@ Borodino ....see my other thread linear tactics, why don't you field a Russian conquest army to give the newbies at the tourney a different feel to the game ....I would like to watch more conquest armies on the table:)
cheers Paul:)
Musketry duels
(60 posts) (13 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
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?
Just a thought (to Sam's comment above) - would making recovery of DISR harder be a simple alternative to try? Rather than making Cav easier to shoot at, and harder to smash squares, etc, what if accruing DSIRs meant you had little chance to remove them again - so you had to think twice before putting in frivolous charges or getting in amongst enemy troops? e.g:
Cav get +2 Dice instead of +1 Die if in proximity to enemy, or
Cav get 2 Dice instead of 1 to start with (as base roll).So a Cav unit trying to roll off a DSIR that manoeuvred & is in proximity to the enemy has to roll 4D?
The either option would put focus on removing damaged Cav units to safe areas to rally/recover, adn amke people think if that charge is really worth the repercussions, thereby reducing the super-troop effect... And would indirectly resolve the other issues...
John
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi John
Making cavalry harder to rally is quite a good idea.
I'm keen that any mods we try are as subtle as possible, because it's very easy to unbalance the game - I think keeping all cavalry off table at the start for example is a bit too blunt.
Mike
Posted 1 year ago # -
What the hell have cavalry got to do with musketry duals? :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Weelll - the musketry duel topic was sort of about the apparent dominance of the bayonet over the ball in the rules and cavalry being the ultimate expression of the bayonet charge...it kind of makes sense in my world :-)
However my original question was really to extract some feedback on people's experience since I'm basing my opinions on only a few games. For what it's worth I'm thinking now that for infantry v infantry the charging dominance is largely an artifact of beginner first impressions and as players get more experienced the charge at all costs approach tends to disappear.
Cavalry on the other hand seem a little more contentious and I'm interested in ways to tweak this gently. Sam's point above I think is a good one - that you always need to keep in mind the scale of the representation, and that this is just part of a larger battle on a fairly short time scale compared with most rules.
BTW - this is all in the context of competition-style games using the AB rules.
Posted 1 year ago # -
DaKiwiMike
I think your original question was a very good one. I was just disappointed that in the 30 odd following posts hardly anyone has addressed it as the thread has gone completely off topic.
I understood your meaning to be that it is extremely unlikely for an exchange of musketry to last for several game turns i.e. a musketry duel. I agree. My experience is that musketry duels do not happen in the game. At least one side in the game will be advancing in any locality where infantry come within range of each other. Either both sides will attempt to come to grips or one side will. As a result the maximum number of shots tends to be two by the defender and one by the attacker - not an infantry duel as I would understand it.
In reality infantry duels were quite common because whatever the officers intended, units, once they opened fire, were very difficult to get moving again. One of the reasons columns were favoured was they were a means of keeping infantry moving forward. Orders would often deliberately forbid an attacking column to fire at all as there was the constant fear that once firing started that the men would refuse to move forward again.
Napoleon's Army of 1805 didn't have these problems as it was the best trained and drilled force of the whole period. But most armies did suffer from these issues at some point.
To get a similar effect in a game system you would need to have some sort of reaction test to charge rather than moving to contact being automatic.
Of course moving to contact isn't really moving to contact at all - that almost never happened in open ground. One sides will would collapse before contact was made and either the attacker or defender would withdraw before bayonets were crossed. The game system models this quite well, but maybe the ease with which either side can force the contest of will is too easy - hence no infantry duels?
Posted 1 year ago # -
" ... One sides will would collapse before contact was made and either the attacker or defender would withdraw before bayonets were crossed."
My point at the beginning of this thread i believe Alan [grin]
Posted 1 year ago # -
Well James I think your point:
"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)"
comes from a somewhat different context. It is the case that more units broke from the threat of the bayonet than from being under constant musket fire. However, musket duels were quite common and getting units to force the issue with the threat of the bayonet was not always easy.
