"Wargaming myths how do they get in the rules" Topic

This is a two part question, Part 1 is very simple – Does anyone have any first hand documentary evidence of musket armed infantry advancing and firing. I know it appears in the drill books and I know it's in virtually every set of rules I've ever read but when id it actually happen in the field because all I can find in contemporary accounts is evidence that once troops started firing they were a) static and b) very difficult to stop. The exception is the one volley then charge of Gustavus Adolphus and his subsequent imitators.

Part 2 is cavalry movement a man marches at between 2.5 and 3.5 mph and might run for 5 seconds at 8 mph for a charge. a horse walks at 4 mph trots at 10 mph, canters at 13-14 mph and gallops [conservatively] at 28 mph and a horse can easily gallop for a mile. How many sets of rules have you played where cavalry move at 3 time infantry speed [trotting] and gallop a lot further. I'd suggest none.

So why are these ideas so common.

Most charges actually took place at a trot in order to maintain cohesion and battlefield terrain is rarely smooth like a steeplechase course.

How many sets of rules have you played where cavalry move at 3 time infantry speed [trotting] and gallop a lot further.

Certainly, QILS does not. But that's because unit design is not part of the "rules". "Army lists" go with scenarios, not rules. So, you certainly could do that.

However, (mostly) other than an initial charge, it is physically possible for cavalry to run fast, but not in a tactically useful way. Once you get into combat, that speed potential is rarely tapped. Even in an initial charge, you need to slow down at the end or your horses are going to smack into stuff at speed and at least be injured and taken out of the fight.

The full on cavalry slam into a wall of bodies is cinematic at hell, but not a success move for the cavalry.

Night Raid at Târgoviște

Love this painting. But what happens to that central horse with legs dramatically out, running full tilt, about 2.3 seconds after this image?

Cav doctrine does not have "gallop 27.4 mph and rein back to 10 at 100y and 3.5 at 23.6'". But it does talk about reining in, practices that as a drill, emphasizes keeping formation (not letting everyone go at their own individual speed), and regrouping on withdrawal.

If you've ever shot from the back of a horse, you know why trick shooters do it in an arena that has been leveled against a static target that they know and have practiced precisely multiple times.

It doesn't mean that high speed cav manuever can't or never actually happened, but in combat that it is rare, and probably best handled in the scenario like that.

Is part of this our old friends ground scale and turn length? If a turn represents 30minutes there's plenty of time to cease fire, dress the lines, march forward, load and fire. We just don't track each of these "sub-actions".

What do you think caused most of the American casualties at Bunker Hill? Cholera?

British doctrine was to advance, fire and charge with a hearty "Huzzah!" and of course the bayonet. Yankee scum feared the bayonet. Until they didn't.

And that's just the AWI.

Another factor is what generals did versus what gamers will do. Cavalry speeds are "box scale" i.e. faster than infantry but that make sense on the table.

Assume a 20 minute turn. Men move at 3mph or 1 mile per turn. Cavalry trot 12mph or 4 miles per turn. Assume a ground scale of 1" = 100 yards – call it 18" per mile for convenience.

At this scale infantry move 18" per turn, cavalry 72".

So yeah, a LOT of game design decisions are not about any kind of accuracy but about making a fun game, and being able to play on a table of a reasonable size.

There are plenty of accounts where a charge stalled in the face of a fire from the defender. Then the attacker fires. Often fire is exchanged until the attacker falls back.
Rinse, lather, repeat.

This is handled quite well in the AWI rules "Patriots and Loyalists" with a 10 card flip.

I don't think it myths but, rather, the inability to model certain things when compared to the time, ground, and figure scale of the rules. If 8 figures represents a Napoleonic light dragoon regiment, I don't need to know about the evolutions of the squadron, or worry about walk, trot, and gallop. All I need to know is that they can charge 12 inches.

As for Part 1 -IIRC (and I may be wrong) the Prussian infantry at Mollwitz advanced firing. Anybody out there know better?

Is part of this our old friends ground scale and turn length? If a turn represents 30minutes there's plenty of time to cease fire, dress the lines, march forward, load and fire. We just don't track each of these "sub-actions".

