Gaming the Battle of Rossbach
Frederick the Great has fascinated me for decades. I have several biographies about his life and pertaining to his legendary generalship during the Seven Years' War. This was really world’s first global war. The naval powers of England, France, Spain, and a few other nations fought for interests in India and North America as well as across continental Europe. Prussia, the nation ruled by King Frederick, had no navy to speak of so it was confined to the European mainland. Some of the most famous battles in military history were fought by Frederick during this war.
I have played John Tiller computer wargames as a hobby also for decades. I reviewed one of his games on this blog back in 2009. But that doesn’t reveal how many of his games I own and how much time I spend playing them. Let’s just say it is an on-going part of my life; sometimes more, sometimes less. I have probably bought and played a dozen or more games by Tiller since 2009 and I have been buying his games since the late 1980's.
Tiller’s most recent release is The Seven Years War, so I have spent a good bit of time lately tinkering with that game and playing through some of the battles it simulates. As usual, Tiller is generous with all the content that comes with his games. All the major battles of Frederick’s career are featured in this release; which is so cool from a sheer research perspective. You can easily compare troop strength, quality, battlefield terrain and leadership between the many battles, giving you a nice bird's eye view of the war as Prussia and its adversaries knew it.
John Tiller’s The Seven Years War is a simple two-player game (with a few exceptions the sides are Prussia vs. Allied Austrian, French, Russian armies) with a lot of solitaire capability, which is how I play. It is not only packed full of battles, it also offers a “campaign mode” to allow players to explore alternate strategies which will generate varying battles based upon decisions made by players. Tiller delivers yet another game with far more replay-ability than I will ever take advantage of, but it is wonderful to have all this stuff to toy with now and then.
Each Tiller design affords the player a glimpse into the mechanics of warfare (strength, speed, quality, morale, supply, etc.) for the time period in which it is set. My Chancellorsville review reflects the mechanics of an American Civil War battle. My Tiller games each capture the “feel” of warfare in their respective time rather accurately. Games as diverse as 1776, Salerno, Kursk, Gettysburg, and Vietnam are all examples of game-able Tiller designs, each containing different scales and rules to represent the mechanics that commanders had to deal with at the time.
Tiller’s Napoleonic Battles Series has always been among my favorites. These games can take a lot of time to play. If you play, say the Battle of Leipzig, you have many dozens of decisions to make every turn and this slows play down to where it can take weeks (in mini-sessions while still living a normal work/family life) to complete a game. For that reason I enjoy playing Auerstadt, a small but significant battle won by Napoleon’s chief lieutenant, Marshal Devout in 1806. The smaller numbers of forces involved allow me to play a game of that battle in a leisurely day.
I mention this for two reasons. First of all, it is useful to compare the “game system” between Tiller’s Napoleonic designs and The Seven Years War. It teaches the player the subtle differences in warfare between the two eras. More on that in a moment. Secondly, there are battles of all sizes featured in Tiller’s latest design. To list only a fraction of those contained in the game along with the respective army strengths: Lobositz contains Austrian: 31,622 / Prussian: 28,866; Prague - Austrian: 72,430 / Prussian: 65,424; Kolin (Frederick's first major defeat) - Austrian 52,487 / Prussian 33,288; Rossbach - French: 29,412 / Prussian: 20,782; Leuthen (Frederick's greatest victory) - Austrian: 65,242 / Prussian: 38,238; Zorndorf - Russian: 46,530 / Prussian: 35,189; Torgau - Austrian: 56,228 / Prussian: 39,852; Freiberg - Allied: 36,398 / Prussian: 23,533.
For purposes of reviewing game play and the mechanics of warfare during this period I chose to play the Battle of Rossbach, which, due to its manageable size, can be played in the course of an afternoon, whereas the Battle of Prague would take much longer due to so many more troops/commands being involved.
