Cavalry versus Squares

[flick40]

Theres a reason square is adopted as a defense against cavalry, it works! If a square isnt broken upon impact it probably wont be in subsequent bounds of close combat. The cavalry would discover rather quickly if they are lambs to the slaughter and attempt to breakoff if they can. Probably shouldn't expect much to be left for a second go.

[davidsharpe]

Thank you for your reply, Barry.

I understood some weeks ago your point of view, "losses" are an abstraction way of simulating wearing down cavalry, not pure melee effects.

But, in game terms, it leads to non historical playing.
For exemple, try to simulate 4 bras battle, Pire french cavalry division would be out of the game after a single stroke !
In reality it attacked many times, back and forth, the netherland infantry, cavalry, british infantry, brunswick infantry and cavalry.
On a table top game it would be a one shot action.

This week, we played a Peninsular fictional scenario, french against spanish.
A lone infantry spanish recruit batallion formed square in front a french brigade cavalry and rendered it useless, because it would have been suicide to be in attack order, and obliged to charge the square.
Sometimes it seems it s the square who hunts down cavalry
Like a giant magnet !

"But [quote="obriendavid"]Following on from our previous weekend games and display games at shows I have been concerned that cavalry once launched into attack, especially against squares are either successful (extremely unlikely) or are destroyed (very likely). This seemed too drastic from what I thought I had read before so going back over my reference books I found that it was often the case that finding their attack unsuccessful the cavalry would attempt to pull back, reform and attack later but it seemed to be only better quality troops that were able to do this.

The rules currently allow charging cavalry to attempt to reign in their charge before contact but if they fail the combat is fought until one side breaks, which is usually the cavalry and they are useless for the rest of the battle. I have suggested to Barry that after one bound of combat cavalry can attempt to pull back using the same mechanism as reigning in a charge and we have thought about adding this as an amendment but wondered what others think of this idea?"


David feels there is something too drastic, me too.

I think that simulating the cavalry wearing down process should nt be with a "loss" mechanism.
Losses should be a fire consequences (as it was in reality), with just 20 to 40 horses down each charge.
But fatigue and morale attrition should be simulated by fatigue points.
Some we could rest, with a turn or two reorganising, and some not, showing progressive wearing down, enabling many charges with diminishing power.

Waterloo and 4 bras many charges could be simulated, like cavalry progressive attrition (instead of infantry attrition which could be brutal, by fire).

As in historical situation, Close combat between infantry and cavalry should be very rare, when it happened it mean cavalry is inside infantry formation and destroying it.

Squares didn t "kill" cavalry, they were break waters, showing no breach for the cavalry to enter in, so rendering close combat impossible.

Why, historically, cavalry dared to charge squares ?
Because sometimes squares "failed morale checks" and disordered, or a horse would fell on it and open a breach.
AND because cavalry knew that anyway they would not be destroyed by the charge if infantry stayed steady, but just get a few losses by a weak fire.

With RTE rules, i didn t dare to charge a single spanish recruit batallion with two cavalry regiments !

Sorry to insist on it, Barry, because your rules structure are a gem, but cavalry "close combat" rules are not satisfactory, historically (but, as yu said, abstraction could explain it) and (more problematic) in gaming terms.

Why not think about it and propose one day a small Addenda rules to overcome all the minor suggestions this forum put the light on ?
All rules need evolution.
Sometimes it s the structure which is problematic, and evolution would mean a new design.
Not RTE.
It s structure is the best i have ever seen, hypothetic changes would not alter it, just make it splendid.

Friendly yours Barry.

D

[Churchill]

Ray.

[davidsharpe]

Hello Ray

You say "I think the best thing to do is keep your cavalry away from infantry squares and let your artillery deal with them. "

Yes, that s wisdom, but when you charge an infantry not in square, it can suddenly form square. So wisdom would be to never charge cavalry.

The fact is that there is never close combat between cavalry and squares, of if it happens , rarely, (Garcia Hernandez july 1812) it means cavalry is inside the square and infantry is doomed.
In RTE it seems squares "hunts down" cavalry because Ordered attack cavalry MUST charge and be crushed by squares.
But squares never crushes cavalry, the square fire is quite weak and no bayonet pierced horses because horses didn t want to contact sharp points.
Cavalry was an elusive arm, like water it infiltrated when there were some breaches or open flanks and evade contact when there weren t.
Gaming RTE doesn t feel alike.

You are true about Waterloo, charges where disorganised ones by terrain, fallen horses and dead soldiers.
At 4 bras there weren t any broken squares but infantry taken before they formed square.

