's Swiss
campaign in 1799.

Retreating through minor roads often resulted in:

1. Abandoning some or most of the baggage train and artillery, due to their restricted off-road
capabilities. This essentially meant losing the main source of fire power and life-supporting
system of the army, including ammunition, forage, food supply, etc. Abandoning a regimental
train had a devastating impact. To get the perspective, consider yourself losing your
backpack, your mobile and your wallet on a major multi-day hiking trip.
2. Facing the risk of disintegration, as units tended to scatter and seek independent escape
routes rather than waiting for the traffic jam to clear on narrow roads.
3. Command-and-control challenges, as coordinating multiple units moving along various
routes proved difficult for army staff officers.
4. Facing the risk of losing the rearguard, which would be forced to hold off the advancing enemy
for an extended period, allowing the main army more time to navigate the poor roads.

To fully understand the significance of communication lines in the context of Napoleonic warfare,
consider playing the Austrian side in a PBEM game set during the Battle of Loano. Opt for the
"Advance on Genoa" path of the full Marengo Campaign of 1800 to access the scenario.

On the map, there's a pike road situated at the rear of the Austrian left flank, running parallel to
the sea coast. If the French manage to break through this pike road, they can effectively trap the
Austrians, moving north swiftly using pike’s speed advantage, outpacing the Austrians. To make
things worse for the Austrians, there is a creek (impassable) behind the Austrian army dividing the
map in half, with two bridges providing critical chokepoints.
The above screenshot shows the situation as of Turn 10. The Austrians have abandoned the position
described in the 'Defense in Depth' chapter and are now in full retreat. The majority of the army is
crowded around the bottleneck at Bridge 1, attempting to cross the creek and retreat using the path
leading north. The French are closing in in force. The allied player is under pressure.

The movement costs for the paths are standard, offering no speed advantage. However, the pike
movement costs are reduced by half, presenting the French with an opportunity to potentially breach
the Austrian position at Bridge 2 and move at double speed northward. This maneuver allows them
to march in parallel to the main Austrian army at double speed, surpassing it, and subsequently
outflanking it from multiple sides and/or trapping it in obstructed terrain. This prevents the
Austrians from deploying their artillery and cavalry in combat.

In an effort to prevent this, one division on the Austrian left flank has formed the rearguard. Their
orders are to hold Bridge 2 at Loano until the main army safely crosses Bridge 1 and breaks for the
north, as indicated in the screenshot.

The French player decided to concentrate his efforts on pressing the main Austrian army at Bridge
1 rather than pushing through Bridge 2 at Loano with full force. The French artillery was around
Bridge 2 was redeployed to the left to engage the main army, giving the Austrian rearguard at Loano
some breathing space.
At Bridge 1, the disciplined Austrian grenadiers successfully held the French at bay just long enough
for the main army to cross the creek at Bridge 1 and break away northward. The French commander
then redirected their efforts to Bridge 2 at Loano. However, the momentum was lost and the
Austrian rearguard managed to hold the crossing just long enough and giving up the bridge only
when it was clear that the main army had safely moved northward.

Screenshot below showing the situation as of Turn 19. One division is moving north east. The main
body is retreating north via the path in the center. The rearguard is still holding on to the Bridge 2
but has started retreating north via pike leaving some skirmishes to cover the escape.

Nonetheless, the retreat of the main body was chaotic, with only one path leading north. It became
congested with traffic from artillery, cavalry, and wagons, leaving no room for infantry who had to
move through obstructed terrain at slow speed. Consequently, one Austrian division had to use
another road leading north-east and split from the main force. Some units got mixed up in the
process, resulting in a partial loss of command and control. Effectively, by this time the Austrian
army was divided into three parts, out of position, crammed in obstructed terrain being unable to
deploy its cavalry and artillery, with some units were being detached and out of command.
Organizing another defensive line anywhere on the map was out of the question.

The result is Major Victory for the French side. However, the Austrian army made it off map mostly
intact to continue the campaign.
This scenario vividly illustrates the challenges a Napoleonic era army could face during a retreat
through rural roads while being cut off from its primary line of operations. Handling the retreat of
a 30,000-strong Austrian army was already a formidable task. Having a much larger force
accompanied by hundreds artillery pieces, and attempting to retreat via similar terrain would be a
complete disaster.

Back to Borodino now. In the context of the Borodino battle, the main road which was used by both
armies through the entire 1812 Campaign was the so called New Smolensk road connecting
Smolensk with Moscow. Borodino village sat on New Smolensk road (marked in red on the image
below), which was the crucial communication route for Kutuzov’s army.

Kutuzov was deeply concerned about being cut off from the New Smolensk Road, as it would mean
losing a vital operational line. In the event that the Russian army needed to retreat, as they did the
following day, this main road was their only viable option. Other country roads in the area could not
accommodate the movement of the army with hundreds of guns, along with tens of thousands of
men, horses, and thousands of wagons. Furthermore, attempting to retreat in the northeastern
direction, Kutuzov would find himself pressed against the impassable Moscow River with marshy
banks and no bridges, facing a similar defeat to the Russian defeat at Friedland in 1807. Without
access to the main road, Kutuzov would face a total disaster, as there were no alternative routes of
retreat to the east.

In response, Kutuzov placed significant forces, about 2/3 of this army (highlighted in yellow) to his
right flank on both sides of the road to protect this critical route, in the same manner as Wellington
dispatched 15,000 of his troops to Hal prior to Waterloo in 1815, to watch his line of retreat to the
sea. These troops had no opportunity to assist Wellington’s army during the Battle of Waterloo and
the Duke’s decision to give up 15,000 of his troops just before the decisive battle demonstrates the
level of concern Napoleonic era commanders had regarding their supply lines.

In the case of Borodino, Kutuzov lacked the knowledge regarding Napoleon's intended strike. While
it may be apparent to us two centuries later, the Russian HQ did not possess such retrospective
insight back in 1812. Hence, Kutuzov's initial deployment was aimed at securing the line of retreat
to the rear, yet it also allowed for the flexibility to shift some forces from the right to the left within
a few hours, should the need arise. And this is exactly what Russian HQ did during the battle as the
risk of Napoleon attacking the Russian right flank gradually diminished as the day progressed.

Now having the background of the battle context and disposition, let’s examine how Napoleon
approached this battle.

1. Napoleon frequently employed diversionary attacks to draw the enemy's attention and reserves.
An example of this is the morning assault on the Borodino village.

