BIG TOPIC 1 - THE END OF SQUADRONS?

Feedback and questions from the magnificent 7 Play test groups in Edinburgh, Dumfries, Sweden, Cheltenham, Arizona, Georgia and Florida.
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

BIG TOPIC 1 - THE END OF SQUADRONS?

Post by barr7430 » Wed Feb 03, 2010 5:24 pm

Guys,

this is a biggie... I have some views on it which I'll keep for now.. let me start the debate with some reasoned argumentation from our friends in Tuscon,AZ:

First, one thing which still seems strange to us is how the horse are organized for play. We looked into the comments about this, and we better understand what is intended here: a “pair” of squadrons (per the historical organizations) would actually field a single effective squadron, which is represented by two bases. The tactical unit was, in fact, the pair of squadrons. Our interpretation of the comments was that each pair of bases – while representing two squadrons for administrative purposes – was functionally a single “squadron”, as a tactical unit and probably in terms of numbers. Is this correct?

A six model BLB ‘squadron’ has a strength of roughly 240 men which is the size of some small regiments of the period particularly English Horse regiments. It could actually represent 2 or even 3 squadrons.
Based on that interpretation, we had some thoughts: Unit frontage seems possibly off vis-à-vis the width of infantry battalions. A foot soldier requires a bit less than a meter of frontage, and a 500-man battalion would be deployed in 4 or 5 ranks, giving a width of perhaps 80-100 meters. Horse required approximately twice the frontage per soldier, and deployed in fewer ranks. If a squadron (in game terms, that is, two administrative squadrons) represents 250-300 horsemen, deployed in two or three ranks, then the frontage would be at least the same as an infantry battalion, not two-thirds as wide.
Further, each horse regiment is represented as two units, each of one squadron, but if these squadrons are administrative “pairs of squadrons” then what about all those regiments that fielded three administrative squadrons (which was perhaps the majority case)?

BH COMMENT:
All factually correct. However several key points are not taken into account in ‘gaming terms’.
• Unit frontage and depth are not critical in terms of advantage/disadvantage in the game mechanisms – therefore this agreed anomaly is not really relevant.
• Aesthetics have played an important part in the basing. Originally Horse were based on 20mm frontage. 6 models x 20 = 120mm, not dissimilar to the frontage of an infantry battalion at 135mm, in fact almost indiscernible on the table. Problem for me was this: it looked bad! The cavalry were too far apart for the boot to boot look I was trying to achieve. I therefore tightened it up reducing the overall squadron frontage. As it did not affect play apart from allowing slightly more dense troop concentrations I pretty much washed over it.
• The most misleading term and in fact what buggers up the logic of this interesting debate is the misuse BY ME of the term squadron. It has been used in the ‘gaming idiom’ and not the historical. I should completely eliminate the word and substitute regiment or unit or body. This I think actually solves everything because we are talking about a tactical body of horse which, if average strengths are applied will give a number of troops/squadrons per unit when the division is done! If I do make this change which is possible, it will perhaps alter some of the play mechanisms that player’s like. I have done this already when I think it is the right thing to do but I would have to think through several gaming situations. Treating Horse as units of 4 + stands would eliminate the need for such things as
• All or Nothing Charge


We definitely feel that there are cases where a squadron should be able to function independently, if split off from its parent, but we also find many cases where play seems to be distorted by not having all of the bases in a single regiment operate together. If they don’t, the unit is too small to really hold up on the field of battle. And the way it works now, you see lots of cases where the front “squadron’ is decimated and the second rank – which should have taken the same amount of fire, etc. – is untouched.

We don’t know what your assumptions are, here, but we still find that having a four-base horse unit would simplify play. We are OK with the idea that two of the four bases could split off and function independently, as a special case, but – and I won’t repeat the comments made on this topic from our last game – we still find that having two semi-connected units complicates play unnecessarily. I wouldn’t repeat this if it hadn’t come out strongly as something we would like to see changed. Perhaps you can explain better to us why the rules work as they do, but we find that it represents an annoying inconsistency with the smoothness of the game overall.
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
User avatar
flick40
Major General
Major General
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Kansas City , Mo
Contact:

Post by flick40 » Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:05 pm

Squadrons, in their current status, are one trick ponies. They have no staying power once they have charged their target. They are either successful or destroyed. If successful they are reduced to being ineffectual, thus the consolidating of squadrons rule.

Frontages are moot since there is no overlap rule as v1 had.

