Cavalry in rough going, stone walls, and bouncethroughs.

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Rules Questions

Cavalry in rough going, stone walls, and bouncethroughs.

(49 posts) (18 voices)

Started 1 year ago by Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Latest reply from EagleSixFive

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

1. Cavalry in rough going vs. infantry. The situation was an infantry unit in rough going (say, a rocky hill or a swamp) was charged by cavalry, who destroyed the infantry.
P. 25 - a square may not be formed in rough terrain.
P.56 - cavalry in rough going are at a -2 in combat.
So normally cavalry are at a 6-4 advantage over infantry in rough going. That can't be right?

2. Stone walls. The situation was a player placed down 12BW of stone walls across their deployment zone. Together with woods etc, it made for an almost impregnable position.
P.29 - crossing an obstacle is hard to cross.
P.31 - cavalry may not charge defenders in hard cover.
P.47 - -1 or -2 to shoot troops behind the wall.
P.51 - the wall obstructs shooting.
P.56 - it provides +2 in combat.
P.91 - and the defender can place 12BW of these along his set up zone!
What is to stop defenders from doing this?

3. Bouncethrough.
P.45 - "The bouncethrough target must be within range of the shooter, and must be the next closest in the fire zone after the initial target."

Situation:
.AAAA

BBBBCCCC

.DDDD
Artillery A shoot at unit B as the closest target. Is the next target after the first C (next to) or D (behind)? Logically, a "bouncethrough" means a unit behind the first is taking the overshoots.

Posted 1 year ago #
vilcum
Member

1- cav in rough

6-4 seems no big deal for the cavalry, most probable result is a inconclusive who would maul it to the same level as the infantry (pg59 Victorious Cavalry and DISRs)
Worse fior then... given the wooping pace of cavalry in rough (3BW in waves or 2BW in abreast) most probably they had to face at least two firing rounds from the infantry (3 if the inf is deep in the terrain)

In a related topic...
http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/forum/topic/cavalry-charge-into-forest#post-1749

2) walls

I agree 12bw of walls seems a daunting 3 unassailable units... But looking closely in a tipycal 6'/180cm table 12bw are at most (28mm scale-5cm base) 60cm, or a third of the front, so you should have ample way to go in most boards...Maybe "the walled farms" is prone to that "overconstruction" problem

3. Bouncethrough.

according to
pg 45- " If the shooter has two targets perfectly equidistant, he may choose one of them to the be the first and the other to be the “second” target ".
and the example on page 51 "...If A didn’t exist, then B would be the first target, with bouncethrough fire on C,..."

it will be C (in your example) who suffers the bouncethrought fire..perhaps "collateral" applies better this time

more on this in

http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/forum/topic/bouncethrough-fire#post-2323

Posted 1 year ago #
Prinny
Member

I think its important to say that the issues that Biggreenbugeyedmonster have raised were what came up during last weekends Call to Arms weekend in Wellington NZ, oddly the final placings went by order of cavalry units.

I enjoyed the weekend though but we just found that there was no good place for Infantry to be without the cav having a field day with them (not my cav of course they decided that it was a silly game and took forever to turn up, even with re-rolls), and since I didnt have any cav to cover my infantry there were not many options for me to deal with the 4+ units I was facing off against at the start of the games.

With point 1,

No 4 to 6 is no big deal for the cav since they cant die, but on average they will run down the infantry since with 6 dice they should get 2 hits and the infantry will only get one. You can only fire at the cav comming in if you are irregular infantry otherwise you can do nothing but stand there. So all in all its a bad day for the infantry

2, As a British player I have nothing but warm regards for my stone walls so I see nothing wrong with this, think of them as our counter to organic cav.

Cheers

Tim

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

" we just found that there was no good place for Infantry to be without the cav having a field day with them"

Surely the best place for infantry in this case is to be in a square in open ground, with friendly guns close by...?

Posted 1 year ago #
Prinny
Member

Thats true Sam, but when the option is to be in square about to be charged by cav and infantry or in line to get the same but you at least with line get a shot im not sure what the best option is.

Lets say that both British players did not enjoy our Artillery batteries that much (the dice gods hated them all RA or RHA)

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

I was also at the comp and I (now) have the same view as Tim - cavalry is too good in rough terrain and combined arms attacks are far too easy to pull off. I am sure the order of finish was not totally determined by the number of cavalry units - but I don't think it was unrelated.

