"Cavalry Tactics on the Tabletop" Topic

On this site, there is occasional reference to cavalry tactics on the tabletop, but I think it's time for a particular look at the subject.

One problem appears to be speed. Cavalry move distances, according to some, are curtailed on the tabletop because . . .well that's something we should talk about.

Another problem, and my personal favorite, is that, IMHO, cavalry should be able to function not as regiments, but squadrons. It can be argued that squadrons need to be leashed to their parent regiments. But I see most wargames deploying cavalry at the regimental level, like an infantry battalion, rather than an infantry regiment.

One parameter is the figure/unit ratio. If a "unit" of infantry represents a battalion with semi-independent range of motion on the tabletop, then a cavalry squadron should have similar properties.

If an infantry "unit" is representing a brigade, that may be a different story. Cavalry "brigades," however, should still be able to break into parts. That's my reading of Napoleonic tactics.

I will now enjoy all views and condemnation.

Well I think Boney is on your side, isn't there a quote from him saying battalions and squadrons are the smallest independent units. Or similar.

But what are your squadrons doing that requires independent representation. If they are separated or doing something different to their colleague squadrons – but against the same enemy – do you actually need to show it on table.

If your cavalry regiment catches infanry in line and one squadron has peeled off to attack the infantry in the flank, do you need to see / know that or just the result – a routing infantry unit.

There may indeed be a good reason to show squadrons separatley but in contact with eachother in a unit- to signify the unit's posture – between different levels of agression / skirmishing / lurking.

I guess that depends on the scope of your rules.

regards

David F Brown

It's an interesting issue. There is more than one contemporary that equated squadrons in the cavalry to battalions in the infantry.

In most rules, battalions operating independently or separated by distance from other battalions in a brigade or regiment as nothing unusual. Separate squadrons? Rarely represented as battalions are.

Cavalry traveled across country at no more than a trot. Any gallop was in the last three hundred or so yards in a charge. Even so, cavalry walking could be expected to cover 2000 yards in 20 minutes, trotting, 4800 yards. Charging with a walk, then trot and finally gallop could cover two miles in less than 6 minutes. Surprise! But to develop a charge required some distance.

The use of cavalry,even at the brigade level in one assault would often have reserves and several lines of squadrons. It was common for cavalry brigades to be several squadrons deep with two to four hundred yards between lines. On the table that is a lot of space. Even at 100 yards per inch, you could have a brigade eight inches deep, each squadron going into action separately or moving out to the flanks during the assault.

Creating rules to cover such actions is a challenge.

Depends on the level of granularity you are trying to achieve I think. Personally for bigger games I prefer to equate an Infantry Battalion to a Cavalry Regiment.

For bigger games using Black Powder this question is germaine for only 2 circumstances; Austrian Advanced Guard divisions and Prussian Late War Brigades, both of which could dole out cavalry by the squadron. I daresay designating such a squadron of cavalry as a 'small' unit would address that issue to the satisfaction of most…

FoGN allows you to attach cavalry to regimental size units to increase its fighting capability.

One aspect I'm not sure about in those rules is that charged cavalry is compelled to counter-charge. However, I've come across many examples of cavalry standing to receive a charge in this situation.

Cavalry move distances, according to some, are curtailed on the tabletop because …

They have to wait for clear orders and then make sure they are followed exactly, not sort of almost correctly. (Or they might listen to an AdC's view "there is your enemy".)

They have to see where they are going. Not even uniform colour is much guide in the period, and it was easy to charge your own side. And that was before the musket powder started to obscure vision.

They have to consider that blowing their horses in the first hour of a battle might not be a wise move.

They, unlike a tabletop general, don't know what is threatening them to the side, so they can't just charge off and hope that some infantry don't hove into view. Or a ditch appear in their gallop over unchecked countryside.

It's not like modern tanks put the foot down and charge into battle. They too spend almost all their time creeping around, and ensure that they recce ground before going across it.

Cavalry moves are vastly underestimated in most games.

2 squadrons side by side are roughly the front one average bn in line.

Another silly thing: meeting half way, esp if attacker comes from far away.
as the needed run for some momentum is only a few dozen metters to a hundred. It also produces some senseless un ailigning of formations. keeping order and cohesion was one of the main goals. Losing it a way to disaster (not only vs turks cf Nosworthy).

I think wargamers tend to handle cavalry very badly. It's a long time since cavalry was a major factor on a battlefield, or that horses were an ordinary part of daily life. We've lost a lot of the common sense about how cavalry operated and horses behaved. Instead we either take infantry rules and tweak them, or base our ideas on highly romanticised representations, like we see in films.

There's another problem. We like big models compared to the space we have on the table – and cavalry tended to take up a lot of room. That's by we like big compact cavalry units – to ease tabletop congestion.

Trying to reconcile wargames mechanisms to real battles, I have come to the conclusion that it is much better to represent cavalry in smaller units. If battalions are your standard unit for infantry, then squadrons or pairs of squadrons. If it is brigades, then cavalry regiments.

