Outcome moves for squares

[Damianhunter]

Feeling a bit petulant after almost turning some tactical and strategic errors in today's game from defeat into a chance at at a draw with my 1815 Prussians against Surf's Ottomans.

I had a melee against a large disordered square on a hill with infantry to his front and cavalry to his rear, they had passed through earlier. After combat the large square was wavering, my cavalry spent but steady and my infantry disordered.

I was then thinking he will be destroyed as he can't retire. However, it was ruled by Brett PT that the outcome status was wavering infantry in contact with cavalry so they stand. Brett's interpretation was only one of the three outcomes situations can be used i.e. the first in the table. The one I preferred was the otherwise one which would have seen the square retire. It was read to be taken in order with the first dominating the others.

My disordered infantry then need to retire and my cavalry pass through. Of course this was only after a bit of petulance and swearing on my part. However, it has to treated as fair enough as we asked Brett to make a call but it does seem a little counterintuitive.

Yours truculently
Daemionhunter

[deadtorius]

rather hard to break a square as for the most part they just stand and take it and won't move. I have had it happen to me before though and have also done it to them as well. If you can knock them to wavering and then charge with steady you stand a better chance.
Keep this in mind for next time the verdamnt Ottomans take to the table again.

[adonald]

Brett's interpretation was only one of the three outcomes situations can be used i.e. the first in the table. The one I preferred was the otherwise one which would have seen the square retire.

The 'Otherwise' test in the table would be applied when there was no applicable condition in the the previous part of the list, but there was - the cavalry one, which is also the first, and in lists, you generally start at the top. There is no 'Cavalry AND Infantry' condition. But the cavalry condition DID apply, so the 'Otherwise' condition did not.

I suspect the outcome you desired would have happened with a few more hits that would have broken the enemy infantry unit.

But, are you suggesting that a combined Infantry and Cavalry attack always destroys their target? That seems far too harsh. Remember, one of the 'myths' in Napoleonics was that there was much bayonet fighting in the open - there was not, borne out by surveys of wounds by Larrey and Guthrie. The so-called 'assault' is actually close range volleys* between infantry, and if cavalry were involved, there was a good chance of many of them being killed by 'friendly fire' as they tried to close. At brigade level, a series of squares can give as good as they get from assault columns, so the outcome of a combined-arms assault is far from certain.

The trick, I suspect, is to shoot the large square to wavering before trying to assualt it.

Alastair
* There's a glitch in the FOGN rules where 'Superior' troops 'fight' better in assaults, but in fact this is close range volley fire, and you'd think the Veteran rated troops would be better at that, given they're better at 'shooting'. The premise that you could use the FOGA rules and the 'superior' rating in the game mechanics was fundimentally flawed in Napoleonic infantry combat - for cavalry - yes, but not for infantry (unless in built up areas).

[Damianhunter]

I'd argue in terms of the listing of results in the outcome table that the first result did not apply. The first on the list is infantry in square in contact with cavalry. This wasn't the situation as the square was in contact with both infantry and cavalry. The only result in the outcome table that covers this situation is the "otherwise" category.

I don't know whether a brigade of squares was capable of fending off assault columns or not but I'm not sure they'd do so well against assault columns from one side and cavalry from the other.

[BrettPT]

The first on the list is infantry in square in contact with cavalry. This wasn't the situation as the square was in contact with both infantry and cavalry. The only result in the outcome table that covers this situation is the "otherwise" category.

I was placed on the spot to give a ruling on this one.

Thought process was:

1. You start at the top of the results table and work down.
2. The rule has an outcome when 'in square and in contact with cavalry'. This rule is not qualified by whether or not the square is also in contact with other troops.
3. The question is simply : was the square in contact with cavalry? The answer was yes it was.
4. "Otherwise" would only apply if the answer was 'no'.

Andy's view comes down to arguing the correct answer to 3 above was "yes, but...", or alternatively that "in contact with cavalry" implies in contact only with cavalry.

Given I was asked to make a call on the rules on this one, I took a narrow approach, read the rules as written and went with the reasoning in 1-4 above (sorry Andy...) - but the results were highly unsatisfactory to the Prussians. If the wavering square had to do a retirement move rather than a halt, it would have been destroyed. Instead the result was a bit nasty for the Prussians, who after all essentially won the combat.

