Cavalry Questions « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Rules Questions

Cavalry Questions

(13 posts) (7 voices)

Started 1 year ago by trev
Latest reply from trev

Tags:

No tags yet.

trev
Member

Hi Sam, all,

We've played a couple of trial games of Lasalle so far and while I like where they're pitched, I think there are some things that I just don't get. The first of these is to do with cavalry engagements.

In our last test game, Ottomans versus Russians, we had a situation where several regiments of cavalry faced off against each other. A unit of Ottoman household cavalry charged a unit of Cossacks. The Cossacks made their test to avoid combat and retired out of contact. This stranded the Ottomans in front of a unit of Russian hussars. If I understand correctly, even though the Ottomans had sufficient remaining movement to contact either the fleeing Cossacks or the newly revealed hussars, they were unable to do either and had to remain in place. This I can kind of accept if we assume the charging Ottomans pull up as the Cossacks retire. Although with a rerolled 4+ for success it seems rather easy for Cossacks to withdraw without loss.

Anyway, on the Russian turn the newly revealed Hussars charged the Ottoman household cavalry but were decisively defeated. This means the Hussars, as attackers, fell back taking one disorder point. The Ottomans then, as victorious defending cavalry, likewise took 1 disorder point. This seemed rather an anti-climax considering the utterly one sided win the Ottoman cavalry had just inflicted on the Hussars. Meanwhile, next to this combat a unit of Russian Cuirassiers charged a unit of Ottoman Kapikulu and this time it was the Russians who won decisively. However, because it was the Russians who charged the Ottomans, the defending unit was destroyed and removed from play.

Did we do something wrong or is this how things are supposed to work? My understanding is that it was typical for cavalry of this period to counter-charge attackers and that receiving charges at the halt was very rare indeed. As such I don't get why there is such as massive difference in the above combat results, given that the only difference was an artificial game construct and not a tabletop representation of something real. What is the thinking behind attacking cavalry not being able to be broken? If that rule were removed then the winner would come down to luck, troop quality, leadership etc, which all seems perfectly reasonable.

Thanks for reading and all the best,

Trev

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

" If I understand correctly, even though the Ottomans had sufficient remaining movement to contact either the fleeing Cossacks or the newly revealed hussars, they were unable to do either and had to remain in place. "

Not necessarily. They could have used their Momentum Move at that point. (see p.40).

"This means the Hussars, as attackers, fell back taking one disorder point. The Ottomans then, as victorious defending cavalry, likewise took 1 disorder point. This seemed rather an anti-climax considering the utterly one sided win the Ottoman cavalry had just inflicted on the Hussars."

That's because cavalry combat is always indecisive unless an attacker breaks a defender. In your case, it was the attacker who got humiliated, and thus he broke off the engagement.

A defender losing when charged is a disastrous thing. An attacker losing when charging, means he falls back to regroup.

The cavalry combats are supposed to last a few turns. Well-balanced opponents will typically pass back and forth unless somebody manages to pull off a surprise on somebody's flank, or with a vastly-superior formation, or a subcommander tactical bonus. (Or... had those Turkish household cav actually caught the Cossacks, they probably would have butchered them, since that's Regulars vs. Irregulars in the Open.)

But generally, when forces are well-matched, the cavalry combats flow back and forth until somebody can throw in a fresh regiment against somebody else's worn-down regiment.

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

Hi Trev

This is a game mechanic that you either live with or hate about Lasalle. It applies to both infantry and cavalry. The attacker can never break so there is rarely ever any downside to being the attacker. The defender however can't afford to be unlucky.

This can lead to games where the defender (infantry or cavalry) always chooses to Fall Back in the Reaction Phase and then, if successful, charges the unit they fell back from in their own Activity Phase. This military two-step is something I have lived with so far. I think Sam explained it in another thread as being part of wanting to give the defender a greater range of options than you generally find in most rules.

I have been toying with the idea of trying a house rule that would prevent any unit that has voluntarily fallen back from charging in the Activity Phase of the same turn.

Of course none of the above directly relates to your Cossacks. You would just need to be wary of units that the Cossacks are screening.

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

I agree with Sam's comment about cavalry melees bouncing back and forth. You do get a lot of outcomes where one side bounces then the other side attacks, somebody bounces, then there is an attack again. This gives a nice ebb and flow to the cavalry combat that is often decided by who runs out of Disruption first or by a fresh unit getting involved.

