Rise of Prussia gold?

[Die Zieten]

References they give at Kronoskaf include Duffy, i emailed them for a comment.

Prussia Organisation References

Duffy, Christopher: The army of Frederick the Great, 2nd ed., The Emperor Press, 1996
Engelmann, Joachim and Günter Dorn: Die Infanterie-Regimenter Friedrich des Grossen, Podzun-Pallas, 2000
Faucitt, William: Regulations for the Prussian Infantry. To Which Is Added, the Prussian Tactick, Being a Detail of the Grand Manoeuvre, as Performed by the Prussian Armies, London: 1759
Funcken, Liliane and Fred: Les uniformes de la guerre en dentelle
Heilmann, Johann: Die Kriegskunst der Preussen unter König Friedrich dem Grossen
Volume 1
Volume 2
La Barre Duparcq, Edouard de: Elements of Military Art and History: Comprising the History and Tactics of the Separate Arms; the Combination of the Arms;and the Minor Operations of War, translated by George W. Cullum, New York: 1863, pp. 55-58
Kendal, Colin: Military Answers - Prussian Battalion Guns, 18th Century Military Notes & Queries No. 5

Austria Organisation References

Großer Generalstab, Kriegsgeschichtliche Abteilung II (Publisher). Die Kriege Friedrichs des Großen. Dritter Teil: Der Siebenjährige Krieg 1756–1763. Vol. 1 to 13, Berlin 1901 - 1914
Eberhard Kessel, Das Ende des Siebenjährigen Krieges 1760-1763, comissioned by the (German Army) Research Departement of Military History [Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt – MGFA], edited by Thomas Lindner, Paderborn 2007 – the recent reedit of the missing volumes of the early 20th c. Großer Generalstab publications above
Chrisopher Duffy, The Army of Maria Theresia, Doncaster 1990
Paper by R. H. de Riedmatten titled Das K.K. Feldbataillon als taktischer Verband im 7-jährigen Krieg [The I.R. Field Battalion as a tactical unit during the 7 Years War] published in Schirmer, Friedrich: Die Heere der kriegführenden Staaten 1756 - 1763. Edited and published by KLIO-Landesgruppe Baden-Württemberg e.V., Magstadt, 1989

[Charles]

Im going the email the people that keep the site, im not trusting your one source either.

you mean this source:

http://www.amazon.com/Army-Frederick-Great-Christopher-Duffy/dp/188347602X

http://www.amazon.com/Maria-Theresa-Historic-armies-navies/dp/0715373870/ref=la_B000APEQFA_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1368194569&sr=1-3

And Prussian grenadier batalions where permanent formations, some even in peace time.

no, not until after the SYW was over.

Btw, isnt that a Saxon regiment with that desertion rate?

no, Prussian.

[Die Zieten]

you mean this source:

http://www.amazon.com/Army-Frederick-Great-Christopher-Duffy/dp/188347602X

http://www.amazon.com/Maria-Theresa-Historic-armies-navies/dp/0715373870/ref=la_B000APEQFA_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1368194569&sr=1-3

Yes, thanks, im going to order them also.

no, not until after the SYW was over.

Where do you base this?

no, Prussian.

http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Jung_Braunschweig_Fusiliers

http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Jung-Braunschweig-Bevern_Fusiliers

So you are not mixing these two with almost the same name?

[bkosar19]

I am using the updated quick fix for 1:10.

The ledger buttons are now visible and working. Plus, the overlay buttons are visible, but the political and regions overlays do not function.

However, my real issue is that I'm having difficulty getting some units to enter structures. I press on the enter structure button and the unit won't enter. It's odd because it works for large armies, but smaller ones such as individual units, brigades, ect. won't enter structures. I can work around it by having these units join a large army, move the large army into the structure, and then move the army's units out leaving the desired garrison units in the structure. However, that's a bit of pain and not how this game functioned prior to Gold.

Was there some sort of rules change that I'm unaware of? Anyone else had this problem?

Also, I noticed that AI LOVES the fortified camp decision. It's been planting fortified camps all over the map.

[Charles]

Yes, thanks, im going to order them also.

they are both very good, highly recommended. Lots of useful info for the wargamer and historian.

Where do you base this?

Duffy's book. I will track down the exact info when I get home from work.