A well formed square was immune to cavalry, rarely some recruits batallions break under psychological pressure and disordered.

But in game terms, players see everything, know who is in square and who is not.
I think some suspense should be possible.
When you have a square in front of you, perhaps it could be breached of disordered.
And if not, your cavalry should not be destroyed, but receive some fire and get some fatigue blowing horses, like historically.
If not, you will not use your cavalry like your historical counterparts.

Using artillery against squares ? Yes, of course, but it wasn t so easy.
Artillery wasn t tank, but cumbersome units, even horse artillery.
If not Napoleon would have blown away allied squares with it s plentiful horse artillery.

I disagree on two points.

1 when you said French artillery had nothing to fire at, apart Hougoumont, because of down slope tactics.
Two third of anglo allied losses were artillery due losses.
allied infantry feared french artillery even prone down slope, and were repeatedly targeted, blindly , but targeted by french guns.
They welcome french cavalry charges which stopped momentaly french guns.

2 Allied guns weren t so efficient, after the first cavalry charges, allied gunners progressively took any occasions to retire, rare returned.
French cavalry were facing less and less canister fire because ther were less and less guns firing.
In the late afternoon, only allied infantry faced french cavalry remnants, skirmishers and guns.
Allied cavalry was in second line preventing infantry to retreat.
Most of post battle descriptions were written with a legend tone and
"à posteriori" allied victory justification.
In fact Wellington was close to disaster, his allies were on the verge of routing back to Bruxelles.
But that wasn t what was written.

I think you and many people have an "orthodoxical attitude", and it s normal:
It means literally you have a tendancies to rationalize what rules say.
If you had open RTE book first time and found "cavalry never close combat with squares, it evades contact and retreat" you would find it rational and would find historical exemples to justify it.
That s the power of written thing.

Friendly yours, Ray.

D

[18th Century Guy]

This has been a very interesting discussion so far. I understand how both sides feel in this debate. My suggestion for people who believe as David does would be to have a 'house rule' for cavalry that recovers from a charge on a square. Those who don't want to follow that can stay with R2E as is. But as always, keep this up as it is very interesting.

[Churchill]

Ray.

[Qurchi Bashi]

I don't see davidsharpe claiming anywhere that cavalry are supermen on flying horses.

Infantry in a solid square should win almost all the time, and, indeed, with the rules they do. So no problem there. But from the cavalry diaries I've read it seems they'd poke about for a weakness, and if the infantry remained solid the cavalry would flow around and back to their starting point. They'd take a few casualties from musketry, but they wouldn't impale themselves on the square and be utterly destroyed.

Some sort of rule where cavalry falls back if they don't win against a square in the first round seems quite appropriate and historical to me. I leave it to others who know the rules better than I (just one game so far) to discuss how that should work.

[CoffinDodger]

Guys,

I'm really enjoying this wee ding-dong; can I referee?

Jim

[obriendavid]

Infantry in a solid square should win almost all the time, and, indeed, with the rules they do. So no problem there. But from the cavalry diaries I've read it seems they'd poke about for a weakness, and if the infantry remained solid the cavalry would flow around and back to their starting point. They'd take a few casualties from musketry, but they wouldn't impale themselves on the square and be utterly destroyed.

That could also be achieved by the cavalry just having advance orders, they could advance towards the infantry which would force them into square knowing that the cavalry have the option to change their orders to attack in the next move. If the cavalry receive any fire during the infantry move they have to test and there is a chance they would be forced to retire, this seems to cover exactly what you have described.
There is no rule that says you have to give your cavalry attack orders just decide carefully when you are going to launch your charge just like cavalry commanders had to do in real life.
Cheers
Dave

[Churchill]

Ray.

[davidsharpe]

Ok Ray, don t be upset.

I m working on a house rules project, keeping the structure of RTE.
I ll send it on this forum, everybody interested will have a look and give their point of view if they want, and keep playing RTE in the book of course.

First i read again the RTE rules, P 38, ADVANCE ORDERS
Brigades are compelled to move towards the enemy until they are within their charge distance of nearest enemy unit.
Then halt if orders are not changed to ATTACK.

P39, in ATTACK order , cavalry MUST attempt to charge any enemy.

English is not my mother tongue, perhaps i m wrong, but i have understood that Cavalry must stop when it reach Charge distance, change orders with ATTACK orders or DEFEND ones.
If changing for ATTACK orders one unit must charge next turn.

ARTILLERY LOSSES
I have read it in "Waterloo Companion" Mark Adkin
But you are probably right it is exagerate, Skirmish fires, particularly around Hougomont and la Haie Sainte, and along the whole line made most of the allied losses.

