Amendment - Light Infantry & Cavalry within 6MU

[BrettPT]

1. Problem
Small units of Light Infantry are too cost effective, and too effective on table. It is not uncommon at our club to see armies tabled where 30-50% of the infantry are LI, 50% LI is almost the norm for peninsula British armies.

The points rational seems to be:
a) A small unit of average drilled lIne, plus a skirmisher attachment is 48 points.
b) For the same points you can get a LI unit which has an extra dice, and can skirmish where neccessary
c) For veterans, you pay 4 points more for the LI unit, however the LI get 5 veteran dice as opposed to the Line's 3 veteran and 1 average dice.

d) With large units, the Line get 5 dice for 68 points (86 if veteran) and the lights get 6 dice for 72 points (96 for veterans) so there is slightly less of an issue with large units. However large units of LI are still cost effective compared to line, the only reason we don't see them much is because 1 extra dice is not worth the 50% points increase.

It is not only the points cost that favours LI use. I am finding that games are being largely decided based on cavalry fights, and medium range shooting. Apart from defensive fire at charging cavalry, close range shooting (and infantry combat for that matter) are generally only seen where one side is already disordered. Infantry engagements seem to be 'approach to 6 MU, shoot him disordered or wavering, then close to finish him'. I have no problem with this, however this dynamic does make LI highly effective as they throw out a lot of medium range shooting, can disorder the enemy before he disorders you, and can then (unlike artillery) close to finish him off. If things go bad, the LI can flick into skirmish formation to reduce incoming fire and escape enemy charges.

In order to try and win the medium range fight, players are also attempting to make sure that the enemy is always within 6MU of cavalry - even if the cavalry is not in a position to charge the enemy unit. A follow-on dynamic of the cavalry within 6MU rule is that rifle skirmisher attachments are much more cost effective than musket armed ones.

2. Simple Fix
Change the number of medium range shooting dice for small LI units from 5, to 4.
Page 49, Medium Range Table, change '5' to '4' for Small unit of Light Infantry.
probably also change the dice for Large LI units from '6' to '5'

On the cavalry within 6 MU issue, the -2 dice for having cavalry around could be reduced to -1 dice (thereby also restricting advantage of rifles to sniping off commanders). Alternatively leave the modifier at -2, but have it only apply if you are actually shooting at a cavalry unit, or alternatively again, only apply if you are in the frontal arc of an enemy cavalry unit.

3. Improvement
It is completely rational to upgrade as many Line units to Light at the moment. The above suggestions would equalise the points-per-dice balance between light and line, while LI would still retain their skirmish ability advantage. LI in the line would also be less decisive on the game as they could no longer expect to drop the enemy a cohesion level most times they shoot.

Changes to the 'cavalry within 6MU' rule would limit the circumference that each unit currently enjoys, being (including the width of the cavalry unit) about 15 inches for 15mm units.
If cavalry less frequently influenced infantry shooting, then the advantages of rifles would also be slightly less.

[hazelbark]

I think we have too much occuring here.

First the Cav 6 MU think which is tremendously annoying is also the solution for unreformed armies. I think the 15 MU frontage for one unit is a bit much. But I think this is necessary. You limit the cavalry and you just further increase the power of infantry.
I woud be ok if there was a slightly sharper definiation of within 6 MU. Like a line traced from an edge of the cavalry to any edge of the firer that does not pass through another unit or terrain that could slow the cavalry speed.

[hazelbark]

Second,
How many armies have the flexiblity you list? Just the inclusion of rifles and your other comments is this a pennisula english thing? Are you seeing it in french armies too?

I "think" I have noted a lack of interest in artillery units in your games. I note you aren't mentioning them here in describing the mid range fight. I would think artillery have a lot of firepower at that range. But manuver issues and maybe they are too vulnerable to infantry fire at medium range negate that.

[hazelbark]

If things go bad, the LI can flick into skirmish formation to reduce incoming fire and escape enemy charges.

While your dice solution may be simpler, another option on this point is don't allow a unit that is disordered (or instead perhaps within 6 MU) from changing into skirmish order.

[deadtorius]

Personally I use Austrians and without my cav about I get shot to pieces by french light infantry. Dropping their dice would be nice but the horses are the only thing keeping my unreformed troops alive. As for the disorder or waver before closing that is the only practical way to melee. We have tried to close against steady troops before but defensive fire and the attacker losing cohesion has made it standard to knock your target down a bit before you in.

[BrettPT]

As for the disorder or waver before closing that is the only practical way to melee.

Unless you can send 2 units into 1, I agree.
However I'm trying hard to find a way for my Austrian infantry to attack dispite their relative lack of skirmish ability.

In my last game I fielded early Austrians with a large block of Superior Drilled Hungarians and Superior Veteran Grenadiers. In order to get the best chance of winning initiative and being able to move rapidly, I forked out the 80 points for an Exceptional CC.

