Quick Battle Report

[Crabbie1]

Played my third game of FOG N the other night with Trailape and wanted to try my hand at a quick Battle report. I used a French reserve Cav Corp and faced a British Inf 1815 Corp with a light Cav Div. I used one light Div of two lancers and Chasseurs a Cheval with a Med horse Bty and Med Arty Attachment, and One heavy Div of 3 large Currasiers and one Carabiner with another Horse Bty and Med Arty Attachment.

The game played well and ended in a draw due to other commitments. but found that light Cav is fragile and only good at blocking the British light Cav and to hold a flank while I used my heavy on the other flank. The Heavy’s were able to break 2 squares with the help horse Arty. over all was happy with how it played. Photos to follow. Wondering if anyone else has used this force and if so how it played?

[SirGarnet]

Did you create researched lists or do you already have the army list book (lucky fellow)?

Light Cavalry is good support for infantry against other infantry, and enough of a danger to against infantry out of square to impose caution on them. Get behind their lines and it is very serioues threat. It just gets spent easily and then requires CMTs to charge so I think a good doctrine is to use manoeuvre rather than assault unless a juicy opportunity presents itself (flank or rear attack, wavering enemy, that sort of thing).

I found British and KGL veterans with attachments no fun to assault with French cavalry, even with an attached horse battery (should have arranged for more horse guns in the sector to really pile on the target). The infantry proved solid and deadly enough even in line to repulse Cuirassiers and Dragoons repeatedly, 18th Century style - the heavies were halted and then a follow-up volley threw them streaming back wavering. Eventually they were forced into square, but remained unbroken when the battle ended.

[Crabbie1]

I have the army list book I used the horse arty to bring the square to wavering the used the Cuirassiers and Carabiners with arty attachment to assault the squares. But once the Brit arty started ganging up on the heavy's and the inf formed square with support it was hard going. Was thinking of take a inf div with this force.

[Trailape]

Crabbie is too kind. Ended in a draw, but if we played on he would have won convincingly. I really like these rules. They are a tad complex, and we are still making some mistakes in regards to rules, but they do have a lot of Napoleonics flavour. I have played a lot of LASALLE, (and these are my preferred rules for 'battalion level' games). But for Corps level actions FOG-N will take some beating.
Stan (Crabbie) played really well, using his horse arty to get a localised advantage and hammer the squares that formed due to menacing cav. Once reduced to wavering the heavies charged in and busted the squares. The rules work well.

[Crabbie1]

Some Pictues of the Game

[gelin]

Did you create researched lists or do you already have the army list book (lucky fellow)?
I found British and KGL veterans with attachments no fun to assault with French cavalry, even with an attached horse battery (should have arranged for more horse guns in the sector to really pile on the target). The infantry proved solid and deadly enough even in line to repulse Cuirassiers and Dragoons repeatedly, 18th Century style - the heavies were halted and then a follow-up volley threw them streaming back wavering.

Is that a normal outcome for the period? It is odd that a foot regiment in line could halt with musketry a heavy cavalry charge.

For example in Quatre Bras during Pires' Lancers cavalry charge, the 44th regiment received a bad mauling when its commander refused to form square and instead received the lancers in line formation, unleasing a volley of musketry into the cavalry's faces at point-blank range. Although casualties were inflicted, the volley did not halt the charging mass of horsemen who fell upon the British slashing through their lines vitually destroying the regiment.

Another example from the same campaign, in Waterloo during D'Erlon's attack: Donzelot's division, advanced on La Haye Sainte. While one battalion engaged the defenders from the front, the following battalions fanned out to either side and, with the support of several squadrons of cuirassiers, succeeded in isolating the farmhouse. The Prince of Orange saw that La Haye Sainte had been cut off, and tried to reinforce it by sending forward the Hanoverian Lüneberg Battalion in line. Cuirassiers concealed in a fold in the ground caught and destroyed it in minutes.

Therefore infantry staying in line just to shoot cavalry with the intention of halting it should not have (at least in the majority of cases) the cavalry charge halted.

[SirGarnet]

Agreed. The riskiness depends on the quality and particularly the steadiness of the foot in fire discipline and maintaining ranks. The long-service British Army veterans were essentially good 18th C troops, hence the reference. In our period the new flexible tactical systems no longer required maintenance of continuous lines to avoid, commanders had to deal with relatively inexperienced troops of lower quality, and the huge advantage in what I'd call human fluid dynamics of squares against cavalry were compelling. Squares give the infantry nowhere to run, the cavalrymen (and especially horses) a bypass, offer no flanks or rear to a mobile enemy, and are exposed to each assault on a much narrower frontage with higher troop density. Moreover, troops would expect to form square against cavalry, so not doing so could itself unsteady them.