This was brought home to me recently by looking at Quatre Bras. I have tried this with brigade units. It works well enough for the infantry (except the Netherlands division, which you can fudge). But I had two units for Piré's cavalry division (c1,800 men), operating closely together. In fact it is clear that that in the real battle regiments were deployed individually (there were four). One reason that this division was able to show extraordinary stamina – units just keep turning up at every stage of the battle. It just didn't take a lot of men to make a big impact. And the whole business of juggling reserves was a critical command skill – but you need lots of units to represent this.

But if cavalry units are tiny compared to infantry, then that puts game mechanism, like casualty representation, under stress.

Another point. A friend of mine who rides says that horses don't like going downhill, and are much happier moving uphill. There should therefore be no particular advantage to charging downhill, and indeed even a disadvantage. But no corresponding disadvantage to charging uphill (though no doubt horse would still fatigue more quickly).

It's the different perspective of a four-legged animal from a two legged one. Indeed at Rolica I think one of the British colonels got captured because his horse ascended the (difficult) slope too quickly, while the infantry struggled.

If you use 6mm figures with 15mm movement rates you can see that cavalry can move very quickly. All of a sudden a gamer who normally plays larger scales finds out the importance of protecting your flank

Pb of time and scales:
we need 15+ minutes (to 1/2 h) per turn so that it does not become way too long, eats up a lot of the command activities and realigning/ sorting out/ close recon etc. we don't want to bother about.
Then we have a battle depth of 2-8 km and game wise, not enough space.
same with ww2 and mech units.
All those high mobility things, when needed, if they want, could zoom around. We lost the point as said matthewgreen with the real stuff, and think in game terms.
I have (now unreachable for 3D6+2 months)a copy of French staff analysis of the use of cavalry after 1870.
Same as today, it did not seem to have done the job, cost a lot so the ministry is salivating at maybe cutting it in half.
besides the recon jobs, they state its ability ("now" diminished because they have to stay further from main battle line)is to use terrain and SPEED to appear and threaten deep and or quickly.
With cav. on table "running" at 1.5 times the speed of an infantry column we are not giving it its true potential.

Finally in 2012,I followed up a light slope about 30 Issum Hussars ( me on foot) going in the Borodino re-enactment, for 15 minutes; very hard,even when they were at the walk (they had a few dismounted guys too). Probably somewhere like 6-7km/h.

Our high mobility units move in the same span of tempo as foot.

Widowson,
You're absolutely right in as much as the battalion and squadron were the basic tactical formations on the battlefield – and that should probably be the way we, as gamers, should represent them in our games.

Back in the formative years of the miniatures hobby [as opposed to the Kriegspiel tradition], influential hobbyists, such as Charles Grant senior, might field an infantry unit of 36 figures in two, representative, ranks, with a width of 12", and likewise a cavalry unit of 12 figures in a single, representative, rank was also 12" wide. These units were meant to be abstracts, but were labeled, generically, as regiments.

When we applied ratios of men to figures, and we looked at historical orders of battle, then things got complicated, and gamers started to field immense units of cavalry, because it was the tradition that the 'regiments' of cavalry were represented by a single unit. In actuality, Grant was fielding a battalion and a squadron, so had it right.

It's really a matter of frontage. A battalion, squadron and battery, to all intents and purposes, should be approximately the same width, give or take.

At least that's my take on the matter.

This thread applies to nearly every period. Nellies have been poorly served by the gaming community.

Yes, squadrons and battalions. A regiment that entirely committed its squadrons had no reserve, and being the last to commit fresh troops to battle was the key.

Paddy Griffith's rules addressed this to some extent and I also try to treat cavalry in more detail in my designs.

I have been pondering this question since early spring with respect to a project I'm in. I think it is fair to break it into several areas:

• Speed of cavalry (vs infantry)
• Organizational unit of cavalry (vs infantry)
• Level of abstraction (should players be dealing with retaining reserve squadrons in their given game scope)
• Game balance (don't want to turn cavalry into WW2 Tiger Tanks because we represent the strengths we're able to but not the weaknesses that rules may make impractical)

All of these are game scope related, i.e. they are going to be different in a tactical game where a player's whole command might constitute a brigade vs a grand tactical game where the player's command constitutes a corps.

In the second scope I'm wondering how much faster cavalry should move?

There is a part B to the question of cavalry speed. In games we conflate (necessarily) two factors:
• speed
• distance moved

Cavalry moved faster than infantry but that does not necessarily mean the moved further in many circumstances. As someone pointed out earlier, if we are not careful we end up in a situation where cavalry will constantly sent on seek & destroy missions which did not happen.

I for one am sold that if there are battalions on the table that the basic cavalry unit around should be at minimum "squadron groups" of 1-4 squadrons depending on strength vs whole regiments which I think are consistently too big.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I'm open to correction from the many on this forum that have a better grasp of the sources, but I think that cavalry did operate a bit more like modern air power than armour. They tended not to occupy ground, and they would execute "sorties", returning to a rally point once completed.

In more abstracted longer-time frame games, this leads to the idea of a "cavalry recall" phase after the main action (and enemy reaction), to allow the cavalry to rally back before the next turn starts.

