Anybody had a game decided by them? Had an extended one in a game at all?
Most of the games I've had the tendency is to charge as soon as in range, since there is little downside.
Perfectly historical for me with 1813 French conscripts zooming around in attack columns but doesn't really fit other armies.
Thoughts?
That is what happened down here and kinda killed a bit of interest in the rules.
In with the bayonet, and no one stopped to shoot.
cheers
Hi Guys...Ive played quite a few games and mucketry is very important ...remember sometimes its good to fall back, and keep shooting especially with good SK value troops....then hit the assaulting columns :)
Paul
I agree that falling back is a viable tactic to someone charging you. In fact on another thread where someone questioned why the defender would ever advance to meet the attack - one reason is to give yourself room to evade.
But it seems to me the reason to evade is not to shoot but so you can charge in your turn, and therefore become the attacker in the close combat - which is a huge advantage. My main criticism of the rules (and overall I think they're great) is that in close combat there is so little consequence to losing decisively when you're charging. This is particularly evident with cavalry facing squares where it's a no-brainer to just charge them because you can't be shot on the way in and it's a reasonable chance you take out the square anyway.
except that cavalry always comes out of combat with a Disruption win or lose, cannot charge when its down to its last one and are brittle when ony 4 bases
was musketry ever really dominant in this period? Most armies broke i believe at the end of the bayonette (or at least the prospect of it)
When you look at the odds over multiple turns between equal units, the edge is with the defender standing shooting over the attacker charging. The attacker "thinks" charging is a no-lose situation; but in reality the defender will have 2 shots at them, and they are more likely to lose combat. They can be left 1BW in front of enemy with 3 DISR.
But it does not feel like that.
Charging provides a noticeable result - I can kill the defender in one go. We remember those times. But I don't think players notice how many times they lose a unit from a combination of shooting and lost combats over several turns.
I think a lot depends on the initial volley by the defender before they are charged. If they can put on a DISR before the enemy charge the odds move in their favour. They can put a 2nd DISR with defensive fire and a 3rd DISR not losing the combat.
But if they fail their first shot (or the enemy are an uber unit), falling back or changing formation to halve the charger's dice is a better option since the odds are not as good standing and shooting.
Cam
Cam beat me to it - this is of course replying to Borodino
Which gives them 3 goes at it, ignoring rallies. So they can do it for nearly half the basic game length, hardly brittle. In three games I've done it with an amateur Chasseur regt (and so harder to rally) and had it done to me by a Cuirassier regt at their first atempt (admittedly a large unit). Maybe that's an unusually large number but it still seems too chancy for the defender and the cavalry recover way too fast despite being decisively beaten.
In reality cavalry facing an already formed square would sit and observe because they know they have nearly zero chance of breaking the square and if they do charge they'll get shot to pieces and spend the next couple of hours behind their lines reforming.
I'n not suggesting firing should dominate over charging, just that charging against an opponent who hasn't been softened up should be dangerous.
That's true Cam, and this is probably where more games will show the real story, which is what my original question was trying to discover - people's perception of the infantry-infantry balance.
I suppose also that the charger is also shooting prior to charging and considering the skirmish factors this is representing quite a lot of musketry as is.
I think in the three games I saw one attacking infantry unit attritioned to death as you mention.
Also I guess that 1813 French with 11/13 amateur units is not an army that should be contemplating standing back shooting anyway :-)
Actually my reply was to you - about infantry v infantry.
In terms of cav v infantry, I have not lost a lot of squares to cavalry alone (but have too many times to combined arms).
The key for the infantry seems to be trying to get supporting shooters in position to shoot at the cavalry. What you want is for the cavalry to take a shot on the way in from a supporting unit, bounce with a DISR from the square, and be left sitting in front of shooters again being shot at.
