Infantry, Horse, Dragoons and Guns

Feedback and questions from the magnificent 7 Play test groups in Edinburgh, Dumfries, Sweden, Cheltenham, Arizona, Georgia and Florida.
Post Reply
Captain of Dragoons
Major General
Major General
Posts: 624
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:18 am
Location: Trenton, Ontario, Canada

Infantry, Horse, Dragoons and Guns

Post by Captain of Dragoons » Mon Feb 08, 2010 2:16 am

Hello gents, not sure about which forum to post on - this one or wargaming the period. However there are a few intersting passages I have been reading from John Childs 'The Nine Years War and the British Army' that are related to the disscussions on the rules changes such as rates of fire, marching and staying power of cavalry.

from page 2
Infantry fought in in battalions five to six lines deep giving safety in numbers plus ample time to reload the cumbersome fire arms. Equally important, only about twenty per cent of a battalion was in contact with the enemy at any one time, a factor which tended to bolster confidence and morale whilst diminishing combat effectiveness and efficiency. The two and three rank battalions of the mid-eighteenth century demanded a much superior standard of drill, training, competence and leadership. The foot soldiers of the NYW were better suited to fighting from trenches, ramparts and fortifications rather than the open field. The armies were consciously geared towards the dominant forms of warfare: manoeuvre and the siege.
from page 82
Given the severe limitations of the 17th cent military muskets and the inflexibility of firing from a formation six ranks deep, the battalion could only fire when halted. Firing on the march was impossible. This meant that the fire-fight in battle took place between two static lines of infantry at ranges og 100m or less. The pikemen were little more than observers of a musketry duel and often its victims. Neither firing by rank nor by file produced a heavy weight of shot as only 1/6 of the battalions firepower was discharged simultaneously.
Although the soldier always commenced his march with the right foot.... no further attempt was made at the maintenance of a cadenced step. Once it had reached its designated location on the battlefield, the battalion had to deploy out of column of companies into line of battle with the additional complication of pikemen had to move to the centre and the musketeers had to be split into two wings....an army would begin deploying for battle early in the morning and not be ready for action until the afternoon.
from page 85
Despite the emphasis on sieges and the developing weaponary of the foot, the cavalry still had a vital role to play in battle.....the cavalry charged in double-close order in one rank after the second rank had come into the first rank to fill up the intervals between the files. The third rank probably acted as a reserve and rally point. The actual charge seems to have been delivered at the trot with troopers riding knee-to-knee in a manner reminiscent of Cromwell's Ironsides. The British cavalry tactics were probably compromsie between the Cromwellian charge with cold steel and the practice of the 'caracolle'. The French cavalry, still the outstanding mounted arm.....combined the caracolle with the charge. They troted forward in three ranks, gave a simultaneous discharge of fire from carbines or pistols, and then rode on through the smoke, sword in hand.
from page 86
Cavalry was still the prime force on the battlefield. The French victories Fleurus, Luse and Landen were all direct results of decisive cavalry action....With the infantry static formations which could advance and retreat only with extreme difficulty, it was the cavalry who charged and broke opposing infantry which had become disorganised by musketry and canon fire. At Landen in 1693, the French horse sized enemy earthworks which their own foot had proved unable to penetrate and hold.
I'm convinced the staying power of cavalry has to be changed in the rules.
More adaptable and varied intheir employment were the dragoons, or mounted infantrymen. Their training was a mixture of heavy cavlry drill and infantry evolutions. When used as cavalry...formed up in three ranks and charged home with sword. When as infantry..formed up in three ranksto fight as musketeers armed with the bayonet...During the NYW the dragoons became increasingly to be regarded as simple another form of cavalry....cheaper...rode smaller horses.....By 1697, the dragoons had become a plebian cavalry.
The funtction of artillery in battle was not clearly definde. The British, Austrians, and Dutch deployed portable 1/2 Ib and 3 Ib canon as infantry guns..... .The heavier guns from the train of artillery were arrange in batteries, usually situated on dominating ground to give a clear and wide field of fire. Batteries typically consisted of between 10 and 20 guns. There was no concept of employing massed batteries to blast - in opposing infantry formations. The guns covered weak points in the army's position and were seen as an adjunct to infantry firepower and not as a prime weapon in their own right.
cheers
Edward
Captain of Dragoons
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 2:49 am

Some of what you point out here also gives creedance to the period being split into early, mid and late, or at least early and late. The foot moving and firing and platoon fire would be WSS era and not LOA/NYW. Interesting
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 9:21 am

Yes there is a lot here Edward thanks.