Maneuver around to the enemy's flank and charge them! Proper combined arms should work well too.

MatthewGreen- some rules do not allow charging downhill for cavalry. Good point.

All good thoughts.

What I was thinking about when I started this thread were battlefield encounters we've all read about.

A cavalry regiment is ordered to assault an artillery battery. One squadron goes to open order and assaults frontally. Two other squadrons split off to the flanks.

Cavalry vs. Cavalry. A regiment attacks in echelon of squadrons, or column of squadrons at full distance. They attack in waves, or rear squadrons break off and try the flanks. We've all read about how the winner of such encounters is usually the side that holds that final reserve squadron. A 2-squadron regiment is likely to lose to a 3-squadron regiment which keeps that last squadron in reserve. Or the following squadrons have the room to wheel to a flank to intercept an enemy flanking force.

Cavalry attacks infantry with a skirmish screen. The first squadron can run through the screen in closed order, suffering some disorder. Or, the first squadron goes to open order and its target is the skirmishers. The following squadrons in close order ride unimpeded to the formed target.

There are many such examples, where the squadrons are what I'd call "semi" detached. The squadrons are leashed to each other, but still operate semi-autonomously.

First time I knowingly talk to a bandit;)))
• Speed of cavalry (vs infantry)
• Organizational unit of cavalry (vs infantry)
• Level of abstraction (should players be dealing with retaining reserve squadrons in their given game scope)
• Game balance (don't want to turn cavalry into WW2 Tiger Tanks because we represent the strengths we're able to but not the weaknesses that rules may make impractical)

As always with games, one has to keep focus on the game scale:
If you want a game with a couple of divisions, you will have one or two of cavalry and you might have turns (or card draws or what not) relatively shortish, say 5-15 minutes. Then you can have squadrons and more detailed tactics.

If you want corps of battles, then it will simply kill the game as too many troops, too fiddly.
Then your cavalry brigade will most likely be close by, within the same area, attacking enemies that are also quite close from each other.

As was rightly said, they resemble helicopters in ww3, swift fragile in many ways, hit and run, no occupying terrain (or badly) after a few action in need of rest.(refit)

Tiger? no you can refer to all the interesting discussions on TMp about squares etc. Any infantry taken in flank even by a squadron runs a risk of having a Kellerman at Marengo.

There were other discussions about columns, I kind of recall Dundas warning officers coming back from AWI, that now they should use close order and columns etc. because of the danger of cavalry.

We mostly have them a threat forward of your line (FEBA) not in depth. This allows too, that players leave holes and do not play in depth.

As for cav formations, rules should push towards using multiple lines, allowing easily in the calculations for the second to cover extensions and the flanks then fall back(rally back). it can be done without having to actually manoeuvre all squadrons.

If you want corps of battles, then it will simply kill the game as too many troops, too fiddly.

I'm not convinced of this on its face.

Tiger? no you can refer to all the interesting discussions on TMp about squares etc.

There is an awareness function that plays into this. On a wargame tabletop that is … 6x20' we are aware of everything, so if we can move our cavalry 4' per turn then we can send them on sorties, search & destroy like precision fighters constantly swooping through. They will be able to move so fast and we are able to see so much that a competent player should be able to plot movement that always keeps them safe while jockeying for targets. Cavalry didn't do that historically, likely because it did not have the broad battlefield awareness that we do as players.

Thus, if we offer the same movement strength we will have to address the lack of a narrow focus somehow, otherwise cavalry prove radically stronger than in history.

Cheer,

The Bandit

As for speed I am always surprised people don't look at the kriegspiel. you add a good deal (?) of time for orders, re aligning, passing minor obstacles etc.. and really how can you argue, with them they were there and wrote the stuff?

About the too fiddly; refer to the discussion I launched about how many units we can handle. if the consensus was that above 12-20 it becomes too much then having rules and ability to multiply by 3-6 your cavalry units….
As always, unless you have space and a horde of disciplined gamers.
I spent 10 years playing Empire with tons of troops and often half cav. rgt…

Too much going around? they should not: orders, zones of activity, command distances (Bill I did not write radius no)
that and hidden troops should do- It always did for me.

Jcfrog,

About the too fiddly; refer to the discussion I launched about how many units we can handle. if the consensus was that above 12-20 it becomes too much then having rules and ability to multiply by 3-6 your cavalry units…

I maintain my answer from that thread, it is not the number of units but the number of decisions. In tactical games that ratio is normally 1:1 but in grand tactical and strategic games it does not have to be.

On the topic of search & destroy, I said:

Thus, if we offer the same movement strength we will have to address the lack of a narrow focus somehow…

And you said:

…orders, zones of activity, command distances (Bill I did not write radius no) that and hidden troops should do…

So you're agreeing with me and saying that the solution to the problem faster movement creates is:
• orders
• zones of activity
• command distances
• hidden units

Good, I concur, however…

It depends on what all those things mean. I don't know what "zones of activity" are, "orders & command distances" also require some strict definition as there are tons of mechanics for those already in use which would allow search & destroy tactics. The devil is in the details.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Scale of game play is a factor, but it's a false alarm. If infantry operates at battalion level, cavalry should be able to operate at squadron level. Same limitations apply to both, right?

