some thoughts on cavalry and historical realism in the game

[Aryaman]

David Parrot has noticed how armies in the late 30YW were increasing the proportion of cavalry steadily. Infantry increase in firepower with more linear formations meant that an assault to the front of an infantry unit was more costly than before but conversely more shallow formations left them more vulnerable to flank attacks by cavalry. Late 30YW battles follow a pattern in which infantry exchange volleys at distance, rarely closing for combat, while the battle is decided in the flanks by cavalry, that after defeating opposing cavalry turn the flanks of infantry.
Now, I think this evolution is meant to be represented in the game by Pike and Shot formations, that pack more firepower than late tercios but are vulnerable to flank attacks. However the fact is that in the game cavalry is usually unable to win the battles turning the flank of infantry.
In fact, cavalry seems to be almost worthless, I usually do not bother to buy any cavalry unit, and I am not doing bad in the Caracole tournament.
Now, why is this?
If both my opponent and I deploy armies historically realistic, with a large cavalry force, battle could develop along the historical pattern. But if one of the players deploy an infantry heavy army, his opponent is in big trouble. You can try to outflank infantry with your faster cavalry, but you will see enemy infantry wheeling to face you and fire on you until you rout.
Now, should this be corrected? Is this perceived as a problem by other players? If so, what can be done? I write this post beacuse I like wargames to be as historically realistic as possible without ruining the game. I have some proposals to make cavalry more competitive.
1) Running a test for infantry wheeling similar to that for falling back. Wheeling in front of the enemy was as dangerous and potentially catastrophic as falling back, if not more. From gameplay perspective it could allow cavalry the chance to outflank infantry.
2) Making cavalry cheaper. If you want to have an army with a large cavalry proportion in numbers you need to have more cavalry units than infantry units, and if they are more expensive that is impossible.
3) Increase the chance for collateral disrupting when a unit is routed by cavalry. Routing by shock should be more "shcoking" to adjacent units than routing by taking casualties at ranged fire.
4) Cavalry casualties by enemy fire should be lower. Presently they are very vulnerable to enemy fire, more so than infantry.

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks Iñaki.

I will be paying close attention to this discussion.

[krieg63]

increase the size of the terrain will solve the problem

[Alma69]

yup, look at Polish topic, about my concerns with cav as well

[fogman]

from my limited experience when early renaissance games, i find small arms fire too effective in its ability to disrupt and fragment large infantry formations. i've seen elite swiss squares being hobbled in 2 turns of firing. there is no way one can reproduce marignano where the swiss were able to withstand a day a half of artillery and small arms fire and then retreat in good order. even at biccoca the swiss just marched out of the battlefield unbroken. there are many many instances in later periods with deadlier firearms when units would be shot to pieces rather than being routed by firepower. human nature is such that a man is more scared of hand to hand combat than an unseen enemy bullet.

[rbodleyscott]

increase the size of the terrain will solve the problem

You may well be right. I am hoping to persuade the tournament players to try using wider maps for the next tournament, so that this can be tested. (Without having to wait for another patch).

Also, tabletop FOGR has a feature whereby infantry within a certain distance of the side table (map) edge count as having "threatened flank" which gives them a negative cohesion test modifier, and affects their shooting effectiveness. This could be added to Pike & Shot in a future patch.

[TheGrayMouser]

I have some proposals to make cavalry more competitive.
1) Running a test for infantry wheeling similar to that for falling back. Wheeling in front of the enemy was as dangerous and potentially catastrophic as falling back, if not more. From gameplay perspective it could allow cavalry the chance to outflank infantry.
2) Making cavalry cheaper. If you want to have an army with a large cavalry proportion in numbers you need to have more cavalry units than infantry units, and if they are more expensive that is impossible.
3) Increase the chance for collateral disrupting when a unit is routed by cavalry. Routing by shock should be more "shcoking" to adjacent units than routing by taking casualties at ranged fire.
4) Cavalry casualties by enemy fire should be lower. Presently they are very vulnerable to enemy fire, more so than infantry.