Napoleon recognized Kutuzov's concern about his right flank and aimed to exploit it by launching a
diversionary attack on Borodino village. The objective was to discourage Kutuzov from sending
reinforcements from the right to the left flank, as in fact Napoleon's plan involved breaking through
the Russian left flank and reaching the highway, effectively cutting of the Russian army from the
main road. Consequently, forcing Kutuzov to retreat eastward via country roads probably loosing
most of the artillery, wagons and overall control over the army.

Capturing Borodino also gave Napoleon a valuable artillery position, enabling fire to be directed
enfilade at the Russian center. A French player in the Borodino scenario would typically use this
position, mirroring history by capturing the village and placing heavy artillery from the IV Corps
around Borodino.

Interestingly, Russian HQ returned the favor with a diversionary attack on the same day. A cavalry
corps and Cossacks were ordered to raid the French left flank in the midst of the battle. Some
scholars still debate whether this influenced Napoleon's decision to withhold using his Guard. Thus,
this tactic can also be employed defensively.

2. Napoleon pioneered the concept of grand batteries, employing concentrated artillery fire to clear
the way for his offensive echelons. At Borodino, he massed around 300-400 guns against the Russian
left and the Raesvski redoubt position, skillfully creating enfilade fire zones and achieving local fire
superiority.
The Russian response to this was poor, despite their numerical advantage over the French artillery
and possessing some degree of technical edge in certain aspects, mainly due to the outstanding
Licornes pieces (watch out for Licornes FP in WDS series!):

“First Army’s brilliant and foolishly brave artillery chief, the 28-year-old General Alexander
Kutaisov, forgot his management duties of the army's reserve artillery and impulsively grabbed the
flag at the head of one of the counter-attacking infantry battalions to charge into the [Raevski]
redoubt. He never made it out. At the time, his loss was unknown to Barclay or anyone at HQ, so
that artillery resupply and reinforcement from the reserve stopped for the rest of the day.
Consequently, a third of the First Army’s artillery was never engaged and was absent when it was
later needed most.” (Jeff Berry, Borodino, Obscure Battles).

This is a good example demonstrating superiority of Napoleon’s staff system over allied armies as
late as 1812. The French modern like approach to General Staff system introduced standard
procedures, well-defined command hierarchy and clearly designated second-in-command roles.

On the Russian side a notable instance of command chain failure occurred in the artillery reserve of
the 1st Western army, where there was no designated second in command to replace Kutaisov. In
general, the Russian army already had complex organizational structure of the 1st and 2nd Western
armies united into one under Kutuzov’s HQ but each army retaining its own HQ and staff. This
mess was further aggravated by general atmosphere of intrigues plaguing the Russian command
chain. Orders were occasionally ignored or overruled by other HQs. Often it was down to ego battles
between individuals of the Russian military nobility, which was also common in other allied armies.

The WDS Napoleonic series effectively captures the distinctions in the staff system between the
Allied and French armies through command range values. Commanders in the French army possess
a broader radius, enabling them to effectively command units over greater distances. Additionally,
Napoleon's command rating of 'B' reflects not only his exceptional commanding abilities but also the
efficiency of his staffing system.

3. Napoleon often executed envelopment maneuvers to outflank or to extend the enemy's defensive
line. At Borodino, this maneuver was evident with the dispatch of the Polish Vth Corps to Utiza.
This maneuver was limited to only one relatively small Corps (~10,000) due to various aspects like
the poor condition of French cavalry, unreliable maps, and coordination/communication challenges
due to the Cossacks dominating in the area.

This limited effort was matched by the Russian HQ but still succeeded in pulling an equivalent
Russian force into the sector, thereby extending the front and placing added pressure on the
defending side. As both forces where evenly matched Polish Vth Corps could capture Utiza village
but could not move on to envelop the main Russian army as per Napoleon’s original orders.

4. Napoleon excelled at identifying weaknesses in the enemy's disposition. On the day of Borodino,
Napoleon could see that while the Russians' right was strong and well-positioned, he correctly
pinpointed the Russian left flank as the vulnerable spot and directed his main offensive effort there.
The plan was to breakthrough it frontally with support of the Grand battery and reach the New
Smolensk road in the Russian rear.
Breaking along the main roads and forcing the enemy to react is another concept WDS players can
consider when planning their offensive operations. The supply concept is beyond the scope of the
game. However, as demonstrated by Loano scenario example above, cutting off the enemy from their
lines of retreat will most likely get the enemy moving out of their positions presenting you with an
opportunity to catch the defender off balance.

5. Finally, once the primary effort's location was decided, Napoleon concentrated mass infantry,
cavalry and artillery in a combined arms manner. Throughout the Battle of Borodino, approximately
more than half of the Grand Armee were committed against the Russian left flank at various times,
achieving and maintaining local numerical superiority for most of the day, which also explains
higher Russian losses on that day.

The above offensive principles may sound straightforward, but as Carl von Clausewitz capably
stated:

“Everything in war is very simple. But the simplest thing is difficult.”

In a real scenario, implementing all the above would be challenging. Things might not go as planned.
Expect the unexpected. Schedules will fail, opponents will surprise you, and assaults will go badly.
However, the beauty of being on the offensive lies in the ability to dictate the pace, timing, and the
point of the main effort, compelling the enemy to react. You have control over several aspects, while
your opponent doesn’t. Keep in mind the principles of Napoleon’s offensive art and enjoy having the
initiative. Personally, a well-executed offensive plan is more satisfying than a successful defensive
action.

General Staff

The larger the battle, the more challenging it becomes to comprehend its complexity and scale,
especially on larger maps with lots of space for maneuvering. The greater the number of factors,
plans, and considerations that players must keep in their minds, the more likely they are to make
mistakes. In warfare, it's those who make fewer mistakes that emerge victorious.

This chapter introduces a practical approach to minimizing the effects of the chaos of war, scale and
fog of war. It essentially involves using some tools to replicate a process which historically was
handled by the general staff which emerged during the Napoleonic era as a distinct military
discipline.

Prior to the Napoleonic wars, there was generally no organizational support for staff functions such
as military intelligence, logistics, planning or personnel. Unit commanders handled such functions
for their units, with informal help from subordinates who were usually not trained for or assigned
to a specific task. The Napoleonic wars revolutionized warfare in that sense and a professionally
trained staff corps emerged to handle these critical functions in a more structured and consistent
manner.

The topic covered in this section isn't the easiest and certainly falls under a special category. It's
likely to interest a specific group of players, and not everyone may find it appealing and useful. The
game can be played and enjoyed without the approach described below.

