This section is a brief guide to the tactics used in the Great Northern War and also therefore the War of Spanish Sucession. There is a great deal of confusion in this area as reliable information in English is difficult to get. Also many of the nations changed during the wars. In addition I have included how the different tactics may be rated for the Volley and Bayonet Rules. All of this is based on the best information I have, but is not written in tablets of stone. So if you have any corrections / clarifications / additions please get in touch. nick@wfgamers.org.uk. Finally I wish to acknowledge the debt I own, for much of this information, to the members of the Lace wars and Volley and Bayonet discussion groups and in particular to Daneil Staberg.

Infantry tactics.

Cavalry tactics.

Artillery.

Command Control.

Infantry Tactics:

During the Great Northern War and the contemporary War of Spanish Sucession there were 3 differing infantry tactical systems. It is debatable how much effect these would have had on the battlefield. The 'platoon firing' system, for example, was unlikely to survive long in actual combat. Yet such information can be useful so I have included it here. In addition I have briefly discussed some other aspects of Great Nortern War tactics that should be considered.

Rank Firing: This is the 'normal' tactics of the period, and as such it is the 'default' infantry tactics. It is usually musket armed infantry in 4 or ranks. These ranks take it in turn to fire and then retire to the rear of the formation to load as the other ranks fire. This tactic was used by all nations, except Sweden, at the start of the war. Unless stated below it was retained until the end of the war, although many of the states introduced changes after the war.

Volley and Bayonet: These troops are represented by Linear - Early Fire Discipline stands.

For some systems, such as Volley and Bayonet, poor quality troops that use different firing systems should probably be rated as this.

Platoon Fire: This tactic was used by the British and Dutch in the contemporary 'Malburian' war. It was usually performed by musket armed infantry in 3 ranks. Different segements of the line would fire together, while the other segements reloaded.

The Swedes could do this from the begining of the war, yet usually prefered to use their 'Ga Pa' tactics (see Ga Pa below). There is some evidence that late in the war, when the use of pikes declined (see Pikes below), the Swedes feel back on these tactics. Yet for me the case is not yet proved that they did in fact stop using 'Ga Pa'. Instead I just feel they have been forced to use more firing by the circumstances, but still in the 'Ga Pa' system.

The Danish army introduced platoon firing in their 1703 / 04 regulations, although it is uncertain how long it took for the bulk of the army to adopt these tactics. The regular troops certainly seem to be using it by the time of there re-entry into the Great Northern War after Poltava. Therefore the regular units should be allowed to use these tactics post 1709. The militia and mercenary units could possibly use these tactics as well, although on balance probably not.

Another army that officially introduced platoon fire during the war was the Saxon army. It was introduced following the defeats of the 1706 campaign. Yet such was the state of the Saxon army during the rest of the war that it is unlikely that any of the troops were capable of performing such complicated procedures. So you may give later Saxons the ability to Platoon Fire. Personally I would restrict it to the very best units, i.e. the Guard, or not use it at all, but it is your choice.

There is some feeling that the Prussian army was also trained to use Platoon Fire. Large numbers of the army had been part of Marlborough's armies and presumably in the perfect position to use / learn these tactics. Yet it didn't officially adopt these tactics until after the war. I feel that some of the 'veteran' units must have improved there firing procedure enough to count as 'Platoon Firing', even if they did not officially use these tactics.

Volley and Bayonet: These troops are represented by normal musket armed Linear stands.

For some systems, such as Volley and Bayonet, troops that use different firing systems, but have considerable experience, should probably be rated as this. For example Prussian veterans of Marlborough's armies.

Ga Pa: This was a tactical system unique at the time to the Swedish army. It was an extremely aggressive tactic that called for the troops to advance into hand to hand combat as quickly as possible, using the minimum of firing and the instead relying on the bayonet and the pike. Deployed in 4 ranks units would adavnace as quickly as possible, sometimes not even bothering to form line !!! At about 50 yards the unit would pause to allow the 2 rear ranks would fire a volley, at about 20 - 30 yards the front 2 ranks would do the same, then the whole unit would charge into combat.

Volley and Bayonet: Under V&B I think a new category is needed to represent these tactics. Obviously troops using these tactics should all be rated as Shock('kill' on a 5 or 6 in melee), in addition I propose an additional category Swedish Fire Discipline (SFD). This is the same as EFD but with an extra dice when not stationary and in melee. This I feel helps to represent the novel Swedish Tactics.

