I have chosen to stay a little on the sidelines of this discussion as many people appear to have strong points of view
I will now however go back to the rationale of R2E and 'squares'.
1. A square was clearly the uniformly accepted best defence against cavalry. Most/all armies knew how to use it and did so when necessary. Formed from steady troops it was more or less unassailable by cavalry.
2. Cavalry with ATTACK orders in R2E must charge the nearest target. They create a 'charge threat' when on ATTACK orders and within charge reach and in formation to charge. This 'check' move (Chess analogy) compels the enemy to a 'charge threat reaction check' which interrupts the play sequence of the phasing cavalry player.
3. If the infantry pass the check they
have the option to form square. It is not necessary to form square to beat off a cavalry charge. A steady battalion in line could probably stop the charge will a well timed volley(contingent on troop quality and dice throwing). It may be that IF the cavalry pass their check to charge and the infantry have NOT formed square then the infantry will be ridden down. If the infantry DID form square but are
Wavering, they may also be in trouble. If the cavalry did NOT change their orders and remain on ATTACK orders and do charge the square they have the option to try and rein in from the charge. This is difficult but not impossible. If they fail, the problem largely shifts to being one for the cavalry commander.
4. The cavalry's best chance against the square is in the first round but admittedly it is still not good. If they persist beyond the first round they may break before being destroyed through a bad Resolve check. The vagiaries of the dice will contribute to the outcome of the combat. It is not necessarily the case that all cavalry will be massacred in a combat against square. A unit may lose the combat with minimal casualties, fail its resolve check,
Rout and
Rally later to fight again.
5. The permutations of outcome are endless and the fact is that the conclusions being drawn from this debate so far are LARGELY hypothetical BECAUSE... the contributors are projecting into the future and not basing their conclusions on actual gaming experiences with R2E. To do that you will probably have to have played 20-30 games, each of which sees a combat situation as described above.
CAVALRY v FORMED SQUARE.
6. No one usually remembers the
'ordinary result outcomes' in a game. They are not remarkable.
ie
Chassuer regiment charges British formed square, loses first bound of combat, fails Resolve check, routs. Rallies next turn... lost to most memories because not very remarkable.
What people DO remember is :
Russian Guard Cuirassiers hit Veteran Elite French square which itself fights to the last model whilst the Russians pass EVERY check because they are GUARD and are wiped out.
I seem to remember on that occasion there were 15 of us crowded round the corner of the table as the rest of the battle had completely frozen to enjoy the spectacle. It was like the Russian Roulette scene in THE DEER HUNTER. None of us will forget that moment! It was in fact what wargaming IS all about.. an exciting GAME of social interaction and fun. There were gasps, sighs, laughs, shouts... very emotional and enjoyable.
I should probably stop and rest my case there, but...
My point which I hope everyone is seeing is this: Exceptions generally PROVE a rule. So few squares broke during the Napoleonic Wars that most instances are documented as they are exceptional. The tactics and orders given by the WARGAMING COMMANDER using R2E dictate the outcomes. The rules do not dwell on the minutiae of combat mechanisms and casualties. They focus on COMMAND DECISION, ORDERS, DEPLOYMENT and TACTICS. The combat mechanisms are by design very simplistic. Minimal need to refer to complex multi permutations and factors. Modifiers that are almost instantly memorable and need no real reference to charts once used several times.
Do not misunderstand this post. I am not saying everyone or for that matter ANYONE is wrong. We all have strongly held beliefs, prejudices, pet armies, pet theories, I would have done it this way thinking.. which is why the hobby is so interesting.
This thread is an invaluable source of opinion and information. I have LEARNED from it things I did not know. I would however, not fundamentally alter my view on how the CAVALRY v SQUARE mechanism works in R2E as a result of the debate
The reason.. very simple. I have played many games and the
law of average shows that the following elements in combination prove the mechanic to be fairly safe:
1. Human beings and their approach to wargaming
2. Terrain set up
3. Troop quality
4. Objectives set for the game
5. Play sequence and its options
6. The 'mean' outcome when the sample size increases
Let the thread continue...................