The Crimean War of 1853 to 1855 has a perhaps exaggerated reputation for blundering. It was the opening war in a series of wars in which the major European powers tried to come to terms with new conditions. There was considerable fighting between Turkish and mainly Russian armies in the Balkans. Indeed the Turks had generally repulsed these Russian attacks.

The British

Weapons: The bulk of the British army was armed with muzzle loading rifle's (MLR). The units of te 4th Division were still armed with muskets (SM) at the time of the battle of the Alma. These were replaced during the campaign by MLR's. The artillery was all smoothbore (SA), but was generally of smaller size than normal for the period. Therefore British artillery has a maximum range of 24"

Tactical Doctrine: The British army of the Crimean War was still largely using the tactics with which they fought the Napoleonic Wars. British infantry units should therefore get a -1 on the maneuver table if not in column of march, line or skirmish formation, if appropriate. The Rifle Brigade units and other selected units may use skirmish formation. The British frequently detached their light companies to skirmish ahead of the line. Therefore up to 2 stands in 1:300 or 3 in 1:200 can be detached from a unit to form a skirmishing unit. These reduce the size of the parent unit. Finally British cavalry was notoriously uncontrollable, it therefore counts as 'Impetuous'. They only get the +1 melee modifier if not facing infantry, but always have to exploit British cavalry may not dismount.

Troop Quality: The quality of the British army at the unit level was generally high. The Guard count as 'Elite', while the cavalry, the Highlanders, the light infantry and a third to a half of the other infantry count as 'Crack'. The remainder of the army is 'Veteran'.

Leadership: Many of the higher leadership was of indifferent quality. Approximately a half should be 'Poor' with none being 'Exceptional'. In contrast the quality of the unit leaders and of the troops frequently compensated for the lack or higher leadership. Therefore 1 / 3 to 1 / 2 of unit commanders should be 'Exceptional'.

Organization: As noted above there was a lot of variation in organization and unit sizes during this conflict. The following is a general guide only and represents units at near full strength. The first number is appropriate to the 1:300 scale and the second to the 1:200 scale, if different. In brackets are the number of stands if the unit is skirmishing.

The French

Weapons: French artillery is identical, in game terms, to British artillery. It counts as SA with restricted range. The infantry is more of a problem, as some sources say that all were rifle armed. While others say only the Zouave and Chasseurs were so armed. I am unsure which is true and leave the choice to you. Rifle armed troops have MLR, others have SM.

Tactical Doctrine: Like the British the French still used very Napoleonic tactics. Chasseur units may use skirmish tactics. All other infantry units use 'Assault tactics' and receive a +1 melee modifier when in column of attack. In addition if not in column of march or attack they receive a -1 on the manoeuvre table. Zouave units also receive the advantages and disadvantages of being 'Impetuous'. French doctrine also emphasized the need for infantry to be supported by artillery at all times. This can be simulated in two ways, either French infantry are prohibited from advancing further than 16" (2" in woods, etc..) from deployed French artillery . Alternatively they receive a -1 on the manoeuvre table if they do not have support, as defined above. French cavalry may not dismount.

Troop Quality: Units of the Imperial Guard count as 'Elite'. The Zouave, Turco and Chasseur units were also of high quality and count as 'Crack'. While the bulk of the army should be rated as 'Veteran' with the occasional better unit.

Leadership: The leadership of the French army was on the whole competent, if uninspiring. The bulk of the leaders thus should be normal, with a few 'Poor' higher commanders and a few 'Exceptional' unit commanders.

Organization: See notes above for British organization. In theory the French were organized into Corps as the war progressed. Yet on the field they still seemed to function as divisions.

The Turks and Sardinians

Weapons: Like their allies the Turks and the Sardinians use restricted range smoothbore artillery (SA). While for the infantry the bulk of the armies were armed with muskets (SM). The exception to this was the Sardinian Bersaglieri units, which were armed with MLR.

Tactical Doctrine: Bersaglieri and some Turkish irregular units may use skirmish formation. Both nations forces tended to operate in column, yet did not generally generate the aggression of others in attack. Therefore they both receive a -1 on the manoeuvre chart if a unit is not in column of attack, column of march or skirmishing. Turkish regular units may use line or reinforced line while defending fieldwork's or other defensive terrain, without receiving the above -1 to movement. Bersaglieri units are 'Impetuous' and may use 'Assault tactics' if in column of attack. Cavalry may not dismount and Turkish irregular cavalry get a -1 when in close combat.

Troop Quality: The quality of these armies was generally not as high and units should generally be rated as 'Green'. Again the exception to this is the Bersaglieri units which should rate as 'Crack'. While many of the Turkish irregular units were of dubious value and should be 'Levy'.

Leadership: The leadership of these two contingents was generally low. There should be very few 'Exceptional' commanders and quite a lot of 'Poor' commanders.

Organization: See notes on organization above. The Turks were organized into Corps, but generally used the Division as the standard unit.

The Russians

Weapons: The Russian army continued to be armed with smoothbore muskets (SM), except form the Rifle battalions, which had MLR's. The artillery was also smoothbore, although of larger sizes than their opponents. It thus counts as standard SA. Optionally the very large guns, such as the siege guns used at the Alma, may be rated as RA.

Tactical Doctrine: Russian infantry invariably used slow moving dense columns, possibly even for long marches. They are then severely penalized if not in column of attack or possibly column of march. They never get the +1 on the maneuver chart for being in column. In addition they get a -3 on the maneuver chart when not in column. If you feel this is to sever try alternatively giving -2 instead. With the additional requirement that a commander must be attached to change out of column and remain with the unit until it returns to column. Rifle units may use skirmish formation, in which they do not suffer the above disadvantages. Cavalry units may not dismount and Cossack units get a -1 in close combat. Finally the Russians were very sensitive about the loss of their artillery. Therefore Russian artillery may not advance to within 4" of any enemy units. If they start the Russian phase of a turn within 4" of an enemy unit they must withdraw as if they had been silenced.

Troop Quality: The quality of the Russian army during the Crimean War was very low. The troops were badly officered peasants who were herded on to the battlefield with very little training Units should therefore be half or more 'Levy', with the remainder being 'Green'.

Leadership: The picture of an ineffective army continued in the leadership of the Russian army. Higher commanders that are not 'Poor' should be uncommon. While 'Exceptional' unit commanders should also be rare. Although some could be used to simulate the tenacity that some units showed in defense. These would count only in close combat and when disordered on the manoeuvre chart.

Organization: See the notes above. Once again the Russians had Corps, yet used Divisions on the field.