Cavalry v Infantry Frontages

[Alan Charlesworth]

As there is quite a bit of discretion allowed regarding the frontages of units I have noticed that this can throw up some anomalies when the width of infantry in line is compared with cavalry. Especialy as it seems that cavalry can deploy two figures deep effectively halving their frontage.

I hadn't been bothered by this too much as most of my games have been Napolenic and give the Must Form Square Rule it hasn't made much difference in practice.

However, recently I have been playing other periods and so infantry do get attacked by cavalry with an ensuing melee. Sometimes with two cavalry units onto one infantry unit due to the basing flexibility referred to above.

I was wondering what others have done in relation to this issue?

[grant]

I run my cavalry one model deep but wide, which as it turns out will match the frontage of the units.

[DeanMoto]

My cav are variously based, mostly 2 per 50X50mm square - single rank. Except for movement, hasn't seemed too much of an issue with the Napoleonic "must form square" rule for infantry - as you've noted. Oh, and so far, I've opted to use the general guidelines and don't allow my cavalry shooting dice. For the record, I usually keep my cavalry in Attack Column unless breaking into skirmish order for certain terrain. Best, Dean

[Alan Charlesworth]

All my Napoleonics are based so that a cavalry and infantry unit in line are exactly the same width for Standard units.

Although I always tend to run the cavalry as two deep which halves the frontage this makes little difference for Napoleonics as any infantry which are attacked will usually form square successfully and the cavalry bounce so the formation of the cavalry is irrelevant.

However, having played quite a bit of SYW recently with the LAOK ammendments it makes a big difference to how the game plays. Without the Must Form Square rule we were getting quite a lot of two on one cavalry v infantry combats which didn't feel right.

We have now decided that we will make the cavalry deploy in single line so that only one on one match ups are possible. That seems to give a more historical balance of outcomes. It also makes the cavalry units a little less nippy, which also seems right for this period.

We have a full scale refight of Kolin this weekend, so that will give the new ideas a good test.

I find the LAOK ammendments a bit odd in some respects. Column, which was used in the SYW is not allowed. Yet Mixed Formation, which was not, is. Also, LAOK covers around 90 years, yet the suggested ammendments do not seem to discriminate much between say the War of Spanish Succession and the SYW, when in fact warfare had changed significantly over that period. I am sure over time we will develop our own specific SYW period ammendments.

[Cubster]

Don't we run into the same business as with the 2 v 1, column v line debate? Inotherwords, that you've still got to bring the centrepoint of the two units together when in combat, thus the likelihood of squeezing two units onto one is very slim indeed?

I also remember a lot of whisker-shuddering at the notion of a player being so dishonourable as to artifically create such a dastardly, weaselly, beardy abuse of the rules and anyone found guilty in a court of his peers would be brutally radished.

[ady2650]

Don't we run into the same business as with the 2 v 1, column v line debate? Inotherwords, that you've still got to bring the centrepoint of the two units together when in combat, thus the likelihood of squeezing two units onto one is very slim indeed?

I also remember a lot of whisker-shuddering at the notion of a player being so dishonourable as to artifically create such a dastardly, weaselly, beardy abuse of the rules and anyone found guilty in a court of his peers would be brutally radished.

radished up real good such people should be

[Alan Charlesworth]

Don't we run into the same business as with the 2 v 1, column v line debate? Inotherwords, that you've still got to bring the centrepoint of the two units together when in combat, thus the likelihood of squeezing two units onto one is very slim indeed?

Isn't that Warmaster?

[Big Al]

Yes and no! Warmaster you have to bring the centre of a stand to the centre of an opposing stand and then arrange the other stands around it. Usually, it does end up centre of unit to centre of unit, but not always.

[Cubster]

Isn't that Warmaster?

Yeah, I probably remembered it wrong. I think the phrase is 'maximising contact' or somesuch.

[Alan Charlesworth]

Inotherwords, that you've still got to bring the centrepoint of the two units together when in combat, thus the likelihood of squeezing two units onto one is very slim indeed?

Well it may not be Warmaster - but it is definitely not BP either.

BPs rules are very clear on how contact happens and there are explanatory diagrams which show how it's done. It makes it very easy to get two onto one using recommended unit frontages. The only way to avoid it is with a house rule.