Infantry really have nowhere to hide other than a BUA or wall. Armies with limited cavalry struggled in the comp.

While a 4-base cav unit fighting a 4 base inf unit in rough is 6-4, that is worth a crack. But most cavalry in the comp were Valiant (8-4), Large (10-4), or Large Valiant (12-4). I won't comment on the Avant Garde's Large Valiant Lancer of Death unit... Many attacks were of course combined arms, which shifts the odds even more.

For me the -2 for cavalry fighting in rough works with small normal units, but not for large or Valiant units. They also can take the odd DISR on the way in.

Now it may be a design objective that infantry should sit in the open (and keep away from woods and other rough terrain) but that still means they eventually get run over by combined arms attacks. Combined arms attacks were pretty common in our comp. Further, all they can do is sit and hope the other guys impales himself - they can't really win, which is a bit dull for them.

Of course, two NZ comps is not enough evidence to want to change rules. Players will adapt - in my last game with Tim his infantry did handle my cavalry pretty well while they waited (and waited) for the Heavy Dragoons to arrive.

But I certainly lean towards a bit of tinkering if the trend continues.

After the comp we have had a bit of discussion about potential changes. I favour defining fields (since they are not defined in the rules, so a comp organiser has to define what they are in any case) as:

1) open ground for infantry and artillery
2) rough ground for cavalry
3) Cavalry halve their dice fighting infantry, infantry not in square do not halve their dice fighting cavalry.

Broken Ground is probably a better name. Essentially this is a bit of terrain where infantry can play in without worrying too much about cavalry. I prefer this cos it is not really a rule change - just a tweak of the terrain. This also allows a organiser to put out at least one infantry friendly (Peninsular) table - which will make players think a bit more about what support they want to use.

Other ideas:

1) Support units can only be commanded by their sub commander (not the commander). You want to use 4 Valiant Hussars - great, but they have to stay as a block in the subgenerals command range rather than being intermingled with infantry across the table under either their subcommander or commander.

2) If you declare a charge against an enemy unit with both cavalry and infantry units, you have to do a test for the infantry to charge - the cavalry must charge. You may get a combined arms attack, but like countercharging, you can't be sure it happens.

I liked the comp and will certainly play again. But I want the choice of support to be a bit more complex rather than just pick cavalry support or end up at the tail of the comp.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
Basilhare
Member

"...and combined arms attacks are far too easy to pull off."

Of the several systems I have played, anytime you have a combined infantry & cavalry attack against a defending infantry unit, the defender is toast...I dont recall it being all of that difficult to pull off combined arms in any of the sytems I have played in the past???

I guess what you are saying though, is that you are okay with combined arms if there is more of an advantage for infantry vs. cav in the rough....

Posted 1 year ago #
LintMan
Member

I think a good compromise is this:

Infantry cannot fall back from Cav due to the speed that the cav can run down the retreating infantry. However in rough terrain cav reduce their movement bringing them down to the level of infantry in the open making it harder for them to turn the retreat into a rout. Perhaps allow infantry to test to fall back from a Cav charge in rough terrain? Allows cav to chase out infantry from cover but doesn't change the basic core of the rules. Also does not make it a certainty as it still requires a disc test.

Posted 1 year ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

It seems a bit silly for cavalry to move into rough going at all. Were there any instances in real life of cavalry charging infantry in swamps or rocky ground or woods? Just glancing at Ian Fletcher's great book on cavalry in the Peninsula, cavalry simply didn't enter rough terrain (and the instances they did it was really bad for the horses and riders!). Regarding Sam's comment "Surely the best place for infantry in this case is to be in a square in open ground, with friendly guns close by...? " the answer is simple - infantry sought the diffiult going where the cavalry couldn't go (i.e. at Salamanca, the infantry fell back into rocky ground of the Lesser Arapile where the French dragoons couldn't go, or Quatre Bras, where the Guards ran back into the woods where the French cuirassiers wouldn't go...).