Combining the squadrons into one regiment means that instead of one squadron routing you now have the whole regiment (potentially 4 squadrons).

Horse was up to 1/3+ of an army during this period. Combining squadrons into regiments equates more figures on the table to reflect this.

Horse running around in squadrons best gives me the period feel. Perhaps finding a way to make the squadron a little more survivable, losing only 1 figure in melee won etc. Allowing reduced squadrons to combine is already there and a great addition to make them survivable.

I'm not opposed to testing the regiment idea, would there be changes to combat as well?

Joe
User avatar
j1mwallace
Major General
Major General
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Dumfries, Scotland

Post by j1mwallace » Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:06 pm

Agree with flick completely here. My only problem is that armies were reported as battalions and squadrons. Horse is very brittle as squadrons though and is definitely a one hit wonder.
Darkman
Major
Major
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:10 am
Location: Gloucester UK

Post by Darkman » Thu Feb 04, 2010 12:10 pm

I have to say I like the idea of squadrons as they are now. But they are as stated a one shot wonder.

I feel that they should up to a point not have a problem charging and retire easily without routing. At that point they will have problems advancing and then erode very quickly.

(Thought remove interpenetration for cavalry through cavalry)

This would allow cavalry to Charge/Advance 2 or 3 times with some effect but if then faced with fresh cavalry would more than likely rout.

So you could give them good morale up to say 2/3 casualties and then really big deductions at that point.

As Flick said maybe only 1 casualty for a draw and 1/2 casualties for each point lost by.
Darkman
Major
Major
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:10 am
Location: Gloucester UK

Post by Darkman » Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:08 pm

Or you could count a squadron as 12 figures.

Do most people use sheets to record casualties?
hautpol
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 10:40 am
Location: Cheltenham, UK

Post by hautpol » Thu Feb 04, 2010 2:18 pm

I would prefer to see squadrons retained, principally for the reason that contemporary accounts used the term 'squadron' when describing cavalry actions.

Robert Parker's account of the action in which the English horse overthrew the Gendarmerie at Blenheim ( as quoted in Chandler's 'Art of War in the age of Marlborough') has no mention of regiments, or indeed their names and refers exclusively to squadrons.

Individual squadrons seem to work well in the current rules and the 'all or nothing' rule already allows bigger tactical units to be formed for specific actions.
Captain of Dragoons
Major General
Major General
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Trenton, Ontario, Canada

Post by Captain of Dragoons » Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:44 pm

Perhaps six figures could represent two sqns. The reason why armies strengths in cavalry are refered to as sqns and not regiment is because there is no fix size. Some regiments could have two and some eight :!:

Also like the suggestion of increasing the staying power of sqns. At Blenheim the gendarmie reformed and fought later in the battle. At Ramillies the maison du roy reformed and charged time and time again.

cheers
Edward
Captain of Dragoons
User avatar
Heneborn
Major
Major
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon May 26, 2008 1:00 pm

Post by Heneborn » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:00 pm

I also agree with Joe (and everyone else it seems), squadrons are really vulnerable and can only really be used "once", then they are spent. Giving them a bit more staying power or perhaps broadening the "all or nothing" rule might be a good idea to make cavalry stronger.
User avatar
flick40
Major General
Major General
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Kansas City , Mo
Contact:

Post by flick40 » Thu Feb 04, 2010 11:10 pm

Seems the big agreement here is the survivability or viability of the squadron where they are not throw away troops. I wonder if squadrons had survivability originally would the Tucson team be making the same suggestion?

The addition of the combining squadrons rule is great. I feel loosing only 1 trooper for a melee win would help as well. Leave foot at 2 as that seems fair and proportional in relation to unit size. We dont want squadrons to become too powerful and have too much staying power. I feel this slight change should do the trick without enlarging them to regiment size.

Players can still combine the sqdns into a regiment and move them around the table. But their charge would be the all or nothing unless split off before doing so.
Churchill
General
General
Posts: 1519
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:49 pm

The End of the Squadron???

