"Cav. Units moving in Rough - Heavy Rough" Topic

Question for the many wise on this board -
An overview of many of the rule sets shows a wide view on this topic. We can all picture a young Jesse James and crew working thru the Rough in single file to a make a get away from a Kansas raid (aka Brother vs. Brother rules), but what of an organized unit that is 200 yards long,(stirrup to stirrup)?
Should our rules reflect a large unit of Cavalry moving faster thru Rough then Infantry?
Thanks for your input, John

Dear John,

I think you might be misleading yourself a bit by apparently envisioning "Rough" terrain as an absolute.

NO terrain is "absolute," and therefore equal in potential effects in a predictable, universally measurable way. A water hazard will always be "wet," but no two streams, rivers, swamps, etc, are identical in their conditions and effects. A hill will always have a "slope," but that slope can range from 1 to 90 degrees, and that would only be an aggregate. And patches of woods, forests, chaparral, sagebrush, and any other type of vegetation are clearly as variable in thickness, height, and breadth as any living things can be.

So trying to impose any absolute definitions of these as to how they might effect the movement of men and/or animals through them is as artificial as making all your troops identical in all their variables as well.

Instead of trying to make terrain predictable, even if you arbitrarily differentiate the effects of slopes from woods from water hazards, etc, why not accept the uncertainty inherent in the situation you posed and go with that?

There cannot possibly be an actual "rule" to address your example that would be any more realistic--or relevant--than making all firearms and cannon have the same range.

Allow me to encourage you to consider simply choosing to roll so many--or so few--dice as would be consistent with the movement distances already allowed in your rules of choice.

No "Rough" terrain will make any unit move faster than on the parade ground (too often the movement distances represented in so many games, anyway). So, as an example, for the worst (appearing) terrain on your table, just say that to enter it means rolling one 1 D6 for inches of movement that turn.

If a unit moves only 1" for that turn, then you may assume that portion of the terrain feature was pretty horrendous going, or if it moves 6", then it wasn't so bad as it appeared from outside. Or perhaps the Man In Charge was able to get his command to do better in the same terrain than some other fellow could. And make no distinction between Cavalry and Infantry--there is no speed advantage where you may not even be able to see your feet!

Artillery might actually find it impossible to move through a given terrain feature. If something as heavy and awkward as guns/wagons/etc ever roll a "1," they can't proceed at all, at least in that direction.

This would be as true for slopes and streams as anything else. If a plain, perfectly flat (hah!) field would normally allow 12" to 20" of movement, high grass might reduce that to 2 D6" of movement. Or perhaps a terrain feature might be 1 D6 + an arbitrarily assigned number of inches.

Clearly, your protocols should be set prior to play, rather than be arbitrarily assigned by an Umpire upon occurrence, so that your players can have an idea at least of what to expect.

And don't worry about recording the actual distances moved by a unit as a means of "rating" the terrain feature. No two units will ever cross the same feature at the same speed. Let each unit moving through a feature--even if following the one ahead--roll its own movement dice.

Mind, if your rules allow for Pioneers/Engineers to cut paths in woods, or break down the banks of streams, or even to bridge ravines/streams/etc, then so much the better! Put these troops to work as they would on the battlefield.

If you wish to recognize the distinction between FORMED Regulars and a mob of Guerillas, by all means, the advantage should go to the unit unconcerned about formation or discipline. And if the Guerillas are native to the area, they might know of shortcuts, or simply have familiarity with the terrain that the Regulars might not.

No harm in making those distinctions, but don't bother looking for absolutes--your games will become a lot more exciting if you won't!

TVAG

In the forthcoming "Bitter Angels" terrain costs are variable, for just this reason.

Besides, "rough" lumps an aaawwfuulll lot of terrain into one category. Are we talking loose stony ground? Deadly to horses' ankles. Or ploughed fields? Or rocky ground? Swampy? Underbrush?

Unless at the charge, cavalry should never move faster than infantry. Same with limbered artillery. Unless moving at the gallop over a short distance for deployment, it will always move at the same speed as infantry.

As to "rough" or "difficult" terrain, I'd say that the difficulty in moving through any particular area of terrain would be obvious to the commander of whatever troops are looking at it, especially Brigade and higher level commanders. Thus, if terrain was difficult for cavalry to move through, the commander wouldn't even attempt it unless in an extremis situation. He'd avoid the area and move somewhere more favorable.

I have always viewed rolling dice for movement through terrain as more of a "gotcha!" thing rather than anything realistic.

If one reads the old manuals closely, much can be derived regarding the influence of terrain upon troop mobility and employment.

Elevations (even of the "gentle" nature) will materially slow movement for all, either climbing or descending.

Artillery cannot descend or ascend very steep hills without extraordinary assistance measures being taken. Even steep embankments would exercise a similar effect.

Field artillery, according to the manual, was not to be put into battery on a slope greater than about 6 pct (IIRC).

Mounted regular cavalry could not move through or operate in woods of any density. A small band of guerillas might be able to snake their way single file along a trail, but they won't be going very fast at all. Regular cavalry would need a road wide enough to permit a column of fours.

Ploughed, broken, muddy, boggy, swampy, stony ground would slow movement of all arms and in some case might prevent movement of certain arms altogether.

It has been a long time for me since doing so, but it is very educational hiking overland or through thick woods on a compass bearing. It might sound easy and straightforward, but it definitely is not so. That is why I discount official rates of march postulated in the manuals; you might be able to do 120 paces per minute at 28 inches per pace on a parade ground, but there are precious few places in nature where that is possible.

B

Dear TKindred,

Your remarks on troops types moving at the same speeds when the other factors are equal is dead on target.

However, and respectfully, I think you could not be more wrong concerning the predictability of terrain effects.