Regarding the stone walls, I recall a comment from Sam that he defined soft cover as terrain that provided cover from musket balls, and hard cover as terrain that would stop a cannon ball (i.e. stone buildings and redoubts). In that case, I'd argue that stone walls should count as soft cover. Perhaps Sam can comment?

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

Perhaps allow infantry to test to fall back from a Cav charge in rough terrain? Allows cav to chase out infantry from cover but doesn't change the basic core of the rules.

I think cavalry momentum move is 2BW whatever the terrain - and infantry fall back either 1BW or 2BW. So the infantry would always be caught (although combined arms charges would be less effective). You would need to change the momentum rules to have cavalry do not follow up in rough. Not sure if that has any consequences elsewhere.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
vilcum
Member

@Prinny
<You can only fire at the cav comming in if you are irregular infantry otherwise
<you can do nothing but stand there. So all in all its a bad day for the infantry

Why? I think you are referring only to woods, in rough terrain (marsh, rocky ground) regular inf can shoot every reaction phase , although with a -1 modifier .

For sure -as cam-millar points- a big, valiant unit would make a mess on an inf unit forming in line in rough , as the -2 modifier is mitigated by their number , in my modest opinion this modifier not being proportional (as halving combat dice) is a fault,.

Making “Bad terrain” a halving dice modifier would prevent it to add it to square/multiple defenders/partial contact (only one halving allowed) so I would prefer see it being -2 to normal unit -4 to large ones.

In other points I would like to see implemented cam´s second proposal,
If you declare a charge against an enemy unit with both cavalry and infantry units, you have to do a test for the infantry to charge - the cavalry must charge. You may get a combined arms attack, but like countercharging, you can't be sure it happens.

As it seems it is too easy to assure combined arms.

Posted 1 year ago #
Valmy92
Member

Vilcum picked up one of the points I saw, that it's only woods that prevent regular infantry from firing. The other one I note is that if it was woods then the defending infantry has cover for +2 and it's 6 dice vs. 6. They might also have cover in other sorts (though probably not all) of rough terrain.

Perhaps one could add a terrain piece (ie scenario specific) rule that some terrain causes a DISR if cavalry charges into it? That wouldn't change the basic rules at all, just specific scenario conditions.
Phil

Posted 1 year ago #
steadythebuffs
Member

Hi,

From my admittedly limited reading it would seem that conventional thinking was that cavalry would be at a disadvantage if attacking formed, well ordered and experienced infantry frontally even in the open. Even heavy cavalry would be used to exploit weakened or inexperienced infantry or those with an exposed flank and would not be comfortable with a frontal attack on experienced, formed infantry. After all if a square is difficult to break then an infantry battalion in line with secure flanks would be just as hard as it's just a longer version of one side of a square. If the cavalry can't get to the flanks and the troops are experienced and well led why should the infantry be at a disadvantage?

As for cavalry in broken or rough ground they usually avoided it like the plague. It is wrong that e.g. heavy cavalry have an advantage over light infantry in woods when they are in the terrain they prefer.

I would advocate the following :-

1. Cavalry were NOT at an advantage when fighting infantry in rough terrain.
2. Cavalry doctrine did not advocate charging experienced, formed infantry in the open even when they were not in square.

Defender Halves Combat Dice
---------------------------
INF vs. CAV unless a) IN SQUARE
b) IN ROUGH TERRAIN vs. REGULAR CAVALRY
c) HAS NO DISRUPTION MARKERS.

1. The rationale for this is that any charge or fighting is likely to be less decisive in rough terrain. By keeping the infantry dice at full the chance of rolling 1 success is lessened (more dice being rolled which lessens the chance of being doubled when rolling an unlucky 1 success) and therefore there is more chance of protracted combat in rough terrain. This should put people off from committing valuable resources to it. It does not affect irregular cavalry whose function did include these duties.

2. This is more complicated but well drilled, well led & unmolested infantry should not be at such a big disadvantage against cavalry in the open as halving their dice. If they start to lose their discipline and tight formation, however, they should be more vulnerable. Bear in mind that a 4 base reliable infantry battalion is still going to have a hard time repulsing a 6 base valiant cavalry regiment under this proposed amendment.

In reality even formed infantry would be vulnerable if the had an unprotected flank but unsure how to model this - no friendly unit within 2BW of flank perhaps? If so then they should halve dice against a cavalry attack even with no disruption markers.