Scale of game play is a factor, but it's a false alarm. If infantry operates at battalion level, cavalry should be able to operate at squadron level. Same limitations apply to both, right?

Seems only logical.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Bandit, I think we do agree on most.
If sqdn is only a sort of sub unit with mostly positioning, ok.

zones, I meant in orders, defining quickly zones of operations, so they don't zoom in here and there.

My rules use a system of local initiative in case of need, but with the risk they might do something you don't like.then they can zoom out a bit, the opposition won't know, just like the real ones.

Sqn with minis also give a constraint in surface scale. I use (bec of space) 1"= 100m for 15mm; there is no way to put 2 15mm cav on less than 2.5-3cm front. If that is, say 120 cav. then it might just barely fit the scale but likely be a wee bit too much.

now off to sleep,for me.

Frontage a sqdn, in real mostly 100-160 men is quite smaller than a 500-700 man bn.
inf 120-150m
cav depending on sources 1.5m per man (minus some officers etc out of the ranks) to 1m in Kriegspiel, but Prussians had a vsry weak 3rd rank. As I said before it is often more 2 sqn for 1bn in line…

G'Day Gents,

I use a 1:60 scale…

If a battalion has tactical subdivisions:

demi-bataillons

tactical pelotons

tactical compagnies

tiraillerus

Then a regiment of cavalry should present tactical subdivisions by:

Regiment with squadrons formed on a double line

Regiment with squadrons formed echelons, with refused flanks or flanks

Regiment with a squadron in support

Regiment with a squadron in reserve

Regiment with squadrons en fourrageur

Regiment with detached mounted tirailleurs

It works for me at 1:60…I even have modifiers for combat bepending upon the formation, and I have been doing it for 15 years…and no one has complained about it…except players that have small cavalry regiments and find it hard to form both support and reserve…even Wellington notes this…

Best Regards
Art

When I read battle narratives they fall into two categories:

1) A description of squadrons and squadron subunits (companies and smaller detachments) performing XYZ actions.

2) A description of larger formations (regiments, brigades, divisions) of cavalry performing XYZ actions and those larger formations are typically summed up by their number of squadrons.

Cheers,

The Bandit

They will be able to move so fast and we are able to see so much that a competent player should be able to plot movement that always keeps them safe while jockeying for targets. Cavalry didn't do that historically, likely because it did not have the broad battlefield awareness that we do as players.

Thus, if we offer the same movement strength we will have to address the lack of a narrow focus somehow, otherwise cavalry prove radically stronger than in history.

Bandit:
Cavalry were sent on 'search and destroy' missions. Pavlov's
flank sweep at Borodino was just such a mission. What kept cavalry from doing what you see on a battlefield was not the lack of total field awareness [which they may or may not have had depending on cavalry recon.] I see as more:

1. The restrictions of space and march routes in the midst of an army. [Even Pavlov moved on the far right of the Russian army, not on the left where his cavalry had no presence, or in the center.]
2. The command structure. Each corps and or smaller units had a limited amount of cavalry and they weren't going to be sent anywhere outside the corps area of operations.
3. An army commander might have large bodies of cavalry, but there had to be large holes in the battleline to use them [Such as Murat's charge at Eylau. The real trouble was getting the corps of 10,000 horse in position to charge, and that is what slowed them down.]
4. A cavalry unit's ability to surprise the enemy depended on LOS and speed. Take that speed away from the cavalry, and they don't have the power they did historically. Knowing the terrain was critical for cavalry officers. Von Bredow's Death Ride at Mars-La-Tour 1870 was successful because of the terrain's LOS restrictions and the fact that Bredow took the time to reconnoiter the terrain.
5. As far as I can tell, Cavalry was used to hold positions. They just had to use different methods and usually weren't as good at it as infantry and artillery.

The game mechanics should provide the strength and weaknesses of cavalry. What those were and which mechanics are used at what scale to portray them are the questions.

Military men discussed this constantly.

Bill,

Cavalry were sent on 'search and destroy' missions. Pavlov's
flank sweep at Borodino was just such a mission. What kept cavalry from doing what you see on a battlefield was not the lack of total field awareness [which they may or may not have had depending on cavalry recon.]

Sure, but they didn't perform search and destroy in the way that it is performed on the tabletop. Search & destroy on the tabletop ends up being, "I'll run this cavalry unit over here between these enemies and then around in the rear area of the enemy army until I can find a good target," this typically is acting at distances far removed from the rest of their command structure. I think "search & destroy" was historically a bit more narrow. Pavlov crossed the river and said, "there is the flank of a corps, let's go harass it." That is radically different from what I have observed in many, many rule sets spanning numerous horse and musket eras.

…they weren't going to be sent anywhere outside the corps area of operations.

