Hello

My first time on this forum, i m playing RTE with a friend of mine since one year, and i think it is one of the most serious and historically flavered miniatures rules.

But, nobody is perfect, so doesn t RTE, and it is in the CLOSE COMBAT, that something should be done.

More later.

D

Hello Groslau (we are french but i speak english for other forumers)

We have a common friend.

Yes, you are true, rules are very good but Close combat procedure
looks like Alamo bloodbath or trench melee in 1915, too often.

1 if there is a second round, you often get a third one, consequences ?
Both winner and loser are wiped out or nearly so.
That s not napoleonics fighting in open !

2 Cavalry charge results in cavalry suicide too many times.
With RTE Against a square, cavalry impale itself, that s unhistorical and a non sense in game play terms.
Historically, cavalry enters in contact (swords against bayonets) only when it can penetrate the infantry formation, (winning the closse combat)
if it cannot , cavalry evades contact by the sides.


So, what do i propose ?

I think you will get my whole proposition by our common friend, but here i will just say this:

In CC there should be only one round
with a winner and a loser.
the loser must test resolve with a negative modifier -1, -2 or -3
(the consequence of the round)
if he passes it the winner test (without the modifier)
then if all passes we test again with a -1 modifier more for all and so on
then a -2 )

CC should become a DUEL of RESOLVE

For cav there two possibilities
1 Cav does n t penetrate Inf formation
So cav evades contact (improvised square could fire)

2 Cav penetrate inf Formation
CC is tested (and cav win it most of the time)

For suspense and fog of war, i ve created 4 small tables with modifiers
to test and know if it s 1st or 2nd possibility.
So you can , rarely, break a square, or be repulsed by an inf not in square.
Of course Heavies and lancers are more dangerous than light cav, and good inf has more chances to survive than recruits.

We ll discuss more about it soon.

I thanks deeply Barry for his wonderful design of RTE,
i want just to make it better for my tastes and point of vew,
i do not means what i propose should be better for all gamers and players.
But such a complex tactical period leads to a variety of ways of simulating it.
The RTE structure is exceptionnaly intelligent, i just disagree with the last part of it.

Friendly yours

D

I just wonder if you are using the rules correctly?
Are you remembering that you compare the differnce between both sides hit dice to determine the number of casualties caused?, this is found on the Close Combat Casualty Table. As soon as one side loses the combat they have to take a morale test, if they waver they must compulsorily disengage, see Victors and Vanquished page 98 only if their morale is OK does the combat carry on. Only of a very few occaisions in all our games have units been wiped out and this has very high quality units fighting and some lucky dice rolls. The other thing to rember is that casualties are not men being killed it represents the combat effectiveness of the unit being destroyed.
Cheers
Dave

I assume you are aware of the effect on the French cavalry after their charges at Waterloo and many other battles throughout the Napoleonic period. They were basically out of action for the rest of the battle and this is what the rules attempt to reproduce. The sensible thing is not to order your cavalry to charge formed squares in the first place.
Cheers
Dave

Obreindavid
Not sure I am going to agree whole heartedly on the cav. Waterloo was in many ways not your common battle of the period, the Cav charges at Waterloo can probably best be compared to Eyalu and the French Cav charges there.

Cavalry had a variety of ways to attack a square from, column of squadrons, line in echelon. Most nations emphasized attacking onto a corner as it was hard for infantry to bring fire to their right. This is but a small sample of what they could and did do. As to throwing them on squares I don’t buy that in the majority of cases, more often than not they would pull up when faced with a formed square.

Another thing to remember is that there where numerous squares broken during the period, if I recall correctly there was a study done in one of the old Strategy and Tactics, and I think they came up with 20-30 squares broken, I even think Brent Noseworty had a rather long list of broken squares. We can dispute how well formed they where or not but quite a number where broken. I seem to recall one instance in the 1813 or 1814 (don’t have my books here at work damn inconvenience) where a battalion of Russian had a formed square, so much so that they had piled their back packs in the center of the square. Up came a regiment of Guard Cavalry and ran right over the square

Now not really having gotten to any heavy cavalry combat with the rules I will not comment on how the rules handle cav vrs square, but the cavalry of the period certainly had the ability to withdraw rather easily from combat with squares. As it was the cav who would take the last step to engage or not.

