Cavalry charges intercepts and couter charges

[terrys]

The exception on actually contacting the chargers would be flank and rear intercept charges? (in which case the chargers don't get it move at all)

true - In which case no counter-chargers are permitted anyway.

[Bar853]

Just bringing this to the top

[Saxonian]

As I put in my response to Kit's question from Natcon...

If an intercept fails to prevent an assault from contacting the original target of a charge, then the intercept is cancelled and that unit is moved back to its start position.

So it is not legal to have both a counter-charge and an intercept contact the assaulting unit, this is an 'either/or' situation.

[terrys]

If an intercept fails to prevent an assault from contacting the original target of a charge, then the intercept is cancelled and that unit is moved back to its start position.

The rule states: "If the move does not place the intercepting unit in a position where they will be contacted by the assaulting unit then the intercept move is cancelled."
It doesn't refer to preventing the assault from contacting its original target, it just has to end a position where it will be contacted by the assaulting unit - even if that unit also contacts a counter-charging unit.

So it is not legal to have both a counter-charge and an intercept contact the assaulting unit, this is an 'either/or' situation.

If the assaulting unit would contact an intercepting unit and could not also contact the counter-charging unit, the counter-charge would be cancelled - since there would then be no charge on the original declared target.

My feeling is that it is very difficult to engineer. Given that the charging unit has some leeway in actual direction of charge - unless it started off directly in front of, and directly facing its target. The distances moved by both the counter-charge and the intercept are fixed - usually 4MU or half the distance to the charging unit. The amount of wheel is strictly limited as well - so meeting the requirement to end with both units being contacted at the same time is pretty rare.....almost to the point of not allowing it to happen at all (which would be much a easier).

[pugsville]

have I missed something the rules say intercept charges are not fixed but bewteen 2-4 MU and moving after the orginal charge direction is know i thought .

i'm a bit each way about what is 'right' here. dont like micro managing angles , fanarkling it's not right but two units of cavalry square to opposing cavalry feel straight they counter/intercept charge together. conforming at impact as a mechanism can perhaps make it simpler but i underatnd that this mechinism would have draw backs too.

[terrys]

have I missed something the rules say intercept charges are not fixed but between 2-4 MU and moving after the original charge direction is know i thought .

That is true - The intercept must be between 2 & 4 MU - unless starting from less than 2MU. That does give some leeway as to final positioning.
I agree that we could do without this level of micro-management.
I also agree that it would be much cleaner if an intercept cancelled the counter-charge.
My only concern would be that a unit of cavalry could charge a single unit in a line of units and fight just one of them.
Although there is the possibility that a 2MU intercept at an angle could still leave the original target providing flank support.

I'll have to think about what I want to happen and how to word it ........

[pugsville]

maybe intercept cancel counter charges , cavalry starting in line can counter charge together provided they reach a valid flank support or fighting position? hat way cavalry units in line cannot be just 'picked off' but the general case remains simple.

[terrys]

maybe intercept cancel counter charges , cavalry starting in line can counter charge together provided they reach a valid flank support or fighting position? hat way cavalry units in line cannot be just 'picked off' but the general case remains simple.

That's my main problem with countercharges. Because it's up to 4MU they usually end up out of support range of other units which were originally adjacent to them.
We need a rule that still permits the supporting units to be of value.

Certainly something similar to your suggestion above would be OK, but perhaps rather than counter-charging together, we allow a unit adjacent to a countercharging unit to advance up to 2MU if this puts it in a supporting position for the following combat.
I would prefer a single unit initiating a charge against 2 enemy units to not have to fight both, but fight one with support dice. It would at least give them a chance to survive the combat, whereas fighting 2 enemy units almost ensures that they'll lose and probably break.

[BrettPT]

It's true that you can draw enemy units out of the line and pick them off, but there is a counter to prevent this. The tactical options in a big cavalry dust up are an interesting part of the game IMO. I'll post some ideas on this in the tactics thread.

