AB????
Cavalry in rough going, stone walls, and bouncethroughs.
(49 posts) (18 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Following up on what Cam posted about an 8 infantry 4 cavalry vs. 9 infantry 1 cavalry matchup, I would agree that the 1 cavalry side should be in trouble BUT not because infantry and cavalry units can be alternated along the lines to create multiple combined arms matchups against individual battalions, but rather that the side with cavalry advantage can AS A BLOCK drive off the single cavalry and turn the flank to get into the backfield.
PhilPosted 1 year ago # -
@trailape : I am quite sure AB qualifies for "army builder" , an army constructed with the army list from the rulebook.
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...
Au contraire!! My interest in "combined arms" limitation is more about historical simulation , from my (for sure limited) of historical battle accounts, tactics etc it is unknown , or at least not a winner tactic, intermingling battalions from a inf div with regiments of cavalry from a cavalry one.
Having a cavalry units surpassing your infantry in the intervals between batallions was simply not done in the times. The rules as they are do not only allow for it , but they really urges you to do so by making it a winner move.
Thats why Im using the "i´m with this stupid rule", at least you pay a penalization (not being in command is a big one)
Posted 1 year ago # -
@Valmy92 the threath of being flanked by the block of massed cavalry would be desirable IMHO....
That´s why I do see excesive cam´s proposed terrain, being outnumbered in cavalry MUST be a problem. but it must be a problem as historically , not by a strange intermixed formation
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi,
AB is Army Builder, I think.
I don't think that these proposals are just to do with balancing competition games. Cavalry were a valuable resource which quite often were a 'one shot' gamble due to blown horses etc. To chase after infantry in unfavourable terrain would have been a complete waste of that resource. On the battlefield cavalry were good at keeping other cavalry away from your own troops or attacking the enemy. They were at their best when the infantry target presented an open flank or were not in formation. To charge a formed infantry unit that had secure flanks was seen to be rash and not recommended. After all the reason for the square being used against cavalry was so as not to present an open flank. The combined arms attacks do cause an issue because you can alternate cav & inf along the line and force every enemy infantry unit to be at half dice. This sort of co-ordinated attack at this scale (Lasalle units are battalions & regiments and not brigades) would be almost impossible to do. The occasional instance could be cited but to regularly see two formations with their units interspersed moving with parade ground precision to deliver a perfectly co-ordinated attack just is not right. Infantry did not automatically form square when faced by cavalry. If they had secure flanks there just wasn't any need to. My suggestion to only allow infantry and cavalry to assault one unit at the same time if they attacked on different facings of that unit was to allow it to happen when an open flank is presented (historically accurate) but to stop it becoming norm. For what it's worth I think Cam's suggestion of measuring command range by treating other friendly units not from your own formation as if they were enemy i.e. no measuring within 1 BW is a good idea if combined with lowering the Commander's in-command range to 4 BW.
Thanks, Kevin.
Posted 1 year ago # -
This situation with battle cavalry running around in woods irritates me. Terrain was used by command by deploying infantry on it, in it or behind it to disadvantage other arms. Standing in front of a otherwise perfectly servicable wood or hedge as suggested is bloody ludicrous. As the rules are now PDF I do not see any reason for not revisiting terrain for the rulebook as I firmly believe the minimalist nature of them hamper an otherwise worthy system.
The suggestions put forward by Cam to define what can and cannot enter certain terrain fixes the problem easily. As it stands now, I have to make up scenario specific rules for The Bossau Wood at Quatre Bras to represent its impregnability to horses. Hell, the locals never cut tracks and trails through it for nothing!
One other point that was raised about cav passing between battalions. Bottom line is Brigades would try to avoid manoeuvering through one another unless something dramatic has happened to cause it. Moving between Brigades or Divisions did happen.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Sorry to re-open this old post. But I had a thought RE. Infantry vs Cav in difficult terrain. The example given generally seems to be a 4 base Cv unit vs a 4 base Inf unit.
