Multiple Cavalry Melees - some observations

[Eckerslyke]

(This forum entry draws on content from a previous entry by BigDuke66 on the topic of Optional Rules.)

I want to focus on one particular aspect of his original entry, and broaden it to include discussion of possible ways to achieve greater realism. So I have chosen to open a new topic here for this specific issue, rather than having it buried among unrelated replies in the original thread.

BigDuke66 discussed the special rule which permits a cavalry unit to be on the receiving end of multiple (and a theoretically unlimited number of) successive melees against it.

Since that original discussion took place, I have had an opportunity to test its effect under battle conditions.

I repeatedly meleed a small enemy cavalry unit, using a variety of my own units, eventually chivvying it across six hexes before finally exterminating it. Later in the same battle, my opponent did the same to one of my units, and it appeared to take eight melees, crossing seven hexes, to eliminate it completely, all in one turn.

These were not 'setups' intended to demonstrate an extreme example of the rule. These occurred under battle conditions, between genuine opponents.

I have to ask those members who have researched the topic of 'adversarial horsemanship', or have perhaps taken part in re-enactments: How realistic would it be for a cavalry unit to be driven, fighting all the way, a distance of 600 - 700 metres in a space of 10 minutes?

Even a unit in rout, if it still had the full movement allowance, would not have been able to move more than five clear hexes, even without having to fight off attackers as it went.

If I am right in thinking that those examples are unrealistic, then I have to conclude that the multiple cavalry melee rule has no place in any battle in which realism is desired.

So, without that rule in force, how can the shortcomings of the normal rules which BigDuke66 identified as justification for that rule, be mitigated?

Big Duke listed some concerns:

(begin quote)

1. Cavalry seems a bit too slow so using this rule would counter that a bit.
2. Cavalry has no way of going through between squares and so squares are a solid line even for cavalry, maybe with this rule these lines could be broken better.
3. Also the setup for a charge is hard as you can not even turn the units, if you do turn you have to wait for the next turn to conduct the charge.

(end quote)

Regarding point 1, if cavalry seems slow, then the slowness affects both sides equally. If the implementation of cavalry in the simulation really is slower than it should be, does the slowness change the outcome of clashes? In other words, would a style of battling which worked on a real battlefield be caused to fail in our virtual battles due to an incorrect simulation of cavalry mobility by the game designer?

Regarding point 2, I presume that Big Duke was referring to situations in which two squares are close together, having only one empty hex between them. In such a case, would the optional rule which permits a weak ZOC overcome this?

Regarding point 3, is the current way of charging as implemented in the 'post-Talonsoft' titles, with the restrictions mentioned, actually unrealistic? If it is realistic but irksome to the type of commander who tends to over-rely on cavalry as the 'sharp end' of his battlefield repertoire, then I don't think the use of an optional rule is justified to ameliorate that.

My own current position would be to avoid having this rule set on in any future battle in which I take part. Based on the apparent popularity of this rule among other members, I realize that I may find myself short of opponents as a result. I may be out of step with current thought on the topic, and being out of step in a military context is never a good thing to be.

But it is the realism that keeps me battling, and when that is not present, well, we may just as well get out the old box of Risk.