These all came up at the Lasalle day.
Commanders:
Do they block movement for your own units?
Do they block fire for your own units?
Combat:
Reg Cav vs Reg Inf in WOODS- the cav seem to have all the advantages - any reason for this? I would have thought it was easier to fight on foot in the woods than mounted.
cheers
Daz
Watch the first 10 minutes of Gladiator and be convinced otherwise.
I kid! I kid! :)
Commanders: No. Remember that they are markers, not bases.
Woods: They should both be -2 for Bad Terrain, then the infantry is halved because it's not in square. (The idea is that there's no way for the infantry to hold together as a formation in that circumstance.)
Then again, outside of Hollywood and Gladiator, didn't cavalry avoid going into woods after cavalry because it is impossible to get up momentum unless those woods have been cleared of underbrush and low branches trimmed?
If infantry cannot hold formation, how does cavalry manage the trick?
If we're just discussing an isolated 1-vs-1 case with nobody else around, then the answer is: mounted men slashing through the woods have an advantage over little clumps of men trying to shoot from between trees.
But if - presumably - there are other units around, then it's a terrible waste of a good cavalry unit to get it stuck in a forest, even if it did run down an enemy battalion as it entered. Given the drastically reduced movement, it will probably take another turn or two to get out and be useful anywhere else.
It seems a bit cheeky to contradict the author, but as far as I can see the infantry wouldn't suffer -2 for bad terrain against cavalry. In fact they would get +2 for cover. The cavalry would suffer -2 for attacking into bad terrain. This is per the Combat Advantage modifiers on page 56.
but as far as I can see the infantry wouldn't suffer -2 for bad terrain against cavalry. In fact they would get +2 for cover.
They get both. But then they're halved for not being in square. So - assuming all other things being equal - a typical encounter would have the cavalry with 6 dice and the infantry with 4 dice.
"They get both."
Can you confirm that ...
The only modifier I see for Inf v Cav is +2 for Cover. There is no penalty for infantry fighting cavalry in bad terrain.
Cavalry do have a -2 for fighting in bad terrain.
So a small cav unit (8-2=6 dice) charging a small inf unit (8+2/2 = 5 dice). Most likely the cavalry will bounce.
The only real reaction the infantry can do is change formation - if they can change formation such that the cavalry then have half or less of their bases in contact, then the fight will be even more in their favour.
Cam
On the matter of enemy units running into your commanders - does this mean a wound roll for the commander in all occasions? We had a unit of cavalry have to fall back the other day, and in falling back it connected with a commander - does the commander still have to make a wound roll in this case?
problem in our game it was a Large Lancer unit (12+2-2)=12 dice ...infantry (8+2*.5)=5
goodnite infantry
...We are thinking of bringing in House rule of "Infantry arent Halved if Contacted by Cav in rough"...for normal units it would be Infantry 10 dice vs 6 dice Cav... that should dissuade them...even the above lancer would be 12dice vs 10 dice infantry.
We had it happen three times in 10 games so IMO will be an issue with Large Cav units.
"We are thinking of bringing in House rule of "Infantry arent Halved if Contacted by Cav in rough"
The balance to watch for tournaments is that you don't want infantry to be better hiding in woods than fighting in the open - particularly if you use your attacker wins else they lose variant.
The odds for small units on small units, no DISR:
Inf in open in square charged by cav - inf 8 dice v cav 4 dice
Inf in wood charged by cav (house rule) - inf 10 dice v cav 6 dice
Inf in open charged by inf - inf 8 dice v inf 8 dice
Inf in wood charged by inf - inf 8 dice v inf 8 dice
Inf in open in square charged by cav and inf - inf 4 dice v cav+inf 12 dice
Inf in wood charged by cav and inf - inf 10 dice v cav+inf 14 dice
If I have that right (about a zero chance), then with your house rule infantry facing combined arms would be much better to hide in a wood than be in the open, about the same against cavalry, and the same against infantry.
I am not sure that is good for the game.
Cam
To be fair, as the attacking commander in the situation Zels described above, the French player had a unit of foot in irregular formation in line in woods. I was able to maneuver a large Uhlan unit to attack the flank (not a flank attack though) whilst a large Grenze Battalion in irregular order assaulted the front. The French player was unable to fall back as he was too close to his table edge. It took a couple of turns to fully set up - but as the cavalry were faster to the location they were in position when the Grenze arrived.
Later in the same game I managed the same with the Grenze and a Hussar unit.
Dice were:
1st Contact
French - 8 base +2 for cover halved for cavalry = 5
Austrian - Uhlans 12 for bases -2 for terrain +2 for lance = 12
Grenze 12 for bases
2nd contact
French - 8 base +2 for cover halved for cavalry = 5
Austrian - Hussars 8 for bases -2 for terrain +2 for elan -2 for disruption = 6
Grenze 12 for bases -1 for disruption = 11
Wouldn't really have liked to have tried either with the cavalry alone - too much like a fair fight and the cavalry would be unable to remove disruption in the woods.