Cav = 8-2 for attacking rough = 6
Inf = 8+2 for cover halved = 5When charged cannot the infantry change formation, not into a square but into a column using the changing formation rules in such a way that they now only cover half the cav's frontage meaning the cav half their dice and are now 3 dice instead of 6. So it's now 5 dice vs 3 in the infantry's favour meaning they have the more of an advantage of holding ground. I know not perhaps a historically aqccurate response to being charged but does seem to give a historically accurate outcome without any need to change any rules.
Of course I may have missed something in the rules which prohibits this, but I'm sure someone will point it out if I missed it.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi Freyberg
If the entire defending unit falls within the attackers front then the halving does not apply. The cavalry can try to manoeuvre into a position where this would be the case. Also the defender still has to pass a discipline test to change formation. The situation becomes a DBA style exercise in geometry.
An unhistoric situation solved by an unhistoric response. Better to have a house rule I think?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm not surprised this thread has come to life again. These silly unhistorical situations deserve a fixing.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I use an adaptation from another set of rules to control terrain effects: After a few games we found it stopped a lot of gamemanship.
each piece of terrain has a catagory and effect as follows;
Good terrain:
open ground /fields, roads and tracks, fords, gentle slopes and rolling hills.effect: none all units move at normal rates.
Difficult terrain:
Built up areas (i.e. farms, small villages) open woods, shallow streams/rivers, steep/rugged slopes, hedges, walls, enclosed fields, crop fields and orchards.effect: all units move at half speed (except irregulars), cavalry take 1 disruption (except cossacks). Cavalry may not charge into or across such terrain (except cossacks).
Limbered Artillery may pass through but cannot deploy.Harsh Terrain:
Dense woods, deep water,marshes, very rugged hills or very steep hills.effect: Infantry move at half speed and takes 1 disruption (except irregular inf). Cavalry (including cossacks)and Artillery may not enter.
Posted 1 year ago # -
First a quote from Sam Mustafa: "I've never been a tournament player, myself. The Army Builder chapter was conceived as a way to provide people with quick pick-up games in a reasonably balanced setting. I confessed on page 97 that there was no way to guarantee that all the match-ups were perfectly "balanced" or "fair," so caveat emptor."
Second an observation by Steve Jackson: "If you write a set of Civil War rules that gives victory to the side that charges uphill against emplaced artillery you won't have much of a game. However if you playtest only with Civil War afficionados you will never realize it because none of them will be "dumb" enough to try it."
I suppose it is because, like Sam, I am not a tournament player that it never would have occured to me to charge infantry in a wood with cavalry except in dire circumstances. Perhaps this is because I tend to play to the period, not play to the rules. from the dicussions I read on various wargames fora it seems many copetition players do the opposite.
Not sure what the solution is for this and other "gamer tricks".
Posted 1 year ago # -
Dave Crowell wrote
"Second an observation by Steve Jackson: "If you write a set of Civil War rules that gives victory to the side that charges uphill against emplaced artillery you won't have much of a game. However if you playtest only with Civil War afficionados you will never realize it because none of them will be "dumb" enough to try it."I suppose it is because, like Sam, I am not a tournament player that it never would have occured to me to charge infantry in a wood with cavalry except in dire circumstances. Perhaps this is because I tend to play to the period, not play to the rules. from the dicussions I read on various wargames fora it seems many copetition players do the opposite."
I agree completely, and this is one of the things I think that the testing of Lasalle missed out on. Myself and quite a few of the NZ players here are playtesters for Battlefront and are paid to do just that : find the breaks in the rules, exploit them and then fix them.
I think the big thing is that if Lasalle was a set of rules that trys to get new players into the period (like me) they have to be written with non-Grognards in mind. Playtesting should not be restricted by personal views. I guess in playtesting no-one ran their cav into the woods to ferret out infantry because no-one did it in reality?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ideally you wouldn't have Cav charge into rough - as it was hazardous for them. But it is allowable in the rules, so in comps peole will do it as the factors favour it unless you are able to do as I suggested earlier - I think there is a solution in the rules as is - albiet not a certainty (DISC test & cav getting their angle perfect, but INF can stand in rough with an advantage if you get your units in the right place and dice rolls go your way, yes you will have do it geomerically, including the 2BW max wheel for the cav - but then you should in a comp as it's about playing the rules - friendly games you can be a little more relaxed, employing house rules etc.) have a play with the formations on a table you will see it's not a guarantee that the cav will end up with more than half of the enemy to their front, if the inf can change formation, as you form your new formation around one base.