These changes would make cavalry more realistic. To make use of cavalry attached to infantry formations the intended target would have to be 'softened up' which is historical or have put themselves at a tactical disadvantage e.g. an open flank. Good cavalry shouldn't be anywhere near rough terrain and taking away their inadvertant advantage should dissuade them. It shouldn't have much effect on game play as, in truth, the cavalry shouldn't be there in the first place.

Thanks, Kevin.

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

"It is wrong that e.g. heavy cavalry have an advantage over light infantry in woods when they are in the terrain they prefer."

Do you guys really have a lot of cases in which somebody sends a heavy cavalry unit into a forest to chase after irregular infantry? I'm having trouble imagining why one would do that, given that even in the best-case scenario (you rout the infantry), your Cav is then probably out of the battle for the next 2-3 turns as it tries to get itself out of the terrain.

All other things being equal, a regular Cav unit charging into woods against an irregular infantry unit would have 6 dice against 5 dice. (CAV = 8 minus 2 for bad terrain; INF = 8 + 2 for Cover, halved.) That assumes that the INF's Reaction Fire did no hits to the Cav, when in reality it probably scored one DISR, meaning an even 5-vs-5 fight.

As for who would be at a greater disadvantage in rough ground... I don't know. Infantry couldn't form up, so they'd be at severe risk of being cut down individually - a horseman's dream. On the other hand, the cavalry would be stumbling and breaking into small groups, too.

The intent of the rule was to discourage people from using these relatively scarce elite units in bad terrain, but also to discourage a defender from using rough terrain as a guaranteed mini-fortress. If you make it too hard to chuck infantry out of a forest, then you'll just end up with a new problem. Both sides should have a degree of unpredictable vulnerability in rough terrain.

Posted 1 year ago #
steadythebuffs
Member

Hi Sam,

Don't get me wrong I wouldn't put cavalry in rough going anyway but people have reported that in competitions that is what is happening. I have played in lots of competitions for different rules over the years but have stopped as I can't be bothered with the rules lawyers. The problem is that any loophole, however unintended, will be used by gamers. I was just trying to give a suggestion to discourage it. I understand your point about chucking regular infantry out of a forest but the answer isn't to use cuirassiers which is what people will currently do. Under my proposal cossacks or other irregular cavalry would be very troublesome to regular infantry in woods. If there are lots of woods around then send in one of your units with SK2 that has been set up as irregular and sit there firing at them without reply. That is historically accurate. I'm just offering some ideas to be bandied around because this issue is coming up more than once on the forum.

Cheers Sam, Kevin

ps Just off to the club to play French against Austrians. There's 6 of us playing so it shoud be fun. Great rules that have got the club excited about Nap's again.

Kevin.

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

Do you guys really have a lot of cases in which somebody sends a heavy cavalry unit into a forest to chase after irregular infantry?

Yep, I did it twice in our comp. Once, a Valiant Hussar (8 dice) charged Irregular infantry at the edge of a wood (5 dice). The wood was not that deep and I charged a corner - so once I broke the enemy, I advanced 2BW for winning, and then cavalry passed through the wood next turn. In the second it was a combined arms attack (Hussar 8 dice + large Infantry halved for partial contact 5 dice) killed a large Irregular unit (7 dice).

In both games it had a significant game effect - it created a hole in the enemy line they could not fill and allowed me to get to the objective in one game. And a defender does not need to lose many units to start checking morale.

For what it is worth, it is not really the rough ground thing that is my problem - it is that players can take 4-6 cavalry units, intermingle them with their infantry, and pull off endless combined arms charges across the table.

Preferably that would be toned down by changing command rules or adding a Discipline test to combine arms charge - tinkering with terrain to create a "Cavalry Not Welcome Here" type is just a way for a comp organister to to this without having to change the rules.

As an aside - can regular infantry in a wood fire at someone who charges them? They can't fire "through" woods, but what about enemy in contact with them?