Pikes: The Swedes and the Russians continued to use pikes during this war. While the Danish army re-equipped it's infantry with pike in the post 1709 period, but did not actually use them in combat. In theory all units of the Swedish and Russian army had 1/3 of their men armed with pike, or at least this is the generally accepted figure. Yet there is evidence that this was not always the case. It is I feel unlikely that the Streltsi, that the Russians used in the early period, had them.

While for the Swedish army there is growing evidence that not all units conformed to this ration. Indeed it is likely that some units never had pike, the units raised for captured / deserted Saxon units, for example. Similarly units raised in the non Swedish or Finnish areas may never had pikes. Certainly in the period post Poltava, after the 'regular' army had been largely destroyed, there seems to have been a shortage of pikes. Many of the units that were built or rebuilt during this time do not seem to have been issued them, therefore in this period up to 75% of the Swedish army may be 'pikeless'. In similar vein there is some evidence that even the 'old' regiments in Finland abandoned the pike in this period, but as yet I am less certain of this.

Volley and Bayonet: Units with Pike should get the benefits / disadvantages of using Pike. They get 1 extra dice in Melee and lose 1 when firing, plus they get do not get the -1 disadvantage against lancers (and other cavalry if option below is being used).

Infantry / artillery charged by Cavalry: This was still the time of cavalry being the most important arm of an army. While the infantry and artillery was still uncertain in the face of cavalry, at least in the east. Therefore I feel that generally infantry and artillery should be less likely to remain unmoved by cavalry charges. Therefore unless the unit has pike I recomend that infantry receive some disadvantage when charged by cavalry. Which cavalry is a matter of choice, but I feel all Shock cavalry should get this and also all non Shoch heavy cavalry.

Volley and Bayonet: Infantry get -1 morale if in melee / being charged by Shock cavalry or by non Shock heavy cavalry, unless they have pikes or are in defences or defensive terrain.

Battalion Guns: There seems to be considerable confusion, in this period, about which nations used Battalion guns (small guns deployed as part of a unit) and which didn't. The truth in the Great Northern War is that the nations sometimes deployed there light guns in batteries and sometimes as battalion guns. Usually when deployed as batteries these were deployed in close support of the infantry, so the difference may be academic in many rules. Whether they were 'battalion' or 'battery' guns they ended up in close support of the infantry.

Volley and Bayonet: Batteries of light guns that are deployed to support infantry are probably best represented as battalion guns. Whether they are officially so or not. All such infantry will move as Slow Infantry.

Infantry Manoveuring: The infantry of this period did not use the Cadenced step, i.e. they did not march in step with each other. For this reason they were generally less manoverable than their later counterparts.

Volley and Bayonet: All infantry do not get the free facing change during their move. Instead they will have to lose half of there movement to turn. While units that are identified as PT (poorly trained) or MIL (militia) will have to lose an entire turn to change facing.

Summary for Volley and Bayonet

Cavalry Tactics:

This section gives a brief guideline to the tactics, and how to represent them, of the mounted troops in the Great Northern War. At this time mounted troops were still the most important or decisive troops within an army, particularly in Eastern / Northern Europe. This section aims to offer suggestions on how they should be depicted and how they differed from contemporary units.

Light Horse: Light cavalry did not play a big part in the Great Northern War despite quite lagre numbers being around. The Russians and Poles could call on large numbers of Cossacks or similar cavalry, while the Swedes also occasionally fielded small numbers (100 to 200 is typical). The Swedes were allied to some Cossacks during the 1708 - 09 Russian campaign but large numbers of Cosacks did not join them. The light cavalry that was depolyed, by all the nations, were universally poor and skirmished. Some may have been armed with Lances, but I feel to classify them as such misrepresents there use. The light cavalry did not perform massed charges where the Lance may have beena factor, instead they concentrated on skirmishing, raiding and scouting.

Volley and Bayonet: Classified as Morale 4, MIL, Light, Skirmish only.

Dragoons: Dragoons were men, generally, mounted on inferior horses to those used by Cavalry / Horse units. They were also generally capable of dismounting to use their carbines on foot, although except for the Russians this seems to have been rare on the battlefield. Often these units were raised during the war, as they were cheaper and easier to raise than Cavalry / Horse units, but were often not of the same quality as these. When mounted these units were not as effective as Cavalry / Horse and should use 'Fire tactics' (as described below).