I recall one game where I charged British inf. A 6 stand supporting unit shot at me. I bounced in combat and was left not far from the square with 2DISR. The supporting unit wheeled around on my flank to shoot again. I now had nowhere to go - even moving backwards 4BW would not get me out of shooting arc. I could not wheel to charge the enemy shooters, and I could not go forward due to the square. I think I charged the square again, fell back and was killed by shooting.
Having your cavalry support the squares is the other solution.
And using terrain is another obvious factor - specially if you play the variant that cav halve dice in bad terrain.
Cam
On shooting - one of the Wellington guys I played at Call to Arms (Tim?) set his British infantry up pretty well getting interlocking fire zones. There were a couple of times I thought "if I move my cavalry to attack his infantry he will have 12 shots at my cavalry unit, I will charge and take another 8 shots, and if I bounce off, I might end up in range of another 8 shots if his infantry advance.
Since he is used to having his infantry fight alone with no cavalry he may have some useful views.
Also - I think all cavalry should be Reserve, so cavalry charging infantry should be rarer than it is now...
Cam
Sorry Cam - I meant my second post was in answer to Borodino, not yours, you posted your first one while I was still typing :-)
I guess I'm never really that comfortable with answering perceived issues with the rules by saying "but if you play x way it doesn't happen..." because you shouldn't have to change tactics to make things come out correctly. I admit that a single cavalry unit vs a single infantry unit isn't that common but if it happens then the possible results should be about right. At the moment I think they're a bit off in favour of the cavalry. Certainly if you throw two cavalry units at separate sides of the square it becomes a very dicey proposition for the infantry whereas in reality I doubt it would make any difference (or even be a sensible idea for the cavalry charging at right angles to each other).
Combined arms is a completely different story I agree.
Regarding the infantry only fight I think maybe then this is just a case of seeing what more games bring.
I absolutely agree with your central idea. Cavalry are too effective IMO:
* Cavalry have a reasonable chance of knocking over a square straight up. If they are Large Valiant lancers, or two cav units attacking one square, the odds are nearly 50%.
* Combined arms attacks are overly effective - the infantry are toast.
* Cavalry are demons against infantry in terrain. Having Lancers as uber weapons in a forest makes no sense to me.
But you have to use what you have got. It is a matter of finding out how to use infantry given the rules - the best way seems to be to have your own cavalry!
Personally this is why I favour all cavalry being Reserves as the smallest possible tweak to the rules. If you want your cavalry you gotta wait for them and you have not got long to use them. You can expect a charge or two by game end.
But there are other options.
I think after a few more games, our club just need to come up with our preferred tweaks - preferably harmonising with the Wellington guys for some NZ house rules.
Cam
Mike/Cam i take the point - i have lost squares before to a single unit cavalry charge (which should be rarer than Hen's teeth) let alone multiple/combined charges
There is too much cavalry in the game and its too effective IMO. There is a sub-group of us here that's actually moving away from this with LaSalle, which is my favourite Nappy ruleset by a country mile.
Core/Organic Reserve Cavalry (in those other than Saxons etc) is my biggest bugbear with the whole game though.
James
Hi
Newbie to rules (only 2 games under belt) but I too see Cavalry as rather too effective especially vs squares (we saw 3 ridden by heavy Cav down last game 2 of which were undamaged/steady).
House rule options we are considering are:
"No bonus dice awarded against squares"
or
"Square have double dice vs Cavalry (after deductions for Disr)"
For Musketry we are considering:
"+1 Disr for Cav target to any Disr result achieved on fire table"
and/or
"+1 dice vs Attack Column or Cavalry Waves"
Great set of highly playable rules but we are finding these issues as problems in the 'great game, poor history' bracket.....................
Cheers
sgtsteiner.blogspot.com
I think the key things wrong with cavalry in all Napoleonic sets I've played (going back to Bruce Quarrie's Airfix rules from the 70s, so there have been a few), so not just LaSalle, are:
1. They should be more vulnerable to all types on shooting, because they were - there are plenty of accounts of infantry being bombarded for hours and taking it but it never happened to cavalry, because they would have been scattered in minutes. So maybe extra dice or easier hits vs cavalry.