Post by Churchill » Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:16 pm

Hi all,

Barry, I seem to have missed some of your posts, but I will read through them and give my point of view.
As I and a few of us have said in the past, please don't change too much in the BLB rules, they work fine so why change something that works.
The squadron strength of 6 figures is ok and doesn't need changing.It's the people using single squadrons in a "GAMEY" tactic that need to change their outlook of the use of cavalry in this period.
I agree with Ed in that cavalry regiments were not all made up of single squadrons.If I might take the British cavalry at the Battle of Blenheim as an example.They were organised into three brigades, that of Wood's, Palmes and Ross's.
Wood's was made up of his own regiment (2 squadrons) and Lumley's (3 squadrons).
Palmes was made up of Cadogan's (1 squadron), Wyndam's (2 squadrons) and Schomberg's (2 squadrons).
Ross's was made up of his own regiment (2 squadrons), Hay's (1 squadron) and attached to this brigade was the Erbprinz Dragoons (4 squadrons).
You will notice that Cadogan's and Hay's only have single squadrons, but this is only because their other squadrons could not get shipped over in time for the battle.
It was Palmes brigade all 5 squadrons of it that charged the Gendarmerie (8 squadrons).To comment on Jim O'Neil's post, regiments did sometimes fight with their squadrons in line abreast as Palmes ordered his wing squadrons to swing outwards, whereupon all 5 squadrons charged forward.Using this tactic could be a gamble and has it's good and bad points, you may have more figures fighting, but may also suffer more casualties.I like the "All or Nothing" charge as it is with supporting squadrons behind each other in base contact and sharing the casualties amongst the regiment when taking morale checks.
Cavalry in this period as throughout military history have mainly been used as Shock troops charging in deep formations in a attempt to break into or through a enemy formation using the speed and weight of the horse and rider to it's advantage.
Steve reading your post on how single squadrons are so fragile now, I'd say and so they should be!!!
On page 4 of BLB v1 it has the figure to real man ratio as 1 to 35, this gives us a squadron of 210 cavalry charging a regiment of 630 steady musketmen some armed with pikes too.If betting to the outcome I know who my money would be on.
As has been said on this forum many times before, it just didn't happen during this period.People seem to get transfixed with the period being the same as the napoleonic period.Cavalry did not charge steady infantry frontally, it was suicidal.
Cavalry operated in Brigades and neither regiments nor squadrons were sent on their own willy nilly about the battlefield.Remember you should have a cavalry figure for every two infantry figures so for every two regiments of infantry, you should have three squadrons of cavalry.

Sorry this is so long winded, but once I get started :shock: :wink: :lol:

Kind Regards.............Ray.

Image
User avatar
obriendavid
General of the Army
General of the Army
Posts: 2627
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Post by obriendavid » Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:29 pm

I'm with Ray on this one and I can see a danger of throwing the baby out with the bath water. The original rules worked well as far as I'm concerned and I just feel that people now want to change everything just for the sake of change and not necessarily to the benefit of the game.

Cheers
Dave
User avatar
flick40
Major General
Major General
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Kansas City , Mo
Contact:

Post by flick40 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:59 pm

people now want to change everything just for the sake of change and not necessarily to the benefit of the game
I disagree. The issue is the rules have been changed, when you change one thing another must be looked at. It becomes a domino effect. So far the changes that Barry made have been good. Since our first game with v1 to what there is now in v2 everyone in our group feel the rules are better.
Darkman
Major
Major
Posts: 185
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:10 am
Location: Gloucester UK

Post by Darkman » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:41 am

Although I have stated I like the idea of squadrons I can see that the rules mechanisums are leaning towards regiment/brigade size units.
User avatar
j1mwallace
Major General
Major General
Posts: 724
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Dumfries, Scotland

Post by j1mwallace » Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:41 am

As I've said before there seems to be a geographic split based on the big pond here.
Our American and Canadian cousins seem to like more complexity and all angles covered whereas the Brits like simple, fast rules where the a fair amount is left to the players playing in a more laissez fair "gentlemans agreement " fashion. I think it firmly depends on how your group plays.
We are very much in the latter camp.
I'd agree with Dave and Ray. Added complexity does not always a better game make.
User avatar
flick40
Major General
Major General
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2009 10:24 pm
Location: Kansas City , Mo
Contact:

Post by flick40 » Tue Feb 09, 2010 4:18 pm

Added complexity does not always a better game make.
I agree with you here Jim. I don't want to add a bunch of what if charts and rules to the game either. My comments about splitting the period make sense but for the purpose of BLB it would not fit. Barry put the questions out there so I am just thinking out loud. Brainstorming if you will, maybe something I or another says will trigger the happy medium Barry is looking for. Or he may decide to go his own way or do nothing at all.

Just throwing this out there, I like Barry have thick skin. If someone thinks I put out a bad idea just say so, you cannot offend me. I would ask it be backed up with reasoning or an alternate suggestion.

Joe
Post Reply