Cavalry versus Squares

Questions, chat, feedback and developments relating to REPUBLIC TO EMPIRE... Wargaming the wars of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Churchill
General
General
Posts: 1519
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:49 pm

Cavalry vs Squares

Post by Churchill » Mon Mar 28, 2011 8:27 pm

Ray.
Last edited by Churchill on Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wkeyser
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Post by wkeyser » Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:31 am

Hi Ray
Yes we are going around and around.

The problem seems to be as per the rules when the cavalry launched it self at infantry did they frequently destroy themselves with futile attempts to break the square. This is what I don’t see happening in the period as often as it seems to happen in the rules; I would say that it was almost as rare as the cavalry breaking the square.

So as a couple of people have pointed out the mechanics do not reflect what commonly happened on the field, see the article there is frequent mention of the cavalry bouncing off the squares, not being destroyed.

So there needs to be some mechanic to reflect this or change the mechanics in the rules so that having cavalry destroyed on a square becomes really rare.

William
Churchill
General
General
Posts: 1519
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:49 pm

Post by Churchill » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:43 am

Ray.
Last edited by Churchill on Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
kiwipeterh
Lieutenant Colonel
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 212
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 11:31 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Contact:

Post by kiwipeterh » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:14 am

To throw in my 2 cents/pence worth ....

The interesting facet for me is not whether the square breaks or not - I'm more than happy that most of the time it wont which I gather is the in game result - but rather what happens to the cavalry. Getting ground down to effective oblivion in the majority of cases does not seem quite so right to me.

As I said, just my 2 cents/pence.

Salute
von Peter himself
Last edited by kiwipeterh on Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Visit the blog of von Peter himself at http://vonpeterhimself.wordpress.com/
wkeyser
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Post by wkeyser » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:14 am

Hi Ray
I have written my own they are called From Valmy to Waterloo and where printed by Clash of Arms, published in 1995 and still played by dozens of groups around the world, so I guess the “if you have not written any rules you have no right to comment” argument is dead!

Sorry to offend but if they work for you fine, as I have said often I really like the "engine" in my opinion and that of others, they need some fine tuning to reflect what we read about.

I love your 2% success rate for cav against squares! I would put the times that cavalry was destroyed by squares at 2% also, go figure.

I am not asking Barry to rewrite the rules, but I am going to tweak the things I think are a little incorrect and probably most gamers will do so as well. I thought that was what we where discussing in a friendly manner!

Barry as most designers of rules understand that what they create is based on their interpretation of the period and most gamers will vary on what the find to fit history.

So again if you feel they fit, fine but I was attempting to point out with examples from history that there are areas which might need some tweaking.

William
User avatar
John Michael
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:09 pm
Location: US

Post by John Michael » Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:33 am

I have little experience with wargaming, especially in comparison to Ray and William. I have followed this debate with interest though. On the face of it, I have to believe that William has a point. His argument does not appear to be related to how successful cavalry were against square, but rather what happens to cavalry after they attack square.

I get the sense from what people are saying that the rules as written (I have only played them once and without cavalry) cause cavalry to have a high probability to be destroyed if they attack square. I do not get a sense that Ray is responding to that specific concern about the rules.

But like I said, I am very inexperienced with wargaming and maybe I am missing something.

John
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:24 pm

I have chosen to stay a little on the sidelines of this discussion as many people appear to have strong points of view :shock:

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................... :D
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
User avatar
John Michael
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:09 pm
Location: US

Post by John Michael » Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:59 pm

That was a great post Barry. I have one question, do you think it is possible to test that specific scenario in isolation (run a cavalry against a square multiple times to see what the ratio of results are.....god I must sound crazy) to come up with a meaningful conclusion. I really like your statement about "exceptions proving rules".


John
toggy
Major General
Major General
Posts: 508
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 6:56 pm
Location: Lanarkshire

Post by toggy » Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:21 pm

Jon Michael,

Barry put on a demo game at Falkirk last year based upon French cavalry attacking Allied squares.
It was a great spectacle with a couple of hundred cuirassier trying to break British, KGL & Brunswick squares, but if memory serves me correctly every attempt failed, pretty accurate historically.


Regarding Barry's post, I think he is right about remembering the exciting and compelling situations, the Russian Guard attacks against French legere in the Borodino game will long live in the memory because it was a one off.
Whereas the combats fought in other games I have played involving squares don't jump to the front of my memory banks so readily, because they were just like many other combats I have fought.

Again just my own ramblings

Bob
User avatar
John Michael
Corporal
Corporal
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:09 pm
Location: US

Post by John Michael » Tue Mar 29, 2011 7:12 pm

Hi Toggy,

I think the question was not about whether the squares broke or not, but what happened to the cavalry after they had attacked a square.

