"Basing light cavalry" Topic

I get 6 horses to the base. What are your views on basing light cavalry to same density as Heavies.

Thanks.

I get 6 horses to the base. What are your views on basing light cavalry to same density as Heavies.

Thanks.

I find that rules that put light cav on less dense bases significantly underpowered light cavalry. I personally don't do it as a simple modifier is all you need. If the figs are represent a slightly different ratio I can live with it.

The idea of heavies only fighting knee to knee is probably a parade ground ideal. Actual charges, even at the trot, would see a dispersal. Horses are going to veer at obstacles, the space to do so was something the trooper would be happy to allow.

I base heavies and lights the same.

Its not a figure based game. A base is a base.

I put 2 lights per base and 3 heavies per base – makes them stand out on the battlefield and distinguishes between the two types.

The overestimation of heavy cavalry charge and underestimation light cavalry charge is just that.
The main difference was psychological(not that you should ignore that aspect as war is mostly psychological)
I've found no actual difference between heavy and light.
Light cavalry would charge infantry and heavy cavalry just as heavy cavalry did, in the end, it was the skill of the squadrons and leadership that decided it.

If it's the big horses that make heavy cavalry, then British hussars and light dragoons would be heavy cavalry as they rode horses almost the same size and French cuirassiers. If it was armor that made them heavy, then British dragoons would never be heavy cavalry as they didn't use armor.
If it was the straight sword that made them heavy, then most dragoons would be heavy cavalry.
Giving cuirassier +1 +3 becasue they have plates on their chest is very gamey.

If I did a rule the only thing that dictated cavalry effect was their actual skill. not their class.
(and mabye a – if you can show that the unit was badly mounted.)

I classify cavalry as light, medium and heavy based on horse size. The class only takes effect in cavalry vs. cavalry close combat. Armour goes on top. Cavalry on big horses have a height advantage over those on small horses. Frontage would be about the same. Cavalry trained for the light role are allowed to put out more skirmishers. If cavalry skirmishers engage in close combat, the size advantages are reversed, as small, nimble horses will provide the advantage.

I have 2 cavalry or 3 infantry figures on bases.
On battlefield there are no differences on formations for light and heavy cavalry.

Cuirasses don' t add nothing to charge of cuirassieurs, but add 1 to morale and reduces opponent's charge by 1 for 10D dices.

Part way through a campaign, horses as with men, have lost much of their vim and vigor. Therefore, any differences between heavy and light are largely erased, according to many Napoleonic books I have read.
Mounting light cavalry less dense to distinguish lights from heavys makes sense especially with smaller figures. I light that kind of visual difference rather than a sign or mark that takes away from the look of the figures.

2 lights and 3 heavies. Getting 6 to a base must be large size bases.

If you distinguish Lights from heavies with your mounting, then you gave away some of your needed fog of war, in your game.
Reality of battle is most opposing commanders did not distinguish what they were up against until well with in 800 m (or less if the smoke was heavy) and by identification of the units uniform and not knee to knee or 5 in spacing of the knees!!!!
- one would already be committed from their original deployment anyway w/o prior knowledge. "Oh I cannot follow this order to charge- I can see they are hvys"…..duht!

GdD Hauptol… GdB Delliers charge that enemy cavalry to your right.
GdB.. Sir I think they have cuirass!
Aide de Camp Bagout… Sir I see white coats of dagoons… oh wait, they look to be green…. that of chevalegers!
GdD Hauptol… just initiate the charge, damn it!

Good thought from marshalGreg. I had not thought of that. In our games, I don't think that kind of fog exists. Everyone knows what everything is. But still, something to consider.

@ gunfreak

The overestimation of heavy cavalry charge and underestimation light cavalry charge is just that.

This was a major issue in the Quarrie rules I started with. Light cavalry were handicapped three ways: 1/3 less dense than heavy; lower melee ratings; and they used a combat results table that meant with the same total combat value they'd inflict 1/3rd fewer casualties than heavies.

Quarrie actually cites in his book the example of cossacks massacring blown cuirassiers at some battle or other, even though this result was impossible to recreate using his rules.

I'm not up to speed on modern rules and how they handle this but there are several random points that occur to me.

- it was commonplace for dragoon units to be converted to light cavalry, or lancers, or the reverse. The horses would be replaced as well, but this suggests that whether light of heavy, the tactical value was not so different.

- The KGL light dragoons at Waterloo lamented having given up their heavy cavalry swords when they converted.

- The British army reduced the number of heavy cavalry regiments it possessed over the period, despite not having many to begin with.

- it can't have made much difference to an infantryman whether he got sabred by light cavalry or heavy.

- by the Crimean War the distinction between light and heavy cavalry seems to have all but disappeared.

What other points bear on the relative value of light versus heavy?

I'm really just after the aesthetics.

All British cavalry were converted to dragons in 17?92 I think.

A dragoon earned a penny a day less than a cavalry man.

Horse guards were still, well horse(guards)
Former regimets of horse became dragon guards. This started in the 1740/50s.
And as the regular dragoons had become heavy cavalry by this time, each dragoon/dragoon guard regiment split of 1 company that became light dragoons.

Re basing density, when discussing Napoleonic regular heavy and light cavalry, we aren't discussing cataphracts and horse archers.
In most armies I'm pretty sure that the regulation space allocated for a trooper in formed ranks was the same in the heavy and light branches, and the three rank/two rank differential sometimes (LWU) found in the c18th had largely disappeared too. So on the field of battle regular lights and heavies should have the same density I'd say.

"Grand Army" based all cavalry at the same frontage; light cavalry typically were given a spot better combat value than dragoons and usually received a better morale rating, as well. Unarmored heavy cavalry were rated higher than lights, while armored cavalry received an additional 1 spot bonus.

Light cavalry better than dragoons (heavy presumably) is, er, very counter-intuitive indeed. Was any rationale stated for this?

I was under the impression that the main difference was mission. Light cavalry did reconnaissance, pursuit and had a sideline in being able to charge if needed. Heavy cavalry just charged although some heavy cavalry (eg French dragoons) could also do reconnaissance. Lancers were light cavalry who were handier (initially at least) in a melee because long stick, but took longer to train and in some cases only had said stick because it was cheaper than a sword.

Which bit of that is grossly wrong?

That "and had a sideline in being able to charge if needed."

Yes, light cavalry did recon and screening.
But during battle it was 100% battle cavalry. All napoleoinc cavalry is based on Prussian SYW cavalry.

Were cuirassiers and dragoons were nimble, swith, and always om the prowl for an attack.
The prussian hussars were also the first true light battle cavalry and the modell for all later hussars and other light cavalry. They would charge enemy cuirassiers without blinking an eye.

To me ut looks like rules authors, and even Some historians think napoleoinc light cavalry behaved like Austrian SYW hussars (Who actually was mostly recon and skirmish cavalry with not a very good battlefield record.)

Haven't gotten to cavalry yet, but I'm leaning towards basing the lights less dense than the heavies, just to make it easier for me to tell them apart.

"Light cavalry better than dragoons (heavy presumably) is, er, very counter-intuitive indeed. Was any rationale stated for this?"

I believe the values were assigned based on discussions in "Empires, Eagles, and Lions"; greater elan (at least for some) might also have figured in.

I think some of the bad dragoon ratings come from two points.

1. The general idea that dragoons got left over horses. Cuirasiers got the best heavy horses, and the light cavalry got the best nimble horses, and dragoons were left with the leftovers.

2. It seems for many all Napoleonic dragoons are based off the french dragoons(the only dragoons that still was trained in infantry tactics).

So people assume what goes for french, goes for all.
I can't speak for Austrians, but British and Russian dragoons were true heavy cavalry. So was the Prussian dragoons(at least during the SYW)

Russian dragoons were light cavalry mounted on quite small horses.

They used helmets and had straight swords, except for the horse size they're equipped exactly like British dragoons.

Hence the uselessness of even having light, heavy distinctions because except for the curiass there is no part of "heavy" that you could not find in light cavalry.

If it's the size of the horses, then British light dragoons and hussars are heavy cavalry.
If it's straight swords, then almost all dragoons would be heavy.
If it's helmets, then most dragoons and many lancer regiments would be heavy cavalry.
If it's the cuirass, then only, French, Austrian and post 1809 Russian cuirassiers would be heavy cavalry.(but not Carabiners or grenadier a chaval)

If it's how they are used,(light cavalry scouting and battling, and heavy only battling) Then units like chasseur a chaval of the guard, Russian guard hussars etc would be heavy.

In a cavalry fight, big men on big horses have the advantage, unless it's a skirmish. They hit downwards, their horses have the weight to push ponies around. Straight swords have an advantage on impact, using the point. Sabres have the edge in a turning melee with space. In close combat, the most used part of the sword was the basket/handguard/pommel. British light cavalry count as "mediums" in my book, as it is not just the height of the horse, but the build that counts, plus the size of the rider. Likewise, I class regular Prussian cavalry as medium, except Kürassiere, who are heavy. French dragoons would also be medium. Helmets and straight swords count for nothing if your opponent has a height advantage of up to a foot.
Try fencing on horseback from a 15 1/2 hand Andalusian against a large Cuirassier on a 17+ hand Hannoverian, then you will know the difference. I speak from experience, having re-enacted both Napoleonic and ACW cavalry for many years.

Reenactment isn't real life.
While living history can give some hints it's not the alpha omega.
The Swedish cavalry horses of the Great Northen war was smaller then Saxon and Danish dragoon horses, But the Swedish always one.

It's never the individual swordsmen that win combat, units are units, not individuals.

It's the unit with most initiative/aggression and best leaders that win. Except in a few instances, it's always the unit with the last reserves that win.

All other things are far far down the list. what sword, size of horses, armor no armor etc.
It might, in theory, be the tiny extra that help, if all other things are the same.

Reenactment is closer to real life than wargaming ;-) And, it gives more hints and information than you will get just reading books, of which there are many. I find it amusing when people who have never actually ridden a horse in formation or participated in a cavalry charge theorize about the key factors in the same.

A line of big men on big horses will intimidate another such line on smaller horses. Especially the horses. I agree with your comment about the last reserves, though. On the Cavalry skirmish line it most certainly is individual swordsmen who win combats, however, and there the advantage lies with a small, nimble horse.

You can compensate horse size with training and agression, which is why both weight and training must be taken into account, equally, I believe.