Minimum Unit Size

[Ingles of the 57th]

Again I am putting this into a new thread as the title of the original post is not really pertinent.

Minimum Unit size in the game remains an interesting topic. A recent post suggests that regiments should be abolished and the smallest unit made a Brigade. But in the Napoleonic Mod it is being suggested that regiments should be split into companies .... the opposite direction entirely. Clearly much ground for debate. Napoleonic battles will demand regiments forming square.

I would not agree with losing regiments. The heart and soul of any army lies in its regiments. An SOWGB without the historic regimental names and commanders would be a soulless, dull thing. Brigade structures and the attached regiments are transitory. I believe that one regiment contrived to serve in three separate brigades and two different Corps before the Gettysburg battle finally reached conclusion. SOW GB is about preserving history not 'dumbing up" the game to make it easier to play or display.

Brigades rarely make history. Off hand I can think only of the Light Brigade at Balaclava which remains more famous than its individual regiments. Any other offers ?

However there are problems of scale which are worth discussing. On the existing maps it is quite impossible to play Army versus Army without the deployments generally overlapping and unholy mayhem ensuing which soon overwhelms the AI. Perhaps there should be a larger extremely simple, near-blank map just to cater for this. Like fighting on the Russian Steppes without a house, fence or road in sight. A genuine 'sandbox" The nearest I have seen to this was the Quatre Bras map produced for TC2M.

Personally I don't like army versus army. Even if mayhem is averted, as a divisional commander within an Army you can sit there through the whole battle without getting a single meaningful order whilst the Corp commanders blunder comprehensively around you. Just like real life I suppose.

Geoff Laver

Late of Her Britannic Majesty's 57th Regiment of Foot

[william1993]

I agree too with Army vs. Army, damn big and clunky. In my opinion, getting rid of regiments would be dumb as brigades were frequently split and you had regiments famous for their deeds

[montecristo1981]

i tink davinci was working on a large blank map, or with a few roads onit - 12m or summit?

[Baldwin]

In the ACW it was far more common for brigade's nicknames to outshine their unit's regimental names.

Examples:

Stonewall Brigade
Iron Brigade
Orphan Brigade
Irish Brigade
Gibraltar Brigade
Louisiana Tigers (Brigade)

However, I'm all for keeping regimental unit command.

[Ingles of the 57th]

Thanks for the information, Baldwin. Something I not picked up from playing the game or reading.

Did the regimental makeup of these brigades tend to remain constant throughout the war ? I seem to recall an 'Iron Brigade' arising in various incarnations.

The regiments in the ACW seemed to have been far more independent than for example in Britain. In Britain there would have been just one Virginia Regiment but with many numbered battalions with a strict seniority. These battalions would though be spread widely throughout the Army/Division/Brigade structure with the junior battalions in Reserve. So I guess the "Brigade" in ACW filled the niche that the "Regiment" held in Britain.

British warfare tended to be concentrated, very bloody and most importantly NOT IN BRITAIN. So replacements tended to be not readily and quickly available. Junior battalions of the same Regiment were regularly sacrificed to supplement and reinforce their seniors. Hence the history of constantly re-grouping and consolidating into new formations after carnage. Divisions tended to retain their identity but Brigades were expendable and thus rarely named or remembered.

The military authorities are still at it to this very day ! Our army has become smaller now than in Napoleonic times.

Geoff Laver

Late of Her Britannic Majesty's 57th Regiment of Foot

Ironically one of those regiments that suffered the fate. The 57th (Middlesex) Regiment, once boasting nine battalions in 1916, now exists merely as a company name within the Princess Of Wales' Royal Regiment. Sic transit gloria mundi.

[conjotter]

Hey Ingles.

During the Napoleonic Wars battalions formed squares in the British Army, not regiments. I believe the same goes for the French.

The British battalions were formed into brigades, the French battalions into demi-brigades in the early years, regiments in the later years.

[Ingles of the 57th]

Hi Conjotter.

Yes I agree. I was using the term 'regiment' solely in its SOWGB OOB definition. Without those, squares could not be formed. I suppose a Brigade could technically form a square if it had four regiments (battalions) but I have no knowledge of this ever happening. Partially broken squares would sometimes join with others and and reform but not often.

There was often great animosity between Regiments. Since Albuhera in 1811, the 57th Middlesex and the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers have been at each others' throats. After the 57th had been near wiped out in that famous stand, the hitherto idle Fusiliers finally came up the hill from the rear and sought to seize the glory. The feud was still rife in the 1960's when I was with the Regiment.

Another chapter was added during World War II. The 57th were brigaded in Hong Kong with the Royal Scots (!st of Foot). The Royal Scots broke far too easily against the Japanese attack and left the 57th unsupported to be overwhelmed and captured. Since then the Royal Scots have been derided as the "Fleet of Foot"

No way these regiments would support each other on the battlefield. Even the "powers that be" tended not to brigade them together.

The Scottish redeemed themselves somewhat in 1950 when the 57th, once more in Hong Kong, and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders were the first British battalions into Korea.

Back to the game. Just of interest, I have further, privately, modded the Peninsular OOB's for British Regiments to include the Regimental Name as well as the Regimental "Number in Line".( e.g. The Buffs, The Devons, The Royal West Kents etc) Although the names were not officially used much at the time, I do treasure this link with today's British Army.

Why ever did the American Army get rid of the iconic State names for Army units ? So did the Germans too. Is recruiting now so widespread and impersonal that units no longer have any regional roots at all ? It was a great driver of morale in days gone by..

Geoff Laver

Late of Her Britannic Majesty's 57th Regiment of Foot.

[Baldwin]

Did the regimental makeup of these brigades tend to remain constant throughout the war ?

For the most part they did stay consistent. Maybe one/two regiment(s) would switch out or be added i.e. Iron Brigade added the 24th Michigan in 1862. It was much different structure than across the pond.

Why ever did the American Army get rid of the iconic State names for Army units ?

IMHO I think that during reconstruction they were unwilling to include the Southern regiments/brigades names back into the regular army for fear of dissent/rebellion and not wanting to acknowledge the South's military spirit or anything associated with state's rights. This is a disgrace because most of our soldiers come from the South.

[william1993]

I wouldn't say MOST of them come from the South...a lot of them, yes, but not most of them, I'd say at most 55%

I'm glad they got rid of regimental names like that because that does nothing but divide folks, state by state, when they're all Americans. I like it better when they just have generic X U.S. Infantry/Cavalry?Artillery. That way everyone is a part of something, not just from particular states

[Jim]

A lot of the reason that the American army got away from geographic units was the fearsome casualties that could fall on one of these units. For example, the 1st Vermont brigade suffered about 1200 casualties at the battle of the Wilderness (~50% loss). This amounted to nearly 1/2 of 1% of the total population of the state. May 5th and 6th were days of mourning and remembrance for Vermont families for decades after the war.

-Jim