The concept described below holds particular relevance for the Campaign mode played with FOW,
where information about the enemy's size and location is limited. It is also applicable to large
scenarios set on large maps that allow for extensive maneuvering.

In my opinion, campaign mode is how serious Napoleonic wargaming should be done. Not only does
it offer a true FOW element rarely found in scenarios, but it also enforces continuity of losses from
battle to battle across most campaigns. When players realize that casualties from one battle carry
over to the next, their entire approach to the game immediately and radically changes. In scenarios,
there is no "tomorrow," prompting French players, for instance, to readily commit their French
Guard at the battle of Borodino. However, Napoleon's considerations not to commit the Guard were
beyond the battle of Borodino. Campaign mode brings this historical experience as performance in
each battle often has implications for the rest of the Campaign. This play mode stands as the hidden
gem of WDS Napoleonic Battles series, providing access to a richer and more rewarding gaming
experience.

Preparation Phase
Start a large scenario or campaign to grasp the time limit and an understanding of the composition
of forces already available on the map and any anticipated reinforcements. Utilizing tools ranging
from paper to excel spreadsheet can assist in documenting the number of turns and the scheduled
arrival of reinforcements. For optimal organization an excel spreadsheet is my choice, and I suggest
using a simple template pictured below:
The template consists of the following columns: "visibility," "time," and "turn number". A Weather
column can be added if weather conditions are abnormal or expected to worsen. Additional columns
are located to the right, designated for reinforcements arriving in their respective turns: Leaders,
starting from the divisional level to indicate the C&C situation of the arriving units, followed by a
rough count of infantry, cavalry, and guns set to arrive. You may not have the headcount of arriving
units so alternatively you can just record a number of battalions, squadrons and batteries.

On-map forces should be counted and recorded as a separate step. This count can be done either by
tallying the number of squadrons and battalions (for instance, 8 infantry battalions, 8 squadrons,
16 guns) in each division or by calculating the cumulative headcount expressed in thousands of
soldiers (e.g., 4,000 infantry, 1,000 cavalry, 16 guns) which is found in the Strength Dialog under
the Info menu.

This comprehensive approach ensures clarity in assessing the overall strength and composition of
the forces in each sector and should be the first task of your staff when developing a battle plan.
Maintaining up to date headcount records of battle-ready troops along with reinforcements on the
march with estimated times of arrivals (ETAs) was historically compiled and reported by staff
officers.
Mapping Phase
Another area staff officers would be responsible for is to pinpoint the
forces available on the maps. To replicate this in game terms it would
involve capturing an entire map snapshot using the File menu (File-->
Snapshot option), saving the image in a separate folder and then pasting
the image into some software or even printing it in A3 size.

Excel works best for me. I typically paste the image into the same
spreadsheet file mentioned in the previous section (named after the
battle), alongside the reinforcement columns. What you end up having is
you units’ roster with headcount in columns and the entire map of the
scenario next to it. Now it’s time to position your units on the map.

If you use paper, you can just draw it by hand. This is how Napoleonic era staff officers would do
it. Or, use sticky notes which can be moved as a scenario progresses. If using Excel, use the
"Insert--> Shapes" function to place icons based on their positions as of Turn 1. I use icons in a
shape of a brace (see image below).

Each icon mapped would represent a division or a corps depending on a scenario and formation
size. Overall, this method mirrors the historical process of mapping units in pre-modern era War
Rooms.

The snapshot below illustrates this process, using the 1807 Campaign as an example. Each icon
has the outline color-coded indicating the particular Corps or Wing it belongs to. A black outline is
Left Wing, yellow is Right Wing, and purple is the Guard Corps. The information next to the
Divisional icons is the division number and the division headcount in thousands (i.e. 3.5k).

Victory Points (VPs) are added to the map in yellow shapes providing easy to spot markers. Creeks
and bridges are added to facilitate the situational awareness of the key terrain features.
As the battle unfolds the divisional icons can be moved every 3-4 turns. When committing to a
maneuver, it's not a bad idea to review your plan every 3-4 turns to account for evolving
circumstances. What was the reason I started moving this division into this area 4 turns ago? Is
this reason still relevant? These are the question you should be asking yourself rather than
mechanically moving your forces with local tactical gains in mind. The process of reviewing the
map would shorten your response time to the operational developments.

The next step is to take on the role of an intelligence officer within your HQ and map out enemy
units. Remember that a division is the basic operational unit. Divisions are typically moved as a
single body and composed of 10-15 infantry battalions and 20-25 full-sized squadrons of cavalry.
You can estimate the number of enemy divisions in each sector as the intelligence about the enemy
becomes available. Cavalry divisions can be easily identified by their uniforms, and typically,
heavy cavalry are grouped into separate divisions.

Then the icons representing enemy divisions can be moved on the map to represent their
movement and likely destinations. Any on-map markings that help you visualize and understand
the situation can be added. Armed with this information, try to pause and ask yourself: what is the
enemy doing? What is their likely battle plan?

With a growing level of intelligence about the enemy, your own orders might become outdated,
making it important to refrain from automatically moving units along the roads each turn while
sticking to the original disposition. Pausing to review, looking at your map, and adapting is the
way to go. Changing the original plan is perfectly acceptable. It's not uncommon for me to revise
my battle plan 3-4 times within a single scenario.

In assessing the situation you can go a step further and analyze the opposing force in each sector
of the battle. For example, in the screenshot from the 1796 Campaign below, the assessment of the
Austrian forces spotted on the French left flank is presented:

French intelligence assessed the opposing Austrian force as two combined arms divisions, made up
of (total is indicated in yellow at the bottom of the screen):
 • ~11,000 infantry
• ~2,500 cavalry
• 42 guns

The French forces in the sector are made up of three divisions (total is indicated in white at the top
of the screen):

• ~15,000 infantry
• ~2,700 cavalry
• 36 guns

The French left flank was initially planned to deliver the main blow in this battle. However,
considering the possibility of unspotted Austrian units in the area, it's evident that the French lack
numerical superiority to execute the main assault on their left flank. The French plan clearly needs
some adjustment. The consistent intelligence gathering and mapping total headcount in each
operational sector help in understanding the strategic situation at a glance.

Planning Phase: Defining the orders

Now we have the map, our own and probably some of the enemy units and their headcount mapped
in “as is” position. The next step is to create a copy of your map (if you use Excel, just copy the
current tab) and name as “to be”. Now we start our battle planning.

