Having belatedly finished the two centre companies of my new French line Infantry battalion, I have to decide what to put on the flanks.
There are three main options:
Option one is well-stocked grenadier and voltigeur companies à la Wellington Man. This has become something of a house standard, driven for the most part by the figures I happened to have lying about:
Option one is well-stocked grenadier and voltigeur companies à la Wellington Man. This has become something of a house standard, driven for the most part by the figures I happened to have lying about:
Option two is to represent the elites in their proper portions (i.e. as no more than a third of the battalion), as demonstrated by Mark Dudley:
Option three is fusiliers all the way, which is the speciality of Monsieur Stryker:
Option three is fusiliers all the way, which is the speciality of Monsieur Stryker:
I can't make up my mind.
WM
WM
I would stick we the way you have been doing it so option 1.
ReplyDeleteThat will also mean you have enough Fusiliers to create another battalion.
It's a tricky one, Mark, as only nine figures are needed to make the two centre companies, whereas twelve are needed for the two flanks. I think the main issue, however, is the aesthetics. I'm torn between historical accuracy and the rather pleasing uniformity of the all-fusilier option.
DeleteMy compromise is to paint 8 x stands of 3, each representing a 'sort of' company. That's midway between the French 6 company organisation and the 10 company British. Remains to be seen if that works on the wargame table. Also leaves me with how to paint the pom-poms on the 'extra' French fusilier stands, I'm just doing a mix on that one. And recent reading suggests that the company was merely an administrative unit, tactically the platoon was more important. So a French battalion would be deployed as 6 equal strength platoons, made up of men from various companies if any were under-strength. Basically you can justify any organisation you like, just do what looks / feels right!
DeleteThere's no doubt that trying to represent a six-company battalion in a four-stand unit is part of the problem. The main issue, however, is figure availability. In my case it would definitely be more efficient to field all-fusilier battalions.
DeleteYou do those figures a service , they always look fantastic!
ReplyDeleteCheers
Thank you, Jacko. I'm trying my best with this lot. It's taken me ages to track them down.
DeleteI guess the question (if you want all your units organised in the same way) is which will be the most sustainable option for new units in the future - so might depend on what figures you think you will be able to find in the future, or have on hand now. As your emphasis is on painting more than gaming it’s likely to be an aesthetic choice rather than driven by the requirements of any rules, if they specify a particular organisation or distinguish between the troop types in a line battalion.
ReplyDeleteI paint at such a glacial pace, VM, that sustainability is less of a problem than it might have been. Give it enough time and the figures will magically appear in my experience!
DeleteWhatever you decide they will look great! My all fusilier battalions developed out of necessity as that's all I had to start. I get around the historical point by fielding combined grenadier and voltgeur battalions so technically my full battalions should be 36 figures. Of course this all goes wrong when it comes to the light infantry.
ReplyDeleteYour all-elite battalions also happen to look great, Ian, so that's another incentive for keeping them separate.
DeleteAn all fusilier unit get my vote. It's easily explained away by the detaching of elite companies to form converged elite units. It would also allow you to paint the two elements companies in their respective pompom colours - if that's not out of period for the uniforms?
ReplyDeleteOf course all this assumes you have enough Fusiliers to afford to do this and it isn't going stunt the growth of Grande Armee?
I am inclined to your way thinking, Rob. As for the grandness of the army - I've got enough for a division of these chaps. It might make for some rather dull blog posts if I do them all at once, however.
DeletePom-pom variation is whole other issue. Again, I rather like Ian's idea of adopting a different pom pom colour for each battalion. It looks great and makes it easy to distinguish between the regiments.
Of course the other possibility is to base all your figures individually and use movement bases (of the sort you can get e.g. from Warbases in the UK. You van then mix and match your figures into units at will. This only really works if you do it from the start - I'm doing so for my Hinton Hunt and Les Higgins ECW armies, basing the figures individually on 1p pieces (foot) and 2p pieces (horse), and using the Warbases 1 and 2p movement bases. My S Range Crimean figures are based individually on MDF 20mm x 20mm squares for infantry and 20 x 40mm for cavalry., and using movement trays as appropriate
ReplyDeleteI did consider this, VW, but it looked all rather complicated at the end of the day, and I had visions of the troops spilling off every time I tried to shift the movement trays. My current system is inflexible, but it does have the merit of being cheap and simple!
DeleteMy vote goes for the way you are doing things now...I rather like the well stocked grenadier and voltigeur companies it makes for a very colourful unit...
ReplyDeleteI do appreciate that getting enough of the right toys can be problematic.
Of course the final decision is yours...
Beautifully painted toys by the way...
All the best. Aly
I'm really torn on this one Aly - particularly as Wellington Girl wants the full flankers!
