Large units

[hazelbark]

This is a question, not of the rules.
I am finding very consistently that I always want larger units. Maybe not for artillery. But the infantry being able to shrug off the first hit from fire and mounted in melee is important too. We had a LOT of cavalry clashes in our recent game. I repeatedly found the 1 saved hit on large in melee mattered. It often kept a unit from falling that extra level. I don't mind it so much in historical games. My large conscript chasseurs with and officer were lots of fun. But it was pretty historical.

But I wonder if you could tweak the rules, if it might not be better to limit the saved first hit to shooting only.

[deadtorius]

Running Austrians almost all my units are large up to 1809. If available I always take them for infantry, not so often for cav as the cost is too high, and never for skirmishers as they get in the way or burst through too many friends by forced evades,
Personally I say leave it as is, one of the few things that can save a short ranged non reformed army,

[hazelbark]

Running Austrians almost all my units are large up to 1809. If available I always take them for infantry, not so often for cav as the cost is too high, and never for skirmishers as they get in the way or burst through too many friends by forced evades,
Personally I say leave it as is, one of the few things that can save a short ranged non reformed army,

Well it wouldn't effect anything in shooting. I was merely talking melee. How often do your infantry actually close to contact enemy infantry?

[Blathergut]

Depending on the French army, a couple select large units in deep formation, with artillery attached, can be effective when they close and fight. They are prohibitively expensive later on; the superior conscripts are nice but a pain to get in if defensive fire stops them (but they do get to then shoot first with 6 dice!); and cuirassiers get a large unit if I run a cavalry division and win initiative by three!

I do like the effect. It's especially nice for large cavalry units that get into close combat.

[viperofmilan]

Let me say up front that I'm not convinced fielding more smaller units isn't better than fielding fewer large units. If nothing else, you increase the number of attachments you can field and perhaps the number of divisions as well - both good things in my opinion. That said, having too many, or even exclusively large units in an army can seriously skew game play IMHO. I tend to run later French, and many of those list prohibit use any large units. When an opponent has no limitations on the number of large units they can put on the table, things can go south very quickly. Especially true with my Spring 1813 French - 8 poor and 12 average conscripts minimum, and all restricted to units of 4 bases. So I guess my "complaint" is that some lists allow no large units whille others place no upper limits on the number of large units.

Kevin

[deadtorius]

true Austria gets mostly large units up to 1809, but even then I still end up with units that don't get attachments as most of my restrictions are 1 each of arty and skirmisher per division. So having more small units does not allow for more attachments, in my case it just means more short range shooting units that allows the French to stand back at 6 MU and blast away with no fear of a response.
even running mostly large unit armies for Austria the French still have more wins than Austria does.

[KeefM]

For me, large infantry units for any unit likely to fnd itself in the 'front line' is prefered, and having an artillery attachment. Having said that, I much prefer my veteran line infantry units to be small and with a gun attachment for agility and ease of moving. And some small units for line-backing or lugage protection are always helpful. Overall, the use of large infantry units in my army mixes entirely depends on how they fit into how I intend to close with the opponent.

Large cavalry units have no place in my army mixes because I find them simply too clumsy. IMHO, good use of cavalry depends on being able to use their mobility and agility to place them to best effect. Large units oocupy too much space on the table to offset for their extra resilience. Also, 2 large cavalry units buy you 16 dice in combat; whereas 3 small units buy you 18 dice in combat - for exactly the same price. Plus a spent large cavalry unit gives away 1 ACV vs 1/2 from a small one (2 spent large units = 2 lost ACV, 3 spent small units is 1.5 ACV). Lastly, just sometimes, the extra small units allows you to be deploying units after the opponent. So, from my perspective, I cannot find a good reason to buy large cavalry units.

Arillery is interesting with regard to large units. By and large, a large unit of artillery will always end up spreading its fire so its extra effectiveness is reduced. Even so, closing with a large artillery battery is a daunting prospect esp as it will usuallly be supported in some way. More so when they are on flanks with the potential of concentrating fire onto a single target. I did have some good successes using a large heavy battery with a heavy artillery and an officer attachment - but the key to using this effectively was in being the attacker (exceptional French corps commanders rule !) and deploying the super-battery last and out wide on one flank. The very threat of delivering 6 shooting dice a turn at a single unit at long range was a good way to shape up a game; let along prolonging it into medium range for 9 dice ! Oft times, the mere threat of its shooting was effective . But, generally, I'd almost always take small batteires in preference simply for the benefit of NOT having to split their fire.