"Cavalry in Wargames" Topic

What proportion of cavalry to infantry do you use in your wargames?

For many years I have struggled with this problem, and often had great difficulty controlling larger bodies of cavalry. Usually I settle for about 10% cavalry.

I now only fight wargames from my PBEM campaign. Each corps has four infantry brigades and one cavalry brigade. The actual numbers are 4 cavalry to 32 infantry. They represent 1,000 cavalry to 16,000 infantry.

I am now considering removing the cavalry from each corps, and grouping them as a cavalry corps of four brigades.

I would be interested to hear how other members solve this problem.

I don't think I can see your problem.

The correct proportion and command structure of cavalry to infantry will be dictated by the historical setup of your period or by the background fluff of your Imagi-Nation.

Is it this that is your problem or is it the ruleset you are using does not allow cavalry to perform correctly?

Mongols? Viking? Teutonics? Apache? Inca….😛

Proportion by unit or figure? For example, in my game an infantry regiment has 36-40 figures, a cavalry 12 to 15. Taking the top ends that's .375 cavalry to each infantryman. Thus if you had an army of 100,000 you'd have 37,500 cavalry.

But in either, why does it matter?

Since the topic was cross posted to the Naps board I'm going to take a wild stab at Napoleonic's – is my intel background showing through?

French – Light Cav Bde attached to each Infantry Corps, Mediums and Heavys kept centralised in Cavalry Corps, with lt bdes of their own for scouting and flank protection. This model would probably serve for the Russians too.

Brits – independent light and heavy Brigades.

Prussians and Austrians – quite a variety, all the above plus mixed Infantry and Cav bdes.

No, russians in Borodino haved separated infantry and cavalry corps. No mixing.

In game one may use historical OOB's or use point system, where cavalry cost at least ten times more than infantry.

Back to the OP, I almost exclusively fight historical battles, so I use whatever proportion of cavalry was there in the day. This can sometimes be quite a lot of cavalry….

For hypothetical games I just use the appropriate army lists which vary by rules sets.

Depends on the period

For my ACW armies cavalry is about 10 – 20% of the army, tops; mostly in cavalry corps for campaigns although one of the players like independent divisions so I let him have a few

For my SYW armies I am aiming for it to be about 35% (only have reached this goal with my Austrians and Prussians so far); they are organized in cavalry brigades for campaigns

I recently read that military theorists in the late Victorian / Boer War period considered that a 'balanced' field force should have about 20-25% cavalry.

If its an historical set up, then you already have your answer. For my one-off games, I limit it to 20-25%. Mostly I game the Peninsula which was brutal on horse flesh, so rarely will I achieve 25% in a game. Probably more like 10%.

Sorry, I did not write the question more clearly.

First I am referring to Napoleonic wargames. I should have realised I would cause confusion when I cross posted to the Campaign Forum.

I was asking about the use of cavalry in Napoleonic Wargames, rather than the historical balance between infantry and cavalry.

All of my wargaming is based on a fictional campaign. Each army has four corps, and each corps has one brigade of cavalry to four brigades of infantry. I do not, at present, have cavalry divisions or corps.

The size of my wargames is controlled by the campaign. The current numbers work well, and they also correspond with the figures in my collection.

I am considering removing the brigades from each corps, and creating two divisions of two brigades each. This would allow the campaign commanders more freedom of choice.

However it would also provide games where one side has quite a lot of cavalry, and the other none at all. In the past when I have had this inbalance, it made for quite boring wargames. The side with the cavalry dominated the movement of the whole table.

This is not necessarily a bad thing. But I just wondered whether other members had experienced similar problems, and how they solved them

I think you need to understand that the major use of Light Cavalry was for reconnaissance and screening at the operational level, not on the battlefield. If your campaign rules do not reflect that, you have a problem.

I have a different experience with cavalry.

As a rule of thumb:don't commit them! They evaporate like the morning mist in battle through fatigue and casualties.