And there are still not any comments on this thread claiming that under the rules musketry duels are a common outcome.
Most games of Lasalle I have seen tend to have the majority of units deployed in column (unless Linear Tactics is in effect). Musketry duels do not take place (perhaps I will see something new at the Tourney this weekend?). Therefore the balance between firing and threatened melee seems to be skewed?
Posted 1 year ago # -
To be pedantic it is more correct to say that most units broke under the threat of the bayonet after being shredded by artillery and/or skirmish fire and/or fire from the front of the column or a supporting line (in L'Ordre Mixte situations). Being stereotypical and assuming French attacking. I'm not sure how many just broke out of the blue with no other influences.
So overall I think the odds should be with the line if you just throw a column in one on one (Cam has done the maths and says it is under LaSalle - I haven't seen the figures). Assuming equal Sk factors on average a column would go in throwing 6 dice vs 8 from fire effects (assuming it's unlikely they inflicted a disr with only 2 dice shooting), would then bounce taking another disr and sit unable to charge hoping to rally - to either be shot dead or charged in turn depending on rallies.
So it begs the question - does everyone defend in column with the idea of charging and if so why?
Posted 1 year ago # -
DaKiwiMike
Yes a single unit in line beats a single unit in column given average dice. However, the aim is to have local superiority with two columns taking up the same frontage as one line. Now in your example its 12 dice to 8, goodbye line.
Posted 1 year ago # -
FWIW, my calcs on 12 dice v 8 dice needing 5 or 6 to hit:
Attacker doubles the defender = 42%
Attacker wins but does not double = 33%
Defender wins or draws = 25%So a 2:1 attack certainly tilts the odds toward the attacker, but the defender still has more than an even chance of surviving.
Personally in this situation I would take the fall back test, or depending on how big the other guy is, test for a formation change to column in order to halve both attacker's dice.
Throw in 2 dice if the defender is uphill or in cover and the odds are:
Attacker doubles the defender = 25%
Attacker wins but does not double = 50%
Defender wins or draws = 25%Or if you take 2 dice off if attacking in bad terrain:
Attacker doubles the defender = 33%
Attacker wins but does not double = 47%
Defender wins or draws = 20%If I can find terrain to use (on a hill, in cover, defend behind rough ground) I will probably stand in line and shoot, looking to put a couple of shooting DISR on 1 enemy. I will probably fall back, but I may get lucky and put a 3rd DISR on that enemy as it falls back.
Cam
Posted 1 year ago # -
So are we concluding:
* Musketry duels are not likely to happen in any Lasalle game that does not have a Linear Tactics army
* Lines beat columns by falling back or changing formation and not by musketryOf course we all know dozens of historical sources that quote lines changing to columns to repel a column attack :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Alan wrote: "So are we concluding:
* Musketry duels are not likely to happen in any Lasalle game that does not have a Linear Tactics army
* Lines beat columns by falling back or changing formation and not by musketry
Of course we all know dozens of historical sources that quote lines changing to columns to repel a column attack :) "Damn you Alan - this post made me LOL, and I am not supposed to use the computer for personal internet use at work!
But to the original point: "Anybody had a game decided by them? Had an extended one in a game at all?", it would seem that Lasalle is providing a historically reasonable result. Have a read of Rory Muir's books on Napoleonic tactics. Muir points out that veteran officers regarded skirmishing/long range musketry rather scornfully as "trading long shots" or "bickering", and that a decision could only be sought by the threat of the bayonet.
Cheers
Paul
Posted 1 year ago # -
Of course we all know dozens of historical sources that quote lines changing to columns to repel a column attack :)
Well I did note I wouldn't do this against a big bloke. In fact a small Grognard might be even worse: he would endlessly quote Oman at me for the next four hours.
Falling back when attacked by multiple columns is the best option for a line unless defending terrain or a big unit. That seems reasonable to me.