The Seven Years War is the second installment of Tiller's Musket and Pike Series of games, which basically simulate early modern warfare before Napoleon. Each game turn represents 15 minutes of "real" time, each hex is 100 meters across, and most units represent battalions of infantry and cavalry and batteries of artillery. Each turn is broken down further into phases for game play. Basically, the first side/player gets to move. The second side/player conducts defensive fire. Then the first side/player gets to conduct offensive fire followed by close combat known as melee. This last phase includes cavalry charges. Then the first player and second player switch and the phases are repeated. Each side's turn ends with recovery of fatigued, disorganized, and/or routed units.
In the Rossbach scenario, as with most scenarios, the Prussian side moves first. Frederick and his Prussian commanders always believed in controlling the initiative. This might seem surprising given the troop numbers provided above. In every case, the Prussians were outnumbered. But by using initiative, speed, and higher quality soldiers, Frederick was able to strike at concentrations of his choosing, thereby mitigating his numerical inferiority in most cases. Such was the case at Rossbach, a classic Prussian victory historically. Though outnumbered, Frederick ordered an immediate attack before the Franco-Imperial army was fully deployed.
Before we get into my replay of the scenario let's take a closer look at the mechanics which drive this game, comparing them specifically to the Napoleonic series as a means to measure how warfare differed in the 1750's from the early 1800's.
The largest change in The Seven Years War from, say, the Auerstadt game, can be found in the infantry. In Frederick's day a line of muskets was considered the most effective means to deliver firepower against an opponent. Infantry deployed in columns for shock melee attacks was not standard practice before the Napoleonic period and the column capabilities in Auerstadt do not exist in The Seven Years War. The square, a defensive practice employed by infantry against cavalry in Napoleon's time, is also not available. Infantry tactics were less evolved against charging cavalry. Also, there are not as many light infantry troops so skirmish lines, routine in every Napoleonic battle, are almost nonexistent in The Seven Years War.
Cavalry is less effective charging than in the Napoleonic period. When charges take place, everyone involved on both sides is still pretty much disorganized by the act of charging, but fewer actual casualties are incurred. (Perhaps another reason no one had thought up the idea of infantry defending in squares.) As for artillery, it is the least affected arm compared with warfare 50 years later. There are a lot of smaller caliber cannons - like 3-pounders - in The Seven Years War but overall artillery works the same way in both Tiller series.
Before beginning the Battle of Rossbach scenario (or any game of the series for that matter) it is best to assess the quality of your troops and of your leaders. These are the factors that control how much fatigue and casualties a unit can handle without becoming combat ineffective. Once disorganized or routed, your leaders come into play as far as getting your units back into fighting condition again and recommitting them before the battle is over.
Overall, the Franco-Imperial Army (French infantry augmented with “Imperial” forces from southern German states – what remained of the Holy Roman Empire known at this time as the Reichsarmee) has about 30% more troops than the Prussians. But, the French are slow to maneuver and react.
Prince de Soubise is in overall command of the French and he possesses rather pathetic ratings of “E” for command (which affects how well other leaders under him can move and attack with their troops) and “D” for leadership (which is used for assist morale checks of troops within his range). These ratings work like grades in school. “A” is best and “F” is worst. Prince von Hildburghausen commands the majority of the cavalry, which is provided by the Reichsarmee. His ratings are also an “E” for command and a “D” for leadership. Long story made short, these two leaders are incompetent when it comes to handling and rallying their troops.
By sharp contrast, the Prussian leaders are highly rated and their troops of consistently higher quality. Frederick II himself, being one of the greatest generals in military history, is rated an “A” for both command and leadership. This ensures that his troops will always receive the highest bonuses when checking for morale and reorganization. All leaders under Frederick’s direct supervision will likewise receive the best modifiers when checking to commit troops to battle or to rally them from disorganized states that inevitably occur once contact is made with the enemy. The Prussian cavalry general is Marshal von Seydlitz who is also rated an “A” in both categories, allowing the Prussian cavalry to hit hard and still run rings around the Reichsarmee.
