"Cavalry vs Infantry: The missing factor" Topic

Shane,

I have a d.6 method, so there maybe a roughly similar thing going on, but in increments of 16% instead.

I used to just use individual generals` initiative ratings as a basis for the variable order transmission rate but I have recently switched to more generic army c3 ratings.

So, you may possibly have good decisions made in good time but be let down by the numerous clerks required to write orders for each battalion, which is represented by a slower rate of ADC movement. My method isn`t a very close simulation (with one thing representing another – confusing, I`m sorry!) but it removes the need to keep record of the number of turns it takes to get an order implemented and reflects the possibility that you could have good generals in bad armies.

Mike.

"…Either reaction is contrary to the players orders of just moving straight ahead."

The important things to focus on are the orders that the command has and the manner in which its battalions would behave and "moving staright ahead" was usually the general idea.
They would be following orders and more importantly, following the actions of the leading, regulating battalion where the brigade general would be located or simply the next battalion in the line.
More important, I think than the slowing of an enemy advance, would be the attempt to affect its order and morale by artillery and possibly skirmisher fire, this is what I concentrate upon in my game design.

"straight ahead"
Dont take that so literaly it was just meant to mean contrary to whatever they are currently under orders from you to do, the key is that they are removed from your control for a while but at the same time they are not just doing nothing.

Yes artillery fire and skirmish fire are unquestionably impacting morale and order however I think that it is fairly commonly covered and I am looking here at areas that may not be commonly allowed for in game design.

Hi "X"

"…the key is that they are removed from your control for a while…"

Or are they?
My whole point is that there was not a removal of command/control because a battalion had taken casualties from skirmishers on their flank, or hits from artillery fire.
If they had been engaged by an enemy unit then that may be a different matter. I guess that they might be defeated, halted or just push the enemy aside, but then that`s a matter for a game`s combat rules to decide.

Can you be more specific perhaps about the "areas that may not be commonly allowed for in game design"?

Mike

Hello BravoX!

It seems that your concern is simply one of surprise not just the old cavalry vs infantry. We use a game mat with hills placed under it. This allows us to have rolling terrain when we want it. We also consider visual blocks like infantry behind cavalry, towns, woods, etc. This creates a number of blind spots.

Our rules are pretty simple (Polemos Napoleonic) for 6mm. Combat is resolved in part by modifiers. Troops that are surprised draw a negative 2. Using a six sided dice this has a big impact. The only criteria is someone higher up the chain of command must be able to see the target and give the attackers the order. It happens in spurts, we see a couple then not for some time, then again, etc. with experienced players. If they are not under orders and just blunder into an unseen force then they get the negative 2. Rarely does that ever happen, but it does.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,

Glenn

Think we've got crossed lines somewhere…
the 'removed from control' referred to a hypothetical situation where a unit that had just say been surprised by 2 volleys at close range that potentially has dropped the columns two front ranks.

In that situation they are no longer under the players control. There is a process of shock and reaction taking place but as time goes on the impact dissipates and control is restored starting at the lowest level as the unit gets its act together, at some point they are back under the players control all things being well.

With skirmish and artillery fire say during an advance things are different, we both are in agreement I think that the battalion is under control, though there are still some degrees of automatic/involuntary action in that a unit will naturally tend to deflect away from fire directed at it even when under control and not having been checked.

"If they had been engaged by … that`s a matter for a games combat rules"
Well depends on how you define engaged…. I dont think a column and line simply 'engaged', the process is much more complicated than that.

I see, then we are talking about a "staggered" column.

Forget the player for a moment… either control was established and a deployment was possible which was a low probablity, or if it occured at all in those Peninsular battles where British were on the defensive, because as we said before, the counter-movement was usually too swiftly executed for the French to regain their order.
One should note that the volley and bayonet method was not a 100% certainty however and could fail at times on the offensive.

At the moment of shock that you mention, the level of control is questionable, but it is probably regained once a deployment is made, or after the combat is resolved and at a time prior to the command being able to be manoeuvred to another position.
That`s why I test troops by unit, or by whole command at this point to determine their reaction.

By "engaged" I mean being fired upon by formed units in musketry range.

TMP swallowed the book I wrote in response so this is the lite version :)

At the moment of shock that you mention, the level of control is questionable, but it is probably regained once a deployment is made, or after the combat is resolved and at a time prior to the command being able to be manoeuvred to another position.
That`s why I test troops by unit, or by whole command at this point to determine their reaction.

Fair enough, not sure whether we are basically talking the same thing anway, but when a Battalion is 'shocked' it loses Battalion C&C, and cannot be ordered until it is restored, a process that takes sometime. However the Battalion hasn't gone into 'suspended animation', things are still happening within the unit.
Effectively C&C has devolved down to Company level or lower. The 'automatic' reactions I envisage as representing the action of independent Company level C&C. At this point Company level C&C will vary throught the unit, at the front it which has just lost the front two rank it is almost none existant but at the back it is still intact. Dependent on training, doctrine and other factors the rear of a column will tend to attempt to deploy and engage the threat, the column as a whole will skew towards the threat which recognises that the front corner nearest the threat are litteraly stopped dead in their tracks whilst the other corner will continue on but will gradually slow and turn.