While on defense take the time to study the map and identify a few good defensive positions with
secured flanks. Ideally, you may identify a few positions where you would be prepared to deploy for
battle and consider the pros and cons of each one.

Apart from tactical aspects, mostly described in the previous blog posts, the defensive positions
should also be considered based on VPs locations. You need to do a review of VPs and victory
conditions to see if giving up some of the VPs without a fight is justifiable in exchange for a superior
defensive position. Going back to the illustrative example from the 1807 campaign:
The Russian army starts scattered all over the map. On turn 1 and before any moves are made, we
need to:

• Assess victory conditions and VPs locations.

• Study the map and identify critical features of the terrain.

In this case there are two impassible creeks cutting the map into a number of poorly connected
sectors which is crucial for building a defensive plan.

Below is the intended battle plan, with designated “to be” positions:
On Turn 1 movement phase, units are not moved chaotically in response to the local tactical
situation but follow the assigned location following the overall battle plan:

• Right Wing (braces outlined in black) divisions are to cover the northern sector with both of
its flanks anchored on the creeks and with the overall shortened front which allows a better
concertation of artillery fire.
 • Left wing (braces outlined in yellow) is to cover the narrow front on the south with two
divisions in the first line and one in the second.
• Guard Corps (outlined in purple) to remain in reserve in the center close to the central bridge
ready to support either wing.
• The first line of VPs (circled in red) is to be abandoned without a fight as defensive positions
in the area were found to be unsuitable, extending the front and exposing flanks. In this
particular case I could give up these VPs while maintaining a score of a major victory.

Once we have outlined the overall disposition it is time to wear the hat of Wing/Corps level staff
officer and allocate divisions to their respective sectors considering the composition of each division.
Are the troops within each division suitable for the sector they are being assigned to?

To demonstrate this in example see the below defensive battle plan from the 1814 Campaign:

In the given example, the Russian 8th division has 3 light battalions (compared to only 2 in the 22nd
division), making it a better outfit to be deployed on the left flank in the woods. Similarly, the 10th
and 11th Prussian brigades have excellent light battalions of A quality, making them suitable for
deployment in positions with obstructed terrain on the right flank.

The right flank is where the major French effort is expected so the Prussian force being the strongest
was to take the right flank and the center, while weaker Russian force but with a strong artillery,
was to occupy left flank and to cover the approaches to the center with its heavy artillery.
The 9th Prussian brigade, with a significant share of line infantry, is assigned to hold the first line
in the center. The 12th brigade and Prussian cavalry division are kept in reserve.

The size of the divisional icons depicted on the map approximate the effective frontage that each
division can defend adopting an in-depth positioning. Icon sizes are not random but represent the
true frontage of each division for an in-depth defense. This is done to visualize the “to be” position
clearly and assess whether there are enough troops in the first place. As elaborated in the "Defense
in Depth" chapter, a general guideline of 1.5 infantry battalions per hex of frontage is required for a
defense in depth.

Having all this planning done on Turn 1 (or as soon as your current plan becomes outdated), allows
us to issue optimal marching orders for each corps and division moving them in accordance with the
overall battle plan.

With all these considerations in mind, it might seem that we are prepared to commence movement
phase of Turn 1. Not yet however.

ETA Measuring Phase

So far, we have:

• the map.
• friendly (and possibly enemy) Divisional/Corps icons & sizes.
• friendly and enemy icons mapped into the “as is” map.
• a copy of the “as is” map named “to be”.

This is where staff routine kicks in as the next phase is to estimate the time of arrivals (ETAs) to
the assigned positions. All the planning mentioned earlier can be seriously compromised if the
enemy manages to disrupt your units' arrivals by reaching a location ahead of them or appearing
from a different direction making your well thought out battle plan obsolete.

Remember it’s a Campaign so FOW is in effect and you have limited intel of the enemy locations and
strength. So what we need is to measure distances and calculate the ETAs for our own troops, as
well as attempt to predict and account for enemy ETAs to the same locations. This where the Range
tool build into the game proves to be especially useful. Refer to section 10.4 of the User Manual:
From Turn 1, begin measuring the likely ETAs of the enemy forces in front of the planned positions
using the Range Tool. This involves measuring the number of hexes along potential axes of advance
and then dividing that distance by a relevant number representing movement costs for infantry
column. For example, in 10 minute per turn scenarios, infantry covers 5 road hexes in one turn,
hence it would take infantry 25 turns to cover 125 road hexes.

In the below example, from Campaign 1814, is my estimation of French arrival in front of my Main
Resistance Line (MRL):

Starting from Jtoges village, where the enemy advance guard was detected, to my main resistance
line (MRL), the range tool indicates it would take the French around 25 turns to cover the 125 hexes
of road. Considering it is Turn 7 now, the French army would be arriving in front of Allied MRL
around turn 31. Factoring in approximately 5 turns for deployment into a battle formation, the
French player has roughly 12 turns to launch an assault on the allied MRL. The allied army is
expected to hold out for 12 turns and there is no ammo shortage for such action.

Furthermore, the possibility of the MRL being outflanked by the French to the south and north was
assessed. In both cases, there is no concern, as the French would be limited in the time (3 turn
flanking via south and 6 turns via north) to launch an assault from either flank. Even a limited
reserve should easily delay the French flanking force until the scenario runs out of time.

ETA measurement becomes even more important when on the offensive, given the potential need to
coordinate multiple forces across a large map. Use the Range Tool to estimate your units' ETAs and
record likely arrival times. This allows for better coordination and timing of the main assault.
Presented below is an illustrative case of such planning, drawn from a PBEM game set in 1807
Campaign. This snapshot corresponds to the situation as of Turn 18:

The Russian army started the scenario with only part of the Advance Guard being on the map, while
a number of columns of a corps size each (Left Wing, Right Wing, Reserve Division) were arriving at
the various locations at different times.

Extensive planning and distance measuring was required to come up with the battle plan where
each Column was allocated with specific tasks and objectives as follows:

1. The Advance Guard (yellow outline: 17k strong) had the critical task of moving swiftly
towards the center avoiding contact. Their objective was to capture the central hill, provided
it was not heavily defended (however, it was later realized that this objective was too
ambitious).

2. The Left Wing (in purple: 10k strong) was assigned to join the Advance Guard from the west.
Their role was to provide support to the Advance Guard outflanking the likely French
position on the central hill from the left.