Anyway, French artillery was more dangerous than expected because of reverse slope tactics.

ALLIED GUNNERS
I have read it in "Waterloo" from Alessandro Barbero, a recent and original description of waterloo.
Many times far from classic descriptions.
It s a question of point of view, mine is : Barbero is nearer from reality than classic epics of Waterloo.
He wrote that allied gunners first took refuge in allied squares but less and less of them came back to their guns.
Many guns got out of action, but when the charges ceased, many gunners went back to action.
I wanted to say that allied canister fire wasn t so intense during most of the charges.
Third, french guns were hauled on the plateau near La Haie sainte and kept a precise fire on allied understrengh batteries with effect.

Read the book, you ll enjoy it, it s like seeing waterloo as a new battle, with the same great events, like a remake movie.

"ORTHODOXICAL ATTITUDE"
That s was a bad frog attitude of mine !
You know how nasty french are, aren t they ?
Of course if you don t see any problems with cavalry and squares, you don t need any changes.


BARRY and YOU have played during many years, many battles.
Surely more than me.
Nothing to object, you are true.

My intention is just to dialog and share point of views.

FRENCH CAVALRY SUPERHUMAN ?
I took french cavalry examples but nationality doesn t matter.
My purpose was to point that charging squares was not a suicide action

This afternoon i read some pages of "Battle of 4 bras" from Mike Robinson.
Near Gemioncourt the 5th dutch militia batallion was charged by Imperial Guard red lancers Regiment, it hastily formed square.
The guard lancers didn t contact the dutch infantry, evading by each sides, receiving some fire in the process.
No close combat, just a few lancers out of saddles hit by fire, the french cavalry regiment retreated, unscathed.
Mike Robinson wrote it.

Exactly what i said this morning.
There is something to be thought about it.

Friendly yours Ray,
very interesting to exchange point of views with you.

[obriendavid]

David, for someone who is reading the rules in a foreign language your grasp of English is to be commended, if only my grasp of French and German was as good.
You are correct in your reading of troops on Advance orders, they have to halt at charge distance, I think many of us in our past games have forgotten about that rule.

One rule yourself and many people have probably missed is 'pull up from a charge' page 103. This allows charging cavalry who's target has managed to form square to attempt to pull up from the charge but as there is a minus 2 to this resolve test then only good quality troops will be able to do it so they don't have to charge to distruction.
Cheers
Dave

[barr7430]

Very interesting thread to follow. I have decided not to chip in because my views are already known and of course the rules are printed so changing them would be a little difficult.

As stated many times before on the Forum I have no problem with snyone changing anything in the rules for local 'play'. These house rules, if they make people happy are fine by me. I have changed several things in other people's rules over the years and never died from it yet!
For those who like R2E just the way it is... good

For those who want to tinker... fine also

[toggy]

Very interesting skirmish developing here, and good to see people posting their own views. The one thing I find intriguing is that most posters are using Waterloo to illustrate the argument, now although there were probably more instances of cavalry charging squares in this battle, I don't think this was a typical battle of the Napoleonic era.

It was a battle of desperation for the French, who simply had to destroy Wellingtons army and therefore the rashness of Ney can be explained to some extent, although years of fighting across Europe should have given him enough experience to know it was a tactic doomed to fail.

Although there are several successful charges against squares, at Quatre Bras & Albuerra for instance, it is not a tactic that seems to have been used in the early years of the conflict, when cavalry tended to either fight each other as at Austerlitz, or remain as a highly mobile reserve only to be used when victory was virtually assured.


When trying to replicate this on a wargames table it becomes a question of playability over realism.

As stated by other posters different authors give very varying accounts of the same battle, which illustrates how difficult it is to interpret both 1st hand and subsequent sources, so to get the balance right when writing a set of rules is no easy task, you will never please everybody.


I think that the idea of using your cavalry to pin the enemy infantry, whilst attacking with both infantry & artillery, although not an easy tactic to pull off, is surely the ideal, and this can be done in R2E by placing your cavalry within charge threat distance, and therefore not wasting them by charging them at squares, which proved in reality to be a fruitless task.

Just my point of view

Bob

[davidsharpe]

Hello David


I played RTE many times with a friend, missing plenty of rules points.
Progressively i learn the rules, and i can t say i master them 100% today.
But perhaps near 95% about cavalry subject.
Pull up, attempt to Rein in from a charge, or to cease pursuit, break off, all these points were particularly analysed.
There simulate very well the difficulty of controlling cavalry when the charge is going on, like an arrow when thrown by the archer.


Friendly yours David

D