At some point if the unit survives then Battalion level C&C is restored and the unit comes back under Battalion commanders control and can be ordered as he wishes.

So what I am saying is there is a shock applied to a Battalion that causes it to become unformed, reforming it will takes some time, during that time it may perform certain actions but these are beyond the battalion commanders control and are 'automatic' in the sense they are predetermined and represent the action taken by the Companies during this period.

In the system I am envisioning, there is no morale, no casualties and no melee. Each unit has two sets of states. The first is effectiveness which is long term and as a rule can only decline, when it reaches a certain point a unit is no longer effective and is considered eliminated. The second is C&C this fluctuates wildly and rapidly, there are two important levels, the lower level below which a unit is considered unformed and the upper level above which a previously unformed unit is considered formed.

When a unit is shocked its C&C rating plummets and it becomes unformed (the size of the shock will impact how much the C&C rating drops) and comes to a halt, it will however perfrom automatic actions like deploying and engaging. If it is not charged by the enemy force its C&C will begin to recover rapidly and at some point it exceeds the 'formed' threshold and the battalion commander can order the unit to advance if he so wishes.
If a unit is charged when unformed it is in serious trouble and will tend to turn and run, casualties are all caused in the pursuit and are high and one sided, the units effectivness rating declines as casualties are incurred.

Different actions will require a unit to have certain level of C&C for them to be carried out.

So a British line may get rounds into a column and cause it to halt and deploy, if the British unti has a high enough C&C it can charge, it will in turn recieve a weakened volley from the column, if its C&C level is still high enough to continue to charge the French would turn and flee and the pursuit would maul it. On other hand if after the French volley the british C&C rating had fallen below the level required to charge it too would stop and the situation would dissolve into a fire fight at close range.

Bravo,

Are you correctly assuming that there is still order at the lower levels when there is a loss of control above?

Isn't there a loss of order, or control as a whole?

We've all seen British accounts of how French companies would attempt to deploy, and in doing breaking cover of the leading ones suffer casualties and then recoil back into cover again.
I don't quite see this as a devolved c2; it is the French battalion acting according to their infantry doctrine; the battalion is, after all, composed of smaller manoeuvre elements (companies) and are acting or attempting to act in a concerted fashion.
As each company has its known place in the line or the column, unless detached or employed as skirmishers I doubt if the individual companies of battalions would have acted independently.

I only have an unformed state if troops that are routing, for the rest of the game a disorder factor is used which applies in certain circumstances.
I think this is similar to what you mean by an unformed state being caused by shock.
Anyhow, I have a test which determines whether a unit regains its order and is able to manoeuvre, in such circumstances if it fails its test it remains in disorder and is unable to change formation.
If disordered ("staggered") it may be counter-charged and this can be most effective.
As regards to the British, I don't rate them uniformly and second battalion counter-charges may be less effective, but it depends upon how the French columns might have been affected by artillery and/or skirmishers in their advance.

Regards,

Mike.

Are you correctly assuming that there is still order at the lower levels when there is a loss of control above?

Isn't there a loss of order, or control as a whole?

Well conceptually as far as the Battalion as a single 'unit' is concerned the loss is total.

But that is not the whole story the reality is the unit becomes a number of smaller units.

the battalion is, after all, composed of smaller manoeuvre elements (companies) and are acting or attempting to act in a concerted fashion

Which is what your are saying here.

I don't quite see this as a devolved c2; it is the French battalion acting according to their infantry doctrine;

Well I dont think really there is much real difference in what we are saying.

When the battlion level C&C is disrupted the lower level unit are doing "something" different from what they were doing by following doctrine, I believe that is a form of C2.

I doubt if the individual companies of battalions would have acted independently.

It may be limited and not very effective but it is still there, the company commander following doctrine unless so disrupted even that is gone.

After all what is Battalion C2 but the battalon commander communicating his wishes to the company commanders to do something in concert and then they communicate down further. Now they are doing something but instead of following direct orders they are following doctrine and not very concerted.

Yes, but the orders; the words of command come from the top and the company commanders follow those orders. If the men are in disorder they will not respond to those orders.

G'day Mike,

I agree with you that when a French battalion staggered; it would attempt to deploy, and that it was acting according to their system and general principles.

But under general circumstances…it was not attempting to deploy the entire battalion…but deploy en "bataille sans deployer"…so as to execute a movement called une "bataillon de trois sur deux rangs"…pour l'execution de la mousqueterie.

Best Regards,
Art

Hi Art,
Could you explain what "bataillon de trois sur deux rangs" means.

G'Day "B"

A bataillon de trois sur deux rangs simply put…

There are two ways to execute this movement: it is the third rank of the first division attempting to extend on the left flank of the battalion to form two ranks…or all the third ranks assembling to form on the left of the battalion in two ranks. Of course which ever method is executed depends upon general circumstances.