In game, and I'd argue historically, remaining out of square when cavalry not suppported by infantry comes in range varies from foolhardy with green troops to risky with veterans. In this case in game there were enemy conscript infantry coming up in anticipation of an inevitable shooting to pieces of vulnerable squares unable to respond effectively outside close range. The assaulting cavalry might quite happily have passed through to the rear since the reserve there had already been drawn off to plug a nearby gap. Trying to hastily form square from extended line when assaulted is appropriately chancy, and the veterans had attached guns and skirmishers to supplement their fire during assault or the following firing phase. So it was up against it, hold the line, steady lads, steady - fire! Success bought several turns of time in that sector. Risky, but certainly more exciting than having a square shot down to Wavering and then finished off by cavalry.

All in all, I think the rules are balanced well in this area.

[gelin]

Agreed. The riskiness depends on the quality and particularly the steadiness of the foot in fire discipline and maintaining ranks. The long-service British Army veterans were essentially good 18th C troops, hence the reference. In our period the new flexible tactical systems no longer required maintenance of continuous lines to avoid, commanders had to deal with relatively inexperienced troops of lower quality, and the huge advantage in what I'd call human fluid dynamics of squares against cavalry were compelling. Squares give the infantry nowhere to run, the cavalrymen (and especially horses) a bypass, offer no flanks or rear to a mobile enemy, and are exposed to each assault on a much narrower frontage with higher troop density. Moreover, troops would expect to form square against cavalry, so not doing so could itself unsteady them.

In game, and I'd argue historically, remaining out of square when cavalry not suppported by infantry comes in range varies from foolhardy with green troops to risky with veterans. In this case in game there were enemy conscript infantry coming up in anticipation of an inevitable shooting to pieces of vulnerable squares unable to respond effectively outside close range. The assaulting cavalry might quite happily have passed through to the rear since the reserve there had already been drawn off to plug a nearby gap. Trying to hastily form square from extended line when assaulted is appropriately chancy, and the veterans had attached guns and skirmishers to supplement their fire during assault or the following firing phase. So it was up against it, hold the line, steady lads, steady - fire! Success bought several turns of time in that sector. Risky, but certainly more exciting than having a square shot down to Wavering and then finished off by cavalry.

All in all, I think the rules are balanced well in this area.

Thanks for the answer, however I am not quite happy with it.
Lets say that you have A regiment of Average Drilled Cuirassiers assaulting an Average Veteran Infantry regiment head on (small units).
The infantry is in extented line and chooses to stand and fire
How many dice rolls will the KGL shoot on the cuirassiers and what are the changes that the cuirassiers will make it into contact?
What are the odds then?

[BrettPT]

Lets say that you have A regiment of Average Drilled Cuirassiers assaulting an Average Veteran Infantry regiment head on (small units).
The infantry is in extented line and chooses to stand and fire
How many dice rolls will the KGL shoot on the cuirassiers and what are the changes that the cuirassiers will make it into contact?
What are the odds then?

Lots of variables to this.
The KGL will first need to take the CT for being charged, only 2 dice since they are in extended line. About a 55% chance of passing.

If the KGL pass the CT:
- If the Cuirassiers are charging the centre of the line, the KGL shoot 8 dice needing 4+ to hit, so the Cuirassiers will most likely be repulsed wavering.
- if the Cuirassiers are charging one side of the line, starting the charge outside the frontal arc of the KGL, the KGL will get 4 dice needing 5+ to hit. The Cuirassiers will most likely then need to CMT to charge home (55% chance of passing, 75% chance if general leading the unit)
- in combat the Cuirassiers will probably do 4 hits to the infantry and waver them, becoming disordered themselves. The infantry will retire d6+2, facing away if they roll 2+ on the dice. The Curassiers will pursue d6+2 and likely destroy the retiring foot if they catch them.

Summary, if Curassiers charge the centre of the line and the KGL pass their CT, the infantry will most likely win. If the Cuirassiers charge from an angle, and pass a CMT to close, the Cuirassiers likely win.

If the KGL fail the CT:
- If the Cuirassiers are charging the centre of the line, the KGL shoot 6 dice needing 4+ to hit, so the Cuirassiers will most likely be repulsed disordered.
- if the Cuirassiers are charging one side of the line, starting the charge outside the frontal arc of the KGL, the KGL will get 3 dice needing 5+ to hit. The Cuirassiers will most likely then need to CMT to charge home (55% chance of passing, 75% chance if general leading the unit)
- in combat the Cuirassiers will probably do 4 hits to the infantry and destroy them, becoming disordered themselves.

Summary, if Curassiers charge the centre of the line and the KGL fail their CT, the infantry will most likely win. If they charge from an angle, and CMT to close, the Cuirassiers are highly likely to win.

