BIG TOPIC 1 - THE END OF SQUADRONS?
Posted: 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.
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.