"Problems With Cavalry Frontages" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please avoid recent politics on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Basing Message Board Back to the Historical Wargaming in General Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleIt's probably too late already this season to snatch these bargains up...
Current Poll
|
Okiegamer | 02 Mar 2015 9:11 p.m. PST |
A group of us wargamers who are also Civil War reenactors once got curious as to how much frontage a typical file of soldiers occupies. A file, of course, is one front-rank man and his file-mate in the second rank behind him – i.e. the front of one man. When we measured a group of reenactors standing in line, we found the frontage came to right about 22-24 inches per file (man). We didn't have the opportunity to measure a group of cavalrymen on their horses. But, when I asked a very experienced cavalry unit commander he replied, without hesitation, that 36" is the frontage of a man on a horse. That is, of course, when they're standing still. Horses would likely spread out more than men when moving, so the frontage might expand to, say, 48" or so. If accurate, this means that a given number of men on horses, arranged in the same number of ranks, would occupy about 1.5-2.0 times the frontage of the same number of foot soldiers in a similar formation. One of the biggest advantages of infantry over cavalry, in any period, is simply its ability to pack more men into the same amount of space. Yet, it seems that most wargame rules ignore this and simply call for basing the cavalry on the same-sized bases as infantry. Some seem to take it into consideration through combat factors, especially very stylized ones like DBA. Others just appear to ignore it, or are seemingly oblivious to the effects it has, especially in rules in which casualties are taken in whole bases. When a cavalry base that is 1" wide, and has two figures, represents the same number of men and the same number of casualties as a 1" infantry base having three figures, or when they represent the same number of men regardless of the number of figures, then something is out of whack! This leads to the cavalry being more powerful that it should. Cavalry should be on bases that are at least 1.5 times the front of infantry (assuming the same number of ranks), and/or should occupy at least 1.5 times the total frontage if single (sabot) basing is used. Anyone else given any thought to this problem? OKG |
79thPA | 02 Mar 2015 9:32 p.m. PST |
In the games I have played cav and infantry bases do not represent the same number of people even though the base is the same size. In my experience wargames rules do not ignore figure ratios. I can't think of any that do. In what rules does a 1" stand of 2 cavalry equal the same number of men as a 1" stand of three infantry? |
Extra Crispy | 02 Mar 2015 11:12 p.m. PST |
I'm with 79th there. All the rules I can think of account for it through figure ratios. And usually at 2:1 inf. To cav. |
Early morning writer | 02 Mar 2015 11:24 p.m. PST |
It's been a few years (or more) since I've played, but I believe the late John Hill's JRII rules are guilty. I always felt cavalry was much too powerful in that system – though the infantry and artillery seemed to balance remarkably well. |
Great War Ace | 03 Mar 2015 12:08 a.m. PST |
RL frontages are best modeled on the ground scale and the number of men/horses assigned accordingly. Thus if three feet per infantryman and four and a half feet per cavalryman are accepted (with a ground scale of 1:360), we have eight men across a 20mm stand of infantry, and seven ponies across a 25mm stand of cavalry. But cavalry are bigger than infantry, so counting each horse and rider as two infantry isn't unreasonable (this assertion seems to work in our game, i.e. produce combat results that "don't insult my intelligence" – OFM, :) ). This works out so that an infantry stand of a given armor class is less effective in melee than a cavalry stand of the same armor class. For example the combat value of one 20mm heavy infantry stand is 9 points, while one 25mm stand of heavy cavalry is 14 points (being a representation of 64 infantry and 50 cavalry respectively). So you are right, the horses take up more room. But you are mistaken to assume equal combat value for a horseman and infantryman. Some might argue that a horse is far more effective "mechanically" than merely two times an infantryman, perhaps as much as ten times as effective mechanically (estimated solely upon the weight difference, I presume). But in reality the far greater weight of a horse is mostly negated by the formation of ranks of infantry with "stickers", but not entirely negated even by the most tenacious, deep "phalanx" of spear or pike, etc. There is nothing simple about any of these considerations!… |
GildasFacit | 03 Mar 2015 6:20 a.m. PST |