Some thoughts on these points: (in reverse order for everyones pleasure)
4) strongly disagree, cavalry already take less casualties from shooting by the game rules. Since most infantry cannot melee attack cavalry, they can to some degree stand off and just block infantry w impunity.
3) this seems too powerfull, plus not everyone keeps infantry adjacent to eachother
2) by the late 1600, many historians estimate a squadron of cavalry cost about 2.5 times the cost of an infantry battalion. In game, average P&S cost 42 points, average determined Horse 46 points 250 men vs 500, so "cheaper" than in reality. By the later 30 years war I think 20-30% cavalry was around correct for cav vs infantry ratios.
Loading up a late German Protestant 30yw army w medium points (ignoring lights dragoons artillery) I can buy 13 cavalry (max) And 4 P&S minimum. or 3250 cavalry vs 2000 formed infantry OR 6 minimum cavalry vs 9 units of infantry, which is 1500 cavalry vs 4500 infantry So at extremes 60% cavalry thru about 20-25% This appears to be within the realm of "historical"
The only thing I would argue is, like the TT, later 30 yw armies should have the to option to BUY unarmoured cavalry, although since armour is less effective in the PC game, I don't know how much "cost" is rolled into that armour..
1) Interesting idea. Perhaps we need to clarify "wheeling" Do you mean moving and making a facing change at the same time? or do you mean rotating in place?
I think forcing infantry to make a cohesion test for any movement when faced by cavalry is way too punishing, especially as infantry might have to test simply to move fwrd to engage enemy infantry,. Moving and wheeling should stay as is. However l like the idea of simply rotating in a grid needs a cohesion test since in reality (especially for more linear units) this is really a formation change. I personally think that they might need to test when threatened by a enemy infantry too, not just cavalry (perhaps cavalry would cause a mal modifier?) I would argue units that are kiels and or later tercios woul dbe exempt.
Cheers!

[nikgaukroger]

By the later 30 years war I think 20-30% cavalry was around correct for cav vs infantry ratios.

By the end of the TYW for the armies operating in Germany 50% cavalry was not unusual and it could be more like 2/3rds on occasion. However, that was probably a reflection of the nature of the warfare by then and post TYW armies returned to having about 1/3rd cavalry (which had also been more normal in the first half of the TYW).

[TheGrayMouser]

By the later 30 years war I think 20-30% cavalry was around correct for cav vs infantry ratios.

By the end of the TYW for the armies operating in Germany 50% cavalry was not unusual and it could be more like 2/3rds on occasion. However, that was probably a reflection of the nature of the warfare by then and post TYW armies returned to having about 1/3rd cavalry (which had also been more normal in the first half of the TYW).

Yeah, its hard to get accurate #'s as there were few pitched battles by that time. Since cavalry was ditching its equipment, certainly they were cheaper. In the later in the 1600's the gradual increase in overall size of armies no doubt nudged cavalry back to "normal" proportions.
One thing that is hard to represent in a game that is basically pure tactical, the operational strength of cavalry. Cavalry in the late 1600 early 1700 still was huge compared to mid 18th c and Napoleonics, due to the the stagnation of decisive actions by linear infantry, despite the increase in firepower. Cavalry can fight directly from the march whereas infantry needs to slowly deploy. If an enemy army chooses not to engage, infantry really had no ability "force" them to fight. However cavalry could to some degree aid in pinning an enemy army, although it wasn't easy. Frederick the Great partially solved the issue with his drill of direct approach in company columns and then wheeling 90 degrees, but even this was easilly countered. It wasn't until post French revolution that infantry drills of moving directly in column toward an enemy and being able to shake out into line, fundamentally changed tactics and of course by this time you see a huge decline in cavalry, 10-12 % of an army.

[Blathergut]

4) strongly disagree, cavalry already take less casualties from shooting by the game rules. Since most infantry cannot melee attack cavalry, they can to some degree stand off and just block infantry w impunity.