[Saxonian]

I read the relevant rules last night, and reminded myself once again of the danger of posting on the forum when you don't have the rules in front of you .
I had in my head that a successful intercept prevented any compulsory action, whereas the rule says it prevents any compulsory test.
I realise that I was working on the assumption that the purpose of an intercept was to prevent an assault from contacting its original target, and that if this was not successful then the intercept did not occur.

What concerns me is that this now means that a single cavalry unit can declare a charge on a single enemy cavalry unit, and conceivably find itself in contact with three cavalry units - original target and an intercept from each side. (Once again, written without the rules in front of me, but I think this is possible)
I can see this developing to the point where cav on cav fights will almost be forced to be multiple units on each side. Either that, or we will need to start launching assaults on cav units from some fairly weird angles.
We will all place our cav in positions to "support intercept".
No-one will risk launching a single unit cav attack, and risk getting overwhelmed.

It necessitates a fairly radical rethink of how cav are used en masse.

[terrys]

What concerns me is that this now means that a single cavalry unit can declare a charge on a single enemy cavalry unit, and conceivably find itself in contact with three cavalry units - original target and an intercept from each side. (Once again, written without the rules in front of me, but I think this is possible)

This can't happen - if a charge is intercepted from both flanks it wouldn't be able to get through the gap to contact the counter-charging unit.
You could end up fighting 2 units though.

Being able to draw a single unit out of a line is not a historical action - it's only possible becauses of the rule mechanisms.
You really shouldn't be able to do it - at least not to such an extent.

I'm considering the following:
1) Intercept moves are placed before counter-charges in the turn sequence. They would cancel the charge on the original target, and therefore the counter-charge would not occur.
2) Each assaulting unit can only be intercepted by one enemy unit.
3) A unit which starts the phase adjacent to a unit which counter-charges may move up to 2MU straight forwards if this places it in a position supporting the counter-charging unit. This move occurs immediately after all assault moves have been completed.

There are also a couple more updates that I'm considering:
>> A separate entry defining the support area for combat which includes the area directly to the front and within 2MU of a nunit.
.. Strictly speaking the area directly to the front of a unit is not covered in the rules, but it obviously should be.
>> A unit cannot give flank support if it is to the front of, and within 2MU of an enemy unit which is capable of charging it next move. (so not artillery, infantry in square or skirmish formation, wavering units etc....).
.. The units would cancel each other out, rather than increase the casualty rate on the 2 units in combat.

[Saxonian]

This can't happen - if a charge is intercepted from both flanks it wouldn't be able to get through the gap to contact the counter-charging unit.
You could end up fighting 2 units though.

I was thinking of a large unit assaulting, and a small unit the target that is directly in front of the centre line with a friend to either side, all three of which counter/intercept charge - very hypothetical, I grant you, but possible none the less.

[KeefM]

The suggested changes would still allow a large unit to pick off a small unit (whether intercepting or counter-charging).

Consider the situation of 2 large units facing 3 small units. Equal frontages mean that if the large units charge each will only face a single small unit, and only 1 of which could be supported by a friend. This shifts the balance of an otherwise equal cavalry contest to the large units.

Instead, perhaps, allow any/all cavalry units from either player within counter-charge/intercept range to join in. Doing so would make for an all-in cavalry scrum of whoever was in reach (from both sides) ? Doing this would allow neither player to pick off units either with selected charges nor with multiple counter-charges or intercepts.

[terrys]

Instead, perhaps, allow any/all cavalry units from either player within counter-charge/intercept range to join in. Doing so would make for an all-in cavalry scrum of whoever was in reach (from both sides) ? Doing this would allow neither player to pick off units either with selected charges nor with multiple counter-charges or intercepts.

The problem with large cavalry scrums is that the can end the game early if it goes decidedly in favour of one side or the other.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but could stop players committing their cavalry at all.
The option of the non-active player being able to move cavalry unit ip to 2MU if they can support another unit in combat seems to have value. It would allow players to add 2 dice to the combat unit - effectively making a small unit into a large one. (depending in presence of other units of course).

[BrettPT]

Reading this thread again, I think that the easiest interpretation is that an intercept cancels a counter-charge.
It's simple and how most of us (I think) have been playing.