2. They recover far too quickly after close combat, especially heavies. To my mind cavalry had a couple of charges in them at most then the horses needed a major rest. Looking at Waterloo as an example of a very long battle most cavalry activity (apart from the 2 big actions) was trotting about the field supporting, threatening and making feint charges. So I would have cavalry falling back from an indecisive result as normal (representing a charge not carried home) but double or even triple the fall back from a decisive defeat.
Incidentally combined arms vs square - has anyone read an account of this being done? I can't recall one instance. Seem to be plenty of the cavalry pinning squares then calling up the horse artillery though. Maybe combined arms charges just shouldn't be allowed. You'd think they would have been a nightmare to arrange. For that matter why would a square be any more vulnerable to infantry than a column?
"1. They should be more vulnerable to all types on shooting, because they were - there are plenty of accounts of infantry being bombarded for hours and taking it but it never happened to cavalry, because they would have been scattered in minutes. So maybe extra dice or easier hits vs cavalry."
Hm, well, two thoughts on that:
a) I can think of plenty of historical examples of cavalry standing still for long periods under enemy fire. The French/Saxon/Westphalian heavies at Borodino are a famous example that springs readily to mind. The problem with all of those accounts, of course, is that they're not anything like scientific samples. How long, exactly, were they under fire? From how many guns, exactly? At what range? Under what conditions of visibility? And with how many casualties? And were those casualties spread evenly over the whole period of the shooting, or did they happen mostly all at one moment?
Ninety percent of the time we don't have any of that kind of information, merely some officer's memoirs, thirty years after the fact, remembering how terrible it was to have to stand there under enemy fire for what seemed like an awfully long time.
b) Even if we could agree on all of the above, then there's the question of systematizing it. In a game where a typical four-base unit can take three DISR and is then useless... What would it mean to make cavalry "more vulnerable" to shooting?
"2. They recover far too quickly after close combat, especially heavies... I would have cavalry falling back from an indecisive result as normal (representing a charge not carried home) but double or even triple the fall back from a decisive defeat."
Of course, if you had them falling back further than they do, then you're making it easier, not harder, for them to rally. One of the reasons the game uses short fall-back moves, is because it's harder to rally when near the enemy. If you want to recover DISR, you have to "waste" a move getting away from the enemy, and then rallying in your next turn. In a game where the average player has only about 10 turns, that's a real sacrifice. But if you let me fall back into prime rally position, I'll be back in action more quickly.
Consider also that you'll need 2 or 3 turns just to get your cavalry into action. And then let's say they're in action for two turns. By this point, the game is half over. If you pull them back to rally, you MIGHT be able to get their DISR off, in time to come back for another attempt, but maybe not. Consequently, cavalry tends to burn out pretty quickly, in our experience.
I have had the misfortune of having a square demolished in a charge, I still cant see why the opportunity to fire a volley at cavalry when in square is not allowed. (in principle perhaps 2 dice for a small unit and 3 for a large one)
it was practise once formed in square, the infantry would volley fire at approaching cavalry, either by file or by rank. In successful actions, the infantry would often withhold fire until the charging horses and men were some 30 metres from the square; the resulting casualties to the attackers would eventually form piles of dead and wounded horses and their riders which would obstruct further attacks.
this would at least allow the defender a better chance of putting an extra disr against the cavalry before the melee.
Allowing squares to shoot would require a couple of pages of new rules and exceptions. Since most squares have only one base facing in each direction, and since a single die can't possibly disrupt any target, you'll need to come up with some new shooting rules. If you gave a square 2 dice when shooting, for instance, then people will understandably want to know why a square now has as much firepower as an attack column.
Then of course there will be questions about whether or not the square can shoot multiple chargers on multiple sides. Does it get a shot, potentially, on every side, and if so, with how many dice? Or if the answer is No, then how do you decide which side of the square gets to shoot, and why that one side, but not the others?