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
steadythebuffs
Member

Just got back from the club where we defended with Austrians against French. They won a close game by, you guessed it, intermingling the core infantry division with an organic cavalry brigade and attacking with perfectly co-ordinated cavalry/infantry attacks along the line. I do think that intermingling commands should be discouraged perhaps by very restricted command distances as in reality this would be very difficult to co-ordinate and control. We will introduce some house rules at the club because we won't play these rules in competitions. One thought tonight was to restrict when infantry halve their dice against cavalry. We are going to try the following :-

Infantry not in square only halve their dice in the open when there are no friendly units within 1BW of a flank and/or the unit has 2 or more disruption markers. This simulates a threatened flank which could be exploited by the cavalry or where a unit's cohesion has dropped enough to allow the cavalry to take advantage eg casualties, loss of command & control etc. This means that a unit with minimal damage and secure flanks fights at full dice strength when frontally attacked by cavalry. This also means that combined attacks have to be co-ordinated against units that have been 'softened up' prior to the attack to get the 'half dice no matter what' situation.

We are also going to look at not halving infantry dice against regular cavalry when in rough going. These changes should not be game breakers and will encourage the correct tactics. We still want to get a result in an evening - 3 or 4 hours - and so don't want to make the infantry line impenetrable.

Thanks, Kevin.

Posted 1 year ago #
steadythebuffs
Member

Hi,

Having slept on it I think that infantry not halving their dice against regular cavalry in rough going is ok but the second suggestion is too complicated. The main issue with only halving infantry dice if they have disruption and/or an open flank is what to do with countercharging which should be more devastating as the attacking infantry is charging and will therefore be more susceptable to a cavalry countercharge. I think the answer is just to change it to the following :-

If a unit is charged by both infantry and cavalry in the activity phase then each charge must contact a different facing of the defending unit.

This, to be honest, comes from the Peter Pig RFCM rules where any multiple attacks must hit different facings of the defending unit. This keeps it very simple. Infantry still halve their dice versus cavalry unless in a square so a cavalry charge against infantry can still be devastating. If the defending infantry decides to change formation to a square during their activity phase in anticipation of a cavalry charge (thus avoiding the discipline test) and an attacking infantry unit is close enough to hit a different facing to the cavalry then so be it. This makes forming square more attractive as a reaction to a cavalry charge but then means there is a chance that it doesn't happen. This also means that combined arms attacks are not completely neutered and makes them potentially deadly once a gap in the defending line has been opened which is historically accurate. It does stop the completely co-ordinated CAV/INF/CAV/INF drill formation from busting open a solid defensive line at will. A defensive line will have to have a gap opened to make the combined attacks deadly. This can be caused by routing a unit or pushing it back far enough or by forcing infantry into squares and reducing their frontage. This would also meke reserves in the defensive line more essential to plug the gaps in the line.

I'm putting ideas onto the forum because I hope that this is the place to do it. The suggestions above are minimal changes but I understand that even the smallest suggestion can have big unintended implications elsewhere in the rules.

Thanks, Kevin.

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

"This, to be honest, comes from the Peter Pig RFCM rules where any multiple attacks must hit different facings of the defending unit."

Grande Armée had a similar rule, but that game has units with identically-sized, single bases, so it was easy to adjudicate. I doubt it would work in a game with different-sized units that can change formations. (Imagine a large Cuirassier unit in Abreast formation: surely we wouldn't want to say that it could only be contacted on its front by one small unit. That would turn it into an invincible broom, sweeping all before it.)

If you're looking for a way to limit combined-arms intermingling, then I suspect Cam might have the simpler suggestion, to use command distances and officers. You could, for example, mandate that an officer's command range may not be traced through friendly regular infantry, unless he is the subcommander of that same infantry. (And you have to trace that at the start of the Activity Phase, before anybody has moved.) That ought to cut down substantially on the number of cavalry units that can be coordinated in a charge. There will still likely always be one, however.

Posted 1 year ago #
seldon
Member

Well, although I haven't seen this as such a big problem, to me it is part of the game and it is difficult to argue what is the most accurate representation, I do like the recommendation made by Cam then expanded by Sam.

I like the idea of command range not being traced through friendly troops, as a side product this will force players to have to use their "bad commanders", and also allows less mixing of elements in general. ( I like that much better than a die to see if I am lucky to get a combined arms attack ). That could certainly be an interesting optional rule.

BTW. I have the same question as Cam, can regular infantry shoot at troops in contact with them in the woods? We've been playing they can but I don't know what was the original intention.

