Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Bill Peter's requested that I make the following post pertaining to the Dragoon Unit Types in our games. Bill wrote as follows:

The addition of a combat bonus (gets a +15% combat bonus) to the D unit type - Dragoon, was introduced in the Campaign Bautzen game and all of the dragoons in that game (with some exceptions - read on) were rated as the D type.

Now that the Leipzig and Campaign 1814 updates are coming out (as well as Bautzen) I decided to add in the Dragoon type (type D) to those games as well. Thus those two games were brought up to coincide with the Bautzen game where it regards the Dragoon type of unit.

My intention here is not to allow for a mass dismounting of all of the nation's dragoons but to allow for a better combat bonus. Thus we now have a true "Medium Cavalry" type and the players will have to agree beforehand on whether they wish to dismount the units.

Since the units only have a Sword (S) weapon they will not be able to fire when dismounted and the only formation that dismounted cavalry can assume is Line formation. This pretty much should dissuade players from wanting to dismount the units anyway.

It will be up to the players as to whether they want to use the dismounted option. I just hope that you guys understand that the dismounting of cavalry in this period was not very successful. It would be similar to dismounting a WW2 tank crew from its AFV. Cavalry performed better on horseback and most of the major Napoleonic battles featured Dragoons mounted.

I also did not wish to give cavalry a firearm as otherwise you end up with a lot of mounted fire. As stated in the Notes.hlp file I believe that the mounted fire is built into the melee results. Folks can differ with me on this but I am adamant about not wanting players to use "Caracole tactics" with their dragoons.

The intention was to take and give the Dragoons a type that is Medium cavalry. Some Dragoon regiments (Guard units, the French Dragoons from
Spain) are still rated as Heavy cavalry (H) in the OBs. All of the Confederation of the Rhine dragoon regiments are rated as L type (Light cavalry). Folks may disagree with this but their role was mainly as light cavalry and not as battle cavalry.

I consider the Dragoon type (with the new combat bonus) a nice option so that while (that is D type) Dragoons are not rated as good on the battlefield (for the most part) as Cuirassiers but better than the Chasseurs.

For the years 1805-06 the French dragoons probably should be rated as D type. I would not rate them as H type even though they were part of the "Heavy" cavalry divisions. They were battle cavalry but not of the same caliber as the French cuirassiers. However, the Dragoons of Spain were mounted on very good mounts and their war record was such that I allowed them to remain as H type (Heavy) for the update. I did NOT downgrade them to D type.

For Jena and Austerlitz and the 1809 games - I am not sure if a future update will come out on those titles but if they do I will change all of the Dragoons to D type. No guarantees on this happening though ...

Note: throughout the 1813-14 games the French Dragoon regiments that served in Russia are rated as L type (Light) as their mounts were never replenished and they were not considered as good as the other French Dragoon regiments.

And as always if you differ on the ratings in the Napoleonic series make a copy of the order of battle file and change it. Various regiments within a type were better than others and the customer can always fine tune the order of battle to suit his own feelings on any particular unit as he or she wishes.

Don't agree...just an example:
"During the Polish campaign, dragoons routinely conducted dismounted operations. A typical example occured on December 24, 1806 when dragoons encountered a Russian rear guard in the act of setting fire to a bridge. They dismounted, drove off the Russian jagers protecting the bridge, put out the fire, and established a bridgehead.
The next day, General Jean Rapp, who commanded Davout's mounted advance guard, encountered a strong Russian rear guard defending a defile. Lacking infantry and artillery, Rapp ordered the 9th Dragoons to dismount and secure one end of the defile to hold this position until reinforcements arrived." (Arnold - "Crisis in the Snows" p 38)"
Fabio.

Do we have any account of engaging the dragons as infantry after 1806 during a major battle and not a skirmish?

_________________
Général David Guegan

3ème Régiment de Grenadiers - Bataillon d'élite du 3ème Légère
2ème Brigade
Grenadiers de la Réserve
Réserve
La Grande Armée
--------------------------
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step."
Napoléon Bonaparte

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

"Later that morning (20 January 1814) Sherbatov's Cossacks, as noted, left Chalaines, relieved by the Cossack regiment that formed the advance guard of Panchulitzev's dragoon division. Panchulitzev's troopers (of 3rd Dragoon Division) dismounted and maintained a lively skirmish with the French dragoons, likewise dismounted and positioned on the left bank behind abatis and barricades." (Leggiere - "The Fall of Napoleon" p 467) "
Capt. Fabio Fogato

Salute!

The idea of Dragons (!) fighting dismounted in a major battle as compared to a skirmish is not quite fair, either.

The Dragons were not needed to fight as infantry during a major battle necessarily.
There were regiments of line and light infantry specifically to be used for the purpose of such fighting.

The Dragons provided the ability for advance and rear guard forces to be able to cover sizable distances, which places them outside of the support of regular infantry units.

Which was the beauty of the Dragons!
Cover great distances, seize an important objective (or pin a discovered enemy force), and then fight like infantry until the regular infantry can arrive as support.

In these games specifically, the operational level scenarios (typically hundreds of turns and very large maps) provide a great use for just such type of Dragons.

Quite a few of the games come with updates that talk about Dragons being able to dismount, but I never really see that.

Perhaps it is something that can be done through using the scenario editors, which is beyond the ability of this Luddite.

Regards,

Todd,

I think we agree on that.
And I guess that if the designer gives a dismounting capability to the Dragons there will be needs to use them as dismounted only for small engagements. We have also to keep in mind that even dismounted they will be counted as cavalry for the losses which will force the player to be cautious.

_________________
Général David Guegan

3ème Régiment de Grenadiers - Bataillon d'élite du 3ème Légère
2ème Brigade
Grenadiers de la Réserve
Réserve
La Grande Armée
--------------------------
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step."
Napoléon Bonaparte

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

Hi David,

I revisited the Austerlitz scenario Wertingen as it includes Dragons that can dismount.
I noted the following (as it has been awhile since I played it):

The Dragons are armed with carbines (which have a firing range of 1 hex).
The Dragons can fire even when mounted.
The Dragons can melee infantry whether they are mounted or dismounted.
The Dragons can also charge and melee vs cavalry.

Seems like a perfect setup.

Although I don't believe use of such units should automatically be restricted to small engagements, the fact (as you pointed out) that they will be counted as VPs for cavalry losses and therefore more costly than regular infantry units, should serve to moderate their use.

Regards,

I agree with Todd's comments.

In 1806 the French lacked enough horses and used several regiments of Dragoons as infantry. You can see this simulated with the Foot Dragoon btns in the Jena title. I therefore think giving them a carbine for all units is sensible (after all they had one)

As for firing from the horse this did happen a little bit if you read the small unit actions but I suspect it was often very ineffective.

So generally I agree with Todd.

I think its also good to have this medium cavalry option and I really like how Bill has distinguished the subtle differences between the many regiments allowing some to be just light in some titles and some to be heavy.
I think this makes sense also.

_________________
Marechal Knox

Prince d'Austerlitz et Comte d'Argentan
Ordre national de la Légion d'honneur

"What is history but a fable agreed upon"