Many rules (and most that I play) have a base representing a unit or part of one. There is no direct ratio of figures to troop count or even a fixed troop count for the base. An infantry base represents (say) a company (180-220 men) and a cavalry base a troop (40-60 troopers). They may be the same size because extra space is allowed on the cavalry base for the increased space a cavalry element needs to manoeuvre compared to a foot base. Just one example of why exact calculations of spacing and formation may not always be reflected in the figure count and/or base size. |
JezEger | 03 Mar 2015 7:18 a.m. PST |
Are any frontages modelled well? Just look at a real Napoleonic unit in line compared to its wargames footprint. When it comes to ACW or Naps cavalry, the other thing to take into account is the unit strength due to lack of fit horses. From what I have read, few ACW regiments were even at half strength by the time they hit the field, thus their frontage would be reduced anyway. Bottom line for me, if the outcome is reasonable to what happened in history, then the rules have it right. If your rules allow ACW cavalry to act like Alexanders Companians, then they have it wrong. |
Okiegamer | 03 Mar 2015 9:00 a.m. PST |
The set I play with mostly is Fire and Fury and, yes, each base represents the same number of men – either 150 or 200 depending on the scale being used – regardless of whether it is infantry or cavalry. While it is true that horses do give some shock value, this is offset, especially in the rifle-musket era and later, by the firing ability of the infantry. In FnF, mounted cavalry get a +1 for charge combat (regardless of whether they are the attacker or the defender), in addition to being able to squeeze the same number of troops into the same space as the infantry. Ironically, this is not as much of an issue with mounted cavalry as it is with dismounted. The Union cavalry, especially, is a "tank" given their greater number of fire points per base than infantry or Confederate dismounted cavalry. I have addressed this problem simply by putting all my cavalry, mounted and dismounted, with three figures on 1.5" bases, which Rich said is an option in the original brigade-level rules. But this often poses challenges when I play with others who have theirs mounted according to the standard in both the brigade and regimental level rules. |
The Virtual Armchair General | 03 Mar 2015 12:43 p.m. PST |
Gentlemen! The guessing at frontages of men and horses here is a bit disappointing! The information is available in any number of good sources, not least the contemporary manuals. In the case of the Mexican-American War, both armies used the same frontages for both arms, which is to say 4' per man and 6' per horse--which is Open Order. Close order could be fallen back on when in road column, and certainly the goal in Square. Thus, the number of bases/stands between the same number of men must vary. A hundred Infantry, in two ranks, will occupy 100' of frontage, while 100 Cavalry, also in two ranks, must occupy 300'. It's a simple and inescapable as that. Thus, games based on man-to-figure ratios which are the same for both arms are distributing taffy, and quite unnecessarily so. Ideally--and not impractically--Ground Scale determines the number of "men" that can be mounted on a base/stand of whatever size the designer prefers. The size of a 1.5" wide base will not change, but how much linear frontage it represents can be any distance. If the chosen Ground Scale is 1"= 100', then that base/stand represents 150'. Thus, given a 4' frontage per Infantry in two ranks, that base represents 75 men. A 1" base would represent 50, and a 2" 100, and so on. If your Battalion is, say, 600 men, it would be represented by 8 bases (or 12, or 6, accordingly). If using the same 1.5" base for Cavalry, given their parameters cited above, it will represent 50 riders, and a 1" base 33, and 2" 66. Thus, the number of bases needed to represent a 300 strong Regiment would be 6, or 9, or 4.5. Demonstrably, Cavalry Regiments (tending to have smaller numbers than Infantry Battalions) require fewer bases, automatically reducing their effectiveness on the table top to something more like that actually achieved in battle. Finally, the other major advantage of using Ground Scales over ratios is that miniatures of any scale may be used on the same bases, with the same firing, movement, and other range influenced tables. Players with 28mm figures will still be able to mount, say, three foot on a 1.5" base, and two horse. But 15mm armies can have twice as many figures on each base, and 6mm likely twice that. In the smaller scales, it even becomes possible on the same size base to mount foot and horse two or more files deep, as befits their actual formations. This is not only a further treat to the eye, but makes our miniatures less abstract as markers for what might really be happening on the table top. TVAG |
AICUSV | 17 May 2020 7:12 p.m. PST |
I've always used a ratio based upon formation frontage , foot company to mounted company, or battalion to squadron. |
|