...okay good point tho your math is off as everyone takes a -2 in bad terrain
"Infantry arent Halved if Contacted only by Cav in rough"...
tho ..I'd like to see a historic case of combined arms attack in a wood
PS ...24 dice vs 5 ...how very Austrian of you Peter...that 2nd attack ...17 vs 5 ..a bit risque n'est-ce pas ???
With INF vs CAV, I don't think the INF get the -2 for Bad Terrain - that is only INF vs INF - page 56
CAV get -2 for Bad terrain
INF get +2 for Cover
Daz
Irregular troops do not treat woods a bad terrain - see page 56 of the rules: Bad Terrain. Irregulars get the "bad terrain" adverse modifier if in the open against regulars - they do not get it in rough going/woods etc. I think my figures are correct there.
As to risk - see my previous comment - a fair fight is a basic failure of planning after all I had the opportunity to basically set piece the attack. Be assured if I could have got another unit into the second contact I would have. After all, winning whilst minimising risk to the Emperor's army is the fastest way to an Order of Maria Theresa and a minor Duchy on the upper Rhine
Without the combined inf/cav attack each combat would have been:
1st Contact - French - 8 for bases +2 for cover halved for cavalry = 5
Uhlans - 12 for bases -2 for terrain +2 lance = 12
In the open this would have been:
French - 8 for bases -2 irregulars in open vs regulars halved for cavalry = 3
Uhlans - 12 for bases +2 for lance = 14
Even worse for the foot I think
2nd Contact - French - 8 for bases +2 for cover halved for cavalry = 5
Hussars - 8 for bases +2 elan -2 terrain -2 disruptions = 6
Hardly overwhelming and indeed a line call for the cavalry as to whether to risk it at all in my opinion. If I hadn't had the Grenzer able to intervene on the flank I would not have done it. In the open it would have been 3 vs 8, much more my odds.
I suppose one thing to note is that terrain is either bad or not - there is presently no combat differentiation between woods or rocky ground or similar. So the question is less "have cavalry operated against infantry in woods" than "have cavalry operated in unfavourable ground against infantry" and I think the answer is yes.
That doesn't mean that I don't think that perhaps certain terrain should simply be specified as impassable to regular cavalry (and perhaps even infantry on occasions). It may be the simplest solution to the whole issue.
Ah, I didn't realize the infantry was irregular. Assuming all other things being equal: esprit, size, no DISRs, etc, then the Cav would get 6 dice, and the infantry would get 5. (10, halved.)
The only other thing I note from this story that tempts me to suggest a house rule is that you're talking about lancers, and I probably should have added a rule that says Lancers shouldn't get their +2 in the rough. (In the above example, they'd be up to 8 dice, and it would seem to encourage an unrealistic tactic of sending lancers into forests.)
"Ah, I didn't realize the infantry was irregular"
That doesn't matter. On the Inf vs Cav table there is no modifier to the infantry for being in bad terrain.
No, I understand: you guys are right about the Bad Terrain. (I don't always have the book in front of me at my desk when these questions come up.)
When I said "Oh," I was thinking in terms of Cam's concern that infantry would be better hiding in the woods than in the open. With Irregular infantry, that's not an issue: they're always better hiding in the woods.
Doesn t change the fact that the best way to get reg infantry out of woods currently is to charge your Cav in not your infantry...and large 6 stand Cav become the Wood-panzers of the game.
If you say so.
I can't imagine sending a precious 6-base elite cavalry unit into a forest to kill some irregulars. After they won and did their 2BW advance, they'd be stuck in that mess for the next two of my turns.
Unless the Objective is in there, then I'd be pretty furious at a cavalier who wanted to play Little Red Riding Hood with half my cavalry!
A kill is a kill in this game...an irreg just as good as killing an elite to force army break....at minimum 10 cav dice to 5 (or 4 for reg) in woods against 6 cav dice vs 8 against squares open ...I know where I'd be going esp when playing boards like Dry Hills/village in the woods where the cav can push thru the piece in 2 turns....NB if I lose then I could bounce out as well.
Zel - "...at minimum 10 cav dice to 5 (or 4 for reg) in wood ..."
Just so we are all on the same page:
1) Infantry (regular or irregular) do NOT have -2 for bad terrain if fighting cav or cav+inf combined in a wood.
2) Regular (but not irregular) infantry have -2 if fighting infantry in a wood.
2) Cavalry has -2 for bad terrain against infantry and/or cavalry.
3) Infantry get +2 for cover against infantry and/or cavalry.
4) Cavalry do not get a cover bonus.
So as I calculate it, a small infantry unit (everything else equal) will be 5 dice against cavalry (or cavalry and infantry combined) whether regular or irregular.
