Looking for discussion on why no grading of mounted - ie Heavy, Med, light...
Was it KISS, or perhaps Sam didn't want to go down the path of the never-ending debate.
But should one grade out heavy cav (curaissiers) and lancers as having no real combat effectiveness?
As a house rule, what about grading out cav similiarly as Esprit - if higher grade, combat bonus of dice....
Thoughts?
Madcam.
don't the existing classifications work well enough?
Not all heavy cavalry is battle cavalry, yet a straight weght check would make them so. Some light cavalry would fight on the field, yet weight would rule it out.
using shock and pursuit works much better. nice one Sam.
Another dimension used is unit size - a lot of "heavy" cavalry are large units, while a lot of light and medium cavalry are small units. Large units are more durable.
The French for instance generally have small Hussar, Chasseurs, Lancers, Dragoon, but large Cuirassiers and Guard cavalry. This seems to give a fairly good spread of weight.
Cam
Shock cavalry gets +2 dice vs non shock cavalry - this is the only distinction I think theres is.
Im quite happy with it like this. As mark says, it can be an oversimplification.
For example French dragoons were often far from battle cavalry while prussians hussars forfilled this role rather well in the 1813 campaign.
It's always a tricky thing. To a certain degree a good game deliberately exaggerates in order to get "flavor." So I think I made Lances, for instance, probably a bit too potent against infantry. BUT... it does have the nice effect of tempting the owner of said lances to plunge headlong - probably unwisely - against enemy squares, while the infantry player cringes at the thought of the lancers... An exaggeration, sure, but a fun one in the context of history and legend.
On the other hand, lances vs. other cavalry to me just didn't seem warranted. There are too many countervailing stories of the lance actually being an encumbrance in close cavalry actions against a nimble man with a sabre.
Some people complain that Lasalle makes French dragoons "Super Cavalry" because they're both Shock and Pursuit from the "Empire" period on, but I can't really see any reason to take either ability away from them, during those periods. And besides, they're still not "elites" compared to a Cuirassier unit, for instance, that will get an extra +2 for higher Esprit.
I like the cav classifications. To me it represents pretty well the different types and uses of cavalry in a period where many time the line was not that clear.
When I tried to adjust those classifications for my wars of southamerican independece I tried to follow Sam's idea of "the use" given to a cavalry organization.
Combined withe cavalry getting tired rule, I really love how Lasalle models cavalry for the period...
Of course that is just me and I understand other points of view.
cheers
Francisco
The classifications of "light" or "heavy" were highly subjective. For example, British "light" cavalry rode big horses of superior quality to their opponents and had tactics that emphasised an aggressive charge and swordsmanship (though, the quality of French cavalry in the Peninsula after 1811 fell away, so it may be relative). On the other hand, Ian Fletcher notes how poor British light cavalry was at carrying out effective pursuits. (I highly recommend Ian Fletcher's book on British cavalry).
You must log in to post.