This is accurate. WRG Musket and Pike have 80second player turns, so those rules attempt to duplicate micro-actions, but most rules have game-turns of 15-30 min, so lots of different stuff occurs in that period of time, including firing and moving. My main grip is line infantry is often only given the choice of moving fast, moving slow & firing poorly and firing. I personally feel firing should have a MP cost, so line infantry can stay still and keep on firing away for the entire 15-30min period. As for charging, according to many accounts cavalry actually meeting cavalry was not that common, someone often turned chicken before contact. Not certain about cavalry v infantry, i suspect line would be stuffed. On the other hand several rounds of musket fire may prove unpleasant as well.

…someone often turned chicken before contact.

Reminds one of when "Indian fights were colorful sights…

79thPA

All I need to know is that they can charge 12 inches.

That to me is an anathema it leads to bizaee interpretations of the real world. In one game I had to take a player to look out of the window. He wanted to spot into a ghouse a hundred yards away. I knew that from having the real distance on the table it was representing. That meant that I could point out a window that distance away and show it was not really practical. Real distances need to be relateable directly to the table distance intuatively. Without that it becomes a meaningless games, not relatable to the history.

Without this it would not be clear if the "charge move" included both a walk up, trot to close to impact amd possible slowing down if the enemy stood. That to me would make the event far less interesting and far less entertaining.

I used to live out in the country where long stretches of hay field and pasture were readily accessible. These are what we see in games as flat, open, table top. It proved quite an eye opening exercise for some to have them stand at one end and have a party advance from the other end about a mile away. Both a standing march, and a slower advance crouching and taking advantage of what terrain and cover their was.

The result? They leared that "flat" ground is often not flat at all. Even small dips and rises can make a huge difference in what you can see. Add in small bushes, large rocks, clumps of trees, and all the other bits that are present but usually not represented on the table top.

Several of the Iron Ivan sets of rules accounted for this by giving areas of the table a general cover rating.

I always thought most games have cavalry move too slow.

UshCha wrote:
"Real distances need to be relateable directly to the table distance intuatively."

100% agree. I grew up on WRG ancients where everything was measured in paces. Then along came ADLG where everything is measured in MU (movement units). I hate that aspect of the rules. I just can't imagine an ancient general saying, "See those cavalry over there, about 7 MU away. I want you to attack them". But, "200 paces"? Absolutely plausible. It's a trend in newer rules to move away from a 'real' ground or movement scale to an abstract one. Of course it's never possible to get everything to work (distance, time) but I think it's better if it "feels" right.

As for moving and shooting, I don't think I've played rules where a unit could make a full move and still shoot. My baptism of fire was Bruce Quarrie's Airfix set, and there was always a trade off between how many volleys you could shoot (5 in a 2.5 min bound) and how far you could move. Of course it isn't so much the shooting as the reloading that takes the time.

Cavalry movement is, as others have noted, dictated by maintaining formation, not by the maximum theoretical speed the average horse can travel.

Cheers,
John

The more I experience wargaming, and I have more than 60 years experience, the more I come to understand that it has very little to do with "what actually happened". It is a game, which attempts to recreate the feel of a historical experience.

Most wargamers set up their battlefield on a table no more than 6x6 foot. All rules must start from that fact. The larger the scale of figure we use, the more difficult it is to keep any kind of historical scale, not just distances moved and ranges, but also ground area for terrain and armies.

Once you accept that all rules must accept a compromise between fact and playability, you then choose between "historical" and "fun". The commercial set of rules you choose will reflect where you want to be between the two extremes.

If you don't enjoy the result, you will either pack in wargaming or change your rules.

So the answer to the question "how do they get in the rules" is that it is a game, not a real battle.

All I need to know is that they can charge 12 inches.
That to me is an anathema.

But not to me. That is exactly what I want the rules to say.
But even better is the mechanism in The Sword and the Flame.
Let's say that in Clear Terrain, Cavalry can move 4D6. To charge, it rolls 5D6. This not only gives variable distances due to dips or vegetation in the terrain, but also takes away the "judgement call" over just how bad it is.
If it's "heavy cavalry moves 10 inches", that's fine with me. I would prefer if they can charge 15", but again if that's what the rules author finds "realistic", I can live with that. I might tweak that if running the game. Or not.

In the final analysis (🙄) I'm setting up a GAME. I'm not trying to set up a puzzle or teach any lessons. I just spent months painting what I hope are beautiful Comanche vs handsome Texas Rangers. Or dashing Austrian Grenzers versus stern Prussians.
I'll probably try Honours of War for the latter and modified TSATF for the former. I hope the players don't frown in dismay over the lack of realism. I did get a bunch of cacti from Etsy and fine rugged looking hills and make some draws.

