Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) :: View topic - Advancing on Cavalry

Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC) https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/

Advancing on Cavalry https://www.wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10448	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Bill Peters [ Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:56 am ]
Post subject:	Advancing on Cavalry
We all know (I hope we do ...) that cavalry will not get the charge bonus when attacking adjacent targets - they have to move one hex first before they get the bonus. So how many of you frown on your opponents moving up to cavalry to deny them the charge bonus in their next turn? I have to admit that I on occasion have done this to my opponent. I think I am going to stop doing it. Seems very gamey to me. Comments? Colonel Bill Peters Armee du Rhin - V Corps, Cavalerie du V Corps, 20Ã¨me lÃ©gÃ¨re Brigade de Cavalerie, 13Ã¨me Hussar Regiment HPS Napoleonic Scenario Designer (Eckmuhl, Wagram, Jena-Auerstaedt and ... more to come)

Author:	John Corbin [ Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:34 am ]
Post subject:
I have actually seen Infantry melee cav only to disorder the cava unit <center> </center> <center> [img]</center> <center>Monsieur le Marechal Baron John Corbin Commanding L'Armee du Rhin Grande Duc de Piave et Comte de Beauvais Commanding the Division de Cavalerie de la Moyenne Garde NWC President</center>

Author:	Al Amos [ Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:46 pm ]
Post subject:
Well it did happen historically. I believe the Russian Guard attacked some French cavalry with the bayonet at Borodino.

Author:	Michael Ellwood [ Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:
Yes Al the exception to the rule can always be found. However I totally agree it is a gamey action that is not normal. We have all done it if its not restricted as a house rule. Which I will always play with if the opponent agrees. In obstructed terrain definitely possible. In the open? 99% of the time the cav would see and have ample time to canter away (EVEN IF DISORDERED!) before the inf got to them. Take off the move reduction for disordered troops! Double the formation change time for them yes but take away the movement reduction please! That and allowing the increase effect (x5) for cavalry would go some way to getting past this tactic. The other option is to allow Cav Charges into adjacent hexes without the move requirement. I would be ok with that. Also use the option of not allowing inf to move adjeacent to good order cav in the open like skirmishers. Again I'd be ok with that. Col Mike Ellwood Konig Regt 1 Bde, 22 Div VII Saxon Corps, ADR

Author:	Colin Knox [ Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:30 pm ]
Post subject:
In my opinion cavalry is under powered in HPS. By a long way. A single sqd of currissers was suffice to cut an infantry btn to pieces if it was in the open and not in square or that other column formation sometimes used to repel cav. (forgotten name) Try 1sqd vs a btn in HPS you won't get far. As regards the gamey effect of moving up and firing I happily do it. It's just good tactics in a game of alternate moves and 15 mins between turns. Bill if you don't like it why not change the engine as Mike suggests? By the way John infantry cannot melee cavalry unless there is a battery unlimbered in the same hex or infantry. General de Brigade Knox Baron de l'Empire 2e Regiment Gardes d'Honneur (the regaled pheasants) La Jeune Garde CO. 1er Brigade, III Division Cavalerie Legere, III Corps Armee du Nord http://www.aspire.co.nz/colinknoxnwc.htm

Author:	Michael Ellwood [ Thu Aug 13, 2009 11:36 pm ]
Post subject:
I see no problem with inf melee attack on a hex containing both a Cav and a deployed Gun battery in it. That to me is a normal action of taking ground. If the cav do not charge they are obviously a unable to be a threat (or the inf surprised them) the inf would advance and the guns probably fall. remembering the guns and cassions/limbers would be obstructing terrain for Cav. Col Mike Ellwood Konig Regt 1 Bde, 22 Div VII Saxon Corps, ADR

Author:	Ed Blackburn [ Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:05 am ]
Post subject:
As always the devil is in the details, if the only reason you move adjacent to the cavalry is to deny the charge bonus then it's gamey. If you move a 600 man British batallion in line adjacent to 30 Fr. Hussars and blow the whole lot away with a volley that is not gamey. I will often advance a a whole line of formed batallions with squares and guns and my own cavalry behind it against unsupported enemy cavaly. The French used combined arms to break holes in the enemy line with guns and infantry and then charged through the holes with their cavalry. If a player sticks cavalry out in front of their line alone they can expect to be advanced out by formed infantry in mass if available. I think a house rule preventing any movement of infantry next to cavalry would be a non-starter for me. Major General Ed Blackburn Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA 3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

Author:	D.S. Walter [ Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:20 am ]
Post subject:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by zinkyusa</i> I think a house rule preventing any movement of infantry next to cavalry would be a non-starter for me. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> True. You can't move your cavalry in harm's way and expect that harm makes a detour around your precious horse. If you want your cavalry charge to develop undisturbed by such obstacles as infantry moving up to meet it, then you'll have to position your horse far enough away in the first place. Of course, if you intend to launch the charge from just outside musket range, well, then take your chances. Tough luck if it goes wrong. [}:)] <center> [url="http://home.arcor.de/dierk_walter/NWC/2nd_Dragoons.htm"][/url] Maj. Gen. D.S. "Green Horse" Walter ~ 2nd Dragoons (Royal Scots Greys) ~ 2nd (Union) Brigade, Anglo-Allied Cavalry Corps ---------- ~ 3rd (Prince of Wales's) Dragoon Guards ~ [url="http://www.geocities.com/militaireacademie/"][/url] </center>

Author:	Michael Ellwood [ Fri Aug 14, 2009 9:54 pm ]
Post subject:
Ed, yes I totally agree with you there. It goes back to the strength/effect of cav being at a level where you actually have to use that combined arms, or an <u>appropriately</u> overpowering force to be able to do it. At the moment I think the balance is not quite there. Hence the request to go back to the x5 factor for charging cav AND get rid of the movement reduction on disordered troops whilst keeping the increase on formation change cost when disordered. Col Mike Ellwood Konig Regt 1 Bde, 22 Div VII Saxon Corps, ADR

Author:	Ed Blackburn [ Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:41 am ]
Post subject:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Mike Ellwood</i> <br />Ed, yes I totally agree with you there. It goes back to the strength/effect of cav being at a level where you actually have to use that combined arms, or an <u>appropriately</u> overpowering force to be able to do it. At the moment I think the balance is not quite there. Hence the request to go back to the x5 factor for charging cav AND get rid of the movement reduction on disordered troops whilst keeping the increase on formation change cost when disordered. Col Mike Ellwood Konig Regt 1 Bde, 22 Div VII Saxon Corps, ADR <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote"> Don't necessarily disagree with you Mike in regards to the 5x charge bonus but I think that might completely unbalance Eckhmuhl and Wagram where there is already such a huge advantage to Fr. in cavalry. I think you suggestions on the movement costs bear serious consideration. Just my opinion of course.[;)] Major General Ed Blackburn Commanding Second Div, II Corps, AAA 3rd Bn / 1st Regiment of Foot Guards

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/