I agree with this but I don't see how we can implement it cleanly on the tabletop. We end up with "command radius" as a solution to this sort of thing and you and I share an opinion on that mechanic. I am not saying there isn't a way, I'm saying the way is unclear. When I look over battle maps and compare them to tabletop games I participate in and observe it is crazy how 'restrained' history is. In the games it seems like there are exploits everywhere and the exploits are radically larger than their historical counterparts. In a tactical wargame Pavlov would have run all the way around the French army and carved up Ney and Davout from the rear rather than harassing Eugene's flank. The constraints there are largely not replicated faithfully by wargames.

5. As far as I can tell, Cavalry was used to hold positions. They just had to use different methods and usually weren't as good at it as infantry and artillery.

Eh, kinda. You're not wrong but I would say that it is more nuanced. Cavalry tie up ground, they tie up enemy troops, they control tempo on the battlefield. That is different from holding ground but it does have a similar effect. If cavalry stand on a hill and infantry approaches the infantry will do so slowly because of the presence of cavalry (compared to if the cavalry were not present). Eventually the infantry will close with the cavalry and the cavalry will fall back and the cycle repeats. In this way the cavalry do hold ground but only in a transient fashion. If the cavalry choose to attack the advancing infantry they may be successful but are more likely to bounce losing ground faster.

I'd say that cavalry control ground not hold ground. I know that sounds like hair splitting but cavalry can threaten a large space. I send them forward because they cause my opponent's advance to slow. While they are ahead of me I can continue to move at full speed. I know full well that the opposing infantry will eventually take the ground from my cavalry if I do not support them with other arms but they allow me to radically slow that event and control the tempo.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I think this depends how detailed you want your rules – the smallest units in a battle would be companies and squadrons, but rules would have to be quite detailed to reflect this (the old Bruce Quarrie rules would do fine). In a more abstract representation battalion / regiment would probably be fine – in some cases the 'regiment' could be a smaller unit to reflect that only two or three squadrons were present.
Cavalry was usually not 'parcelled out' (unless you play advance guard, scouting… scenarios), even the late Prussian Brigades had usually one or two regiments. More 'correct' (although there were of course tons of exceptions) would be something like light cavalry brigades or divisions, often at the flanks or at advance guards (may be with one or two infantry battalions or combined elite companies as support) and the 'heavies' as battle reserve.

So comparing Cavalry (1st) and Infantry (2nd) in their organization…

Corps were made up of divisions.
Corps were made up of divisions.

Divisions were made up of brigades.
Divisions were made up of brigades.

Brigades were made up of regiments.
Brigades were made up of regiments.

Regiments were made up of squadrons.
Regiments were made up of battalions.

Squadrons were made up of companies.
Battalions were made of of companies.

See where the nomenclature points you?

Cheers,

The Bandit

To often cavalry is expected to be in line on the tabletop but plenty of sources reveal cavalry spending most of its time in column of half squadron (troop or company). Lots of examples in the Waterloo Letters.

This allows the cavalry to move through a cluttered battlefield and make attacks from the head of the column or by deploying some squadrons into line and then charging if there is enough clear ground to do this in.

I like this picture as an illustration of the movement of cavalry (Simeon Fort, Battle of Montmirail). One column advancing on the right and one on the left of the infantry combat in the centre.

link

One of the tabletop challenges is the basing of the cavalry. A single figure is 1 unit wide and three deep. A squadron of 150 horses in line will have a frontage of 75 yards and a depth of perhaps 10 yards. If you use 5 figures for the squadron (1:30 figure scale) you have a frontage of 5 units and a depth of 3. Krieggspiel used a square base with the base having the frontage for the squadron and allowing the interval at full distance to be represented by the base depth. When in reserve as a close column then the KS blocks are stacked. Not easy to do with figures.

I am not saying there isn't a way, I'm saying the way is unclear. When I look over battle maps and compare them to tabletop games I participate in and observe it is crazy how 'restrained' history is.

Bandit:

My rule-of-thumb in considering such issues is to start with two questions:

1. What did they do? [i.e. what were the movement parameters for cavalry in battle, obviously looking at a large number of battles]
2. What kind of restrictions did the contemporaries deal with?

So much of the restraints are communication and command boundaries. I find that if I can discover the 'rules' the actual commanders worked together under, that the translation to the table is that much easier…particularly when the military followed the 'KISS' principal.

Which is why artillery, cavalry, and infantry are structured much the same way, sections, companies, battalions, brigades, divisions etc. It is why you seen the same nomiclature in maneuver and formations.

Or for instance, artillery, cavalry and infantry all followed the regulating unit principle and precedence organization.

In my rules all of this is irrelevant, a bunch of moot points.

I base it "the other way around." The turns in my game are more or less hourly turns. At that level I can toss all the command and control crap (and it is crap) into the crapper and work it simply on intent. Infantry never runs a race with cavalry, nor does cavalry with cavalry. It all depends on what is planned and ordered and set into motion, and the enemy reaction to that when it happens. So in my game it's all initiative. If you have initiative you can move any unit you desire, cavalry, infantry, artillery, officers if it CAN move) as far as your leedle ole' heart desires, that means from one edge of the table top to the other so long as you don't come into rough terrain or within one measure (8" of an enemy unit (even a single stand of skirmishers). If you don't have initiative you can only move one measure for infantry and two for cavalry. All of this only dependent (either side) on making the movement roll for the unit.

