Howitzers & mixed Units

[Scrumpy]

Sorry, can't see for looking why you pay 2pts more for howitzers than ordinary guns as additions to your army.

Can someone explain it to me please.

Also, what is the advantage to having a mixed division rather than an all Infantry division ?

Cheers

[stecal]

I dont think mixed divisions are an advantage, but historical baggage that the Austrians, for one, have to carry.

[donm]

I found mixed divisions very good in the play testing. Having cavalry all across the battlefield forces your opponents infantry to be very careful.

They not only cut down your opponents shirmish fire, but offer the option to countercharge their infantry charges.

Several squares of infantry supported by artillery can easily stop a cavalry division in its tracks.

Howitzers are very good against buildings.

Don

PS. I use Prussians.

[BrettPT]

I second Don's view.

Mixed divisions are good. A principal benefit to my mind, like Don said, is to have cavalry floating around to reduce the skirmish fire of your opponent.

However you can also have the cavalry in a 2nd line which can interpenetrate the infantry in front in a charge (cavalry can go through infantry in their own division with a CMT). So your infantry disorder the enemy infantry with skirmish fire then you hit them with a mounted charge. Being already disordered, the enemy foot take a gret risk if they don;t form square as a reaction to the charge. If they then fail their CT, dropping to wavering, you'll may well destroy them in hand to hand.

Early armies with mixed divisions and relatively cheap infantry may well be an excellant choice. Skirmisher attachments to key units gives them medium ramge firepower and you can then use the above tactic.

Squares - unless they are wavering - will usually hold cavalry off however the main problem is the risk that the cavalry might pass through and get behind your lines. This can be a nightmare to defend against if you don't have some reserves in a second line.

Cheers
Brett

[AlanCutner]

Can someone point me to the right place in the rules? I can see units can be made up of different troop types, eg. lancers and non-lancers. But I can't see anything that explains the restrictions around mixed units. Eg. can an infantry unit contain a mix of any infantry in the list, cavalry any cavalry types in their list, etc.

[david53]

I thought it told you in the army lists if you could have mixed units.

Dave

[AlanCutner]

Can't see anything in the army lists section. It does state whether mixed divisions are an option - not units.

[donm]

Alan,

There are no mixed units, I had understood we where talking about mixed divisions.

The only mixing of troops types within a unit is by the addition of attachments.

However some light cavalry units can be part lance armed.

Hope that clears it up.

Don

[donm]

Squares - unless they are wavering - will usually hold cavalry off however the main problem is the risk that the cavalry might pass through and get behind your lines. This can be a nightmare to defend against if you don't have some reserves in a second line.

If there is not enough room behind the square for the cavalry to fit, then they cannot pass through.

I found this often happened, if the supporting infantry units where carefully positioned.

Don

[AlanCutner]

There are no mixed units, I had understood we where talking about mixed divisions.

The only mixing of troops types within a unit is by the addition of attachments.

However some light cavalry units can be part lance armed.

Thanks. Clearly I misunderstood. I'd thought partially lance armed meant a mix of lancer and non-lancer within unit. So it actually means a light cavalry unit specified at partial lancer in the lists?

[donm]

Alan,

Yes.

Don