Cavalry v Infantry « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Optional Rules

Cavalry v Infantry

(44 posts) (12 voices)

Started 9 months ago by Ratisbon
Latest reply from Mycenius

Tags:

12 Next »

Ratisbon
Member

I played in our 28mm Lasalle tournament over the weekend. Had a great time and will certainly be back for more.

But four games in quick succession just reinforced for me that the cavalry/infantry interaction is wrong.

Four squares were broken by cavalry in my four games - an absurdly high number. This included a Landwehr cav unit breaking a Valiant Grenadier square (formed in a previous turn and with no disruptions). Obviously outrageously unlucky - but how many formed squares did Landwehr cavalry break in the entire Napoleonic wars?

This carnage was despite most players eshewing Organic cavalry.

There are three things that combine to give the wrong effect IMO:

1) Cavalry are too likely to break squares. While the odds are low, they are too high.

2) There is little cost for cavalry trying to break squares repeatedly - if they fail they take 1 DISR and bounce - then charge again next turn. They can make successive charges. So the low odds accumulates to fairly high odds.

3) If the cavalry breaks a square it is often a game winner in a one-support game - the cavalry create a gap in the line and can exploit it quickly.

We had a lot of discussion about possible fixes. Broadly they came down to:

1) Make it harder to break squares. Ideas included cav that double a square only do 2 or 3 DISR rather than break them (so it already has to have DISR to break), inf in square add 2 dice against cav, cav can't break a square unless it has some DISR, or cav can't break a formed square (ie they can only break a square formed as a reaction).

2) Make the cost of failing higher for cav. Cav that lose against a square take 2 DISR, or they bounce back further (so they can't charge again next turn), or allow squares to fire with 2 dice (so cav can't just sit next to a square and rally at no danger).

3) Have less cavalry. Move to using my points system, then modify it to make organic cavalry a lot more expensive (+50% or +100% cost) and reserve cavalry a bit more expensive. This means cavalry can run over squares - but given their cost they better do a lot of damage to be worth the points. Or we could play bigger games (multiplayer) where creating a hole in the enemy line is not so easy to exploit as armies will fight in more depth.

The main problem is how to make changes that don't lose the essence of the Lasalle game - which is a lot of fun.

Not sure if we quite got to a consensus on what to do - expect we all agreed we should change something for the next comp.

Cam

Posted 9 months ago #
LintMan
Member

I like my suggestion that a square with no DISR cannot break from a Cav charge.

Posted 9 months ago #
Nick the Lemming
Member

I don't have any problem whatsoever with how squares work as written, and would not want to see any changes made in this regard.

Posted 9 months ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

There were certainly a few squares being broken over the weekend - IIRC my French Dragoons squashed two squares, and had one of my squares squashed by some Valiant Hussars. Also silly was how I stationed my Dragoons close by enemy squares for safety (or in another game how an enemy cavalry unit spent three turns parked immediately next to one of my infantry squares for cover)!

My preferred solution would be that a unit in square may shoot in its Reaction phase, by choosing one of its sides and firing from that side, rolling a number of dice equal to half of its number of bases (i.e. usually two dice). I think that way the cavalry at least are forced to either charge and get a result (and possibly take a DISR from closing fire) or else keep out of musketry of the infantry.

Posted 9 months ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

Just as a rhetorical question...

If you were to make it very, very unlikely that a cavalry charge could break a square - let's say something on the order of 5% - then obviously that will deter most players from ever trying it, right? It will just stop happening in the game.

Doesn't that raise the obvious question about why cavalry charged squares so often in history?

I mean: the only reason that we know for a fact that it was very unlikely, is because it happened a lot, but not very successfully, right? (Otherwise, if it rarely happened, then we wouldn't be able to say with certainty that it should be unlikely to succeed.)

So... either those historical cavalry commanders were suicidal twits... Or perhaps they knew some things that we don't?

Another way to look at this is: Perhaps the cavalry commanders charged enemy squares in the hope of catching them under some extenuating circumstance, such as surprising them from some direction concealed by small rises and valleys in the terrain? Or catching them in the midst of deploying? Or catching them with low ammo?

