1. In general terms one has to look at cavalry in extended line in the context of the two ( or three) stand deep tactical formation. What does that represent? A small unit represents 500-800 men. So it can be single regiment or it can be two understrength regiments (unlikely three but possibly if French in early 1813) . In the second case it may well be formed up with one regiment behind the other and each of the regiments in two lines of squadrons with intervals – so 4 lines of squadrons .
2. But in the first instance of a single regiment, it is less likely to be so deep . It is an endemic problem in miniatures gaming that when a cavalry model represents so many men - between 40 and 80 men in the case of a small FOG(N) unit - it is far deeper proportionally as a model than it needs to be in base width , since the men in that individual figure would usually be in, at most ,3 ranks. So a small unit may be far deeper than it needs to be when in a two stand deep formation. This is less of an issue with large units when three stand wide.
3. But to avoid this inexact and implicit problem by insisting that cavalry are always one stand deep, ie in extended line as we call it, is no more correct as a representation and creates as many problems as it solves. If you go down to squadrons as units you can avoid some of these problems by ensuring there are intervals between squadrons horizontally and vertically ( and penalising them when there are not) .
4. So what then does an extended line of cavalry represent? Well most obviously one or more regiments side by side each ( with implicit intervals in the models) deployed in a single line of squadrons ( two or three riders deep) or even a double line of such squadrons but with a close vertical interval between them.
5. Is this a skirmish formation? Not necessarily ,but it may be for regular light cavalry who are deploying pickets and vedettes to the front or actively skirmishing, either on the force flanks or as part of pre attack recce . In a Corps level and bigger game with 15mm or less on a 6x4 or a bigger table that is credible thing to be doing historically with regular light cavalry .
6. George Nafziger (in Imperial Bayonets) refers to Jarry and his treatise on marches where he says that a cavalry commander should never order a charge or movement forward without having previously sent out skirmishers . George also covers the role of cavalry skirmishing and describes, Hessian, French British and Austrian methods .
7. So there is no argument that regular cavalry ( including heavy cavalry) could carry out this function. But would they or could they “ evade” an attack as we wargamers term it ?
8. On page 10 we say under “Cavalry”
“ Light cavalry in a single line of bases ( Extended Line) move and may evade from charges as if skirmishers) ".
9. So we are not saying they necessarily are acting as skirmishers – although as I have shown above they could be. But from a game design standpoint and in the wholly artificial construct of “ I go you go” we are allowing regular light cavalry in such a formation the ability to decline combat and withdraw in an orderly manner . Some ( but not I) might argue all cavalry ought to be able to that as non shock cavalry in single line can do in FOG(AM) . In a continuous movement model the option of reacting to avoid contact can be there in a way it is not in “I go you go” as the inactive player is partly “frozen in time”. So this allows for some of that reaction.
10. And we do make provision for other types to evade which are not as such skirmishing so “being able to evade = skirmishing” is not strictly an accurate inference .
11. A regular light cavalry in single rank move is 10 MU’s representing 600 metres and a game turn 20 minutes ( page 82). I think in the context of representing the options available to a commander of such a unit in that timescale and distance, being able to refuse combat is not unreasonable and the variable movement d’ roll puts some risk into that decision.
What might we do different ?
12. There might be case for requiring a CMT for poor quality or conscript regular light cavalry units to see if they proved capable of carrying out the manoeuvre.
13. And/or we could not assume regular Light Cavalry in a single line are skirmishing ( page 44 - CMT “ Mounted Skirmishers assaulting the front of Steady or disordered non skirmishers. “ Give the player the option to be, or not to be, skirmishers .
14. One could easily represent that visually by giving the player a choice, when he first forms extended line, of having two bases of cavalry with say two figures in a skirmish posture
( there are some nice figures about that show that at least in 28mm) substituting for two standard 3 figure bases so then it does count as in skirmish mode .(Rather like we do when forming Light infantry into skirmish mode). Standard models means they are not skirmishing so cannot evade. Then you can trade off the option to evade against the option to assault steady non skirmishers. Reform into tactical and you are back to normal.
Wargaming design issues
15. More generally the almost universal wargaming “ declaration of charges” and reaction to them ,at the start of moves, is of course quite artificial. Like much of wargaming it is an attempt to impose order in what is a fluid if not chaotic situation. In battle almost anything can happen at the same time or be overlapping or happen in any order. There are no fixed moves, game turns and phases and the pace, and intensity, of activity in one sector of a battle field may be quite different to that in another .
16. There was the famous idea of the “ variable bound” a few years back that was aired I Wargames Developments but I cannot recall what happened to it. And” Impetus “ rules make it possible to be the active player to turns in a row , but I think that just compounds the problem.
17. And you could take an even more “ helicopter “ view and conduct battles in a series of “acts” with , say a Divisional attack once ordered being resolved from start to finish in one sequence ( with sub sequences for fire and movement and morale check as it goes forward) with the defending forces being permitted some variable deployment options as it progresses. Then you go to the next sector along until all sectors have been resolved ( some might be essentially static with only exchanges of long range fire) . So you might find one side is attacking one sector and defending in another, or neither attacking in one all during the same period of game time . FOG(N) is a bit like that with infantry assault but “ I go you go” limits it.
18. In that style specifics like “is this unit able to do x or y” become less material and the overall defensive or offensive postures adopted conform to one of several pre-defined alternative modes eg “ active defence “ linear fixed defence” “defence in depth ” counter attack” , “ probing attack” all out assault” ,”Careful attack” “ Echelon assault “ etc .The units conform to the mode chosen rather that than the way individual units are deployed and moved defining it by default ( if indeed they conform to any grand tactical model at all
) .
19. I have had a go but it is hard on the brain
, needs a lot more work, and may not be much good as a game for miniatures in a club evening or tournament environment.
FOG(AM)Influences?
20. So far as read across from FoG(AM) Is concerned., when we kicked this off I had not even read FOG(AM) much less played it ( it had only just come out) and was, at least initially, not influenced by it when looking at the overall top down design .
21. But Terry obviously was not so constrained and as beta testing progressed I guess there may have been some implicit one-way fertilisation if only in things like the use of POAs CMTs and Cohesion Tests. But that said POAs (under a different name) had been something the two of us had been using in our own rules since the late 1970’s so it is hardly surprising they turned up in both and the notion that casualties in close combat follow from the results rather than determine them .
.