Obviously, I DO use them but I find you must always keep some in reserve or your infantry will be driven into square and blasted by your enemiey's musketry or artillery. You need them to screen your retreat or to lead your pursuit. Clearly, you need a hefty percentage of them.

It must come down to rules: I think mine might be more accurate than yours?

Rmaker

I do understand the use of light cavalry in the Napoleonic period for reconnaissance and screening. But the question was about cavalry on the wargames table, not in the campaign. They work well in the campaign. Each corps has a security area of ten miles, which is provided by infantry and cavalry patrols and picquets. This is automatic and does not require special orders. The cavalry brigade can extend that to fifteen miles in one direction, but run the risk of not being available to take part in the battle/wargame.

Ochoin

My wargame rules work fine for the current deployment of cavalry on the wargames table. They can be ordered to engage, which is similar to skirmish. They are unlikely to suffer heavy casualties, nor to inflict them. Most combats are inconclusive with both sides retiring disordered. Or they can be ordered to attack, which is a more determined combat. This usually results in one side losing the combat, and likely to be out of action for the remainder of the wargame.

My concern is what will happen if I concentrate the cavalry so that one side might have no cavalry, whilst the other a large body of them. In the past I have found this just bogs down the wargame. I was wondering whether this is general, or perhaps one set of rules deals with it particularly well.

Your rules may well be more accurate than mine. This is always a very personal choice. I have tried many commercial sets of rules over the years, and my current house rules have served me well for five years, and provide the type of wargame that I enjoy. However they may well need adjusting to deal with an inbalance of cavalry on one side. As they are house rules they could easily be adjusted if I can find a mechanism to base it on.

I think a lot will depend upon the exact mechanics of your rules. In my favoured (Polemos) rules, unshaken infantry have generally little to fear from cavalry, unless the cavalry is particularly good and the infantry is pretty poor, thus I can and have had competitive games where the side which is inferior in cavalry has every chance to prevail. Thus I have no problems using large forces of cavalry in them.

But in other sets of rules I use, or have used, a side without cavalry, or a great inferiority of it, has very little chance against one that does because it will be forced into square then beaten. This is compounded because generally it will be easier to co-ordinate the actions of the infantry and the cavalry and the artillery than it appeared to be for real. When using such rules I would be wary of setting up games that one side has almost no chance of winning.

Incidentally, the campaign rules I use reward the side which doesn't use its cavalry, as fresh cavalry at the end of the battle greatly increase the chance of the winning side taking lots of prisoners in the pursuit or of the losing side avoiding such a fate.

Whirlwind

Thanks for your comments

I have not used Polemos rules, but they may have the answer to my problem.

In my house rules cavalry can not charge formed infantry squares. If they declare a charge, and the infantry pass morale to form square, the cavalry will halt just within musket range. The infantry have one attempt to fire at them, and the cavalry then retire shaken.

So far it sounds similar to your description

But the problem comes when the cavalry do not declare a charge. They halt within charge distance of the infantry. The infantry then form square. The infantry commander has to find a solution to the enemy cavalry before their infantry and artillery destroy his square. One solution is artillery, but this depends on a particularly good dice throw. The second is to advance his own cavalry and, if necessary, charge the enemy cavalry.

This all works well when both sides have a similar body of cavalry. But what happens when one side has none. My previous experience has been a long and boring wargame.

However in 1813 most armies did have large bodies of cavalry. Army corps may have had a small body of cavalry to recce and provide security. But battle cavalry was usually concentrated in cavalry corps. And it is how to reflect this on the tabletop which is proving difficult.

Or at least this is my understanding of Napoleonic battlefield cavalry, and that is the model which I would like to be able to use in my wargames.

Is there a set of commercial rules which allows this type of wargame? If so I may be able to incorporate the mechanism used in my own house rules

It was historically quite hard for armies with cavalry superiority to pull off the tactics you describe. Infantry squares were quite mobile in practice (unless the cavalry were very close, in which case more vulnerable), and not so vulnerable to infantry lines as is often supposed. At Waterloo Bachelu's attack on infantry squares failed completely. Artillery could present more of a problem, but squares were physically very small, and could be concealed by terrain – and artillery unit did not want to get too close or they would be vulnerable themselves.

