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.

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

Just to clarify the multiple cavalry melee rule allows cavalry to melee units that have already been meleed. That means you can melee/push any unit, infantry and cavalry. The multiple infantry melee rules allows infantry to do the same. To me the multiple cavalry melee rule makes sense as it allows cavalry to follow up on a unit that it just dislodged and to continue to do so for as long as it can keep up the momentum.

[Eckerslyke]

Just to clarify the multiple cavalry melee rule allows cavalry to melee units that have already been meleed. That means you can melee/push any unit, infantry and cavalry. The multiple infantry melee rules allows infantry to do the same. To me the multiple cavalry melee rule makes sense as it allows cavalry to follow up on a unit that it just dislodged and to continue to do so for as long as it can keep up the momentum.

Firstly, I don't think clarification is needed here, since the rule's effect is accurately described in my initial post.

The rule has no effect on the number of melees a cavalry unit may initiate. Charging cavalry may, in the right circumstances, follow through and melee a second unit up to three hexes beyond the original melee, whether the special rule is on or off. The special rule, as I understand it, only permits a cavalry unit to receive more than one melee against it per turn. And I have not yet seen any good reason put forward as to why a unit should receive more than one melee against it in one turn.

Secondly, the clarification you put forward is not accurate. The multiple cavalry melee rule does not permit you to 'melee/push any unit, infantry and cavalry'. It has no effect on infantry.

I feel there is a distinct misunderstanding of what the rule means. It has no effect whatsoever on the actions of any unit which is initiating a melee. Its sole purpose is to permit units which have been attacked in a melee to be attacked again in another melee in the same turn.

If your experience is different, in other words, if you have ever found yourself able to initiate (not receive!) more than one melee by non-charging cavalry or two melees by charging cavalry as a result of having this rule set to 'on', then I suspect we are playing different games!

Try it out and see if I'm wrong. Set the rule to 'on', and try to initiate more than one melee (or two, if charging). Post some screen shots here if you are able to do that.

[SnakeEyes]

Thoughts - gameplay must by it's nature be a compromise.

Cav v Cav .. this would be two groups hitting each other and then not moving forward very quickly as there would be a lot of individual fighting going on after initial contact. The attacked would if no more enemy in front would turn to fight those who had passed through and visa versa - No ?

Cav v Skirmishers .. The cavalry whether charging or not would move quicker than "normal". They would not stop for 1 on 1 combat but simply traverse the ground as a body slashing at and soldier that appeared in front of them. Then carry on at speedto the next. I imagine the horses hooves would cause as much damage as the swords. - No?

[agmoss99]

I have played games with this rule on and off. With it ON indeed I can chase a cavalry unit back a number of hexes and then follow up with a charge against what were deemed safe artillery and leaders units. So a bit gamey, yes but I see no 'real life' reason why a retreating/running unit could not be pursued as opportunity arises. Downside is you end up with a number of disordered cavalry units which in their turn become vulnerable, so it's not a tactic I employ on a regular basis.

[Eckerslyke]

Thoughts - gameplay must by it's nature be a compromise.

Cav v Cav .. this would be two groups hitting each other and then not moving forward very quickly as there would be a lot of individual fighting going on after initial contact. The attacked would if no more enemy in front would turn to fight those who had passed through and visa versa - No ?

Our style of battle, being virtual, has to be a compromise. I prefer not to make unnecessary compromises which make the experience less realistic.

For example, you correctly describe the encounter in a real battle as 'two groups hitting each other', simultaneously. But in our virtual 'Yougo-Igo' simulation, it has to be simplified down to one group hitting another. And the action has to be confined to what might be accomplished within a ten-minute phase.

There isn't any opportunity for the group on the receiving end to act in any way other than automatically, until it is the other commander's turn to move. If it is desired that they turn to fight the attacker, that has to be decided and the order given in the following turn.

I don't think your comment above gives any more reason to permit the attacked unit to be attacked again in the same turn, unless I'm missing the point of your comment.

You continue . . .

Cav v Skirmishers .. The cavalry whether charging or not would move quicker than "normal". They would not stop for 1 on 1 combat but simply traverse the ground as a body slashing at and soldier that appeared in front of them. Then carry on at speedto the next. I imagine the horses hooves would cause as much damage as the swords. - No?

Yes, that is probably an accurate description of what would occur, from the perspective of a cavalryman taking part in a charge. However, that behaviour is already implemented in the standard battle (without the special rule for multiple melees). Charging cavalry which successfully melees can continue and melee a second time, up to three hexes beyond the original target hex.

The rule about 'multiple cavalry melee' does not affect that ability. I am still opposed to its use. And my concern is that as long as the apparent misunderstanding about the effect of this rule continues, the pool of fellow members I can entice onto the field will be a small one!

[-72-]

This is an editable value in the PDT file:

Per the notes in REN (the MP engine is a close cousin of the NB engine) -

"Line: Cavalry charge continuation (multiple), default 4."

-now I am not sure if 4 is the default value or not but I would be willing to bet that it is, or rather you can take that to mean that I am not going to look it up just for the sake of this thread -but, the thing is - since it is a value in the pdt, it is possible to vary by scenario.