Posted 1 year ago #
trev
Member

Hi Sam, Alan,

Thanks for the quick responses and explanations. Also, Sam I want to say that regardless of my reservations about some of the rule mechanisms I have been impressed by the production quality of the rules and the level of online support. Both are excellent.

Anyway, back to the subject. We did actually use the momentum move but it wasn't enough to reach the falling back Cossack unit or the Hussars. If memory serves the Ottomans, with a maximum move allowance of 8 BWs, charged just under 4 BWs, the Cossacks retired 4 BWs to the side of the Hussars, who were themselves then about 3-4 BWs from the Ottomans. If the Ottomans could have charged their full 8 BWs, for a unit in Waves, they could have contacted at least the Hussars and possibly the Cossacks as well. My issue here was that by running away the Cossacks had managed to slow the advance of the Ottoman horse, thus leaving them in an exposed position. If we hadn't made the momentum move they would have actually been even worse off as they would have been open to a flank charge from another unit as well.

With regards to the combat, it seems we are playing the rules correctly but ,as Alan says, it's a bit of a divisive mechanism. My problem is that I don't see the whole Arttacker/Defender division as anything but a rules construct. I fail to see what real-world advantage the nominal attacker would have had that justifies their not being able to be broken in the game. I understand that many cavalry combats were indecisive and I'm happy with the idea that combats where no clear winner emerges are effectively draws. However, taking our example, to me the Hussars were decisively beaten and should have broken, even though they were the nominal attacker. I can see this rule resulting in exactly the retreating defenders scenario Alan describes and that strikes me as a very artificial situation.

Thanks again for the explanations though, I appreciate the effort

regards,

Trev

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

My problem is that I don't see the whole Arttacker/Defender division as anything but a rules construct. I fail to see what real-world advantage the nominal attacker would have had that justifies their not being able to be broken in the game.

This is a common reaction, but I think you need to think about the odds over a series of turns (not just one) and remember this is a turn-limited game.

From memory, if the enemy charge you with an equal quality unit, they have about a 25% chance of breaking you. But the most likely (60%) outcome if you stand (and fire if infantry) is the attacker will bounce off with DISRs. You can then countercharge, and if they don't fall back, they are probably toast. Even if they do fall back, they can have picked up enough DISR to break later to shooting.

Over 2 rounds of combat, the odds are actually slightly in favour of the unit originally charged.

The apparent advantage for a charger is quite a nice game mechansim. It encourages players to be aggressive and take risks ("hey, I can't lose..."). It can take a few games to see that actually, yes, you can lose.

I do take the fall back option - but only where I am being attacked by superior forces.

Lasalle is also turn-limited. If two players charge/fall-back/countercharge/fall-back they will probably just end with a draw. To win you sometimes have to accept the risks of standing, and rely on the odds eventually turning in your favour. In competitions I have yet to hear of the two-step in action. I doubt it is a winning strategy.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
Russell Briant
Member

Hi Trev

The other event attacking cavalry need to be wary of is being counter charged by enemy cavalry (Apologies if this is all old news to you). The Russian Hussars the Cossacks ended up next to may have been candidates to do that.

Attacking cavalry can be destroyed if they decisively loose their combat with the counter-charging unit. The order of combat is important. The attacker will only fight against one of the defending units at the time.

If given the choice the Attacker is likely choose to fight against the initial target so they can break off if beaten (they will be at half strength because the attacker is opposing at least two enemy) and avoid the potentially destructive contest against the counter-chargers.

The Defender, if given the choice, is likely to choose to fight the counter attack force first. They may well have full strength against the half strength and a good chance to win decisively.

So some of big cavalry brawls is about setting up so you don't get counter charged either by charging the potential counter chargees or by blocking them with other units or saving your powder till another turn. The flip side is to try and tempt rash charges you can counter charge.

cheers

Russell

Posted 1 year ago #
Bigfulsey
Member

Hi Trev

We had a potential problem with this in some of the games that we played and are trialing a couple of House Rules.
An attacking cavalry unit that loses decisively goes down 2 disruptions.
A cavalry unit that falls back from a charge in the reaction phase may not charge in the activity phase.
We need to play a few more games to see how this pans out though.

Nick

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

"A cavalry unit that falls back from a charge in the reaction phase may not charge in the activity phase."

Isn't it generally acknowledged that cavalry combat was a sort of fluid back-and-forth affair?