Battalions on the flank of a ligne de bataille…would be expected to assemble all the third ranks to extend the front of the battalion.

Best Regards,
Art

"This is when the third rank files out and forms to the left of the column. You shall find this in la reglement du 1788, Instructions du 1793, Instructions du 1797, Neys Instructions of 1805, and the Instructions of 1809." artpdn <;^}

G'Day Steve,

What is new…that is worth exploring…

I have been doing some rather brilliant research…hmmm…OK…boring for most….

On how formed bodies would form on the outside of the angles of French squares…which was brought about…due to a planche made…showing a colonne d'attaque with only five pelotons…of which the fifth peloton was the grenadier peloton formed and centered to the rear on the two demi-battalions.

Best Regards,
Art

G'Day Art,

Always interested in your elegant tapestry of musings.

Yours, in firm research,

Steve

Art,
hmmmm, so it was to form battleline without deploying but only with the third ranks…. and so starting with a column of divisions, therefore, with the third ranks from all three divisions (post 1808 reo-org) the maximum frontage produced would be equal to 5 companies ?

G'Day Mike,

In the example presented…let's not use the flanking battalion on the ligne de bataille.

In this thread we are more concerned with a column formed en bataillon de trois sur deux rangs…while the battalion is assaulting or en colonne de peloton …executing a passage of lines.

Therefore the length of the extension would depend upon the number of soldiers in the third rank of the first division or peloton.

Best Regards,
Art

Hi Art,
Yes, disregarding the flanking battalion, but wouldn`t the numbers in third ranks be the same in each division and in each peloton?

And would the "general circumstances" that count most, be the space to do this?

Mike.

G'Day Mike,

Yes you're quite right…therefore the extension for a colonne par division would be an additional peloton…and for a colonne de peloton it would be a demi-compagnie.

And once more you are quite right…the general circumstances would indeed be factored on…whether or not there was enough space for execute this movement.

Best Regards,
Art

Whatever happened to the cavalry? I may come back on this Monday.

Nonetheless this is interesting stuff. I see from a translation of Ney that the third ranks of the uneven numbered peletons should form to the right and those of the even to the left. These bodies seem to be described as some form of flank guard (possibly similar to the flanking "brigades" mentioned by Bugeaud) rather than an extension of the line.

Would not a simple deployment of the column "en-tiroir" like the opening of a chest of drawers also describe the perceived depoyment of the column.

Art,
If you take one rank from each of the six companies, form them into two ranks you get a 3 company frontage which when added to the original columns 2 company frontage gives you the 5 company frontage Mike was referring to.

Is that correct?

The only reference I could find to this in Ney Studies seems to assume the battalion is already deployed in line rather than column when this is done and mentioned the entire third rank retiring 30 paces before forming two deep.

G'Day Mike,

It would seem that many times a thread on a subject branches out…into another one.

If you look at the French Reglement du 1792…(not to be confused with the Reglement du 1791)…it explains what constitutes a "Flanking Brigade".

As for whether or not a battalion could deploy en tiroir…there is nothing in the ordinance to say that it cannot under such conditions….that violates the general principles or the French Military system.

But I have never seen any instruction…reglement…manual…that has a battalion deploy en "bataille sans deployer" en tiroir. But with that said… ‘lack of evidence is not evidence that it doesn't exist'…

Best Regards,
Art

G'Day,

As I mentioned to Mike,

I am only referring to a battalion that is assaulting or en colonne de peloton while executing a passage of lines.

Therefore the length of the extension would depend upon the number of soldiers in the third rank of the first division or peloton.

Best Regards,
Art

Would not a simple deployment of the column "en-tiroir" like the opening of a chest of drawers also describe the perceived depoyment of the column.

That was what I was originally assuming.

Therefore the length of the extension would depend upon the number of soldiers in the third rank of the first division or peloton.

Though in a staggered column that has potentialy just lost many of the first rank that might not be very much.

Whatever happened to the cavalry

Well the 2 sec summary..
This started out as a discussion of why in the Waterloo Campaign French Cavalry could on a number of occasions ride down infantry in line but on the tabeltop this was unlikely to happen, this morphed into a general Fog Of War discussion thoughout the era which morphed into a discussion of what happens when column meets line.

This has then tended to focus in on what is happening internally to the column when it has been staggered i.e. hit with a volley from a line causing it to grind to a halt in a state of 'confusion' as some British officers have described it in the Peninsular Campaign, in particular the later discussion was of the 'deployment' that is sometimes recorded to have been seen, what was it, how was it ordered.

One account is that they fall all over each other"
link page 144 et.al.

Confronted with a live enemy, and pausing to choose from the two dozen varieties of column and half dozen ways of forming them, the French fell into a state of dejected indecision.

Sorry but dont think that really explains what was going on or that there is any evidence that they were delayed by trying to decide what formation to adopt, at least I havent seen any.