The other thing is - if you bother to play via phases (granted it takes longer) - you are not going to be doing any follow on melees -as you are only allowed to melee what it adjacent to your charging units... once out of contact -then units' charge movement is done.

[SnakeEyes]

It was thoughts, trying to understand the mechanics for myself as much as anything.

I did not mean the original defenders would become attackers. I meant that as the attackers passed through the defenders or the other way round because surely even if it was last minute the defenders would not be stationary ? So as individuals on both sides found that there were no enemy "immediately" to their front they would turn back into the fray and continue to fight. This would take up the whole 10 minutes. However, if the defenders decided (no order needed because it would be a reaction to the melee result) that they wanted to be elsewhere then the attackers would not just halt and wave them goodbye ?

However. If there were two lines of cavalry (moving forward or charging) 100 yds apart then as the first line went through the second would hit those left. But this cannot be simulated in game play because the losers of the first melee would retreat so it is dealt with by allowing a second melee.

My head hurts :-)

Ah! so do not need multiple melee when attacking skirmishers or weak infantry units that can be over run?

I would argue that Cav v Skirmishers should be treated differently to Cav v Formed infantry in that against skirmishers it would not need to be a formally announced "charge". Based on the fact that Cav have to be turned into the right direction in the turn prior to a formally announced "charge".

Again - My head hurts :-)

I am still learning so excuse my ignorance in parts.

[KG_RangerBooBoo]

Yes, clarification is needed here. The rule from the manual, "Select Multiple Cavalry Melees to allow cavalry units to melee attack units that have already been meleed against." No mention of receiving melee attacks there but making attacks. Just to be sure I tested it this morning. You can open up the Getting Started scenario from Austerlitz and select the rule. Move one of the Russian infantry battalions forward and melee attack the French infantry unit that is in range. Then use one stack of the cavalry to charge that same infantry unit and it will allow you to melee attack a unit that has already been melee attacked earlier. Now start it up again and make sure the rule is unselected. Again move and melee attack with one of the Russian infantry battalions. Select one of the cavalry stacks and charge that same French unit and try to melee attack. You'll get the following error message popup; Multiple Cavalry Melee Optional Rule not in Effect, and you won't be allowed to melee attack that unit again. The rule when turned on allows cavalry to melee attack units that have already been melee attacked in the turn. Set up the scenario again but with the rule off and charge with a cavalry unit against that same poor French unit first. You'll win the melee and move the infantry unit back. Try and melee again against that unit and you'll get that same error message. Do it again with the rule on and you can continue to push that infantry unit back as long as you keep winning and it stays in your charge arc.

[Eckerslyke]

Yes, clarification is needed here. The rule from the manual, "Select Multiple Cavalry Melees to allow cavalry units to melee attack units that have already been meleed against." No mention of receiving melee attacks there but making attacks. Just to be sure I tested it this morning. You can open up the Getting Started scenario from Austerlitz and select the rule. Move one of the Russian infantry battalions forward and melee attack the French infantry unit that is in range. Then use one stack of the cavalry to charge that same infantry unit and it will allow you to melee attack a unit that has already been melee attacked earlier. Now start it up again and make sure the rule is unselected. Again move and melee attack with one of the Russian infantry battalions. Select one of the cavalry stacks and charge that same French unit and try to melee attack. You'll get the following error message popup; Multiple Cavalry Melee Optional Rule not in Effect, and you won't be allowed to melee attack that unit again. The rule when turned on allows cavalry to melee attack units that have already been melee attacked in the turn. Set up the scenario again but with the rule off and charge with a cavalry unit against that same poor French unit first. You'll win the melee and move the infantry unit back. Try and melee again against that unit and you'll get that same error message. Do it again with the rule on and you can continue to push that infantry unit back as long as you keep winning and it stays in your charge arc.

This is not relevant to my initial post, which was exclusively concerned with the effect of permitting multiple cavalry melees against other cavalry. Infantry was not mentioned, and is not any concern to me because the impression I have is that most people don't have that rule set to ON. My concern is that a large number of the members seem to like the Multiple Cavalry Melee rule to be set ON, and the effect of that, in my view, significantly undermines the realism of the simulation.

If any clarification were needed, it might be by way of re-phrasing the line from the manual which I feel is the root of the misunderstanding. It is misleading. As you point out, it makes no mention of receiving multiple melees, and seems to suggest that the benefit accrues to the attacking cavalry. However, that is not the case. With the rule set to ON, the attacking cavalry's abilities remain unchanged in terms of how many melees they may initiate (two if charging, one otherwise). The only effect of the rule is to permit the attacking cavalry to select as its melee target another cavalry unit which has already been melee'd against.

I have been unable to discover any other effect of this rule, and in the two incidents I referred to in my initial post, the use of the MCM rule led to very unrealistic behaviour by the cavalry, which for me, detracts from the realism of the battle experience.

Can you achieve more than two melees by charging cavalry (or one, if not charging) against any target with this rule ON? I suspect not.

With the rule OFF, are you able to melee more than once (by the same or different cavalry units of your own) against the same cavalry unit? Again, I suspect not.