"wargaming small cavalry units" Topic

Dear All,

A query about the French cavalry at Maida (3 three squadrons with about 300 troopers, the only cavalry on the field) got me thinking:

Small cavalry units on the tabletop have too much influence compared to my understanding of historic reality. Take Maida: the French cav. had no influence beyond covering Renyier's retreat. Yet in my many tabletop refights, they sweep out to the flank, work their way into the British rear, and cause many problems.

Likewise, I recently went to a friend's house for a refight of Teugen-Hausen (he graciously used the scenario in my Battles for Empire). I was one of the Austrian players and happened to command the only cavalry on the field, a 125-man squadron of the E. Ferdinand Hussars. I used them as I had seen done in the Maida refights; worked around the French flank, charged a battalion from the rear, routed it, and because the rules (oddly in my mind, a computer moderated system called, I think, Carnage and Glory) made a victorious unit stronger, I kept going. The net effect was that this single squadron totally disrupted the French attack. Although I "won" praise for my excellent leadership, my sense was that again a small cavalry unit had exerted a very unhistorical influence.

In my Generalship rules I have some command and control checks that largely prevents this kind of thing but I am curious about your experience with this type of thing. In my mind it goes to the heart of wargaming rules, regardless of period. Tabletop generals with helicopter views can make bold flanking moves that real generals would have never attempted. If one wants to play a game and make "perfect" moves each turn, go ahead. That's not for me. Alternatively, if one wants to be constrained by historical factors, that's my type of game.

How do you all handle this?

James Arnold
Napoleon Books

I am glad you asked the question. I have read that Napoleon's method of using large cavalry grouping was superior to the penny packet approach of, say, the Austian cavalry, yet games to use the opposite approach (in my limited experience).

I do have to admit, that I have enjoyed taking advantage of the "helicopter view" you mention in making a successful flanking movement with my cavalry. But it was not right.

I look forward to others opinions.

What you describe was not rare historically. Three instances that readily come to mind are the French dragoons at Marengo, the Polish light horse at Somosierra, or the Chevalier Guard at 2nd Polotsk.

The rules we use, Column, LIne and Square, make this possible since they use simultaneous, map-marked movement. The key is to catch the enemy force unexpectedly in a charge with a unit with superior morale. Gamewise, it means out guessing the opponent and being willing to risk losing the cavalry.

Rick

Whilst I agree this did happen occasionally as Florida Tory points out I would argue that these were one off charges, flashes of brilliance, not the sort of repeated actions that sees 1 squadron mount charge after charge around a table to rout a whole flank that I too have seen on some tabletops using some rules.

The modern rules sets I have played recently would typically see a single squadron of cavalry possibly do this the first time, at long odds, and thereafter dissipate quickly to nothing with the effects of blown horses, no reserves, out-of-command and mounting casualties (even if only to guard the prisoners and trophies).

Scotts Greys at Waterloo?

Salamanca?

This was not an isolated occurrence. Small units of cavalry could be devastating. Which is not to say it was always devastating.

Read Clausewitz -- he holds that large strategic reserves are essentially a waste of manpower because they cannot be committed before the battle is over. He gives lots of examples.

Not saying he's 100% right but I do believe there was a lot of military thinking that favored the smaller commitment of cav immediately following the Napoleonic wars. This didn't just appear, it was based on the experience of the 1813/1814 campaigns.

mjc

James,

In my rules have a standardised rule of 4 bases per cavalry regiment but for certain scenarios where cavalry strength is low (or just one or two squadrons is present) I reduce the number of bases.
Although their effect is reduced and would be overwhelmed by a larger cavalry force, against infantry they can still be effective.
Where cavalry or low strength is in a reserve formations I have also have combined two regiments into one gaming unit (as a brigade).

Often we find that some elements in wargames can be too powerful, but this is probably because the wargamer uses them in ways that contemporary generals would, or could not do. Detaching them and sending them on their own independent missions.
Its that "zippy little battalion syndrome" or those independent companies of skirmishers (especially the rifle-armed) take on the role of storm-troopers; infiltrating enemy battle lines and operating far from their own lines.