Thistlebarrow – I too have got about the same level of experience (60 yeras man and boy). Unlike you over time we have got better at credibility, the game as such has no interest for me, if its not representative it's not entertaining. Its never real, that is not simulation is about' its about being credible enough to gain interesting insights. It really depends what you want out of your wargaming experience.

In the end we wrote our own rules so we could achive our objective.

I drafted up some homebake rules that had cav moving 3X foot – which I thought a reasonable representation of their relative velocities.

The problem soon arose that this move meant a cav unit could cover about a quarter of the table frontage and thus threaten every enemy foot unit in this area.

(And do so from well without musketry range.)

Couple this with the 100-foot omniscient general and the cav would telepathically move past several to hunt down the weakest enemy unit.

The long cav move could be balanced by giving the foot reactions to form squares and so on – but it became wheels within wheels to solve the initial problem.

In the end I went with cav moving 2x foot and the problems resolved themselves, within a set that is a pretty traditional ugo/igo.

Question 1, this has a lot to do with era and tactics.
Being in America, my examples may not match some European conflicts. The use of muskets covered many decades and this wars.
In the War of 1812 , drill diagrams and material shows the column encirclement favored by the American southern forces. Advancing, firing, advancing some more was common. Mounted Gunmen would race to the furthest of the planned noose, dismount and engage the enemy.
In regards to #2 the terms used by designers for cavalry movement changes. In our Napoleon era rules , we had walk, trot and gallop for different rates, distance allowed. All were more than foot rates.

I think that we play historic wargame so cavalry have to move more and more than infantry (like in the real) i agree with rules where cavalry move 2,5 or 3 more than infantry.

I understand the problem that cavalry can make big movement on the table but… this is it.

I have a friend that not play historic wargame, he said: "is impossible have rules that ricreate exactly the real historic battle so is better play fantasy wargame". He play space wargame like wharammer 40.000, adeptus titanicus…

But the final question is … move more a hussars unit or skeleton cavalry? (Sorry for my bad english but I am a crude cispadania soldier of 1796)

Skeleton cavalry should retain the memory and training from back when they were … men. 🤷
Otherwise they are just a mass of reanimated bones. Then the necromancer (or evil priest or car salesman…) will have to figure out how to train things whose ears have rotted away.

"myths" from my experience remain for at least a couple of reasons.

1 "it's always been done that way" and even if it's wrong I don't want to rock the boat. I will sell more rules if its just a re-package of an existing set, so minimal learning is required.

2 The designer can't be bothered to do any actual research. Though not rules there is a recent "classic" myth on the Churchill tank AVRE.

When we started our own rules we went back to some basic data, like actual manuals of the time. They were in contravention to some wargames rules. Now, I have not done any work to ascertain whether it was pure idleness in doing no research or because they were more than happy to make "daft" rules to help what I assume they called "playability", I call decent into fantasy but that is just a personal opinion.

Now am I guilty of the same, well I am a bit. There remains to this day a BAR vs Bren Machine g=un debate. We opted for the path of least resistance though it's probably the wrong thing to do but the variation is relatively minor and still up for debate in some areas.

So by ignorance, or by design myths still remain. Will they go, proably not, too many vested interests in maintaining them.

Horse myths in rules, thanks to films, TV, novels, cavalry "experts" who don't know how to put a bridle on a horse, and what wargamers want (which roughly equates to pre-1918 cavalry riding motorcycles and/or quad bikes):

1. Horses walk faster than people. Only if they want to or have to. Otherwise they amble along at their own pace. It's not hard to keep up with a horse if it's walking. With some horses it's hard to get them to keep up with your walking pace.

2. Horses can keep galloping/cantering/trotting for hours. Only if you want a broken horse, at best, or an ex-horse (more likely).

3. Cavalry can charge down hill, and get an advantage for doing so. Unless horse and rider are extremely lucky, or the slope is quite gentle, they'll only do that once- if they get to the target of the charge at all. It's all about balance. Ask any rider- if going down you put your weight back, over the croup. If going up, you put your weight forward over the shoulders. If you like the horse, and are a skilled rider, you let the horse choose the pace. I have used a house rule for cavalry charging down hill- roll 1D10 and remove that percentage X 10 figures from the unit- before it contacts the target of the charge.

