Shock Cavalry

[BrettPT]

It was noticable at Natcon that only 1 player fielded HC (the Russians, where they were compulsory). All other armies used shock and/or light cavalry.

In post game discussions, it was generally agreed that shock cavalry is the most cost-effective and best battle cavalry choice, with cheap LC fulling the support role.

One of the less appreciated, but significant, advantages of shock cavalry is that it doesn't need to CMT to charge when spent/disordered.
I think this makes shock (and Guard) cavalry a little too cost effective vis-a-vis HC.

Do we need this rule? Doing away with it would increase the demand for CPs and slightly reduce the utility of shock and guard cavalry.
It seems strange that big men on a big horses should be able to charge on blown mounts more easily than a smaller man on a smaller horse - if anything the reverse would seem more likely.

I may have mentioned it before, however I would prefer the 'free' charge for shock/guard be changed to superior troops. Make it elan, rather than weight, based. This may occaisionally also help Superior Infantry.

Alternatively the rule only apply only to disordered (not spent) shock cavalry (Guard cavalry have enough bonuses), or simply drop the rule altogether.

Thoughts?

Cheers
Brett

[Blathergut]

I find them expensive. I'd rather have 10pt hussars than 20pt cuirassiers.

[BrettPT]

Me too.

But how about 13 point Cuirassers?

Cheers
Brett

[Blathergut]

or...Italian Guard at 17...now those I take every time!! ...13pts I'd probably go for

[adonald]

Not sure if I agree with you, Brett.

Shock cavalry make their living by charging people and attempting to get into contact (or hoping the enemy will break before you get there). Non-shock heavy cavalry are dragoons, and they did spend their time firing from the saddle, usually quite ineffectually. There are instances in the Peninsula where French Dragoons chose to stand and fire their carbines at charging British cavalry, only to be contacted and routed.

However, it shows the difference thinking between shock cavalry and lighter cavalry, and their choice of tactics.

I though FoGN got it right with the use of shock cavalry. I don’t think it’s a function of whether they have blown horses or not (which is modelled by the ‘spent’ loss of a base) but their innate choice of what they would do. Ordinary dragoons need to be encouraged into a charge because they would be just as happy at popping away with their carbines. Shock heavy cavalry would just assume they are required to close with and destroy the enemy by contact.

I chose to bring shock heavy cavalry to the competition, and it was based on a need to get into contact within a set time period, knowing that my British infantry are too slow (even with the two 6 MU moves at the beginning of the game if I was the attacker. I couldn’t risk not being able to force the issue. They are more of a risk than the infantry in that they get spent, and could get routed in one bound (other than the Life Guards/Royal Horse Guard unit), but they do have the move to get around a flank and attack in concert. The British infantry can't as they move at unreformed speed (technically and historically quite incorrect in my view).

Are you a little fixated on trying to come up with ways to spend more CPs? I ask you as a friend...

Alastair Donald

[BrettPT]

Hi Al

In part yes, I think that small changes to stress the CP system are worth looking at.
However, this is a little different as any chnage in the free charge rule moving it to superiors would in part mitigate the CP stress aspect of this.

My thoughts are, that I don't see why blown cuirassiers should be able to charge without orders from higher up, while superior hussars cannot.

You are correct that there are many instances of cavalry receiving charges at the halt (usually to their detriment), although it was also not only dragoons and LC that utilised their carbines rather than their swords. I recollect reading of an instance in the latter stages Waterloo where French Cuirassiers ineffectually traded carbine shots with British cavalry, both sides declining to charge each other. Massed French Cuirassiers and Carabiniers at Alt Eglofshein fired a close range volley at assaulting Austrian Cuirassiers before drawing their swords and counter-charging (presumably at a walk or trot). In any case this is a slightly different thing in that it relates to repsoinding to a charge, while the 'free' charge deals with initiating charges.

At Wagram, I believe French Heavy and Guard Cavalry declined to charge in support of MacDonald (who was insisting they do so) without orders from their own commanders (which came too late to exploit a fleeting opportunity). Lepic refused an order for his Guard Cavalry to charge at Fuentes do Onoro for similar reasons. Dutch Carabiniers at Waterloo refused an order from Uxbridge to charge (according to Uxbridge but not, apparently, to the Dutch).

My point is that the decision to charge is based on orders, not on weight of man and horse or perceived role on the battlefield. Blown or poor-morale shock or guard cavalry may disobey an order to charge, as might light cavalry or dragoons.

Basically this discussion came up as a result of an observation by Kendall about all the shock cavalry his dragoons were having to face, and discussion on how to deal with Kit's uber-unit of Scots Greys (a large (impetuous) average drilled shock cavalry, which seemed pretty good value at only 12 points a base). This led to talk about how light, or shock (but less so heavy) cavalry was the way to go in FoGN.

