Russians - Dragoons « Honour Forums

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Army Lists

Russians - Dragoons

(12 posts) (5 voices)

Started 2 years ago by Borodino
Latest reply from Borodino

Tags:

No tags yet.

Borodino
Member

Now please understand that i'm coming at this from a competition player's viewpoint rather than a historical one ...

Why would anyone chose Dragoons as an option (say one Support choice), they're Reliable, Experienced, Pursuit when you can take Light Cavalry incl Hussars which are Valiant etc and Uhlans which match the Dragoons and have Lance.

Both have HA and Cossacks of course.

There's a strong argument for taking Cuirass over Dragoons too.

I'm not a WAAC kind of guy but i've met plenty who are on the competition circuits in the UK. I tend to avoid that kind of competition if i can. However, there will always be those who cherry-pick the best units.

Now before i get shot down in flames, i should mention that i've just ordered a 2nd unit of Dragoons for my Russians.

Thanks
Darren

Posted 2 years ago #
nikephorous
Member

Hi,

I have wondered if that was a misprint - and like the French Dragoons should also have been Shock. French Dragoon brigades look decidedly juicy for that reason.

John

Posted 2 years ago #
vonGottschall
Member

Nikephorus,

While Napoleon certainly used almost any cavalry unit in shock rolls, I would think that Dragoons, with the exception of heavy dragoons should be considered light cavalry. After all, their history is one of mounted infantry that developed into true cavalry. Pursuit cavalry will come in handy in tighter games to decide the winner.

But hey, I am willing to listen to arguments that French Dragoons are shock but I would imagine when compared to Cuirassiers and Carabiniers, they would not be considered shock (again, unless heavy or guard dragoons such as in the British service) Dragoons are generally lighter equipped (sabers instead of heavy swords and usually short barreled muskets) The heavies I mentioned earlier often had torso armor, very heavy straight bladed swords, had bigger recruits and rode larger horses (again, in general) So, while in Lasalle, the heavy cavalry gets the shock factor, they will not get the pursuit factor important in deciding the winner in a close game. Rock, paper, scissors... each has its role.

Chris

Posted 2 years ago #
Borodino
Member

Chris, i understand what you're saying but it doesn't answer my question - why take Dragoons over Light Cavalry? I'm not advocating a change to Dragoons. d

Posted 2 years ago #
vonGottschall
Member

Borodino,

Can't say as I have an answer for you unless we allow Dragoons to dismount and fight as infantry as well? That would certainly be an advantage to light cavalry.

Chris

Posted 2 years ago #
Borodino
Member

Chris, interesting point.
Thanks
Darren

Posted 2 years ago #
nikephorous
Member

Hi,

Dragoons in the Napoleonic era were traditionally heavy, shock cavalry. Light Dragoons were - well Light Dragoons/Cheveau-Leger etc.

Russian Dragoons were heavy cavalry. I am assuming that Sam feels they should be treated as the same as lights because of their record in service and of course problems with mounts. He presents a similar argument for the Dutch/Belgian heavies. I get the argument. It is playable - and with your opponents permission your "heavies" can be heavy.

Dragoons would usually only dismount for picket duty....... Yes I know that French Dragoons are often shown as foot troops - but take away a mans horse (pesky Spaniards) and he is just a foot soldier with fancy shoes after all. Circumstance rather than design I feel. We should not get hung up on the earlier C17 use of the word dragoon, as the concept of mounted skirmishers had moved from the "Dragoon" to the Chassuer and Hussar. Mounted infantry had become a redundant idea by this period - and indeed had been since the end of the WSS.

John

Posted 2 years ago #
Borodino
Member

Hi John, i like that unofficial option. Different to Light Cavalry, not necessarily better but not worse (which they are currently)

I always thought Dragoons to be the workhorse of the army. I'm sure that some regiments of Dragoons were better than others and could justify being Shock troops.

I'm not planning on getting any Cuirass just yet so the possibility of having some (average) Shock cavalry sounds good.

I'll bounce it off some of the guys at the club.

Thanks
Darren

Posted 2 years ago #
MarkGrindlay
Member

this is why I would take them.

"
In 1813:
Guard cavalry: 3 cuirassier, 1 dragoon, 1 uhlan, 1 hussar and 1 Cossack regiment

Army cavalry: 9 cuirassier, 18 dragoon, 12 uhlan, 12 hussar and 8 horse jäger regiments

"

- they are the most common cavalry the Russians should have.

the game is more fun if you don't optimise every choice you have.

Posted 2 years ago #
Borodino
Member

Hi Mark - i take the point. As i said, i'm coming at this as a tourney player. I expected the options to be balanced but couldn't see why you'd take Dragoons over Light Cavalry with Russians (or Grenadiers over Guard if you're allowed to ignore the Send in the Guard rule). That wasn't a complaint; i wasn't sure if i'd missed something.

My Dragoons are on order and i'll be happy to use them as per the RB, in club games.

Thanks, d

Posted 2 years ago #
dougredshirt
Member

I noticed that too for the French in the Conquest period. I am still painting French Dragoons, but that is because I can still use them in later periods also. But early on it would be better to take Hussars.

Posted 2 years ago #
Borodino
Member

ive noticed in the army builder section that the options aren't fully balanced against each other. That's good enough for me.

I'm using Grenadiers with Dragoons and/or Light Cavalry as Reserves.

I have the Pavlovs, so Grenadiers are a must for me at least until i can put enough Infantry out to use them as Line Regiments (which is the goal then add an actual Grenadier division)

Thanks, d

Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.