"Testing to charge?" Topic

Just a random thought – why, in general, do Napoleonic troops have to test morale to charge, but Ancient troops do not?

Because ancient troops were trained to charge and fight in melee as their most common way of combat, while napoleonic troops were trained and expected to fight by firing?

I'm not a big fan of that rule either (i.e. testing to charge). Maybe it should get easier from turn to turn as they build up their courage.

Like most Napoleonic rules, it depends upon the scale. At Company level, there should be no test to charge. The Company Commander orders it and in they go. There might be a test to see if they close or if they balk, but stepping off should be automatic.

As the scale goes down(?) I expect that the test to charge is trying to take into account aspects of getting all the subordinate elements aligned and prepared to go. There are alot more aspects that can come into play to allow a Brigade commander opportunity/excuse to delay closing the distance to melee. As well, at that scale, commanders don't get ordered to melee or charge. They get ordered to take objectives and make decisions about how best to go about it. A test to charge therefore is a test to see how committed to the bayonet the commander might be.

In my system, there is no test to charge but every charge order disorders the unit charging. There isn't even a test to close but instead units will degrade more and more as they take fire and see the odds going against them and if the player does not order a unit back from the brink, they will flee on their own and be nigh unralliable. The game is therefore not about hoping you get good dice rolls to close but instead becomes about deciding how much you can afford to push your men and still retain authority and cohesion.

Ancients under FoG rules have to test to restrain themselves from charging without orders :)

It's not what they're paid for :) Being issued a big pointy stick implies that you are to run up to the nearest bad guy and stick him with it. Being issued a bow or a firearm implies the opposite.

In some Ancients rules (Might of Arms comes to mind) there is a morale test to charge.

Doug

The test to charge can be used to represent lots of different things. In the ancient world – firearms weren't the common until the later Medieval periods and only began to become the standard firearm supplanting bows and crossbows by the late Renaissance. So the typical method of defeating your opponent in battle was through close combat unless your army consisted primarily of bow armed cavalry who used their bows to demoralize the enemy and then allowed the fewer heavily armored troops to mop up the more stubborn units.

In the later periods, the fire line became the norm and charging into contact was a risky proposition. Concentrated fire at the last moment could devastate a regiment. As for having it or not in a rules set – I use a home-grown set and some troops must check to charge, others much check to NOT charge, and some troops just do what they are told by their officers (not many in this latter category).

I have read of medieval battles where both sides nerved themselves up. Then one side charged and the other broke before contact. So it wasn't always a melee as in the movies.

Though the lack of ranged weapons does make standing off difficult.

My house SYW rules have a test to close – elite troops much more likely to do so than militia.

Lots of Ancients rules have tests to charge.

highlandbevan 15 May 2008 1:49 p.m. PST
''Just a random thought – why, in general, do Napoleonic troops have to test morale to charge, but Ancient troops do not?''

From my reading – most Napoleonic troops never had the time to test for morale: the decision to go into charge was made before they began their approach and their commander is hardly going to interview them a few yards from the enmey line.

But…..assuming you mean toy soldiers rather than real troops (!) the morale test before charging, at least for infantry, seems to me there to replicate the situation at Waterloo where the Imperial Guard approached the British line with the intention of going in……and stopped. Although this and similar cases were often the result of having to deploy into a fire formation while under galling fire themselves, there were other cases, like at Albuera, where whole battalions or brigades refused to move forward, let alone to 'charge'. Begging the question: why apply the rules only at charge distance?

It seems to me that the test to 'charge' roll is false, because actually charging, itself, gives a real psychological boost to the charger: it resolves the amibiguities of situation the men are in.

The problem, has to cover the fact that the French, in general, didn't really charge even though Desaix was reported to have been struck by a ball in his chest while leading one. The preferred method was to walk in with increased pace and hope the enemy break.

If the enemy didn't break and returned fire enough to kill the incoming lead elements then there's a problem. The dead at the front form a pile. Those behind stumble and some shy back and then the whole lot stops. In order to do something, the officer orders deployment into line and the formation can get stuck. You see, I've never heard of a unit that came in, was not fired at, and froze.

Seems to me that freezing an incoming unit (which is what the charge test can do), should be a fire effect, not a restriction on charging per-se.

It is a simple question of technology advances creating a situation where fighting men over the ages had this eagre or will to close to hand to hand combat taken out of them.

In ancient times there was no such thing as a Rifle or musket or machine gun or cannons, you were lucky to have bows or slings or javelins at best and once a volley was fired the target troops could hide behind shield walls and protect themselves to some extent. Knowing this weapons designers or innovators of those days and later designed more accurate or harder hitting bows, crossbows were invented or the Roman Pilum for example amongst other innovations and advances.

