PDA

View Full Version : Cavalry charges



dannybou
10 Nov 05, 21:26
In playing a PBEM scenario of Waterloo, I found myself with French cavalry approaching a bridge. Actually two bridges with Prussians on the other sides. I absolutely need to cross the bridges so I order the cavalry to charge and I realise that I can't!! I can't charge across the bridge and need to bring the infantry in to assault the crossing. I am wondering what the reasoning behind the impossibility to charge across the bridge is? The only thing I can think of is that the bridge is too small, but then the bridge wouldn't support 400 horses. I am a bit confused....

Gary McClellan
11 Nov 05, 00:24
Depending on the bridge, at most you could get 4-6 horses "width" on a charge, and then the first horse to fall in the process of charging would make a big obstacle for all the horses behind it.

Pretty much a turkey shoot for the infantry trying to defend the bridge at the far end.

At *minimum* you'd have to give the defenders the same benefit you get from being in square, but really, it's simpler and more realistic just to ban it.

Lucas Kling
11 Nov 05, 17:49
I would actually like to see a reduced effect of a charge rather than to deny it completely. A large reduce if so needed, but atleast not deny it completely.

dannybou
11 Nov 05, 21:50
Having the charge removed entirely leaves the door open for a scenario becoming unwinnable. In one of the Waterloo scenarios, everything hinges on crossing two bridges. All one has to to is park cavalry on the opposite bank of the river and it is near impossible to dislodge them. Even using artillery will cause fatigue, casualties but unless the result is a cavalry rout, then the attacking player is out of luck. Can't melee cavalry with infantry so the only other option is to melee with uncharging cavalry across a bridge. No need to say that that is pretty difficult to do.

rahamy
14 Nov 05, 09:02
Cavalry will not stand long against ranged fire from a formed infantry unit. The losses will mount quickly. And if you can get a couple of battalions in adjacent hexes, then an artillery battery or two there you will make horse soup in no time of the defenders. Have done it on multiple occasions.

As far as advancing across a bridge with cav...just move across and melee on the other side. You won't get the charge bonus, which is realistic, but it's not impossible for you to do either. And if they only have the flank hexes guarded, and not the end one (with weak ZOC's on) you can move off the next turn and compromise their position. I doubt if a cav unit would have historically tried to force a crossing of a bridge with infantry holding it though...
If still in doubt I'll be glad to play the scenario against you with me as the French to illustrate. :)

dannybou
14 Nov 05, 21:46
I've just started a campaign game and the same scenario is my first objective. I will try this and report back.

Sgt_Rock
25 Nov 05, 14:16
Cavalry will not stand long against ranged fire from a formed infantry unit. The losses will mount quickly. And if you can get a couple of battalions in adjacent hexes, then an artillery battery or two there you will make horse soup in no time of the defenders. Have done it on multiple occasions.

As far as advancing across a bridge with cav...just move across and melee on the other side. You won't get the charge bonus, which is realistic, but it's not impossible for you to do either. And if they only have the flank hexes guarded, and not the end one (with weak ZOC's on) you can move off the next turn and compromise their position. I doubt if a cav unit would have historically tried to force a crossing of a bridge with infantry holding it though...
If still in doubt I'll be glad to play the scenario against you with me as the French to illustrate. :)

I think what the guys are saying here Rich is that cavalry cannot be attacked by infantry in a dense area so all you have to do to deny the enemy the crossing site is put cavalry in the way. I just did a short test and the cavalry losses were reduced quite a bit by the village modifier.

Guys - what you need to do is just have a house rule you play by that says that cavalry cannot be used to deny an opponent a crossing site nor sit on a VP location on the last turn if the intention is to use the game engine to deny him the opportunity to take the location.

I think that players should play smart according to the era - if you have an opponent that wont play in the spirit of the game then dont play him. We cant change the game engine every time someone comes up with a way to defeat the system. Just use good old common sense.

In a playtest game I am in I am defending at a bridge crossing and my cavalry were packed off to stay out of the way. I would never use cavalry to stop an attacker. Getting across a bridge is hard as you can only bring one unit across at a time.

Here is one thing that some folks might do: bring a Light bn. across the bridge into the first hex on the other side, DONT FIRE or MELEE, break completely down into skirmishers and melee every infantry unit near them in order to disorder them.

This is another one of those things that some folks may think is cheap. Using skirmishers to disorder formed infantry. Again, that is up to the players. Some folks would say that skirmishers do better historically in a village than formed infantry. For me I wish that like Scott Bowden's Empire III-V that we had a GENERAL ORDER for all formed units in covered terrain. Woods, Village, etc.

One note: I have sat and fired on cavalry in playtest games and in some cases they make effective stoppers. The infantry can go LOW AMMO too. Really frustrating when you dont have cavalry. Thus keep a cav regt. or two handy when faced by other cavalry. That and some batteries usually does the trick.

Is anyone else besides me noting that formed infantry bns. seem to inflict more losses on skirmishers than skirmishers on formed infantry? Doesnt matter which game as the skirmisher always uses the same fire value as the formed unit. This for HPS games of course and not BG.