4. Horses only need grass and can graze, so don't need a lot of fodder. Not all grass is horse friendly (and a horse with colic is a very sad horse), they need more than grass if they are being worked and they need the right food (eg steamed, rolled barley, not straight barley).

5. Horses are easier to take care of than vehicles.
Wrong. Split hooves, bruised frogs, thrown shoes, strained muscles, colic and other alimentary canal issues, "bad hair day", nasty disposition, mites and other parasites, galling, etc. Horses need nearly as much attention as do wives and infants.

At Leipzig the French 1st Horse carabiniers panicked before Hungarian hussars. Rilliet from the 1st Cuirassiers witnessed the encounter. The 1st Carabiniers were in front and general Sebastiani was to the right of the regiment: all at once a mass of enemy cavalry, mainly Hungarian hussars, rode furiously down on the carabiniers. 'Bravo!' cried the general, laughing and waving the riding crop which was the only weapon that he designed to use. 'This will be charming; hussars charging the horse carabiniers.' But when the Hungarians were 100 paces away, the 1st Carabiniers turned about and fled leaving behind their brave general !
link

The one thing no one has mentioned:

Does the commander want the horsies to do that?

Does the commander of the horsies want to do what the commander wants?

"Lord Arsinmouf demands that the light brigade prevent the futurecommies from removing the guns."

"Brigadier Whatshisding respectfully asks for clarification: Which guns are you raising in this discussion?"

"Lurid Arsenic points out the the Fleurescentcommies are about to remove our horseguns – do prevent that!"

"Brigadier Wingading notes that the horses guns are hanging quite well – about what prevention are you requesting?"

"Lourdes Arsenio notes that the fleurPolishReds have hitched the guns, and are about to remodel them. Interdict said action from occurances henceforth anon!"

"BGD W has hitched his guns and the remedy is forthcoming, as ordered. See you for port and crumpets shortly."

<< Oh wait, it's a game, not reality. Reality may not be fun the way I expect it to be. Are those elves and orcs? Ooooh, lovely paint scheme! >>

I read in a book that experierenced cavalry commanders always reconnoitered the ground over which they were asked to charge.

How long does that take?

After half the squadron falls into an unseen ditch, around when do we realize that we will never reach our theoretical maximum potential except in Very Rare Circumstances?

A couple of comments on the cavalry front:-
The idea that cavalry charge at the trot to maintain formation appears to me to be a French idea; not shared by nations who's cavalry were better horsemen and possibly explains the Carabineers problems with Austrian hussars.

I've spent some time on re-enactment battlefields and my experience is that cavalry do appear out of nowhere and are certainly often on you before you have time to shoot or form the mythical 'emergency square'. This I'd suggest makes infantry a lot more conservative in their actions than we'd predict.

If horses weren't any faster than infantry why were they used for reconnaissance?

If horses weren't any faster than infantry why were they used for reconnaissance?

Nobody said horses aren't faster than infantry.

People said that in a tactical situation, you are unlikely to exploit the full speed, except in rare circumstances.

Recon is not really a tactical situation. In fact, recon is intended to be covert (thus not a tactical combat engagement), since you lose some advantage of the information when the enemy knows what you know.

The idea that cavalry charge at the trot to maintain formation

I don't think anyone said cavalry charge at the trot, either. Just that they have to slow down to maintain formation and they need to slow down to a trot or walk prior close quarters engagement.

Slowing down from a full-tilt run to a stop for a horse with a rider, kit, equipage, etc. takes roughly 100 yards, depending. If you're charging 200y or 300y, you get a lot of speed advantage for faster contact. And a lot of exposure over the type of open ground to volleys of fire before you get there while not having cover from your infantry and artillery, unless you signed on with Ramsay Bolton. ;)

cavalry do appear out of nowhere

Absolutely. Appearing out of nowhere is moving at high speed in a covert fashion, then popping out where not expected. After which, they go back into the tactical engagement mode.

The cavalry flanking maneuver is a great example where speed was leveraged. Engage at the front with infantry, then sweep cav around the side before the infantry can react and reorient.

