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

@ Dal Gavan

I'm afraid I'm unconvinced by your 1 hour recovery time for 10 seconds of cantering and 5 seconds of galloping and 1'm pretty sure that in the middle of a battle there would be no dismounting and fiddling about. Detail is not good but Ney is credited with leading between 6 and 15 charges at Waterloo. If we take the smaller number and assume they rallied back out of cannon range [1,000 yards] that's 12,000 yards [800"] total movement. The time for this phase of the battle is probably about 2 hours, the going was very soft, the charge is uphill and the French cuirassiers are probably the extreme example of a fully equipped man on effectively a carthorse.

I think we need to remember that men and horses are expendable in battle and what would be reasonable behaviour in modern times by sensible 'western' equestrians was unlikely to be matched.

I don't enforce a 'sit around and rally' because I'm sure that under tactical pressure they would not do so but I do significantly degrade the units effectiveness is subsequent combat rounds against fresh enemy.

I'm afraid I'm unconvinced by your 1 hour recovery time for 10 seconds of cantering and 5 seconds of galloping

Fair enough, Mark. Don't forget, though, that those charging horses haven't arrived at the battle in the back of a horse van after a spell on grass, they've been on the move since the campaign started.

remember that men and horses are expendable in battle

I know. But if you want your cavalry to remain effective, unlike the French and their allied cavalry after the at the end of the Russian campaign or the British heavy cavalry after one charge at Waterloo, then you apply a modicum of care for horses and riders, where possible.

I do significantly degrade the units effectiveness is subsequent combat rounds against fresh enemy.

That's the way I prefer to play the after-effects of a charge, too. The cavalry often couldn't disengage to re-org after a charge.

I'm still skeptical about any use of average galloping speeds etc. Yes, the troopers may cover the final distance by letting the horse really stretch out, but retaining cohesion in the unit means that is likely to only happen at the very end of a charge. Moving quickly but in an orderly manner is surely the basis of the charge, not "the averrage hose can gallop this fast.

Cheers,
John

@ Erzhog J I only calculate 5 seconds at the gallop. I also think the horse's mental attitude comes into this and I suspect a faster moving opposing horse is more intimidatory to the opposing mount, who doesn't appreciate the niceties of the tactic of maintaining good order.

Again, I think these issues are relevant only for a skirmish level game. A higher speed in the last 5 seconds will not allow for much variation in horse speed across a whole bound/turn. Also, a faster moving horse. being more intimidating would mean a cuirassier's horse (bigger, heavier and naturally slower, and boot to boot formation and therefore slower) would be intimidated by a Bashkir's steppe pony.

Cheers,
John

@EzJo

I do the maths for what I think is a reasonable approximation of accurate movement distance, rather than just making up a number or using whats been used for the last 60 years because everyone else does and I don't end up getting that last 60 years number. How else would you suggest I calculate a move.

As to the weight of the horse I also factor that into the combat table, not as important as flank attacks or being blown, but there if other bigger things don't impact.

Calculating appropriate movement distances is a bit of a mystical process I think, because ground scale, figure ratio and bound duration are all at play. I have seen rules that give a bound as x (say 2.5) minutes but also an hour, because a one day battle reenactment that may play out credibly in, say, 10 turns (10 hours, so plausible) is being played using tactical rules where shooting, movement etc, is calculated in turns based in minutes. Warfare has a lot of "hurry up and wait" going on that cannot be incorporated in a game without it being boring.

What you do is pretty much what my wife does in her fiction writing. She calculates how long it would take her character to walk from this town to that in 1755 by incorporating as much data as she can, then converting that into compelling, readable prose. So to you I'd say, "if it works, great, it works. Get on with enjoying your games", because I think it is ultimately unsolvable and enjoyment of the game has to be the first objective. If it isn't fun, why should we do it. We'd all take up rock 'n' roll dancing instead :~)

For you (and many other gamers), knowing that the movement rate is accurately calculated matters a lot. For others, just knowing the relative movement between foot and horse is correct is enough. There is no right or wrong; war-games rules are the questing beast. We all strive for this unattainable goal, as the many commercial rule sets that have a following, and the many home sets out there as well, attest.

