Formation for Swedish Horse

Lighthorseman · Post by **Lighthorseman** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 12:54 am

Hi All,

I have just started playing TYW in FOG.

I was wondering what is the best way to deploy the Swede cavalry? I am not sure if it is better to deploy in one rank or two?

DH CS DH
DH CS DH

I was wondering if the above formation is legal?

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:56 am

DH CS DH
DH CS DH

I was wondering if the above formation is legal?

If the 'DH' represents 2 separate BGs of horse - then yes.

If the 'DH' is just one BG - no. The Commanded Shot sit alongside the horse.

I've found that DH in one rank take a lot of shooting. Base your formation upon what is opposing you. So lots of enemy shooters - 2 ranks. If not, 3 bases in the front with one in the rear works quite well. For a headlong charge 1 rank is fine.

Lighthorseman · Post by **Lighthorseman** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 10:43 am

thanks for the info

However it seems to me that this formation is very close to actual formations from battle maps. Also having the shot grouped with the cavalry as a BG would make alot of sense under these rules. It also has the added bonus of all the troops mutually supporting each other.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 11:26 am

Lighthorseman wrote: It also has the added bonus of all the troops mutually supporting each other.

They do support each other as separate BGs through the Protected rules - see page 173 and the PoAs.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:08 pm

The example of a division on Page 43 illustrates the point.

You cannot combine the CS within a BG of horse.

Lighthorseman · Post by **Lighthorseman** » Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:14 pm

thanks again, I will check the rules when I get home. (I don't have a copy at the moment.)

I had thought that in the rules that the support was calculated by each base separately?
So that only in this example, only the red DH would count as being supported?

DH DH CS DH DH
DH DH CS DH DH

So apart from not being able to mutually support all bases within the formation, the other issue I have is that when 1 CS was destroyed, the other CS was automatically taken off the board as well. (Was that right? Unit of 2, 1 destroyed - 1 auto)

However my main point is that I believe that a BG of Horse + Commanded shot should be allowed. They were deployed & fought together.
Pike & Shot, Pike & Halberd and even regimental guns are grouped together.

Why not Horse & Shot?

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:31 am

I had thought that in the rules that the support was calculated by each base separately?
So that only in this example, only the red DH would count as being supported?

DH DH CS DH DH
DH DH CS DH DH

You are correct.

So apart from not being able to mutually support all bases within the formation, the other issue I have is that when 1 CS was destroyed, the other CS was automatically taken off the board as well. (Was that right? Unit of 2, 1 destroyed - 1 auto)

Yes - correct again.

However my main point is that I believe that a BG of Horse + Commanded shot should be allowed. They were deployed & fought together.
Pike & Shot, Pike & Halberd and even regimental guns are grouped together.

Why not Horse & Shot?

Your point is a good one - it would be a more effective formation - but it is not permitted by rules. That's one you'll have to take up with the authors.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 6:39 am

petedalby wrote:
However my main point is that I believe that a BG of Horse + Commanded shot should be allowed. They were deployed & fought together.
Pike & Shot, Pike & Halberd and even regimental guns are grouped together.

Why not Horse & Shot?
Your point is a good one - it would be a more effective formation - but it is not permitted by rules. That's one you'll have to take up with the authors.

Short answer - because it is necessary that the horse be able to operate away from commanded shot whom they initially deployed with, possibly leaving the latter somewhat vulnerable as happened historically (IIRC Lutzen is an example of this) which would not happen if they were all one BG.

Lighthorseman · Post by **Lighthorseman** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 8:53 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
Short answer - because it is necessary that the horse be able to operate away from commanded shot whom they initially deployed with, possibly leaving the latter somewhat vulnerable as happened historically (IIRC Lutzen is an example of this) which would not happen if they were all one BG.

I believe that the use of commanded shot was widespread across many armies in many battles.