Success of that type of maneuver is highly dependent on circumstances. In wargaming terms, having a small number of simple rules at the scenario level is better, in my opionion, than having a large number of complex rules to assign high speed, then control it in the vastily more numerous cases where it can't be leveraged.

If horses weren't any faster than infantry why were they used for reconnaissance?

They could move faster than infantry, obviously, if the riders wanted them to. But to "preserve the horseflesh" you had to have riders who know how to balance the need to ride quickly, while not risking exhaustion or injury to the horse.

The point of my post is that, these days, few people have any knowledge of horses, compared to 100 years ago. So myths/mistakes creep in because people don't know any better, and they are influenced by novels, films and some memoirs that portray horses as fleshy quad bikes- fill up in the morning and ride around, fast, all day.

Sorry, Stalky and Co, it took a bit of time to find a historical example on the net. Most of my books are in storage. :-(

I read in a book that experierenced cavalry commanders always reconnoitered the ground over which they were asked to charge.

How long does that take?

As long as it takes, mate. I'd say at times (perhaps most of the time?) a close ground recce wasn't able to be done, either because of time limits, orders, how close the enemy were and (probably) a CO who decided not to do a recce, for whatever reason.

After half the squadron falls into an unseen ditch, around when do we realize that we will never reach our theoretical maximum potential except in Very Rare Circumstances?

Like the British 23rd Light Dragoons at Talavera? How long did it take the "Cavalry Generals" of WWI to realise that mounted cavalry wasn't suitable for most of the Western/Gallipoli Fronts, despite the lessons of the ACW, FPW, Boer Wars and WWI Eastern Front? Some former cavalry officers were still leading charges of light tanks in 1942. (Though to be fair, sometimes it was the only way they could get close enough to return effective fire.)

Mark J, do you get many mounted re-enactors? It would be far easier for a squadron or troop to get close without being spotted than it would be for a larger body of cavalry, but having them appear when you're not expecting it would still be unnerving, even if there were only a couple.

Dal

In my early days, was at many major Civil War re-enactments, also as an extra in multiple films. A high of over 25,000 participants, mostly infantry, at the big ones around 100 field pieces and normally around 100 cavalry per side.

Surprise will depend on weather conditions and the ability of smoke to escape, also terrain. I would add also in real battles I would assume how absorbed the unit is with whom they are fighting and direction of attack against them.

I've been on fields where you can see everything, even with 10000 or 12000 involved. I've been on other fields where after firing started, you could not see thirty yards in front of you, because the black powder smoke huges the ground.

Add again to that, acoustic conditions.

Obviously I have never been under battlefield combat. 😉 But I've seen most of the others.

So I'm saying you can be surprised. It will depend on multiple circumstances. I've never seen any rule set that can take in every circumstance. Most are just generic attempts.

I've seen a lot of weird stuff. Try charging through mud that sucks your brogans off your feet. Now imagine those poor horses. 😉

I'll add, that horses are as unpredictable as he#l. No matter how well trained. I nearly fell off of one while standing still. I got careless and took one foot out of a stirrup, while talking with a friend next to me. His horse saw a pond down hill from us and took off at a full gallop. My horse than did the same. By the time they made the pond, I was hanging on with one hand on his mane and staring up into his nose. Scary and embarrassing!

I then developed a horrible allergy to them and had to stop riding or getting close to them in my mid 20's.

Tell another side story:

While shooting one of the movies I was in, we were shooting the first battle of bull run. A lot of us were on the ground as casualties after the initial encounter and the producer decided he wanted to have the charge of the black horse cavalry. We on the ground had not been told of this. So we are lying on the ground, when we start to hear the hooves of 50 or more horses. Next thing I see is a horses hoof go right by my head. Fortunately no one was hurt, but a lot of expensive equipment damaged and destroyed. Needless to say, there were a lot of pis#ed off people.

Sorry about the allergy, 35th. I had a friend at work who had the same thing happen. Hers wasn't bad, she'd just get eczema, but she'd get it on her arms and face as well as her hands. Her horses were her world and she kept them, but had to keep her distance. I wonder if it's the show shampoos a lot of people use?

The most I've seen was 25 or so, on a charity ride. Most of the people knew how to ride, but there were some kids as well, so everything was done at a quiet walk. I would not want to be around when 20+ horses were pretending to charge anywhere, mate. So I can easily imagine that you blokes were less than happy about having a mob of horses go past while you're pretending to be dead. What idiot came up with that? Horses will try not to step on people when they're moving (if you're both standing still any foot they can step on is stepped on), but there's always the chance they can't avoid it. I'd have been introducing someone's head to my rifle butt.