What cavalry does very well is preventing infantry from attacking. Most of the big cavalry versus infantry successes arise from cavalry attacking infantry that were themselves attacking or counter attacking. So a cavalry imbalance could make for a stalemate rather than one side getting a strong advantage.

@Whirlwind. General de Brigade has a similar process. At the end of the game, a 'plus' is added for each cavalry regiment over 75% of original strength. I always assumed this was to consider pursuit of a defeated foe, future reconnaissance, or to act as the rear guard to cover your own retreat after losing a battle.

But the problem comes when the cavalry do not declare a charge. They halt within charge distance of the infantry. The infantry then form square. The infantry commander has to find a solution to the enemy cavalry before their infantry and artillery destroy his square. One solution is artillery, but this depends on a particularly good dice throw. The second is to advance his own cavalry and, if necessary, charge the enemy cavalry.

This all works well when both sides have a similar body of cavalry. But what happens when one side has none. My previous experience has been a long and boring wargame.

This pretty much never happens with the Polemos rules, simply because all but poor unshaken infantry are able to both successfully attack and defend against cavalry.

…in 1813 most armies did have large bodies of cavalry. Army corps may have had a small body of cavalry to recce and provide security. But battle cavalry was usually concentrated in cavalry corps. And it is how to reflect this on the tabletop which is proving difficult.

Because unshaken infantry is so relatively strong against cavalry, then basically the large cavalry formations either wait for artillery and/or infantry to shake the morale of the enemy, then they charge in or try and manoeuvre around a flank. The side with the cavalry can try and user smaller formations in support of its infantry, but this is very difficult to co-ordinate, particularly in the attack.

Whirlwind

"This pretty much never happens with the Polemos rules, simply because all but poor unshaken infantry are able to both successfully attack and defend against cavalry."

Do you mean that unshaken infantry defend by forming, and remaining, in square?

What do you mean by unshaken infantry are able to attack cavalry?

Thistlebarrow,

Do you mean that unshaken infantry defend by forming, and remaining, in square?

No, it doesn't work like that, the Polemos rules don't specify formations for individual units (whether battalions or brigades, depending on which version of the game is being played). So the only thing the commanders on each side will know is the morale state and the quality of the unit.

What do you mean by unshaken infantry are able to attack cavalry?

Just that – infantry can attack cavalry in the same as any other unit. However in the lower-level (1 base = 1 battalion) set the results are less decisive – effectively the cavalry will retreat out of range or the infantry won't advance.

After some consideration, and a little play testing, I have a solution for cavalry v infantry in wargames. Or at least using my wargame rules.

In my house rules the basic manoeuvre formation is the brigade. There are four infantry brigades and one cavalry brigades, plus corps artillery, in my corps organisation.

Combat is always resolved by one brigade v one brigade. If more than one brigade can fight, then it is resolved by two consecutive one on one brigade combats.

The balance is very much in favour of the cavalry, unless the infantry is in square. There is a list of plus and minus elements for each type of combat. The result is added to 1D6 roll. If both brigades are Average, and neither have casualties, the combat would be a draw if the dice roll was 2 or 3. If 4 or more the infantry would lose 30% casualties and rout.

The current amendment adds a plus to the infantry for each friendly brigade within supporting distance (which is 4"). For all four brigades to support each other they would have to advance either in a dense column two wide and two deep. This would leave them very vulnerable to enemy artillery fire. Which seems reasonable to me.

With this amendment the balance moves to the infantry. With the same dice roll of 2 or 3 they would draw, the cavalry would withdraw and both would lose 10% casualties.

It remains to be seen how well it will hold up to extensive play testing.

If you would like to read the full rules you can find them here

link

Click on Rule 15 under Labels for the cavalry v infantry rules.