For all those reasons, I steered clear of allowing squares to shoot.
If you really think that cavalry is too powerful against squares, you could always experiment with additional punishments for the cavalry, but since the CAV's dice are already halved, the chances of the square breaking are usually already pretty low.
Thanks Sam
Cavalry Vulnerability - Ok bombardment was a poor choice of words, a better phrasing of what I really meant would have been that I don't believe cavalry sat still under effective fire and that if they did they would take much more damage than infantry in the same circumstances. This to me should translate into a visible difference in vulnerability in the rules (which would make them probably the first rules I have ever seen to do so). I welcome arguments/evidence to the contrary.
I also completely agree that you have to be careful with rules changes that potentially unbalance the game - that why I was suggesting the increased bounce distance for cavalry who lose decisively in close combat when attacking. To me it's a fairly mild way of getting them out of the action without penalising them too much. The situation I'm thinking about is where you can throw a cavalry unit at a square repeatedly and the only damage they are taking from successive decisive losses is 1 Disr per attempt, and they're sitting there ready to try next turn. If they bounce back a long way then it means they would have to manoeuvre back into position. It also seems a more likely way for them to behave when beaten decisively - the unit is fragmented and drifts back as small groups/individuals to a place behind the lines to rally.
I agree re squares shooting - the shooting we're talking about there is already included in the close combat rules and they shouldn't be able to compete in any significant way with other infantry formations firepower.
" I don't believe cavalry sat still under effective fire and that if they did they would take much more damage than infantry in the same circumstances."
Sitting still, obviously, would be your decision. There are only three ways I'm aware of, for CAV to get shot by INF.
1. The CAV was for some reason just sitting there doing nothing, when infantry walked up to within musketry range, and then the CAV sat there again and did nothing, and then the INF in the next turn's Reaction Phase got to shoot at it. I'd submit that in that case, the CAV player has it coming.
OR:
2. The CAV charged the INF, and the defending player decided to stay in a Line formation and shoot, rather than change formation into Square. That's a fairly crazy decision on his part, since he'll do at most 1DISR against the charging cavalry, who will then cut him to pieces in the ensuing melee.
OR:
3. The CAV moved within musketry range but did not charge. Given that CAV has a movement rate that well exceeds the infantry's musketry range, this was obviously a deliberate decision to place one's cavalry in the field of fire. I would submit that in that case also, the Cav player has it coming.
*
Is there some other common circumstance I'm forgetting, in which infantry could shoot cavalry?
I suppose it's possible that CAV could charge, bounce off an infantry square, and end within musketry range of other infantry units who could shoot it... but even then, due to the sequence of play, another full turn would have to pass, during which the CAV would have a chance to either get itself out of musketry range, or charge.
So there's no "sitting still," in other words, unless you choose to do so.
"If they bounce back a long way then it means they would have to manoeuvre back into position."
That's fine, but it wouldn't achieve the goal that you're setting for it: making Rallying more difficult. By getting the cavalry farther away, you'll just make it easier for them to rally. In order to do what you're suggesting, you'd have to write new Fall-Back rules as well as new Rally rules.
*
Let's not lose sight of what the game is about. Lasalle represents a "moment in battle." It's not supposed to be a grand narrative of an entire battle, complete with lulls and rest and reorganization of units, etc. The Disruptions and Recovery are just temporary, momentary things. The whole game represents just one period of intense combat and activity for a small number of units in one portion of the field.
Why not just have the Cavalry need to triple the hits when fighting against a square?
Pushes the odds way out that a square will break, but is still possible if your dice are running hot.
"why not just have the Cavalry need to triple the hits when fighting against a square?"
That sounds ok to me (similar to my thought to have square doubling dice vs Cav) and is a minor change/amendment or optional rule ?