I would recommend that all these quotes be read carefully. Two things immediately jump out which somewhat vindicate the current state of affairs in BLB:


Quote:
Although the soldier always commenced his march with the right foot.... no further attempt was made at the maintenance of a cadenced step. Once it had reached its designated location on the battlefield, the battalion had to deploy out of column of companies into line of battle with the additional complication of pikemen had to move to the centre and the musketeers had to be split into two wings....an army would begin deploying for battle early in the morning and not be ready for action until the afternoon
.

The slow pace of deployment which caused so much bother when deploying from march column to line. I refer back to the long debates we had about this and making CoM from road to line quicker.


from page 86

Quote:
Cavalry was still the prime force on the battlefield. The French victories Fleurus, Luse and Landen were all direct results of decisive cavalry action....With the infantry static formations which could advance and retreat only with extreme difficulty, it was the cavalry who charged and broke opposing infantry which had become disorganised by musketry and canon fire. At Landen in 1693, the French horse sized enemy earthworks which their own foot had proved unable to penetrate and hold.


Going back to the 'robustness' of cavalry, the key phrase in this excerpt is
..infantry which had become disorganised by musketry and cannon fire.
If Horse are used in frontal charges on formed bodies of Foot they WILL get creamed. If however their targets are SHAKEN.. the result of shooting, cannon fire and morale deterioration we have something much more akin to reality.
I am not convinced about the cavalry 'robustness' argument yet.
The melee losses that many have mentioned have also to be put in context.
Casualities are not a pure measure of dead and wounded men. They are a measure of combat capability and effectiveness. A squadron with one model left has not lost 5 models 'dead' it means that it is tired, blown, dispersed,disorganised AND has some casualties.
Often the Gendarmerie at Blenheim are cited as a 'classic' example of Horse who charged again and again but what other evidence is there of this. We can't predicate a massive change to horse credibiility on a single exeptional action by the finest cavalry in the world. Not exactly the 'mean' result folks.
This is a meaty debate, I love Horse, I think we need to have plenty of 'em but I am still reluctant to make them much more powerful as so far in all the games I have played and that is over 100, they come out well on the right side of the ledger and have produced some spectacular results as squadrons of 6.

Thoughts?

Cheers[/quote]
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
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 » Mon Feb 08, 2010 3:07 pm

Hello Barry

Totally agree with Horse getting very bloody noise if charging Infantry that is steady full loaded and with pikes.

I don't think a lot has to be change with the rules. I think overall the rules capture the period and the rules for dragoons and artillery are perfect.

I like the movement rates the way they are. The only things that need to be tweaked are maybe the musketery ranges/effectiveness and the cavalry issue.

After reading parts of the above is musketery too powerful for the early part of the period (GA/LOA/NYW)?

cheers
Edward
Captain of Dragoons
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 8:09 pm

The slow pace of deployment which caused so much bother when deploying from march column to line. I refer back to the long debates we had about this and making CoM from road to line quicker.
My issue with that debate was I want to fight the battle, not spend several turns moving to it. The fight is on, if you are in the wrong place you are now forced to deal with your mistake.
I am not convinced about the cavalry 'robustness' argument yet.
I completely understand your definition of casualties. It is how we in our group have always interpreted it in all our games. That isn't the debate. The question is if a squadron wins a melee, at the pinnacle of success should the squadron be able to carry on? The answers from most seems that they rarely do. We would like to see their chances to do so increased slightly. Most are with you and agree one squadron shouldn't be a terror. Perhaps we don't have enough games under our belts to really see the potential as written now. Law of averages and all.

