Forums

Having just read John Keegan's book "Face of Battle" with its analysis of combat at Waterloo I decided to write to the folks who make these games about a proposed rule change. Or maybe this could be an optional rule. Keegan's research (which is supported by another book I have as well) suggests that while an infantry square was the best formation to receive a cavalry charge, in reality any formed infantry unit that did not panic or get disorganized would be able to withstand and fight off a cavalry charge without grave loss. He makes a strong case that basically a man and horse when faced with determined infantry in any formation with their muskets at the ready (and still loaded) will not charge home. There really being no place for the cavalryman to go.



Keegan goes on to say the crucial thing seems to be the infantry's mental ability to hold their fire until the last minute and to stand firm. WHat this does is it puts the fear of god in the cavalry unit because they have that dreaded knowledge that they will receive a blast from the infantry at point blank range. Now if the infantry gets rattled and fires prematurely this gives the cavalryman great confidence. He knows he can ride in and have little fear of that point blank volley. On the infantry side, they see these massive groups of man and horse and it can rattle them. They imagine the great beast just running them over and so they fire too early or too high and they get scared and break formation giving the cavalry a place to ride into their ranks and start slashing.



The key seems to be rattling the confidence of the infantry and getting them to provide gaps in their ranks for the cavalry to ride into. Keegan basically states if there are no gaps all the rider can do is ride up, wave their sword and ride away and he says this happened at Waterloo.He even gets into unit frontage with the idea being, and I do not recall the numbers exactly, but something like 36 cavalrymen abreast in two ranks will be faced by something like double that of infantry. It makes sense that that if the infantry stand firm, this is not very good odds for the cavalryman. Horses are not going to charge a steady group of men that have bayonets. The horse will not impale himself as much as a rider might urge them on.

Another book I have "Swords Around the Throne" seems to agree with these assessments although I have not read all of what it says.



So with this in mind I thought about the way these games work and to me there is a key missing element. Its not whether or not the infantry is in square but whether or not they can keep there nerve when they are charged. My proposal is that when a cavalry unit charges and enters a hex next to an infantry unit, but not one in square, that infantry unit must make a morale check and if it fails it becomes disorganized or might even rout (if already disorganized). If it does not disorganize, and stands firm, whatever its formation, the cavalry units value is not tripled. If the infantry disorganizes or routs well, then the cavarly will get its attack bonus. It will be tripled and I guess the disorganized unit is 1/2ed if I am reading the rules right. Anyway, I thought I'd see if there are any opinions out there. I did float this to the folks at John Tiller and had an exchange of emails with one of their folks but he seemed reluctant to pursure this. Maybe the reprogramming would be too difficult but my reading seems to indicate this is more realistic. Anybody want to chime in?

My own $.02 having played these games for years is that cavalry is already at a pretty significant disadvantage over infantry. Unless you're charging disrupted troops -- when you should pound them flat -- you've got to kill a lot of foot to make up for the cost of horse casualties. And that's in the melee itself, not to mention the casualties you'll take riding in for the kill if you're not coming from the flanks or rear.

Most miniatures games make cavalry far too powerful -- particularly in light of the analyses you cite. I think HPS does a pretty good job of it.

Now, if we could only get DIVISIONAL MORALE, that'd be something.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

I agree with the opinion of Cyrano, if further weakens the cavalry, simply will not be worth them taking part in combat due to the high cost in victory points.

Well I believe that's an additional issue that needs to be addressed. Over the years I have never quite understood why victory points for killing cavalry are so high except to make one cautious to use it. That seems like an artificial method to get a commander to act properly. To me the way to make folks cautious about using it is to have a rule as I suggested. Now maybe if a unit is disorganized and a cav unit charges the multiplier should be higher than 3.

The other part of this is that given my reading a cav unit that charges does not necessarily bring home its charge. A cav commander whose foe does not disorganize or rout could simply choose not to bring the attack home. Basically that's what happened when the French cav faced a square at Waterloo.

One benefit to this rule is that there is a chance through a charge that the defending infantry will be disorganized BEFORE the charge comes home not by the actual melee. So a cavalry unit that charges poor infantry not in square has a good chance for them to be disrupted just by entering the hex next to them (which would force them to make a morale check). At a minimum I would love to try something like this as an optional rule.

(03-03-2013, 02:19 AM)notleapingtrout Wrote: [ -> ]Well I believe that's an additional issue that needs to be addressed. Over the years I have never quite understood why victory points for killing cavalry are so high except to make one cautious to use it. That seems like an artificial method to get a commander to act properly. To me the way to make folks cautious about using it is to have a rule as I suggested. Now maybe if a unit is disorganized and a cav unit charges the multiplier should be higher than 3.

For starters I think it cost more money and time to train and equip cavalry than infantry. That alone should justify not exposing them to decimation.

Then there is the case that if you blow your cavalry too early then you will miss the chance to use them at the decisive point in the engagement.

Finally, I think it was in the back of every commander's mind that the cavalry was there to pursue the defeated or cover your own retreat. If wasted, then your retreat, if required, would become a rout. Not many commanders were so rash to ignore the preservation of themselves or their reputation.

It makes a lot of sense to me on these points that cavalry in the game is priced appropriately in casualty victory points.

Dog Soldier