I've seen this happen during the tournament. Horse just pulls up and sits. It feels kinda silly.

[Aryaman]

increase the size of the terrain will solve the problem

You may well be right. I am hoping to persuade the tournament players to try using wider maps for the next tournament, so that this can be tested. (Without having to wait for another patch).

Also, tabletop FOGR has a feature whereby infantry within a certain distance of the side table (map) edge count as having "threatened flank" which gives them a negative cohesion test modifier, and affects their shooting effectiveness. This could be added to Pike & Shot in a future patch.

I think that will not solve the problem for 2 reasons
1) Infantry is cheaper than cavalry, so you can buy an army of at least as many infantry units as enemy cavalry easily, so no chance of a unit being pinned to the front and attacked in flank as a general rule
2) No matter how large the turn around you make with your cavalry, infantry will rotate in place and face your cavalry. That is why I proposed the cohesion test, and answering to theGrayMouser, I will apply that cohesion test only to units rotating in place and being in enemy charge radius. I would exclude keils and later tercios, yes, as I am only concern with the later period of the TYW.

Taking a look at later TYW armies the units coming by default reflects the historical proportion, the Swedish post 1635 army comes with 6XHorse and only 3xFoot, but of course you can buy up to 9 additional infantry units and I would, since they are right now far more valuable than cavalry. That is why I advocated for cheaper cavalry, for even in the event we make cavalry more valuable adopting some of the proposals I posted, it is impossible to get an historically realistic proportion if we don´t make them cheaper than infantry.

[TheGrayMouser]

The problem with making cavalry cheaper is you can still max out infantry, buy all the support troop you want (artillery, lights dragoons) and then still get the cavalry...
All that would happen is the unit count would increase. Better would be to simply increase the minima's for cavalry (especially average quality cavalry) and keep the points the same. of course then you would be decreasing player flexibility in designing the armies.

[Aryaman]

The problem with making cavalry cheaper is you can still max out infantry, buy all the support troop you want (artillery, lights dragoons) and then still get the cavalry...
All that would happen is the unit count would increase. Better would be to simply increase the minima's for cavalry (especially average quality cavalry) and keep the points the same. of course then you would be decreasing player flexibility in designing the armies.

Yes, you are right, ideallly the solution would be making cavalry really valuable for the players so they select it in greater numbers. But it should not be better in absolute terms, like infantry presently, because then you select a non-historical all cavalry or all infantry. It should be the interaction between infantry and cavalry, but still needing 2 cavalry per in fantry units. IMO the best option is making possible for infantry to be pinned by cavalry at the front while charged in the flank. Presently you just rotate your infantry 45 degrees and you avoid that.

[flatsix518]

Aryaman wrote: "IMO the best option is making possible for infantry to be pinned by cavalry at the front while charged in the flank. Presently you just rotate your infantry 45 degrees and you avoid that."

Or pinned by Cav in the front while charged in the rear -- but rotate 90 degrees to avoid that. Not that we've seen anything like that happen...

Just sayin...



John

[TheGrayMouser]

Aryaman wrote: "IMO the best option is making possible for infantry to be pinned by cavalry at the front while charged in the flank. Presently you just rotate your infantry 45 degrees and you avoid that."

Or pinned by Cav in the front while charged in the rear -- but rotate 90 degrees to avoid that. Not that we've seen anything like that happen...

Just sayin...



John

No off topic stuff, this is clearly a late tercio tactic developed by Duke Mendoza de la Gamey circa 1620, not a later P&S tactic

[TheGrayMouser]

On a more serious note, Flatsix does point out a game tactic that is un-plausable in reality, the simple facing change that can negate rear or flank charges from multiple opponents.
If cohesion test were needed it would certainly mitigate this but doesn't go far enough.