There are tactics you can adopt to avoid or minimise being ganged up on (see the recent thread under Cavalry Tactics on the general discussion page).

I've also been paying more attention when reading to how 'massed' cavalry actions actually worked. Most books generalise, however in Scott Bowden's Austerlitz there is a useful section with details on the Murat v Lichtenstein cavalry action north of the Pratzen that is worth a read.

Essentially, both sides had lots of cavalry units. However there was not an all-out charge with multiple units at the same time, rather a regiment (or sometimes 2) would charge an enemy regiment, often driving it back only to be charged in turn and driven back by a fresh enemy unit. I suspect this kind of Igo-Ugo interaction may have been more typical than opposing cavalry divisions simultaneously thumping into each other.

It may have been possible to initiate Brigade or Division level cavalry attacks in a solid line, organised in advance with a high level commander out front (ie Murat at Eylau). However reacting in concert to an enemy charge, as a Brigade or Division, must have been much harder. Each Colonel would have limited visibility (and probably limited contact or interaction) beyond his own regiment. He would no doubt react to enemy charging his regiment, probably by ordering a counter-charge, but organising his own regiment and its response must have been the Colonel's main focus. I query whether he would communicate with neighbouring units in an attempt to get them to charge in support. A higher level commander may try to organise a multi unit counter-charge, but I assume that time constraints would make this very hard to do.

In short, the 'gang-up' options currently possible under FoGN for the attacker (but not the defender) may actually be realistic. The rules certainly create the possibility of nuanced cavalry interactions in which care, timing and supports are required to optimise your chances. I wouldn't like things to develop to where an all-out scrum between both sides is the optimum tactic.

[Saxonian]

Reading this thread again, I think that the easiest interpretation is that an intercept cancels a counter-charge.
It's simple and how most of us (I think) have been playing.

I could not agree more.
And this thread has been concentrating on cavalry - we haven't even begun to consider the effect this would have on infantry intercepts.

In short, the 'gang-up' options currently possible under FoGN for the attacker (but not the defender) may actually be realistic. The rules certainly create the possibility of nuanced cavalry interactions in which care, timing and supports are required to optimise your chances. I wouldn't like things to develop to where an all-out scrum between both sides is the optimum tactic

If there is a desire to enable a unit of cav to move into a position to support a friendly unit that is counter-charging, that should be a separate rule.
But I agree, there are ways to prevent a single unit being drawn out of a line and isolated.
If you want to be aggressive with your cav, be aggressive. If not, tuck them away out of harms way until you are ready to use them.

[deadtorius]

Essentially, both sides had lots of cavalry units. However there was not an all-out charge with multiple units at the same time, rather a regiment (or sometimes 2) would charge an enemy regiment, often driving it back only to be charged in turn and driven back by a fresh enemy unit. I suspect this kind of Igo-Ugo interaction may have been more typical than opposing cavalry divisions simultaneously thumping into each other.

I had read somewhere once something similar as well. Usually a single regiment charges and a single regiment counter charges one loses and gets pursued, the pursuers get charged normally get driven back to their own lines where those pursuers get charged and so on. Could go on for hours from what I read.
If an intercept cancels a counter charge then the original target should be in range (hopefully if it started in the right place) to provide rear support.

[terrys]

BrettPT wrote:
Reading this thread again, I think that the easiest interpretation is that an intercept cancels a counter-charge.
It's simple and how most of us (I think) have been playing.

I could not agree more.
And this thread has been concentrating on cavalry - we haven't even begun to consider the effect this would have on infantry intercepts.

I totally agree, and am in the process of redrafting the Sequence of Play to place the intercept move before the counter charge so that this would work.

[Bar853]

Just wanted to bring this to the top. Hope this can answer the previous post.

[martymagnificent]

Ahh thank you Bar853. I'm glad I'm not the only one confused. Only had about 4 games so far but really enjoying it. A group of guys I game with in Sydney are all starting to make armies for FOG N based on the experience of our first few games. Not always the easiest rulebook to navigate but worth the effort

Martin