So you are not mixing these two with almost the same name?

Duffy referred to infantry regiment n.39 "Jung-Braunschweig", but I will recheck. There is an appendix in the back with the details on all the regiments.

[JacquesDeLalaing]

Also, I noticed that AI LOVES the fortified camp decision. It's been planting fortified camps all over the map.

That's true indeed. The Prussians are plastering Silesia with fortified camps in my current game. My hussars have conquered at least 5 of them already, but for some reason the "destroy fort" button doesn't do anything? Or do I have to stay in the region for one full turn?

[Charles]

bought and installed the upgrade kit, no technical issues so far.


to Die Zieten. I checked out Duffy's book:

1. I was partly wrong on the Grenadier battalions. Yes, the regular process was as I laid out before, although they could be kept as a unit for a whole campaign.

However, Frederick did setup separate standing Grenadier battalions as well. two during the 2nd Silesian war and four other after. They had six companies each and administratively were part of the garrison regiments.

2. the regiment that had 1650 desertions during the SYW was IR no. 39 which had been around since at least 1740 and was based in Pomerania and later in Neumark. It was known as " Jung-Braunschweig" between 1755-71. I presume the name of a regiment was the name of the colonel (?). All regiments seemed to have changed name every few years.

Up to 75% of its soldiers were foreigners, which may explain the high desertion rate. It was one of the regiments which Frederick had singled out as being "very good" in combat.

now off to try RoP GOLD.

[Die Zieten]

bought and installed the upgrade kit, no technical issues so far.


to Die Zieten. I checked out Duffy's book:

1. I was partly wrong on the Grenadier battalions. Yes, the regular process was as I laid out before, although they could be kept as a unit for a whole campaign.

However, Frederick did setup separate standing Grenadier battalions as well. two during the 2nd Silesian war and four other after. They had six companies each and administratively were part of the garrison regiments.

2. the regiment that had 1650 desertions during the SYW was IR no. 39 which had been around since at least 1740 and was based in Pomerania and later in Neumark. It was known as " Jung-Braunschweig" between 1755-71. I presume the name of a regiment was the name of the colonel (?). All regiments seemed to have changed name every few years.

Up to 75% of its soldiers were foreigners, which may explain the high desertion rate. It was one of the regiments which Frederick had singled out as being "very good" in combat.

now off to try RoP GOLD.

Thanks for checking.

Does it say how many companies do the Musketeer and Fusilier batalions have in 1757 (excluding the grenadier companies) and how many men?
Anything about the size of the reserve in start of war 56-57?

[Ebbingford]

I don't know about 1756, but the general make up was 6 companies to a battalion, 5 musketeer and 1 grenadier.
When the combined grenadier battalions were formed in time of war they had 4 companies. When the standing grenadier battalions were formed they had 6 companies.
(Source: Duffy, The Army of Frederick the Great, p69 and 70.)

[Charles]

It should also be mentioned that Prussian regiments had a different organisation on and off the battlefield.

Administratively, an infantry regiment had 5 musketeer and 1 grenadier company.

On the battlefield, the 5 musketeer companies were reorganised into 4 divisions of 2 platoon each. I presume this is what the game is trying to show since 4 divisions of 170 men equals 680 men, which is the full strength of an infantry battalion, once you remove the grenadier company.

[Die Zieten]

I should also be mentioned that Prussian regiments had a different organisation on and off the battlefield.

Administratively, an infantry regiment had 5 musketeer and 1 grenadier company.

On the battlefield, the 5 musketeer companies were reorganised into 4 divisions of 2 platoon each. I presume this is what the game is trying to show since 4 divisions of 170 men equals 680 men, which is the full strength of an infantry battalion, once you remove the grenadier company.

Im sure that we all know the field organisation is different, the questions is the information i posted totally fabricated, invented?

In 1756, a musketeer battalion counted 706 men (including battalion staff and excluding the grenadier company) and included 5 companies (140 men each).
The reinforcement of January 1757 brought the total strength of a battalion of musketeers to 856.

In 1756, a converged grenadier battalion counted 600 men and included 4 companies (150 men each).
After the reinforcement of January 1757, a grenadier battalion counted 720 troopers, for a total of 754 men including staff (for the moment, we do not know if the staff of a converged grenadier battalion was similar to the staff of a musketeer battalion).

http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Prussian_Line_Infantry_Organisation


This is the question that needs to be solved and i want clear answers what is supposed to represent what, not speculation.

