Questions 1:

In area 4 the set says the French deploy Friant and Guidin's division of I Corps.

I am assuming this is wrong.

Area 4 should be Gerard (nee Guidin) and Morand's Divisions - i.e. the Divisions that can be attached to any force. If this is not the case then Friant is floating around in an odd place and would probably crash thro' other French formations in order to meet the movements demands of a I Corps objective.

Friant's Division should be set up in area 10 with the main body of I Corps. Historically I Corps was set up with 2 Divisions forward, 1 in reserve, Friant's was the reserve.

Correct, Starting Zone 4 should refer to Morand and Gudin (Gérard). If they are attached to a different Force the game host would be free to choose to relocate them (or to leave them as they were historically deployed, such is the prevue of a game host).

Starting Zone 10 should refer to Friant, Dessaix, and Compans.

How the Formations are arranged within their Starting Zone is entirely left up to the player or game host.

Question 2:

The other formation that can be freely attached is Claperade's Vistula Legion, historically they started the day with the Guard. So I assume they are set up in area 9.

Unless the player or game host chooses to attach it to another Force and place it elsewhere, yes.

Question 3:

Is there any maximum capacity for the Russian fortifications, the Great Redoubt, the Fleches et al. I've never used field fortifications in the game and assume you would put artillery in them with infantry to counter-attack behind.

Historically, each of the of the Fletches were able to hold approximately one artillery battery. The Redoubt held two. The Grand Redoubt held two (if I recall correctly). Each of these was supported by infantry behind the artillery batteries. As game systems vary drastically, and the ESR Campaign Guides were meant to be useful with the broadest selection of game systems so we did not define capacities.

Hope that answers your questions and I believe it is consistent with the answers previously given to these questions on the Yahoo! Group.

Thanks David,

And yes in line with previous advice.

I have not played Borodino yet, but have refight the game 3 times, once naps batts, once volley and bayonet, once age of eagles. From my experience for hosts I would be wary about allowing the French variable attachment divions to be relocated and would have them as the set up above.

If allowed this variable set up I would take all 3 and allot them to poniotowskis viii corps on the French right. I reckon the best French strategy is to out flank the Russian left and with such a mass supporting the poles I think this would be too easy and skew the game.

Cheers Steve nutt 

Posted by: Steve Nutt

Thanks David,

And yes in line with previous advice.

I have not played Borodino yet, but have refight the game 3 times, once naps batts, once volley and bayonet, once age of eagles. From my experience for hosts I would be wary about allowing the French variable attachment divions to be relocated and would have them as the set up above.

If allowed this variable set up I would take all 3 and allot them to poniotowskis viii corps on the French right. I reckon the best French strategy is to out flank the Russian left and with such a mass supporting the poles I think this would be too easy and skew the game.

Sure, which is why it is ultimately left up to the game host while the map provides the historical dispositions. Lots of people like playing "what-if" variations of historical scenarios. The obvious one for Borodino is some combination of the use of Davout's detached divisions and his argument for a flanking attack. The inferred question there would be something like, "should the game host also allow the Russian 1st Cuirassier Division, Guard Corps, and anything else to be reallocated to their left and should the game's timeframe change?" but those end up being questions left up to whomever chooses to make such modifications.

David

I'm a bit of a purist so like 're fights just like the real thing. But horses for courses.

It is interesting that Davout urged the emperor to for a multi corps outflanking force to go grand tactically round the Russian left. Interesting to try that out. I think it would have been a better plan than Napoleon s frontal assault which in all the refights I have done - and I bet with your rules - produce a bloody winning draw for the emperor.

And by the way me and my crowd who are very experienced wargamers think you rules are the bees knees, Best grand battle rules we have ever played.

Hats off

Steve nutt

It is interesting that Davout urged the emperor to for a multi corps outflanking force to go grand tactically round the Russian left. Interesting to try that out. I think it would have been a better plan than Napoleon s frontal assault which in all the refights I have done - and I bet with your rules - produce a bloody winning draw for the emperor.

It is, though Napoleon's concern was that the time and coordination required for Davout's corps – part of all – to relocate to the extreme right would take long enough, and be difficult enough to hide from the Russians, that Kutusov would agree to retreat again. Moscow is about 2,200 miles from Paris. So the desire for a major engagement to bring the war to conclusion was likely both emotional and sensical. So the trouble in staging a French flank attack is: How much do you allow the Russians to react? And is the right move for the Russians to withdraw altogether? Could Kutusov have exercised the necessary clout to renew a retreat in front of the capital without a fight? These are difficult questions and only partially inside the realm of a tabletop engagement.

What it does bare comparison to is Eylau in 1807 and Bautzen in 1813. In both cases, a majority Russian Army bends back on itself and demonstrates a willingness to very nearly die to the man to hold that bending line. This causes me to ponder: After Eylau, the French are not capable of pursuit, so despite crippling the Russian Army, the Russians don't capitulate. At Bautzen, the French do not have the cavalry to pursue effectively, so the result is similar. Would this not end similarly? In effect, different specifics but same result as the historical Borodino?

And by the way me and my crowd who are very experienced wargamers think you rules are the bees knees, Best grand battle rules we have ever played.

Thank you! That is exceptionally encouraging.