Works well. Likewise there is a maneuver option which allows a group of officers to move a whole pile of units the same way provided they make their movement roll. So you can move a whole wing of the army in one shot. Of course, don't run into any rough terrain or enemy units.

Oh yeah, unitz is unitz. All infantry are in regiments of 36 men (1 colonel, 1 under officer, 2 sergeants, 1 drummer, 1 fifer, 2 color and 28 privates on one stand three ranks. Cavalry is 16 figures, 1 colonel 1 sergeant, 1 standard 1 trumpeter and or kettle drummer and 10 privates. All on one 5 by 6 stand. I do this to protect the figures and make them LOOK like troops in the 18th century. 1 3" by 4" stand with one gun four artillerists, 1 standard and 1 officer. and it's limber and ammo wagon on other stands.

Works great.

A lot of what's being discussed here is over my head.

In terms of game mechanics, my thought would be that what cavalry does is driven by the mission of a regiment, brigade, division or corps.

Flank protection for infantry defending.
Flank protection for infantry attacking.
Reserve cavalry counter attacking.
Reserve cavalry attacking.
Character of the commander of the cavalry unit(s).

But maybe these considerations are beyond the scope of this thread. No matter what action a cavalry regiment is performing, the squadrons should be capable of a level of independence. That's my argument. A cavalry regiment should not be acting like an infantry battalion. It should be acting like an infantry REGIMENT, with its component squadrons capable of semi-independent action in support of the regimental objective.

G'Day

As for your argument:

"A cavalry regiment should not be acting like an infantry battalion. It should be acting like an infantry REGIMENT, with its component squadrons capable of semi-independent action in support of the regimental objective."

It is wrong…

If a battalion has tactical subdivisions:

demi-bataillons

tactical pelotons – detached en peloton-compagnie

tactical compagnies – detached en compagnie-division

tirailluers detached en…

Also Battalions en colonne d'attaque formed on its center may deploy and separate en colonne de compagnie (four small columns), or colonne double (two columns).

A Battalion may deploy en demi-bataillon (two half battalions separated).

Perhaps the real problem is that most game designs do not use infantry battalions and cavalry regiments correctly

Best Regards
Art

G'day Oli…

I am going to cut and paste your posting and put it on another forum…

Finally someone who realizes actual march and manouvre cadences that should be used on the wargame table…

"If you have initiative you can move any unit you desire, cavalry, infantry, artillery, officers if it CAN move) as far as your leedle ole' heart desires, that means from one edge of the table top to the other so long as you don't come into rough terrain…"

I have use 20 minute period and 32 yards equals one game inch :

Infantry

85 to 90 paces a minute which can be held no matter the depth of a column

Pace count of 85 – in one hour is 3,366 meters or 35 inches in 20 minutes

Pace count of 90 – in one hour is 3,564 meters or 37 inches in 20 minutes

For difficult terrain, sand, mountains, trail, ect…the pace count of 76 paces – in one hour is 3,009 meters or 31 inches in 20 minutes

Best Regards
Art

Frontage a sqdn, in real mostly 100-160 men is quite smaller than a 500-700 man bn.
inf 120-150m
cav depending on sources 1.5m per man (minus some officers etc out of the ranks) to 1m in Kriegspiel, but Prussians had a vsry weak 3rd rank. As I said before it is often more 2 sqn for 1bn in line…

How many ranks in a historical cavalry squadron? All the historical photos I've seen of US cavalry shows squadrons in a one-rank line on the parade field.

If you put the entire squadron in line, 130ish men on horseback makes for a pretty broad frontage. 130 to 195m frontage for 130 men, which is very loosely equivalent to your example frontage for an Infantry battalion.

G'Day

According to the French in 1811…l'escadron en bataille (on line) habitually has 48 to 64 files when formed. L'escadron with two ranks had a depth of approximately 6 meters.

Best Regards
Art

Art,

Widowson: "A cavalry regiment should not be acting like an infantry battalion. It should be acting like an infantry REGIMENT, with its component squadrons capable of semi-independent action in support of the regimental objective."

It is wrong…

I am confused. Yes, battalions have subdivisions, so do cavalry squadrons. Widowson is saying that battalions and squadrons are equivalent, are you disagreeing with that?

Cheers,

The Bandit

Oppps….

I stand corrected…paint me stupid…

I agree with Mr. Widowson then…

Best Regards
Art

I recommend Tactics Vol 2 – Author Balck

Available here link

Pages 31-36 are about the different gaits and fatigue

There is a lot about ployment into column and deployment back into line around page 44.

There is an index of examples from history around page 500, most are Franco-Prussian but there are some Napoleonic

I liked the part of the discussion where you guys were talking about the mis-use of cavalry by wargamers as search and destroy machines, and not not-very-historical ones at that.

