I don't understand with a square can't fire. I think that on the battlefield, squares fired (against cavalry)
All the best
El Frances
(FRANCE)
Question about the fire square
(15 posts) (8 voices)-
Posted 10 months ago #
-
Squares were essentially a defensive formation, used to protect themselves from cavalry attack. And as such I think it would be reasonable to assume that fire would have been reserved also to protect themselves from such a charge. Particularly that most valued - first volley- This is why I think Sam has done this, and is ( In my opinion ) fair enough.......it's probably historically accurate as well.
Posted 10 months ago # -
If it could it would have a single dice to fire as that is all of the firing bases, hence it is pointless (you have to do at least 2 to cause a disorder) so it is easier to take them out.
Posted 10 months ago # -
we use an optional house rule that 1/2 bases may fire but only score hit on 5+. This does give a small chance of getting 1 disr on a unit.
Posted 10 months ago # -
There is a good reason to allow squares to fire - to discourage sneaky enemy cavalry from hiding in the lee of squares to prevent being shot at or charged. It may also make it a little harder for cavalry to break squares.
Posted 10 months ago # -
Cav's already done it's job forcing the infantry to go into square-" sneaky enemy cavalry hiding in the lee of squares"- Cav's to valuable to have it lurking behind squares all game.....isn't it ???
Posted 10 months ago # -
However, leaving the cavalry close to formed squares that cant fire means they stop the units coming out of square, which means the infantry get pounded by artillery till they break thus making the cavalry a very powerful tool.
Allowing the opportunity of the square firing means that a cavalry commander needs to be a touch more careful, especially when trying to break a square as he may get an extra disr from fire when charging which can make a lot of difference.
Posted 10 months ago # -
yes your right squares and artillery don't mix. However I've played far to many rules where players have used squares like tercios, firing as they go. I just don't think they were used like this. If you have pinned squares you need to bring up some of your own cav to clear the way. Remember cav half their dice when contacting squares, you think they should be able to let loose a few volleys on the way in as well?? I suppose it all comes down to how you choose to use your cav. If you make a house rule regarding squares firing can they combine their fire on one target as well? I go back to my original point squares were a defensive formation not offensive. IMHO
Posted 10 months ago # -
squares were a defensive formation not offensive.
I agree with that sentiment - it is just in Lasalle squares are not defensive enough. They are too likely to be ridden down, with not enough risk to the cavalry in doing so.
Cam
Posted 10 months ago # -
To answer the point about square being like tercios we have fixed that too.
Squares may not fire if they moved.You also mention bringing up your own cavalry, many players dont get cavalry from the off in the game to be able to counter enemy cavalry. I agree squares were a defensive formation not an offensive one but that does not mean that they did not fire at the enemy presented before it, in fact far from it.
In Lasalle unfortunately even with half dice squares break far too often under cavalry attack and that is not a reality either.
So we adopted a house rule to address the situation and redress the balance a little adding a risk to the cavalry attacking.Posted 10 months ago # -
I see the dilemma, not having any cav is a problem-and the house rules you've introduced are a good way of fixing the issue . I haven't played a "pick up game" attacker/defender from the rules, for quiet sometime (playing historical games more at the moment that's all) . I can see now where your coming from, those games can be a little .....frantic.
Are you allowing the squares to combine their fire ?
"Squares may not fire if they moved" ... your allowing them to move as well ? Perhaps you should include formation changes as well ? eg make them wait a turn before firing, when going into or coming out of square (it was a bit of a caffufell)
Just adverse to that "set and forget" syndrome, I'm sure you know what I mean ........."oh well we'll just go into square on that flank, that's that taken care of"..... no more thought required there.........next command.Posted 10 months ago # -
One more thing (sorry) if your squares are moving just be careful with the " must charge closest enemy" ruling. Could see that being an issue......squares sneaking up on you..... "can't charge them now.......my square has to be the target".
Posted 10 months ago # -
If memory serves, the instances of squares moving during the Napoleonic Wars were not exactly the norm. I really find no problem with rhe system as is. You go into square when cavalry threatens, and come out when the threat is gone.
I know it's only fiction (but pretty accurate), but for those who want squares yo fire at will you should read "Sharpe's Eagle". There is an excellent example of why this was a bad idea.
Posted 10 months ago # -
I agree with that sentiment - it is just in Lasalle squares are not defensive enough. They are too likely to be ridden down, with not enough risk to the cavalry in doing so. - Cam
Agreed - and we have discussed this at great length in previous threads...
:-)
Posted 10 months ago # -
" If memory serves, the instances of squares moving during the Napoleonic Wars were not exactly the norm. I really find no problem with rhe system as is. You go into square when cavalry threatens, and come out when the threat is gone.
I know it's only fiction (but pretty accurate), but for those who want squares yo fire at will you should read "Sharpe's Eagle". There is an excellent example of why this was a bad idea. "
I agree........ and your right this has been talked over at length before.
Posted 10 months ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.