You qouted a particular occassion when the shot was left behind. Was it more common for the shot & horse to stay together? Or did they often split?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 1:57 pm

Split often enough. It also happened accidentally - e.g. Edgehill (IIRC) where the abandoned commanded shot were ridden down after the Parliamentarian horse had run away - and the rules mechansims are designed to allow this to happen.

If you keep the horse and shot together, and avoid accidents, they nicely support each other, and the rules also cover the other cases within the same mechanisms.

khurasan_miniatures · Post by **khurasan_miniatures** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 3:18 pm

In addition to game mechanics there's also the simple fact that in the period there was no concept of a Horse and Shot formation and it was an ad hoc grouping that could, and often did, come updone by events.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jun 20, 2011 4:19 pm

Of course, in games between consenting adults, there is no reason why you couldn't use mixed horse and shot BGs if you feel that is more appropriate.

Lighthorseman · Post by **Lighthorseman** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 2:21 am

nikgaukroger wrote:Of course, in games between consenting adults, there is no reason why you couldn't use mixed horse and shot BGs if you feel that is more appropriate.

I actually fight as the Imperialists!

I will let the Swede fight as a "mixed" BG is he prefers. I think that it would definately make the Swedes stronger.

Maybe after a couple of battles, I might not like the idea.

thanks everyone for your help

nickdives · Post by **nickdives** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 7:03 am

Good attitude, of course it will slow him down quite a bit!

Lighthorseman · Post by **Lighthorseman** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 9:38 pm

nickdives wrote:Good attitude, of course it will slow him down quite a bit!

Under the rules having the commanded shot deployed with the horse makes the Swede Cavalry equal to the Imperialist Cuirassiers. The Swedish player already accepts the movement of 4 compared to 5 as a worthwhile hinderance to make the troops stronger. As well not all the Horse BGs have commanded shot attached.

But under my suggestion having all bases supported & even more importantly not having the shot destroyed with a single kill & counting as a 6 strong BG will definately make the Swede cavalry stronger.

Three · Post by **Three** » Tue Jun 21, 2011 10:22 pm

Lighthorseman wrote:
nickdives wrote:Good attitude, of course it will slow him down quite a bit!
Under the rules having the commanded shot deployed with the horse makes the Swede Cavalry equal to the Imperialist Cuirassiers. The Swedish player already accepts the movement of 4 compared to 5 as a worthwhile hinderance to make the troops stronger. As well not all the Horse BGs have commanded shot attached.

But under my suggestion having all bases supported & even more importantly not having the shot destroyed with a single kill & counting as a 6 strong BG will definately make the Swede cavalry stronger.

I was under the impression that the DH moved at 3 inches, same as the MF commanded shot, to make this work ? Have I been doing this wrong?

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 6:50 am

I was under the impression that the DH moved at 3 inches, same as the MF commanded shot, to make this work ? Have I been doing this wrong?

You are correct - Shot are MF and move at 3MU. Not sure where Lighthorseman gets 4MU from - maybe just a typo?

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 7:32 am

Lighthorseman wrote:But under my suggestion having all bases supported

You can have all bases supported using the current rules, by having commanded shot each side of the horse.

Lighthorseman · Post by **Lighthorseman** » Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:46 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Lighthorseman wrote:But under my suggestion having all bases supported
You can have all bases supported using the current rules, by having commanded shot each side of the horse.

That may be your intention. However, in practical terms it does not work.
Firstly it can not work if you are deployed in one rank. Only 2 bases would be supported out of the 4.
You are also limited to 8 bases of commanded shot. So you would need 6 bases of shot to give total support of 2 BGs of DH which also have to be deployed in 2 ranks. It may be ok in small games, generally we have more like 8 BGs of horse per side.

CS DH DH CS DH DH CS
CS DH DH CS DH DH CS

Personally I believe my setup has more benefits than disadvantages to re-enact historical battles.

DH CS DH
DH CS DH

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Fri Jun 24, 2011 6:52 am

Do let us know how you get on.

On paper it makes the Swedes better than the Imperialists, as the enemy horse will be on a minus vs the shot. And if you're ignoring the auto-break rules too....how can they be beaten?