Volley and Bayonet: Rated as Medium cavalry, Fire Tactics and may Dismount. When dismounted they count as EFD infantry, but suffer a -1 to their morale.

The exception to this, as was often the case, was the 'Swedish' dragoons, these units were usually recruited from the non Swedish parts of the Swedish empire. These used the same tactics as the rest of the Swedish mounted troops, eg 'Shock' (see below) and never dismounted like many other dragoons. They also tended to be of equal quality as the Horse and it may be argued that they should be rated exactly like Swedish Horse units. I have, generally, rated them as 'Medium' rather than 'Heavy' like the Horse. Yet in many cases there performance was the equal of the Horse and they could perhaps be rated exactly like the Horse.

Volley and Bayonet: Swedish Dragoons: Rated as Medium or Heavy cavalry (see above), Shock tactics and cannot dismount.

Fire tactics Cavalry: The majority of the heavy cavalry during the Great Northern War used these tactics. They consisted of shooting mounted with pistols until the enemy was disordered, then charging them at the trot. They should be at a disadvantage against Trot and Shock cavalry.

Volley and Bayonet: They suffer -1 morale against Trot and Shock cavalry of the same weight.

Trot Cavalry: These cavalry used the tactics developed by the British and Dutch, of emphasising charging instead of firing. They would charge the enemy at the trot and fire their pistols at short range as they went in. These tactics may have been used by some Danish or Prussian cavalry during the later stages of the war. Although this is not certain, I feel that, as was discussed under platoon fire, it may be that some units had 'picked up' this tactic or were experienced enough to use it. They should give the unit an advantage against Fire Tactic cavalry.

Volley and Bayonet: They suffer -1 morale against Shock cavalry of the same weight.

Shock Cavalry: The cavalry of Sweden and Poland used the full blown cavalry charge, which I have classified as Shock tactics. In Sweden's case they formed their squadrons into tight wedges with riders knee behind knee in a 2 or 3 rank formation. This tactic was also perfectly capable of causing panic amongst otherwise steady infantry, particularly so in the East where perhaps the infantry were not that steady in the face of cavalry attack as elsewhere. Therefore Shock cavalry should get an advantage against Fire Tactic and Trot cavalry. They should also have a chance of disordering or whatever, infantry / artillery they are charging unless those infantry have Pikes (see above).

Volley and Bayonet: They give a -1 to none Shock cavalry (of the same weight) and non pike armed, not in cover or defences, infantry and artillery in melee.

Cavalry vs Infantry: While I have restricted the -1 to infantry and artillery when charged by Shock cavalry, there is a case for all Heavy cavalry to get this advantage. So you may if you wish extend this rule to all Heavy cavalry.

During this period artillery was generally very heavy and was moved around by civilian contractors. This meant it was not very manoverable and could not move once positioned. For the civilians with the artillery would retire out of harms way once the fighting started and were very difficult to get back. Therefore as a general rule was in position they should not be allowed to be limbered up again and moved. They can turn on the spot, but shouild not be allowed to fire in the same turn.

They can be limbered at the start of the game and will move at a slower rate than artillery does generally. It should take a whole turn, without moving or firing to unlimber them, and then they will not be able to limber up again.

Volley and Bayonet: General artillery: Counts as PPA (pre professional artillery), ie it may not move once placed. It takes a whole turn to unlimber and may not do so within musket or short artillery range. It moves as if it was a weight class heavier than it is.

The exception to this is once again the Swedes. Late in the war, by 1712 or maybe earlier, improvements had been made to the Swedish artillery.

I can do no better than to quote Daniel Staberg at this point for details of the changes that were made. He points out that "The Swedish artillery played a decisive role at Gadebusch (1712) due to the innovations of it's commander, Col. Cronstedt. Mobility had been improved by attaching two horses to the guns by a special harness which allowed the gun to be dragged toward the enemy muzzle first. Special "Marching bars" allowed 3 or 4 men at each bar to push the gun forward. The gun could be fired with these bars attached. The so called "Action-horses" and marching bars would be used together to within 70 meters of the enemy, at closer ranges marching bars were used alone. Aiming was improved by the use of aiming screws and improved sights. The rate of fire was increased to 8-10 shots a minute by the use of "Geschwinda skott" (lit. "Fast shots") cartridged ammuniton with powder and ball or grapeshot wired together. However the range of the cartridged ammuniton was limited to 225 meters for the 3-pounders and 600-700 meters for the 6-pounders and howitzers."

