Trends in my games

[BrettPT]

I have noticed the following trends in my games.

1) Mounted arm is arm of decision. Players are moving toward more serious quality and quantity if cavalry.
a) It is easier to destroy enemy mounted than foot.
b) speed of attack if attacker to maximize deployment and first two turn advantages.
c) defender needs mounted force to counter attack enemy mounted assault.

2) Weight of mounted is more important than quality when you can choose. Quantity is also more valuable than Elan.

3) Defender must work a lot harder to win and change dynamic of battle. The odds of victory seem to adjust a lot in favor of winning the battle when you are the attacker.


Now we are working on counter tactics and have developed a number, but these seem more true than not.

Some good observations here, which I would generally agree with, except perhaps 1(c).

There has been a bit of a cavalry arms race with the group I play with (about a dozen players, most of whom have been FoGN'ing for a couple of years now, initially in paytest games). This is especially true with Guard cavalry, of any type, which are the trump mounted unit - average drilled guard cavalry being particularly saught after (cheap guards!).

However.

A cavalry arms race only works out on table if both players are playing this game and have spent heavily on mounted. You then hope to defeat the enemy mounted arm which will take you 2/3 of the way towards winning the game. If the other guy has more and better mounted than you, the smart thing to do is not to indulge in the cavalry fight but tuck your mounted away behind cheap squares.

In reaction to the trend of more and more points being spent on mounted, we are starting to see lists produced to counter moutned heavy armies. Typically these armies contain very little mounted (and usually those they have are cheap) and large quantities of cheap foot. The theory is to give nothing for the horde of enemy mounted beat up on. My Austrians have twice turned a large Saxon uber-expensive cavalry division into little more than a mob of disordered and spent spectators using these tactics.

For an example of the counter-cavalry army, have a look at the 1813 Mixed Nationality Corps list that Damienhunter has posted (Andy I assume 'Damienhunter' is you - this list looks remarkably like the won you slaughtered my with last week!)

Cheers
Brett

[shadowdragon]

Seems an interesting book . Could you tell who's the editor so perhaps I can order the book . Anyway already preparing Waterloo 2015 ...it's 30 minutes from home

as for

Later, as noted above due to attrition and the large number of French heavy and imperial guard cavalry, the Dutch did refuse to charge, but so too did British cavalry brigades.

I read somewhere either on internet or in Waterkoo's companion book that the remants of the cavalry DB and british + brunswick was kept behind the squares, not refusing to charge but as the were spent and had suffered heavy loses , more as a reserve in case the squares would break or the more numerous french cavalry push trough .

Wellington lost waterloo but the Prussians saved the day ! and so hurray we have our games ...now back to painting some saxon guards ...

It's not an either or but a bit of everything since the massive French cavalry attack went on for some. From Barbero:

"Yet almost all of Uxbridge's troopers were light cavalry, and he could not have hoped to engage them in large numbers against cuirassiers or the lancers of the Old Guard. He preferred to post his horsemen behind the squares, near enough for the infantry to feel their reassuring presence; then, when the occasion presented itself, in the moment when the enemy cavalry could be surprised, when it was scattered and falling back after an unsuccessful charge, he would launch a few squadrons in a counterattack."

While these counterattacks had some success but there were problem...partly due to the disparity in equipment and partly due to the inexperience of the British cavalry officers.

"...the Allied cavalry, both British and German, continued to demonstrate the same dauntless contempt for orders and the same lack of foresight that their colleagues had shown earlier in the battle.... Both the material superiority of the French cuirassiers, with their heavy armour, and the tactical ignorance of too many British and German officers were regularly confirmed in almost all the conflicts.... Not surprisingly, the Allied cavalry eventually began to lose heart.... Shortly thereafter, Lord Uxbridge rode over to Trip's brigade and ordered it to charge, then unsheathed his saber and set off at a trot. His adjutant, Captain Seymour, hurried after him to point out that no one was following him. Infuriated, Uxbridge turned back, but despite his efforts, he could not persuade the Netherlanders to move.... Yet at this point in the battle, not even the British cavalry felt like fighting anymore. Lord Uxbridge's exhortations met the same obstinate reluctance everywhere, and in the end his chargin was so great that he declared himself ashamed to be an Englishman... In the end the principal function of that Wellington's cavalry was able to carry out during the attacks of the French cuirassiers was to take up position behind the squares, particular those composed of recruits and prevent the soldiers - using the flat of their swords, if necessary - from being seized by panic and running away."

I would guess that the Trip's brigade probably didn't charge at that point but that was after their earlier action on the left wing and after taking part in counterattacks against the massed cuirassier attacks in the centre, during which both the commanders of the 1st and 3rd regiment were mortally wounded. Not charging at that late stage probably was just common sense or just exhaustion. Of course, we can never know the truth as Lord Uxbridge isn't alive to confirm or deny but it does seem at that point of the battle the Anglo-Allied army was at a low point all along the line amongst infantry, cavalry and artillery.