William

Perhaps another opportunity for me to substantiate the logic behind some mechanisms.
When close combat continues to 'the death' the rules are simulating once more in a graphic way. This is NOT the extinction of all life in the close combat it is the destruction of unit combat effectiveness via:
1. Casualties
2. Desertion and stragglers
3. Breakdown of formation
4. Breakdown of chain of command
5. Loss of lower level formation integrity: companies
6. Disorder
7. Exhaustion
8. Broken weapons
9. Lack of ammuntion and powder
10. Thirst and hunger
11. Panic and shock

To the wargamer it may seem like Level 17 of DOOM but in fact it signifies the elimination of a viable 'asset' on the battlefield.

What use were:

The Union Brigade after their charge? They did not ALL die but they were so blown, disorganized and leaderless that they were parked in the rear in case of emergenies.. a one shot weapon!

Think about: The Light Brigade at Balaklava, Think about the Heavies who assaulted the Raevski at Borodino.... wargamers continual use of assets for glory seeking activities are not realistic. How long could YOU (whoever the individual) or I sustain the level of adrenalin necessary to kill a man with a bayonet or a sword? 30 seconds? 2 minutes? This is the kind of logic applied to the R2E mechanisms. We are dealing with simulation of humans under the most severe stress conditions imaginable: imminent and uncontrolable death! Each army was not composed of 40,000 Jean Claude vanDammes, Bruce Willis or Daniel Craig's..

Husband your assets
Use them wisely
Don't expect miracles
Challenge your own perceptions,experiences and dare I say wargames prejudices

I have not gotten everything right. I recognize my conclusions with not suit everyone... that is OK with me! I am happy for gamers to change whatever they want to enjoy the game but don't just change things because you don't like them! Consider my logic and if it still sounds nuts then alter it!
Sorry but I can't go back and reprint the book though!

Keep it coming, any chance to dialogue about concepts should not be missed

William, I would imagine that those 20-30 broken squares are mentioned because they are exceptions to the hundreds of other squares that were completely uneffected by cavalry. As for the rules, as long as the cavalry do not have Attack orders they can happily trap the enemy infantry in square or trot off elsewhere it's only when they have been ordered to attack that they have to go in.
Cheers
Dave

Dave that makes sense, and yes those 20-30 squares broken where indeed extraordinary my point is that it swings both ways, the cav could be broken with blown horses and exhausted men, but also the infantry may feel invincible but they probably are aware that they can be broken.

William

Dear fellow Wargamers:

May I add here something to the historical situation. By french military training squares are to be attacked only under the following circumstances:
1.) Gather cavalry regiments, prefered type Cuirassiers.
2.) Move the attached Horse batteries forward until you reach canister firing range, followed/supported by the cavalry.
3.) While dressing the Cavalry in OPEN coloums of Squadrons
4.) Soften up the squares with some salvos of canister
5.) CHARGE!

That is what has been written by and from Cavalry Leaders of this time and had been learned from earlier wars, but in practice it could look quite different.
Eylau saw no use of horse artillery because the Russians were not in Line of Sight and the ground was not usable.
At Waterloo on the other hand Ney didnt have a single battery at hand because they had been used up to form the Grand Battery.

There were some occasions when squares were broken/Ridden down.
Almost any battle/Time period had one or two of it.
Eylau, Friedland, Peninsula, Russia, 1813/14, Quatre Bras, Waterloo to name a few.
Some were caused by luck, other by ability or inability, some by bad weather, others because the attacker has longer weapons(lances).

I think Barry got it allright.