Artillery using such a system should perhaps be allowed to manhandle around, at say 1/2 or less of the infantry's movement rate. There may also be a case for extending the 'short' range or improving the effect of such guns at 'short' range or whatever under your rules. I also feel, although Daniel does not say, that 'long' range fire would probably suffer under such a system.

Volley and Bayonet: Swedish artillery (1712 +): Can be manhandled 6" (3" if Heavy guns). They get a +1 to hit at short range, but can not fire at long range.

Command is I feel one of the weaker areas in the Volley and Bayonet rules, it is to often easy to do exactly what one wishes your units. The system is good in that it forces the player to keep units from a formation together, yet these formations can otherwise do whatever they wish. This is an outline of the system that we use at our club to place some realistic restrictions on the players ability to react to events. It has been shamelessly taken from an excellent WWII rules called 'Spearhead' and changed to fit this period.

Divisions / Commands / Wings (ie the basic formations) are given one of three orders - Attack, Defend or Reserve. The key to these is restricting the movement of these formations commanders. These orders resrict where he may go and the units operate within the normal command distance (6") of him.

Defend: The commander may not move at all, but units are free to move freely within the present restrictions of the rules. The exception to this is that the commander may move to rally units, but must return to his assigned position after completing his task. We assume that the General moves to rally units while the staff, messengers, etc retain there position. Units under defend orders can only move towards / change face towards visible enemy.

Attack: The player draws a map and a line of advance for the formation on it. Generally we don't bother with this, as usually at the start of the game one side is defending and the other is attacking, so the 'lines of advance' have only to be stated. Similarly when orders change it is often easier to just state the 'line of advance', this system should make it difficult to abuse the knowledge of the enemies plans. Yet if in doubt then a map and lines of advance must be drawn.

The commander must follow this line and must advance at least half a move along it each turn. When within 24" of visible enemy the minimum advance rules no longer applies, athough if the commander does move he must move along his 'line of advance'. So the commander has the option of halting or varying the speed of his advance, but not changing its direction.

As with 'Defend' the units may move freely within the normal command restrictions. They may not react to non visible enemy. Similarly the commander may move 'off the line', but must move back as soon as possible.

Reserve: Formations in reserve may not move or fire at all and all units are assumed to be limbered, march column etc. They will suffer the penalties discribed in the rules if 'caught' in such formations by the enemy. The advantage of being in reserve is that such formations can automatically change its orders and react to the commanding generals wishes (see 'Changing Orders' below). Normally a maximum of 1 in 3 formations (minimun 1) may start the game in 'Reserve'.

Changing Orders: Orders may only be changed by higher commanders and in reaction to events that the formation commander or higher commander can see. Higher commanders may only try to change one subordinate formations orders each turn, if they are not in Reserve. Changing orders takes place in the Command Deternmination phase.

Optional rule: Some commanders may be allowed to attempt multiple order changes. This represents there greater skill as a commander, but the comander may only try to change the same formations order once a turn.

Unlimited numbers of formations with 'Reserve' orders may change there orders each turn, thet do not count towards as a commanders attempt to change orders.

How to change orders: The higher commander is assigned a value between 2 and 6, this is the number or higher on a D6 that the commander needs to roll to successfully change a subordinate formations orders. This number can be modified by a number of factors. A +1 dice modifier is given if the higher commanders stand is touching his subordinates stand.

A -1 dice modifier is applied if the distance between the commanders is more than 18". A -2 if more than 36". A -3 if more than 48". For this calculation count difficult (ie effects movement) terrain as twice the distance it is. Orders may always be changed on the roll of a 6.

Example - Army commander A is 15" away from his subordinate commander B, he normally needs a 3+ to change B's orders. Yet there is a wood between them 5" wide, this add 5" to the effective distance and taking the 'distance' to 20 (15" + 5" for going through the wood). Thus A will need to roll 4+ to successfully change B's orders.

As an alternative to the above system, you can instead delay the implementation of the order change. Retain the +1 for stands in contact, but instead of the minuses impose delays. So if more than 18" away (calculated as above) the order change happens in the next Command Determination phase, etc.

The command value is probably best assigned based on the abilities of the historical generals performance. In the absence of this the following values can be used to represent 'generic' generals.