Musketry duels are not likely to happen in any Lasalle game that does not have a Linear Tactics army
Nope - but for me the main reason is the turn-limited nature of the game. You just don't have time to sit and shoot at each other if you want to win. For those not playing limited turns I would have thought a shooting duel is a good way to fight in Lasalle - just running up in column and charging a line is not a good thing to do if you are not under time pressure.
But my gut feeling is most players overestimate the benefits of charging over shooting.
To stand back, I find that if the attacker makes a determined attack, Lasalle is pretty balanced. The extra attacking units are needed. Why is that? My view is that getting the first shot is actually quite an edge. But you don't see the effect until later.
You move up to me. I shoot at you and do a DISR. Big deal! You now charge me "at no risk of breaking yourself". I do another shooting DISR. With 2 DISR, in combat the attacker now has a 1/6 chance of breaking the defender, a 3/4 chance of falling back with a 3rd DISR, and a 1/12 chance of making the defender fall back with 1 DISR.
Most likely the attacker will end with 3 DISR sitting 1-2BW from enemy. They really need to rally or they will probably die (to either shooting or being charged).
That initial shooting hit was the key - having the attacker fall back with 3 DISR or 2 DISR is a big difference. But we often don't notice it. I suspect whether their first shooting hit did a DISR or not should be a strong guide to whether a player tries to fall back or stand and shoot when charged. Rule of thumb - if charged by an enemy with 1 DISR, stand and shoot, otherwise try to fallback.
Even those 2:1 attacks you might get with your extra units are not that decisive - and hard to pull off if the defender keeps falling back - you will only actually hit him 1 charge in 3, and then only have a 40-50% chance of breaking him.
I do wonder if players would charge so much if instead of using buckets of dice, it was done with 1 dice: "a column with 2 DISR needs a 6 in combat to break the line, otherwise it falls back with 3 DISR"?
Cam
Posted 1 year ago # -
Personally in this situation I would take the fall back test, or depending on how big the other guy is, test for a formation change to column in order to halve both attacker's dice.
Cam - 2 quick follow-ups:1. Of course there is an obvious cheeze move you could pull with this I think, whereby the attacker puts one of his columns slightly off-centre, so only one unit has less than half it's front covered by the target... If he makes sure he doesn't line up corner to corner a formation change may not result in both halving, and...
2. In fact, surely, if you formation changed, you could (if room allowed) change completely out of contact with at least one if not both of the units? I haven't got the rulebook handy so can't recall if a prospective melee contact locks you 'in contact'?
Of course we all know dozens of historical sources that quote lines changing to columns to repel a column attack :)
Damn straight! ;-pBut to the original point: "Anybody had a game decided by them? Had an extended one in a game at all?"...
The likely problem here of course is no-one is likely to get a game where both opponents are happy to while away the time standing opposite each other and blazing away - Lasalle by it's nature has a sense of urgency and pressure to 'act' on the players, especially the attacker - and as standard firing cannot generally inflict DISR faster than they can be recovered without external assistance (unless you have unusual numerical advantages - e.g. multiple and/or large units firing on small unit) you will invariably not find 2 opponents prepared to both be inert and sacrifice time for no gain I suspect unless something major is happening elsewhere on the field......it would seem that Lasalle is providing a historically reasonable result. Have a read of Rory Muir's books on Napoleonic tactics. Muir points out that veteran officers regarded skirmishing/long range musketry rather scornfully as "trading long shots" or "bickering", and that a decision could only be sought by the threat of the bayonet.
Yep - my thoughts too! The turn sequence especially seems to help model that whole column bearing down on a line, being stopped (IRL usually by fire - but which in the game may be partially abstracted into the loss of a combat representing them being stopped short by close range volleys), then vulnerable to counter-charging by the line, chain of events...Posted 1 year ago # -
I do wonder if players would charge so much if instead of using buckets of dice, it was done with 1 dice: "a column with 2 DISR needs a 6 in combat to break the line, otherwise it falls back with 3 DISR"?