3. The Reserve division (in white; 8k strong) was to join advance guard in its assault on the
French right flank.

4. The Right Wing (20k strong) was tasked with crossing the creek, running from north to south
on the east of the map, by constructing a pontoon bridge by turn 35. This would enable the
Right Wing to flank the enemy and capture a few VPs in the area.

5. Cossacks detachment of 1,500 sabers, arriving at the north-west edge of the map were to raid
enemy rear from the west capturing the VPs in the French rear.

(RH) Just a note here to say it is only possible to "construct a pontoon bridge" in the engine
currently if a damaged bridge with a 0 strength already exists on the map at your desired location.
Creating a bridge from scratch is not currently supported.
The above plan materialized into the following deployment (below) by turn 35-40, close to what was
planned. All columns were in their designated positions, ready to launch an all-out assault from
multiple directions, aiming to destroy most of the French corps. The objective was to envelope the
French corps from three sides, leaving the French commander with limited options: either be
outnumbered and enveloped from three sides or to attempt a retreat through marshy terrain to the
south, with no roads and no terrain suitable for cavalry and artillery movement.

The French indeed found themselves surrounded from three sides, ultimately leading to a major
victory for the Allied side. The coordination and planning of the Allied maneuvers were facilitated
by:

The use of the Range Tool allowed for measuring distances and estimating ETAs for each
allied column and also enemy forces. This ETAs assessment provided valuable information
for coordinating movements: waiting for all columns to gather, being in support of each other.
Maintaining ETA records of various columns at different positions, the allied player could
effectively track and manage the movements of the allied forces and adjust the plan
accordingly. The Excel file was used for records. But using paper would be just as good,
whatever you feel comfortable with.

Timing: planning the timing of the main assault. Rather than rushing into immediate
confrontation, the allied forces adhered to the overall battle plan giving up on minor tactical
gains. The Advance Guard, in particular, was instructed to move towards the central position
without being distracted by minor tactical engagements. The main assault was not to be
started until at least two out of three columns were in position.

Summary
1. Preparation phase: Thoroughly study the OOB and take note of on map forces available and
reinforcement composition and ETAs, if applicable.

2. Mapping phase: Create a War Room by taking a snapshot of the map and adding your own and
enemy units, VPs, and key terrain features. This visual representation enhances situational
awareness and aids in decision-making. Regularly review your plan and the position of your forces
in relation to the enemy to keep it relevant.

3. Planning phase: identify defensive positions/axis of advance and create a “to be” map. Divide the
overall disposition into divisional sectors, considering the frontage and composition of each division.

4. Measuring phase: Use the Range Tool to test the attainability of identified positions, considering
the distances involved. This should be done for both Allied forces and the enemy's potential avenues
of advance.

As demonstrated by Napoleon, a well-structured staff system can indeed lead to favorable outcomes
and successful operations. Before the 1796 Italian Campaign, Napoleon spent two years studying
the maps in Northern Italy and the history of past wars in the region. He developed a clear plan for
how the campaign should be conducted. He took his time to prepare. Likewise, turn 1 is arguably
the most important one and there is homework to be done before you start moving your units. So,
gentlemen, it's time to gather your staff officers and kindly remind them to set aside their drinks
and focus on the planning task at hand!

"The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that
chaos, both his own and the enemies" - Napoleon

Undoubtedly, there is a certain satisfaction that arises from well-planned and executed operational
plans. While tactical successes, such as capturing a French grand battery, can be thrilling in the
heat of the moment, it's the strategic accomplishments and the broader success of an operational
plan that truly bring lasting fulfilment.

(RH) Good stuff here in this section and I agree with Alex's thought process - so I elected to
hold my commentary till the end. While I am not as methodical in my planning, I do endeavor
to take similar strides when entering a battle such as this. I too prefer to play huge map
scenarios or campaigns that give the extra added layers of FOW to work with. The best are the
huge map meeting scenarios that use the campaign front end for each side to make choices -
and then the battle results from those. This prevents any foreknowledge coming into play of
the opposing forces. I will just make a few comments on the topic...

1) When I am engaged in an Army level meeting engagement my initial planning is done at

the Corps level, not Divisional. Divisions come into play once I am nearing the area of combat.

2) This topic has done a great job of illustrating the importance of Intelligence. It makes it
clear how important your Light Cavalry is for scouting when you are on the offensive. You
must get your "eyes" out there and discover where the enemy is and any applicable details.

Likewise, it illustrates why armies of the time used Cavalry Screens on all sides of their force
- to keep the enemy guessing on the exact location and composition of their forces.

There are multiple levels to a game in this format. What a player wants to do, what they think
their enemy is going to do, and then what is actually happening. Controlling the exposure of
your forces (concealing your exact strength) is as equally important as discovering the details
of your opposition. Wellington knew this, hence his use of Reverse Slopes for example. Waging
a counter-intelligence operation can be as significant as fighting a tactical battle in many
cases.

For these reasons I am a strong advocate of limited "maximum visibility" settings in a scenario
- about 20 hexes seems right to me - and the use of the Strict LOS optional rule. I believe
players should have to work a bit to gain intelligence on the given situation.

3) As Alex said, you want to "work your plan", not be worked over by your opponent. Guide
them to the battlefield of your choice. Especially in huge map situations it is good to refuse
battle if your don't have the right mix of forces on hand or don't like the terrain. Getting sucked
into a battle you don't desire can spell the end of your campaign before you can achieve your
goals.

4) Planning Maps do exist for some of the games already. For example, in the \Manuals folder
of Campaign Eckmuhl you will find the file "Eggmuhl Bayern Map WB2.JPG" which can be
used as a base for your planning operations.

It should be noted when using the Snapshot feature that the entire scenario map will be
captured in the view you are currently set to. It will also include all the units on the map, both
friendly, and opposing within LOS. So, if you want a completely "clean" map you need to create
a new scenario with the base map in the Scenario Editor and save the file without placing any
forces on the map. Then you can go to the main program and open that new scenario and
create your snapshot.

Below is a sample of the full-map Waterloo scenario at the beginning of the match.
Special Topics

Rearguard Actions

Avoiding battle with the enemy on your tail is always easier said than done. There are a few
challenges around that:

• Enemy cavalry will eventually catch up with your retreating columns, outpacing your
infantry.
• A skilled advance guard commander might concentrate their cavalry to create a high threat
level, disrupting rearguard units attempting to change formation.
• An aggressive advance guard commander may even engage in melee against the odds to
disorder, slow down, and isolate rearguard units.