Francisco

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

"can regular infantry shoot at troops in contact with them in the woods?

In contact, yes.

Posted 1 year ago #
steadythebuffs
Member

Hi Sam,

I think you're reading too much into the proposed change. The only restriction in the proposal is when an infantry unit and a cavalry unit want to charge the same defender in the same activity phase. So multiple infantry units can attack the same facing of the defender as can multiple cavalry. The idea is that it was very hard to co-ordinate different arms to work together. Cavalry are most deadly to infantry when they attack the flank of the unit. Your example is not relevant as infantry cannot assault cavalry so the combined arms restriction would never apply. If a large infantry unit wants to go 6 wide then fine it can be hit by 3 normal sized infantry or cavalry units but if you want to hit with one of each type then make one hit the flank. This rewards using historical tactics which was to expose the line and use the cavalry to exploit it.

We also like Cam's idea and we discussed this but it would only work if the CO's current huge umberella command distance is reduced.

The current situation leads very quickly to very formulaic games where the attacker intersperses his infantry and cavalry commands to attack along the line forcing every defender to use half dice. The defender picks 2 walls because they are hard cover to counter this and has his infantry interspersed with cavalry so he can countercharge. It will end up being pretty dull and tactically ahistorical. Look at the links and evidence provided under the "why are squares good against cavalry" thread to see that formed infantry in line with protected flanks were very hard to shift using cavalry. Make a break in the line and they could go down like a pack of cards pretty quickly.

Thanks, Kevin.

Posted 1 year ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

Sam wrote: "Do you guys really have a lot of cases in which somebody sends a heavy cavalry unit into a forest to chase after irregular infantry?"

The examples I saw were of cavalry charging regular infantry.

But for irregulars occupying a swamp or rocky ground:
Regular inf. versus irregular = 6 dice vs 8 dice.
Cavalry versus irregular infantry = 6 dice versus 4 dice.
So I'd use my cavalry to clear the enemy irregulars out of the swamp or rocky ground. Especially lancers.

For irregulars occupying a wood:
Regular inf. versus irregular = 6 dice vs 10 dice.
Cavalry versus irregular infantry = 6 dice versus 5 dice.
Again, if I was wanting to clear enemy out of a wood, I'd lead the attack with cavalry.

Sam wrote: "As for who would be at a greater disadvantage in rough ground... I don't know. Infantry couldn't form up, so they'd be at severe risk of being cut down individually - a horseman's dream. On the other hand, the cavalry would be stumbling and breaking into small groups, too."

Well, we do know - infantry chose to fight in (or run into the safety of) rough terrain against cavalry. Horses can't climb or negotiate rocky ground and founder in swampy ground. A man weighs about 170lbs, a horse weighs about 1100 lbs on four long thin legs. The speed and weight of a horse and rider is why a charging cavalryman has such an advantage in the open. But in rough terrain, a horse is reduced to, at best, a stumbling and unsteady walk. And horses don't have good balance on uneven ground. This weight of horse and rider is why slopes, especially irregular ground, which are imperceptible for infantry assume much greater significance for cavalry.

Sam wrote: "The intent of the rule was to discourage people from using these relatively scarce elite units in bad terrain, but also to discourage a defender from using rough terrain as a guaranteed mini-fortress. If you make it too hard to chuck infantry out of a forest, then you'll just end up with a new problem"

I agree that rough terrain should not become mini-fortresses. But if you want to clear enemy infantry out of bad terrain you should do what was done historically - send in your own infantry!
But as written, the rules encourage a player to use CAVALRY to clear the enemy out of bad terrain!

Posted 1 year ago #
McBeth
Member

With the way the rules are currently, a unit of infantry will die (be removed from play) if the attacker rolls twice as many 5s and 6s than the defender. As the Cavalry have the advantage at present over infantry they therefore can destroy the infantry reasonably easily in rough terrain. Combine that with the victory conditions of destroying enemy units to break the opposition army and the fact a lot of lists can take lots of organic or allied cavalry, having one of your cav units spend a turn of two getting out of the woods for the cost of an enemy unit dead is no big loss. You still have three more cav units out there.

Posted 1 year ago #
Prinny
Member

The other idea is not have Infantry half dice in rough terrain against cavalry unless they are Irregular cav.