But until the advent of gunpowder men still were indoctrinated into knowing that the only way to win a battle or fight was to close and hack and thrust at each other, there was no other way known to fight combat. This was the way of the world for thousands of years and there was no reason to think things would ever change. However, saying that, behind the scenes men were constantly looking for newer ways to kill an enemy more efficiently with fewer losses to their own troops. Trying to gain a technological edge over an enemy was and still is how armies win and lose wars.

Gunpowder and explosive charges were eventually invented and it was realised eventually that they had uses on the battlefield. We all know about the first designed cannons and firearms and the impact they had but the new technology still had its draw backs, namely speed of firing and decreased usability in adverse weather conditions etc. Men still predominately closed to hand to hand even with firearms making their appearance.

But as the advances in firearms and gunpowder composition became more advanced and the resulting devastation became apparent men began to think differently about how combat should be fought resulting in less and less close combat opening battlefields up to far deeper and wider battlefields. Simply put the combatants needed more space to avoid being slaughtered wholesale by musketry. The problem with this is that during these years the tactics of commanders still advocated the use of the bayonet and charges still as a prominent part of the battlefield but it was clear to all that musketry was literally becoming so devastating that melee combat was fast becoming too costly. This did not stop it from being used and in many cases it was a preferred way of forcing the enemy to retire or break them.

Men by now had become less inclined on the whole to close to bayonet combat because it was far easier to fire at the enemy instead. Why stab or club him and risk being stabbed or clubbed yourself if instead you can simply fire a lead ball into his chest? With the increasing devastation wrought by heavy volley fire men were becoming less inclined to want to close to those short distances needed to bayonet or stab the enemy simply not out of fear of their bayonets but the overwhelming fear that you might get to within mere feet of the enemy only to be obliterated by an extremely short range musketry volley and be unable to do a darn thing about it.

This is my way of thinking and why we DO use Charge Tests in our system and why I advocate ALL systems of the Gunpowder era should incorporate Tests for such actions. Simply put, Ancient battles it was expected to fight hand to hand, by the Napoleonic era it was fact becoming a thing of the past, still done but less inclined or desired to do so.

Regards,
Shane

Are there examples of Battalion commanders ordering a charge and the unit refusing?

Are you modelling an ineffective/failed charge, a charge that wasn't ordered because the commanders deemed it too dangerous, or is it troops disobeying orders?

Cacadore wrote :

>>>>Seems to me that freezing an incoming unit (which is what the charge test can do), should be a fire effect, not a restriction on charging per-se<<<<

Well said mate, this is what we do in our system. We do have Charge Tests to pass before a charge can be carried out and if the test fails the unit(s) still advance but must halt within 150yards of the enemy target. We say they just did not follow through or charge home and now are vulnerable to enemy retalitory action. So players wanting to charge had better make sure their charge test is going to be 100% sucessful because they are taking a great risk indeed.

Also, even if the charge does go in the unit must still survive the enemy defensive fire providing the defenders suceeded a Morale test. If the chargers are hit and suffer loses they must make another morale test to close to contact with the enemy which is hard to do on accoasion. Many times units in our games find themselves halted within just yards of an enemy line and disordered with their morale devestated as much as their ranks…

Shane

Were not almost all refusals to charge in the Napoleonic area due to the troops ( formation ) not recognizing the officer ordering the charge?

Warmaster Ancient Battles Units test to charge in most cases.

WAB units have to test to charge scary things.

Pat

I don't know Shane. I'm not sure if I buy your argument. You suggest that the psychology of men in battle is driven more by technology than biology. Hasn't the fear of cold steel (close combat) been ever present? The changes you describe seem to have more to do with inherent difficulties of linear tactics and cohesion under fire. In game terms, this may also be simulated by tests of various forms and need not be distinguished from purely moral effects, but to suppose that a squeamishness about being skewered or slashed by sharp weapons developed as a result of advances in firearms seems dubious to me.

That should be "I don't know (comma) Shane". I also don't personally know Shane, but wasn't what I meant.

Pat wrote:
Warmaster Ancient Battles Units test to charge in most cases.
----------
No they don't. Initiative charges are automatic if you want them to happen. And a commanded charge is no different to any other move.

Yes they do since relying on initiative to charge limits your manouever options, and has a shorter range than Normal Charges. And however you want to dress it up 'Roll two dice – win you get to charge, fail you get to stand there like patsies' sounds like 'Testing to charge' to me.

Maybe I don't play enough Warmaster Ancient Battles.