We could add more modifiers to reflect those sorts of things, I suppose, or we could just let the overall chance embrace them.

Posted 9 months ago #
NDPerry
Member

Funny how things go, but I've just been thinking about something that might help here. I don't have a copy of the rules with me so perhaps you will forgive any failings of my memory.

What might be a solution is an optional Exhausted Cavalry rule to go with the optional Impetuous Cavalry rule. It would reflect the difficulty in getting tired horses (after a charge) to perform effectively.

If cavalry units carrying a DISR were required to pass a discipline test with one dice for each DISR (unmodified as this is mainly about horses so the commander's vigour shouldn't help) in order to charge. Pass and you charge, fail and your turn is finished (no movement or recovery rolls).

This would alleviate some of the issues referred to and encourage commanders to rest their cavalry unless the situation was desperate.

Without my copy of the rules I can't remember what additional dice should be added to the countercharge reaction test to maintain consistency.

I was looking at this idea as an inducement to cavalry commanders to maintain a reserve as it emphasises the use of a fresh unit.

Lastly, while keeping cavalry near enemy squares to keep them safe does seem a bit "odd", there would appear to be a perfectly valid reason to do so in the game: it encourages infantry to remain in squares - which should then be targeted by your accompanying horse artillery.

Nigel Perry.

Posted 9 months ago #
Ratisbon
Member

I don't have any problem whatsoever with how squares work as written, and would not want to see any changes made in this regard.

I should have made it clear this was what a few of us playing tournaments in NZ are thinking about - so it is not really relevant unless you intend to visit NZ!

Ultimately after a few Lasalle competitions in NZ I think it fair to say there is a consensus that cavalry, particuarly Organic cavalry, are overpowered to give a fair and balanced competition.

either those historical cavalry commanders were suicidal twits... Or perhaps they knew some things that we don't?

This is a central dilemma. But it is not either/or, more a matter of degree. I think at present in competitions players are too willing to charge formed squares and squares are a bit too likely to fall over. It is about toning this down without losing the essence of the game. At the moment players act like Blucher at Auerstadt or Ney at Waterloo. But they are being rewarded for doing so when historically it did not work out so well.

I think large and/or valiant and/or lance cavalry are too good against square. If the cavalry get 5, 6 or 7 dice against a square they have a pretty good chance of breaking it. The cost of failure for cavalry is also a bit too low - they may as well have another crack (since 1 DISR does not change the number of dice they get in the next charge).

But I am nervous about changing core rules - Lasalle is a good game if not necessarily a good simulation. The risk is to make it a better simulation it may become a worse game.

I personally lean toward making cavalry rarer on the table but still effective. Use a points system so players have to really think about whether it is worth taking cavalry (rather than a no-brainer as it is now). Or perhaps have bigger games so armies will fight in more depth - so breaking a square does not create a hole.

Cam

Posted 9 months ago #
heybetty
Member

I think the issue is the size of the games at competition level. You want to have all three arms present, ( fair enough ) but still playable in that fast paced enviroment. It works well for that, as is.........otherwise who would take any Cav ? Sam has the balance just right I feel. In a bigger ( historical ) game you would not be so keen in charging squares, there's much safer ways to crack an egg. Cavalry is to valuable to throw up agains't squares, just on the off chance you might break through. Fire power is the tried an proven method ( another thing thats hard to reflect in a frantic time constrained situation like comps )

Posted 9 months ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

"If cavalry units carrying a DISR were required to pass a discipline test with one dice for each DISR "

Well, as I understood the original complaint, the problem was that fresh cavalry was too likely to break a square. Penalizing disrupted cavalry by making it less likely to charge, wouldn't have any effect upon the fresh cavalry's likelihood to break a square.

In any event, I'm not sure whether the freshness of the cavalry would have that much to do with it, since the question is whether or not the infantry was indeed secure. The freshness of the cavalry would matter more against an opponent that could actually break the cavalry, such as enemy cavalry. And for that, we already have an adequate mechanism, since cavalry fatigues very quickly and very few DISR are required to break a unit.

