Kiels charging cavalry

[KateMicucci]

This has been bugging me for a while. I'm sure this must have actually happened a couple of times in history since it's in the game, but I haven't been able to find an account of it. What is the source the describes pike charges against cavalry?

Also some weird behavior from the AI at Dreux- kiels prefer to chase my cav around the map rather than advance towards my infantry, even though the Royal Swiss can easily route them in a single turn.

[TimW]

The Swiss were reputed to charge cavalry on occasion. In game terms I suspect the ability is there as much as anything to prevent a player blocking opposing kiels from moving simply by sticking some horse in the way that the pikes can't do a thing about.

As for the Swiss pursuing cavalry, well, they weren't there for love of France you know. The Swiss were in it for the money - "no silver, no Swiss". Why mess about trampling poorly paid financially skint infantry when there's a chance of catching routing horse? Horse wear armour that'll fetch a nice sum on Ebay and those gendarmes can pay a very welcome ransom.

More seriously, I agree that some of the pursuit rules do result in odd behaviour at times.

[KateMicucci]

I meant that they chase fresh, unbroken horse. It's actually a huge pain on Dreux to try and regroup my after the initial battle against the Catholic vanguard because there are so many kiels trying to charge them.

Where did you see the info about Swiss charging cavalry?

[shawkhan2]

Well, Morgarten is probably the most famous case of Swiss keils charging Fresh heavy cavalry, but there are various examples to be found.
1468, before the siege of Waldshut, and the case of 600 Swiss caught on an open plain, chasing 1000 cavalry off the field in 1498.

Usually the Swiss would meet a cavalry charge, then counter-attack, but at Morgarten, 1500 Swiss routed a huge Austrian army led by heavy cavalry by launching an all-out charge. Death or Glory comes to mind.

[fogman]

Well, Morgarten is probably the most famous case of Swiss keils charging Fresh heavy cavalry, but there are various examples to be found.

Morgarten occured in 1315, at least a century before there's such a thing as swiss pike squares... Not to mention that it was an ambush at a mountain pass.

1468, before the siege of Waldshut, and the case of 600 Swiss caught on an open plain, chasing 1000 cavalry off the field in 1498.

you got this detail from Oman: "formed a hedgehog, and drove off the enemy with ease and much jesting" (p. 86 in my copy). Oman actually didn't write this, he quoted a guy named Elgger. The quote does not imply the Swiss charged the cavalry. Even Oman, who was given to draw badly substantiated conclusions, was silent here.

I have researched extensively these battles involving the Swiss for scenarios in FoG: Grandson, Murten, Nancy, Seminara, Cerignola, Novarra, Marignano, Dreux, Moncontour, and I have not encountered this behaviour. The Swiss don't charge cavalry; they sometimes advanced in such huge, powerful formations that cavalry, unable to stop them after repeated (or not) charges, retreated.

[KateMicucci]

I agree, fogman, that those battles don't seem like examples of the kind of charge that happens in the game.

This might be a picture of pikes charging cavalry. Dornach, 1499. I can't find a detailed account of the battle though, so who knows if it's artistic license?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... orneck.jpg

[shawkhan2]

As I said, usually the Swiss would meet a charge then counterattack. It seems mere semantics to say they advanced rather than charged. Same difference, they attack, cavalry retreats.

If someone thinks they can actually catch cavalry, then of course you are probably right. It takes special circumstances to achieve that, the enemy's maneuver must be restricted in some way to allow the infantry to catch cavalry.

Keils or not, Morgarten is where the legend of Swiss invincibility began, with the pikes and halberds they were to use so effectively. They did not wait to be attacked first.

The game is not perfect, but it is the best depiction of this historical period that I have encountered.

IMnsHO, I think cavalry of all flavours could be allowed the chance to evade when attacked by infantry. But I did not design this game.

[fogman]

the game is great for the 17th century, faute de mieux; but poor for the early italian wars, mainly because infantry formations are treated as huge inflexible monoliths and the large amounts of light troops that can just dance around them the whole game with impunity: see the Marignano scenario. Generally, scenarios are treated as some sort of puzzle to solve, with poor historical behaviour as a result; there are commercial considerations obviously.