Anyway you'll have to read the book yourself. I'm guessing that after reviewing the various sources Barbero decided that at some point Trip's brigade (or rather Trip) refused to follow Uxbridge's orders since all the Allied cavalry reached similar state. It's just that the English histories have focused on Trip's and Cumberland's brigades and not the British brigades.

Something I did not know was that Detmers brigade was moved up earlier than I thought and formed some of the infantry squares facing the French cavalry....well before the attack of the Imperial Guard infantry.

[shadowdragon]

Seems an interesting book . Could you tell who's the editor so perhaps I can order the book . Anyway already preparing Waterloo 2015 ...it's 30 minutes from home

The original is in Italian (don't know how well you read Italian), but that version is:

La battaglia, Storia di Waterloo published by Gius. Laterza

The one I have is an English version translated by John Cullen and published by Walker & Company, New York.

Here's a link to the book on the Amazon.co.uk site:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Battle-New- ... =8-1-spell

[Damianhunter]

Indeed Brett the list is similar to the one you faced but corrected for further illegalities. I had assumed my Russians could take an officer with their guns but unfortunately not and I corrected the lack of Prussian Cavalry attachments.

I had used large units of supported infantry and guns, of dubious quality, to advance on cavalry confident I might damage any chargers and survive any fortunate enough to contact through weight of numbers. This tactic held off cavalry forces in two games allowing my mixed divisions to dominate the other flank. A bit of round shot at range helps too. Of course if your guns run off when charged by French Guard Lancers things get untidy fast as my line discovered against Brett's 1815 French in the preceding game. A bit of rear support is necessary to avoid high quality cavalry passing through, reorganizing, and using the latter to face in any direction desired. A plan I think Lord Ponsonby has visions of for the Scots Greys.

[hazelbark]

There has been a bit of a cavalry arms race with the group I play with (about a dozen players, most of whom have been FoGN'ing for a couple of years now, initially in paytest games). This is especially true with Guard cavalry, of any type, which are the trump mounted unit - average drilled guard cavalry being particularly saught after (cheap guards!).

In reaction to the trend of more and more points being spent on mounted, we are starting to see lists produced to counter moutned heavy armies.

I can see this and it all makes sense.

We haven't gotten to the massive cavalry forces yet. Usually its just a single division w 1-2 heavy shock units.

What have you seen on the pass through for cavalry?
It seems to us two cavalry units hit 1 square. Good chance the cavalry hurts the square and may not even be spent.

[shadowdragon]

And what about the... mad ( and perhaps a bit drunk ) charge of the dutch belgian infantry that broke the french guard ..( young guard as the old huard was never engaged except near plancenoit).

Yes, the mad charge of the Detmer's DB infantry - well fortified by the locals with beer and jenever - are in the book halting the charge of the 1/3rd and 4th Grenadiers (Middle Guard). Just in time too as Halkett's brigade, their target, was beginning to break up.

Also, squadrons of Trip and Ghigny's brigades are among the Allied cavalry brought up to keep the Allied infantry in line for the final attack.

It's interesting how both sides employed anti-cavalry formations....the Allied infantry 4 ranks deeps because they could form a square faster and the Imperial Guard attacking in square to avoid a repead of d'Erlon's rout.

[bahdahbum]

We haven't gotten to the massive cavalry forces yet. Usually its just a single division w 1-2 heavy shock units.

What do you call massive ? and at 800pts or more ?

At 800 points We use more ofern 2 to 4 CV units . But we are only 2 players really playing in Begium . A third one is very interested and tried once or twice . My son still has to decide .
I agree average guad CV is interesting . But what is an army to counter cavalry ...In our latest game the prussians dragoons (2 units ) were hit by artillery before being in charge range , lost one cohesion level ) and got killed during the latter charges . One by russian hussars and the other by russian dragoons .

Dragoons seem a good compromise . But I also agree , one square hit by 2 CV units, especially shock, could be in trouble and your shock units just pass trough the square which leads to interesting games .

By the way for shadowdragon :

halting the charge of the 1/3rd and 4th Grenadiers (Middle Guard).

In 1815 there was only old and young guard . The middle guard was not officially reorganised but I guess someone called it the middle guard and the name stuck. And as to be fortified by beer and genever ...I think everybody agrees ...especially the astonished british officers who saw DB soldiers charging chanting hymns, laughing and for some with their shako on their bayonets ...the most surprised must have been the french but it worked .

I bought the book for 0,01 cent

[shadowdragon]

By the way for shadowdragon :

halting the charge of the 1/3rd and 4th Grenadiers (Middle Guard).

In 1815 there was only old and young guard . The middle guard was not officially reorganised but I guess someone called it the middle guard and the name stuck.

I believe regulations had not yet been drawn up with regards to an official designation so I guess anything goes. They weren't the same quality as the old-old guard (i.e., the 1st and 2nd grenadiers and chasseurs) as they didn't require as many years of experiences as those regiments but they were more than the Tirailleur and Voltigeur regiments. So I'm content to use the ToN categories. In this case I agree with the Osprey book on Napoleon's Guard infantry that categorising the guard into "old", "middle" and "young" is difficult. Cheers.