New, with a question

Greetings! I hunted down this discussion board because I'm currently reading the British 1896 version of Kriegspiel. It's clearly an instruction manual for a physical boxed set, as it refers to included playing pieces (see below). I'm seriously considering trying it with my local historicals group. I can obtain the six-inch Ordnance Survey maps online, but I'm not sure of the scale of the pieces. While column lengths are listed in the book, the length of standard formations isn't, so I don't know how large, proportionally, the playing pieces should be. Once I figure it out, I'll try to make and print some (or maybe buy some through the sites linked here - does the TooFatLardies series come with the counters?) and use standard NATO symbology to mark them. So what's the normal size and what are the normal formations they would be laid out in?

Thanks,
Jennifer

1. The maps are on a scale of 6 inches to a mile. The
woods are coloured green; the roads brown. The contours,
which are at 50 feet vertical interval, should be coloured
strongly so as to be visible by candle-light. The sheets
hitherto issued from the War Office for the game are parts of a
series of War Department surveys, known as Hills east of
Dorking, and Hills west of Dorking. These have been
coloured specially for the purpose, but any of the Ordnance
Survey 6-inch maps can be prepared and adapted in a similar
manner.
2. The troops are indicated by metal blocks, one set being
coloured red, and the other blue. In handling these blocks it
is desirable to avoid touching the coloured surface as much as
possible, to prevent it becoming defaced ; two pairs of pincers
are provided with each box, which will be found convenient
for the purpose of moving the blocks. The blocks are made
to scale in so far as length of front is concerned, with the
exception of those which represent a company, a patrol,
and a sentry or vedette ; the size of these latter has been
somewhat exaggerated. The Pontoon troop and | Telegraph
battalion of the Engineers are drawn to scale, each being in
column of route.

Hi Jennifer

Welcome to the forum.

I suspect the boxed set would be similar to that in this photo of an 1890 British Army set which was up for auction several years ago.  This will give you of an idea of the symbology used at the time, although of course there is nothing to stop you using whatever design you like.



What would a battalion frontage be?  Well that would depend on how many men were in the battalion, how many ranks it fought in, and whether it was fighting in skirmish order (although the latter would probably be represented by separate troops blocks).  Also , while late 19th C British battalions were theoretically quite large, they would frequently have a lot fewer men in the field.  So there is no right or wrong answer here, but I think that if you assumed an 700-man battalion in two lines, in close-order, the frontage might be c300 yds.  For a cavalry squadron a figure of 100 yds would perhaps be a reasonable guide.  But at the end of the day, one of the delights of kriegsspiel is that the scenario designer can choose whatever unit size and formation they wish.

Hope that helps.  Feel free to ask any more questions you may have.

Martin (J)

PS Not sure where you and your friends are based, but do feel free to join us for games if you're in the UK and within reach of the Chilterns.

Thank you, Martin. I'm in Florida, USA, I'm afraid, but next time I visit the UK I'll see what I can do.

In terms of unit sizes, it states the full size of 1,000 men per infantry battalion (in 8 110-man companies plus a machine-gun unit and presumably HQ; 457 rank-and-file cavalry per regiment with 110 men per squadron; and 171/179 man artillery batteries with six guns. There are enough pieces for three divisions each blue and red; the divisional organizations for infantry and cavalry are both listed so I expect one of the divisions is all cavalry.

Can you or someone describe the size and meaning of the blocks normally used? I'm assuming they are intended to be laid out like period battle maps as seen in history books with individual blue and red bars stand for individual regiments or batteries.

Hm, I guess that means I could guesstimate using similar maps from, say, the American Civil War. I'd post links but apparently can't my first day...

Yes do that, Jennifer.  We’ve organised games for overseas members in the past, so ideally with a a bit of notice it should be doable.

You’re correct re the blocks.  The standard design will be blue and red bars.  In most of the sets, there are typically 2 blocks per battalion, representing half-battalions.  Given the large size of the ones you quote, that should certainly be the case with your set.  In the earlier part of the century, foot batteries were normally larger with 8 guns, and kriegsspiel sets represented them with 2 blocks also, each representing 4 guns.  I’m not sure how an 1890s set would have dealt with this.  It may be again as 2 half-battery pieces, each of 3 guns.  OTOH, as an artillery section was normally of 2 guns, it may be there were 3 smaller pieces to a battery, each representing a section.

In our set, based on the 1824 rules, a 900-man battalion in line is about 1 1/4 inch in width and 1/4 inch in depth.  But that’s 2 blocks side-by-side remember.  This greatly exaggerates the depth of the unit, regardless of whether it’s in 2 or 3 lines, but is done for ease of handling.

Here is a sketch of units taken from the original 1824 K/s set.  I would imagine that frontages in your set would be longer due to the slightly larger battalions, and the shallower and more extended formations which were common later in the 19th C.



As you can see, cavalry squadrons would normally be represented by just one block, as it was not customary to split the unit tactically, unless troops or half-troops were detached as patrols.  The numbers you quote are unusually small for a squadron, which were more typically 150 or more.  If you wish to stick with those 110 men (and there is no reason why you shouldn't!) then I would reduce the frontage I originally quoted to say 70 yds.

Hope that helps.

Martin (J)

Too bad you're not in So Cal, I'm running a KS this Sunday!

Martin: Thanks, that's exactly the sort of info I'm looking for. I saw a note on the site that a 1x2 Lego flat block would be a good counter, and it sounds from your description that one would rep an infantry half-battalion. I would not have a problem with using the sizes you're showing here and assuming smaller "active" units just for purposes of experimentation. But I am curious about scale. The British rules are played on six-inch-to-the-mile maps, or about 1:10,500. I understand Kriegspiel is 1:8000?

The cavalry of 1896 appears to have been in four smaller squadrons - a 1914 war establishment I found in a souvenir tactics book shows that by then they were three squadrons of 150. (And the infantry had consolidated into four large companies rather than eight small). According to Wikipedia the game was adapted for a 1905 wargame between, which seems to have focused more on the strategic side as it worked out the (correct) time it would take for the BEF to concentrate across the channel.

Martin: Thanks, that's exactly  the sort of info I'm looking for. I saw a note on the site that a 1x2 Lego flat block would be a good counter, and it sounds from your description that one would rep an infantry half-battalion. I would not have a problem with using the sizes you're showing here and assuming smaller "active" units just for purposes of experimentation. But I am curious about scale. The British rules are played on six-inch-to-the-mile maps, or about 1:10,500. I understand Kriegspiel is 1:8000?

Yes 1:8000 is correct.  So you will need to reduce unit frontages by 15-20%, or you could just assume larger battalion sizes, or more extended formations.  As scenario designer, you really are in charge, and everything can be mutable in your k/s world.

And, should you feel the need, you can find a sound historical basis for any choice you make.  As the 19th C wore on, British infantry formations became more extended to reflect the increased range and accuracy of infantry weapons, and the reducing threat from cavalry.  But even that trend could be modified.  In the Zulu War the extended formations could not always put out enough fire to stop a Zulu charge, and in later battles the infantry reverted to a closer order.  US cavalry found similar problems vs the Sioux and Cheyenne in 1876.

The cavalry of 1896 appears to have been in four smaller squadrons - a 1914 war establishment I found in a souvenir tactics book shows that by then they were three squadrons of 150. (And the infantry had consolidated into four large companies rather than eight small). According to Wikipedia the game was adapted for a 1905 wargame between, which seems to have focused more on the strategic side as it worked out the (correct) time it would take for the BEF to concentrate across the channel.

Good research.  And again the choice is yours   .

Martin (J)