I was thinking, what the game lacks is formation changes. Ideally not many are needed as this is not a Napoleonic game where column line and square are expected.
So thinking aloud, what about "defensive formation?" for pike and shot only units ( an entry in the unitxls to flag units capable of this would be needed.)
Now I doubt its possible to have a graphical representation of this, but a simple icon, Ie a hollow square would suffice
It would work in conjunction with Arymans idea of testing cohesion if trying to rotate in a grid while threatened by a cavalry charge
To make it compatable with the AI, changing to "square" (whatever you want to call it) would be out of the players hands , ie automatic under certain conditions

It would work like so:
*if a unit flagged(and careful consideration of which units have this flag, ie medium musket only, warriers etc, no way) as being capable of "square" is charged in the rear or flank by an enemy cavalry unit(only) it might attempt to form square via cohesion test. If it fails, no mal bonus is applied as its already going to get wacked.
*A unit can only attempt to change if its steady**, and is not already engaged in melee w another unit
*once in square, a unit cannot move, it fires at 1/4 capability, but in any direction.
*a unit in square can only revert to normal if all cavalry threats are absent at the start of its turn If you wanted to make it harder, perhaps they need to test to change back or must be steady if not already so

[flatsix518]

I actually don't have a complaint with the way the game works vis-a-vis infantry and cav. I was making a joking reference to my last game with Aryaman in which I twisted my army into a pretzel in the vain effort to get kill shots on two of his pike units. He was able to avoid both attacks by turning each pike 90 degrees and refusing their rear aspects. (I had 3 of four faces covered...)

But thinking about it, it is awful easy for cavalry to run right thru a line of infantry aligned along the diagonal. In our game I was fairly easily able to get to the rear of his pikes with some gendarmes. My problem was that I wasn't well enough versed on the options the pikes had to avoid disaster.

But I will figure them out and when I do -- I will make someone pay....



John

[Aryaman]

It would work like so:
*if a unit flagged(and careful consideration of which units have this flag, ie medium musket only, warriers etc, no way) as being capable of "square" is charged in the rear or flank by an enemy cavalry unit(only) it might attempt to form square via cohesion test. If it fails, no mal bonus is applied as its already going to get wacked.

I have to say I don´t like the idea, because I think cavalry is already weak, so in an event in which cavalry is able to charge in flank/rear and still don´t get the bonus because the target unit change to square means that cavalry will be still weaker.

[Aryaman]

But thinking about it, it is awful easy for cavalry to run right thru a line of infantry aligned along the diagonal. In our game I was fairly easily able to get to the rear of his pikes with some gendarmes. My problem was that I wasn't well enough versed on the options the pikes had to avoid disaster.

That is the case in the Italian Wars armies, because you have a small number of big infantry blocks, so there are always holes in the battleline, but in the Late TYW battles you have plenty of Pike & shot units able to form a wall to cavalry

[rbodleyscott]

increase the size of the terrain will solve the problem

You may well be right. I am hoping to persuade the tournament players to try using wider maps for the next tournament, so that this can be tested. (Without having to wait for another patch).

Also, tabletop FOGR has a feature whereby infantry within a certain distance of the side table (map) edge count as having "threatened flank" which gives them a negative cohesion test modifier, and affects their shooting effectiveness. This could be added to Pike & Shot in a future patch.

I think that will not solve the problem for 2 reasons
1) Infantry is cheaper than cavalry, so you can buy an army of at least as many infantry units as enemy cavalry easily, so no chance of a unit being pinned to the front and attacked in flank as a general rule

I don't think this is true, because
a) Cavalry move twice as fast as foot, so should be able to concentrate better (given space to do so).
b) Cavalry can often get into a position where they could flank or rear charge either of two enemy infantry units, so you don't need twice as many units to pin them and flank them.
c) Once at least some cavalry are behind the infantry line, if anything goes wrong for the infantry, it can go horribly wrong really quickly.

The main problem at the moment is that it is too easy to close down the flanks of the map so that cavalry cannot get past without running the gauntlet of infantry shooting.

I think we should at least try giving more space before changing the rules wholesale. But it needs extensive testing, so if people would be kind enough to play their Medium skirmishes with Very Wide maps and report back, it would be very helpful.