I don't rule out making detachments, but I advise against it in a large game and more effectively perhaps, have a die roll for the decision by subordinates (for forces not immediately controlled by a player) to do so, which is subject to modification if engaged.

Hi James,

This is a great question, one I have had to deal with all too many times over the last 30 years of my own Napoleonic wargaming experience.

What I did in my own designed rules was this, Units attempting to charge the enemy do NOT automatically succeed, they must "roll to charge" and often fail. If they fail they MUST still advance to within 150yds of the enemy to signify the intention was there but the gusto (elan) to charge home was not in them. This makes players very careful about committing units to charge because if they fail they can have them shot up be defensive fire at this 150yd mark.

Also, if the enemy being charged is 50% larger than the chargers in number then the chargers suffer a further -10% chance to charge and if the enemy is twice their strength this increases to -30% to charge. So the player has to be very sure about his intentions and must stack up the odds in his favour to ensure the charge the best chance of success. Failure to do so often brings about the destruction of the cavalry unit from enemy fire.

This makes players in my system much more reluctant to just charge on a whim simply because they feel the cavalry should be unstoppable. What they realise is that their Cavalry is actually very vulnerable unless the conditions are right for a successful charge.

I made the system this way because I spent a great deal of time researching cavalry and came to the realisation that most systems made cavalry way too superior to what they should be which unbalanced games into unhistorical blood bathes where formations are sent into a giant meat grinder with wild abandon without recourse as to what should be accomplish-able historically.

p.s. In my system cavalry squadrons or even troops can charge independently at an enemy formation but they suffer the above rule as well…for obvious reasons.

Shane

I agree with Michael and Shane. Events that end up with a single squadron routing a brigade are probably a function of poor command and control rules. Again, even small cavalry units could strike fear into the heart of an infantry formation if appearing suddenly from the flank or rear. The fault falls with rules that allow that sort of control of individual squadrons – launching one unsupported charge may work to disrupt an advance, say, forcing enemy units into square.

Like Shane, my favorite rules require a Resolve Test to charge and one of the factors that influence the result is relative unit strengths and friendly support. An 'unsupported' unit suffers penalties, not only in the test but in the combat as well. Picking off a lone battalion might work, but riding pell mell through an organized brigade would be unlikely. Even if a squadron manages to contact a unit that fails to form square and routs the target (and succeeds in not merrily chasing it off the table), they will be disordered and require a round to reform before taking effective action again… something that would be dangerous to attempt surrounded by the routed unit's pals. Disordered units should suffer penalties to command, combat, and morale until reorganized (again not an automatic in the face of the enemy).

<<Small cavalry units on the tabletop have too much influence compared to my understanding of historic reality. Take Maida: the French cav. had no influence beyond covering Renyier's retreat. Yet in my many tabletop refights, they sweep out to the flank, work their way into the British rear, and cause many problems.>>

Several thoughts occur, some/all of which may have been covered in an alternative form by Shane and Quindia.

1) As an adjunct to your "helicopter view", in addition to seeing the enemy dispositions in 3-D (as opposed to the nearer 2-D view from ground level, with limited perception of depth), you are also aware of the enemy's full orbat and deployment. With the (usual) absence of smoke and dust in most games, you can therefore estimate distances and opposition response time that allow you to "spot" an opportunity that might not have been observable in real life.

2) As overall commander of every unit, as well as the army as a whole, you are able to appreciate the opportunity for such a charge that the regimental/squadron commander(s) of the real thing might not be able to see, and even if they could would not have the authority to propose, let alone actually carry out.

3) The limited representation of terrain on the tabletop means that features which would present a serious obstacle to cavalry movement of any kind, let alone at speed, or would allow the infantry extra time to respond or offer some cover, are often omitted.

4) Few wargame rules take command/control to a low enough level to factor in the real effects of using up a small unit of cavalry in a charge on one part of the enemy's force – which, by definition would also be small. The members of the cavalry unit would be experienced professionals and would appreciate what they were doing. At an individual level, such a charge would leave them in the midst of the enemy, with blown horses and now isolated from their own infantry and artillery; from then on, they would be targetted by every other unit within range, and they would know this. At a higher level, it would leave the army with no cavalry reserve to cover a retreat or rescue other units in difficulty (eg artillery needing to withdraw). Bottom line, unless ordered, commanders of cavalry units such as that present at Maida, would probably not make the type of charge the average wargamer would.