How can anyone "know" just how difficult or easy a terrain feature is simply by looking at it? Especially from ground level?

It's impossible to know how any terrain will affect the movement of troops until they enter it. And the farther away the observer is--such as a Brigadier or higher command level--the more ignorant he must inevitably be.

Yes, he may have a map in his hands, but we all know how perfectly reliable maps are! And I, at least, have yet to see any map that says how fast one can march over each terrain feature printed on it. Or he may have a report from a scout, but the scout did not report his rate of march through the terrain feature--even if he actually crossed it. He was one man--or a even a few--and not the troops themselves.

Try Blutarski's exercise and I think you'll quickly agree with him. Or even talk with Paint Ball gamers who play in fields and forests and see if any of them have never been surprised by ground they thought would be "easy."

Measured predictability is a phantom chased in the dark by the blindfolded.

Or, to put it another way, ALL of life is a "Gotcha! thing," and part of the game is dealing with it.

Besides, it's a helluva lot more fun that way!

TVAG

I have always viewed rolling dice for movement through terrain as more of a "gotcha!" thing rather than anything realistic.

I agree--up to a point. I think that the inability of troops to *know* how a piece of terrain will slow them or not was often true. Then again, military men were experienced in evaluating terrain, often choosing caution. For instance, at Corunna in 1809, the French had a huge number of cavalry that did nothing, though most maps show a great deal of open terrain on the French left where they were stationed. The cavalry never operated over it because it was bad ground for horses--scrub plants hiding the surface, rocky and pitted ground. It is usually remains uncommented on in history books.

Even when the ground was seen, the effects could be a surprise. At Antietam, the sunken road provided great cover and what provided the Rebels with an apparently open field of fire. When the Yanks advanced, there was a 10 foot deep dip from 300 yards to 30 right in front of the Rebels. It surprised both sides and negated much of the assumed defensive advantages of the position. I agree that such surprises are part of the fun.

With the rules we have been playing with, we start with several levels of terrain for such things as 'woods' on the table. A chit is placed by it face down with the actual level of the terrain. Neither side knows how tough it is until it is entered. Obviously terrain behind the lines or being defended is *known*, but otherwise there has to be some recon or units passing through the terrain to know what it's really like.

Cavalry officers regularly did this kind of recon over terrain they would be operating. von Bredow at Mars-la-Tours in 1870 took a long time to scout the area he would be charging over before making his "Death Ride." It was one reason it was so successful.

I think we have to ask what 'relationship' military men had with the terrain and how they used it. Fatigue can be recreated in a number of ways.

McLaddie,

I like your idea re secret bad terrain effects chits very much.

Re Antietam, my friend and I have walked the approach from the Union lines upslope to the sunken road, The Confederate position could not been seen at all until the Union advance crested the rise about 70 paces (50 yards?) from the road, whereupon they were presumably blasted by volleys of smoothbores firing buck and ball well within their most effective range. I would propose that that is what made the position so powerful for defense.

B

Blutarski:

We've been having fun with it. It certainly makes you look at terrain differently. The terrain chits can also be used to create traps or unexpected benefits. One of the things we have been playing around with are those 'dips' that hide things. We just use a swath of felt to indicate a *possible* dip where units will be out of sight, or stumbling on a swampy area etc. It adds another 'layer' to the terrain in a simple way.

The Sunken Road proved to be a mixed blessing for the Rebels at Antietam. While it was a strong position, the Union troops advancing disappeared from view between 300 and about 70 yards, so were safe from enemy fire until very close. [that area, 300-100 yards is where most advances were stopped by fire] It also let the Yanks move to the right along the defensive line without taking fire. The defensive line was finally outflanked this way. And it was only a ten to fifteen foot dip in the landscape.

On the subject of cavalry moving or charging in rough terrain, I have often walked the ground where Farnsworth's fateful charge at Gettysburg occurred and wondered how a mounted man could ride a horse through those woods, (it is my impression that the charge began in the woods near the northern base of big round top), much less commenced a charge there. I know the woods may have been less dense then. Most of the area over which the charge occurred seems to be entirely unfit for the movement of cavalry, densely wooded in parts, strewn with boulders and fences, or very marshy in others. I know nothing of horseback riding, having, never so much as sat on a horse myself. I realize the charge was ill considered in the first place but I don't understand how a horse and rider could have negotiated the terrain there much less conducted a charge. I wonder if any of you guys would care to express an opinion on this?

Thanks, John Miller

My Thanks for all the excellent replies to my posting.

Mr. Miller,
Farnsworth's charge is still debated as to the correct routes that were followed but regardless the ground was very poor for Cavalry.
As mentioned above "understanding the Ground" was key and Farnsworth knew what he was in for. Farnsworth had two Regiments in the attack with two in reserve, the two in advance moved thru the woods in column of fours, were delayed at the edge where a fence line ran. The Regiments followed different paths, break off of Battalions within each regiment. The columns never deploying into a line as we think of in gaming.
This action reads like a pinball machine… Regards, John
Additional thought – the above is a tactical level look, but the interesting counter point is that Hood's Division is faced with aggressive Union Cavalry, two full brigades that are working in unison to probe and push their flank. This was a new experience for the southern command, the reorganized OOB of the Cavalry within the AOP and the new leadership was giving a look at what the future was.

John Simmons: Thanks for your response. I appreciate all your remarks and was especially interested in your thoughts on that, (cavalry on the flanks), being a new experiance for the Confederates. It makes me more prone to believe that cavalry was not as unthreatning, in this era, to infantry as is generally accepted. I have always been puzzled as to why the cavalry to the west of the Emitsburg Rd. were not the ones who to have attempted the mounted charge. Of course the fields of Gettysburg are so criss crossed by fences that that could be an explanation. A facinating topic in my opinion. Thank you again for you most interesting comments. John Miller