Cheers,
John

@ Ez Jo "For you (and many other gamers), knowing that the movement rate is accurately calculated matters a lot. For others, just knowing the relative movement between foot and horse is correct is enough".

In a lot of rules I read the relative rates do not match what I calculate so I have to ask "How do you know the relative movement is correct unless you've calculated it".

Would it make a difference charging close or open order ranks?

Sounds like too many variables to give a clear calculation and the longer the turn the more variable it should be.

Wolfhag

Mark:
I think there needs to be a base knowledge of movement rates to get the relativities correct. But they need to be based on the movements of large bodies of men and horses, rather than average galloping speeds of individual horses in my opinion (other than in a skirmish level game).

Wolfhag:
I do think close vs open order is relevant and some rules definitely use that distinction. Others (and I think this is a trend across modern rules for multiple periods) even drop that distinction. Then again, the distinctions between heavy and light cavalry (remembering that "medium cavalry" are a myth in this period) is a bit blurred too.

Cheers,
John

"Erzhog J" do we have any primary source data for the movement of large bodies of men. I've never found any hence my use of he best data available. If you have sources please let me know. If you look at the videos below the horses are galloping so I return to my primary data.

"Wolfhag" from videos I've seen of charging cavalry
link link
YouTube link
and conversations with the last of old and bold in my regiment who had experience in Palestine in 1940; when the horses hit a gallop it becomes a loose formation with the faster horses stretching their 'lead', hence the desire of some officers to preserve close order by staying at the trot.

Mark J Wilson
"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. …. 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"

British troops trained in it.

Colborne's 52nd at Waterloo not only advanced but wheeled into the last of the Imperial Guard's flank, fired for four minutes and despite taking 150 casualties, charged with the bayonet and routed them.

On the plain of Maida when both Stuart and Reynier's battalions advanced towards each other in echelon becoming parallel lines, both stopped, fired then continued. The French were more experienced having been through a series of victories and included the 1° Légère supported by the 42°. But they fired at 100 yds while the slightly less experienced British troops still in echelon under Kempt fired at under 100 paces, charged and routed the French.

The difference was purely down to training, and the fact the British deployed in two-deep line where every musket could fire, while the French stuck to three or four.

Other British examples can be found in the Peninsula.

Mark J Wilson,
"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."

Interesting poser. Not clear from your question whether you approve of those rules or not!

Oculus Chosen Men rules seem pretty authentic: you roll three dice as opposed to two; so their speed is an exponential step up from infantry. Unlike something like Shako, these rules have the "charge" as a second move within the same turn which would account for the extra-ground coverage for short spaces of time. That's the key: to limit the extra speed to occasional turns to prevent the horses getting "blown". Limiting it to charges seems a fair compromise.

Re: the Ginge: "Detail is not good but Ney is credited with leading between 6 and 15 charges at Waterloo."

Yep, but he did it on five or six horses with different bodies of cavalrymen. And appeared to have, if not a death-wish, certainly a reckless, unusually pumped-up and slightly manic focus on "just one more effort will do it". Not exactly a model of normalcy. He's best dealt with by a leadership modifier, or a "hero" character card.

I wonder why they never used caltrops in the Napoleonic era. Nasty for the horses but an interesting game trap.

"Erzhog J" do we have any primary source data for the movement of large bodies of men.
There are early 20th century British military manuals that cite 4mph walking, 8mph trotting and 15mph (last 100 yards). Infantry about 2mph (75p per minute) I would think that would mean cavalry might move about double infantry speed on the table but with charges (the 16mph bit) only adding a little to their move if anything – it being more significant as a combat than a movement consideration IMO. 15mph over 100m is only a few seconds. It's about interpretation of this data, move time scale etc.

To come back to the question that started this thread, how many rules allow for cavalry to move at three times infantry speed?, I do like the rules systems that allow for 'march moves' outside a certain distance. In DBx ancients rules my experience is that it tends to be cavalry on the wings that get to make most use of this rule, so that is one mechanism that allows for significantly faster movement by (normally) cavalry.

Cheers,
John

@ John
If the "level" of the wargame has an operational aspect, i.e. you are playing the level of a division or corps commander, my experience is that nearly all the rules use a "march movement" or "road march" bonus.

