Unit destroyed in combat & pursuit

[shadowdragon]

In the combat phase:

Suppose a cavalry unit breaks an infantry square (i.e., the square's cohesion drops to "broken"). According to the outcome moves the infantry are immediately "destroyed".

Now, according to the "combat resolution", the cavalry "may pursue unless wavering".

Since there is no one to pursue, do they stand there or do they purse, and, if so, in what direction?

[deadtorius]

We have always assumed they stay put and continue to hack up the survivors, got to have some kind of justification for destroyed don't we?

If I am wrong then the square which is no longer there would have routed directly away from the cavalry so the cavalry would pursue its destroyed opponents to its front. so a forward pursuit

[shadowdragon]

We have always assumed they stay put and continue to hack up the survivors, got to have some kind of justification for destroyed don't we?

If I am wrong then the square which is no longer there would have routed directly away from the cavalry so the cavalry would pursue its destroyed opponents to its front. so a forward pursuit

How do you handle the assault phase? Suppose cavalry charge a square that is already wavering and the square fails its CT. According to the outcome moves table the square (infantry in square facing cavalry) is destroyed. Would not the cavalry then continue their assault move to its full extent or the next target? That's actually what happened in the 1806 Prussian vs French inf corps game. Let's just say a wavering square isn't a good bet against cavalry. Surprisingly it was French light cavalry versus Prussian infantry and not Prussian cuirassiers vs French infantry.

[deadtorius]

I thought you were referring to a square that broke in melee, so the cavalry was already there.

If it breaks from an assault launched against it while it was wavering then the square is removed and the cavalry would make a full move straight ahead as if they were still assaulting the square. Any new targets within 2MU can become the new target of the charge.

Being wavered in this game is usually going to lead to disaster, as Austria has found out more than once

[shadowdragon]

I thought you were referring to a square that broke in melee, so the cavalry was already there.

If it breaks from an assault launched against it while it was wavering then the square is removed and the cavalry would make a full move straight ahead as if they were still assaulting the square. Any new targets within 2MU can become the new target of the charge.

Being wavered in this game is usually going to lead to disaster, as Austria has found out more than once

I was originally referring to a square that broke in melee. The assault phase was a second question.

[BrettPT]

Not sure I agree with this.

For a wavering unit charged by cavalry, the infantry take their CT (x2 if they are not in square) before the charging cavalry are moved (see sequence on page 24).

The infantry are not therefore in contact with the cavalry when they break.

The relevant line on the outcome moves table says the infantry are destroyed "If facing cavalry and ...in square" - the key word here being 'facing'.

Facing could be mean in contact with, or it could have the wider meaning of simply opposing the the infantry in some way.

I would go with facing to mean in contact with, because:

1. It would seem a bit inconsistant if troops who break and flee when charged survive to run if in column, but die on the spot if in square.
2. If facing is given a wider definition than 'in contact with', it opens up argument about being destroyed if cavalry is directly opposing you in the line (ie facing you), but hasn't charged and you rout due to some other cause.

Assuming 'facing' is taken to mean in contact with, the wavering square is not destroyed when it fails its CT but routs instead (the cavalry have not yet moved into contact when the CT is taken).

The assaulting cavalry is then free to pick a new target within 2MU of the fleeing infantry (or within 2MU of their path of rout) as per page 31, or simply charge the routers, destroying them when they contact. If the fleeing infantry outdistance the cavalry and no new target is available, the assaulting cavalry move their full distance in the direction of their charge (see last sentance under evade moves, page 31) - presumably fighting anyone they hit.

There is an issue that sometimes arises, where the routers outdistance the assaulters/pursuers, and the assaulters/pursuers have a new target within 2MU (ie a steady square) that they don't want to charge. My view is that they have to charge this new target if it is the only one, as the option of completing your assault/pursuit move in the direction faced is only avaialble when there is no new target.

On the 2nd issue - whether cavalry pursue after destroying a square in combat, the combat result table on page 61 says the cavalry "May pursue" (unless wavering). 'may pursue' for cavalry means must pursue if fresh, or (unless they pass a CMT) are disordered.

This is not really any different however to any other pursuit. The infantry are destroyed, so 'out of range' (in the dead box!). The cavalry then pick a new target within 2MU of the square which they must charge, or if there is no new target, the cavalry pursue straight ahead the way they are facing.

Cheers
Brett

[shadowdragon]

Thanks for that, Brett. The current wording is open to different interpretations.

For the issue of a wavering square failing its CT when assaulted by cavalry:
I would like a clarification of "if facing cavalry". If it means "in contact with", which it very well could, then "in contact with" is more precise and should replace "if facing cavalry". If it means something else, an explanation would be helpful.

For the 2nd issue of a square being destroyed in combat:
I'm inclined to agree with you - noting that fresh, or (unless passing a CMT) disordered MUST pursue. A simple clarification is all that's needed in the FAQ.

[terrys]

I would go with facing to mean in contact with, because:

1. It would seem a bit inconsistant if troops who break and flee when charged survive to run if in column, but die on the spot if in square.
2. If facing is given a wider definition than 'in contact with', it opens up argument about being destroyed if cavalry is directly opposing you in the line (ie facing you), but hasn't charged and you rout due to some other cause.

The word 'facing' should be interpreted as 'in contact with'.
The situation becomes much clearer when interpreted that way.

[shadowdragon]

I would go with facing to mean in contact with, because:

1. It would seem a bit inconsistant if troops who break and flee when charged survive to run if in column, but die on the spot if in square.
2. If facing is given a wider definition than 'in contact with', it opens up argument about being destroyed if cavalry is directly opposing you in the line (ie facing you), but hasn't charged and you rout due to some other cause.

The word 'facing' should be interpreted as 'in contact with'.
The situation becomes much clearer when interpreted that way.

Thanks, Terry. Yes, the situation is much clearer when interpreted that way.