Anglo-Portugese comments

[hazelbark]

Terry, the stark reality is that the list in the rule book is unhistorical - which, for a historical period, is just bad. What does a player use as a Portuguese Cacadore unit? They didn't exist - ever. Cacadores were battalions in Portuguese brigades (1/5th of the strength), except for the two (1st and 3rd) in the Light Division. How would a player model a fictional Cacadore unit?

What about the COMPULSORY average veteran 'British' light infantry unit? It doesn't exist. It was either the adhoc light infantry BATTALION at Fuentes de Orono or it's some unhistoric mix of Chasseurs Britanniques and Brunswickers (who were in different brigades).

I agree with your generic points, but I think you need to be cautious. Or less literal.
Yes I think i would prefer more historical looking formations.
But in many ways the english are the WORST army to model at other than a battalion level. The whole thing is like recipe. One of these, two of those and a pinch of that.
So it will suffer worst. And they should address it better. But...
...the difference between a line with a skirmisher attachment and light unit is very subtle. 1 dice at medium and the abilty to skirmish which is not that common so far in what I have seen.
The Portuguese and I have them exactly in the proportions you decribe. You can say ok this group are a notch better than that group and can count as light. Or you can say the Cacadores of two brigades are working together and that amounts to a small unit. Or you can take the unit as line with a cacadore attachment which is probably the "correct" modelling and the figures fit easily into a 4 or 6 base line unit.

As for the english light. Same issues or consider Salamanca

7th Division: commanded by Major General Hope.
1st Brigade: commanded by Colonel Colin Halkett: 1st and 2nd Light Battalions King’s German Legion, 7 Cos Brunswick Oels.
2nd Brigade: commanded by Major General von Bernewitz: 51st (Light), 68th (Light) Foot and Chasseurs Britanniques.
Portuguese Brigade: commanded by Colonel Collins: 1st and 2nd/7th, 1st and 2nd/19th Portuguese Line and 2nd Caçadores.

Light Division: commanded by Lieutenant General Charles, Baron von Alten.
1st Brigade: commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Barnard: 1st/43rd Foot, 2nd/95th Rifles (4 Cos), 3rd/95th Rifles (5 Cos) and 3rd Caçadores.
2nd Brigade: commanded by Major General Vandeleur: 1st/52nd Foot, 1st/95th Rifles (8 Cos and 1st Caçadores

So clearly you can have a concentration of light battalions in a brigade in a historical OB.

What is missing is a clearer justification in the lists.

[adonald]

I don't know about them being compulsory, but there are a number of "British" LI battalions such as II/51st, 85th, Chass Brit and Brunswickers that were not in the Light Division.

Wouldn't a single Light Infantry Battalion be a light infantry attachment to a unit? And that IS available in the list.

And why don't the KGL Light Infantry have the same skill options as the their Line counterparts?

Alastair

[adonald]

As for the english light. Same issues or consider Salamanca

7th Division: commanded by Major General Hope.
1st Brigade: commanded by Colonel Colin Halkett: 1st and 2nd Light Battalions King’s German Legion, 7 Cos Brunswick Oels.
2nd Brigade: commanded by Major General von Bernewitz: 51st (Light), 68th (Light) Foot and Chasseurs Britanniques.
Portuguese Brigade: commanded by Colonel Collins: 1st and 2nd/7th, 1st and 2nd/19th Portuguese Line and 2nd Caçadores.

So clearly you can have a concentration of light battalions in a brigade in a historical OB.

What is missing is a clearer justification in the lists.[/quote]

Yes, you are right that the 2nd Brigade of the 7th Division could be a British light infantry unit. I haven't got my reference books with me but I think that configuration was quite late. As for the other formations they are covered in separate sections of the list (KGL Lights, Light Division).

Alastair

[Speedhump]

I am playing British using the rule book lists.

We worked out that the minimum units to play at 800 points is pretty much taken up by the minimums allowed (With some additions).