I'll add, that horses are as unpredictable as he#l.

That's part of the attraction, mate. They all think they're the boss and you're just the butler and baggage. I didn't get my own until I'd retired from the army and bought the farm. Boof and I bonded well and is the one who was very energy efficient, who had to be encouraged to keep up. He's the one on the right, detailing some evil plan.

When I was d signing my rules for Napoleonic warfare in the 1960s. I had a Division staff job that gave me free time to do research. Having been in the Cavalry squadron, I knew the members of the horse platoon and was allowed to watch them drill on the parade ground. I was also able to watch companies and battalions practice marching . Disproved accepted distance and formation changes used in popular rules of thee time.

Dal, nice horses. 👍

I like horses. Hate having the allergy. I can't even touch anything they have touched. I rode in a buggy to tour a park in Ireland and was sneezing, eyes watering and itching before the trip was over. Must be in the blood, my oldest developed the same allergy in her 20's too.

Timeportal,

Yes rules for maneuvering and formation changing for infantry seem a bit overblown to me as well in many rules. Reenactors on average, probably have less drill time than the average green regiment in their first battle. But making most formation changes, once you do it 2 or 3 times, are not difficult and not very time consuming, at all. I've done it with units of 500 plus, on reenactment fields. Going from a column of March into a line on the right or left and continuing marching forward, was one of the most difficult, and a lot of that improved with practice. Forming a square with that many takes time and practice too.

Of course we were NOT under fire. 😉

Keeping a straight line of combat while marching, with 500 plus, is hard when not well trained. They almost always ended up in a ) or (

Keeping a straight line of combat while marching, with 500 plus, is hard when not well trained. They almost always ended up in a ) or (

Yes, but is it bent enough to matter? And if each of the sub-unit leaders is watching their left and right, can't they tell their sub-unit to stop a bit later so they mostly catch up and are in line?

When I had to do battalion sized army marching every Saturday, it obviously became pretty routine and no one was shooting at us. We would tell jokes without our lips moving to amuse ourselves. Certainly ideal conditions.

Most friction is caused by orders, confusion about orders, impetuous leaders, cautious leaders, etc etc etc. The human factor is the main issue, not the actual move rates.

To paraphrase Clauswitz, most military questions are simple, but the answering of them is complex due to friction.

War game rules exist to create a structure for friction, not for things to get done.

"War game rules exist to create a structure for friction, not for things to get done."

🤔

I'd say they rarely if ever achieve it though.

"Subtract 3 inches to change from column into line"
"Move at only 1/4 normal speed to form a square"

No confusion, no friction, leaders don't matter. Every unit performs exactly the same in the rules. Very generic.

But to change that, makes the rules even more cumbersome and complex.

I never played it, but I heard SPI did that with their WW2 North Africa game. Most reviews I read said it was just too complex and time consuming.

So playability becomes the key.

Most wargamers I know, want uniformity. I assume that is why so many want all the same manufacturer and figure formation in the same units. No size difference, no one carrying a weapon a different way (especially Napoleonics 🙂). In real life we are overweight, skinny, tall, short…… but not on the wargame board. 😉

About the line bend. They try to bring them back to straight, but not enough drill time to really get that to work. You did not often get 500 or more together in one unit to do that. Only the big reenactments. So you only had them for roughly 3 days. Add to that, unfamiliar terrain for marching, rocks, mud, holes. I'm surprised we did as well as we did. 😉

"This is a two part question, Part 1 is very simple – Does anyone have any first hand documentary evidence of musket armed infantry advancing and firing. I know it appears in the drill books and I know it's in virtually every set of rules I've ever read but when id it actually happen in the field because all I can find in contemporary accounts is evidence that once troops started firing they were a) static and b) very difficult to stop. The exception is the one volley then charge of Gustavus Adolphus and his subsequent imitators."

Yes, there's lots of documented evidence about this in the American Revolution. Spring's "Zeal and Bayonets" is a real history book with citations. Also the Osprey "Battle Tactics of the AmRev" summarizes the balance of fire and maneuver [different] and also has sources.

