Ease of combined arms « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Rules Questions

Ease of combined arms

(50 posts) (18 voices)

Started 1 year ago by MarkGrindlay
Latest reply from Biggreenbugeyedmonster

Tags:

No tags yet.

« Previous 12

blucher
Member

"These are the Mecklembourg-Strelitz Hussar Regiment (4 sq.) from 2nd Brigade of Yorck's 1st corp - which remained as that brigade's cavalry during the battle."

Interestingly this was the last unit I painted in my 1813 prussian army (details on my blog). My whole force was based on Yorks corps.

Good bit of research there. We still have to remember though that its far less likely people will report small cavalry actions compared to large, fancy ones.

I am yet to see any rule set that makes it hard to coordinate cavalry and infantry despite this being a well known problem. Someone earlier quoted F&F but this just makes it hard to coordinate units in general, whatever type they are.

Posted 1 year ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

I've been reading Mike Robinson's brilliant 'The Battle of Quatre Bras 1815'.
Cavalry and infantry units in some cases were intermingled. However, the closest to combined attacks was when infantry formed into square when threatened by cavalry, and were then extremely vulnerable to the fire of enemy skirmishers and artillery. But no actual combined infantry/cavalry assaults as such.

The book is also interesting for how infantry who were close to the Bois de Bossou chose to move into the sanctuary of the wood when threatened by French cavalry rather than form square in the open (an answer to an earlier question by Sam).

Posted 1 year ago #
MarkGrindlay
Member

It was the specific report of a combined attack which struck me, actually.

by contrast, I'm reading Duffy's old book on Austerlitz at teh moment as well, and he specifically reports both Frnch and Russian infantry seeing off cavalry attackes without forming square on the pratzen and the northern flank at times in the battle.

the frnach example being the most specific - and being against top quality Russain cavalry (the russian example being against a french formation which already sounded well used that day).

no doubt someone will eventually get into the archives are read all the individual battle field reports from the regimental commanders, and compile them into a coherent narrative, and that is when we will get access to the small cavalry actions.

Posted 1 year ago #
rpardo
Member

I have not a full knowledge of all combats and battles fought by the post-1806 Prussians, but I think that the assignement of cavalry to the Prussian brigades was, in the practice, limited to recconnaissance duties.
The 'combined arms' attack seems to me a wargaming idea. My opinion is that real commanders were not used to play chess with their units. A true 'combined arms' attack will need a careful planning... and an enemy willing to fall in the trap.
Regards

Rafa
Wargaming with Napoleonic Miniatures
Project Leipzig
Alkaid Ediciones Forum

Posted 1 year ago #
MarkGrindlay
Member

Hi Rafa,

This was the point of my long post - I actually found a specific example where a cavalry unit and an infantry unit charged an infantry unit at the same time.

Its rarity struck me.

Generally, you are correct - the threat of cavalry force the infantry into square.
artillery and skirmishers then shoot the square to bits - or a threat of an infantry charge breaks the square - and the square breaks and runs. the cavalry then run down the routers in pursuit.

Given the scale of game Lasalle is, its a tiny bit sad that we abstract this into a combined arms attack in the melee phase - but I seem to recall Sam saying that his play testers expected to have a phase where they fight after a charge, so he had no have it in the rules, and it had to be effective, since its what you do to end a firefight.

Posted 1 year ago #
vilcum
Member

its a tiny bit sad that we abstract this into a combined arms attack in the melee phase that abstraction works quite well, In my humble opinion the problem most people ([] of those who thinks there is any problem of course[/i]) it is not the combined arms effects but the easiness to do them, creating sort of mixed combat organizations interspecing cavalry and infantry units. As MarkGrindlay points you can find examples but its rarity shows by itself it was no way the common ocurrence.

If commanders of the time didn´t make that I am sure it is not because they dont see the advantages, but because it was not doable with their contemporary tactics doctrine, training etc.