I dislike the drilled Line troops, I want elite line troops and etc etc.. Oh wait... the book lists are just there to get us interested. to help us learn the game... are PLACEHOLDERS until the list books come out.

Much happier now.

[gelin]

British Cavalry was much better than you think, it was Wellington who was not good at handling it.

Under Uxbridge at Sahagun the Hussars trounced Napoleons very own Chasseurs a Cheval of the Guard, at Salamanca the heavies under Le Marchant destroyed the French. Uxbridge was also in charge of the withdrawal from Quatre Bras to Waterloo where the cavalry prevented any interference from the French.

This reputation for poor performance is based on 2 instances of poor judgment by the 20th and then the 23rd Light Dragoons in the Peninsular and the Scots Greys at Waterloo, this was the latter's first battle of the Napoleonic Wars and little mention is made of the rest of the Union Brigade nor the performance of the Household Brigade all of which remained under control.

Peter

Moreover on Waterloo, there is a perception that the British heavy cavalry after the initial charge on D'Erlon was more or less wiped out and didn't play part during the rest duration of the battle.
That is not true.

[bahdahbum]

I think nobody said that the british cavalry was so bad . Just that it was not up to the stadard of some european nations ...in terms of controll . And of course nthat does not mean they will always charge madly , always do something rash . Just that sometimes they act on their own !

If it ight please you there is a record of a british cav regiment ( light dragoons from memory ) that broke 2 french squares ..or squares being formed ...) .

French cavalry was really good at least till 1809 . In 1812 it was perhaps a bit less "veteran superior" and from 1813 ...well you know what happened in Russia ...

Still The british do not seem to have a real cavalry tradition at that time but infantry and RHA was really good

[adonald]

I think nobody said that the british cavalry was so bad . Just that it was not up to the stadard of some european nations ...in terms of controll . And of course nthat does not mean they will always charge madly , always do something rash . Just that sometimes they act on their own !

The British cavalry did NOT charge without orders. You could say that the Scots Greys charged when they should have been providing support for the other two regiments in the Union Brigade at Waterloo, but it is unclear that they were ordered to stay put, but actually ordered to charge.

It is a fallacy that British cavalry regiments acted any differently than any other nations. There are plenty of instances when French cavalry did not halt pursuits either - it was a problem for all cavalry. Some rallied very well, other did not. There was no 'national' basis for this, more the skill and experience of troopers and their officers. Adkin suggests it was the position of the officers in the cavalry formation that assisted in controlling and rallying troops, but that is NOT what the impetuous rule is modelling.

In any event, the 'impetuous' game mechanic is completely at odds with history.

Alastair Donald

[bahdahbum]

Code: Select all

the 'impetuous' game mechanic is completely at odds with history

Tell that to the french cavalry at Waterloo... Many of them did charge without any orders ; The famous big french cavalry charge was supported by infantry ( contrary to the myth ) and many cavalry units joined without orders and I never said that other nations did not have their problems also .

There is also at least one case where british cavalry did refuse to charge (in spain ) . The officier in charge simply refused a direct order by Wellington and argued that he was in charge by a decision of the King and only the King could dismiss him ...and he was right , he was not dismissed ..I know it is not impetuous ...

And you say the same thing as I : experience and skill . The british did lack experience untill latter in the wars . The KGL units were formed by more experienced soldiers who showed the british the real value of light cavalry , drill and scouting .

[donm]

The main problem with all nations cavalry is the quality / condition of the horses.

While I would certainly agree that the British cavalry rode some of the best bread horses, a very short time on campaign would soon ruin them. This would happen quicker for well looked after horses once in theatre, than those brought up in those enviroments.

British cavalry horses stuffered very heavily in the penninsular. Not helped by poor care for their troopers.

One of the things to remember about the French cavalry at Waterloo was the very poor quality of its horses in general. Before the campaign began several of the Guard Grenadiers a Cheval had to give up their horses to the Guard horse artillery as there was not enough train horses.

I think the rules recreate cavalry combat very well, it being very random and a little lucky.

Don