Are there elements missing from Austrian and French batalions also, same scale used?

Because Prussia missing fifth of its elements and others not is a not just a flavor thing, you will feel it in the first battle of the game.

[mariandavid]

Die Zeiten:


Let me see if I can help, though I am more of an expert on the armies of the War of Austrian Succession (helped with the research for the Lace Wars series of board games on that war) than on the 7 Years War.

You are correct in that the Prussian infantry had a theoretical increase in January 1757 - but what should be noted is that this cannot be considered by itself. In practice almost ALL of the armies of the period saw an increase in actual strength at the time - for example the Austrian regiment, with a 'paper peacetime' (which in itself means almost nothing!) saw the actual front strength of the two active infantry battalions increase to the official number of 140 per company.
Other armies had different practices - the Russian operated on a 'peace equals war' basis, the English in a state of controlled panic in which a battalion might jump from 350 to 800 in three months (depending on course on being on the cheap Irish or expensive British establishment).

And these examples are all reflections of the different ways in which peacetime establishment shifted to wartime: The poor Russians were all permanent serfs anyway so peace or war made no difference; the British were always operating on the cheap with the fewest possible number of men and no reserve so they took longer to get to strength; the Austrians were pretty efficient, but since their regiments were very rarely posted with their depots (avoids national revolts) it took the time to march from the depot and third battalion to a front to get the fighting battalions up to strength.

And as for the Prussians: They sat at peace establishment in their depots made up (at least in 1756) largely of foreign mercenaries. The rest of their men were cantons - small farmers who had gone through their service of a few years and then allowed to return to farming (helped the income of what was a very poor nation). It took time for the latter group to be assembled - ESPECIALLY when Freddie, as was his wont, made a surprise attack, as against the Saxons. So what you see, quite correctly, as an increase is largely the farmers getting to the front. And of course the same happened with the other nations.

Caveat here: There is some question as to whether the 100 plus or so increase you accurately cite did in fact take place. Some (and I cannot remember who right now) claims that this was done to also incorporate those captured Saxons who were not assigned to the newly formed fusilier regiments. And since most of the Saxons ran away at the first opportunity there is doubt as to the actual increase taking place.

But maybe the answer to your concern is to mod the number of infantry (only) replacements received in the last two months of 1756 IF the Saxons were captured. A serious increase in these might solve the problem you raised. Hope this helped.

[Die Zieten]

Die Zeiten:


Let me see if I can help, though I am more of an expert on the armies of the War of Austrian Succession (helped with the research for the Lace Wars series of board games on that war) than on the 7 Years War.

You are correct in that the Prussian infantry had a theoretical increase in January 1757 - but what should be noted is that this cannot be considered by itself. In practice almost ALL of the armies of the period saw an increase in actual strength at the time - for example the Austrian regiment, with a 'paper peacetime' (which in itself means almost nothing!) saw the actual front strength of the two active infantry battalions increase to the official number of 140 per company.
Other armies had different practices - the Russian operated on a 'peace equals war' basis, the English in a state of controlled panic in which a battalion might jump from 350 to 800 in three months (depending on course on being on the cheap Irish or expensive British establishment).

And these examples are all reflections of the different ways in which peacetime establishment shifted to wartime: The poor Russians were all permanent serfs anyway so peace or war made no difference; the British were always operating on the cheap with the fewest possible number of men and no reserve so they took longer to get to strength; the Austrians were pretty efficient, but since their regiments were very rarely posted with their depots (avoids national revolts) it took the time to march from the depot and third battalion to a front to get the fighting battalions up to strength.

And as for the Prussians: They sat at peace establishment in their depots made up (at least in 1756) largely of foreign mercenaries. The rest of their men were cantons - small farmers who had gone through their service of a few years and then allowed to return to farming (helped the income of what was a very poor nation). It took time for the latter group to be assembled - ESPECIALLY when Freddie, as was his wont, made a surprise attack, as against the Saxons. So what you see, quite correctly, as an increase is largely the farmers getting to the front. And of course the same happened with the other nations.