Pat

I think I can see what Shane is driving at: In days of old when knights were bold – they also wore armour, which reduces the risk of being skewered or slashed, unlike the PBI of the gunpowder era.

It seems to me (methinks) that until quite recently, the attitude towards body protection was quite simply that if it were to be effective as an anti-projectile defence, it would be too heavy to wear. Now of course, with lightweight (comparatively) materials, such as Kevlar, we are seeing a return of body armour.

so, although, yes, there is a reluctance to place oneself in a position to be slashed/skewered/battered, the wearing of effective armour goes some way to mitigating that reluctance. IF this is the case, then those wearing armour (ancient & medieval close combat troops)are less likely to balk at the thought of closing to hand-strokes. There seems to be a corollary to this position in that unarmoured classical fighters (slingers, archers, javelin throwers) seem to have shown a marked reluctance to get involved in messy knock down, drag out and stomp on fights.

Which is all very well, until one considers Keltic/Germanic tribes (and similar) of whom the majority lacked body armour, but were still quite happy to get tore in to the opposition.

Which makes a complete b&$$&3£s of all that I just wrote! So, as a game mechanism I tend not to test regular troops, and assume that they will obey orders, armoured irregular troops get tested just in case they are having a bad-hair day. Light troops also get tested, but with more negatives applied to them. (I still have nightmares about the time when 24 Thracian mercenary peltasts charged uphill at Alexander's Companion Cavalry – and won the resulting melee!)

"why, in general, do Napoleonic troops have to test morale to charge, but Ancient troops do not?"

I'm not sure I agree with this generalisation. Some rules do, some rules don't.

I've played plenty of Horse & Musket rules where units just march up to each other and get stuck in.

In reality, getting troops to physically cross swords is quite hard psychologically (usually one side breaks before contact), and even if they do fight it is utterly exhausting for the participants so big melees tend to resolve into a series of short encounters, both sides get exhausted and fall back, then psyche themselves up for another go and/or fresh troops move through to take up the fight. Depends on period, troop types, leadership, training etc of course.

Unfortunately we don't have any modern eye witness accounts of big melees with edged weapons, just the experience of riots etc to go on. There are some similiarities in behaviour between rioters and riot police and accounts of Ancient battles, but there is such a disparity in training, leadership and objectives that it is hard to draw too fine a parallel.

Depends what your charge tests are attempting to model really – bravery? C3? a terrain fudge factor? exhaustion?

Hi

this is arguement by "general field theory", most of you seem to want a One Rule to do it all.

What we chose in Art of War, was to evaluate the armies. Having ridden horses, horses know they are big and will cheerfully run into people. HUMANS chose, and the reason horses don't charge, or pull up short is in the mind of the rider (who never mentions that he chickened out!)

So, some cav, say normans, don't check to charge, they just do so.

The observation that troops often broke before the charging troops closed is an accurate one. So, again, charged troops check to recive and may break. Some don't, say swiss pike. If the troops break, the chargers have no problem. If the troops stand, the cav check to actually close.

The mind of the rider is the point. That is how we chose to do it and it seems to work for US, but I have no idea what your prejudices on the subject might be.

Rocky

I believe the reason for pre-contact morale checks in Napoleonics is to reflect the loss of control that the officers have over their men, Someone in the ranks gets nervous and discharges his firearm, then his pal does, then a bunch more do and then the whole unit comes to a halt and begins a fire at will activity, rather than continue the charge with arme blanche. In pre-gunpowder days, the battle is won by crossing swords.

It was noted by Napoleonics commanders that you shouldn't stop to fire with your troops when advancing because once the troops have halted it is very difficult to get them moving again. Likewise, never order your front rank to kneel if you expect them to have to advance. Wildly praphrased, but it does suggest that there was a lot more to getting a formation stepping off than giving an order. Hence all the leading from the front and urging men on to Glory stuff.

It took leadership to make things happen on a battlefield more than it took authoritarian discipline, I suspect.

The time to test the charging unit is just after it first receives meaningful fire (an occasional cannonball or a few skirmishes don't count). Then the question is, will it keep going, or stop and return fire; and, as pointed out above, that is not always up to the commander(s).

Except for some warband troops or shock cavalry do you want your ancient pikemen or spearmen to charge and disorder themselves? Haven't ancient rules been telling us that order was paramont in order not to break and cause flank attacks on our friends and supports. Even shock cavalry has to have some order at point of attack to make an impression doesn't it?
Did not most horse and musket troops need order to manuever and put X amount of musket balls on the target. Charges should be locally controlled affairs at the precise time and location of the batteline or defiles as they say.
It would seem that disorder in either era spells disaster.

simply put, any situation where two bodies of troops are to come into close proximity of each other or make contact should be subject to a test wether it be for insubordination, morale, elan or even to see if the attempt was in fact ordered in the first place. What I mean by that is this :

Even if you as the player want to bring into contact a body of troops into base contact (charge/melee) with an enemy body of troops the situation might be such that this is unlikely to have happened or less probable of being ordered than you might want or wish. Just because you decided it was a good idea does not mean the actual commanders did…thus the test.