Here's how I prevent this in my games; cavalry regiments are allocated less casualty points than infantry, meaning that infantry are more durable than their mounted counter-parts. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the cavalry are a one-shot weapon, but there are limitations to just how many times they can be used before they are removed from the game. Casualty points are lost through enemy attacks from musketry and cannon, as well as during melee (regardless of the result).
So to follow on from the interesting example that was used above of the Russian cavalry attack at Borodino; If I give the cavalry the usual limited number of casualty points, Platov would be able to launch an attack against the French flank, but there is simply no way that his command would be able to penetrate as far as Ney and Davouts corps in the centre. They would almost certainly be spent long before that became a reality.
Also, I think its important that there must be a tangible negative result to a player launching these kind of fantasy attacks. Not only would the units (usually) be lost if they are used in a suicidal mission, but there should also be a repercussion beyond the obvious fact that the player won't get to use that unit again in the battle. In my experience, an erosion of "Army Morale" with each lost unit is a good incentive to not throw away units without good reason. (Note that in my games when army morale reaches zero the battle is lost). I suspect there are lots of other ways you could do this.

Another important factor is orders, and sticking to them. It must not be too easy for cavalry units to neglect their original orders and change their targets on a whim.
One effective way to model cavalry attacks is to have the player target a specific area of the battlefield, and the charge must go in that area.

I would be interested to hear what you guys have to say about this.

TW,

Platov would be able to launch an attack against the French flank, but there is simply no way that his command would be able to penetrate as far as Ney and Davouts corps in the centre. They would almost certainly be spent long before that became a reality.

That sounds like it is really based on the depth of the table and how compact or not Eugene's depth is.

Just because cavalry are fragile does not prevent them from moving in march column along the table edge outside of musket range of Eugene until they get to the French rear, move along the edge there, reform, press in. That is ridiculous but people *do* that. Making cavalry fragile doesn't prevent that, making your table too small for them to remain out of range would but that has other negatives and really sidesteps the problem.

In my experience, an erosion of "Army Morale" with each lost unit is a good incentive to not throw away units without good reason.

This is not a bad thought but it depends on specifics. No one in the Russian army will care if cossacks don't return to the ranks, heck, that was normal right? So reducing army morale for cossacks being lost would seem odd. For normal cavalry, since I'm committing them against the rear of the enemy I still think I risk it. If I can't destroy more of his units when attacking from the rear than he can destroy of my attackers then the combat is a bit wacky… thus, the odds of me doing more damage than I receive should be in my favor.

One effective way to model cavalry attacks is to have the player target a specific area of the battlefield, and the charge must go in that area.

This is not bad but I see two potential mechanic issues:
1) It requires maps because just pointing is too fluid to be strictly defined, in my observation, maps of the tabletop are less common than they are common.
2a) Someone will ask, "what if I break through? do I have to stop because it would carry me out of my area?"
2b) Well, no matter, just define my target area to be huge when you order me to charge OK?"

Regarding #2, the issue with rules is that we must then define for players we've never met or corresponded with just how to define a target area. For example, Johnny Reb, a venerable and long popular ACW tactical rule set says that you can: "charge any suspected enemy position" in addition to a visible enemy unit. I was once playing a game and this came up, the universal response was, "you're in a battle, the enemy could be anywhere, EVERYWHERE is a suspected enemy position."

So, narrowing must typically be done with specifics rather than general guiding statements, it is hard.

Cheers,

The Bandit

All variations of "how many angels dancing on the head of a pin".

Approach the question from the opposite direction. Using original sources, one can approximate either the affect or the effect, never both within the scale of the recreation the wargame is attempting. Most four legged animals travel much faster than men, and horses naturally do so…and my reply is so what? The horses are controlled by men within their means to create an effect on the battlefield, so tactically what relevance would speed bring when orders given, maneuvers conducted, etc. were apace to a design upon the field? Commanders didn't fire units at each other like missiles assessing the results before firing another, nor did cavalry zoom around pel Mel like jets.

Movement rates of cavalry are is a valid consideration n the realm of strategic movement, not tactical. Units on the field were not independent functioning blocks, though this appears the affect on the table. They were in reality attempting to work together to create an effect, and this is where we as gamers lose much of our perspective on historical recreation. We know X happened, and we understand how and how it may have been otherwise (why play if one cannot attempt to alter history), but the translation to the tabletop results in visual affectations as a surrogate for effect of tactical doctrine and disposition.

The generals set their battles in disposition of units. What units were used to what end and where was largely guided by the expediency of those dispositions. Cavalry, thus were placed to have an effect on the battlefield in an area largely predetermined. The affect of how quickly they trotted was irrelevant.

The c and c system is crucial. In my view an attack order is always straight ahead in wargame terms. In our rules maneuvering straight ahead is fast, but pivoting and turning a command is painstakingly slow. This encourages simple maneuvers and allows large movement rates. Infantry marches 3600 meter in an hour, cavalry can charge 2000 meters in one turn of 20 minutes.

strange, in case my memory isn't failing me – a chef d'escadron did command two squadrons – so two squadrons a tactical unit?

Hi Bandit,
excuse the late reply, I've been away for the weekend.