In a nutshell, the Prussian army of 1757 was the best-led and best-trained army in Europe. While the typical French-Imperial unit has a quality rating of “D”, the typical Prussian is a “B” with a few “A’s” scattered through the ranks. These quality ratings reflect how much fatigued and casualties a given unit can take and remain combat effective. Generally speaking, “D” units become disorganized when fired upon once or twice. “B” units can take more punishment and can usually handle being fired upon unless, of course, they are taking canon fire. In any case, “B” troops can stay in line longer and therefore produce more firepower overall through time than “D” troops.
Superior leadership and superior troop quality usually reflects the outstanding tactical capabilities of the Prussians compared with their adversaries. It is the primary reason why, even though constantly outnumbered, the Prussians chose to attack. They were simply better than whoever they were up against. In some later battles, the quality of the Prussian soldiers falls to a “C” because new recruits brought in the replace casualties are not as well-trained as the soldiers filling the ranks at the beginning of the war. Likewise, in later battles, the Austrian, French, and Russian armies improve in quality somewhat, with more training and experience.
But at the time of Rossbach this was not the case. No nation could field a force of the overall caliber and quality of the Prussians. This scenario is an excellent example of how an outnumbered army of quality can attack and defeat a larger army less competently led or trained.
The scenario begins with the Prussian army already pretty much aligned for attack. Meanwhile, the Imperial cavalry, with some French support, is attempting to get around the Prussian left flank and attack it. The French infantry is deploying along the high ground, initially defending in place until fully deployed. Then, later in the game, they can attack the Prussian army, supposedly after the Imperial cavalry has put it in disarray. That plan would never be implemented, however.
For his part, Frederick has two primary wings to his small army. On his right, he has superb infantry already positioned to attack. All of his cavalry are deployed on the left and are ready to charge under the superb leadership of Seydlitz. The Prussians are able to attack the Imperial cavalry while it is still in column and not aligned for combat. This quickly scatters large portions of it.
The rest of the Reichsarmee cavalry regroups as best it can and counterattacks but the Prussians are too good for them. All this leaves both sides disorganized and this part of the battlefield slows down after a couple of game turns as the leaders now race to get their respective forces reorganized. Meanwhile, the Prussian infantry have plowed through some of the scattered cavalry and are attacking uphill into the main body of French infantry.
In the end, the Franco-Imperial army still held the high ground but its cavalry had disintegrated and it had lost about 20% of its infantry. All objective hexes were taken by the Prussians which would further demoralize Prince de Soubise’s army. In the span of 20 game turns (about 5 hours) the French suffered 4,719 infantry losses (killed and wounded) and 4,914 cavalry casualties, which together account for almost one-third of their entire army. For their part, the Prussian infantry suffered 4,266 losses, no small sum. But the cavalry performed spectacularly, only losing 989. Still, altogether this constitutes about 25% of the smaller Prussian army, a high casualty rate even for a victory. 14 French leaders were killed or wounded (which leads the further disorganization) compared to 4 Prussian leaders.
It is a major Prussian victory. Their army, though bloodied by their own attack, is still organized and ready for more offensive action. The French have suffered grievously and have poor quality troops (mostly “E” ratings) forming the last line of defense. At the end of the game, the scenario assumes that they will quit the field. Frederick is smart enough not to pursue. In the grander sense, he will not waste his army entirely, but build it back up for its next battle, which will be Leuthen, his greatest victory. His twin victories at Rossbach and Leuthen, where he was outnumbered both times, are among the greatest military accomplishments of the eighteenth century and were an inspiration to future commanders, including Napoleon himself.
Tiller’s games are a lot of fun and give the player multiple insights into the capabilities and nature of warfare in whatever time they represent. The Seven Years War carries on Tiller’s fine reputation for offering a content-rich simulation experience that gives the player a glimpse into the historical period and nature of the art of war at the time depicted. A great gaming value for the price that I will likely keep playing on and off for years.