I have written my own Franco-Prussian war rules, which are a spin on Neil Thomas' quite traditional "Wargaming 19th C. Europe" rules. Those are written for a 3x4' table [a dining table] due to design intent. We play on a 12x6' dedicated wargaming table [and some in the group are larger] so I offer substantial bonuses for units that begin, end and remain outside of 9" of the enemy for the entire move. I also have about 200 battalions / squadrons, and these are the basic MU of the game.

That being said, it still doesn't represent the reality of "telescoping" time that occurs in real life. In a real life army, both sides are operating under orders, and typically being more aggressive or more timid is very much frowned upon if you are in charge.

So if you are ordered to "engage the enemy" you would putter into cannon range, form lines, and then wait and see what the other guy does. If he packs up and leaves, you may advance [or not] and you'll certainly ask for orders.

On the gaming table, most wargamers [not all] don't like fatigue, ammo limits, and all the other "realities" of a fight. These prescribe activity or non-activity at the level of a mandate. So if the troops are spent and there's almost no ammo left, that side will likely withdraw and another brigade / division will be fed into the battlefield.

I play with a lot of mature *ahem* wargamers, many who have 30-50 years pushing lead around. They've read a lot of books and they are more interested in re-enacting history than just throwing around figs with beer'n pretzel wargames. For example, I cleaned up organized and clarified the original "Chainmail" medieval rules by Gygax / Perrin. It has both fatigue and missile limits. No one had any problem with that, and they all agreed that it made them think more carefully about charging / melee and shooting. They found the challenge of making decicions interesting, and they all played it multiple times.

So it mostly depends on the audience of the game. I design and host a lot of games. I'm always thinking of who the target audience is for a game I'm designing or going to GM.

All this being said, you can absolutely make a clean game design with an integrated turn sequence, ammo / missile limits, fatigue, etc. The key is to not make it boring while you make it "realistic".

Hope that all makes sense!

@Cacadoress Interesting, can you let me have the source for your 4 minutes of fire by the 52nd at Waterloo because Paddy Griffith specifically mentions one shot and charging, unlike the Footguards who stood and engaged in more prolonged fire. Your example ay Maida also appears to be one shot and charge not prolonged fire. I possibly didn't make myself clear, I'm not talking about 1 volley and charge I'm talking about volley, advance, another volley advance as depicted by, in my experience most, wargames rules.

Re Ney again can you let me have the source for the different bodies of cavalry, I can't find it.

@ EzJohn You've pretty much made my point, 8mph to 2mph or 4 times the speed, without leaving the trot. For a 2.5 minute move the 100 yd gallop adds about 10% distance. I'll grant you that isn't a lot further although it's a measurable amount.

As to the artificial 'march move', this is exactly the same sort of 'wargames' rule in reverse, substitute imaginary capability to cover for the inadequacy of the basic rules; in this case a turn sequence that is so short you can't actually play the game without a fudge.

"To come back to the question that started this thread, how many rules allow for cavalry to move at three times infantry speed?, I do like the rules systems that allow for 'march moves' outside a certain distance. In DBx ancients rules my experience is that it tends to be cavalry on the wings that get to make most use of this rule, so that is one mechanism that allows for significantly faster movement by (normally) cavalry. Cheers, John"

Without using any special "administrative / road march / etc" mechanics, just a straight-up triple the move, I don't know of any off the top of my head.

I can think of loads that give cavalry double the move, e.g. 6" Infantry, 12" cavalry. In fact, I'd say that is the norm. With a substantial bonus on a "charge" for cavalry, which could make it 3x the infantry move.

"To come back to the question that started this thread, how many rules allow for cavalry to move at three times infantry speed?, I do like the rules systems that allow for 'march moves' outside a certain distance. In DBx ancients rules my experience is that it tends to be cavalry on the wings that get to make most use of this rule, so that is one mechanism that allows for significantly faster movement by (normally) cavalry. Cheers, John"

Without using any special "administrative / road march / etc" mechanics, just a straight-up triple the move, I don't know of any off the top of my head.

I can think of loads that give cavalry double the move, e.g. 6" Infantry, 12" cavalry. In fact, I'd say that is the norm. With a substantial bonus on a "charge" for cavalry, which could make it 3x the infantry move.