"At the moment players act like Blucher at Auerstadt"

Just to play Devil's Advocate... Blücher was a career cavalry officer. And it was too early in the morning for him to be drunk! Surely these guys must have had their reasons for thinking that cavalry charges were a good idea? (Of course, it was a very foggy day, so he might not have known what formation the French were in.) *

I suppose we could postulate that there might be some sort of "Western Front Syndrome" going on there, in which it ought to be obvious to the world that the old tactics don't work anymore and yet everybody keeps using them.

Plenty of historians have guessed that Ney was using the cavalry to force the British into squares, in order to make the French artillery fire more effective. And that Blücher might have acted differently, if he'd been able to see the enemy. (And that Davout might not have risked the squares, had the visibility permitted Prussian artillery to gun him down.) Davout rolled a lot of sixes at Auerstädt.

I don't have a dog in this fight; I'm not going to issue any "official" alteration of the rules in this case, so I'm totally neutral with regard to what players come up with, for house rules. I'm just offering the thoughts that:

A) The historical commanders seemed to have a lot of faith in cavalry charges, and

B) We're gamers who want to complete a game in three hours. We want decisive results, not stalemate. Exaggerating the outcomes as a way of getting to the decision is something that I've always advocated, as long as it's fun.

- -

* For those who've never been to the Jena area... the terrain, even to this day, is very thickly wooded and dramatically hilly. Even on a clear day, visibility is poor except in a few choice spots where you can get a magnificent panorama. For the most part, however, it's a series of endless surprises and blind alleys. I've bicycled from Weimar to Jena, for instance, and I understood immediately why Rüchel couldn't hear the battle, and took so long to get there, or how Bernadotte got lost, or why the Prussians got all disjointed. I mention this simply in reference to my earlier point about one of the reasons for making a "bad" attack like charging a square, is that you never know what sort of surprises might await you, over the next little ridge line, and what effect that might have on your chances of success.

Posted 9 months ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

") The historical commanders seemed to have a lot of faith in cavalry charges"

Or perhaps more correctly, impetuous or foolhardy ones like Blucher and Ney!
Though your reference to Western Front generals having faith in charges across No man's Land is a useful analogy. Many Western Front generals actually had little faith in their tactics, but the desperate strategic situation forced them into repeating failed tactics in the desperate hope of a breakthrough. I suspect Ney at Waterloo was the same - he surely must have realised that sending in wave after wave of cuirassiers at the Allied squares was suicidal, but by mid-afternoon, with the Prussians pressing in from the east, he resorted to a desperate gamble.

"B) We're gamers who want to complete a game in three hours. We want decisive results, not stalemate. Exaggerating the outcomes as a way of getting to the decision is something that I've always advocated, as long as it's fun."

True. But at the moment the rules give the cavalry a good incentive to charge squares (i.e. a standard hussar unit has a 13% chance of breaking a reliable square) - and with very little risk for the cavalry apart from 1DISR when falling back. The infantry can't charge the cavalry or even shoot them, so it is rather lopsided in favour of the cavalry.
I don't have a problem with cavalry having a chance to break a square. Its the fact that cavalry can try it on with such impunity that bugs me.
The Blucher at Auerstadt example is pertinent - the charges against the French squares ruined the Prussian cavalry.

Posted 9 months ago #
Ratisbon
Member

Well, as I understood the original complaint, the problem was that fresh cavalry was too likely to break a square. Penalizing disrupted cavalry by making it less likely to charge, wouldn't have any effect upon the fresh cavalry's likelihood to break a square.

It is related. Since cav can make repeated charges, even though the chance is low of breaking a square with any particular charge, the odds accumulate over a series of charges.

A large valiant cav unit will charge a square a 7 v 8 dice. So the odds are against them breaking the square. But if they fail and take a DISR, they can charge back next turn still at 7 v 8 dice again. Across the 2 charges it becomes more likely the infantry will break. For instance if you have a 20% chance of breaking a square and charge twice, there is a 36% chance the infantry will be broken in one of the charges. And of course a large unit can have a 3rd and 4th attempt at 6 v 8 dice.