I have played John Tiller computer wargames as a hobby also for decades. I reviewed one of his games on this blog back in 2009. But that doesn’t reveal how many of his games I own and how much time I spend playing them. Let’s just say it is an on-going part of my life; sometimes more, sometimes less. I have probably bought and played a dozen or more games by Tiller since 2009 and I have been buying his games since the late 1980's.
Tiller’s most recent release is The Seven Years War, so I have spent a good bit of time lately tinkering with that game and playing through some of the battles it simulates. As usual, Tiller is generous with all the content that comes with his games. All the major battles of Frederick’s career are featured in this release; which is so cool from a sheer research perspective. You can easily compare troop strength, quality, battlefield terrain and leadership between the many battles, giving you a nice bird's eye view of the war as Prussia and its adversaries knew it.
John Tiller’s The Seven Years War is a simple two-player game (with a few exceptions the sides are Prussia vs. Allied Austrian, French, Russian armies) with a lot of solitaire capability, which is how I play. It is not only packed full of battles, it also offers a “campaign mode” to allow players to explore alternate strategies which will generate varying battles based upon decisions made by players. Tiller delivers yet another game with far more replay-ability than I will ever take advantage of, but it is wonderful to have all this stuff to toy with now and then.
Each Tiller design affords the player a glimpse into the mechanics of warfare (strength, speed, quality, morale, supply, etc.) for the time period in which it is set. My Chancellorsville review reflects the mechanics of an American Civil War battle. My Tiller games each capture the “feel” of warfare in their respective time rather accurately. Games as diverse as 1776, Salerno, Kursk, Gettysburg, and Vietnam are all examples of game-able Tiller designs, each containing different scales and rules to represent the mechanics that commanders had to deal with at the time.
Tiller’s Napoleonic Battles Series has always been among my favorites. These games can take a lot of time to play. If you play, say the Battle of Leipzig, you have many dozens of decisions to make every turn and this slows play down to where it can take weeks (in mini-sessions while still living a normal work/family life) to complete a game. For that reason I enjoy playing Auerstadt, a small but significant battle won by Napoleon’s chief lieutenant, Marshal Devout in 1806. The smaller numbers of forces involved allow me to play a game of that battle in a leisurely day.
I mention this for two reasons. First of all, it is useful to compare the “game system” between Tiller’s Napoleonic designs and The Seven Years War. It teaches the player the subtle differences in warfare between the two eras. More on that in a moment. Secondly, there are battles of all sizes featured in Tiller’s latest design. To list only a fraction of those contained in the game along with the respective army strengths: Lobositz contains Austrian: 31,622 / Prussian: 28,866; Prague - Austrian: 72,430 / Prussian: 65,424; Kolin (Frederick's first major defeat) - Austrian 52,487 / Prussian 33,288; Rossbach - French: 29,412 / Prussian: 20,782; Leuthen (Frederick's greatest victory) - Austrian: 65,242 / Prussian: 38,238; Zorndorf - Russian: 46,530 / Prussian: 35,189; Torgau - Austrian: 56,228 / Prussian: 39,852; Freiberg - Allied: 36,398 / Prussian: 23,533.
For purposes of reviewing game play and the mechanics of warfare during this period I chose to play the Battle of Rossbach, which, due to its manageable size, can be played in the course of an afternoon, whereas the Battle of Prague would take much longer due to so many more troops/commands being involved.
The Seven Years War is the second installment of Tiller's Musket and Pike Series of games, which basically simulate early modern warfare before Napoleon. Each game turn represents 15 minutes of "real" time, each hex is 100 meters across, and most units represent battalions of infantry and cavalry and batteries of artillery. Each turn is broken down further into phases for game play. Basically, the first side/player gets to move. The second side/player conducts defensive fire. Then the first side/player gets to conduct offensive fire followed by close combat known as melee. This last phase includes cavalry charges. Then the first player and second player switch and the phases are repeated. Each side's turn ends with recovery of fatigued, disorganized, and/or routed units.