Duffy's "Military Experience of Battle in the Age of Reason", Muir's "Tactics and the Experience of Battle in the Age of Napoleon" and Nosworthy's books on the ACW and Napoleonic warfare also have lots of commentary and citations on how battalions fought, and you will find plenty to chew on there.

Hope that helps.

@ etotheipi The comment on cavalry charging at a trot was made by Alakamsa [post 2]. I have read material that suggests that French cavalry did. One comment about the colonel of the 9th Hussars insisting the regiment stay at the trot and maitin a close order sticks in my mind particularly. I suspect this is why French cavalry were better in large numbers, if they could survive the initial shock of a charging opponent then their better cohesion kept them going.

@BillyNM Regarding Mollwitz, I ask myself why did this get written up and conclude it was because it was unusual. One of the things that I've found from reading contemporary accounts is that the ordinary is not mentioned unless to complain, because contemporaries know what is what.

So it happened at Mollwitz and only the Prussians did it. Lets assume that we can group the Wars of he Austrian Succession and The Seven Years war together for 'tactical' purposes then you have a sample pool of about 40 battles. So that's a 1:40 chance of the Prussians doing it and a zero chance of anyone else. Even if you want to be very generous and stretch the confidence limits a lot; then say a 1:20 chance. I've even come across more than one set of rules that let it happen with no loss of movement speed.

The comment on cavalry charging at a trot was made by Alakamsa [post 2].

I stand corrected. I didn't read that as universal as it may have been intended. As you point out in the next post "The French did it" could mean 2.5% of the time or 98% of the time, which makes a big difference.

If you have some of the sources available, I would love to read them. From what you have said, I am unsure whether the trot was the entire length of a "charged" 10s of meters, or the bit at the end.

Still having a hard time with top-speed charges. It we top out at 30 mph (since we're not running on a groomed track), you're still looking at 50m to get up to speed and 50m to stop. So basically a common sport field distance for an instant at top speed.

@ Eotheipi Once upon a time I was a good scientist and always quoted my references, but I'm old and have long covid so things stick in my mind but I don't keep the data I should. I'm pretty sure you'll find things if you exercise Google; I don't have direct access to primary source documents anymore. I did ask some competitive riders from the three day eventing/showjumping world about how fast a horse can accelerate to a gallop and was told firmly that it was faster than most riders can cope with i.e. about half a second. Slowing down I agree takes a measurable distance, but if the opponents horses turn and run in the face of your tempestuous charge then I don't think there is any head on clash, or individual animals avoid each other and the ranks pass through, something very few wargames rules seem to allow.

something very few wargames rules seem to allow.

Chaotic melee (like horses charging into a line) is extremely complex. You are correct that things like "a horse is about to step on my chest … should I move?" are not ordered, or even individual decisions. They are instinctual reactions. Or not. Same thing for the horse, the other way around. I have heard that they are very averse to doing things that are obviously likely to break an ankle.

That mixity-up is pretty tough to coregraph in rules, especially tabel top rules. It's like a couple hundered instantaneous games of chicken. In a computer simulation, the driving factor is experience. Steel-hardened nerves from multiple combat encounters is a different experience set than having a horse about to step on your face experience. Farmer militias may do better at that one bit than sharpshooters and mercenaries.

-----

There's more than enough in what you wrote for me to have an AI dig out references. I just was interested if you had a fave reference on that topic.

A lot of what is discussed here (horses dodging, how long it takes to accelerate or decelerate etc) is subsumed within combat in all but skirmish level rules. A general doesn't need to know horse number three veered left, only that his hussars won or lost.

Cheers,
John

A lot of what is discussed here (horses dodging, how long it takes to accelerate or decelerate etc) is subsumed within combat in all but skirmish level rules. A general doesn't need to know horse number three veered left, only that his hussars won or lost.

Agreed.

This is why rules have cavalry charges that do not work at "the top speed of ten trials that a race horse can run on a flat track under controlled conditions after guided warm ups". You get the average speed based on maneuver and field conditions.

The OP was talking about myths and called out that many wargaming rules ("I'd suggest none.") don't implement a 3:1 or better speed ratio between infantry and cavarly. It asked why is that common in rules.

The discussion was not to say those things should be in the rules. It was to explain what is going on under the hood to to lead to rules that don't have those speed ratios.