Cheers

Günter

Hello

Many interesting posts from all of you, i ll write more next days
(i can t use my right arm during 3 or 4 days, so i can t write very long)

First, reply to Barry,
you wrote in "square" topic:
"The 1st KGL Light Battalion rated Veteran-Elite withstood a simultaneous charge by two regiments of Cuirassiers. One 32 model unit (Veteran -Elite), one 18 model unit (Drilled-Elite). Over 3 bounds of combat one Cuirassier unit was wiped out and the other routed with 50% losses. Casualties within the KGL were high but the square stood. It was also sheltering 12 Brunswick Avant Guard who had taken refuge there on a prior move. They shared the square's casualties to the extent of 50%. Total losses for the Defenders were 12 models"

Translating this combat into a historical Waterloo similar situation (according Alessandro Barbero "Waterloo")
Two cuirrassiers régiments charge a KGL batallion in square, they pass the différent tests, all of them, the square fire a single volley during the last 100 yards, one or two models are losses (20 or 40 cuirrassiers and horses), now it s Close combat !
The horses refuses to contact the hail of bayonets, cavalrymen slide right or left, some muskets on the sides fire to the evading cuirrassiers causing a few losses more. (perhaps a D6 of firing)
Some centaures discharge their pistol on the stubborn infantrymen,
(a D6 firing ?).
If, by chance, a gap appears in the square, or by pure exaspération, a cuirrassiers officer goes berserk and jump in the middle of the square.
Not followed by other troopers, he is shot down by KGL officers with pistol fire.
It s over !

The two regiments retreat in disorder, horses blown, leaving less than 40 or 50 cuirrassiers on the ground, (2 or 3 models losses in all).
The KGL suffer a dozen KIA or severaly wounded men.
The cavalry got some fatigue, when it will rally 300 yards away, the next charge will be more cautious and charge home will be more difficult.

That s what i mean.

I understand your argument, Barry.
in RTE Losses are not "losses", they show global usure.
But i think that in your exemple, the cuirrassiers regiments could charge only once.

After Two hours of battle between Houg and la Haye sainte against squares, french cavalry, still had 50% of their troopers.

I think Close combat should punish the cav losers by Fatigue points instead of models killings.
Exemple : this charge and retreat could give two fatigue points (each two points is a -1 morale modifier) to the cav.
Half of them could be permanent, the other half could be "rested" by a form order when in order again, (or tested like rally test).
this way cavalry could charge again, and again, with diminishing returns as historically.

This is an exemple of home made rules accomodation for my tastes.
Your opinion about it, would interest me , Barry.

Good evening

D




_________________

Barry

About the Union brigade at waterloo.
The three heavy dragoons had very few losses during their CC with the french infantry divisions (they had penetrate easily the inf formations, and the french infantrymen were hapless).
But they pursue their charge, against the french great battery; then the the 3rd and 4th lancers of Gobrecht brigade charged them by flank.
The dragoons tried to escape, but their hoses were blown, and the lances were deadly in pursuit.
It s the pursuit by lancers which wiped out half of the Union brigade, not the charge on the french infantry.

At Balaklava, it s russian artillery cannister fire which destroyed light brigade.

Fire is the principal cavalry killer, sometines it s enemy Cavalry countercharge and pursuit .

Friendly Yours

D

Barry

About the Union brigade at waterloo.
The three heavy dragoons had very few losses during their CC with the french infantry divisions (they had penetrated easily the inf formations, and the french infantrymen were hapless).
But they pursue their charge, against the french great battery; then the 3rd and 4th lancers of Gobrecht brigade charged them by flank.
The dragoons tried to escape, but their horses were blown, and the lances were deadly in pursuit.
It s the pursuit by lancers which wiped out half of the Union brigade, not the charge on the french infantry.

At Balaklava, it s russian artillery cannister fire which destroyed light brigade.

Fire is the principal cavalry killer, sometines it s enemy Cavalry countercharge and pursuit .

Friendly Yours

D

Barry

I dream about playing 25mm miniatures tactical napoleonics since the early 90 '.
I have read many rules, none worth a replaying.
But two things happend last year:
first an associated project with a friend of mine great specialist of the Empire history, and posessing two napolonics 28mm painted armies, then, your beautiful rulebook, with the best rules i had ever seen.

So i bought and bought figures, and painteg and painted.

I like very much discussing history and concepts;
But i would have never been able, nor been courageous enough to design a rule so cleverly done as RTE.

It s easy, when the house is built to come and place a picture on the wall and say: "it would be more beautiful with this !"

So no need to rewrite your rulebook, it s a masterpiece.

We are just writing and communicating about our hobby and passion.

Thank you, Barry, without your design, i should not have painted 600 28mm miniatures, in less than two years.

D

I very humbly accept ALL of your comments both good and constructively critical.

My work is done!

Thank you