I don't think Sam is going to change the "official" ruling on this one, but I'm not sure he needs to. I suppose in a comp an umpire can employ any "rules/restrictions" they want, as can players in "friendlies"
However I agree with Simon, in that it can be pretty disheartening if you're a new player to the period, and if you're playing AB games, to have an army you believe you cannot win with. (I have British)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Freyberg
Your proposal is all about using cheese to fight cheese.
There was a flaw in the changing formation rules that was raised in this thread:
http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/forum/topic/bionic-square-movement
Following this discussion Sam drafted the Optional Rule "Changing Formation Near the Enemy". This rule forbids what you have proposed as the only Reaction allowed to a unit contacted by cavalry is to form square.
If you play without this optional rule then it reopens the other abuses that were raised in the thread referred to above.
Posted 1 year ago # -
"I think the big thing is that if Lasalle was a set of rules that trys to get new players into the period (like me) they have to be written with non-Grognards in mind. Playtesting should not be restricted by personal views. I guess in playtesting no-one ran their cav into the woods to ferret out infantry because no-one did it in reality?"
But as you said Mcbeth, Lasalle was meant to be written for newbies to Napoleonics AND about tournaments. So how are newbies supposed to know battle cavalry avoid woods with no knowledge of Napoleonics or Horse and Musket warfare in general?
Like you said, it was missed, just like the formation change thing Alan pointed out. But that was fixed after some of us discussed the problem and came up with solutions.
Posted 1 year ago # -
As an observation I have often found that my play is worse with a new set of rules in a period that I know well and good in a period I know little about.
This seeming paradox is simply explained in the context of this debate.
When I game in a period I know well with new rules, I will instinctively do what I understand to have worked in history. But of course if the rules don't reflect history that is a bad policy and produces poor results.
When I game in a period I don't know then I have no fact based preconceptions about what is effective. As a result I pay more attention to what seems to work under the rules. This teaches me bad history because I then find effective ways of doing things under the rules that have no basis in fact.
If any set of rules is used for competition then the objective is to win the game. As long as you don't cheat and you follow the letter of the rules that is fair play. You can't debate the historicity or otherwise of a set of rules in a competition context. They are what they are and thats all there is to it. It is no different of to the artificial construct of having a fixed time limit to the game and an arbitrary way of deciding who is then the winner if there is no 'real' conclusion.
As 99% + of all my games fall outside of the competition environment it is very important to me that the rules reflect reality. We all have a different take on what reality was in any historical context. But there are some issues that are fairly easy to agree on. In the current example of cavalry charging in (or even going into) woods I think most people would agree that it was not a common occurrence.
I am sure there will be examples in the literature of battle cavalry charging in the woods. However, these bizarre exceptions are exactly that and should not be provided for in the rules. If you are playing a scenario where something odd happened in the battle you are modelling then have a house/scenario rule to allow it in that context. My view is that game rules should reflect what happened in the majority of cases not the interesting exceptions. You should not need a house rule to reflect the commonplace and stop the bizarre. That is definitely a case of the cart being before the horse.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I am a "competition gamer" in a different set of rules for s different time period. I really find Lasall interesting, but have anathema to out of period napoleonic fights. I really have no desire to take Pennisula english from 1813 versus 1806 Prussians.
I also don't think find an advantage in rules is unique to competition gamers. I've seen plenty of non-competition gamers try to use rules as writen to their own advatnage.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Thanks Alan, I hadn't checked the optional rules, a good discussion on that thread. I see Sam has commented in the other NZ rules modification thread and I've left another suggestion there.
I do feel the CAV attacking rough needs to be looked at as another Optional rule as there is too great an advantage for CAV in this regard at present.
I apologise for my cheesiness! :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes, it just exploits a big hole in the rules. Choose lancers, have even more fun!
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.