"Cavalry Tactics on the Tabletop" Topic

TelesticWarrior,

Drop me a line via public@falcontechnologies.org and we can talk about the project I'm working on. I don't want to derail this thread by getting into it here.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Are there any established rule sets which allow cavalry to operate by semi-autonomous squadrons? I'm talking about rule sets which operate with battalions as the basic tactical units.

I have some simple rules for the operation of squadrons (single bases) and their reforming into regiments.
Although there is a reduced combat effect for doing this, the squadrons can still be effective in the right conditions (in open terrain and against "lights").

go to: grandmanoeuvre.co.uk/about-gm

The mechanism I am including in some rules is that for an attack by a body of cavalry in column the general in command of the division will direct a number of squadrons to engage based on his characteristics and stance (agressive or otherwise). He will also designate a number of squadrons in reserve. The combat is resolved in movement and one side or the other rallies back behind the supports. There is some "stuff" on fatigue and dispersal which is intended to make the cavalry something of a "one -shot" weapon.

The cavalry column is intended to create a breakthrough and could be equated to an armour blitzkrieg of later times.

I expect cavalry to use line (brigade in line) for defensive or counter-attack.

For come historical examples consider Kellerman at Quatre Bras as a narrow column attack with squadrons thrown against whatever is in their way. The Union Brigade against D'Erlon is a counter-attack, the remnants forming support to the infantry in square later in the day is a defensive "line" type of defense.

The massed charges in the afternoon in my view are column attacks with the first wave breaking and rallying back allowing the following squadrons to attempt to break through in turn. The charges at Eylau and Aspern-Essling are similar to this but the intention is to block any potential infantry attack by force of mass.

It`s an issue that arises often: how much tactical detail you include in a rule system and how much tactical guidance you might need to give to players too. It can be too little?
I agree that some representation is needed for the effects of squadrons acting in certain ways – e.g. in columns as mike says above and also possibly in echelons too.

Mike the Mug & MichaelCollinsHimself,

Having not read or played rules by either of you (I don't believe), I am risking talking out of school but as the two of you each described I'd call such rules pertaining to cavalry squadrons 'special case rules'.

It`s an issue that arises often: how much tactical detail you include in a rule system and how much tactical guidance you might need to give to players too. It can be too little?

This is certainly true. I would argue that the best rule is the most broadly applicable one and the worst one is the most narrowly applicable one. No one ever remembers special case rules, especially the more of them there are. "Which of the 72 unique circumstances applies in this particular situation?" is not a question you want your players asking.

For instance: Attacking in Echelon.

QUESTION: Should attacking in echelon receive a combat modifier?
ANSWER: No.
QUESTION: Why?
ANSWER: Because if the rules are written well then echelon will provide an innate advantage that mimics its historical use.

The real challenge then becomes: How do we create systems that innately mimic historical motivations which will therefore support historical behaviors? The shortcut is special case rules and unique modifiers.

Echelon afforded a couple advantages historically: The attack gains strength as it progresses as more and more attacking units make contact. The initial contact is made by only a small chunk of the attacking force but might engage and blunt a large portion of the defending force. If the attacker's first units are thrown back there are supports there to take their place immediately. If the attacker's first units are successful there are supports present to exploit the success. Thus, if these things are each represented in the broader rules and the time represented by turns is such in coordination with game scope and scale that it allows them to be seen. Then no modifiers are necessary and would be gratuitous. If they are not present then the modifiers that might show up in their place will only do a partial, likely poor job, of motivating historical actions.

Now, my should summary of the purpose and usefulness of echelon could be off or even dead wrong, but my point is that if you identify why something was actually "good" historically then you can mimic it on the tabletop without a special case rule or modifier for many (not all) circumstances.

Cheers,

The Bandit

G'Day

I fully understand where you are coming from….but

To mimic historical manoeuvre that are en detail…the game designer first has to understand the real military system and their general principles of grande manoeuvre.

Reading memoirs, first hand accounts, and second hand accounts does not constitute historical tactics of detail.

Therefore if a regiment of cavalry present tactical subdivisions by:

Regiment with squadrons formed on a double line

Regiment with squadrons formed echelons, with refused flanks or flank

Regiment with a squadron in support

Regiment with a squadron in reserve

A modifier may assist in a collective manoeuvre de detail…or a player can actually move each squadron…right or wrong?

I prefer to have a cavalry regiment with their squadron en detail…and a collective modifier for the maoeuvre de detail.

Let me give you an example, military historians stated that a body of troops should (if possible)…assault the formed infantry on their reverse and pivot flanks for the best result.

Therefore how are you as a game designer going to historically mimic this particular circumstance?

How do you factor in one flank from another…do you give a modifier for an assault on a flank?

For both infantry and cavalry, what is the purpose of assaulting in echelon for each…what advantage does it provide and what are the disadvantages?

Best Regards
Art

Thanks Bandit

Well Michael's are published but mine are still a work in progress, working to get something releasable in the next 12 months.

My design is at an "operational" level so I am not concerned by the actions of single squadrons but I do recognise that a division of cavalry could have operated in a column of a squadrons frontage (or even less) and significant depth. At Waterloo the divisons were weak at some 2000 horses down to 1400 (8 to 6 squadrons)but this still requires a decent depth of column at half distance or more.