I think that the operational "level" of the game should be considered. While men and horses can march at certain rates in real life, the often don't do it depending on fatigue, and their role in the battle. If you are commanding the reserve cuirassier brigade, and you can't charge anything until you are "released" by a higher level commander, then isn't your move "zero"?

OTOH, a light cavalry unit that is being used to screen an open flank should have lots of leeway to operate independently and a large movement allowance, certainly triple an infantry unit. Also, that unit has a high degree of confidence that there is no ambush lurking in the woods or over the hill – it has scouts that have already checked out that possibility.

But to the original point… do I know any game that connect move rates to battlefield role? No, I don't.

Re: Colborne's flank attack on the Guard.

Mark J Wilson
*Interesting, can you let me have the source for your 4 minutes of fire by the 52nd at Waterloo because Paddy Griffith specifically mentions one shot and charging"

I'd think charging after one volley would be highly unlikely – for starters the 52nd were in four-deep line so the third and forth ranks had to fire separately, not with the first ranks. What's more they were on the flank of a hollow square – their vollies would have had less effect on the further flank and what's more, charging immediately would have risked bringing them under fire from the 1st Foot. Not that they could see each other. Not saying it didn't happen – just I'd need to be convinced.

One witness was the 52nd's colour-bearer, William Leeke, who
in contradiction to Griffith, describes his battalion firing, half-halting to reload, walking on and firing again.

The "four minutes" comes from Geoffrey Wooten whose information comes from C. Mercer's Journal of the Waterloo Campaign, 1870, and Siborne.

In addition, Alessandro Barbero in (my, that's a good book) The Battle says "the [Imperial Guard's] square halted its advance and kept up an answering fire for a brief while…." Then, "after only a few minutes Colborne saw that the square was starting to break up, and once again seizing the decisive moment, he ordered a bayonet charge". This seems consistent with Wooten's assertion; the information coming from the same sources plus E.N. Macready's account in Colburn's United Service Magazine, 1870.

Mark J.Wilson,
"Ney again can you let me have the source for the different bodies of cavalry, I can't find it"

That he led different cavalry units? Or what is it you're asking?

@ cacadoress
Interesting how accounts differ. I'd not found a reference to the French in a square before either, why would they do that.

"That he led different cavalry units?" Yes, because if that's true then accounting for the number of charges means there weren't really that many cavalry in each charge, which doesn't seem to fit with all the descriptions.

The British cavalry manual of 1912 is available if you look around online and may be of interest.
There's a fairly detailed contemporary account writtn by a British sergeant describing the battle of the plains of Abraham. Iirc the French are described firing as the advanced. To little effect. The British were instructed to hold fire until the french got to 20 yards. Yep. Twenty. The British fired for I think 15 minutes. Cannon and muskets. There were still french left to turn and flee.

Mark J Wilso
"Interesting how accounts differ. I'd not found a reference to the French in a square before either, why would they do that"?

General Petit, Imperial Guard, assisting Ney, said the attack went forward with a hollow square formation. Was that most of the six battalions or did they just leave one like that south of La Haye Sainte? If true, perhaps they wanted to guard against a cavalry attack from the east – especially as Reille hadn't got himself together. Else Petit had a tactical idea of either saving more men in the side columns from the initial volley, or was thinking thinner side columns had a greater chance of exploiting the expected holes in the Allied line.

Petit didn't endure any head trauma unless he fell off his horse. Although, if he was a little discombobulated after the battle, having been left for dead on the field, robbed and stripped with a shoulder wound, one can make allowances. Still, he was also involved in organising squares during the retreat so you'd think he'd know what he was talking about.

General Petit's "Account of the Waterloo Campaign" published in The English Historical Review, Vol. 18, No. 70 (1903).

"the attack went forward with a hollow square formation". I suspect that means like Macdonald at Wagram that the battalions were in columns but the columns were in a 'square'. This might possibly be one with an open rear otherwise you have lost more than half your units in the sides and rear. Against this is the fact that if there had been a battalion behind the Chasseurs charged by the 52nd the 52nd couldn't have charged without exposing their own flank to that battalion, So if they started in some sort of square I'd suggest that they strung out into a line of battalion columns as they closed the enemy.