Multiple Cavalry Melees - some observations

[Eckerslyke]

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.

I think that word sums it up - gamey. Our beloved HPS/JTS simulations lie on a continuum between real-life battle on one end, and very abstract games like Risk. I like to try to keep things up towards the real-life end, which means resisting 'gamey' effects.

A disciplined, formed cavalry unit would not normally break line to pursue fugitives from a melee in which they had not been directly involved unless they were ordered to. I don't think it would happen spontaneously. If it did, then the unit leader would find himself in trouble with his superiors. A squadron might behave differently.

Perhaps therein lies a solution, some kind of house rule for squadrons?

Suggestions welcome.!

(By the way, nice guys always seem to end up with Madagascar, not sure why).

[Eckerslyke]

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.

Thanks very much for your input - sorry about your head!

Good point about a pre-planned 'double-whammy'. One cavalry unit knocks them over, the other cavalry unit tramples them. Not possible unless multiple melee against the same unit (regardless of type) is set ON.

But to have one unit (the recipient of the attack) being required to withstand two successive attacks in the same phase? I still don't think that's realistic, and there is nothing to prevent the double-whammy being administered across two turns, though I grant you that there is a chance of recovery or escape by the target in that situation.

Could you suggest a practicable house rule which might make a double-whammy possible, without compromising realism?

As for the Cav v Skrs, there is already provision for overruns which do not count as melees, and those don't reduce the number of real melees a cavalry unit can mount.

[mfriedman421]

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'm sorry, but you are wrong about this.

Yes, cavalry can melee multiple times whether the rule is on or not. What the rule does is allow cavalry to melee the same unit, whether infantry or cavalry, more than once in the same turn. So say a column of infantry is caught in the open. With the rule on, cavalry can charge it and, providing it wins the initial melee and is still facing the unit afterwards, attack the same unit again. If the rule was off, the cavalry could only attack that infantry column once, win or lose, in the same turn. You could replace the infantry column with a squadron of cavalry. It does the same thing. With the rule off, the cavalry can only melee it once after its charge. If the rule is on, it could melee the squadron multiple times providing it wins and continues to face the unit.

The problem with playing with the rule off is that it diminishes the power of a charge. The cavalry unit might charge and win the initial melee, but then be left blocked by the defeated until and unable to continue its charge.

[Eckerslyke]

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'm sorry, but you are wrong about this.

Yes, cavalry can melee multiple times whether the rule is on or not. What the rule does is allow cavalry to melee the same unit, whether infantry or cavalry, more than once in the same turn. So say a column of infantry is caught in the open. With the rule on, cavalry can charge it and, providing it wins the initial melee and is still facing the unit afterwards, attack the same unit again. If the rule was off, the cavalry could only attack that infantry column once, win or lose, in the same turn. You could replace the infantry column with a squadron of cavalry. It does the same thing. With the rule off, the cavalry can only melee it once after its charge. If the rule is on, it could melee the squadron multiple times providing it wins and continues to face the unit.

Thanks for the correction. My initial entry in this thread only concerned itself with the rule's effect on cavalry, as attackers or defenders. It arose from two episodes in a recent battle where extremely unrealistic interactions were permitted by the effect of this rule. I had not witnessed anything like that involving infantry, and in fact I was not aware of that aspect of the rule's effect. So thanks for that additional information.

Just to correct something in your own correction, for the sake of precision, it is my understanding that a cavalry unit cannot actually initiate multiple melees, only a second melee if charging.

In light of another earlier comment about the 'double whammy', I accept that there is case for permitting a charging cavalry unit to have a second melee against the same target unit, or even for a different cavalry unit, possibly non-charging, to follow up.

However, having tried it out myself in light of your information, I am still able to melee repeatedly, with no apparent upper limit, against the same unit of infantry, just like I witnessed happening against cavalry (both mine and my opponents) in that battle.

The problem with playing with the rule off is that it diminishes the power of a charge. The cavalry unit might charge and win the initial melee, but then be left blocked by the defeated until and unable to continue its charge.

I agree that this would be undesirable. However, my experience so far in battling in this environment is that if a rule is amenable to being mis-applied, then that is going to happen sooner or later, however noble the reason for its original introduction. By mis-application in this case, I mean repeated meleeing, seven or eight times against the same unit which would not have happened in a real battle, and which goes beyond the amount of time which the target unit would have in that turn to defend itself and retreat.

Ideally, just as the number of melees a charging cavalry unit may initiate is limited to two, the rule as implemented in the engine should have an upper limit of times a unit may be melee'd against - after all, they only have ten minutes! It should not be unlimited. In the absence of that, then if the rule is to be set ON, a house rule of some kind could be framed which achieves a voluntary limit. To overcome the weakness of charge effects in the standard battle, without requiring units under attack to display superhuman powers of defense and movement.

Perhaps a gentlemen's agreement to have the rule set ON, but not to melee (with one or more friendly units) against the same enemy unit more than twice in the same turn? That would be commensurate with the cavalry's upper limit of two for initiating melee. There might still be extreme situations where a charge would be blocked unfairly as you described above, but they would be less likely to occur.

[Eckerslyke]

Now that the dust has settled and several points of view have been put forward, I think I am in a better position to suggest some viable house rules to my potential opponents who may not wish to dispense entirely with the Multiple Cavalry Melee rule.

So, here are some possible elements of a house rule which seem to make sense to me if the Multiple Cavalry Charge rule is set ON:

1. A charging cavalry unit may make one follow-up melee on the same unit (of any type).

(This recognizes that it is reasonable to expect a target unit to have to cope with continued pressure from a charging cavalry unit (which is entitled to have a second melee), whilst staying within a realistic amount of activity for a single phase. Without the rule set to ON, a second melee would not be possible against an infantry unit, which might lead to a charge being blocked unrealistically, with more momentum still in hand but with no means to use it.)