So cavalry should always look to start an assault from outside the frontal arc of the infantry. The infantry take a risk in not forming square. They are likely to be destroyed If they are unlucky. If things go badly for the Cuirassiers, they will end up repulsed to 3MU, and probably wavering. The cavalry will have a chance to rally at the end of the phase. If the infantry are disordered at the start of the charge, the odds change massively and the infantry will very likely be destroyed if theu elect to not form square. The odds also change in a big way if the assaulting cavalry are superior or a large unit.

As a game mechanism, I think this works really well. There are things the cavalry commander can do to maximise his chances of success (ie come in at an angle, and have a general attached). It is a difficult choice for the infantry commander whether to form square or not - he can play it safe and form square, or go for the risk/reward of staying in line. Much will depend on whether the infantry pass their CT. The player must of course make the decision of square or line before he takes the CT.

In many wargames rules Cavalry are the panzers of Napoleonics, leading the attack against infantry. If not successful, infantry pile in against the enemy now in square and take them out. Historically this happened only rarely as cavalry did not tend to lead assaults. If not engaging enemy mounted, they supported infantry assaults, were kept in reserve or used if there was nothing else available.

In FoGN games a defending infantry player has a tactical option to avoid being combined arms by not forming square. The net result is that the games do not often start off with a cavalry charge against the enemy infantry line, and cavalry commanders are usually nervous about throwing their mounted troops forntally at steady infantry - a good overall effect in my view.

Cheers
Brett

[hazelbark]

Thanks for the answer, however I am not quite happy with it.
Lets say that you have A regiment of Average Drilled Cuirassiers assaulting an Average Veteran Infantry regiment head on (small units).
The infantry is in extented line and chooses to stand and fire
How many dice rolls will the KGL shoot on the cuirassiers and what are the changes that the cuirassiers will make it into contact?
What are the odds then?

Option 1: The Infantry pass their CMT to fire
Extended line both sides fire. 8 dice need 4. re-rolls 1s.
That means a better than even chance of 4 hits. The cavalry are wavering, driven off and spent.

Option 2: Infantry fail CMT and are disordered.
Extended line both sides fire. 6 dice need 4. re-rolls 1s.
That means a better than even chance of 3 hits. The cavalry are disordered.
If there is a command point then 2 dice needing a 5 or better. Something like 55% to attack
If they attack 5 dice cavalry needing 3s. Infantry have 4 dice needing 5s.
Likley result both wavering.

Option 3 cavalry don't hit center of the infantry
Odds are alost even that infantry disorder.
That means 4 dice Plus 1 for support goes back down to 4. Needing 4s and re-rolling 1s
Should still disorder cav, but may not.
If it doesn't. then the combat
If they attack 7 dice cavalry needing 3s. Infantry have 4 dice needing 5s.
So you likley have a broken infantry or one that can be caught by pursuing cavalry.

The issue is somewhat the high order risk.

A bad roll and the infantry are destroyed.
A bad roll for the cavalry and they are spent but still a partial threat in being. They still need to be drive off.

[hazelbark]

In many wargames rules Cavalry are the panzers of Napoleonics, leading the attack against infantry. If not successful, infantry pile in against the enemy now in square and take them out. Historically this happened only rarely as cavalry did not tend to lead assaults. If not engaging enemy mounted, they supported infantry assaults, were kept in reserve or used if there was nothing else available.

In FoGN games a defending infantry player has a tactical option to avoid being combined arms by not forming square. The net result is that the games do not often start off with a cavalry charge against the enemy infantry line, and cavalry commanders are usually nervous about throwing their mounted troops forntally at steady infantry - a good overall effect in my view.

Well put.

[SirGarnet]

In Brett's fail summary, "the KGL fail their CT, the infantry will most likely win" probably meant "cavalry will most likely win". I think Brett's quoted point is well made and clarifying, so I'll be saving it for a commentary collection.

On the actual table, there was no room for a geometrician. The extended line was charged by dragoons and cuirassiers straight up between the river and a massed infantry firefight. The tactical thinking was to split the fire of the line, increase the chance of at least one cavalry unit striking home, and potentially deal much more damage if both made it. As I acknowledge, such feats can not be reliably repeated. And I'd miss having them folded up into net results in a more abstract corps/army level combat system as I emphasized in my review.

________________________________________________
"Wow. Two dudes parallel processing answers with like statistics and stuff - totally awesome or what?"

[BrettPT]

In Brett's fail summary, "the KGL fail their CT, the infantry will most likely win" probably meant "cavalry will most likely win". I think Brett's quoted point is well made and clarifying, so I'll be saving it for a commentary collection.