Caveat here: There is some question as to whether the 100 plus or so increase you accurately cite did in fact take place. Some (and I cannot remember who right now) claims that this was done to also incorporate those captured Saxons who were not assigned to the newly formed fusilier regiments. And since most of the Saxons ran away at the first opportunity there is doubt as to the actual increase taking place.

But maybe the answer to your concern is to mod the number of infantry (only) replacements received in the last two months of 1756 IF the Saxons were captured. A serious increase in these might solve the problem you raised. Hope this helped.

Sounds very possible and i thank you for taking interest in the discussion.

Please post more if you come up with something that relates to this.

My concern is the that the element numbers are in the same scale for all parties but the replacement numbers are an important issue also.

Austria failed to arrive at a system that could compete with Prussia’s much superior means to replace losses, despite all efforts to improve the armies resources for ample replacement. As a result, with the beginning of 1755, general Daun estimated a shortage of no less then 38,000 men for the infantry. By June 1756, the infantry was still short of about 10,000 men – very different to Frederick’s Prussian army, which entered the war ‘complete’ and could additionally draw from a large reserve of trained men.

Can you confirm any of this?

http://www.kronoskaf.com/syw/index.php?title=Austrian_Line_Infantry_Organisation

[daztek]

hi when will the upgrade kit be available on gamersgate? wargamer.com said it was available on gamersgate but when i search gamersgate store it cannot find it .. .. i want to get it from GG cos that's where i got my original game

[mariandavid]

This is partly true: The Austrian Army as a whole was far-flung across Europe compared with the compact and rather small Kingdom of Prussia - and the high command had a historic tendency to diminish the importance, and hence the garrison strength of some regions. For example Italy, in 1741 just as in 1756 had very weak regiments - in the earlier era on which I know more two regiments both had less than 1,000 men (in THREE - huh! battalions). Ditto for the Austrian Netherlands in this war as France was an ally. But the units in Bohemia and Upper Austria (and those facing the Ottomans) were much closer to full strength. Note also that the cavalry was at full strength and this mattered more as it took far longer to train a recruit trooper.

As for the comment on the Prussians being 'complete' - as I said earlier, they were fully up to 'mercenary strength' will a full reserve of previously serving native soldiers.

[Charles]

These are the max figures for a Prussian regiment 1740-63:

-50 officers
-160 NCOs
-40 musicians
-12 medical orderlies
-1430 rank and file
-Understab: treasurer, almoner, auditor, provost, various clerks.

The regiment was divided into 2 battalions, each with 5 musketeer and 1 grenadier company.

each company was composed of:

-1 captain
-1 first lieutenant
-1-2 2nd lieutenant
-1 ensign
-up to 16 NCO
-114 rank and file (38 files in 3 ranks)

each company also had 7-8 ordinary supernumeries ("Uberkompletten") and from 1755 a vaying number of additional supernumeries (Uberuberkompletten, Extrauberkompletten, Ausangirten). The "supernumaries" were "trained veterans who were released to the cantons to serve as a reserve and make way in the company for a corresponding number of young cantonists". I take that to mean that the supernumeries did not accompany the company in the field, but could be quickly called up as replacements if needed.

Another NCO and up to 30-40 men were added to each company under a "augmentation decree" in 1768.

source: Duffy, The Army of Frederick the Great, 1974, 1st ed., p.69

[bkosar19]

hi when will the upgrade kit be available on gamersgate? wargamer.com said it was available on gamersgate but when i search gamersgate store it cannot find it .. .. i want to get it from GG cos that's where i got my original game

I doubt it will be available on gamersgate. The original version being available through that site was a result of it being published by Paradox during Ageod's brief affiliation with that company. That relationship has ended. Since Ageod is now affiliated with Matrix/Slitherine then Matrix's site is the place to get the upgrade kit. (Further, the wargamer.com announcement doesn't mention it being available through gamersgate.)

I got the original through gamersgate and the upgrade through Matrix. There are a few minor bugs with the initial release, but overall the game installed easily and plays without any major issues.