[shawkhan2]

Well, back in the day when I was associated with SSI, the late great boardgame company, we would often have some great discussions as to 'simulation' versus 'game'.
The perfect simulation would make a lousy cumbersome game.

It is an art to make a compromise between a game and a simulation that is also commercially viable.

I myself see some of the formations depicted here such as the early tercio being much too maneuverable, but I can live with it if I have to, I guess.

Just add keils 'charging' cavalry to the list.

[rbodleyscott]

In game terms I suspect the ability is there as much as anything to prevent a player blocking opposing kiels from moving simply by sticking some horse in the way that the pikes can't do a thing about.

This.

Cavalry were able to slow the advance of Swiss, but not stop it altogether. At some point the cavalry had to get out of the way or get piked (if the enemy stand still you don't have to actually charge them to advance close enough to pike them) and there are many examples of cavalry giving up and conceding (or even fleeing) the field - why should they do this if the Swiss could do nothing whatsoever to them?

Allowing the Swiss to charge cavalry in game represents this inexorable advance rather than them actually charging the cavalry. The cavalry can break off immediately. This represents the cavalry falling back in front of the inexorable Swiss advance with a few laggards or over-enthusiasts being piked. Of course, if the fall-back is blocked, worse ensues, which does not seem unreasonable - cavalry need space to operate effectively.

When full keils "charge" lancers, the POAs at "impact" are even apart from the quality adjustment. So lower quality pikes are in fact quite likely to lose the "impact" phase against good quality gendarmes, with potentially dire results, as are partial keils such as Early Tercios and Early Pike and Shot. The latter types are better off standing and shooting at the gendarmes, as they would historically. The Swiss will usually win or draw the "impact", but it is not guaranteed. (In the Tercio to Salvo period, when "charging" noble gendarmes the POAs are exactly even and Royal Swiss have a 12% chance of winning the combat, and a 12% chance of losing it. In the Italian Wars period the Swiss are on a net +25 POA, giving them a 20-21% chance of winning the combat and a 5-6% chance of losing it. Landsknechts are on -25 POA, giving them a 5-6% chance of winning, and a 20-21% chance of losing. French/Italian pikemen are on -75 POA, giving them a 3% chance of winning, and a 34-37% chance of losing).

[TheGrayMouser]

the game is great for the 17th century, faute de mieux; but poor for the early italian wars, mainly because infantry formations are treated as huge inflexible monoliths and the large amounts of light troops that can just dance around them the whole game with impunity: see the Marignano scenario. Generally, scenarios are treated as some sort of puzzle to solve, with poor historical behaviour as a result; there are commercial considerations obviously.

How flexible were they? When I read about various battles, the swiss generally fought in three or 4 formations, tops. I don't see to much evidence that Italian French or Landnecte infantry were fighting Maurician style. IMHO, any flexibility these units had was during the deployment, not on the fly during a battle. There are a host of "solutions" though:

*code light foot so they move same speed as other infantry
*make light foot mediums
*recode so light foot cant evade or have significantly higher chances to lose on the variable moves when evading
*incorporate (at least most) of the shot into the pike units
*any combo of the above.

Light foot, for a host of reasons, appear to be the hardest troops to portray in any game. If I was going to do it, I likely would use a bastardised version of the old GMT boardgames, where a heavy foot , on its turn, moving into a hex/grid contained by a light foot, the light foot would retreat 1 hex/grid if possible, it would maintain its facing and perhaps get off a shot... however, it would also roll to see if it drops a cohesion level... If the heavy unit again advances in the same turn, same effect but an additional mal modifier would apply to the LF's cohesion test... This would go on until the light cant retreat any further(runs out of move points, the attacker runs out, or the light routs, or the heavy forces the engagement etc) Theoretically, parking a LF in front of a Swiss column would likly result in a disordered or even fragged LF, even if the swiss couldn't force an engagement that turn. Of course the mechanic would have to be different for a LF charged by cavalry