I am sure it was quite a spectacle at the game with the large cavalry units, hopefully one day I will get to see something similar.

John
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:35 pm

Most of the comments have been from gamers that have fought just a few battles whereas I've lost count the number of battles that Barry, D.I. and myself have fought. I can't think of a single combat we have fought where a unit of cavalry has been wiped out against a square so I'm not sure where this idea has come from.

In my experience of gaming with the rules about 50% of cavalry units that do declare charges against squares actually refuse to charge and either rout, stand where they are or fall back to reform and attempt to charge again and leaving the squares as a viable target for their next round of shooting whilst the troops reform or routers rally.

When cavalry does get into combat by the time their effectiveness is down to 50% and they take a test in most cases they will rout with a chance of rallying and coming back into the battle. Even a unit of Veteran cuirassiers at 50% effectiveness is not to be sniffed at.

We have had a few times where squares were broken and this was caused by the infantry having to test for having lost the first round of combat, going shaken then they were toast.
Hopefully this personal gaming experience will help.
Cheers
Dave
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:16 pm

I meant to add in my previous post that if the cavalry should actually lose the combat against a squarewhich only takes a difference of 3 on the close combat table they have to take a morale test and the best result they can get is a compulsory retire a full charge move then reform. The other option is that they will rout but could only have lost 7 casualties which gives them a very good chance of reforming and getting back into the battle. Hardly a case of cavalry being destroyed by squares.
Cheers
Dave
Churchill
General
General
Posts: 1519
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:49 pm

Cavalry vs Square

Post by Churchill » Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:59 am

Ray.
Last edited by Churchill on Mon Mar 03, 2014 12:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
wkeyser
Staff Sergeant
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 9:04 am
Location: Copenhagen Denmark

Post by wkeyser » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:21 am

Hi Ray

Thanks for that and I will try to respond but this will be a little long as there are lots of aspects to this question and various aspects I would like to explain. I apologize for the lenght of this post!

Well my rules and Barry’s are very different on many levels first is probably the focus of the game, for me Barry’s rules are for smaller engagements where the player handles at most a Division with some support my rules are aimed at a Division to a Corps, the figure scale is 1 to 60 so fewer figures per battalion/regiment but more units on the table. I have also focused on more detail than Barry does. One of the main reason I really like Barry’s rules is the command and control concept of the points for the brigades which I think is a great take on the command and control problems of the period.

As to Cavalry the problem is that most gamers have kind of mishandled Cavalry, in that in smaller engagements there is usually more cavalry figures on the table then in most historical battles of the same scale, every one wants Cuirassiers and Carbiniers etc. Coupled with the usual misunderstanding of what the cavalry’s mission on the table where.

Cavalry and in particular light cavalry in the pre and post battles was extraordinarily important both for the side that retained the field and the side retreating this is often lost on gamers, and it impacted how cavalry is used. A quick example might be Wagram, take a look at most of the “corps” cavalry units, they where mostly pulled from their commands and put into combined commands which more often than not where on the flanks of the armies. Light cavalry has little to do against a formed enemy line of infantry and artillery.

The second is that use of combined arms on the table top, which I believe really was not as close as we represent on our tables. First the commander of the different arms had different missions and the use of heavy and light cavalry was quite different is hard to represent on the table. Cavalry would probably not “advance” with the infantry rather hang back and sweep in to minimize the threat of artillery casualties.

So with that as brief overview of my take on history, cavalry in From Valmy to Waterloo handles cavalry against squares as you probably expect. Infantry in Square have little to fear from cavalry for the vast majority of situations. However, there are certain problems that the infantry has to be aware of, casualties and disorder being the most common. If you get a badly trained unit with little or no experience and casualties and disorder, against a very high quality cavalry unit, then the infantry might very well be in trouble no matter what formation, this seems to be the same in Republic to Empire. In From Valmy to Waterloo there are a couple of things that are a little different, in that first the common roll to form square is there but the modifiers are little more detailed and include level of Disorder, are commanders close (within 150Meters and line of sight) and how close the cavalry is when the infantry first see it. The thing that I do that I have not seen before is the turn after the charge, if the player wants to come out of square he has to roll for it, again modified by casualties, his level of disorder, how close the cavalry are still to the square and also smoke. The idea is to limit the jumping in and out of square that most games seem to encourage. The result is that better troops will react more quickly.

Another aspect is that cavalry when declaring a charge would declare a charge against all the units in its charge arc, so lots of unit will have to react to the threat, the cavalry can then attack which ever unit it wants after the infantry react to the threat. As opposed to infantry which must declare a charge against one target.