Against a small cavalry unit (6 v 5 dice everything else equal) infantry seem about right. Against an uber large cavalry unit (10 v 5 dice) it seems a bit too good. Against a combined arms attack by small units (11 v 5 dice) it is probably OK (although I think combined attacks in Woods should be really harder to pull off). But throw a large unit into a combined attack and it is devastating.
The -2 for bad terrain has a much bigger relative effect on small units than large units and in combined arms attacks. Going from 8 dice to 6 compared to 12 dice to 10 does not have the same proportional game effect.
Getting rid of the lance bonus in terrain would help. But maybe some other tweak to large cavalry units in Woods may be needed: probably the -2 for terrain needs to be -4 for large units to get the right relative effect.
But I use Austrians - and large regular foot units in woods (7 dice) are not afraid of even large cavalry units (10 dice), and laugh at small cavalry units (6 dice). Perhaps a large unit of Guard Lancers with a +1 Tactics general in the rain may make me a little nervous.
Cam
Agreed... however even a small cav unit 6 vs 5 where I'm attacking and U die on doubles looks good to me (Hussar!!!)...as if I lose I'll only ever lose 1 Disr prob bounce outa the woods and can rally....and with only 5 dice on defence its easy for the defender to roll very few...Given the game hinges on losing only 4-5 Units the upside is for an aggressive attacker.
Can anyone find any references to battles between cav and inf in the woods during the period? They may shed more light on what happened historically.
Daz
Quite a few battles took place in heavily wooded areas, so suspect there are a number of examples of cav and infantry fighting in woods.
For instance Marbot wrote about the Battle of Hannau:
"At daybreak on October 30 the battle began. It was like a great hunting expedition. A few rounds of grape, the fire of the infantry skirmishers, and a charge in loose order by Sébastiani's cavalry dispersed the enemy's first line, awkwardly posted on the edge of the wood. But when we had advanced a little further, our squadrons could only act in the few clearings, and the light infantry pursued the Bavarians singly, driving them from tree to tree till they got out of the wood."
And later he says:
"The Emperor ordered the cavalry to make a general charge at a very difficult moment. Now, in such a case, it is not enough for a commanding officer, and especially when he is engaged in a forest, to send his regiment straight forward, as I have seen many do; he must cast a rapid glance over the ground to which his squadrons are coming, so that he may not lead them into swampy places. I marched, therefore, some paces in front, followed by my regimental staff, and having beside me a trumpeter who signalled, as I bade, the obstacles which the various squadrons would find in front of them. Although the trees stood wide apart, the passage through the forest was difficult for cavalry, because the ground was piled with men and horses killed or wounded, weapons, guns, and wagons which the Bavarians had left."
Source: http://napoleonic-literature.com/Book_3/V2C41.html
But I am sure there will be counter-examples of charges in forests making short work of infantry.
My own gut feeling is a forest is not an ideal place for cavalry, but nor for formed infantry. In particular, it must be a major challenge for command and control.
Cam
So a unit of cav will effectively take 4 turns (two to get in, two to get out) to clear an opponent from forrest/rough if it rolls ok.
The occupier has a bit of time (2 turns) to react.. infantry can't form square in rough/woods.. Infantry that sits in the woods gets chopped up.. All this seems pretty reasonable. What's the problem? Am I missing the point?
Exactly - it can work but you need to commit a unit for at least 4 turns - with the need to remove disruptions it was more like 6.
It is only a practical option if you have cavalry superiority and your opponent does not react to the obvious gathering threat.
Dear Sam
I would like to see more examples of triumphant cavalry against infantry in woods as quoted above. The traditional view does seem to have been that it is better for the infantry to be in woods than in open ground when fighting cavalry. Apart from park land most wild wood has low branches, which impede sabres, exposed roots, fallen branches and trees and hard to see holes and banks.
I am ready to be retaught on this matter, but I would appreciate some well known examples...
[ I would like to see more examples of triumphant cavalry against infantry in woods as quoted above. ]
That was Cam, not me.
I'm not the one advocating it. I think it's a waste of regular cavalry, which is usually a pretty scarce and precious resource in Lasalle. So I'd never charge cavalry into the woods, unless I had some crappy irregular cavalry, but I don't have Russian or Spanish or Ottoman armies in my collection. Several of my friends do, and thus they're more likely to hang out in the woods.
If the use of regular mounted in woods becomes a issue for some people and their games, then they can always have a house rule to add an extra 1 DISR cost for regular mounted units attacking in woods.
After all I can see reg mounted fighting in woods would be pretty disruptive to their formation etc.
That does not effect the combat outcomes, but likely would dissuade all but the most determined commanders using mounted as any easy way of clearing multiple irregular foot units out of woods. If nothing else slows down the process and at best would allow large units only 2 attacks before they have to stop charging and recover.
You must log in to post.