[fogman]

swiss squares were not institutionalized formations like tercios. they were merely the coming together of various cantonal contingents in a big mass. Unlike tercios, there are no prescribed numbers, no prescribed training, no formal command structure but that agreed to among captains sometimes on the eve of battle -- no regimental professional organization in short. They can adapt : at Seminara they attacked in shallow lines because their numbers did not warrant a deep column; they can detach large bodies of troops as needed as at Murten when they outflanked the Burgundian forward defensive line by sending bodies of troops through the woods. And in passing, I cringe anytime I see two big tercios enter a wood and duke it out in there. Woods should be off limits.

the problem in game terms is that a big 2000 men swiss square cannot subdivide itself and so has no defense against a horde of light troops. in these situations, the enemy skirmishers would have been sent packing by the swiss detaching halberders. also, their light troop 'escort' cannot take refuge in the big square but are at the mercy of enemy cavalry. It seems the tactic in the early italian games is to clean up enemy light troops first and then shoot the defenseless monolithic squares to pieces. not historical in any way. I find FoG, because it is non formation based, to be more effective in simulating the Swiss battles.

the other aspect is that the Swiss either would occupy a central defensive position (as at Dreux) or made a bee line for the enemy main line (usually in fortified position, say Marignano) swatting aside enemy cavalry that tried to stop them. In the game, against the A.I. it is easy for the Swiss squares to be distracted and as if were, blown off course, by trying to pursue whoever. Of course in the game, the human player can also just have his weaker infantry flee around the battlefield with the swiss in pursuit....

personally i don't use light troops, they create more problems than they add to realism. Better to abstract them. the reason the games in the 17th century work better is because there are hardly any light troops.

Two recent works by Swiss military historians worth looking at when trying to understand the Swiss phenomenon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Novare-Derni%C3 ... e+victoire

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Morat-Lind%C3%A ... reit+morat

[simacole]

I think the way pike kiel's face off against cavalry is fine. There is a quite good balance. There is no doubt that the better pike armed troops could take the offensive against cavalry, normally by an ordered advance and stopping to meet the charge. In the unlikely event that the cavalry just stood there, rather than charging or retreating, I can even conceive of them advancing to contact. However pike charges into the flank of cavalry that are not frontally engaged or hemmed in seems to be pushing it a little. The ability of non-light cavalry to evade in these circumstances could probably do with some improvements. Also cavalry pursuing other cavalry getting caught in the flank and hammered by a pike block stretches the imagination too. I can't imagine this happening in a battle of the period, though I am willing to be convinced if anyone can give details of it actually occurring.

[jomni]

In my Japanese mod, where most units are pure melee, it was common for cavalry to just block infantry without really engaging as the infantry (warriors and medium foot) cannot engage the horses at will. It was a really awkward situation. So making some melee infantry units capable of attacking horses (with historically plausible reasons) may make the game more enjoyable.

Therefore, I have discussed with Richard to actually change some rules (in my mod) so that infantry can voluntarily engage cavalry. I will make warriors (not light foot) that are not equipped with range weapons capable of attacking cavalry at will. Rationale is that warriors do not adhere to strict formations and prefer to fight man-to-man. Easier to catch horses or ambush them. They are not like medium foot who are restricted to fight shoulder-to-shoulder which horses can easily evade.

[TheGrayMouser]

In my Japanese mod, where most units are pure melee, it was common for cavalry to just block infantry without really engaging as the infantry (warriors and medium foot) cannot engage the horses at will. It was a really awkward situation. So making some melee infantry units capable of attacking horses (with historically plausible reasons) may make the game more enjoyable.

Therefore, I have discussed with Richard to actually change some rules (in my mod) so that infantry can voluntarily engage cavalry. I will make warriors (not light foot) that are not equipped with range weapons capable of attacking cavalry at will. Rationale is that warriors do not adhere to strict formations and prefer to fight man-to-man. Easier to catch horses or ambush them. They are not like medium foot who are restricted to fight shoulder-to-shoulder which horses can easily evade.

Seems to be a good modification for both realism(relative to the mods period) and playability to me, look forward to it!

Funny, but FOGAM allows all infantry (except lights) to charge cavalry, and I dont recall a single thread or post in the last 6 years taking exception to that..