I like very much Sam´s philosophy about forcing people to do certain “historical” things [lasalle rulebook pg 130]. "If there were sound reasons for doing things, then the game should reflect that in the normal course of play." In this subject (combined arms) I think the game should reflect the actual problems of mixing combat formations, specially from different services/commands.

Posted 1 year ago #
Peoples_Republic
Member

Hi,

You can quote and find any battle to justify certain things but As touched on, At this scale a few brigades, a large division, In reality there was less likely to be this perfect combined arms for the army size. or the nicely balanced added on brigade lists. And fair enough it wouldn't happen all the time but this can be justified by saying it could be a segment of a larger battle.So my point is, its the List fault that you can combine arms because they are there at that level. We have to remember what lasalles is. Its a Tournament Battalion level game which can be played in a few hours meeting between 2 people that haven't researched a battle or prepared, giving the flavour of Napoleonic warfare. I feel it does that very well. And the 28 mm eye candy attracts me as well lol.

All wargames have that problem. The perfect timming of attacks from different flanks and knowing when a unit a mile away is ready to attack too. The cavalry changing flanks instantly when the other flank is in danger of being overwhelmed. The bigger problem is the panoramic view the commander has of the battle field and the pace he can re act to attacks on different parts of the field.
I would like to point out that I guess The turns are 20 min to hour long as a moving scale averaging say half an hour. So in fact the infantry may have gone in and the cavalry backed it up but not at the same instant. For the purpose of lasalle it happened within the same turn time frame. This happened alot at waterloo with the British cavalry evenly spaced out behind the british line. Even the french sent in the infantry and straight after the cavalry went in for the next attack. Although it wasnt a combined attacked in reality. It is in wargaming because they happened within a hour of one another. So in wargamming, Waterloo was one great combined attack. That is there was an infantry attack then a cavalry attack and so on. And thats why its a battle that is fun to wargame. It was quite balanced too.And thats another point Lasalle is attemping to balance battles. Most battles weren't so even though there famous battles there not good wargames.

If u want to make rules to lessen combined arms you can but at what cost.
Complicating the game.
Lengthing the game.
More dice throws to see if a attack goes in. That is making the game more random or reliant of luck. When in a wargame (and there are some out there) the Dice luck is more important than tactics that is dice throws are the main things that matter. well you may as well play craps or yatzhee.

So in saying all that. I think the rules are fine as they are. Maybe combined attacks are too easy. But they are too easy for both players. So if u build a list with balanced combined arms and use them that way you will be rewarded.(Rewarding tactics)

If u have to throw a dice to do a combined attack you are rewarding luck.

Cheers have fun guys.

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

[i]Maybe combined attacks are too easy. But they are too easy for both players. So if u build a list with balanced combined arms and use them that way you will be rewarded[i]

Which would be fine if all lists equally allowed this. But they don't. The British list is very limited in their cavalry options (only the weak D-B cavalry is organic). I also don't want to go to tournaments (like the last one I played) to fight Austrian infantry + hussar, Austrian infantry + hussar, Austrian AG + Hussar over and over again. I want to see variety in the armies I am playing and fighting against.

The short answer is that something will change - either groups will make their own changes (as some NZ players are thinking for the next tournament at the end of this month), or a consensus change will end up approved by Sam.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
Prinny
Member

To add to what Cam has said, I personally think that the British list is on a hiding to nothing using the AB lists, not that it will stop me playing with them this month but I wont be winning any games with them.

As to our tweaks this is what I have put forward ( as one of those horrible people who have only just started play Napoleonic wargames and not knowing the correct way to game the period :) )

1, Competition point system
Major Victory 6pts
Minor Victory 5 Pts
Draw (Winning) 3 Pts
Draw (Losing) 2 Pts
Minor Loss 2 Pts
Major Loss 1 Pt
In a draw the army that has lost the most amount of break points is the loser.
+ 1 pt if you lost but broke the army

2, At deployment all commands must be placed in range of their sub commander, if there is an organic option on the table at the start this must also be put down to be in command of its sub general and not intermixed with any other troops. Core troops can be placed out of command of the sub commander as long a they are under the control of the CinC

3, Terrain, I personally think that formed cav should not be able to drive out troops from any type of terrain so on this .

