Forums

Can anyone more experienced than I help here - I'm wondering about the desirability of house rules to cover this.

It's possible to surround, isolate and trap even quite strong cavalry formations with infantry columns. Say a cavalry stack of around 400 horse surrounded by infantry in column, each infantry unit around 700 strong. Once cut-off the cavalry can't really do much against 700 men in column and even with limited fire from the columns surrounding them they quickly become disordered, isolated etc. It can take a long time to eliminate them with ONLY column fire, but it's possible.

Substitute a strong cavalry stack for one of the surrounding infantry stacks and then you can melee into the trapped cavalry stack with your own cavalry stack and eliminate it much quicker, and meanwhile, because of the column infantry pinning it, it can't escape.

I've never myself done this because it seems ahistorical to me - to surround cavalry with infantry in column. But it's happened to me a few times in H2H play. I don't mind cavalry surrounding cavalry - but infantry? Did it happen? Wouldn't infantry in column have a little more respect for a mass of 400 or so horse? Does anyone think this is ok - to use column infantry this way - or should there be some kind of house rule to encourage respect for the cavalry?  

Thanks.

I allways dislike in Nap engine cavalry, and since games offer squadrons and not regiments i dislike it even more because you CANT mass cavalry to deal with cavalry limitations.

My problem is that cavalry even when is very usefull needs an excesive carefull use and you many times are forced to delay the use of cavalry in combat VS enemy infantry... only "early use" is to deal with enemy cavalry in counter scouting (and to prevent enemy take key terrain easy and fast) or to hunt excesive agresive skirmish units in open terrain.

Part of the problem is how strong are infantry units in column VS cavalry EVEN when they are assaulted from flanks or rear and well, mix in nap series assault column and movement column in a single formation is not a great help, and part that cavalry suffer casualties like infantry BUT they lose combat power faster and are very profitable in victory points.

I think Nap serie needs block formation from REN to cover the assault role at the cost of movement and leave column only to fast movement BUT with 0 defensive value in melee combat, with this infantry CANT overpower cavalry in mobile combat, cavalry can evade that kind of tactics you coment and apart this made cavalry suffer less casualties by fire... maybe take from REN the "armor" feature to made heavy cavalry less sensible to fire but slower and lighter cavalry weaker vs fire but more mobile.

For example i very very very very rare times use square formation because a line of infantry is strong enough to hold VS cavalry and offer you more firepower to decimate infantry, and in column you retain mobility and deal similar firedamage compared with square.

It's a difficult one.

Any house rule can be willfully misinterpreted. So saying something like x amount of cavalry cannot be surrounded except by y numbers of men per column is problematic. I doubt columns would advance on cavalry, at least from the front. So it is rather gamey to do it although I think most folks do. It's even more annoying if the cavalry Routs and with Isolation ON, can all be bagged before help arrives. Once trapped they are pretty lame ducks so charging forward without support is not advised.
I think you just have to accept that without pages of house rules, it's a game and not a historical simulation - and thus it's a case of 'do unto others - but do it to them first'.

Well, at least in nap serie (and the non WWI and WWII operational series) bagging is less problematic, you can bag cavalry but is rare do this in defense, attacking is other history because you need mass cavalry to made it effective and this reduce the front area and if you dont have infantry to support...

Columns simple are to strong VS cavalry, if i dont remember bad only austrians used a type of mixed assault column that worked to assault and to defend all around VS cavalry... but the other nations used a simple assault column very weak attacked from flanks and rear... in game even if you catch an unit from rear in line the cavalry could suffer heavy casualties, VS column is a waste use cavalry... in general cavalry die very easy and the advantage earned is compensate by the points debacle and now is not possible do that 1000 mounted rush since squadrons introduce a reduced stack for mounted units.

Its a game but are things not working well and taking a tech solution from other serie is a great help (REN block and armor for cavalry) and improve engine (for example touching how cavalry suffer casualties).

Thanks for the responses. No easy house rules, then. Thanks.

Just some historical background to it, from "Napoleon, His Army and Enemies":

***
Only few times the infantry
actually attacked cavalry.

1.
In 1811 at El Bodon, British 5th Regiment of Foot attacked French cavalry.
2.
According to l'Houssaye, in 1814 at Craonne, two regiments of Russian infantry attacked French dragoons commanded by General Grouchy. The boldness of the infantry were enough to drive back the dragoons on to the battery which they had just captured. Grouchy was wounded.
3.
In 1809 at Aspern-Essling, "Instead of losing momentum by ordering a square, he [Saint-Hilaire] commanded the trusty 105th Line to face to the flank, told the drummers to beat the pas de charge, and advanced against the enemy horsemen. Infantry charging cavalry was thing rarely attempted. It demanded great resolution. ... The 105th met the challenge and drove off the startled Austrian heavy horse." (Arnold - "Napoleon Conquers Austria" p 70)
4.
In May 1813 at Diehmen, allied cavalry attacked the square of French 52nd Line twice. The 52nd and 137th Line reformed into columns, and advanced at the "pas de charge" against the Russian cavalry. The cavalry faced with the startling and unusal situation, withdrew. (Nafziger - "Lutzen and Bautzen" p 201) Other sources mention the 53rd instead of 137th.
5.
In 1812 at Borodino, the battalion columns of (Russian) Ismailovsk Lifeguard Infantry Regiment received French cuirassiers with volley and then attacked with bayonets. Officer Shimanski of this regiment doesn't mention the bayonet charge, he wrote that only some soldiers left the ranks and fired at the backs of the fleeing French. The Russian 'Pernau' Infantry Regiment repulsed cavalry attack and then itself charged the cavalry with bayonets. Unable to catch them some men in the front rank threw their musket with bayonets as javelins at the backs of the cavalrymen ! (Zhmodikov - "Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars" Vol. II)
6.
In 1813 near Katzbach, the French IV/34th Line "found a force of Prussian uhlans had charged into and captured the park of the French XI Corps. When only about one-sixth of their muskets would fire because of the day long rain the IV/34th Line charged, in a battalion mass, against the cavalry, drove it away, and recaptured the XI Corps park. They do not appear to have suffered any appreciable losses." (Nafziger - "Imperial Bayonets" p 42)
7.
In 1814 at Vauchamps, two companies of the Prussian Silesian Schutzen (240 riflemen) found themselves with a single squadron of Polish Guard Lancers sitting on their line of escape from the disaster that was befalling on their brigade. The Schutzen formed a column and charged forward cutting their way through the enemy cavalry.
***

So there are examples that infantry can handle cavalry roughly, but if 400 men cavalry are running right into such a mass of infantry(4200) it's there own fault if they loose more than just some feathers.

You only use cavalry if the circumstance are beneficial to you, in an active role only to finish off an already retreating/routing enemy, in a passive role just to threat the enemy to force him into squares that are then soften by artillery fire(horse batteries come handy here) and kicked by a charge of a superior infantry force.
The only other reason to use cavalry is if you're desperate.

Phoenix cavalry was caugh by a big mass of infantry at dawn with poor visibility. And it was destroyed by a cavalry charge after being encircled. So, that does not seem to me absurd.

Yes, I see from BigDuke's post that it did happen in real life. And, as he points out, I shouldn't be letting cavalry get caught like that. Perhaps the fault is all my own!

Thanks for the responses.