Check out the A to Z Campaigns of Napoleon After Action Report
Discussion between Mark McLaughlin and Andy Zartolas
Most of the CGC miniature players have played the A to Z Rules for the Campaigns of Napoleon written by Andy Z. Right now, cavalry can countercharge if charged, or if a charge passes within half a move of them and within their front facing, right. BUT, if infantry or artillery advance upon them, right
up to a little more than an inch, they just sitthere.
Infantry, and especially artillery, did not advance on cavalry in good order, let alone peel into line and loose a volley, or unlimber within spitting distance. They would have been ridden into the mud.
I propose that either one of two things:
(a) Cavalry in good order (i.e. not in disorder) may always roll morale to react to any enemy unit moving within half a move of its front arc (If successful, the cavalry may either charge or retire half move).
or
(b) A leader may use one of his command pips to place a die in front of a cavalry unit, thus giving it a "reaction" capability (so that it may do "a" above).
The later requires a leader to use up a command that might otherwise be spent on something more active, yet also allows a cavalry commander to react in an aggressive stance, something that cavalry was deployed to do.
(PS: To Andy, that was what I was trying to do when I moved my hussars to the top of the hill behind the village, to check your infantry advance. When you told me that the rules did not allow me to react, I pulled them back behind the hill (action during the Caldiero battle at Manchester). Regards, Mark)
The Cobra Replies,
The problem we have is that it is impossible to completely depict a situation when in fact these armies are moving entirely simultaneously, in a theoretical 1/2 hour time period, when we have to do it sequentially because it is in fact a game...in the situation you mentioned it does in fact look odd that you move a cavalry unit and then an infantry unit comes within range and shoots at you...what if in fact my unit had been moving when you moved and was there simultaneously as you rrived...having just traversed rough terrain and moved the full extent of your capability with no intention to charge, exactly what happened would have happened, your unit would have been shot up by the infantry...on June 18th, at Waterloo one of Milhaud's Cuirassier units had the misfortune of doing that exact thing and of being vollied by the Hannoverians, who then formed square as the Currassier recovered...all of which sequences are possible in our game...(unit moves up and fires at end of move, then gains initiative and forms square) look at the risk I was taking...
Sure I get to shoot at you, but what happens next turn if I don't get the initiative, you ride me into the mud just as you say would have happened...look at the end results of each sequence of events, not what happens within the scope of any one turn....I have never found instances of infantry in the Napoleonic period charging Cavalry and therefore we disallow it in all instances, however there are many examples of them being shot up and shot at....you do bring up a point of interest however...INSTEAD of moving a cavalry unit, with a one time expenditure of a command point, a cavalry unit could be put on a react order which would allow it to charge any unit that comes within half of its charge range(even if it is not charged) or to withdraw if so desired...the reaction status of cavalry could be indicated by a pip...but the belief that all cavalry, by being in formation, was instantaneously poised to sweep all before it at a moments notice, with hoofs and sabers flying just does not correspond with the actuality of the Napoleonic Battlefield where infantry, horse artillery, and skirmishers often did in fact approach within range and shoot at their enemy, in the smoke and confusion of Battle these units did not have the omniscience of todays tabletop General. I am suresometimes the offenders were charged as the Cav unit recovered and realized what was happening, and I'm sure in many instances they were suprised that this was happening because they didn't see it coming...
A "reaction" capability, or order, is a good idea and we will try it in our next game. It would count as that units action, it could be used in addition to a formation change, but not in instances where a unit had moved that turn...the reaction order as I envision it would be given to a formed up standing unit whose commander has just been informed to be particularly vigilant and aggressive towards his front...I also think the pip should remain until it is used, or until the unit moves...in other words, if you've been put on standby so to speak, you will remain in that condition until receiving a different order, it is a good addition.... Regards, Andy
Two Questions That Crop Up When Playing Napoleonics...
Many miniature players have played Napoleonics in one form or another. With the recent replayings of the Caldiero battle at the last two club meetings, two questions arose regarding the "A to Z Rules for the Campaigns of Napoleon" that caused a heated debate. Mark M. in turn emailed the game designer about the historical accuracy of the following,
1) After Melee, why are victorious units with regular and militia morale ratings forced to pass a Morale Check to hold the ground just won? (Phil S.: After melee both winning (except veteran and elite units) and losing units must undergo a MC, failure to pass the check can have serious adverse consequences, including elimination from play)
2) Why do column formations and overwhelming numbers on DEFENSE have no benefits in melee? (Phil S.: Column formations and overwhelming numbers help the attacker in melee only, counter-charging cavalry get the advantages for both attacker and defender)
The Cobra Replies,
It is interesting to note that the two questions you bring up were both modified from the original rules (during playtesting) on the basis of feedback I received while designing the game from Dr. David Chandler, eminent Napoleonic historian (and author), who I believe taught at Sandhurst for many years... Veteran or elite troops do not have to check morale when they are victorious in a melee, so the phenomenon which you observed, would never adversely effect them...this is due to their experience and training. However with green, militia and even trained troops(regulars) especially cavalry, one shot (melee) was often all they were good for in an afternoon...win draw or lose, they on occasion became an ineffective unit for several hours which in some cases might encompass the rest of the entire battle...
Concerning question number two, both in ancient and Napoleonic times, melees were brief and bloody shock combat affairs...numbers can often be of an advantage on the attack, but seldom are able to be utilized on the defensive when frontage becomes a problem...a smaller attacking unit will bore into a larger unit which will either repulse the attack outright or will recoil in mass...cascading away despite numbers...their are many examples of Lancers and elite hussars being used in this manner.
The reason numbers are effective against a smaller unit on defense is that those that don't contact immediately seem to have the momentum to run down some of the survivors of the attacked unit....it is interesting to note that John Manning and I came to the same conclusion in the "A to Z Rules for Ancient
Warfare" game where the defender's numbers matter not in the defense either for infantry or cavalry...the initiative lies with the attacker, we do however
allow an overlap on the second and subsequent turn to allow for the defenders stabilizing their lines and bringing more numbers to bear... in the ancient game a melee may easily last for several turns while in Napoleonics it is a rarity...in the ancients, a cohort will often attack and tie up a barbarian unit more
than twice its size....hope this answers your questions...see you on Sat... Andy
"This man Wellington is so stupid he does not know when he is beaten and goes on fighting."
Napoleon Bonaparte