So part of the issue is that cav can get several attempts to break infantry at no risk to themselves. Putting the cav at greater risk is a possible solution.

But I think this topic should be taken offline. I think we agreed that for the next NZ tournament we do want to change something else in the cav/inf interaction - the issue is what.

Cam

Posted 9 months ago #
heybetty
Member

@ "Many Western Front generals actually had little faith in their tactics, but the desperate strategic situation forced them into repeating failed tactics in the desperate hope of a breakthrough. I suspect Ney at Waterloo was the same ."

Many of the Western front generals were old cavalry commanders....hmmm...But Ney saw the Allies pulling back behind the ridge line, thought they were bugging out. This was not desperation, the Allied centre was getting pounded by French artillery and had to take cover, he had every right to think a charge right away could win the day. He then pulled back after the first attack seeing what he had done wrong, scraped together a few infantry units and went in once more, with some support this time. A classic example of cav falling back and trying again.
If you want competion games with Cav in them I wouldn't change anything, everyone will just take infantry.

Posted 9 months ago #
RogerC
Member

The cavalry v infantry issue has come up several times on this forum, and there isn't any agreement on its resolution. Sam is (understandably) happy with the rules as they stand and no general consensus has emeged. Of course, those organising tournaments in NZ, or anywhere else, can come up with their own solutions. Equally, those organising scenarios or friendly games can do what they want. However, it would be good if ideas were shared around.

If we see this as a tournament problem, perhaps we can find a tournament-specific solution. The cavalry/infantry issue seems most acute in core + 1 games, which is the army format for most tournaments.

My thought is to weight the tournament results in dependence on the perceived strength of an army rather than change the combat rules or the Army Builder scheme. So instead of having tournament points awarded only for decisive victory/defeat, marginal victory/defeat, and draw, someone who fielded a cavalry brigade, particularly an organic one, could have their tournament points reduced. Thus some one who fielded eg Austrian Avant Garde with Hussar support could win all their games, but find they didn't do as well as someone who fielded eg a Russian Infantry Division with infantry support. Of course, any reduction would have to be chosen carefully, to avoid an army being penalised too much.

Perhaps this idea could be combined with Cam Millar's points system, so that other weaknesses/strengths could also weight the tournament points. This could be the answer to for poor armies, such as the Saxons, who may need their organic cavalry brigade to offset the low quality of their infantry, and so could gain points for havimg a weak core, even if they lost points for their organic cavalry. No-one is prevented from fielding the army they want, but they will know that fielding a powerful army may not be the way to tournament success.

I haven't yet tried to develop this idea into a detailed scheme. I'd be interested to hear what others think, as no doubt there are some problems with it that I haven't considered. Those in NZ my want to add it to their deliberations. I can see that it isn't a full answer to the problem, but maybe a partial answer is enough, if it leaves the core rules unaffected.

Posted 8 months ago #
jmderemer
Member

How about giving the squares an automatic tactical advantage over cavalry, irregardless of respective commanders? It should give the squares the required survivability, while not artificially limiting the cavalry's options.

As for cavalry lurking around squares, I don't see a good solution (aside from derision).

Posted 8 months ago #
heybetty
Member

@ RogerC-"If we see this as a tournament problem, perhaps we can find a tournament-specific solution. The cavalry/infantry issue seems most acute in core + 1 games, which is the army format for most tournaments."

I think your right RogerC.....it is a tournament issue. If you take the +1 as cavalry in a tournament size game, there's not much for it to do other than.... go forward. With such limited turns etc... everyone is going to want and get their moneys worth out of them, you might as well chance your hand. You'll always get a disproportionate number of chargers on squares by cavalry, with this size game I think.
jmderemer has a point though, if this is having an adverse effect on tournaments and making them skewed. Perhaps some sort of "tornament specific solution" is the answer. A little thinking......."outside the square" (sorry it had to come up didn't it?).....might be the key.
My suggestion....( for what it's worth ) would be to limit the number of times you could take a Cavalry option in a comp...as a whole. This would be in keeping with the spirit of Lasalle, while reducing their domination in the majority of games. Some players might want to keep their cav options for particular games or finals for example.