Infantry is not half dice if fighting in terrain

4, To give the defender a better chance the attacker has to test on 4 dice to see if he is broken unless he is within 4 BW of the objective.

Well i have my body armor on so lets see what you all think of those........

Posted 1 year ago #
Ashur_dan
Member

Hi

I like the idea that you have several support options available and at some point (after terrain but before deployment) you dice to find which of the support options is to be used.

I use this in solo games. I guess it also depends on having the figures to flesh out the options as well.

For example:

French Infantry Division core plus one of (roll a dice):

1: Light Cavalry
2: Cuirassiers
3: Veteran Infantry
4: Elite Infantry
5: Polish Infantry
6: Polish Lancers

British Infantry Division core plus one of (roll a dice):

1: Light Cavalry
2: Heavy Dragoons
3: Brunswick Brigade
4: Portugeuse Brigade
5: Infantry
6: Whatever.

Fight with what you have! Or even better two support options a side, good chance of obtaining Cavalry, but also additional infantry.

regards

Stephen

Posted 1 year ago #
MarkGrindlay
Member

I think the most significant of the options prinny proposed, is the one forcing organic units to start within command rang of their subcommander.

As Cam said, the checkerboard cav and inf only works if you put the lot under the cnc's command, and get the subcommanders out of the way.

for my part l I think it would be easier and simpler to have the commander in chief only able to exert command over 1 unit per game turn.

but as Sam has already said on this thread, he doesn't see a need for a change as yet, and I have to say I tend to agree with him, so far.

Posted 1 year ago #
Rupert of Hentzau
Member

Mark, I have Austrians and hope to run them as the 1805 option using Linear tactics when I have enough figures. I could not deploy the core force with all the units in command of the sub general. The Cin C just has to lend a hand.

I think forcing the add-on force only to deploy with its commander should be enough to tie up the larger cavalry forces.

Though I would note that the Austrians were renowned for splitting up their cavalry into penny packets in the early years. Many infantry brigades had 2 squadrons of cavalry attached in 1805.

Bryan

Posted 1 year ago #
Peoples_Republic
Member

Hi,
Since this discussion started I have been looking at Combined attacks and I think they were a major common tactic along with, cav vs cav, threatening flanks. Cav vs Infantry and scounting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo
""Many popular histories suggest that the British heavy cavalry were destroyed as a viable force following their first, epic charge. Examination of eyewitness accounts reveal, however, that far from being ineffective, they continued to provide very valuable services. They counter-charged French cavalry numerous times (both brigades),[86] ****halted a combined cavalry and infantry attack****** (Household Brigade only),[87][88] were used to bolster the morale of those units in their vicinity at times of crisis, and filled gaps in the Anglo-Allied line caused by high casualties in infantry formations (both brigades).[89] This service was rendered at a very high cost, as close combat with French cavalry, carbine fire, infantry musketry and – more deadly than all of these – artillery fire steadily eroded the number of effectives[90] in the two brigades. At the end of the fighting the two brigades, by this time combined, could muster only a few composite squadrons""

""Eventually it became obvious, even to Ney, that cavalry alone were achieving little. Belatedly, *****he organised a combined-arms attack,******* using Bachelu's division and Tissot's regiment of Foy's division from Reille's II Corps (about 6,500 infantrymen) plus those French cavalry that remained in a fit state to fight. This assault was directed along much the same route as the previous heavy cavalry attacks.[103] It was halted by a charge of the Household Brigade cavalry led by Uxbridge. The British cavalry were unable, however, to break the French infantry, and fell back with losses from musketry fire.""