Let's examine a few tips and tricks how to deal with it effectively.

First of all, a flee or fight assessment is to be done. There are typically two types of Rearguard
actions: a shorter scenario assuming the defender is to make a stand and the longer type, often more
common in campaign mode, where a player is expected to retreat fighting a delaying action and
defending the exit zones.

For shorter actions consider making a stand. The map is likely to be small and the scenario is
constrained in time. Assess the terrain, looking for bottlenecks and key artillery positions. Favor a
position at a distance away from the enemy axis of advance: the more unproductive marching the
enemy does the less time there is to concentrate and to assault the rearguard.
If the rearguard's battle line is breached and defeat is imminent, there is a way to minimize the
damage: leave a square behind to cover the retreat and break away into multiple directions. Once
on the edge of the map you can exit each unit via Remove From Map command (Ctl+X) negating the
enemy the opportunity to eliminate your units and to gain victory points.

(RH) Note: You only receive points for exiting units when at an Exit Objective Hex.

For longer rearguard scenarios involving large columns and long marches, start by doing some
numbers crunching, assessing on map VPs to be lost. What outcome the battle would have if you
lose all VPs on the map?

Aim for the draw. Figure out how many troops you are able to lose on top of on some of the map VPs
to retain a draw. These would be your rearguard troops allocated to cover the retreat of your column
and to delay the enemy as long as possible. They are to be written off.

If there is an enemy exit objective hex(s) then retreating off the map is not an option. The enemy
will do the same via their exit hex(s) gaining major victory. Pick a position with a bottleneck, and
flanks covered by obstructed terrain. See the example below of such a position (from Campaign
1814):

The open ground frontage is narrowed in this location with the flanks covered by orchards and
woods. There are also defiles where some of the battle line infantry can be hidden from enemy
artillery fire. In this scenario, defending this position would lead to a draw considering all other on
map VPs the Allied army has given to this point, and the imminent clash with the French advance
guard would result in equal VP losses.
Make sure to use the Range Tool (Shift + Left-click) to assess the risk of being outflanked within the
time available. Position your batteries and deploy for battle. The closer to the target exit zone the
better. The enemy will need time to concentrate and deploy for battle and some of the enemy units
will not make it on time evening the odds.

Below is another position from the same rearguard scenario where the Allied army has retreated to
the edge of the map, covering the exit location:

Both flanks are covered by the map edges and there is substantial open ground for the French to
cover under fire from ~100 allied guns deployed across the narrow (14 hexes) frontage. The downside
of the position is that it only covered the French exit zone and all other on map VPs had to be given
up. Adding all the VPs lost due to Allied casualties to this point, resulted in Allied minor defeat.

This particular scenario was part of the campaign game where losses are carried from a battle to
battle. Considering this factor and lack of time to concentrate and assault the position the French
player gave up on the idea to assault the position accepting French minor victory.

The Russian army is the best suited for rearguard actions as it was historically. By 1813 there was
no army which would probably have the matching experience and the endurance to sustain the
pressure of rearguard actions. Russian army rearguards were systematically impenetrable to the
French in 1805, 1807, 1813 and especially in 1812, consistently frustrating French commanders and
keeping the French advance guards at a respectful distance. If you play an 1812 rearguard action
with +2 fanatical bonus you can handle the pressure easily.

Within the game the Russian army typically has the best structure to handle rearguards:

• It has smaller battalions of around 300-500, and the smaller battalions are the perfect outfits
to be deployed in squares as a covering force. Austrian and Prussian battalions are typically
larger presenting a juicer target for the French advance-guard to isolate and eliminate.
 However, light infantry battalions of any nationality of 100-200 men formed in squares can
be used instead, risking less VPs to be lost.
• The Russian army typically has a larger proportion of artillery pieces per 1,000 men ratio
with lots of horse guns which are best suited for the rearguard actions.
• Cossacks! Smaller squadrons of Cossacks can be broken down further into half squadrons
blocking French advances at low victory points costs. Cossacks are also very likely to be
routed breaking away from the enemy rather than standing their ground, being isolated and
destroyed.

Summary
1. Do a flee or fight assessment on turn one.

2. Figure out the battle result based on on-map VPs loss and the number of troops you can afford to
be written off on retreat.

3. If pitched battle cannot be avoided: pick a position to the rear and away from the enemy axis of
approach. With flanks covered by either obstructed terrain or map edges.

4. Always stand your ground to cover enemy exit hexes, otherwise it is a guaranteed major defeat.

5. Pick smaller battalions or light battalions of around 200 men formed in squares to block the enemy
advance via ZOC covering the retreat of the main force.

6. If playing a mixed Allied army from campaigns of 1813-1814 favor the Russian force to cover the
retreat.

Navigating the Emotional Challenges of PBEM

The mental aspects of playing PBEM mode are worth a separate chapter. Similar to operational and
tactical aspects of WDS simulations, mental challenges can be easily related to the struggles
commanders faced back in the day. The in-game decision process in the face of uncertainty gives us
a small appreciation of how challenging it must have been to make real time decisions on the ground.
When we jump into a PBEM scenario, we never know what kind of surprises are waiting. This is
especially true when we're playing in Campaign mode with FOW. When things go smoothly, or even
better than we planned, we get this burst of creativity and fun. It pumps us up to keep playing and
dig deeper into the scenario.

But let's be real, when our plans go wrong and everything turns into a mess, it feels like a punch to
the gut. It can even ruin our interest in that battle or the whole series. You probably know that
feeling when your opponent's email turnaround suddenly slows down after a few successful assaults
of yours.

That's exactly what warfare is all about. Breaking the enemy's will to fight. In real life, there's no
quitting mid-battle and picking up a different scenario. If the enemy's morale crumbled, this was
followed by massive routing (Jena) or a complete surrender without a fight (Ulm).

Looking at the PBEM results from the Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) PBEM records, it's clear
that most of the outcomes lean heavily towards major victories or defeats. There are just a few minor
victories and draws. It's like we're programmed to give up if things aren't going our way, even though
we could still salvage a minor defeat or perhaps even a draw. If we do some cool-headed calculations
of VPs, consistently stick to the best tactical practices, along with a few enemy mistakes and some
luck we might turn the tables in our favor.

We also tend to underestimate the challenges our opponents face and the desperation and fears
they're dealing with. It's hard to appreciate all that when the fog of war clouds our judgment. Your
opponent might be losing their nerve too!