DeleteConsistency is an odd discipline - especially since in this case it is entirely self-imposed. I am in the process of refurbing a battalion of the 4th Swiss, and I don't have any suitable flankers, though I have enough figures to complete an all-fusilier battalion. I've been through the process of justifying just going ahead on that basis (part of the justification being "no-one will notice anyway", which is rather more comfortable than "hardy anyone will ever see them anyway"...) but it doesn't feel right. I should have flankers. I always have flankers.
ReplyDeleteSo - guess what - I've put them back in the box while I decide what to do. Anything more silly than imposing strict rules on one's own private hobby escapes me at the moment, but it is a serious matter.
The daftness of this entire enterprise is only too clear to me, Foy!
DeletePerhaps the solution is go for a bit of both. All fusiliers now, with the option of slipping in a few flankers later if the inconsistency becomes too unbearable.
Since this post is part confessional, I might mention that once upon a time my French battalions (some of which were, might I say, plastic) each had 6 "company" bases of 3 figures each, and one of those was grenadiers, and one voltigeurs (the voltigeurs, of course, were detachable on single bases). Then I started using rules where the command presence in each unit became more important, and a supernumerary 7th base appeared.
DeleteFor a while I used Wesencraft-style bases of 3 for the French, with 2 figures at the front and 1 in the rear, which is a clever system for gaming but I didn't like the look of it.
When I rationalised all this into 4 bases of 6 figures (which I have never regretted, by the way), one of the bases held both the flank trios - non-detachable - and I introduced a system whereby separate units of converged voltogeurs were fielded as well. Thus the light infantry presence in my battalions is a strict house tradition, yet it is entirely cosmetic.
Maybe an all-fusilier battalion would be OK, then....
Waffle over.
I have enjoyed reading through the numerous replies to your post Matt, it's very much the kind of dilemma I get myself wrapped up in! I like the way stryker does it, gives more flexibility and I was only wondering yesterday if I could get away with converged elite companies in the Peninsular? Whatever you decide it will of course look magnificent as usual, isn't it wonderful that these old HH castings continue to turn up.
ReplyDeleteI never expected to have to do such complicated arithmetic when I embarked on this project, 'Lee. All the planning, scheming and calculating needed to make the battalions fit together is extraordinary.
DeleteThe way the figures keep turning up (and frequently right on cue, too) is nothing short of miraculous.
A little late to this party as I have been dropping off both kids at their respective universities this week. For my own units I went with four Grenadiers and Voltigeurs for a total of six companies of four each. Given you have opted for the more fully fleshed out wings of your battalions, I would be inclined to either stick with that because it looks fantastic, or go with the all fusilier look. In any event you can't go wrong!
ReplyDeleteDavid, you are very kind but are not helping me to decide!
DeleteSuffice it to say that I have never seen such gloriously presented FN5s. They are magnificent. I have always failed to make this figure persuasive but you have nailed it. Salutation.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Archduke. I had an unfair advantage, which was absolutely cracking early castings with hardly a trace of flash. They are altogether perkier than some of the later castings in my possession, which are hunched-over, arthritic-looking affairs which won't paint up nearly so well.
DeleteInteresting debate. I would always go for six companies of four figures per company, so 4 grenadiers, four voltigeurs, sixteen centres including command.
DeleteIf tgat's not possible due to figure supply then Lets remember that the unit is only a representation and that rules generally, thankfully, do not go down to the level of taking casualties on the individual companies ( Your opponent shoots at the head of the column so you are lising grenadiers. Far more important is that the unit is identifiable, takes up so much space and looks brave! Combined grenadiers and voltigeurs did happen, but I do not think tgat they were popular because stripping out elites provides battalions with little internal cohesion and leaves battalions that have been weakened by losing their most motivated men to the combined units. Oudinots combined grenadiers did not enthuse the little corporal.
I hear what you are saying, LG, but for me the key thing is not what is correct for the Napoleonic Wars, but how this this was understood and represented in the 1960s and 70s. It's the latter that I'm trying to recapture. It's a hopeless enterprise, of course. Those days have gone. All I have is a subjective and emotional memory of them.
DeleteIn exactly the same way that we all interpret "historically correct" as meaning "like the photos in Charles Grant's book". A funny one, that.
DeleteI remember the little Shire Discovering ECW Wargaming book by John Tunstill and George Gush took an interesting approach to companies - instead or ten companies of say three figures each, which would just look wrong and have no tactical use, they went with two companies to give a flavour, so you would have two pike blocks and flanking musketeers. Never played those rules but it always seemed an interesting approach.
ReplyDeleteI have that slim little volume, VW, and will now go scurrying off to look for it.
DeleteThe units, as LG says, are really just a game markers, and the options for representing them are as much about aesthetics and practicalities as anything else - that and the fact that we are all working towards the little boys we were all those years ago. Well, I am, anyway.