But that's nowhere near as dramatic and emotional as rolling a huge fistful of dice but not realising you almost can't win regardless and any other result puts you on death row! ;-DPosted 1 year ago # -
Of course there is an obvious cheeze move
The cheese is if you attack a four base line (L) with two four base columns (1 and 2) side by side:
LLLL
1122
1122
The line changes formation to column:
_LL_
_LL_
1122
1122
Both columns now fight at half dice for not having MORE than half the defender in front of them.
if you formation changed, you could (if room allowed) change completely out of contact with at least one if not both of the units?
No, you have to stay in contact with anybody who charged you.
The way the charger prevents this is to come in on slight angles to contact only the outermost bases of the line (and not the middle two bases). That way the line can't change formation and the columns both have more than half the line in front of them.
Cam
Posted 1 year ago # -
well you lads, an interesting post ....I must admit its hard not to agree with everybody:)...for me it depends on the army I use .....if I play the Brits I tend to do as Cam points out (no Brainer))....when I use the French I tend to use column attacks and tend to shoot more when defending ....when I used the Ruskies I also use the Bayonet! .....thats what I like about Lasalle plenty of subltle differences and trying out new tactics....for me thats the sign of a good game.
cheers Paul
ps I hope Borodino comes to the club this week I'll show him how the brits fight the Russians ...he's stated he knows how me and Nev play? ....I've only seen him at the club about once all of last year so it would be good to see him again.(grin)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Paul you come to Marengo and GAME rather than talking about it all the time ;)
Very interesting points gentlemen. I attacked yesterday with Russ Grenadiers v Austrian AG and saw at first hand how effective musketry can be over the period of multiple combats
Posted 1 year ago # -
To paraphrase my earlier post - What the hell have column attacks got to do with musketry duals? :)
Paul (Biggreenbugeyedmonster)
In Muir's 36 page chapter called 'Infantry Combat' he describes many instances of musketry firefights. However, he is clearly a poorly researched and amateur historian as he hasn't included a single example of a line forming a column when attacked by two other columns! What a clown. I think I will wait until Cam's book comes out to get the real story. I think it is going to be titled 'Warfare in the age of Cheese' :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Actually the formation-change-to-column Gorgonzola is one i would like to disallow, it would just mean a slight change to the "Changing formation near the enemy" optional rule so that infantry attacked by infantry can only change to line. The falling back I think is a good historically accurate response to being attacked by overwhelming numbers.
BTW Cam, if you start suggesting each unit throws only 1 dice in close combat then that's a slippery slope to Horse,Foot and Guns :-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think I will wait until Cam's book comes out to get the real story. I think it is going to be titled 'Warfare in the age of Cheese' :)
I think it will be a best seller on the Professional Lasalle Circuit. I will be using Phil Barker's forthcoming Guide to Presentation and Writing for my format.
This is an old issue: play the rules as written, or use the rules as a guide to play 'historically'. The difficulty I have is the world is full of Napoleonic players (I am one) with just enough information to be dangerous. Muir and Noseworthy are brilliant; no Muir and Noseworthy are rubbish!
I am a 'play the rules as written' man, then ask the author to fix problems.
For instance, in a recent game a certain player (go on identify yourself Rich) used Linear Prussians, and stacked his battalions in column side by side in a big phalanx. He had no intention of forming line; columns side they side have the same firepower as a line, but can't be attacked by 2 units. He couldn't charge; but did not want to - he was going to stand and shoot.
Now I think that formation was complete and utter nonsense. I do not believe Prussians did that in 1806. But should I stamp my feet and refuse to play him? Why - it was a good fun game. When I play him next time I will have to think of a way to counter it.