Another suggestion in Cav vs Inf is "-2 if facing Square" this would cancel out Espirt or Lance benefits somewhat
I think there a several possible minor tweaks/fixes/amendments that would not require a whole raft of rule changes but could/should sort these 'problems' ?
Of course only viable if endorsed by Sam
Cheers
Hi Sam
Yes, but first I didn't say anything about infantry fire, I said effective fire. And in all those situations where you say the cavalry have it coming I'm proposing that they should be getting even more...
And sure, it may make it easier to rally Disr (usually - not always) but my point is getting them out of the front lines, where i don't believe they would have hung around after charging and losing badly.
Hi Guys...I have played probably 30 or more games of Lasalle, plenty with the Army builder and Historical scenarios as well, my main games have been played withe French v Brits. The French usually start with on table cavalry the Brits none....its not made any difference to the game...every game as been exciting and fun to play, we have not needed to change any of the rules and all of the battles seemed to play oput very realistically in a fun streamlined way.
This week we will be playing Brit light Division v Russian Guards...two completely different armies and both with different challenging gameplay. the main point I'm trying to get across is that the more you try to alter the game mechanics the more the game will lose its balance:(
I for one don't want to see loads of different House rules and changes ....thats what will spoil the appeal of Lasalle ....just come up with good tactics and try out a few different options to bambozzle your opponent no matter what army you use....remember to lose when playing a fun game is better than winning a none fun game!
cheers Paul
ps I'm useing the Brits against the Russian Guard ....it should be a challenging prospect!....but I have a few tricks up my sleeve! I'll post up the results:)
Going back to the original question of this thread about musketry duels:
"Anybody had a game decided by them? Had an extended one in a game at all?"
No, have never had a game decided by one and have never seen one.
"Most of the games I've had the tendency is to charge as soon as in range, since there is little downside."
Agreed
The problem lies with the dominance the rules give to the column.
Hi Alan ...when I use the Brits I have had no problem with the French columns...usually I get in two rounds of shooting then fall back or charge the bleeders ....its the menacing French Cav that can give you something to think about (combined arms) ....I like to see the look on the Frenchie's face when the Reserve Brit heavy cav turn up looking for a fight .....then its payback time:)
cheers Paul
Paul
The point is there are no musketry duels.
I have never played a game that involved British but I don't see how you can get in 2 shots and then fall back or charge?
Combined arms are way too easy.
Hi Alan ...when you face an Elite large unit of Guards, Rifles or Valiant Scots usually with SK 3 then musketry is well used to good effect. when they are behind a wall they are even tougher:)
cheers Paul
ps you have got to try a game against the Brits with the French ...its a good balanced game ...with none of the uber gear that is seen with the continental armies.
pss do many of the Lasalle lads use Brits? ....my army is French but I do like to command the Brits! ....now I've got to learn how to attack with them:)
" ...with none of the uber gear that is seen with the continental armies"
One minute the game is perfectly balanced and everything is tickety-boo the next Continental Armise are Uber while the French, bless their & their Allies, fluffy little cotton socks, aren't. Sheesh!
Paul the only way you're outfoxing people AKA "good tactics" is by using your French as Russian Guards (huh!!?)and steamrolling newbies ;)
Its a pity you're not at Marengo next wkd, the UK's first LaSalle Tourney and a 30min drive from you, and you could show us all what a master tactician you are and how the rest of us are just muddling along in the dark [grin]
James
James ...I hope your not rattled again (grin) ...I thought the mention of "uber continental armies" would have the required effect;)
Stephen has a French army...I have a french army....I asked him if he wanted to try the game against the Ruskies to try them out ....we went through the rules to give him the feel of the game:)
This post is about the use of musketry...the Brits do it well:) some of the tips might come in handy for you to try out:)....good luck at the Tourney ....
anyway chillout and have some good games...I'll try and get down take a few pics and watch a few Master tacticians at work,
Have fun Paul .......viva le Emperor:)
You must log in to post.