In my view cavalry attacks are dramatic (referred to as shock for very good reasons). Cavalry are also difficult to control once unleashed.

In the design I do not allow the player to micromanage squadrons, rather the ability of the cavalry to deliver and win depends on the characteristics of the commander leading (or should that be directing) the charge. The player will dice to see what the leader of the charge actually does within the combat resolution mechanism. Against infantry there will be a first contact followed by reinforcement of success (or repetition of failure) and a final decision on commition or witholding the reserves.

Against other cavalry there will be a couple of rounds of combat, winner of the first contact faces the second line and so on. Lots of dice throwing and hopefully a level of excitement and risk.

A rider to add (no pun intended) when attacking infantry with intent to create a breakthrough then individual squadrons may be thrown in to the attack taken from the head of the column.

When facing cavalry or under other circumstances requiring deployment into line then the deployment will be by regiment and brigade.

Art,

To mimic historical manoeuvre that are en detail…the game designer first has to understand the real military system and their general principles of grande manoeuvre.

As they pertain to the scope and scale of the game in design.

Reading memoirs, first hand accounts, and second hand accounts does not constitute historical tactics of detail.

No but neither does reading the various military practices and training plans one might call 'doctrine'. Neither actually accomplishes this, both may, though in the end the system will be imperfect, that is not in question… or at least it shouldn't be. What I get concerned with is what ones of are consequence in the scope and scale being used.

A modifier may assist in a collective manoeuvre de detail…right or wrong?

Don't know, that depends on broader context of the game in question. That said, I did finish my post with [Emphasis added]:

Bandit:…but my point is that if you identify why something was actually "good" historically then you can mimic it on the tabletop without a special case rule or modifier for many (not all) circumstances.

Therefore how are you as a game designer going to historically mimic this particular circumstance?

Off the cuff, in an undefined scope & scale? Well, I'd be a fool to say I have any idea.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Mike the Mug,

If this sounds poor please forgive me, I'm saying it aloud to gain clarity when you reply and explain / correct me:

My design is at an "operational" level…for an attack by a body of cavalry in column the general in command of the division will direct a number of squadrons to engage based on his characteristics and stance (agressive or otherwise). He will also designate a number of squadrons in reserve.

That is an amazing level of detail for "operational" level. Generally I would think operational level rules are happening on a map board and are talking about what regions, population centers and geographic sectors divisions are being committed, without the player actually having any control or visible regarding combat tactics at all.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Art, thanks for the input. I try to blend my modest knowledge of the drill manuals with first hand accounts. On the one hand the accounts can help demonstrate a point of drill to those unfamilar with the details and on the other hand it can support arguements in favour of using tactics and evolutions from the manual where the players lack the background. I take this as the concept of "tactical snippeting" developed by the late Paddy Griffith.

Bandit, what you describe is what I call strategic. Operatonal to me is about a battlefield where a couple of corps per side will start the battle and other corps and columns will join and extend the combat during the day. Think of it as wargaming in the style of the maps from Elting and Esposito.

The player as CinC is not micromanaging the cavalry battle, rather he is execution the combat resolution in a way that gives a narrative without simply creating an amorphous or nebulous combat with lots of factor determination.

Example – CinC orders a cavalry corps to launch an attack against the enemy centre. The cavalry (2 divisions) is in an assembly (massed) formation behind the infantry lines of combat. Each division stretches out from assembly (close or columnn serre') to full distance column of squadron. The divisions (side by side) pass through the infantry to their front then deploy by fronting-up to form column by regiments and then advance and attack whatever is in their way. At the end of the cavalry movment phase the last squadrons have yet to deploy so in the next turn the deployment is completed (throw in a random delay dice) then the lead regiments change and fall back and the second regiments of the lead brigades charge with some success and so on. It could be the case that one division commanders forces the second brigade forward in pursuit whilst the other decides to rally-back his lead brigade leaving his second brigade stationary to cover this rally. That would depend on the characteristics of the divison commander.

Essentially this remains 2-down. CinC orders to corps (or column), and execution is at division level

Bandit, to get specific on your question, the player does not decide how many squadrons to commit, the division commader is diced for against his characteristics and "stance" and gets a result indicating the percentage of his force to commit initially (and what to keep as reserve).

This sets up the first round of combat which is resolved. The second round uses up any units not designated as reserve
When one side is down to the reserve then a dice roll determines if these are committed or cover the retreat.

G'Day Mike

I totally agree with you…try to blend our modest knowledge of the drill manuals used for training…then find the drill manuals (or updates) that was actually used on the field of battle…and with that juncture find them in first hand accounts.

As an example: the reglement de 1791 was used for training, but the actual ordonnance of 1805 was the drill or general principles of manoeuvre de detail and grande manoeuvres used. We then attempt to find in first hand accounts to validate l'ordonnance de 1805 or l'ordre tactique…

Such as the colonne par bataillons, colonne d'attaque par bataillons, colonne par regiment, demi-bataillons en ligne, colonne d'aile…method of breaching an enemy position….body of troop with bataillons deployed with columns on the flank…and the list is endless…

Best Regards
Art

Hi Bandit,
The rules for using squadrons/bases in Grand Manoeuvre are standard, not additional – but they may of course, be used optionally, as the player wishes.
Mike.