VON REISSWITZ KRIEGSPIEL: SHOOTING SOME NUMBERS

Adalbert von Rößler, ca. 1875 or 1884: Offiziere beim Kriegsspiel

A busy time of year at work, some family business, plus another bout of back problems, have arrested tangible hobby activity in these parts.   Nevertheless, during such times I continue to meander mindfully, if not physically, in the hobby.   As such, I thought I'd share a brief post on the thinking and reading I've been doing during this lull. I have revisited the Von Reisswitz Kriegspiel.   Specifically, I was dwelling on the way that the rules rated infantry fire.  I started with the 1824 version and then went on to focus on the 1828 revision (the latter being done by the Berlin Kriegspiel group).   There won't be a ringing conclusion or insight in this post (spoiler alert), but hopefully there will be a few tidbits of interest.

George Heinrich Rudolf Johann Von Reisswitz (Image from Wikimedia Commons)

As a rules tinkerer and writer, my interest in the Von Reisswitz kriegspiel system stems from the fact that its author was a veteran of the Napoleonic wars, as were many, if not most, of the officers who also embraced it (and would go on to do the 1828 revision).  When looking for insights into systems for handling various aspects of black powder (and mid century) warfare, what better source could there be than a system that was endorsed by those who actually lived the simulation?  

 Kriegspiel Dice (Command Post Wargames)

The original version relied on specialty dice to resolve combat action.  In the case of infantry fire, there were two dice, one for good effect and one for bad.  In the 1828 version, this would change to one dice for fire vs troops in the open and one for those under cover. 

 Explanation of an infantry fire dice (Kriegspiel Wikipedia)

These dice were very busy, each face having multiple bits of information (as you can see in the above illustration).  Later, authors (Bill Leeson among them) would break out the information on the dice faces into different categories (infantry fire, artillery fire, melee) and put them in easier to read in tables.

1824  Infntry Fire Tables (Found on Grogheads)

The figures for infantry fire were based on the famous Scharnhorst "Wirkung des Feuergewehrs" tests, adjusted and modified by observation and experience, to reflect fire under combat conditions (as opposed to ideal test conditions).  Firepower was expressed in points.  The later 1828 revision would further modify the fire results, lessening the effects compared to the 1824.  There will be a bit more on that later in this post, so I beg your patience for now, dear reader.  

Returning to firepower, the below is what the rules have to say concerning the translation of points to casualties for target units and formations:

Target

Infantry in three ranks:  1 point = 5 casualties

Infantry in two ranks: 3 points = 10 casualties  

Skirmish Infantry:  2 points = 3 casualties

Cavalry (in line or column):  2 points = 3 casualties 

Artillery: 12.5 points = 1 gun 

It is most interesting to note the low casualty ratio for cavalry compared to infantry targets.  This makes sense (to me) given that although the horse and rider would be larger individual targets (true), there would also be fewer of them in the zone of fire because of their size-- and also that cavalry formations tended to be pairs of single ranks spaced widely apart in successive lines (so once again fewer in the zone). 

The kriegspiel then helpfully provides the point-values for the main formations in the game:

A half battalion of infantry in three ranks would take 90 points to eliminate

A skirmish platoon (zug) in skirmish order would take 60 points to eliminate

A skirmish platoon (zug) formed would take 15 points to eliminate

A cavalry squadron would take 60 points to eliminate

An Artillery section (2 guns) would take 25 points to eliminate

Moving on to the 1828 revision (which retains the above point values), below is its revised infantry fire table:

1828 Infantry Fire Table

Infantry Fire	Paces	Target In Open						Target With Cover
		1	2	3	4	5	6	1	2	3	4	5	6
Half Battalion	300- 400	2	4	8	4	10	8	1	2	3	2	4	3
	200- 300	4	8	15	8	20	15	2	3	5	3	7	5
	100- 200	8	12	20	15	30	20	3	5	7	5	10	7
	Up to 100	15	20	30	20	40	30	5	7	10	7	14	10
Two Skirmish Platoons	300- 400	1	3	6	3	8	6	0	1	2	1	2	2
	200- 300	3	6	12	6	15	12	1	2	4	2	5	4
	100- 200	6	15	16	12	20	16	2	4	5	4	7	5
	Up to 100	12	16	25	16	30	25	4	3	18	5	10	8
Two Jager Skirmish Platoons	400- 500	1	2	4	2	5	4	0	1	2	1	3	2
	300- 400	2	4	8	4	10	8	1	2	4	2	6	4
	200- 300	4	8	15	8	20	15	2	4	8	4	10	8
	100- 200	8	12	20	15	24	20	4	8	10	8	12	10
	Up to 100	15	20	25	20	30	25	8	10	12	10	15	12