I guess the Prussian cavalry passed through the Jannissary square (or flowed around the gaps between the battalion squares that made up that unit), and came out the other side upsetting the Prussian infantry attacking from that side, forcing the Prussian infantry to recoil.... or something.

Anyway, did I get this right Terry?

Cheers
Brett

[Damianhunter]

Thanks for making the ruling Brett. It always good to get an independent view. Surf was going to win anyway. Well played to the Surf and the Ottomans.

[terrys]

I would rule the same as Brett - The cavalry pass through and the infantry break off.

I'd expect a disordered square to break if I attacked them with both infantry and cavalry. However, if you don't cause enough hits they can survive and bounce you off.
You then need to hope to roll a 1 or a 2 (and definately not a 6), so that you can break them by close-range shooting during the next firing phase - or if they don't recover you can charge them while they're still wavering.

[BrettPT]

You then need to hope to roll a 1 or a 2 (and definately not a 6), so that you can break them by close-range shooting during the next firing phase

Thanks Terry
You are correct, basically the Prussians didn't roll quite enough hits in combat.
- Although the Prussian infantry rolling a 1 or 2 for their retirement move wouldn't get them a close range shot the following turn, as the minimum retirement move is 3MU (top of page 62).

The follow-up issue was that the Prussian infantry retired (about 4-5MU I think, I can't remember) the Prussian cavalry were placed on the far side of the square and their pass through move took them into and through their retiring infantry.
Feeling a bit sorry for the Prussians, no-one suggested that the Prussian infantry should take a test for being burst through, or that the Prussian cavalry should stop short in front of their infantry (which would leave the rear of the cavalry within short range of the square). We just popped the cavalry on the far side of the infantry.

However there does not seem to be a rule that clearly covers pursuers who run into friendly troops. Any idea how should we have handled this follow-up issue?

Cheers
Brett

[terrys]

Feeling a bit sorry for the Prussians, no-one suggested that the Prussian infantry should take a test for being burst through, or that the Prussian cavalry should stop short in front of their infantry (which would leave the rear of the cavalry within short range of the square). We just popped the cavalry on the far side of the infantry.

I don't think I've come across this before - However, my feeling would be:
The Pusuing cavalry can 'choose' to interpenetrate through their own infantry - which may or may not cause a CMT (as described on pg 40). The question would be whether or not the friendly infantry had moved during their movement phase. If they don't choose to internpenetrate they must halt on reaching them.
NB. in the next firing phase the square would only get 3 dice hitting on 4's.

There are a couple of issues with what happens to cavalry who pass through squares - the most important being - what happens to cavalry who pass through a square and contact a 2nd square and bounce off? In theory, they should pass back through the 1st square, but the rules don't allow this at the moment.
There is also the issue of which units can stop cavalry passing through a square. (i.e. - they are standing less than 2 bases from the square). I'm considering forcing anyone who can evade to do so. (I've seen players put single rank cavalry behind their infantry just to stop cavalry passing through). I'm also considering forcing a test on infantry not already in square - although allowing them to still block the pass through.

[nhaycock]

I agreed with Brett about the way he read it. The square in question had to make a CT test when it was charged (which it managed to pass) and the 2 enemy units only needed 5 hits to break it, which they were unlucky not to get. The result also sort of fitted the situation as it was a large Turkish square defending on a hill, personally lead by the Turkish CinC so i thought some heroic defence was not unlikely.

[hazelbark]

I am not sure I would make it easier for mounted to pass through squares that have some support.

1) Many point games have less troop density than a battlefield.
2) Cav have a lot of advantages in the shorter time frame.
3) Historically the chargers would see "troops" behind the square and make a rather rapid decision.

Not saying Terry your points aren't sound, but consider them in the above context.

[BrettPT]

Hazelbark makes a good point.

The situation with the Turkish square was unusual, the pass through rules usually work fine.
Even with the scenario we had, my view is that the dice showed the Janissaries behaved unexpectedly heriocally and -depsite being put in a supposedly un-losable situation by their commander - the two Prussian regiments proved woefully inept on the day.

No real need for any change IMO.

Cheers
Brett