Anyway it's a world cup year and are you Kiwi's going to break your mojo ? or are you going to trip at the last hurdle......again? ( oh no I'm in for it now ) ..........:-)

Posted 8 months ago #
Mycenius
Member

FWIW the games Cam & I have played have clearly highlighted its an an issue, but only in small games where the base force + only 1 Support tends to disproportionately inflate or magnify the effect of cavalry. Our larger games have shown that it tends to reduce proportionately as the game size increases and I'd expect that to be borne out by future games - principally because (a) cavalry become a smaller percentage of the the total force on average as the game size increases, and (b) when the odd extremes do happen (unharmed fresh square collapses, or some cav linger amongst enemy infantry) its far less significant to the overall game result...

I think being able to run tournaments with 2 supports instead of 1 would help mitigate things without needing any tinkering and make games a bit more balanced... And for non-tournament games people should look to try and play will full historical-sized divisions or so - certainly Cam and I found our Crossroads Game (http://wp.me/p1tQoa-I1) to be a pretty perfect size to have a decent amount of troops a side and still play rapidly in just a few hours...

Posted 8 months ago #
MarkGrindlay
Member

I'd just like to note to Sam that it is never too early for a Cavalry commander to be drunk!

but that Blucher knew exactly what he was facing - a partially deployed (less than a full division, strung out along the road) French force - and it was his visions of Rassbach which coloured his view.

Equally, Davout knew to expect this, and had specifically drilled his men in forming squares off-set with gun support in the expectation of exatly this happening.

further, the paintings show that the particular part of the field was ideal for cavalry charges, and the fog had basically lifted - the prussian guns firing on prussians earlier in the morning while blucher gathered cavalry from other formations was when the fog was a factor.

no, that charge was the classic example of cavalry over estimating their abilities and understimating their target. nothing would have broken those squares, their morale and training was far too good.

Posted 8 months ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

" Blucher knew exactly what he was facing - a partially deployed (less than a full division, strung out along the road) French force - and it was his visions of Rassbach which coloured his view."

That's a reasonable speculation, but the recollections I've read from Prussians who were in that force, talk about not being able to see 20 paces in front of them. The officers of the Ansbach-Bayreuth Dragoons, for instance, half of whose regiment had been left behind on the Eckartsberg, couldn't see the battle at all, just flashes of light through the mist. They were astonished to be attacked, out of the fog, by French chasseurs, who completely surprised them and routed them.

I've been in Jena in early October. It's beautiful, but often densely shrouded in fog until well into the afternoon. The maps don't do justice to the steepness of those mountains that ring the city, and trap the moist air in that valley.

Posted 8 months ago #
Ratisbon
Member

Might be interesting to try Blucher's charges in Lasalle a few times to see what happens. What would the scenario look like in Lasalle terms?

My guess is some of the French squares are going to be knocked over, and the Prussian cavalry will usually get away without any loss.

Cam

Posted 8 months ago #
heybetty
Member

@Mycenius - "FWIW the games Cam & I have played have clearly highlighted its an an issue, but only in small games where the base force + only 1 Support tends to disproportionately inflate or magnify the effect of cavalry. Our larger games have shown that it tends to reduce proportionately as the game size increases and I'd expect that to be borne out by future games - principally because (a) cavalry become a smaller percentage of the the total force on average as the game size increases, and (b) when the odd extremes do happen (unharmed fresh square collapses, or some cav linger amongst enemy infantry) its far less significant to the overall game result...

I think being able to run tournaments with 2 supports instead of 1 would help mitigate things without needing any tinkering and make games a bit more balanced..."

Yep, I agree...just depends on how many games they want to play in a comp.

Posted 8 months ago #
Mycenius
Member

Yep - especially if you limit cavalry to only 1 support choice _or_ (integral to) the base force - that way you get a more balanced ratio of cav to inf for comp games. With larger forces or specific scenarios it's not critical but with the smaller AB List games you can get some wildly unbalanced forces that while not unhistorical are unbalanced for smaller sized tournament armies.