Rather than accepting the usual medium range exchange (which unreformed armies tend to lose) and then closing, I instead loaded up my superior infantry with CPs and rushed forward, with a view to inflicting a sledgehammer assault against Kendall's line of steady Prussian infantry.

Total failure I'm afraid. The assault units were broken - I only managed to inflcit a total of 3 cohesion losses to the Prussians during the entire game - so an easy 30:10 victory to Kendall.

So back to the drawing board. I will probably try this tactic again - next time with a a bit more care to dodge supporting enemy artillery, and with a few tweaks to my list...

[pugsville]

Use Light Infantry in Skirmish formation to 'mask' the guns, they'll generally outshoot the guns 5 dice versus 6 but needing 5's and the guns need 6's. They only have to hold up a litttle whie while the Infantry look to get in.

[KendallB]

Use Light Infantry in Skirmish formation to 'mask' the guns, they'll generally outshoot the guns 5 dice versus 6 but needing 5's and the guns need 6's. They only have to hold up a litttle whie while the Infantry look to get in.

Not easy when there was a large light cavalry unit lurking behind the guns that would reduce the Grenzers shooting and were itching to charge out and pound some dirty little skirmisher.

I had planned it that if Brett had pushed up his two skirmisher units to have a go at the guns I'd wait until the supporting line infantry got close then charge through the guns. The skirmishers would evade, hopefully putting a cohesion loss onto a supporting infantry. Then my cavalry would charge into the disordered supporting Austrian infantry chopping them into Wiener schnitzel.

[pugsville]

There you have it part of the attraction of this period is the tactical problems of combined arms, cavalry, artillery and infantry all have a different feel and texture, strengths and weaknesses, the challenge as a commander is work ing with these various components together to produce an advantage. Being Non Reformed army does present a challenged played a bit with some Austrian armies (campaign 1813) switching to Russians for the next (1814). But you do potentially have more units as unreformed are cheaper, meaning you must have something for the points.

Assaulting is often hard which adds to the challenge and why I really enjoying playing these rules, my first in the Napoleonic period.

[deadtorius]

In my last game I fielded early Austrians with a large block of Superior Drilled Hungarians and Superior Veteran Grenadiers. In order to get the best chance of winning initiative and being able to move rapidly, I forked out the 80 points for an Exceptional CC.

Rather than accepting the usual medium range exchange (which unreformed armies tend to lose) and then closing, I instead loaded up my superior infantry with CPs and rushed forward, with a view to inflicting a sledgehammer assault against Kendall's line of steady Prussian infantry.

Total failure I'm afraid. The assault units were broken - I only managed to inflcit a total of 3 cohesion losses to the Prussians during the entire game - so an easy 30:10 victory to Kendall.

So back to the drawing board.

Perhaps next time you should risk moving to within 2 MU and try to survive shooting exchange instead of just closing in and hoping for the best. still not likely to come out too good but what else can you do? Austrians are just not a medium range shooting army I am afraid. I have some Russians that some day will be joining the boys in white as allies, but until then its the slow lumbering white line of dead men walking....

[KendallB]

Brett was trying to move to 2MU. The problem was that I was loading up to 12 dice on some of his units each shooting phase.

No army can repel fire of that magnitude.

[deadtorius]

Been there, died like that. Austria's only hope is large units and poor rolls on the part of the artillery. My Austrians have a much larger loss column than in the win side, although I have won a few.

[hazelbark]

Brett was trying to move to 2MU. The problem was that I was loading up to 12 dice on some of his units each shooting phase.

No army can repel fire of that magnitude.

very true. This suggests you had multiple units concentrating fire on a single. At least 2 if not three units.

[KendallB]

That's the way I deployed, with the guns forward of the infantry. You need to have two guns working together to slow or halt an attack. I had three.

[terrys]

1. Problem
Small units of Light Infantry are too cost effective, and too effective on table. It is not uncommon at our club to see armies tabled where 30-50% of the infantry are LI, 50% LI is almost the norm for peninsula British armies.

>> The options for LI in British peninsular armies have been severely reduced. They may now only use 2 LI units or up to 3 if they use the ‘Light division’.
This ammendment will be in the E&E errata to be published this week.

The points rational seems to be:
a) A small unit of average drilled lIne, plus a skirmisher attachment is 48 points.
b) For the same points you can get a LI unit which has an extra dice, and can skirmish where necessary
c) For veterans, you pay 4 points more for the LI unit, however the LI get 5 veteran dice as opposed to the Line's 3 veteran and 1 average dice.