[Carnium]

hi when will the upgrade kit be available on gamersgate? wargamer.com said it was available on gamersgate but when i search gamersgate store it cannot find it .. .. i want to get it from GG cos that's where i got my original game

Gamers gate version is more or less identical to the AGEOD store one. Support the developers and buy directly from them if you can.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Has anyone tried the upgrade kit on the Steam version? I'll go ahead and buy it from AGEOD if it's confirmed to work. (I already know about turning off auto updates and such. Just making sure nothing else would cause problems)

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Has anyone tried the upgrade kit on the Steam version? I'll go ahead and buy it from AGEOD if it's confirmed to work. (I already know about turning off auto updates and such. Just making sure nothing else would cause problems)

I went ahead and got it. Seems to work fine.

[|29th|Capt.Karpik]

Duffy is really not a good source, seriously not really. It is great popular book, written in english style, more care about the style than the details. It has been written for custom readers not historicial. It include many sources, but it is not best for going deeply into details. I am not saying that Duffy is notgreat historical, other his book than The army of Frederick the Great, are better. To follow the changes in organisation of Prussian Army during the 7yw i recommended C. Jany, Geschichte der preußischen Armee vom 15. Jahrhundert bis 1914, vol. II. During the 7yw, Prussian army got 3 stages of etat levels. It was called "New Step" or "New foot" with 1620 privates in 2 bns, "Medium Step/Foot" with around 1320 privates and Old Step/Foot" with around 1220 privates in 2 battalions (not counting the greandiers, which also got this levels of etats, the grenadiers could have mixed Foots Stages).
Each battalions count 21 officers, i 50 NCO, 16 Musicians and 28 noncombatanten. Battalion of Grenadiers - 18 officers, 36 NCO, 20 Musicians and 28 service mens (non+combatanten) with 520 (old foot), 560 (medium foot) or 680 ptes (New foot).

The new size of battalions size was an effect of augumentation made by Frederick in 1757 or 1756 (don't remmeber) by adding to each infantry company a new recruits, serving without arms, and filling the gap in rank during the campaign.

[Charles]

Duffy lists about 150 books as references, including Jany's work. He specifically pointed out Jany's work as the most detailed and reliable on the subject.

Looking at various sources, it seems a company of musketeers was always around 140 (including 114 musketeers).

The major discrepancy appears to be the reinforcement of 30 men in january 1757 which should bring the company up to 170, but does not appear to have affected the offical TO&E. Does Jany provide more detail on this? I am wondering if the extra men were additional supernumeries which would explain the difference.

[|29th|Capt.Karpik]

He did, but i ask, in how many places Duffy is pointing out the Jany's work?
@2 Yes he (Jany) point out more details about this extra Uberkompletted men, i was writting from memory, need to look after it.
You can compare both book if you would like. Duffy's work is good, but when I have to wrote anything, I would took Jany instead, or Grosser General Stab Werke from 1909-1914.

[JacquesDeLalaing]

Just a question concerning the game:

Is it WAD that those new "siege works"-counters (which are produced by sappeurs?) stay even though the army has broken off the siege and moved away? And how come they've got pretty decent combat values? My brigade under Daun was just beaten by siegeworks (magically occupied by ca. 10k men - which were ...well...created by the sappeurs).

I love the idea of those little counters though! Ideally, it adds the component of time to sieges (other than supply-shortages). However, even though I've modded and decreased the importance of the random factor (sides of siege resolution-dice, compensated by a higher attacker bonus), sieges feel very random at times.

[Erik Springelkamp]

Just a question concerning the game:

Is it WAD that those new "siege works"-counters (which are produced by sappeurs?) stay even though the army has broken off the siege and moved away? And how come they've got pretty decent combat values? My brigade under Daun was just beaten by siegeworks (magically occupied by ca. 10k men - which were ...well...created by the sappeurs).

I love the idea of those little counters though! Ideally, it adds the component of time to sieges (other than supply-shortages). However, even though I've modded and decreased the importance of the random factor (sides of siege resolution-dice, compensated by a higher attacker bonus), sieges feel very random at times.

Hmm, when I have detached these field works to move away, they have disappeared so far.

[Die Zieten]

I got an reply from Kronoskaf concerning the Prussian OOB and the discussion on this thread.

Here are the answers that I received from members of our group who
double-checked our articles on the Prussian and Austrian infantry
organisations.