"An attacking cavalry unit that loses decisively goes down 2 disruptions."

Countercharging too?

When charging infantry or artillery, too?

I suspect you'll find that this will drastically weaken cavalry in the game, and/or dissuade people from attacking. It may have some serious play-balance implications for the attacking side.

And why have losing cavalry suffer 2 DISR when decisively-losing attacking infantry only suffers 1? Or were you suggesting that ALL attackers who lose decisively will lose 2 ?

Posted 1 year ago #
trev
Member

Thanks for all the replies chaps. I take the points about relative advantages but it isn't actually the balance that I don't like, it is the artificial nature of the division into attackers and defenders. If my understanding of the reality we're modeling is correct, nearly all cavalry would counter-charge their attackers, and even those rare units that stood and shot could easily spur to the attack if their attackers wavered in the face of a volley. So I don't see the need, or justification, for a distinction in effect based solely on who started to close the distance first. Perhaps surprisingly I do agree with Sam that it is a good thing that cavalry fights are often a 'fluid back-and-forth affair'. This matches my reading of the history too. I'm also okay with the idea that if neither side achieves a decisive superiority it is effectively a draw, and the units will break apart with comparable levels of disorder. You've had your chance to break your opponents but failed, so both sides fall back to regroup and try again. This is where that extra reserve to throw in tips the balance. What I don't get is why the nominal attacker needs to be immune from breaking. Wouldn't it work better if the attacker that is defeated decisively is broken? i.e. Just the same as the defender. Most combats between fresh units would still fail to achieve a decisive 2:1 superiority in hits, and so would still result in the back and forth dynamic. However, as in our game, sometimes the attackers would be completely outmatched and throw back in rout themselves, instead of being protected from this fate by the artificial advantage of the turn order.

regards,

Trev

Posted 1 year ago #
Ashur_dan
Member

Hi Trev

"Wouldn't it work better if the attacker that is defeated decisively is broken? i.e. Just the same as the defender."

You also need to take into account the halving of the attackers dice when fighting two opponents and also when the defender does not occupy more then half of the attackers front.

There are some quite subtle (and elegant) factors that combine in the combat interactions. If the attackers break when doubled I'd be forming column with defending units (thus reducing my exposure across the attackers front), so halving the attackers dice and destroy them again and again!

regards

Stephen

Posted 1 year ago #
Alan Charlesworth
Member

As I said in an earlier post "This is a game mechanic that you either live with or hate about Lasalle". Personally I can live with it because overall Lasalle is a great game and this mechanism by no means 'breaks' it.

The invulnerable attacker mechanism is easier to rationalise with regard to infantry than cavalry.

As far as I can tell it was very rare for infantry to come to hand to hand blows in open ground. A 'charge' (which was not often a mad run toward the enemy) was a test of will with one group advancing toward another. One sides morale would hold and one would fail before contact occurred. If it was the attacker that wavered then they would halt and then start to fall back. If the defender then the attacker would chase them off. This meant a defender who's will failed would often be dispersed but an attacker that failed would perhaps be in some disorder but still in existence as a unit. Of course the table could then be turned and the attacker find that they are the defender.

If you look at a Lasalle infantry combat and rationalise that the infantry are not in contact but just at very close range and what is being modelled is the failure of will of one side, then it seems to work well.

With cavalry that same logic does not hold as they actually did come to blows much more often. I agree with Trev that any charge advantage for one side is the result of an IGOUGO game mechanic not reality, as cavalry countercharged rather than stood most of the time. However, the mechanisms overall do give a nice back and forth feel to a lot of cavalry combats that certainly 'feels right'.

Very few of us ever like 100% of any set of rules. I bought AofE, General de Brigade, RtoE and Black Powder at around the same time as Lasalle. I know you can't always tell how good game will play from just reading the rules, but it was Lasalle that grabbed me from the first read and has taken up all my Napoleonic gaming time for the last 8 months. The others are just sat on the shelf. I am sure some of the others are also good rule sets but for some time to come I am sure Lasalle is going to fill all my Napoleonic gaming needs. Of course when Blucher comes along who knows!

Posted 1 year ago #
trev
Member

I think I will need to carefully re-read the rules to check on Stephen's point as I hadn't really thought my suggestion all the way through.

Alan, I agree that infantry are fine under the current system. I suppose it is, as you said, a case of living with it, or not.

Thanks for the opinions and explanations chaps.

Good gaming.

Trev

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.