Hopefully our club will work out what combination of optional rules, tips, Wellington competition rules changes, and 'things a guy reckoned on the internet' that we want to use. I certainly have no problems ruling out cheesy formation changes - as long as Mike can work out wording to achieve that rather than just say 'don't like that - take it back".
But this is a theoretical argument - I have yet to see an acrimious situation in a Lasalle game. But we sure do manage to argue a lot here!
Cam
Posted 1 year ago # -
Actually the formation-change-to-column Gorgonzola is one i would like to disallow, it would just mean a slight change to the "Changing formation near the enemy" optional rule so that infantry attacked by infantry can only change to line.
1) This wording means a march column could not change to a column, only line. Isn't a column more likely?
2) Why would you allow this cheese for cavalry but not infantry?
3) A column charged can do the same cheese by changing to a line:
_11_
_11_
_CC_
_CC_
Column 1 changes to line on an outermost base.
__1111
_CC_
_CC_
Why allow this for columns but not lines?
This is the problem - we know the problem but finding wording that does not run for several pages to fix it is tricky.
For me the best solution is to be aware of it - in most situations a slight angling of the attacker's unit is all that is needed to stop the defender doing it.
But if I promise never to do it again, can we stop this thread?
Cam
Posted 1 year ago # -
Cam
I 100% agree that any game should be played with the rules (whether they are the core, optional or house as agreed by the players). Any whinging after the game has started should be banned. See my classic posts on the 'metagame' which were all about this point :0
However we cannot stop this thread until all the forum members answer the original question:
"Musketry Duels. Anybody had a game decided by them? Had an extended one in a game at all?"
Posted 1 year ago # -
So what about Artillery evading, that's no different in many ways in some situations to the cheese formation change... ;-)
Posted 1 year ago # -
Yes Cam I take your point - it's never as easy as it looks. But in detail
1. No - when attacked units tried to deploy so they could fire. They used attack columns when attacking.
2. Good point - no. (although by doing so you're giving up your 2 dice for abreast vs waves so perhaps less of an incentive?)
3. Not sure how to deal with this one - maybe make a rule to explicitly forbid the behaviour? i.e. changing formation so as to reduce the frontage contacted by the attacker?
Or maybe just base the halving of attacker dice on the situation before any defenders formation changes? That way everyone's free to change formation however they want for legitimate reasons without gaining a cheesy advantage.
Unfortunately your assurances of good behaviour are not sufficient - mainly because although you are good at spotting these possibilities you don't actually use them yourself. However others will and I think it spoils the game, I mean in my last game the cavalry superiority in rough was used against me...
Posted 1 year ago # -
I've never had a game decided on a musket duel........now can we stop the thread!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Now, now, Trev. Why stop the fun. This forum would get very boring if the same old reprobates didn't keep having the same debates over and over :)
Posted 1 year ago # -
well said Alan:) ....its good to get a few of the boys feathers ruffled:)
cheers Paul
Posted 1 year ago # -
Okay - so at Alan's request back to musketry - the only point I'd make is I fail to see how a musketry duel alone can ever decide the issue between 2 equal small units (in a reasonable period of time) - you can never inflict enough DISR fast enough to prevent the opponent probalby recovering most if not all, and even if they only successfully recover every second turn you would still end up burning up 12 (or more if you add in the initial couple of turns manoeuvring prior to the fire-fight) of the 16 turns in a standard game (unless there is some other intervention)... So I can only see it working when either (a) one side is significantly inferior so can't reliably recover the DSIR most turns, or (b) the balance is altered by the presence of another unit, or one being larger, or one of the combatants already carrying DISR, etc...
As Cam says you can use Musketry to effectively 'finish off' units that are already fairly heavy with DISR and/or prevent Cav with only 1 DSIR left charging (by shooting one back onto them each turn as fast as they recover one) - but I'd suspect in a normal even playing field at the start of a game few if any players are going to voluntarily rely solely on Musketry to resolve things...
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.