Post
by davidsharpe » Sat Mar 26, 2011 7:28 am
Thank you for your reply, Barry.
I understood some weeks ago your point of view, "losses" are an abstraction way of simulating wearing down cavalry, not pure melee effects.
But, in game terms, it leads to non historical playing.
For exemple, try to simulate 4 bras battle, Pire french cavalry division would be out of the game after a single stroke !
In reality it attacked many times, back and forth, the netherland infantry, cavalry, british infantry, brunswick infantry and cavalry.
On a table top game it would be a one shot action.
This week, we played a Peninsular fictional scenario, french against spanish.
A lone infantry spanish recruit batallion formed square in front a french brigade cavalry and rendered it useless, because it would have been suicide to be in attack order, and obliged to charge the square.
Sometimes it seems it s the square who hunts down cavalry
Like a giant magnet !
"But [quote="obriendavid"]Following on from our previous weekend games and display games at shows I have been concerned that cavalry once launched into attack, especially against squares are either successful (extremely unlikely) or are destroyed (very likely). This seemed too drastic from what I thought I had read before so going back over my reference books I found that it was often the case that finding their attack unsuccessful the cavalry would attempt to pull back, reform and attack later but it seemed to be only better quality troops that were able to do this.
The rules currently allow charging cavalry to attempt to reign in their charge before contact but if they fail the combat is fought until one side breaks, which is usually the cavalry and they are useless for the rest of the battle. I have suggested to Barry that after one bound of combat cavalry can attempt to pull back using the same mechanism as reigning in a charge and we have thought about adding this as an amendment but wondered what others think of this idea?"
David feels there is something too drastic, me too.
I think that simulating the cavalry wearing down process should nt be with a "loss" mechanism.
Losses should be a fire consequences (as it was in reality), with just 20 to 40 horses down each charge.
But fatigue and morale attrition should be simulated by fatigue points.
Some we could rest, with a turn or two reorganising, and some not, showing progressive wearing down, enabling many charges with diminishing power.
Waterloo and 4 bras many charges could be simulated, like cavalry progressive attrition (instead of infantry attrition which could be brutal, by fire).
As in historical situation, Close combat between infantry and cavalry should be very rare, when it happened it mean cavalry is inside infantry formation and destroying it.
Squares didn t "kill" cavalry, they were break waters, showing no breach for the cavalry to enter in, so rendering close combat impossible.
Why, historically, cavalry dared to charge squares ?
Because sometimes squares "failed morale checks" and disordered, or a horse would fell on it and open a breach.
AND because cavalry knew that anyway they would not be destroyed by the charge if infantry stayed steady, but just get a few losses by a weak fire.
With RTE rules, i didn t dare to charge a single spanish recruit batallion with two cavalry regiments !
Sorry to insist on it, Barry, because your rules structure are a gem, but cavalry "close combat" rules are not satisfactory, historically (but, as yu said, abstraction could explain it) and (more problematic) in gaming terms.
Why not think about it and propose one day a small Addenda rules to overcome all the minor suggestions this forum put the light on ?
All rules need evolution.
Sometimes it s the structure which is problematic, and evolution would mean a new design.
Not RTE.
It s structure is the best i have ever seen, hypothetic changes would not alter it, just make it splendid.
Friendly yours Barry.
D
"British infantry ? In Duel, it s the Devil !"
Général Foy to Napoléon in the morning of june the 18th, 1815.