"cavalry charges that do not work at "the top speed of ten trials that a race horse can run on a flat track under controlled conditions after guided warm ups". You get the average speed based on maneuver and field conditions".

Just a teeny bit of exaggeration here, I deliberately looked up average speeds. If anyone has the addendum to the charge of the light brigade where Tennyson recorded that they did x yards in y minutes I'd be glad to know. I've been singularly unsuccessful in finding any such data. Probably because the men involved were a bit busy with other things.

Just for my own interest I've just looked up a couple of well known UK horse races. The Epsom Derby is 1.5 miles on the flat. The slowest race ever run in 1856 on very heavy going was at a speed of 29.3 mph. The grand national's [4.31 miles and 30 fences] slowest ever race was the first at 17.4 mph. given that my rules assume the charge includes just 10 seconds at the canter and 5 seconds at the gallop I don't think I'm overestimating the horses ability and this gives me a charge move of 55" inches to infantry in column moving at 13".

Just a teeny bit of exaggeration here,

Dramatic license. ;)

charge includes just 10 seconds at the canter and 5 seconds at the gallop

How long is your total charge?

Fifteen seconds is in the ballpark the combined accelleration and deceleration time to get to 30 mph. If the top speed is slower because of terrain, it actually takes longer. If that's your whole charge, the speed would be integrated under accel (asymptotic) and decel (superlinear) curves, not just the top speed x time.

Also remember, beside the curated track (not exaggeration) in your example, there is no "slow down" in the race. The horses go full tilt past the finish line, and I believe they usually take some significant distance to stop.

The slow down and cool off in a race is not "cranking on the breaks" as hard as you can. But then again, that is really bad for the horse.

Just for my own interest I've just looked up a couple of well known UK horse races. The Epsom Derby is 1.5 miles on the flat. The slowest race ever run in 1856 on very heavy going was at a speed of 29.3 mph. The grand national's [4.31 miles and 30 fences] slowest ever race was the first at 17.4 mph. given that my rules assume the charge includes just 10 seconds at the canter and 5 seconds at the gallop I don't think I'm overestimating the horses ability and this gives me a charge move of 55" inches to infantry in column moving at 13".

There's big differences between a cavalry mount and a race horse, as you probably know, Mark. Even race horses are separated into "sprinters" (OK for messengers and showy officers, not much else) and "stayers". The cavalry horse will be carrying perhaps three times the weight* that the race horse does, for a starter, and that makes a big difference to the horse's speed and stamina (eg the difference between doing a 5km run in shorts, tee shirt and running shoes and doing the same run in boots, cams and webbing).

Cavalry mounts were chosen (when a choice was available) for stamina, sturdiness, temperament and strength- the famous "hairy legg'd cart horses"- rather than speed. Steeplechasers would be more like cavalry mounts, needing the strength in their haunches and front legs, and the stamina to make all the jumps.

I'm not saying you're wrong, Mark, and 55" is fair enough for a charge under the conditions you set. After a charge over that distance it would take some time for the horses (and probably riders) to regain their wind- something a lot of rules forget (hence my reference to wargamers who think their cavalry is riding quad-bikes). Not a few minutes, either. It could take an hour for the cavalrymen just to loosen girths and check their horses for problems- galling from the tack (gall sores are mentioned as a problem with French cavalry in the Napoleonic Wars), sore joints or legs, stones or stone bruises in the frog, loose shoes, etc.

*Even if the riders are the same weight and size, the cavalryman will have his weapons (sword and a brace of pistols was average after 1700, later also a carbine or musket) and ammo'; spare clothing and cloak/greatcoat; spare horse shoes and nails; rations and some fodder (probably grain); wine/ale/boiled water- a pint/600ml at least; a much heavier saddle, stirrups and other tack; and the trooper's uniform as well. That's the basic load. There may also be piquet posts for the horse lines, rope, some tools, etc. Weight does make a difference to the speed that a horse can move and to its endurance.

@etotheipi
In my Brigade Game rules the base distance is 55" representing just under half a mile in 2.5 minutes. Since a typical charge is 200-1000 men strong the details of 'slow down' are lost in the 'result'. In the only situation where it occurs [what I describe as a small win] the loser falls back a move shaken and the winner stops at the 'contact point'; but I assume the loser actually went backwards earlier than the actual contact point and the winner slowed to a stop at that point, i.e. didn't complete his full distance move.