firing and cavalry attachment

[bahdahbum]

Infantry units firing at medium range loose 2 dice if there is any cavalry within 6 MU (,capable of charging, not wavering ... ) and if the target has some cavalry attachment .

Now we had the following case : and if firing at an infantry unit with cavalry attachment from the rear of that unit ? Should we cosider that the attachment plays it's role and the firing unit looses 2 dice or not has the cavalry attachment faces the wrong direction ?

So make it similar to a cavalry unit !

Terry ???

[deadtorius]

yes, the cav should still be in effect even if the enemy is to the rear. No reason to think that the target units commander is blind to a threat to his rear and would not deploy some of his cavalry back there as a screen.

[bahdahbum]

Could be the same for a cavalry unit but it is not ! If fired from the back, the cavalry unit has no effect on the number of dice .

And it should also be interesting to know what about a wavering unit with cavalry attachment has a wavering cavalry unit has no effect on dice

[deadtorius]

where does it say cavalry does not affect shooting from the rear? I know with the new ruling a cavalry unit can be blocked by friends from a different division but attached cavalry applies to its parent unit. I do agree that if the unit is wavering the cavalry is likely being kept close to home and not causing dice loss.

[Blathergut]

Something about 'able to charge?'

[deadtorius]

page 50 second bullet: "if the cavalry is an attachment to any infantry unit that is even partially the target of the firing unit."

So even if you have to split dice with one unit with cavalry attachment and one without you still lose dice, front back or side makes no difference to a unit that is targeted and has cavalry attached.

[deadtorius]

page 50 does not put any restrictions on cavalry affecting dice loss from any direction.

[Blathergut]

Page 50: EFFECTS OF ENEMY CAVALRY UNITS. Add an additional bullet point:
· If the enemy Cavalry unit is not Broken, Wavering or in Combat. In addition:
o The affected infantry are not entirely behind a line extending the cavalry's front, (i.e. cavalry
not facing the infantry have no effect).
o The cavalry (if it charged the firing infantry) would not have to pass through friends it could
not declare a charge through. (i.e. the cavalry must not be beyond units of its own side
who are of a different division, other than skirmishers or artillery).

(from errata 2014)

[Blathergut]

So I suppose the original question is asking about whether cavalry attachments should be treated the same way.

[deadtorius]

forgot that part of the errata
Thats one to put out to the authors, but one could suppose attachments and separate cavalry units should be treated similarly.

[Blathergut]

Let's treat them as the same unless Terry posts otherwise. It makes some sense.

[KendallB]

The errata rule states cavalry UNITS. A cavalry attachment is not a unit so the errata rules do not apply. Therefore the separate rules for cavalry attachment only apply. As such any unit firing on an infantry unit with a cavalry will lose dice no matter what direction the fire is coming from.

[bahdahbum]

I wonder what Terry has to say. There is a logic in considering the attachment as similar to a cavalry unit dedicated to one unit. But the rules say nothing about it .

[hazelbark]

I wonder what Terry has to say. There is a logic in considering the attachment as similar to a cavalry unit dedicated to one unit. But the rules say nothing about it .

I think you could argue a few different ways historically. In some historical OBs it is the remaining squadrons of a regiment. In others like Prussian it the attached Landwehr. With Russians it could be semi-roaming Cossacks.

[MikeHorah]

I wonder what Terry has to say. There is a logic in considering the attachment as similar to a cavalry unit dedicated to one unit. But the rules say nothing about it .

I think you could argue a few different ways historically. In some historical OBs it is the remaining squadrons of a regiment. In others like Prussian it the attached Landwehr. With Russians it could be semi-roaming Cossacks.

Looking at this from first principles again, which need to guide interpretation .


The precise location of an attachment to a unit ( our specified locations are for convenience and consistency not a statement of local tactical or historical practice) ought not to be not significant other than in terms of the facing of the overall unit for firing and other purposes.

