It seems that dismounted dragoons are stirring up a hornets nest.

With regard to dismounted dragoons. Two squadrons have dismounted and are side by side in line - in effect a regt of two stands. What happens if the dragoons are charged, say by a line infantry unit.?

A) do the squadrons check morale separately or as a regiment? the rules on charging multiple units suggests separately.

b) If as one unit, what happens if their class is different (eg drilled and raw)?

c) In melee, do the squadrons fight as one regiment, or is one squadron chosen as the principal unit and the other in support?

I'm sorry if I've missed the right page references, but I have been scouring for answers to this.

Plus, does charging normal line infantry have to check morale to contact only if it receives casualties that would make it have to take a morale check anyway?

Regards and thanks in anticipation.

Richard

Hi Richard,


They would test for being charged, if they pass they can stand and fire at the chargers.
The chargers would have to test to charge home even if they suffered no casualties.

Each squadron need a order counter to move, form or charge, but morale is diced for as a whole regiment and casualties whilst together as a regiment can be shared amongst the squadrons.

A regiment would all be the same class, you can't mix different classed troops for morale test circumstances.

They would probably dismount in line, each base being side by side much like a infantry regiment.
Depending on the number of squadrons within the regiment you would get one dice per squadron(base of five) when firing or in melee.

The sequence is this - the chargers test, the target test and after shooting the chargers test to charge home even if they received no casualties.

Morale Checks page 50

Barry will correct me if I'm wrong in any of these answers,

Ray.

I'm not Barry but chargers only need to test to charge home if they have received casualties on the way in. You can see an example of this under Turn 8, page 96 on the demo game Barry and myself fought.
Cheers
Dave

Hi Dave,

Thanks for that. I've been the scouring the rules and came across that part of turn 8 in the scenario and have desperately sought to establish firm and explicit confirmation in the body of the rules. References are made on page 43 and 45 that infer what you've said to be the case about checking to charge home, but I guess I needed some guidance to be certain. Thanks again.

Also thanks to Ray for his response about the dismounted dragoons. That was helpful. But it seems a shame that the rules somehow preclude the option to have a multi-squadron regiment of dragoons with different levels and training/experience as part of a scenario. But, as an occasional umpire I too try to avoid complications

Richard

It's perhaps not been made clear in the rules that troops only take the test if they have taken casualties on the way in but it does make sense as why would they need to retest if their circumstances haven't changed from when they passes their initial test to charge.
Cheers
Dave

Dragoons do seem to be causing problems!

A few comments from my side.

Dragoons are inconvenient troops for many players - not good enough to stand up against Horse in a melee, not powerful or numerous enough to stand against Foot in a firefight. That is the negatvie view. The positive view is about using them as mounted infantry to get quickly to objectives and hold them or fire, mount up and get out if delaying an enemy advance. Yes they can do OK in combat occasionally (have seen some nice results over the years) but BLB is about trying to use the troops as they would have been used.
Mounted, they can fight in squadrons or if fresh, use the AoN option. On foot they really should dismount as a 2 or 3 stand regiment 5 models per stand. Dismounting them as single stands will achieve little. As a 'multiple dismount' they form a useful firing unit especially if positioned in cover of some sort.

Mixed morale units seem rather an odd concept to me and unless scenario specific and some historical information is available I don't quite see the point of them. A balance has to be struck between realism and playability and have units of a single morale class seemed to me to be that boundary. I am easy about what people do with the rules. I don;t mind so Blindjack, be happy and adapt as it suits you

Dave is correct, check to charge home only applies if a unit takes losses otherwise 1 check covers the charge and they contact.

Well gents I was just going off the circumstances for taking Morale Checks on page 50 of the rules.
In the first column of text, bottom line...All units except Gunners will check Morale if: *They are attempting to charge home.
It doesn't say anything about only if receiving casualties , but I can see DO'B's reasoning.
Dragoon's are a little less effective than Horse while mounted and the same when dismounted than formed infantry, but they can cause the enemy a lot of problems and discomfort.
My dragoon brigade are up next for painting.

Cheers,

Ray.

To put the cat amongst the pigeons somewhat. I've never read anywhere that mounted dragoons performed less well in combat than cavalry. In fact in some of the armies of the period the dragoons either were already or became the cavalry.
Is the demarcation when mounted a wargamers myth?A convenience?
Perhaps I've just read the wrong books.
I like books with nice big pictures for my slow mind

Hi Barry




I have to apologise if I'm doing things that seem a little 'off-track', but I'm still learning and testing the rules (3rd test game coming up tomorrow evening), so I guess I'm doing a kind of Tonga Toy test - those of a 'certain age' will understand me - by also putting the rules into different situations. Plus, and this is a BIG plus, I know that those that I will umpire the games for will push the boundaries... and me as well.

Perhaps Barry is talking about the earlier period and not the WSS where as you say dragoons often performed as well as cavalry and I think governments were starting to look at them as a cheaper form of cavalry.
Cheers
Dave

Well, as everyone knows (by now ) I am not a huge fan of the Marlborough Cult Period and so am perhaps not well qualified to comment but I would offer the following as at least a foil to those who perceive Marlborough's uber dragoons as equal to Horse:


1. Interesting that troops who are trained in TWO roles - mounted and dismounted and who are essentially mounted infantry would be superior to soldiers trained specifically to fight mounted. It may be so, but if it is true why wasn't everyone doing it and what was the point of Horse in the first place! Military thinking is as much about economy as anything else - witness the modern British Army in combat. Why wouldn't ALL units just convert to dragoons? After all, it wasn't the Crown's money most of the time it was the Proprietor's first and then subsidized by the State. These blokes were always trying to make a penny so seems slightly anomalous unless there was a specific military reason(which of course you have gathered, I believe there was!)

2. Historically even in later periods the successors in most armies of Horse and Dragoons continued to recognize the 'perceived' superiority. Cuirassiers in the French army even in Napoleonic times? Dragoons seen as rather utilitarian semi - infantry-like cavalry? Again. maybe convention and nothing more but....

3. Mount quality? Again, maybe I am barking up the wrong Horse but I was under the impression that dragoon mounts at least up to 1700 may have been of lesser horseflesh quality than those of true Horse? Happy to be proved wrong on that.

4. Is there repeated, irrefutable evidence of dragoons equalling or beating Horse in combat.. and not just the well known and oft quoted examples such as Blenheim. Again, Marlborough Cultists can sever my limbs with blunt dragoon bayonets but I would be interested in the compelling counter argumentation.....

Otherwise.. I'll stick with my opinion

As always... ready for a discussion

They especially the British here & latter tended to think of themselves as Horse rather than Mounted infantry& occasionally they would actually get away with it as well.

As far as I am aware the proper use of them is as fast infantry which can sense objectives & hold them if they are defensible till the main army turns up. To conduct nasty sneaky stuff like flank marches and unexpected ambushes from cover and desperate stuff like forlorn hopes where thy can be thrown ahead of the main army to break up the enemies attack & cause a delay.

Ginger

I'm sure that's more to do with one up manship and winding up the other regiments. I believe it still goes on today.
Cheers
Dave

Just you stick to the FIRST issues!!!!

You know my views, I'm just waiting for others joining the discussion.
Cheers
Dave