SQUARES IN CLOSE COMBAT - ERRATUM

Questions, chat, feedback and developments relating to REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE... Wargaming the wars of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Post Reply
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5851
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

SQUARES IN CLOSE COMBAT - ERRATUM

Post by barr7430 » Sun May 09, 2010 10:34 am

We encountered another two unusual situations during our WATERLOO FRENCH CAVALRY ATTACKS SCENARIO at Carronade yesterday:

1. Open order light infantry forced to retire into a square after being charged by cavalry - what do they do next??

Well, whilst taking refuge in the square they do not ADD to the Shooting capability of the square. They are not considered to be formed as part of the square itself but considered to be taking up individual slots in gaps or the ground in the centre. If the square is charged:
The Resolve Check is taken against the quality of the troops forming the square not the open order troops who took refuge there.
In a Close Combat situation the Defenders DO count as being supported in combat by a friendly unit.

2. In Close Combat, all participants are DISORDERED after the first round but units in square who are not wavering do NOT suffer this disorder and remain ordered throughout the combat unless a Resolve Check causes a result of WAVER or worse. If it is worse the square will by definition be broken anyway.

As an example of how powerful a well formed square is:

The 1st KGL Light Battalion rated Veteran-Elite withstood a simultaneous charge by two regiments of Cuirassiers. One 32 model unit (Veteran -Elite), one 18 model unit (Drilled-Elite). Over 3 bounds of combat one Cuirassier unit was wiped out and the other routed with 50% losses. Casualties within the KGL were high but the square stood. It was also sheltering 12 Brunswick Avant Guard who had taken refuge there on a prior move. They shared the square's casualties to the extent of 50%. Total losses for the Defenders were 12 models
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Mon May 10, 2010 1:03 pm

What about the discussion we had on the Wavering issue, any more thoughts?????????????? as this would change your comments on squares.

Cheers
Dave
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5851
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Mon May 10, 2010 6:42 pm

remind me please Dave :oops:
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Mon May 10, 2010 6:55 pm

We were discussing if wavering troops should also be classed as disordered, we both agreed that the double minus made the unit extremely brittle especially when the difference between being steady and wavering is only a difference of 1. This was fine for retreating and routing troops but waver just means that their morale is a bit shaky and I don't see why that should automatically disorder them.

Cheers
Dave
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5851
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Mon May 10, 2010 9:44 pm

Aah,, that's why I was confused :?
I thought I had already covered that in the other ERRATUM post above/below this one.. is that what you mean?
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Mon May 10, 2010 9:58 pm

The way you have worded the Erratum about squares it still sounds like the square will be disordered if they waver. What we were discussing on Saturday that troops who waver should NOT also be disordered. Have you written somewhere else that I haven't noticed that wavering troops are not disordered?

Cheers
Dave
User avatar
CoffinDodger
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Motherwell, Scotland.
Contact:

Post by CoffinDodger » Thu May 05, 2011 1:38 pm

"Not Drowning, Wavering."

8)
“I can assure you, Gentlefolk, they look better from a distance."
Jim O'Neill.
Post Reply