So where they are located in the unit footprint will vary by army and circumstance and one needs to think of them as a capability as much as a formation. It is rather like light infantry in some armies ( eg Brit and Prussian) where we are not saying that 100% of the constituent Btns are light infantry but that at least one whole Btn is - ie much more than the attachment of a company of the 95th/60th or Prussian volunteer Jaegers although as I have opined elsewhere in these pages I do wonder if we have not over-egged the Light Infantry particular pudding just a tad?


Cavalry attachments were initially conceived of in terms of modelling the 1813 plus Prussian Brigade structure and deployment methods where diagrams showed batteries and cavalry sometimes split into half batteries and gun sections and squadrons, so wanting to the give players options of how to deploy cavalry.

And for example when you go back to the early 1790's the French distributed and dispersed much of their their cavalry ( which were pretty poor at that time ) among the infantry. And, as you infer, when we delved deeper into orders of battle we found many more examples, across different armies and times, of a small number of cavalry - numbered in squadrons - attached in this way to an infantry formation and not part of a brigade or equivalent of cavalry . Not always a doctrinal thing sometimes just out of necessity.

So it is a way of trying to model a capability and capturing that practice. That is the same with the other attachments - modelling a capability that was used differently at different times . But in our treatment maybe we might to have said ( with some exceptions) that the number of attachment bases of any type should be found within the overall maxima for those types in the main lists, adjusting the latter if needed?

[bahdahbum]

Hy Mike,

I do not really understand your answer . Where the cav is has really no importance . The question is , if when shot in the back a cavalry regiment or brigade does not reduce firing dice because no one can charge the firing unit, should not the same argument be used for cav attachment . Ok they are near the infantry units somewhere in the footprint of that unit; But a cavalry unit would also have some squadrons here and there ..so should the logic not be the same ?

[Blathergut]

I think Mike is just offering some insight into attachment thinking/design. He's leaving the rule answer to Terry.

[adonald]

Cavalry attachments were initially conceived of in terms of modelling the 1813 plus Prussian Brigade structure and deployment methods where diagrams showed batteries and cavalry sometimes split into half batteries and gun sections and squadrons, so wanting to the give players options of how to deploy cavalry.

I could tell where the 'idea' came from, but my research has found no reference to any useful use of this cavalry in battlefield conditions where they have reduced the firepower of skirmishing infantry. In fact, it was my understanding that cavalry squadrons had tried to clear skirmishers in early battles only to be shot out of their saddles, and to abandon the practice. For example, the British skirmish line was so thick that French infantry officers thought they were attacking formed line battalions, and reported 'breaking' the British 'first line' when in fact they had only driven in the skrimish screen, only to fatally run into the actual line. If a cavalry squadron rode up to that sort of screen it'd be blown out of its saddles in short order - and the screen would be unlikely to feel under any sort of threat.

If you think you've overegged the light infantry, you've bought an entire chicken farm annual egg production for the cavlary attachment process...

It was used for strategic purposes (such as the KGL hussars attached to the Light Divsion), not tactical battlefield purposes - unless someone can refer me to some reputable references...

Alastair

[terrys]

The rule on Wavering cavalry and cavalry not facing the firers is only for cavalry UNITS.
Cavalry attachments are always effective whatever the facing or cohesion state of the parent unit.

A cavalry attachment is considered to be at least squadron size and up to half a regiment.
Regardless of whether or not their parent formation is wavering, they will still provide support as a threat to enemy skirmishers.

I would agree however, that they're probably over-effective, particularly when more than 1 unit is involved.
I have ideas of how to solve this issue, but they may have to wait for a V2 if such a thing becomes feasible.

[KeefM]

One possibility for trying is that cavalry attachments only effect a single firing unit (the argument being that the single squadron in question needs to concentrate its efforts and probably lacks sufficient command/control anyway to be effectively haring off discouraging clouds of skirmishers originating from varied sources) ??