Anyway, no biggie, and probably doesn't meet Terry's criteria for amendment as the rules in this aspect are not broken as such.

Cheers
Brett

[Scruff]

I chose to bring shock heavy cavalry to the competition, and it was based on a need to get into contact within a set time period, knowing that my British infantry are too slow (even with the two 6 MU moves at the beginning of the game if I was the attacker. I couldn’t risk not being able to force the issue. They are more of a risk than the infantry in that they get spent, and could get routed in one bound (other than the Life Guards/Royal Horse Guard unit), but they do have the move to get around a flank and attack in concert. The British infantry can't as they move at unreformed speed (technically and historically quite incorrect in my view).

Alastair Donald

Sorry for interrupting, something Alastair mentioned caught my attention, If Infantry are that slow, surely a slightly narrower table is needed to enable inf to have time to get to grips with each other enough to make a difference.

I have the rules but haven't had the chance to play em due to a move to Australia, but I like what I have read so hopefully in the near future they will get a crack.

cheers

[BrettPT]

No need to apologise Scruff, welcome.

It can be tricky to pull of big on-table flanking moves with unreformed (or conscript) troops. Our games typically last 5-8 turns and troops sent on a merry march around a flank often arrive just in time to see the centre of their army rout - this happened to me in one game over easter!

This probably has more to do with players agressively pushing for results in 3-4 hours game time than anything else - hence Al's strategy of chosing good mounted troops to give him rapid movement on the flanks.

Cheers
Brett

[KeefM]

I rather like the idea of a CP required CMT test for spent non-superior shock cavalry trying to charge . . . at adds in more CP pressure and provides superior troops a wee fillip.

Mind you, having said that, I don't think that there is too much of an issue of the tactical choices beween shock HC, LC and 'vanilla' HC wihtin the current points costs. Each have a tactical application. While certainly 'vanilla' HC wouldnt want to go head-to-head with shock HC, they would jump at the chance to do so with LC. Personally, for the same price, I would much rather take average veteran HC over average drilled shock HC any day. The extra dice for recovery, manoeuvre and CMTs to close are worth their wieght IMHO over two dice.

[adonald]

I recollect reading of an instance in the latter stages Waterloo where French Cuirassiers ineffectually traded carbine shots with British cavalry, both sides declining to charge each other.

You are correct, this was reported, at the end of the battle the cavalry were so exhausted that they didn't charge, but shot at each other (the Scots Greys notably being one unit doing that). However, I would suggest that these units would be modelled as 'broken' in FoGN at this level of disruption/effectiveness and would be off the table, having no further effective impact on the game.

At Wagram, I believe French Heavy and Guard Cavalry declined to charge in support of MacDonald (who was insisting they do so) without orders from their own commanders (which came too late to exploit a fleeting opportunity). Lepic refused an order for his Guard Cavalry to charge at Fuentes do Onoro for similar reasons.

Sadly, these examples probably refer to FoGN Superior cavalry in any event, which somewhat detracts their value as as examples to change the 'free' charge for shock/guard to superior troops instead

Alastair Donald

[BrettPT]

However, I would suggest that these units would be modelled as 'broken' in FoGN at this level of disruption/effectiveness and would be off the table, having no further effective impact on the game.

- Bags not be the one to tell the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards that their forebears were broken at Waterloo!

Sadly, these examples probably refer to FoGN Superior cavalry in any event, which somewhat detracts their value as as examples to change the 'free' charge for shock/guard to superior troops instead

True. Also these examples are probably already catered for under the rules. Presumably the French Guard cavalry was outside of command range of their commander in both examples, as they were waiting for the absent Bessieres to allocate them a CP before they would charge!

It remains accurate, IMO, that charges were generally initiated by order rather being inherent in a classification of cavalry - which makes this a worthwhile point for discussison. That said, it's fair to say that cavalry combat and interactions in FoGN (other than perhaps the impetuous rule..) are modelled very well and the authors have done a good job here.

Cheers
Brett

[deadtorius]

You are correct, this was reported, at the end of the battle the cavalry were so exhausted that they didn't charge, but shot at each other (the Scots Greys notably being one unit doing that). However, I would suggest that these units would be modelled as 'broken' in FoGN at this level of disruption/effectiveness and would be off the table, having no further effective impact on the game.

Personally sounds like two wavering units that don't want to/too tired to charge that were shooting at each other. To me Broken is running back to your capital not hanging about off table dueling with the enemy

[terrys]

You are correct, this was reported, at the end of the battle the cavalry were so exhausted that they didn't charge, but shot at each other (the Scots Greys notably being one unit doing that). However, I would suggest that these units would be modelled as 'broken' in FoGN at this level of disruption/effectiveness and would be off the table, having no further effective impact on the game.

I think Wavering' was the most likely state.