------------- from Christian Rogge ----------------------------

Die Zietens quotations of our kronoskaf articles are all fine. The
Austrian organization I edited myself and is about as accurate as you
can get it. Source was Großer Generalstab here for the most part. So
far, their figures make the best match. Unsurpassed to the present day.
Prussia I didn't edit, but it looks fine to me. I could support it
with the figures Curt Jany provides (he is the guy that edited the
final vols of the so far unpublished Großer Generalstab History on the
7YW, as I was informed by the director of the Berlin Preußisches
Geheimes Staatsarchiv. They have unearthed the manuscripts only
recently).

Not sure why Duffy fails to mention anything. I also only know the
1970's edition where he only accounts for the peace time TO&E with 8
pelotons/firings and not mentioning the wartime 10 pelotons/firings
for the augmented battalions.


Quoting Curt Jany, Geschichte der Preußischen Armee vom 15.
Jahrhundert bis 1914, vol ii, re-print Osnabrück 1967, pp. 352 ff.:
(Again, this is the single best and most accurate source available)
Infantry field strength by September 1756 ? after mobilization and
first simple war time augmentation:
Total 126 battalions with 90,800 men
In detail (excluding artillerists and pioneers/Zimmerleute manning the guns):
IR 15/I. Leib-Garde with 45 OFF, 61 NCO's, 33 tambours & hautbois, 769
soldats = 908 men
other infantry regiments (excl. grenadiers) with 42 OFF, 100 NCO's, 38
tambours & hautbois, 1,320 soldats = 1,500 men or 750 per battalion
grenadier battalion: with 18 OFF, 36 NCO's, 20 tambours, 560
grenadiers = 634 men
The total figures account for 6 non armed/ranking reserve men and 2
fouriers per coy that will have to be deducted from the battalions
effective combat strength (see below).


My notes:
IR 6 Grenadier-Garde not mentioned here, possibly elsewhere in the
book. Should be similar to 15/I. with some less officers.
15/I: officer figures are quite boosted because of the many volonteers
holding an officers patent of the guards.

Jany continued:
The first simple augmentation was accomplished simply by arming most
of the so far non-armed (non ranking) reserve entitled
Überkomplette/supernumeraries. The 4 guard battalions, IR 35, and 39
took to the field without Überkomplette armed. The Guards already had
an augmented strength also some other units, such as the Wesel
garrison had different strength. To complicated to present all this
in detail.
In short, the combat strength now was for an infantry battailon 205
files to the former (1748) near 190. total 702 combatants grenadier
battailon had 176 files to the former 260 with 602 combatants.

2nd war time augmentation as per Royal Cabinet Ordre of 8 and 9 January 1757:
38 infantry regiments incl its grenadiers coys were again to be
augmented by 30 rank and file per company or a 150 for the line
battailon and 120 for a grenadier battalion
Line bat now with 255 files, the gren bat with 216 files.
This "new footing" included the regiments 1-5, 7-14, 16-34, 37, 38, 40-43.
The guards, and the regiments without recruting cantons ( 35, 39, 44,
45, and 48) as well as the garrison battalions retrained the
"peacetime footing" of pre-September 1756, while the regiments 36, 46,
47, and 49 retrained the 1756 war time footing.
With grenadier battalions, that were composed from different footing
regiments, a specialized system for evening out the odds was employed.

---- from The Baron ---------------------------------------

Well, having read the thread "Die Zieten" linked in his email, it
looks like his opposite in the argument, "Charles", cites Duffy's "The
Army of Frederick the Great", albeit the first edition from 1974. I
have the second edition, published in 1996, with much rework based on
additional sources not available in the early Seventies. The info
"Charles" cites jibes more or less with the info in our article.

[Charles]

I got an reply from Kronoskaf concerning the Prussian OOB and the discussion on this thread.

good work, can't argue with that. Too bad Jany 's books are not available in english.

[|29th|Capt.Karpik]

HaHA time to learn German/Deutch!
But, reading german isn't so difficult.
The only thing i can add was the different regiments has been put on the "new stepping" during the war. Each year of war has been descirbed by Jany and he note down all regiments at the starting the year of each campaign with the whole "etat" strenght. So it is easy to follow, which regiment and when got increase the number of privates during the war. If I remember good, the only regiments which stays at "old foot" was the guard regiments (incl. IR18, IR35).