Now the actual charge against a formed squares, ( I have two types of squares a “hasty square”, formed when a cavalry unit charges the square and a “formed” square when the infantry has the time to form the square without the threat of a charge) there are a couple of options for the cavalry coming in. They can be in echelon, which represents both the echelon formation and column of squadrons, in column or line, all have a little different flavor (for example cavalry charging infantry in echelon is a little less susceptible to musketry fire as on the ground one squadron is charging to look for and opening while the other hold back) given similar qualities of units in training and morale, the most likely is that the cavalry will “bounce” off the square picking up disorders, and a 10% chance of 10% casualties from the charge reaction and a slim chance of casulties form the fire of the infantry as they have been spending time to form so fire is less effective. The disorders are handled a little differently for Heavy or Light cavalry, with the heavy cavalry taking longer to recover from a charge than the light cav.

The attacker has the option to lead with a commander if he does this then he might have the ability to ride around the square and attack those behind. Then the attacker has the ability to create a “grand charge” which has waves of cavalry attacking, a difficult thing to achieve but it allows the attacking cavalry to attack the infantry squares multiple times in the same turn, and with such a large amount of cavalry attacking there is a real possibility that the infantry might be slightly disordered, which the following waves can exploit.

So as you can see lots of options, however, the result of the charges by individual regiments or brigades usually ends up with the cavalry back at close to their start position and completely disorganized, but with few casualties. The disorder might take a turn or two for light cavalry and two to four for heavy (each turn is 15min ) to recover. However with a mass attack like a grand charge the cavalry are constantly fired on as they ride around and through the lines of squares and can be shot up and disordered some times quite badly.

What I belive is that cavalry did not get into a sustained melees with infantry, against a square it bounced, with light casualties, or rode around with probably more casualties. Against a line, cavalry could be stopped if the infantry fired a good volley if not the infantry was usually dead, against column it would depend on the column type, but usually not as much chance of survival as in square but better than in line.

As you can see a lot more detail than Republic to Empire, but this detail also means the games take longer. That is the compromise when you add lots more detail.

Again I must reiterate that I like Barry’s rules for a different take on the period and the fact is that I play my rules almost exclusively with 5mm figs as this is the only way to get not only the larger battles on a table but more importantly the two to three kilometer depth of a battlefield. What attracted me to Barry’s rules is that when I moved to Copenhagen the club here has thousands of beautifully painted 15mm figs mounted four figures wide by two deep, which just don’t work for my rules but are beautiful with Barry’s. We are going to play DElrons attack using Republic to Empire on the Thursday before Easter and hopefully will take some photos and post them.

William

For you information Angus wrote a very nice review of my rules in the now I believe defunked Osprey magazine. Which will make clear the difference of focus between mine and Barrys rules


This Review is in the Osprey Military Journal Volume 4 issue 2

The article on the Ulm campaign of 1805 provides an ideal opportunity to mention a set of Napoleonic miniature rules produced by Clash of Arms which is comprehensive yet readily playable. What separates From Valmy to Waterloo from its rivals is its unique orders and initiative system. Designed by William Keyser , it effectively forces the players to adopt the tactics and grand tactics used by their particular army at a given period of the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. The players have to come up with a plan, then follow it through by issuing orders to Corps and Subordinate formations. This in turn limits the options available to the tactical units on the table (the battalion, cavalry regiments and batteries). In effect it gives nations such as the French a greater tactical and grand tactical flexibility than say the Austrian army of 1805. Rather than force rigid game mechanics on players, this emphasis on fighting an army as it fought historically is achieved through an elegant and relatively simple game system. Once the grand tactical orders are given by a side’s Army and Corps commanders, the plan can only be changed with difficulty, and subordinate commanders (in effect the tactical units on the table) have to carry out their orders until they result in victory or defeat. Again, the opportunity to change orders is harder for the traditional “linear” armies used by most European powers early in the war. On the tactical level the game is fast-paced, and the mechanics work smoothly. Above all else, gamers refighting a Napoleonic battle using From Valmy to Waterloo rules system will be rewarded in an elegant and realistic game that comes closer to reflecting the realities of Napoleonic warfare than probably any of its rivals. These rules are highly recommended to anyone who wants to fight an accurate simulation.
Angus Konstam
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:36 am

wkeyser wrote: Well my rules and Barry’s are very different on many levels first is probably the focus of the game, for me Barry’s rules are for smaller engagements where the player handles at most a Division with some support
Where did you get that idea from? :shock:
The rules are written for army level games involving multiple Corps per side, the smallest sized action recommended is a Division sized game which is why we never get too upset at losing a battalion of infantry or a regiment of cavalry because there would be the rest of their Brigade or Division to support them. I would have thought that because there are rules for Dvision, Corps and Army commanders would have given a clue to the size of battles.

I'm also impressed with Angus' review, I wonder who wrote it for him as he doesn't have a clue about wargames rules, even his own :lol:
Cheers
Dave
Last edited by obriendavid on Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply