"Cavalry speed in wargames" Topic

Wrote this piece on cavalry speed in real warfare and its lack of in games, and the design for my rules.

link

Historical sources and research…

very interesting, I don't know what Bismark is speaking when he mentions the pas acc้l้r้ – for French infantry it was 100 paces are minute and more or less the general pace for manoeuvres on the battle field, the triple speed of cavalry at trot compared to infantry is also reflected in Kriegsspiel

Kriegspiel does the proper job, but I am not sure it integrates the proverbial hurry and wait of armies and the time for commands to be desseminated…My guess is these come from umpiring.

I rode around an infantry formation and promptly crashed into their flanks (they routed) in a Piquet game. Nicely modeled cavalry maneuverability.

Interesting read Jcfrog. Your conclusions on cavalry not moving in a wargame as fast as they should is something I've talked about for years – usually as part of general 'game scale' arguments.

IMHO, ground scale, time scale, footprints and 'turns'. All go to make war gaming a game not a re-enactment.

Ground scale: Only useful for fitting units into spaces when copying historical battle deployments.

Time scale & turns: Only useful, at the end of a wargame for working out a basic battle narrative and battle duration; during a game for map to table timings in wargame campaigns.

Footprints: Can't even imagine a three deep line deployed 50 yards deep. Go figure.

Been gaming for over 40 years, and I still don't get the 'it's not a game' argument. Perhaps it has something to do with men not wanting to admit that their hobby is playing with toy soldiers – the type that call toy soldiers 'historically accurate miniature figurines' in adult company.

@Mike. Is that accurately modeling cavalry, or not property modeling infantry?

M Petro is right, Piquet does really make infantry worry about their flanks and the command system does put that friction into controlling your cavalry.
A point not yet mentioned is that wargame terrain is usually pretty simplistic so present a potentially unrealistic parade ground for cavalry.
Finally IIRC v. Bredow had the route carefully reconnoitered before he committed his brigade and when did you ever see that happening on the table.

One of the corollary problems of high speed move rates is the need for very short turns. Volley & Bayonet can suffer from this. With a 16" movement rate for infantry, a unit can loop around and get on your flank, and there is nothing you can do about it.

The example from Piquet above shows this as well. So what, the infantry just stood there dumb as clucks and took it in the shorts? Is that what would have happened in real life?

Same issues apply to vehicles. At 30mph a vehicle covers 880 yards per minute. So even in a game with 2 minute turns and a ground scale of 50 yards per inch, a vehicle *should* be able to move 35" in a turn. Yet we see time and again infantry move 6", vehicles maybe 16"

Great read J.C !! Olicana --I could not agree with you more !! I have argued this point for years> I now refer to it as "the old Colonel syndrome?" People envisioning themselves as Old Colonels actually engaged in warfare --OR WORSE YET -- Dressed in lab coats engaged in some type of science or academia?
I like to ask them if they have ever noticed that quite often in the average chess set the night is bigger then the castle?

Russ Dunaway

The "it is just a game" syndrome is a great excuse for lazyness, no research, no understanding of warfare at the time. There no, absolutly no contradiction in trying to have proper ways and a good game.

Depends if you prefer games that are designed bottom up or top down.

The "it is just a game" syndrome is a great excuse for lazyness, no research, no understanding of warfare at the time. There no, absolutly no contradiction in trying to have proper ways and a good game.

I agree absolutely

The "it is just a game" syndrome is a great excuse for lazyness, no research, no understanding of warfare at the time.

Not an accusation that can be levelled at me, I'll think you'll find. On the contrary, it is my knowledge of warfare through the ages, and some knowledge about war gaming in the military, that leads me to the conclusion that as far as our hobby goes, it is just a game of toy soldiers.

Jcfrog, have you read the book 'War Gaming' by Andrew Wilson (published by Penguin 1968)? It's a great book about the history of wargaming up to the advent of the computer. It's a book about serious military war gaming, not the hobby as we understand it, so it's very dry in parts. Recommended reading.

+1 Extra Crispy.

No, olicana, not read.. Can it be found in ebook/ pdf download?
We cannot really do it the pro way, no time, not enough people, and certainly no way we would simulate… the huge amout of waiting-inaction+the intricate logistics, the ambulances etc.
But we can get as close as possible to the period stuff as possible. For ex the Twilight… rules system of Nic Dorell, in a very compact, to the point way, play very much like the period, look like it without ending like a degenerate baby of Romans rules or Napoleonics with other costumes. And it is a great game. Adding a bit of pre game and campaigns et hop!
I understand that many do not want to bother. Actually it is first of all the mission of the rules writer.

@ 79th and Extra Crispy. Idk if it was poorly modeled infantry, but it was fun!

Kind of reminds me of D'Erlon's infantry eye witnesses: Officer writes he/they didn't even know of enemy cavalry until he felt a saber blow.

The smoke, small dips in terrain not modeled, noise, confusion, and fog of war. Yes, I could see that my Piquet example happening in real life. No doubt.

@Mike Petro
Jacques Martin (D'Erlon's eye witness) does write as you describe, and his unit was hit from the front ;-)

@JcFrog
Used copies here:
link
One less copy than advertised as I've just ordered one ;-)

I guess that is the gentleman I was referring to. Thanks!

I have rarely played in, or witnessed a wargame where the gamer does not begin to respond to situations -- that in real life the commander would not even see or be aware of.
Accepting something as "a game" in no way suggests ignorance of the time period the game represents.

Russ Dunaway

Olicana said:

>>>>>>>>>>Ground scale: Only useful for fitting units into spaces when copying historical battle deployments.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You make some good points, however you need to get the ground scale _reasonably_ correct to make shooting ranges relevant to unit frontages. And to link things like visibility if your rules have them.

David F Brown

With OP I'd contend that what is possible, and what is probable, are two very different things.

A man may drive a car at the speed limit or beyond- many choose not too anyway.

I agree the disparity exists as many/ most rules over complicate manouevres (not just movement).

Olicana- on 'game scale arguments' I also agree.
I do not identify with the rest. A game is a game for a reason however.
regards d

Went through considerable discussion of this and how to handle it in a wargame some 20 years ago in the defunct Variable Length Bounds group on Yahoo. All of the above is deja vue to me. After trying to rewrite the VLB rules to incorporate all the great ideas tossed around, I reached two conclusions:
1. it was like cooking a waffle in a toaster
2. George Jeffry probably conducted his games as a form of kriegspeil without calling it that. I don't know of anyone in the states who could replicate his games.
I gave up and went back to enjoying a war GAME.

For years I had to explain how my 25 mm ACW collection and 15mm Napoleonic collection, essentially used the same movements, fire, distances,rules, etc.
I would always get hit with the:
"how can a 25mm cannon fire the same distance as a 15mm cannon, etc" questions?
Because none of them actually fire or move at all ,-- they are simply playing pieces for visual effects?
The bases for both collections were the same -- in reality you do not even NEED the figurines, just write on the bases.

Russ Dunaway

Kriegspiel does the proper job, but I am not sure it integrates the proverbial hurry and wait of armies and the time for commands to be desseminated.

I think this 'hurry up and wait' is something generated by higher command at times, not a constant event to average out over an entire battle with every move. The idea is given too much wait in the wrong places with no evidence to support the idea.

Horses can move at a walk 3-4 miles an hour or 5-6 km an hour without tiring them. As you note, gallops were only done at the last 50-100 yards or so. I've backpacked on horses in the sierras up and down hill and 4 miles an hour was all that difficult to achieve with the horses still in good shape.

With OP I'd contend that what is possible, and what is probable, are two very different things.

I agree. All those officers quoted are commenting on what they see as probable. Scharnhorst did this too. It is a question of how accurate their estimations were.

Determining what is probable is a statistical analysis effort.

My examples are talking about practical speeds, for battle. That is all these mostly instruction books are interested in. You as I can tone down a bit distances for command time, but the general idea cannot be questioned by 21st century people, so far away from their experiemce.

Just to clarify my thoughts on the use of games for resolving military problems – game or re-enactment.

( All quotes from Andrew Wilson's book).

Originally Kriegsspiel, as developed by the Prussian General Staff, followed two paths.

The first, original Kriegsspiel, followed rigid rules, in a book. It was practised by only a minority of officers and always had more enemies than friends. Later it was thought to be a useful training tool – for teaching lower level tactical lessons – for quite junior ranking officers, but useless for simulations of actual warfare: IMHO, rather like our wargames in fact, which could be useful for posing tactical problems and teaching tactical lessons, but not simulating warfare.

It is worthy of note that 'rigid Kriegsspiel' "led more the life of a hot house plant" amongst its protagonists who were always in the minority. Even when rigid Kriegsspiel enjoyed an upsurge post 1870 "….it was not due to the rules but rather in spite of them. It is doubtful if there was a single war game in the Prussian Army that was played according to the rules. One of the first things to go was the dice….". No changes in gamer behaviour there then!

Following the wars of 1866 and 1870 military experience was regained in the Prussian Army and the pitfalls of rigid Kriegsspiel became evident. From that point on Free Kriegsspiel, which had no rules at all – it only used the decisions of umpires, based on their actual military experience, to resolve everything – was adopted by the Prussian General Staff for actual warfare simulations. Incidentally, this form of Kriegsspiel was adopted by all European armies prior to 1914.

However, following the disastrous consequences of playing war games, post 1914 the use of war games was discredited and they again went somewhat underground.

Rigidity again found favour as a training tool after WW2. There were so many scientific studies carried out during that war, and such a massive amount of data collected, that 'rules' could be written with some certainty.

To describe a typical pre-computer military wargame, in this case a helicopter division invades Cuba: "The game board was a map of Cuba, about 20 by 40 ft…Red and blue symbols sprouted profusely….There were also coloured pins to mark minefields, destroyed bridges, and evacuated positions which might still appear occupied to aircraft. At one end of the board a stout desk supported two thick volumes of the rule book. The Landing Force War Game is a rigidly assessed, 'closed' game. Moves are made at game time intervals of between thirty minutes and several days; but because of the work of moving pieces, determining results……a game covering twenty to thirty hours of action generally takes about four months to complete."

The dice used were actually a "number generator consisting of thermionic valve circuits designed to produce ten different wave patterns at random." The machine was used to do loads of stuff – from working out kills to who fired first.

BTW, a rigidly closed game, is one where the playing teams do not get to see the table at any point. They play as if from a HQ, relying on situation reports, aeriel recon photos, intelligence digests from which instructions by written orders could be given to the umpires. "The red colonel worked beneath a framed picture of Fidel Castro; the Blue commander worked beneath a placard which said 'Remember it's only a game."

Now that, IMHO is a "War Game": It is similar to hobby games in many respects, but it's importantly different in so many others as to show why what we do is only a hobbyists "wargame".

BTW: Money might also be an issue in taking up proper War Gaming. In 1965, running a game for fifteen turns a week cost the British MOD £50,000.00 GBP a year – today that would be £370,000.00 GBP

After all that, I restate my position. Hobby wargaming is gaming not simulation. That is not to say that it is not useful as a tactical training tool as 'real life' tactical problems are thrown up in our games at regular intervals and the challenge, to win, is to solve them. To simulate warfare, real warfare, you have to go much deeper than we ever do – read as many books as you or I might, write whatever rules we might (I write them too), we can never achieve 'warfare simulation' because we don't have the time, or resources, and possibly patience, to carry out a real War Game. In my case, I don't have the brain either, but that's another Pooh Bear story.

P.S. The book, War Gaming by A. Wilson, is a very dry read. The last few chapters especially so – including a chapter or two on game theory. However, one thought carries throughout the book. Even with a country's wealth to carry games out, even military War Games don't simulate what actually happens when the metal hits the meat. The last chapter is called "Vietnam – The Game That Failed".

Extra Crispy stated:

The example from Piquet above shows this as well. So what, the infantry just stood there dumb as clucks and took it in the shorts? Is that what would have happened in real life?

*You* may have seen this coming as you have a helicopter view of the game table, but in "real life" the battalion has limited vision with smoke all around. There are many instances of units getting surprised in the flank – here's a few from Waterloo..

As they were pursuing the cuirassiers, the guardsmen came upon the flank of Aulard's infantry brigade (Donzelot's column). The infantrymen was so surprised by the sudden appearance of cavalry that they broke and fled without much resistance.

When the dragoons of Union Brigade came to within 100-200 yards of Chemin d'Ohain, they halted and allowed the retreating British and Netherland infantry to reach safety by passing through the intervals between squadrons. Ponsonby rode up to a vantage point and saw the French infantry was engaged in crossing the sunken road. It was a perfect moment and Ponsonby ordered the charge.

Lord Uxbridge writes: "My impression is that the French were completely surprised by the first cavalry attack. It (our cavalry) had been rather hidden by rising ground immediately before their position. I think the left wing of our infantry was partially retiring …"

(from: link )

Piquet can model this surprise easily. The situation may seem safe when you look at the tabletop, but a flip of a card and a roll of the die can change the situation in an instant.

Certainly some reactions would only be possible due to the "helicopter general" effect. I only form square because I can see through/over that wooded hill.

But that does not apply to *all* reactions. In Volley & Bayonet an enemy brigade can march a mile across a ping pong table in full daylight and hit you in the flank before you can react.

These reactions are part of what I think the dice represent. You rolled 1s and your opponent rolled 6s? Maybe you tried to form square and he caught you half way there. Depending on the level of the game, a dice roll can incorporate the performance of lower level officers. A unit got confused and left a gap in the line; ammunition was accidentally sent to the rear; two units crashed in to each other not understanding orders, etc.

As with everything in gaming, getting the balance right is tricky.

@jcp:

Remembered this post from days gone by:

Cavalry Formations as Off-table Assets

I very much agree with JC May's conclusions.
@Extra Crispy: what is the mechanism in V&B that allows troops to go a mile in one move in easy terrain?

In my own rules I use two mechanisms; Grand tactical moves (in column at charge speed if over 30" from formed enemy) and a form of the Variable Length Bounds (VLB) already mentioned. The latter enables a brigade / division with a good commander to have 3-6 moves in one Bound. So troops, especially French, can and do sweep round flanks, and exact arrival times for any manoeuvre / attack are impossible to calculate exactly, because of an element of dice luck.

BUT: All this worked great when I had a table That went up to 20' – which I could also add depth to (on wheels) – did Albuera and Ocana like this in 25mm at 1:25.
With a move has come downsizing to a more normal 9' by 6' table.

SO: does anyone have a good mechanism fir off table flanking manoeuvres??

Thanks

Interesting @ stoppage, but many objections are valid, not the less the need for the cav to know, and terrain recon, which means they cannot , normally appear from far away very fast unless the surprised party is really inept.

I also use off table moves. And have on both side a little movable part table to put the newly arrived or sometimes guys pushed out. I HATE THE " END OF THE WIRLD".

I hate ‘end of the world' too – and used moveable add-ons, but can no longer do that, at least on the flanks.
Any good rules for off table flanking??

On the terrain recon – that is precisely how Anson came unstuck at Talavera (pretty unprofessional really since they had been in the area for several days and Wellington had chosen this ground – and they as the light cavalry hrigade should have been doing recon.)
But mundane day to day duties were not a strength of British cavalry

At the march cold wars, I played in a HAWKS game with some home rules. One feature was that units diced for each move to find out how many operations (move, fire, reorganize etc) they could do in that turn. If a line of infantry was facing a cavalry unit it would usually be safe. If the horse got a 4 operation die roll, then it could move to the flank, wheel and charge from the flank. That made staying in line risky and kept infantry defenders from knowing they were safe, if you only used standard movement allowances and the IGYO sequence. That is a great idea in my opinion.

If a line of infantry was facing a cavalry unit it would usually be safe. If the horse got a 4 operation die roll, then it could move to the flank, wheel and charge from the flank. That made staying in line risky and kept infantry defenders from knowing they were safe, if you only used standard movement allowances and the IGYO sequence. That is a great idea in my opinion.

I wonder how that mirrors the real world command opportunities and calcualtions of a commander… It is really only a matter of chance?

Well I look at it this way. If I am plying that game I might be commanding 5-12 or so units. I don't have control over each unit as if I was commanding it. I don't have the 10,000 foot high view of the enemy and the terrain. I don't have the ability to assign a adventurious aide to the cavalry unit commander who rode around or got lost or knew the terrain or whatever and found out that the flank was open, no hidden guns, no cliffs or swamps or hidden canals or fences. Is there a low lying fog or a 7 foot high thicket that screens such an approach? There is also a lot of variation in the cavalry unit commander. IS he desracted? He is feeling agressive RIGHT now. … A die roll can model these "chance" (not really chance) influences.

At 30mph a vehicle covers 880 yards per minute. Maybe a single vehicle on a secure paved road. But across country, with the crew bouncing inside looking for the enemy and ground that will make your tank immobile. You probably won't do a third of that. If the figure is a platoon, some tanks stop and cover the advance of others, that will slow you down more.

Tanks are not horsemen.

Billsfan1968:

Those are all things that *could* happen, and certainly did happen with some commanders at some time, somewhre. The question is 'how often?' That die roll can only model that if you know the answer to that question.

Another question is at what point does such events occur. The old adage that "for the want of a nail, a shoe was lost, for the want of a shoe a horse was lost…"

How often were horses 'lost' because of a loss of a shoe?
How many were single riders who were unable to get another horse afte the loss? How many were carrying such critical messages that the battle was lost because the message failed to arrive? A courier would have to be sent before that scenario could even be set up.

Of course, it did happen sometime in history, but in every battle? Once every battle?

Rarely is the more reasonable answer based on historical evidence.

The same could be true for every one of the factors you mention singlily or in combination.

If I am plying that game I might be commanding 5-12 or so units. I don't have control over each unit as if I was commanding it.

So, how much control does that level of command have historically? How do you know? And how does a die roll model that?

It's fine if you just want a chance of command failure by die roll, but you aren't modeling anything. For that, you need to establish the real command parameters to be able to 'model' it.

Hello 1968billsfan!

It appears to me that the HAWKS rule is based on the oldest wargaming myth in the world. That in Napoleonic warfare all cavalry regiments were given the standing order to go into stealth mode and search out any infantry not in square and attack them before they could get into square.

To satisfy this myth they came up with a dice roll that allows the cavalry to get as close as they can before the infantry can react. At that point the cavalry is given the opportunity to perform a completely unlikely maneuver that will allow them to complete their mission. While the infantry is frozen and unable to respond.

So if your just playing a game fine, those are the rules. If your trying to reflect actual Napoleonic warfare I think it's a major fail from beginning to end.

Best regards,

Glenn

All type of units used the same die roll for number of operations. Some armies or commanders had better chances which is usually modeled in all game systems. Look at the maximum moves as the predicted normal and lower number of moves as due to friction.

By the way, what do you think that cavalry did on the napoleonic battlefield? I don't think they were used in frontal assaults on steady deployed infantry or artillery batteries. Do you? I think they were used to take advantage of errors in enemy deployment, attack disorganized units and, yes, try to get on the flank or rear of enemy infantry. … Yes, they try to attack these weaknesses before enemy can react and correct the errors.

You seem to ignore the idea that a basic tenant of infantry was to be sure that your flanks were protected by another infantry unit, impassible terrain, a swept artillery fire zone or a waiting friendly cavalry unit which would countercharge. If you don't have this AND commit to an action and ignore the danger, well bad things might happen. Why do you think that cavalry was often poisitioned to inhibit rash moves by the enemy?

[JC Frog: if you're still monitoring these …

I'm wondering where you have now got to in your thinking on this, and the modifications to AoE you were meditating.

I've tried to revive your thread on AoV+Weigle on the 19c board. I'd be interested in exchanging thoughts.]

Hello 1968billsfan!

I think all forces were assigned a position on the battlefield and never left that position unless they were given a direct order from above to do something or go somewhere else, etc.

What do you call the massive cavalry attack at Waterloo?

Once cavalry was ordered to attack the actual condition, position or formation of the enemy was irrelevant.

"You seem to ignore the idea that a basic tenant of infantry was to be sure that your flanks were protected by another infantry unit, impassible terrain, a swept artillery fire zone or a waiting friendly cavalry unit which would countercharge. If you don't have this AND commit to an action and ignore the danger, well bad things might happen."

I'm not ignoring anything. It's your game/rule that decided if the infantry in line was safe or not. It appears that the rule is based on the second biggest myth in wargaming, that infantry units wander around the battlefield by themselves with blinders on and can't see, hear or react to cavalry threats.

Sorry, but the rules seem to be a major fail if you're trying to compare them to actual Napoleonic warfare.

Best regards,

Glenn

Wow. OK. infantry units wander around the battlefield with blinders on. You seem to be able to propose two mutually exclusive ideas at the same time and have not problem with that. Neither of me has a problem with that either.