"Are the different types of units Equal?" Topic

Hello all, I am going to ask for some input from folks on here that know a lot more about the Nappy period then I. And yes I know this post is gonna start out like Lord knows how many others have, asking the same question Lord knows how many others have asked, LOL.
I have a "fast convention friendly" rule set that I have used for 10 years and it works fine. I recently decided to make a few changes and clean it up and a question got in my head that I have not been able to find info on to really answer and perhaps there is no "exact" answer to it.
First my game is designed for relatively "division" level, mixed unit games. Infantry moves by battalion(700men), artillery by battery(120 men,6 guns) and Cavalry by squad(200) men, I use these numbers since realistically units were never up to full strength in battles. Also lets assume that we are talking about units of equal abilities, ie I know there is a big difference between the expected results of cav charging militia vs the kings legion:)
Okay, here is my question(s). I have found that players enjoy the games when they know that each type of unit they move(all things being equal) is roughly equal in some way to the other units of the same or different types, of the three. BUT are they really? Example, is there information/accounts that confirm that a battery can cause as many casualties as a battalion, or should it actually cause more, or less? Is one squad realistically enough to charge an Inf battalion, not in square, survive a couple volleys and still have enough troopers to equal 600 or so men in a melee? Or would you really need more than one squad or should one squad actually not only be enough but give better then it gets in a melee?
Also as far as taking hits. Most all rule sets I have seen make it harder to kill artillery figs and I get that, but what about cav? Should cav figures die just as fast as inf figs do? Should they die at a faster or slower rate, faster because they are a bigger target or slower because they are less of them and they are spread out more? Also should cav that is charging be harder to hit with musket or cannon fire than one standing still?
Anyway, at this point I am probably starting to talk in circles and I am sure most of you get the idea of what I am asking. To sum it up I guess I am asking is it roughly "realistic" that an Inf battalion is equal to a Cav squadron, and both are equal to an artillery battery in different ways???? The whole rock, paper, scissors thing:) Thanks in advance for any wise insight!!

Travis

In terms of road space and rail transport capacity, the three things are indeed roughly equal:)

Otherwise, in very, very rough terms, an artillery battery could hold the same front as an infantry battalion, which implies a rough firepower equivalence, although artillery can shoot much further.

Cavalry are the real problem, in close combat cavalry are more like twice the value of an infantryman than three times, but really, against close order infantry in good order, cavalry don't have a chance. They need to find a flank or attack shaken infantry.

So yes, cavalry should 'die' at the same rate as infantry to reflect their vulnerability and fragility. If you rate your 'squadrons' as representing 300 men, not 200 that is probably nearer the mark.

But really, if what you have now works you, that is good enough.

Thank you very much for the input, as I suspected these type of questions are probably the hardest to answer. I was honestly considering if I should represent the cav in Regiments instead of squadrons so they would not get killed of by gun fire as fast, but am afraid that might be overkill. But relating to part of what I mentioned its hard for gamers that don't know much or anything about the period to understand when they charge the front of an inf or battery they get "shot up", fail moral and whats left of a now useless unit routes away and they ask something along the lines of "what is the point of cav, I thought they were good against infantry not in square" and as you can imagine when you try to explain to them its not the cav's fault its the way you used it, well, you know how some gamers are:)
Anyway, thanks you make some good points:)

Many rules consider cavalry a "one-shot" weapon, especially if you are using squadrons. They are a rapier rather than a bludgeon. When charging foot, it is a question of morale. If the horsemen flinch, the charge is driven off while taking hits. If the foot flinches, the horsemen are on them. The main reason square was used because it gave the infantry confidence that their flanks and rear were protected. By cramming the troops together it gave the officers more control. It all comes down to morale. One might consider poor troops to be already shaken, when it comes to facing cavalry. Of course, not all troops on horseback had what it took to frontally charge infantry.

If "the rules work fine" stop tinkering. A work of creativity requires two persons--the creative/artistic person, and someone standing beside him with a mallet to smack him when he's done. Once the rules play smoothly and produce a reasonably Napoleonic result, it's time to reach for the mallet.

If you do not already know more about the period than your question indicates, then you have absolutely no business writing a rules set!

LOL, really, what was the point in that, really? Well, will you send me a copy of your rule set so I can be properly educated or tell me were to buy it at? How much does it cost, after being asked for several years I ended up selling mine for $10 USD to a number of folks at the conventions. I'll be more than happy to give you my address and thanks for the positive feed back sunshine!

gamer1, It seems to me if your game works for you, go with what you have. As soon as you begin trying to make changes to be more "realistic", you are herding cats. I speak from experience.

I agree, as with any other historical game it is always the challenge to find the balance between realistic and still fun to play, a fine grey area. And to be fair it is impossible to create a rule set that can simulate historical events on a table and include every possible variable and if you could I imagine it would not be much fun to play and would be more like work.
No it was meant more of an exercise to see if any changes would be worth the time and effort and I always enjoy getting helpful feed back and perhaps reinforcement that the choice I made is the right one, after all, don't we all enjoy talking about our favorite periods and the hobby in general that we all know and hopefully love and get much enjoyment out of?

Its worth adding that historical results are only one possible goal of game rules.

A game emulating "Sharpe" films is a mighty fine game indeed, for example ;-)

I would kind of agree that a squadron of cavalry is a bit light when compared to a battalion of infantry or a battery of artillery. Maybe if your units break down to two squadron bases per regiment.

Thanks for all the input, I am going to follow what I believe Et sans résultat! does, which is what I have been doing with my rules and have cav deploy in squadrons of two or more so they have some staying power. In all the games I have run the most common mistake IMHO is see not just new players but even players very experienced to the period and different rule sets on it is they run their cav out as fast as they can and try and force something to happen within the first couple turns. The don't have patience and give the inf and art time to set up, get engaged and wait for a weak spot to develop so their cav can exploit it and do some real damage.
Most games I run I am always said to see that most of the time both sides run their cav out and either get it shot to pieces charging a deployed line of inf and art OR they fight the other sides cav and beat each other up. The end result is the same, by round three(

sorry, hit the submit button to soon, LOL, "I am always sad, not said" and by round three, neither side has any cav for the rest of the game, what a waste:(