Cam is right above - in the grander scheme about the charge results IMO - but the coarseness of the scale for the dice/combat mechanics in Lasalle limit what further can be done (in terms of combat factors/modifiers/etc) without creating new issues on the flip side...

Posted 8 months ago #
heybetty
Member

yeah it's tuff.....a fiddle with the machanics could open a whole new can of worms.

Sam- " We could add more modifiers to reflect those sorts of things, I suppose, or we could just let the overall chance embrace them. " - yep for sure IMHO

Don't know what the answer is for the Core +1 tourneys.

Posted 8 months ago #
Mycenius
Member

@Sam: We could add more modifiers to reflect those sorts of things, I suppose, or we could just let the overall chance embrace them.

@heybetty: yep for sure IMHO

Yes I agree totally - many rulesets that rely on fairly coarse effects/scales/factors (e.g. D6) inherently assume that - only major factors are represented by modifiers, lesser elements are subsumed into the random effect of the die probabilities...

@heybetty: Don't know what the answer is for the Core +1 tourneys.

.
No - Me neither FWIW - I don't think there is much that can be done easily - Cam's view is largely right IMO, that simply cavalry can be too numerous in many games... And while Lasalle can represent any Divisional sized part of the battlefield (so it could quite rightly have a preponderance of cavalry), for tournament play it's simply too disparate - the obvious fix being to restrict the amount of cavalry - just for the Core +1 games - so perhaps you can only field a maximum of 2 small or 1 large unit - in that way there is still the increased likelihood of squares collapsing, but the overall probability is reduced by the infrequency of that type of combat rather than trying to fiddle with the rule mechanics...
.
Unfortunatley I didn't get to attend CTA, and haven't seen the lists of the various armies - but looking at LintMan's posts on his blog (see the CTA Thread), and without taking anything away from his wonderful result with 1815 Prussians (and his beautiful army), he did have a force that was (ignoring Artillery) 38% Cavalry on attack or 45% on defence! See the CTA Thread for link:
http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/forum/topic/a-call-to-call-to-arms-wellington-august-20-21-new-zealand/page/2

The other armies appeared to be (going from LintMan's blog) and assuming on Attack (i.e. all troops present and ignoring artillery):
1806 Young Guard + Inf Spt = 0% Cavalry
Peninsular French + Dragoons = about 30% Cavalry?
1806 Prussians (Cam) = I assume a couple of big Dragoon units - maybe 20%?
British Light Division = If Light Cav Support about 30%?
British Guards + Brunswickers = about 10% Cavalry?

So the 1815 Prussians with near 40% Cavalry on Attack (45% on defence) were the mounted force of the tournament (even if 60% of the cav were Landwehr) - I'm not saying that is the reason the 1815 Prussians did so well, but it makes you wonder how much it helped... :-)

Posted 8 months ago #
heybetty
Member

@Mycenius -
" Unfortunatley I didn't get to attend CTA, and haven't seen the lists of the various armies - but looking at LintMan's posts on his blog (see the CTA Thread), and without taking anything away from his wonderful result with 1815 Prussians (and his beautiful army), he did have a force that was (ignoring Artillery) 38% Cavalry on attack or 45% on defence! "

Yeah that's interesting when you break it down like that.......These numbers ( on the surface ) are more like a SYW army. Not having a go at Lintman.

Posted 8 months ago #
Mycenius
Member

Yeah that's interesting when you break it down like that.......These numbers (on the surface) are more like a SYW army. Not having a go at Lintman.

Yep exactly - it's a good example of Cam's point which I agree with - that in the smaller AB List Games there is just too much Cav for a typical Napoleonic battlefield (that is effectively representing at most the area of a single division and more often less than that when Core +1 Support)... It's a very "Napoleon's Battle" type of army appearance-wise - being more a scaled down microcosm of a full army (or at least a Corps), with a proportion of everything, rather than a 1:1 model of a (Infantry) Division at battalion level that might at best have a Regiment, or two, of Cav nearby in support if its lucky... And Sam's clearly fudged the lists a little to make them that scaled down microcosm rather than true 1:1 representations, which contributes to the issue...