The infantry sill get the -2 Dice for bad terrain unless they are Irregular which means that on average (god I hate that phrase with dice games) it "should" be a draw with the infanty able to add disruptions onto the cavalry as they charge in from shooting, so all in all not a great idea for cavalry to go chasing off after them, unless they are irregular cavalry which is what they were good at.

This is just an idea put forward to further the debate

Posted 1 year ago #
LintMan
Member

Have a look at the tables so of the modifiers only apply in certain situations. Cav vs Inf , Inf vs Cav have different tables of modifiers.

The Inf vs Cav only has +2 cover. Currently as I read it Inf do not suffer from a -2 due to bad terrain if attacked by Cav. The Cav however do.

Pools assuming regular cav vs regular infantry. Same esprit, same size and no lancers.

Cav are on 8 -2 for bad terrain = 6 dice
Inf are on 8 +2 for cover = 10 halved = 5 dice
So 6 v 5

So still advantage for the Cav. If they double the inf are gone any other result they fall back with a disruption.

Posted 1 year ago #
trailape
Member

Hi Guys
I really like this suggestion by Cam:

"After the comp we have had a bit of discussion about potential changes. I favour defining fields (since they are not defined in the rules, so a comp organiser has to define what they are in any case) as:

1) open ground for infantry and artillery
2) rough ground for cavalry
3) Cavalry halve their dice fighting infantry, infantry not in square do not halve their dice fighting cavalry.

Broken Ground is probably a better name. Essentially this is a bit of terrain where infantry can play in without worrying too much about cavalry. I prefer this cos it is not really a rule change - just a tweak of the terrain. This also allows a organiser to put out at least one infantry friendly (Peninsular) table - which will make players think a bit more about what support they want to use".

This idea doesn't change the rules AT ALL, but allows a player or Comp organiser to allow for a "refinement" that might "work" for them.

Posted 1 year ago #
vilcum
Member

About terrain, I think the third point of the proposed new terrain:
>>Cavalry halve their dice fighting infantry, infantry not in square do not halve their dice fighting cavalry.<< . it will create an totally anti-historic feel of invulnerability vs cavalry in the infantry.

On the other side, as I play more with the rules I grow troubled by the easyness of (as Cam sayed) "intermingling infantry with cavalry, and pull off endless combined arms charges across the table." I am in the point of implementing the "I´m with this stupid" OP rule to limit this capability, and even not allowing the use of the commander to put "in command" units from cavalry supporting brigades.

Posted 1 year ago #
Basilhare
Member

"On the other side, as I play more with the rules I grow troubled by the easyness of (as Cam sayed"

We play only historical & hypothetical scenarios...we have yet to see any unreasonable issues with the combined arms & rough terrian as mentioned in this post...obviously we are in the minority here, since we dont care for pick up/competition style games, but the rules seem reasonable and historical to us....again, what Napoloenic rules set doesnt rightfully reward the use of combined arms? It seems to me that this discussion (at least as far as infantry in the open vs. combined arms) centers on trying to balance the game for competition play rather than the rules being ahistorical...

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

It seems to me that this discussion (at least as far as infantry in the open vs. combined arms) centers on trying to balance the game for competition play rather than the rules being ahistorical...

Yep. If you had a fight between one side with 8 infantry and 4 cavalry units (1809 Austrian + Hussars), and the other side with 9 infantry and 1 cavalry (British + Brunswick) in a fairly open field, my money is on the side with the most cavalry to win.

But a tournament is supposed to say these two AB forces have an equal chance of winning. We need more tournament results to know, but I suspect they are not equal. Armies with no or limited cavalry units are at a disadvantage.

My preference remains for comp organisers to create an anti-cavalry terrain type (however defined). Create some "Peninsular" tables with lots of anti-cavalry terrain, and allow players to place "anti cavalry" terrain pieces on any table as their choice.

Everybody goes into the comp knowing that if they take cavalry support, they may struggle on these tables. Perhaps players might want to experiment with an all infantry force instead and hope they mainly play on the Peninsular tables.

Not changing the core rules, just the AB terrain rules, means those who want to use Lasalle to play historic games don't have to worry about rule changes designed to balance AB tournaments.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.