Just because cavalry are fragile does not prevent them from moving in march column along the table edge outside of musket range of Eugene until they get to the French rear, move along the edge there, reform, press in. That is ridiculous but people *do* that. Making cavalry fragile doesn't prevent that, making your table too small for them to remain out of range would but that has other negatives and really sidesteps the problem.

Fragile cavalry would not prevent the sort of shenanigans that you speak of, but it would prevent the cavalry from accomplishing very much once they had got there. Unsupported cavalry should be penalised by a good game system. The defending player should also have reserves that could easily eat up any unsupported attack. Given that infantry have slower movement rates than cavalry it would be very difficult to get your infantry around the flank like that to support the cavalry. This means that a Platov style harrassing attack is unlikely to be a game-winner, if you take my meaning. I guess it would give the defending player the same sort of head-ache and worries that the French commanders at Borodino had to deal with, which can only be a good thing.
I agree that having a smaller battlefield would be a side-step of the problem. I like to have large battlefields with lots of room for manouvre anyway, so artificially constraining players by having small battlefields is not something that I would ever want to do.

This is not a bad thought but it depends on specifics. No one in the Russian army will care if cossacks don't return to the ranks, heck, that was normal right? So reducing army morale for cossacks being lost would seem odd. For normal cavalry, since I'm committing them against the rear of the enemy I still think I risk it. If I can't destroy more of his units when attacking from the rear than he can destroy of my attackers then the combat is a bit wacky… thus, the odds of me doing more damage than I receive should be in my favor.

Good point about the cossacks, which I hadn't thought of. I would say that a battlefield manouvre carried out just by cossacks would be unlikely to succeed anyway, as their stats are pretty low. A wide-flank attack by more regular cavalry would be more dangerous but I can say from experience of how the army morale set-up actually works is that players are very reticent to carry out these kind of risky manouvres unless it is with solid combined-arms support. The trouble is then that the main battle-line is likely to be weakened, leading the player open to an attack of the enemies own devising. The blow to a players army morale from having his centre smashed or an entire attacking wing cut-off from the main army could be even more catastrophic than the loss of units (in the game army morale is lost through a number of means, not just from having units destroyed).

This is not bad but I see two potential mechanic issues:
1) It requires maps because just pointing is too fluid to be strictly defined, in my observation, maps of the tabletop are less common than they are common.
2a) Someone will ask, "what if I break through? do I have to stop because it would carry me out of my area?"
2b) Well, no matter, just define my target area to be huge when you order me to charge OK?"

1) there are other ways around this than just using maps. Hex based games where specific hexes are targeted for the charge are possible. Personally, I don't like the look of hexes so I have my battlefield composed of carpet tiles. The square carpet tiles can easily function as an XY co-ordinate system, which not only help with the destination of movement orders (including a cavalry charge), but also with spotting rules (i.e. when using fog of war/dummy blinds rules). The edges of the tiles are easy to distinguish when you need to, but don't dominate the aesthetic look of the battlefield, which is also important to me.
2a) On result of a break-through or similar event leading to original orders becoming obsolete the formation has to stay put until it i) fresh orders are recieved or ii) the command figure leading the attack passes a roll for independant action. Even then the actions that can be carried out independantly are quite limited. I'm not a fan of players being able to influence formations that they are not even in contact with.
2b) I have been playing around with the idea of limiting the cavalry charge target area as being no larger than one tile, thus preventing this kind of "creative" power play.

As usual you make some very interesting points and questions when discussing game mechanics. It is clear to me that you have spent a long time thinking about all the things that should be important in a Napoleonic wargame. Can I ask which rules you currently use for grand-tactical Napoleonics? If your rules are home-grown, which I suspect they are, do you have any plans to release them in the future? You have a great knowledge of Napoleonic warfare and I for one would be interested to look at any rules that have been thought about so deeply.

One point I would raise in terms of the "Tactical" title of the thread is what are the cavalry on your table supposed to be doing?

One of the 'failings' of Napoleonic gaming is that they are often around because they look spectacular and "Napoleonic" means horse, foot and guns – doesn't it?

Unless doing some historical refight or a large scale action, the real equivalents of forces players often put out would not have cavalry as part of their make up, or if they did, they would not be part of the command line of the infantry present.

As a result we see rules with maybe a French Corps present, which historically might have its own Light Cavalry Brigade, resplendent in Curassiers, Dragoons and a few Lancers too boot!

Not only that, we have rules that have each indvidual infantry battalion in a Division structure represented, that hunt about for historic scenarios which include adjacent cavalry formations in an almost desperate bid to drag the mounted arm into the process and make a wider game of it.

My point here is, we should be looking as much at the real use of cavalry and how it was controlled, as determining its actual application and movement methods.

For me, if you are playing at a level where infantry battalions are both identifiable and actionable, cavalry must then work by Squadron. If battalions don't have an indvidual part to play then cavalry should be treated likewise.

Ultimately players will put out forces to please themselves but if the rules they are using give a reasonable feel for the period then the "tactical" use of cavalry is often going to be at odds with the way the game performs.