Shane

RockyRusso

''The observation that troops often broke before the charging troops closed is an accurate one. So, again, charged troops check to recive and may break. Some don't, say swiss pike. If the troops break, the chargers have no problem. If the troops stand, the cav check to actually close. ''

That's a good point. I don't know too many rules where a defensive line can break before the enemy charges; normally there is contact, then a melee in the game and the loser takes losses and then retreats.

Anyone know of rules that allow a defensive line to break before the enemy make contact? It'd be more realistic.

Yes, the set I designed does the following:

Chargers test to Charge

If failed they will still move to within 150yds of Defenders

If successful they move half their movement forward

Defenders test Morale only if Attackers actually Charge

Defender Light Troops, Artillery etc can declare to Evade

If Defenders Fail Morale checks the Chargers roll a Control test, they might lose control and pursue the Defenders

If Defenders become Shaken or worse and Chargers Pursue then they automatically Break and run – possibly being slaughtered in their Rout.

If Chargers succeed in their Control test they can halt, reform etc.

Defenders will Rout and take Deserter casualties as they go plus any casualties suffered in the Rout.

If Defenders Morale test was successful then they may Fire as Attackers advance, they may hold their Fire until the last 100yds or even less than 50yds with a -10% and -20% on their Morale check which must be declared first when taking a Morale check.

Attackers then take a Morale test from the enemy fire, if successful they push on through and make contact and a Melee ensues.

If Attackers fail their Morale check they will halt if they become cautious or worse such as, Shaken, Demoralized or even Routed.

If enemy is British trained Infantry Veterans they may declare a Bayonet counter charge if the enemy Chargers are halted in front of them. This then brings about a Morale test on the Attackers who usually break.

Much more to it but that is the gist of it.

Regards,
Shane

p.s.

In my system I deliberately made it hard for contact to be made, either the Chargers fail allot and still advance into 150yds range and get shot up or the Defenders panic and flee. Troops than have already suffered much in the way of casualties or previous dangerous situations really cause the unit involved to break down and lose cohesion and flee.

Melees still happen fairly often but many times the units refuse to make contact due to psychological reasons.

Regards,
Shane

WRG 1685-1845 emphasise reaction far more than combat, which tends to be simple and bloody. Troops in a rotten position are likely to do the sensible thing and have it on their toes if they're shot at, moved towards or charged.

WRG…

I still have my massive plastics armies all based to those rules, I am tempted to drag em out again lol.

I've yet to run across Napy's rules that require a test to charge, of course I am only quite familiar with about a half dozen sets and there are many more than that.

My concern in this discussing is we seem to be confusing Testing to Charge with Testing to Close – as many posters are interchanging the two scenarios.

As was pointed out by someone near the beginning, these are two greatly different things. For instance:

Johnny Reb 2 (ACW, Regiment is base unit, 1:20, players cmd Brigades)
1. units test to charge (do you have the will to run forward?)
2. units test to close (now that you're charging can anything stop you?)

These are two different tests taken at different times.

Legacy of Glory (Napy's, Battalion is base unit, 1:60, players cmd Corps)
1. units do not test to charge
2. units test to close (now that you're close, do you have the will to finish?)
3. cavalry tests also to recall or pursue (can officers restrain their men?)

It has seemed to me, based on arm chair reading of the periods, that there was a possibility ACW troops weren't going to run forward when ordered, they might decline and become shaken. This was generally something that happened at the regimental level, not something that happened at the Grand Tactical level. To explain further: At Picket's Charge (July 3, 1863), none of the units should need to test to walk forward off Seminary Ridge, the first <1 mile was essentially positioning until charging, they were just marching. Once they are close to Cemetery Ridge, there comes a time when rules consider them within the distance of a "charge move," i.e. can troops be expected to run that far and fight in the duration of a game turn? At that point, they test to see if they have the morale to run forward at the enemy guns. Then they are tested again when they get close to see if their morale has broken based on the effect of close range fire. Picket's Charge is actually a terrible example to relate to wargaming rules because they essentially "moved to contact" they didn't "charge to contact." Chamberlain's 20th Maine on Little Round Top though is a great example: beat on all day, do you have the morale to charge? (test 1), do you have the morale to make contact? (test 2), and lastly, does the enemy have the morale to stand? (in this case no).