2. A cavalry unit which has already been the target of a melee may be melee'd again, up to an agreed limit.

(An upper limit would prevent the occurrence of an unrealistic number of melees which would take the target unit beyond the amount of activity which it could be expected to perform within a single phase. I would suggest that only one secondary melee be permitted.)

3. Any secondary melee can only be initiated by a squadron, not a formed unit.

(We are accustomed to the cavalry in this period being highly disciplined. I feel it is unrealistic that a formed cavalry unit would decide, on its own initiative, to charge and take advantage of a situation which had only just developed during the current phase as a result of the unexpected appearance of a fugitive enemy cavalry unit within a hex which the attacking unit could reach.

A squadron, however, could feel more justified in grabbing any opportunity which may arise, since the implication is that the nature of the squadron gives it more autonomy to make spur-of-the-moment decisions.

Question - Is there any justification for extending the right of secondary melee to formed cossack units? Were they less disciplined than other types of cavalry?)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks to everyone who came forward with ideas, clarifications and corrections which brought me to this point in my understanding, especially KG_RangerBooBoo and mfriedman421.
Disliking the rule as it stood, I faced the prospect of not being able to entice anyone out onto the battlefield unless I gave in to something which simply did not make sense to me as a realistic way of conducting cavalry melees. As a result of the immensely helpful input I received, I feel I can now be a bit more flexible during the pre-battle negotiations over optional rules.

[BigDuke66]

Would a static limit be the solution?
I guess that depends more on the situation, the old hassle because we don't use some kind of "action points" to limit what a unit can do in each turn/phase.
If they move up to the target unit and than attack this limit might be OK but if they are more or less on-top of the enemy they could surely do more in a 10 minute turn especially when the target units is practically fleeing from the cavalry.


There are already limits on Cossacks regarding their charges.
"In the case of Cossack Cavalry units, the defending units must contain at
least one Skirmisher unit, Routed unit, or Artillery unit."
But yes maybe they should be limited like others as they often seems to have went over to looting after an successful overrun.

[Eckerslyke]

Good point - our chosen medium for battle does not use a pure 'action point' metric for what a unit may or may not do during a phase. But in the JTS wargaming environment, charging cavalry, however far they must travel before making contact, still may melee a first time, then move (up to) a further two hexes before meleeing a second time.

I am comfortable with the idea that a cavalry unit which has already had to charge its full movement distance before engaging the enemy would experience a sufficiently strong adrenalin rush that once the fighting began, there would be no stopping them (even perhaps commands to withdraw from their own officers) until they were physically incapable of moving further. For me, two more hexes and one more melee after an initial melee is a realistic allowance for a charging cavalry unit.

(Reality check - I cannot ride a horse or wield a sabre. The extent of my equine experience is riding donkeys on Blackpool beach, some 60 years ago.

http://www.attractionsblackpool.co.uk/Bl...onkeys.htm

I was too young to have a sabre at the time, but I did have "a stick with an 'orses 'ead 'andle, the best that Woolworths could sell."

(A cultural reference for the cognoscenti!)
)

Once again, I sense that we are being distracted into regarding 'Multiple Cavalry Melees' as having an effect on the attackers. It does not. It only affects the number of melees a cavalry unit (or an infantry unit being charged and melee'd) may be expected to have to face during one turn.

So if we explicitly identify one target unit and consider the effect on that unit (regardless of type), then a static limit may not actually be such a bad idea. A target unit whose attackers were nearby (or even adjacent) when the melee began, might expect to have to face an attack from fresher, less fatigued assailants. On the other hand, however, a charging cavalry unit which was required to travel further before engaging might have the advantage of having built up a 'head of steam' when contact was made, which might go a long way to making the two types of encounter broadly equivalent in terms of their effect on the target.

I am conscious that some battlers do not like house rules very much, so I hesitate to suggest complex formulae based on how far a cavalry unit has travelled when they make contact. While it might make the battling more historically accurate, it would be unwieldy and would detract from the fun of battling while at the same time leading to disagreement and discord between members.

I would be comfortable negotiating an upper limit to the number of melees a unit might have to endure in one phase. The number finally agreed upon would probably be based on each opponent's battle experience and style, so would not be entirely unrealistic.

Turning to the other point you raised, and the section of the manual you quoted, the cossacks have different constraints on the way they may benefit from charging, and I inferred from this that they either (1) are less disciplined in being able to resist seizing an opportunity to take advantage of a target unit which is in flight, or (2) have a much stronger 'tribal' affinity due to being drawn from communities having common roots (in the same way that the 'Pals' units were put together one hundred years later).

http://www.pals.org.uk/pals_e.htm

The 'Pals' units were sometimes drawn from a particular locality, (as, judging by their names, were the cossack units), or in some cases were manned by employees from a certain industry.

This would tend to lead to a very high (possibly suicidally high) level of morale, perhaps sufficient to bring them close to the level of 'berserkers'. The history of the Accrington Pals in the above link would suggest that this was indeed the case.

Might a formed cossack unit, possibly led by a local squire or head of a family, be tempted to break ranks from the other units and go for glory by pursuing what they perceived to be an easy victory, though it might actually be at best a mistake, at worst a trap?

So, might we expect formed cossack units to behave, in some respects, like squadrons, having a strong sense of their entitlement to independent thought and action?

I find it fascinating to speculate on the internal motivations of the troops, but it comes down, eventually, to how their individual or group psychology affected their conduct on the field. And how (and even whether) we need to conduct our wargaming differently to enhance the realism of our own experience in re-fighting these battles.