Joe
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 11, 2010 2:28 am

Often the Gendarmerie at Blenheim are cited as a 'classic' example of Horse who charged again and again but what other evidence is there of this.
Ok Barry, how about these examples:

1)The Jacobite Cavalry charges at the Boyne; and

2)The great cavalry battle at Ramillies between the French and Confederates (Dutch and Danish).

cheers
Edward
Captain of Dragoons
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:06 am

The walk through argumentation is very useful in distilling ideas down to a workable concept..

What I am getting from the cavalry debate is this:

BLB squadrons (administratively a pair of squadrons in real life) will stay as squadrons.
I won't differentiate between level of casualties in melee ie 1 for horse two for foot.. too gamey
I will probably eliminate the need for victors to test in melee if at 50% or less (which will give them the lift many of you seek). Combine this with the amalgamation of squadrons and I feel the issue of repeat charges and elimination of the 'one shot weapon' syndrome is also achieved. This also allows larger units to charge, reform, amalgamate and generally stay in the fight longer. I have taken some advice from Iain Stainsford(a man who definitely knows the period) and he has confimred that generally, large Horse units would logically prove to be more robust. Cavalry on the whole are actually MORE flexible now than ever. THREADING (thanks Tuscon!) gives you a second chance at a FIRST IMPRESSION.. that should please a lot of disgruntled LOW Rollers.
Bullet & Blade stays - I like it and the alternatives were to my mind just that.. alternatives and not distinctive enough. Sounding a bit WRG ish mostly.

A lot of the stuff that people have mentioned as possible 'write ins' can be solved simply by common sense and don;t need paragraphs by me to tell you what to do ie:

If you want quicker action set up closer together!
Apply the map/blind deployment concept iterated by someone earlier(Joe or Greg perhaps?)
Apply a house rule to deployment from Column of manoeuvre

The range thing for muskets. There have been many logical, some complex suggestions including bringing the casualty causing mechanism into line with melee combat. In principle I have no real problem with the latter but it would move everything in a huge lurch towards R2E (which works very smoothly on this mechanic) but I think on reflection I won't do that.
My simple alternative may just be to move the minus factors for distance shooting so far into the negative that it is not worthwhile doing it. In effect.. it is ineffectual.. a total waste of gaming time probability wise.

I paraphrase(badly) but wasn't it Churchill who said.. out of extremely complexity comes extreme simplicity.. or some such :oops:
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
User avatar
barr7430
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 5905
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:22 pm
Location: EK,Scotland
Contact:

Post by barr7430 » Thu Feb 11, 2010 2:55 pm

Hmm,

just boiled all of these recent debates down to a few small changes:

No test for victors of melee even at 50% strength or below..
Net -6 for long range shooting which means even

1st volley +4
Guards /Elite max +3
Dense target +1
Stationary platoon firers +1

Defend orders +1
All musket +1

Throwing a 6

would cause 4 casualties

whereas a Drilled unit in the same lucky circumstances would cause 2

an a unit which had fired before and was firing at an enemy battalion in line, without DEFEND orders and with pikes on a Throw of 3 (much more typical) would do zip, and would also do zip at 6, but if all musket and / or Platoon firing would do 0 or 1.

That should save lots of farting about with movement distances!
"If you think you can, or if you think you can't, you are probably right"

Henry Ford
User avatar
CoffinDodger
Lieutenant General
Lieutenant General
Posts: 866
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2009 7:10 pm
Location: Motherwell, Scotland.
Contact:

Post by CoffinDodger » Thu Feb 11, 2010 4:05 pm

Barry,

Simplicity itself. I like it. It effectively stops the chancers from firing at everything in the hope of causing a casualty and thus will maintain the pace of the game and, when used with the charge rule, will accurately portray the bladder emptying effect of a nervous volley.

Jim
“I can assure you, Gentlefolk, they look better from a distance."
Jim O'Neill.
Post Reply