If you go to the site there a numbers and links to the references

Also Ive got a good site with peninsular battle maps with arrows of the units. And I would say in half of the battles the french did a combined attack.
So I feel it is realistic to have it as common place.
It may be easier to do one on a wargames table but so are all the other manauvers and the timing of attacks as I've touched on.

Cheers

Posted 1 year ago #
Prinny
Member

Im not saying combined attacks didnt happen, what I am saying is that as a game option it is making some armies auto wins against others.
As Bryan knows first hand his austrians with supporting hussars have steam rolled my british twice now, and apart from one battalion of foot rolling crazy good dice last game which dragged the result out the loss still came to my brits as it should of with our match up.

The option to have organic cavalry on the table and in some cases 5 or 6 units which is almost the same amount of battalions of foot that I start with is killing my enjoyment of the game to the stage that I am seriously thinking of taking a break from this rule set.

Yes I could play scenarios but pick up club games or tourny games are what I and other at our club like, that is what got us interested in this rule set.

Posted 1 year ago #
MarkGrindlay
Member

Hi Bryan, I see your point - and I am pretty sure it features in Sams thinking about no change required also.

but there is a difference between a CnC commanding the entire attack alone as Cam reports, and a CnC enabling an overstreatched sum commander to keep all his guys in order.

(your Austrians sound mean).

Peoples_Republic.

this sii a definition problem. A combined arms attack in lasalle means cavalry and infantry charging the same batallion of infantry on the same turn at the same time.

A combined arms attach at Waterloo means having cavalry and infantry attacking the same divisional target area. it does not mean that both forces are actually charging the same thing at the same time, but that the threat of the cavalry forces the defender into squa and then...

you cannot draw one from the other to make a fair comparison.

Posted 1 year ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

Hi People's Republic,
Some people might not consider Wikipedia as a wholly reliable source! I think if you look in greater detail at the so-called "combined arms" attacks made at Waterloo, it was French artillery and some skirmishers pushed forwards to shoot up the British squares between cavalry charges. I don't believe there was anything remotely resembling a coordinated attack by cavalry and formed infantry battalions.

You write "I would say in half of the battles the french did a combined attack."
Can you name those battles?

As far as I can tell, the closest to "combined attacks" in the Peninsula were:
Albuera. This wasn't interweaving units though - it was a French cavalry brigade that managed to get behind the exposed rear of a British brigade who were engaged to their front.
Salamanca. This wasn't interweaving of units though. Leith's British Division had just smashed the French division opposite, and Le Marchant's heavy cavalry brigade charged in to turn the French defeat into a catastrophe. The French infantry may have in some cases been in square when the British infantry attacked them (and therefore at a disadvantage) because of the risk of LeMarchant's dragoons.

Posted 1 year ago #
Peoples_Republic
Member

Hi
Biggreenbugeyedmonster

1)No ones come up with proof that it didn't happen. could I have some.( wiki's a bit better than one post saying I havent read it happening)They are large battles and they just dont go in to that detail. But if on a battle map cavalry follow the same path as the infantry chances are they fought together and they definately affected The infantry clash.Wouldnt either force going in one after the other produce the same hardship as a combined attack)
2) All wargames are abstract. The melees and the firing are very abstract.So why are u worried about abstracting attack and influence of cavalry if it didnt go in at the exact time but would have happened within a wargames turn. So your also saying cavalry joining a battalion fight in the reaction phase. isn't right also? Oh no we need to buy another errated rule book.Lets start again. All other Napoleonic rules I'v play have had combined attacks.
3) actually at waterloo and the ones that did the best combined arms and the reason that they won was the Allies. Wellington roughly split the large Cavalry unit brigades into 3 units and put 1 on each flank and one in the middle and they supported the infantry most of the battle and plugged holes when the french broke through.

The 3rd day of fuentes de Onoro is where cavalry and infantry combined. You check out all these Peninsula battles. You might learn something. A lot the battles didn't have cavalry but because of the small amounts of cavalry in some of them there was definatley combined arms.