Even a small tactical setback, like losing a heavy battery due to enemy action, can crush our spirits.
It feels like a big deal, even if strategically it's not that dramatic, and statistically the odds will even
out later in the battle. But emotions take over, and some are quick to give up and move on.

There is also an unrealistic expectation from many players to achieve a immediate outcome from
every assault or defensive action. If an assault fails, players often become disheartened and might
begin shifting blame onto factors like "incorrect" optional rule settings, unbalanced scenarios, or
perceived engine limitations.

In reality, historical success rarely emerged from initial attempts. Typically, actions spanned for
hours, and the history of many battles is full of descriptions where numerous attempts were needed
to capture enemy positions. Given the historically low casualty ratios, many of these attempts were
broken before even making contact. Assaults frequently faced setbacks from artillery fire (routing
in game terms), disorder, or flawed maneuver, prompting generals to retreat, regroup, and try again.
However, 21st century wargamers often lack the patience for such persistence. If things deviate from
initial expectations and outcomes aren't immediate, morale crumbles, leading to a loss of interest.

In my experience some of the most rewarding moments come when we face those tough situations
but manage to pull the best out of it. That is keeping a cool head, planning, not rushing the turn, or
even taking a day break to cool our emotions down, analyzing the situation, assessing wider context,
and executing our moves with precision, even when we're suffering heavy losses and our plans fail.
There's something deeply satisfying about overcoming difficult challenges with calculated decision-
making.
I often find myself on this emotional rollercoaster when my opponent manages to outmaneuver me,
sending my original battle plan to the rubbish bin. This is where I lose the motivation to do my turn.
Until… I sit down, look at the map and come up with a new battle plan! This is where I get the
injection of the needed excitement: a new battle plan justifying certain actions and maneuverers. If
you lost interest in the battle, its most likely because you found yourself in a difficult situation. Take
your time to rethink and adjust.

Sometimes the FOW might surprise you in a positive way or later you may be surprised to find out
from your opponent how close you've come to breaking his line only giving up an attack a turn too
soon.

There is also a trick in mixing up your opponents. There's no point in constantly subjecting yourself
to the pain of playing against superior players. Sure, it's great to learn from them and improve your
skills, but you also need victories to boost your confidence. Seek out less experienced players
occasionally to practice the acquired skills.

However, do share the knowledge when playing a weaker player and be the kind of player you would
wish to be playing should the situation be reversed. That is, make sure you share your tactical
techniques with your opponent at the end of a battle and try to play the disadvantaged army in the
given scenario. Do post mortem analysis together giving and receiving feedback.

Once you gain confidence and score some wins then find someone on your level for a real challenge.
You can consider seeking opponents via the WDS forums or joining one of several clubs around the
web:

https://wargameds.com/pages/resources-clubs

(RH) For example, some of the clubs operate with historical divisions, with Armies of the
various time periods represented - they tend to focus on a specific series of games. Joining a
certain army doesn't mean you can never play the opposing forces, it just adds some historical
"flavor" to the experience. Over time you build your gaming history, gain Rank and win
awards. A further benefit of these style of clubs is they often include a "Training Department"
where new members are assigned a veteran player to walk them through the process of playing
the games - ensuring basic concepts are understood - before you start engaging in more
competitive matches.

Other clubs are set up to support a wide variety of games, and recording battles is done in
more of a "ladder" format.

On a personal note, I was heavily involved with various clubs from 1997 to 2010. In that time
I met some great people and could have a new match to play any time I wished. We even met
in person at some club gatherings, battlefield tours and the three Tiller Cons. It was a great
period in my gaming life that I still have good memories of... only my commitments to other
things drew me out of that active involvement. Those possibilities still exist for those who wish
to engage.

Beyond the role playing and the wargaming itself, it's the sense of community and, it’s a shared
passions with a distinct group based on your similar niche interest. It makes it a much more valuable
experience when you come across a person with a similar but rare interest.
In the end, what matters most is the experience itself. Whether you're easily crushing the French
as the Allied player at Waterloo or fighting “all lost” Leipzig battle against the Allied in 1813, it's all
about immersing yourself in the historical setting and enjoying the thrill of the game.

Some battles are hard to win by default and there is no shame in giving up if you are not enjoying
it. However, one thing to consider instead of thinking of winning or losing, judge your performance
simply by how well you carried out you orders given the circumstances. Put yourself in the shoes of
the historical commander and analyze the situation with a cool head, learn, share the knowledge
with others and pull the best you can, given the circumstances. If you make less mistakes than your
opponent perhaps you can pull a draw, the sweet taste of which will be all more satisfying.

(RH) It is always good form to communicate with your opponent if you feel the need to resign.
Don't simply fade away and stop answering emails.

Below is a shot from a recent PBEM match where so many of the factors discussed in this
segment came into play.

(RH) And so this brings us to the conclusion of the original article Alex put together. We think
he did an excellent job and we hope y'all have enjoyed it.

In publishing this I felt that this last segment would be fitting to tie into other pieces of
information relating to playing the games. There is really so much more depth to the games
beyond pushing a few counters around a board - as hopefully this series of articles has shown.

Methods of Play
Back in June of '23 we published a post "How to Play" which covers the different methods you can
play the games, gives some insight into design methods and presents some avenues in which to
engage other players.
A couple of aspects mentioned towards the bottom of that blog post are going to be our focus for the
balance of this installment. They are:

• Cooperative Play
• Envoy - Command and Control with Order Delay

These details will add even more options and depth to your gaming experience. So, let’s move
forward...

Cooperative Play
What is meant by this topic is essentially team play, where two or more people are assigned to each
side of a battle - so control of the forces is split between the players. This can happen through
Network play, and there's functionality built in to the engine to facilitate command responsibilities,
but it can also be played out via email. Many of the factors covered in this section can also apply to
one-on-one play... or for that matter even solo play - all depends on how much depth you want to
provide to your particular situation.

Here is a shot of the Multi-Player Dialog for a game I setup on my home network. I have three
computers connected and this is showing where I have designated control of the French I Corps to
the "caller" player on the French side. They also have the 4e corps de cavalerie on that flank, but
that is further down the dialog box. Everything else is assigned to player 1.

You can have numerous players per side... if I'm not mistaken the Naval club back in the day would
have 6 or 7 players on each side for an on-line battle. The more people the better.