In the Rossbach scenario, as with most scenarios, the Prussian side moves first. Frederick and his Prussian commanders always believed in controlling the initiative. This might seem surprising given the troop numbers provided above. In every case, the Prussians were outnumbered. But by using initiative, speed, and higher quality soldiers, Frederick was able to strike at concentrations of his choosing, thereby mitigating his numerical inferiority in most cases. Such was the case at Rossbach, a classic Prussian victory historically. Though outnumbered, Frederick ordered an immediate attack before the Franco-Imperial army was fully deployed.
Before we get into my replay of the scenario let's take a closer look at the mechanics which drive this game, comparing them specifically to the Napoleonic series as a means to measure how warfare differed in the 1750's from the early 1800's.
The largest change in The Seven Years War from, say, the Auerstadt game, can be found in the infantry. In Frederick's day a line of muskets was considered the most effective means to deliver firepower against an opponent. Infantry deployed in columns for shock melee attacks was not standard practice before the Napoleonic period and the column capabilities in Auerstadt do not exist in The Seven Years War. The square, a defensive practice employed by infantry against cavalry in Napoleon's time, is also not available. Infantry tactics were less evolved against charging cavalry. Also, there are not as many light infantry troops so skirmish lines, routine in every Napoleonic battle, are almost nonexistent in The Seven Years War.
Cavalry is less effective charging than in the Napoleonic period. When charges take place, everyone involved on both sides is still pretty much disorganized by the act of charging, but fewer actual casualties are incurred. (Perhaps another reason no one had thought up the idea of infantry defending in squares.) As for artillery, it is the least affected arm compared with warfare 50 years later. There are a lot of smaller caliber cannons - like 3-pounders - in The Seven Years War but overall artillery works the same way in both Tiller series.
Before beginning the Battle of Rossbach scenario (or any game of the series for that matter) it is best to assess the quality of your troops and of your leaders. These are the factors that control how much fatigue and casualties a unit can handle without becoming combat ineffective. Once disorganized or routed, your leaders come into play as far as getting your units back into fighting condition again and recommitting them before the battle is over.
Overall, the Franco-Imperial Army (French infantry augmented with “Imperial” forces from southern German states – what remained of the Holy Roman Empire known at this time as the Reichsarmee) has about 30% more troops than the Prussians. But, the French are slow to maneuver and react.
Prince de Soubise is in overall command of the French and he possesses rather pathetic ratings of “E” for command (which affects how well other leaders under him can move and attack with their troops) and “D” for leadership (which is used for assist morale checks of troops within his range). These ratings work like grades in school. “A” is best and “F” is worst. Prince von Hildburghausen commands the majority of the cavalry, which is provided by the Reichsarmee. His ratings are also an “E” for command and a “D” for leadership. Long story made short, these two leaders are incompetent when it comes to handling and rallying their troops.
By sharp contrast, the Prussian leaders are highly rated and their troops of consistently higher quality. Frederick II himself, being one of the greatest generals in military history, is rated an “A” for both command and leadership. This ensures that his troops will always receive the highest bonuses when checking for morale and reorganization. All leaders under Frederick’s direct supervision will likewise receive the best modifiers when checking to commit troops to battle or to rally them from disorganized states that inevitably occur once contact is made with the enemy. The Prussian cavalry general is Marshal von Seydlitz who is also rated an “A” in both categories, allowing the Prussian cavalry to hit hard and still run rings around the Reichsarmee.