Actually, if average drilled mounted charged the middle of an extended line that fails its CT, the extended line will get 8, disordered 6 dice needing 4+. Average hits =3 meaning that the 'average' result will be the cavalry don't charge home.

The trick is to not charge the centre of an extended line with a single unit. There is just too much firepower. Go for one half of it - or even better start your charge outside of the enemy's frontal arc.

[gelin]

So the best aggresive tactic - given the extended lines firepower & the chances of beating cavalry opponents with musketry is to advance straight into the front of the mounted lads, and either shoot them till they brake or force them to attack you heqd on. Then even if you get disordered you have much better chances than the attacking cav (most propably the cav will get wav, especially if the inf are veterans that reroll 1s

[SirGarnet]

The extended line only fires by half units in Close Range, within which not being in square if cavalry charge is an automatic Cohesion Loss, not to mention the additional risk from the CT.

[BrettPT]

Advancing towards cavalry with infantry is fine - but you need to be very brave to close to within 2MU as then you automatically drop a level if charged, 2 levels if you fail your CT. Dropping 1 level might be survivable but not 2.

You can try to shoot them from medium range, but against mounted this is pretty ineffective.

[gelin]

But you will have the cav in front of you hence 6 dice (after the automatic loss) needing 4s. Most of the time cav gets beaten. If you stay and shoot at med range you are safe since cav cant hurt you. Either way ext line beats cav. That was my initial point. Lines getting the pper hand vs heavy cavalry somewhat contradicts evidence

[panda2]

The standard tactic for cavalry assaulting infantry in line (and the main reason lines were vulnerable) was to attack the ends of the line where they would receive the least fire and roll then up the line. Brett and Hazalbark's analysis seems to suggest that this is the correct tactic in the game too, which suggests to me the balance is about right.

Andy D

[gelin]

My sources indicate that line vs cav whas certain defeat for the infantry. However i do not have the detail that you mention. If the cav tactic was to hit the edge of the line, then the rules are quite accurate in depicting this. If however cav did not bother targeting the edge, then the extented line has unreasoned power against cavalry.

[shadowdragon]

My sources indicate that line vs cav whas certain defeat for the infantry. However i do not have the detail that you mention. If the cav tactic was to hit the edge of the line, then the rules are quite accurate in depicting this. If however cav did not bother targeting the edge, then the extented line has unreasoned power against cavalry.

Keep in mind that it was unusual for infantry in the 18th century to form squares to counter cavalry. There's very little, if any, combat difference (i.e., muskets that can fire or bayonets that can reach the cavalry) between the centre of a line and the centre of a square's face against cavalry. The advantage is that the square has no flanks. The 18th century "grand tactical" line (i.e., with battalions arranged in a line) did the same thing by having battalions "shoulder to shoulder"; the commander need only worry about protecting the end of the whole line (i.e., secured by difficult terrain, with supporting cavalry, troops in depth, etc.). The 18th century "cavalry versus infantry" doctrine viewed cavalry charging the face of an infantry battalion as sure defeat and that cavalry should aim for gaps / ends of lines. If this were not true there is little reason for the demise of the pikeman when retaining a small number of pikeman was the standard counter-cavalry tactic for infantry up until 1700.

What's different in the Napleonic period is that infantry doctrine changes from manoeuvring to the enemy in line and engaging that enemy in lines to one that is to manoeuvre to the enemy in columns and then deploy into line to engage the enemy. Deploying into line only as you reach the enemy means that you can't easily ensure that battalions will be "shoulder to shoulder". Your flanks are protected by columns in a second line that can quickly manoeuvre to the threatened area....except that cavalry are quicker / more fluid and are more likely to get there quicker.

So the game is accurate in my view and avoid the typical battle evolution in most rules of:

1) Opposing cavalry advance quickly to combat
2) The winning cavalry force pins the enemy infantry in squares while supporting infantry slowly trundles up
3) Supporting infantry blast the pinned enemy infantry to pieces.

So victory goes to whomever wins the initial cavalry combat. I can't recall - off the top of my head - a single Napoleonic battle that evolved this way. More usual was:

1) Infantry close to combat
2) One side's infantry begins to waver or as a result of maneouvring an infantry force presents its flank target or is temporarily disordered
3) Cavalry hit the wavering infantry or the infantry that are temporarily disadvantaged.

Part of the problem with many Napoleonic rules is that they use units as battalions which makes "multi-battalion" tactics difficult to represent (in particular the spacing between battalions).

So, yes, infantry in line was certain defeat vs. cavalry if that infantry did not have secure flanks, which after all is the only combat/tactical advantage a square offers. A square has fewer muskets that can be fired at any given target and in terms of close combat physically no more bayonets can reach the enemy. In any event, if depth of the line was the issue, a line 4 deep has much greater firepower (to the front) than a square and equal depth of ranks.