Rolica
Vimiero
Sahagun
Benavente
Cacobelos (Villafranca)
Corunna
Oporto
Cadiz
Talavera
Bussaco
Fuentes de Onoro
Barrossa
Albuera
Ciudad Rodrigo
Badajoz
Salamanca
Burgos
Vitoria
San Sebastian
Sorauren
Saragossa
Bailen
Somosierra
Garcia Hernandez
Madrid
Tudela
Pan Corbo
Valmaceda
Ocana
Valencia
Bayonne
Arroyo dos Molinos
Medillin
Medina del Rio Seco
Almeida
Toulouse
Vera

Cheers

Posted 1 year ago #
Prinny
Member

"Peoples_Republic

2) All wargames are abstract. The melees and the firing are very abstract.So why are u worried about abstracting attack and influence of cavalry if it didnt go in at the exact time but would have happened within a wargames turn. So your also saying cavalry joining a battalion fight in the reaction phase. isn't right also? Oh no we need to buy another errated rule book.Lets start again. All other Napoleonic rules I'v play have had combined attacks."

I think we are worried about it because it is throwing up odd events during a game, and meaning that we starting to have more WTF moments, the good thing about the counter charge is that it can save the very issue we have but again some armies are able to do this alot better than others.

Maybe this is just one of those things that we wont agree on, i have no doubt that other rulesets had combined arm attacks, but at the same time how many of these rules said they could be used for pick up games or got people other than your tradional Naps wargamer to paint up some battalions.

Posted 1 year ago #
Peoples_Republic
Member

Hi prinny

Look I understand where you are comming from. But its not the combines arms. Its the lists.I understand a nice tournament size is a core army and a brigade choice for time and size of table. But its causing some people to take up to 60% cavalry others hardly any.theres going to be a lot of combined arms if theres that many cavalry to infantry which is the thing that is unusal.But its like that to give a small force variety.
In all tournament lists theres going to be the orcs, italians, what ever lol.I like the british and wellington never lost a battle but I've found the line and musket fire on the wargames table wont stand up to 2, 3, units in coloum attacking it and because its in line u get 2 to 3 units throwing melee dice against one and they just wont hold .doesnt even matter wether there infantry or cavalry attacking them.
When I saw the list I knew straight away it was going to be hard for the british to compete at tournament level but in saying that there are some bonuses the british have.
And if u like defending being cautous staying in cover and not spreading out your units they might work for u. the reason theres a poor cavalry choice for the british im guessing is that the British had independant cavalry brigades.

Cheers

Posted 1 year ago #
Biggreenbugeyedmonster
Member

People's Republic:

1) "No ones come up with proof that it didn't happen. could I have some [sic]."

That is logically impossible to do - it is not possible to prove a negative. (In this case, what you are doing is called an "argument from ignorance", in which you rely on your own lack of evidence to validate your conclusion). You have made the claim that something "definatley" happened, so it is incumbent upon you to provide the proof.

2) "All wargames are abstract."

Yes. In this case the debate is that the abstraction of the rules is creating common tactics on the tabletop that very rarely happened historically.

3) Regarding your claims about Waterloo - the nearest to a "combined arms" attack was after Picton's division had stopped and disordered the assault of D'Erlon's corps, and the French were then charged by the two British heavy cavalry brigades. What we are describing in this thread is combined-arms attacks.

4) Regarding your list of Peninsula battles, there is a detailed history of those battles in Oman's 'History of the Peninsula War' - in this case there is "evidence of absence" (i.e. in none of those battles is there any evidence that were there any combined attacks, except for possibly LeMarchant's charge at Salamanca as I described above). As to your claim "in some of them there was definatley [sic] combined arms", where is your proof?

As to your claim about Fuentes d'Onoro "where cavalry and infantry combined", you are sadly mistaken. You could try reading, say, Oman's 'Peninsula War' (esp. pages 323 onwards).

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

« Previous 12

Reply

You must log in to post.