In the last few months I have gamed both of these battles using a number of different rule sets (and your TH scenario!).

The single Austrian squadron at TH is very brittle. It's good for one or two uses before it's worn out. Many rules, perhaps in the interest of simplicity, do not track fatigue. This approach has a particularly deleterious effect when simulating horse which must be very rigidly controlled to get more than one two charges per squadron per engagement.

The Maida situation is similar. A single cavalry unit lacks the reserves that must be fed into an engagement to have that great an effect. Given the echelon nature of the British advance, it' the Brits fault if that cavalry actually gets around their left flank. A square or two at the end of the line for a bit, some artillery fire, and musketry and French horse is easily dealt with.

EDIT: Didn't actually come out and answer the question. How to handle small units (cavalry or otherwise)? The key is to model attrition. Even successful use will entail loss of cohesion and straggling. So the smaller the unit the quicker it will be dissipated successfully engaged or not.

Bob

I recall reading in Parquin's memoirs about small French cavalry units taking daring action against the Austrians in the Italian Campaigns of the late 1790's (or was it in Marbot?). In one case, the French sent trumpeters around to the rear of the Austrians, and made trumpet calls spaced in such a way that the Austrians feared an attack by major cavalry formations. Small units, troop size or smaller, captured batteries, captured infantry battalions, and the like. I don't recall them rolling up an entire enemy brigade or division.

The example of Medina de Rio Seco in Spain shows the use of two French cavalry regiments hitting the flank of the Spanish, and contributing mightily to the route of the Spanish forces.

Bessieres commanded an all-arms French force, including some Fusiliers of the Guard. La Salle took his two cavalry units forwarded into a major gap between Blake's army on the Spanish right, and Cuesta's army on the Spanish left rear, perhaps a mile of more apart. The French turned left, and charged into the open flank of what I believe was the Spanish second line, while French infantry came at the front of the Spanish first line.

5" by 8" cards with unit names written on them, put on the table face down, might allow such events to take place in our games. An umpire could assign the forces to the competing players, with those players knowing the ortganization and strength of only their own sides. A line of sight concept would help, along with blank cards added in to confuse each side as to the other's strength. Above, when the French infantry attacked the front, only the Spanish able to see and fire at the French should be known to the French, and all the attacking French should be known to the Spanish. LaSalle's formation should only be exposed if within line of sight, or if a dust cloud concept is employed: umpire reports low, dense, slow-moving dust cloud visible – implying infantry; or high-climbing more scattered, and faster-moving dust cloud indicating cavalry. At any rate, such a flank attach should be given a good chance of success against a couple battalions.

In hitting a first infantry unit, failing to get into square, and breaking from the charge, the scattering broken unit should effect the morale of all those into which they could flee in any direction. The second unit failing to form square, or failing morale, could then be exposed to the French continuing to attack with their cavalry.

Does anyone have rules that would allow the Vistula Lancers and the 2nd French Hussars to attack four British battlions on the flank, as they fought in line facing French infantry?

My vote is to allow such events a chance to happen.

GdeP

G de P's post nicely points out that the helicopter view works both ways.

Maybe NB shouldn't have known exactly where to launch his horse but by the same token perhaps the opposition wouldn't know just how small the force of horse is.

I recall at least one book on Maida mentioning the French horse being used to raise dust to screen the infantry's deployment.

Bob

I think the problem is with the rules, not the player.

Either restrict the cavalry's area of operation with a scenario rule, or make sure you use a set of tactical rules that won't let that one squadron be so successful in combat.

In Port & Cigars, Cavalry has to be used historically.
Its expensive in points value and a very nice target. It takes ages to set up a charge with any chance of success.
A wide flanking move can still cause isolated units a headache but after a few games you know that you use the cavalry to either pin the enemy or to chase down running troops. All other options lead to dead horses and wasted points. All it takes is one solid volley from steady troops and all that expensive gaudy elitism is rent to ruin.

Who gives a dammn about points value, If you spent 15 hours painting the things, you want them to have some effect!