Napoleonic troops seem to have a slightly different pattern, you generally do not "charge" in the way we charge up the hill as kids. Instead the "move to contact" scenario is more likely. Officers are essentially ordering infantry to march not to run, rules that give charge bonuses allowing units to cover greater distances when charging seem to be ordering troops to run not just at the final moment but for a long enough period that they cover more ground than normal.

I'd posit that if rules give a distance bonus for charging then troops should be tested to charge, whereas if rules do not give a distance bonus, it is assumed troops are ordered simply to advance and no initial test is needed.

In both scenarios the defender should be tested to verify they will stand and the attacker should be tested in close range to determine if they will close to contact or balk, freeze, retire, etc.

Obviously cavalry is a little different from infantry.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Hi

Well, the problem here is crossing the center of the univers in Nappys, with an ancients board. Things were differnet.

Anyway, cacadore, our medieval and ancients contol the issue with the lists, listing the way each cav type charges or not, and how the infantry react (as in mediveal pesants with assorted melee weapons usually break before contact, and so on).

The rules are "Art of War" at 1066.us.

As for ACW, I think I have read the same things you did. We haven't published those, or even written down much. However, when we PLAY the game, we worked up a table. Troops range from Green to war weary and depnding, react differently to the same conditions. Causes the bre. commander to lose control quickly. A given situation might have a green regiment running, or freeking out and making an unintended attack, the more experienced doing as ordered, and the war weary "going to ground".

Rocky

If things were different then, doesn't that mean that things are also different now? And if things were different both then and now, then aren't they the same?

I looked back at my old "Grand Army" rules (1975) and see that all units within sight of the enemy had to check morale in order to move (tho if it was near full strength it would alway pass for anything but a charge, and even that would be OK on anything but a 1 on 1d6. The defender would then conduct defensive fire, rolling to see at what range his unit(s) would fire (of course, the shorter the range the more effective the fire), with some chance, if the defender was in bad shape, that it would retreat or even rout instead of standing and firing. IF the defender stands and fires, the attacker must roll again to see if he can continue on to contact. There were many modifiers, "ifs, ands, and buts," but that is the gist of it.

Very few units actually fought hand to hand. I prefer to discard 'Melee' and use the phrase close combat.

Defenders Test- how well they do determines if they run, or if they fire how effectively

Only then do the attackers test, after suffering any casualties. This gives 'Make contact' (in reality a brief and bloody close quarter firefight), Stand and fire, or run.

It also depends on the system you use and the complexity of it. Systems which delve into btln level fighting and volleys, usually have much more detailed procedures for any combat and the way it is sorted out compared to Brigade or Division level rules systems.

I look at the question of Charges / Melee / Close Combat situations like trying to make two magnets make contact at the same pole; it is simply too hard to do so. You have to have one side gain some marked advantage over the other before contact can be made and it should be hard to do. Both sides should be repelled from desiring to make contact unless they see that the other side is more frightened then they are then suddenly they will gain a confidence boost and push on.

Fanatical troops are a little different where they overcome their apprehension of the enemy simply for pure hatred of the enemy and psychologically overcome their enemy who flees before them even quicker. But there were not too many fanatical troops left by the Napoleonic wars…

Regards,
Shane

Shane- I like the 'magnets' comparison.

What I am wondering is what to do after the defenders stand, and the attackers still pass morale and will close- test the defenders again (at a penalty), and if they stand have a murderous close range firefight- I assume that what Melee is in most rules

If neither side runs away, you have a melee -- define it as you will.

yeah, Empire do it very well, if your Elan suceeds you clos and conduct what they call, "Close Action Combat". However, if your Elan fails you can halt and are forced to commiting to a "Firefight" which is pretty much accurate and realistic to my way of thinking. Of course the Elan test might result in a bounce back or even a bad morale break etc as well.

Shane

Shane,

Legacy of Glory is similar. You close or your bog down or you retire.

Works well and accurate.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Aye, it is simple and accurate and most systems should show this in some form…Players should have less control over what they want their btlns to achieve, just because we want the units do do something does not mean they should achieve or and in some cases they might not even attempt it if the situation was real. Tests like this stop units doing crazy stuff that is totally plain stupid and foolhardy. If the system you use still gives say a 5% chance to achieve something then if you succeed the roll then you and your mates can talk about it for years to come but there are situations where even those situations are just not realistic or even something the men or officers (if real)would even contemplate, boundaries must be set to stop crazy stuff like that.

Shane

p.s. laziness = nil proof reading, sorry bout that guys.