In a PBEM format you have assignments as well, but they are not (currently) controlled by the
program. Each player has to be careful of the units they are moving. So the first player to go would
move their forces then save the turn and send it to the next player and on until all players have done
their turns. The commander for the side would be the last one to get the file. Possibly the CO would
advance the turn and conduct all the melee's, or the file would cycle back through the team. Once
completed the turn is advanced and sent to the other side.

Using this format it becomes imperative for two things to happen. You must be punctual with your
game turns - so that files move along pretty quickly. It is also important to keep file revisions - what
is meant by that is a separate folder to keep files that have been sent - so if a file gets lost or corrupted
you can easily re-send the file - without having to redo a turn. Best practice would be to "CC" the
sides commander so that progress of the turn can be tracked at any given point and so there aren't
breaks in communications.

I have been involved with matches in this format conducted in a variety of ways.

1. The CO for the side sets the battle plan for the entire side and the various Corps commanders
carry out the orders.
2. Discussions take place to formulate a battle plan with "equal" partners on each side.
3. Game is controlled by a "Game Master" handling issued orders to each player and the speed
at which those orders get there. Orders could be like: March to Mont St. Jean by 1800 hours,
secure the crossroads and await further orders.

Really, the sky is the limit on how you would wish to conduct matches such as this.

House Rules
As we progress through this I feel it is important to comment on John Tiller's design philosophy.
John endeavored to have a balance between "game" and "simulation", with the weight slightly in
favor of Game. With that in mind the engine is programmed to allow players to do certain things
that their historical counterparts may not, or would not, have done - but with consequences. For
example: Generally speaking players push their forces much harder than would be possible on a real
battlefield. Real men can only take so much of a beating and keep pressing forward. So, we have
both the Fatigue and Morale systems in the game. You can press your troops as hard as you wish,
but they will gain fatigue with each combat interaction (and in the case of Cavalry, Charging and
then all units can gain fatigue when moving at night with the appropriate optional rule selected.)
Once Fatigue passes certain thresholds new parameters are put into place, which you can read about
in detail in section 5.4.11 of the User Manual. So, the harder a player pushes their force, the worse
they will perform until they will end up running at the first sign of the enemy.

So, certain aspects of how the game functions are intentionally not in adherence to what happened
historically. The goal is to make the games accessible to as many types of players as possible. As we
continue to refine the engine over time we endeavor to retain this balance while also moving things
a bit closer to historical accuracy.

With that said, some players want to impose restrictions to create the most period-accurate
experience they can achieve. Hence, the use of House Rules. House Rules are additional parameters
players agree to apply to their game prior to the beginning of a scenario.

Some examples of these are:

 • No forward movement of forces during night turns.
• No fighting during Night Turns.
• Further reductions on Stacking limits and force composition of stacks.
• Loss restrictions, if a unit is severely depleted it can't initiate melee, etc.

A group of players who gather over at the Desktop Grenadiers Facebook group compiled a document
detailing their house rules and structure of play for their multiplayer games. Several of these items
are now obsolete due to engine changes that have been implemented, but we wanted to share the
document with you in order that you can see what has been done - so you can implement it as well
if you wish or gain ideas for other things you want to do. You can download a copy from the link
below.

Napoleonic Battles: House Rules and Courier System

As mentioned, some of this has been hard coded into the engine. Things such as using Leaders to
scout are no longer really possible as their movement is restricted if moving towards opposing forces
without accompanying combat units. Another change that has been implemented is the 3-hex "leash"
on skirmishers from regular line units. These changes were implemented due to severe abuse by
players which really detracted from the spirit of the games.

I agree with much of what is included in the document, but not all. Like the requirement to keep an
empty hex between infantry units moving down a road/pike/path. This makes force management
over long distances much harder on a player and renders the Formation Movement feature
inoperable (mentioned in section 5.2.12 of the User Manual). I would prefer to agree to use a
slower movement rate along roads or some other modification. Especially when playing large
scenarios reducing the amount of mouse clicks I need to make is highly desirable!

These are not one-size fits all and you can choose to use all, some or none of them in your games.
Again though, these need to be discussed before the first turn is played in a match to ensure both
(all) players are on the same page. This discussion also underscores John Tiller's original design to
include flexibility through optional rules and not out-right prohibiting certain actions - to
accommodate multiple options so as many people as possible could enjoy the games.

I skipped over a whole section of that manual - the Courier System - as it has essentially been
replaced by the new utility provided by Nick Musurca...

Envoy
Envoy is a free utility for Wargame Design Studio’s (WDS) series of historical wargames that
simulates command and control with order delay. Often, decisive battles turned not on weapons and
men, but on time and information: who knew what, and when? Were the correct orders issued—and
received in time to make a difference? Using Envoy, you can explore these questions by composing
orders for subordinates, then passing them down the chain of command with realistic (and
customizable) delay. You will be notified on the turn when the order is delivered.
As a solo or PBEM player, you can use this tool as a prompt for moving your units along constraints
defined by the orders. You can also use it to umpire Kriegspiel-style wargames for multiple players,
using the underlying WDS game to adjudicate combat.

While WDS games are remarkable in their unparalleled attention to historical detail, one of their
current limitations is that they do not simulate the flow of information and authority on the
battlefield. As soon as an enemy unit appears, it is immediately visible to every friendly unit, all of
which may take immediate action to counter it without regard to orders or hierarchy—a utopian
state of affairs for the wargamer, but in reality not yet attained in the 21st century, let alone the
18th. For those of us who use WDS games as a starting point for deeper historical understanding,
some accounting for this “fog of war” is required.

While the most dedicated grognards already address this limitation by tracking the flow of orders
and information with outside spreadsheets, Envoy—a free tool introduced earlier this year—is
designed to eliminate nearly all manual accounting by integrating itself into the underlying WDS
game, performing all calculations invisibly, and notifying the player directly when messages arrive.
Note that some degree of discipline and ‘house rules’ are still required, as Envoy does not prevent
you from moving any units; you (and your PBEM opponent, if applicable) must agree on some basic
ground rules about how units will react to messages, and stick to them.

Wallace Welder, a beta tester for Nicholas and a fellow wargmer, has written a detailed tutorial for
the Envoy utility using Bonaparte’s Peninsular War as a testbed. The following link will allow you
to download not only the tutorial, but also the latest version of Envoy and it's supporting files. The
Tutorial will be in the \Manual folder once you extract the package.

Download the Envoy package from our forum, here.

And that my friends brings us to the conclusion of this installment, and this series of articles. We
hope it has opened your eyes to new possibilities and ways of enjoying the games you have not
thought of before.

<salute>