As far as the probabilities, Von Reisswitz stated that one side of the dice would be the best effect, one side would be 1/2 effect, two sides of the dice would be 1/3 effect, and two sides would be 2/3 effect.  There was no reference to these faces to corresponding faces on a six sided dice.  Thus, I find it interesting that in all of the contemporary reproductions of these tables I've seen (as above) for use with a six sided dice, the columns are reproduced in their order, but aren't rationalized along the familiar 1-6 continuum. As such, when using a standard D6, the progression, as described by Reisswitz, is hard to recognize.  So I decided to see how the table would read using the same figures and distribution, only arranged in the familiar D6 progression, from 1 (worst) to 6 (best) results.
.

1828 Infantry Fire Table Rationalized For 1 (lowest) to 6 (highest) Results

Infantry Fire	Paces	Target In Open						Target With Cover
		1	2	3	4	5	6	1	2	3	4	5	6
Half Battalion	300- 400	2	4	4	8	8	10	1	2	2	3	3	4
	200- 300	4	8	8	15	15	20	2	3	3	5	5	7
	100- 200	8	12	12	20	20	30	3	5	5	7	7	10
	Up to 100	15	20	20	30	30	40	5	7	7	10	10	14
Two Skirmish Platoons	300- 400	1	3	3	6	6	8	0	1	1	2	2	2
	200- 300	3	6	6	12	12	15	1	2	2	4	4	5
	100- 200	6	15	15	16	16	20	2	4	4	5	5	7
	Up to 100	12	16	16	25	25	30	4	3	3	18	18	10
Two Jager Skirmish Platoons	400- 500	1	2	2	4	4	5	0	1	1	2	2	3
	300- 400	2	4	4	8	8	10	1	2	2	4	4	6
	200- 300	4	8	8	15	15	20	2	4	4	8	8	10
	100- 200	8	12	12	20	20	24	4	8	8	10	10	12
	Up to 100	15	20	20	25	25	30	8	10	10	12	12	15

Putting the figures into the above continuum makes the low and high end result (#1 and #6), as well as the two mid results (#2,#3 and #4,#5), much more visible.  It renders the same results as the original, but I think it would be easier to use. 

Moving on from the above, in order to compare further, I worked out the aggregate point totals (the sum), the average results (rounded up), and the median result (again, rounded up), for each line.

 1828 Infantry Fire Table: 

Aggregate Results, Average Results, and Median Results

Infantry Fire	Paces	Target In Open			Target With Cover
		Aggr	Avg	Med-ian	Aggr	Avg	Med-ian
Half Battalion	300-400	36	6	6	15	3	3
	200-300	55	9	12	25	4	4
	100-200	102	17	16	37	6	6
	Up to 100	155	26	23	43	7	9
Two Skirmish Platoons	300-400	27	5	5	8	1	2
	200-300	54	9	9	18	3	3
	100-200	88	15	16	27	5	5
	Up to 100	124	21	21	56	9	11
Two Jager Skirmish Platoons	400-500	18	3	3	9	5	2
	300-400	36	6	3	19	3	3
	200-300	70	12	12	36	6	6
	100-200	96	16	11	52	9	9
	Up to 100	135	23	23	67	11	11

It is instructive to see how close the firepower of two platoons (zugs) in skirmish, particularly jagers, compares to the firepower of a formed half battalion (which would be four platoons/zugs).  Another interesting point that emerged from this study is the effectiveness of skirmish fire vs targets in cover as opposed to the formed half battalion.

This is all grist for the mill as I tinker with rules and such--it keeps my head "in the game" anyway, during times when hands-on hobby activities are arrested.

   Excelsior!