is there a specific rule regarding the benefit of wave formation for cavalry?
i can see that there is a disadvantage of wave versus line, but there is no specific advantage i can see.
other than turning and increasing the number of units able to impact during charge (i.e. one cav in wave and one infantry in attack column versus line infantry)
Don't forget that if your cav is attacking infantry (let us assume in concert with other infantry, and thus not facing a square), if the cav is in line, it will not have more than half of its frontage facing the enemy in most cases.
thus, using wave against infantry removes a disadvantage which you would have if in line.
which is a pretty good simulation really, since cavalry attacked infantry in close successive waves.
(and which is not to be confused with retaining localised reserves to commit against other cavalry, which is a completely different thing, and well represented by the 'anti cavalry' formation unfortunately named as 'abrest' since it imples en-haye all out committment.)
if that made sense.
Hi
I agree wave formation is *very* much more maneuverable, you are able to support infantry and concentrate your force more effectively.
regards
Stephen
Mark,
in general your comment would not really apply since if in line and the infantry unit is completely within the projection of the calvarly unit it doesn't really have to cover half of the front as per the rules...
I believe that is how that rule works..
Francisco
Seldon,
Thats not so easy sometimes, especially when coming in on the flank - where all good cavalry should be coming in from.
all good. and i'll drop from 8 to 4 dice, but so will he, correct?
(have yet to play first game and trying to get head around this...)
I'm curious about this, and haven't brought it up yet, but why does cavalry in line get an advantage vs. waves? I've studied this quite a bit and just cannot see one definitive way that cavalry charges were conducted. It seems the local commanders did what they thought worked best for the moment.
Sam's had to have researched this and I'd like to know his thoughts.`
My thinking was that it more often offered an opportunity for well-led cavalry to flank its opponent.
Granted, that won't always be the case. Sometimes the battlefield is so tightly packed that it's just a head-butting contest, and in that case you could surely make the argument that the "Waves" would be superior because they have a reserve. But I figured that in such a case, the Waves probably already have an advantage, because there's two or more of them ganging up against a single Abreast.
As a general principle I always try to write the least amount of rules and the simplest versions of those rules. In this case I thought that the One-vs-One matchup of cavalry would give an advantage to the Abreast, and that the Two-vs-One would not... but that the Abreast would already be significantly disadvantaged, and trying to write the rule more specifically would probably overkill and not worth the Word-Salad it would require.
Okay, I can see the purpose of overcoming the 'wargame tactic' of doubling up. That makes sense.
Mark,
I see the example shows a flank attack, but the rule seems to be more general so if a four base unit in attack column is attacked by a cavalry unit ( or any for that matter ) in line on the front then the attacker still gets full dice and not half dice because the unit is completley inside the projection of the attacker.
If that were not the case, wouldn't that be a problem for units in line ( even infantry ) attacking attack columns, a problem that I thought the game does not aim to portray as a disadvantage ... I would expect that in general a unit that has both side exposed while attacked by a unit with longer frontage tends to be in trouble at least, and not at an advantageous position. The need to cover more than half of your frontage, I thought, was more aimed at dealing with units clipping each other... In fact, if that rule does not work like that then the abreast formation would roll half dice against a waves formation !!! And Sam just mentioned that in that case he gave the edge to the abrest formation.
Thoughts?
PS. Oldntired, only the attacker gets half dice for the half or less covered.
Francisco
Seldon,
This came up in our last game, hence I mentioned it.
The precise example, I had artillery positioned with a unit of light cavalry (abrest) directly behind it, with the intention of using them to charge through the guns to deliver the coup-de-grace charge when the guns had done their work, and to protect against any skirmishing or other attacks which would otherwise prevent my gunners from doing their work.
I had infantry deployed beside the guns, all in all a nice defensive position.
My opponent came on in the usual way, although aimed slightly more toward my infantry.
when the time came to charge, it was infantry first to his infantry front - pinning him in column, and my cav coming in on his 'edge' (comng from a frontal position, there was no quesiton of a clean flank charge)- when we remembered the 'covering half unit ' rule, and so my cav didn't meet the criteria, and lost half dice I was expecting for this particularly skillful manoever.
had they been in wave, they would have covered more than half, and I would not have had the penalty.
Looking over the situation, it immediately became clear that unless he had brought cavalry into the general area of my guns, I was never going to benefit from the cavalry being abrest and was always at risk of not getting a clean frontal charge, and thus, missing half of my target - and hence, I should have started and remained in wave formation both to enable swifter and sharper turns, and to ensure that any charge maxmiised the probability of covering all of the target unit.
We then applied this game reality to the actual tactics, and they fit - cav would arrive in close waves on infantry, hoping that a discharge volley would allow the folowing squadron to charge home against emplty muskets.
Luckily, I had by this stage already thrashed the enemy by skillfully offering up my undefended objective to distract him, so we filed the information for future reference.
Oh, ok... I see what you mean now... I thought you meant two units front to front, one unit it a two based front the other in 4 but having the 2 base unit totally inside their projection, and in that case it doesn't apply.
What you meant was more on a situation like the one you just explained where you are maneuvering. Makes sense, and also the line will normally have the tougher time to maneuver to even get into those positions, and instead end up clipping the enemy units...
I fully understand now, thanks for your clarification.
cheers,
Francisco
You must log in to post.