In a nutshell, the Prussian army of 1757 was the best-led and best-trained army in Europe. While the typical French-Imperial unit has a quality rating of “D”, the typical Prussian is a “B” with a few “A’s” scattered through the ranks. These quality ratings reflect how much fatigued and casualties a given unit can take and remain combat effective. Generally speaking, “D” units become disorganized when fired upon once or twice. “B” units can take more punishment and can usually handle being fired upon unless, of course, they are taking canon fire. In any case, “B” troops can stay in line longer and therefore produce more firepower overall through time than “D” troops.
Superior leadership and superior troop quality usually reflects the outstanding tactical capabilities of the Prussians compared with their adversaries. It is the primary reason why, even though constantly outnumbered, the Prussians chose to attack. They were simply better than whoever they were up against. In some later battles, the quality of the Prussian soldiers falls to a “C” because new recruits brought in the replace casualties are not as well-trained as the soldiers filling the ranks at the beginning of the war. Likewise, in later battles, the Austrian, French, and Russian armies improve in quality somewhat, with more training and experience.
But at the time of Rossbach this was not the case. No nation could field a force of the overall caliber and quality of the Prussians. This scenario is an excellent example of how an outnumbered army of quality can attack and defeat a larger army less competently led or trained.
The scenario begins with the Prussian army already pretty much aligned for attack. Meanwhile, the Imperial cavalry, with some French support, is attempting to get around the Prussian left flank and attack it. The French infantry is deploying along the high ground, initially defending in place until fully deployed. Then, later in the game, they can attack the Prussian army, supposedly after the Imperial cavalry has put it in disarray. That plan would never be implemented, however.
For his part, Frederick has two primary wings to his small army. On his right, he has superb infantry already positioned to attack. All of his cavalry are deployed on the left and are ready to charge under the superb leadership of Seydlitz. The Prussians are able to attack the Imperial cavalry while it is still in column and not aligned for combat. This quickly scatters large portions of it.
The Prussian attack begins. Advanced infantry strike the Reichsarmee cavalry while it is still in column, routing several battalions of cavalry. Meanwhile, the Prussian cavalry is arrayed to charge. |
The rest of the Reichsarmee cavalry regroups as best it can and counterattacks but the Prussians are too good for them. All this leaves both sides disorganized and this part of the battlefield slows down after a couple of game turns as the leaders now race to get their respective forces reorganized. Meanwhile, the Prussian infantry have plowed through some of the scattered cavalry and are attacking uphill into the main body of French infantry.
In the end, the Franco-Imperial army still held the high ground but its cavalry had disintegrated and it had lost about 20% of its infantry. All objective hexes were taken by the Prussians which would further demoralize Prince de Soubise’s army. In the span of 20 game turns (about 5 hours) the French suffered 4,719 infantry losses (killed and wounded) and 4,914 cavalry casualties, which together account for almost one-third of their entire army. For their part, the Prussian infantry suffered 4,266 losses, no small sum. But the cavalry performed spectacularly, only losing 989. Still, altogether this constitutes about 25% of the smaller Prussian army, a high casualty rate even for a victory. 14 French leaders were killed or wounded (which leads the further disorganization) compared to 4 Prussian leaders.
It is a major Prussian victory. Their army, though bloodied by their own attack, is still organized and ready for more offensive action. The French have suffered grievously and have poor quality troops (mostly “E” ratings) forming the last line of defense. At the end of the game, the scenario assumes that they will quit the field. Frederick is smart enough not to pursue. In the grander sense, he will not waste his army entirely, but build it back up for its next battle, which will be Leuthen, his greatest victory. His twin victories at Rossbach and Leuthen, where he was outnumbered both times, are among the greatest military accomplishments of the eighteenth century and were an inspiration to future commanders, including Napoleon himself.
Tiller’s games are a lot of fun and give the player multiple insights into the capabilities and nature of warfare in whatever time they represent. The Seven Years War carries on Tiller’s fine reputation for offering a content-rich simulation experience that gives the player a glimpse into the historical period and nature of the art of war at the time depicted. A great gaming value for the price that I will likely keep playing on and off for years.
Comments