Note that Cam's posted in the CTA Thread he had the 1806 Prussian Cav Reserve Bde - so 4 units of Dragoons/Cuirassiers - so his Prussians were also about 27% Cavalry - albeit noticeably less than all the other armies bar the Young Guard & British Guards!

I'm assuming the Brit Light Division had Cav Bde for Support as well, so it means two-thirds of the Armies were 27% to 40% Cavalry (or if on Defence 30% to 45% ). So it's no wonder there were sufficient unforced square collapses occurring over the tournament to make it seem like more than the entire Napoleonic Wars put together! :-)

Especially when the Cav is Organic and on the table on Turn 1... ;-)

As above I personally don't think Core +1 Support tournaments should allow that much cavalry - and certainly not organic if it's more than a single Regiment.

With Core +2 it's easy, by just saying (for tournaments at least) you get 1 'group' of cavalry - whether its in your Core Force (e.g. 1-2 Regiments) or in one of your supports (e.g. Cav Brigade of 2-4 Regiments) - and/or by adopting Cam's suggestion all Cav should be treated as Reserve.

:-)

Posted 8 months ago #
jmderemer
Member

I'm not a tournament player (not enough of us in the area), so maybe my observations aren't appliccable.

In most of our games, whether Core + 1 or Core +2, the cavalry spends most of the game fighting each other until one side has the ascendancy. Then it feels free to stick its nose into the infantry fight. Quite often they're too late: the battle is pretty much resolved, and all they can do is pursue the beaten foe or cover the retreat.

So we rarely have cavalry-infantry fights.

Posted 8 months ago #
Ratisbon
Member

Where both sides has cavalry on table at the same time the game works fine - as you say, the cavalry tend to cancel each other.

The problem is where one side has more or better cavalry than the other. If say Austrians take their Organic 4x Valiant Hussars and the other guy either does not have cavalry, or has taken Reserve cavalry, or has rubbish Organic cavalry (= British!) I don't think the game works that well. You do start to get the cav v inf interaction.

Down here we are just trying to find a way so players don't all turn up to games with similar core + Organic cavalry, or the guy who takes the best core + Organic cavalry always wins.

Cam

Posted 8 months ago #
heybetty
Member

Cavalry's job was to support the infantry, I think everyone agrees this was their historical duty, to keep the enemys cavalry at bay so the infantry could do their stuff. This and to clean up afterwards. They were never expected to hold ground. Perhaps you could bring in a tournament ruling regarding taking or holding objective markers with cavalry.

Posted 8 months ago #
Nick the Lemming
Member

The problem is where one side has more or better cavalry than the other. If say Austrians take their Organic 4x Valiant Hussars and the other guy either does not have cavalry, or has taken Reserve cavalry, or has rubbish Organic cavalry (= British!) I don't think the game works that well. You do start to get the cav v inf interaction.

I disagree. My game last week was against Austrian Infantry with Hussars, and I had Cuirassiers (so reserve). When the Hussars came forward and attacked my infantry, I went into square. A few turns later, my cuirassiers came on. I ended up losing 2 units to the cavalry in the game, but when you have 3 Hussars attacking one square, that's to be expected. I narrowly won, by the way, so it clearly isn't impossible to have a good game when facing organic cavalry with your own reserve cavalry. My opponent was one of the best players we have at the club too (he's won several championships, including at least one Nationals win). Squares did sometimes collapse after all, and expecting supersquares to be able to resist cavalry 100% is frankly ludicrous. I think the current rules have it fine as far as squares vs cavalry goes.

Posted 8 months ago #
Mycenius
Member

I think the current rules have it fine as far as squares vs cavalry goes.

I don't think anyone is saying it's broken Nick - just that it's unbalanced, primarily in small Core +1 Support games where its disproportionately significant...

So in your game you had 2 Inf Squares ridden over by Cavalry - that'd be what ~16%-30% of your Infantry? Even allowing for the fact Lasalle is a small snapshot of a larger battle it just seems pretty high when you start seeing it in nearly every game at those same ratios (versus what the history books tell us)...

Nice Blog BTW - I'm adding a link on mine.

John
Wargaming.info

Posted 8 months ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.