>> a) The numbers of light infantry are quite low, and most are limited to small units. A Large/Poor drilled line infantry unit is the same price as a small light infantry unit and has a higher chance of causing a disruption than the LI unit has (on each other).
>> b) Skirmishing is overrated. There are 4 factors to consider:
...... The ½ move in any direction is not allowed within 2MU of the enemy.
...... Changing to skirmish formation requires a CMT within 2MU of the enemy.
...... Close range firing with Skirmishers is a –POA.
...... They MUST evade if charged.
As soon as LI go disrupted you should close to 2MU.
>> c) Veteran LI aren’t that common, and only gain a small advantage in shooting over a drilled unit. They re-roll 1/4 of the dice that miss – which takes their likelihood of getting 2 hits up from 55% to 66% (for 25% extra cost). The ‘real’ advantage of a veteran unit over a drilled unit is their higher chance of recovery.

d) With large units, the Line get 5 dice for 68 points (86 if veteran) and the lights get 6 dice for 72 points (96 for veterans) so there is slightly less of an issue with large units. However large units of LI are still cost effective compared to line, the only reason we don't see them much is because 1 extra dice is not worth the 50% points increase.

>> As above – large LI units aren’t that common – most are limited to small units. For 96pts, I’d rather have 2 small units of veteran line. (which still gives me 6 veteran dice).

Page 49, Medium Range Table, change '5' to '4' for Small unit of Light Infantry.
probably also change the dice for Large LI units from '6' to '5'

>> This affects the ability of unreformed armies to gain any advantages at all at medium range. The overall effect I suspect would be to reduce the likelihood of getting an outcome in the time limit.
It's not often that one side has a significant advantage in LI. It's usually where they're used that gives players an advantage.

Changes to the 'cavalry within 6MU' rule would limit the circumference that each unit currently enjoys, being (including the width of the cavalry unit) about 15 inches for 15mm units.
If cavalry less frequently influenced infantry shooting, then the advantages of rifles would also be slightly less.

>> I’ve reduced the effect of cavalry a little already. There is nothing wrong with the rule – just the way that some players are now take advantage of it. I’ve got a few ideas that will help, but I’m still testing them.

[adonald]

The options for LI in British peninsular armies have been severely reduced. They may now only use 2 LI units or up to 3 if they use the ‘Light division’.
This ammendment will be in the E&E errata to be published this week.

Before you do that, consider the better solution to this by fixing the real problem of the Cazadores option in those lists. Just remove the Cazadore UNIT option from the Anglo-Portuguese lists and allow Portuguese Line to have Rifle attachments (cazadores) from the appropriate dates. Just as easy to fix and accurate.

In the lists up to 1812 the rifle attachment should be optional, beyond that at least one should be compulsory.

Alastair

[KendallB]

I don't mind the cavalry within 6MU rule, I just think the effect should be projected from the cavalry unit's front edge.

[hazelbark]

I don't mind the cavalry within 6MU rule, I just think the effect should be projected from the cavalry unit's front edge.

Or require a direct line of sight from front of cavalry to shooting unit that receives -2.

[adonald]

Catually, while you're 'fixing' the Anglo-Portuguese light infantry problem, you can also sort out the silliness around the Light Division rifles in permanent skirmish formation.

ie the Battle of Sabugal where the 1st Brigade of the Light Division (under the overall command of the mad Erskine) struck the flank of the French in the fog. Not something you can do in skirmish formation... Then there was Fuentes de Orono where the Light Division formed squares and covered the retreat of the overextended 7th Division - can't do that in skirmish either.

Then there was the siege of Ciudad Rodrigo where they stormed the Grand Teson Redoubt.

In the Pyrenees the Light Division brigades assaulted French ridgeline positions

At the Battle of the Nivelle the Light Division storming redoubts at the crest of the Rhune.

None likely with skrimishing troops. In fact, I don't think they are allowed to do any of that.

They should just be light infantry with rifles.

Alastair

[terrys]

Atually, while you're 'fixing' the Anglo-Portuguese light infantry problem, you can also sort out the silliness around the Light Division rifles in permanent skirmish formation.

Only the 95th must be in skirmish formaiton. The other regiments can be in tactical.
I'll not comment on seiges - since these are normally scenarios, and player can create their own modified rules for those.
As far as storming redoubts - the rifles would be much better at doing this in skirmish order than in tactical. They can move over rough or difficult terrain and fire at full effect. Properly supported by units firing at longer range they can move up to close range and break them with close range fire.
Assaulting the enemy doesn't always mean charging in close formation with bayonet attached. It often means moving up to close range and blasting them with musketry fire.

The point about the battle you name is that it was the light brigade that performed those actions - NOT the 95th on its own.

If troops armed with a Baker rifle wanted to engage in close combat, they would have to attack the sword bayonet, which then caused problems with firing their weapon. It was gernerally used as a last resort (or for chopping wood and digging holes). Our opinion is that the 95th, when operating with the light division was never in a position where they would have compromised their firing ability by attaching their sword-bayonet. Forcing them to be used only in skirmish formation is an outcome of that decision.
At Waterloo, the 95th did stand their ground against the French and so are permitted to operate in tactical as normal.
NB. Allowing the Cacadores to be represented as a seperate unit in the light division reflects their attachment to another battlion of light infantry, but gives them the 'rifle' capability. It does not mean that it is a unit entirely of cacadores, but rather a unit of half cacadores and half british light infantry....There is little benefit in giving a light infantry unit a rifle attachment since it cost 6pts more for the same effect.