First World War Campaigns - Cavalry Charges

[BigDuke66]

Now having done some more scenarios I'm a bit worried about what a cavalry "charge"(meaning cavalry assaulting in travel mod) is able to achieve.
I had 2 incidents were I was able to use cavalry with a great impact but felt that it should not have gone this way.
1. I assaulted a town over a stream.
2. I assaulted over an river by using a heavy bridge.

In the first case I really see a problem that no terrain except hard targets(Bunkers, Redoubts, Forts) provides any safety or at least additional protection from a cavalry charge.
I'm not sure how exactly combat was conducted on a tactical scale at this time but I can't imaging that cavalry was any good when they were mounted and assaulted a town, I wonder if that ever happened in the first World War at all.

In the second case the rules allow for the very opposite effect of what infantry as to face when attacking over a bridge.
Infantry that assaults in travel mod has it's assault value lowered to 1/4, but cavalry that assaults in travel mod does that at 4 times their assault value.
Assault values for infantry and cavalry don't differ drastically so I'm close to it when I say that I could take 4 infantry battalions(each around 1000 men) and attack over a bridge it would basically have the same power as a normal assault with 1 infantry battalion, but I could take a single cavalry regiment(672 men) doing an assault over a bridge and it would end with the power similar to a normal 2688 men assault.


Are those 2 cases really true or do I miss something?

[ComradeP]

Both events are working as designed, though maybe not working as intended.

Terrain bonuses reduce the impact of incoming fire, they don't apply to assaults. There might be a hexside penalty for a stream, but there often isn't any. That's somewhat peculiar, but it's how the parameter data is setup.

As you already mentioned, cavalry effectiveness in T-mode is essentially the reverse of what applies to most units, as they're better in T-mode than when deployed.

It can be explained away by pointing to abstraction ("the charge catches the defenders by surprise"), but in reality it's just due to how the mechanics work.

The assault bonus only applying when no negative hexside penalties are present and/or when not assaulting across a bridge, combined with a parameter setting for how much of the assault bonus applies/if it can apply to a certain terrain type could fix both problems.

[BigDuke66]

In the Napoleonic series the charge already works the way that charging into obstructed terrain doesn't work.
Something like that could be handy here too, especially as in the Napoleonic the terrain has melee modifiers while here only the defense value of the unit matters(unless of course inside a hard target).
But again one may have to see in detail how combat was conducted, maybe not all terrain that provides cover should also disallow the cavalry charge.

[Volcano Man]

I don't see a problem here. Urban areas in FWWC already offer very little in the way of protection, and although there were some cases where infantry took positions in buildings, this was the exception and not the rule. Combat of the period was still more Napoleonic in that regard -- there was very little heavy urban warfare, the combatants often met and fought in the streets and only use the buildings as protection by hiding behind them. Entire infantry battalions didn't occupy buildings, at least not until late war AFAIK. Just read Rommel's "Attacks" to see an example of 1914 warfare in a village where the infantry basically fought in the streets, not house to house. I am not sure why they did this, but my guess is that it was a combination of what was "proper" and because command and control issues.

So, the fighting in the urban areas in 1914 is not the urban warfare you think of from WW2 and modern times. The cavalry would be charging down the streets while the infantry would mostly be fighting in the streets. This is why the urban terrain in FWWC provides so little defensive advantage compared to say PzC or MC series.

With cavalry in FWWC, at least in 1914, the penalty simply comes from built up terrain slowing them down. I mean the only possibly valid complaint would be that cavalry can effectively charge in the forests as well as they can in clear terrain, but this is not entirely true. Cavalry pay heavily for built up terrain, like forests, and if they do charge/assault then odds are that they will be stuck in the forest hex and vulnerable to return fire as they sit during the enemy's turn, because they cannot move very far. In clear terrain they can continue to charge and can retire, while in built up terrain they cannot get very far and suffer the full wrath of return fire as they get bogged down by terrain. Also mounted cavalry do not benefit from terrain advantage when they are fired at, so those cavalry that get stuck charging into a forest will indeed suffer 100% from enemy fire, they will not be protected by the forest/town/city etc.

All of these things are deemed to be sufficient game play mechanics for 1914 warfare, but obviously late war titles would likely have to introduce some penalty (although late war cavalry do change to be less arm blanche and more strategic reconnaissance / mounted infantry, so it likely corrects itself anyway -- we will figure that out once we get there). ;)

[BigDuke66]

Very enlightening post, thanks Ed.
That text would make itself very good in the notes for F'14.

But what about the bridge? Isn't what cavalry can do here the very opposite of that infantry has to face?

[Volcano Man]

Very enlightening post, thanks Ed.
That text would make itself very good in the notes for F'14.

But what about the bridge? Isn't what cavalry can do here the very opposite of that infantry has to face?

I am not sure I understand why anything would be wrong about the bridge situation. Cavalry charge across bridge at full strength because they are mounted, while infantry assault at reduced strength because T mode for them represents something else -- they are in march column. I see no issue there unless it is not behaving as I described.

[BigDuke66]

Well I understand it the way that forcing infantry to assault in travel mod is there to simulated the problems when trying to cross a bridge where the other side is occupied by the enemy who surely has something against the infantry crossing into their territory.
I doubt it's only to simulated their march from a road over the bridge to the other side, similar to a unit being forced to be in travel mod to use a road through terrain were the unit could not deploy.

And just like that I would expect the cavalry to have the same problem, instead of attacking in a brought formation it is forced to charge over a bridge that is rather narrow and slows it down, so they have the same problem just like infantry to cross the bridge under the weapons of the enemy and to form up for an attack on the other side.


If the cavalry would have for what ever reason the advantage to simply march over and form up on the other side I would also expect that the infantry could do the same and so there is no need for them to assault in travel mod.
Either both have the problem of crossing a bridge with the enemy holding against this or none of them have a problem at all.

It simply makes no sense to have assault power of the infantry quartered while that of cavalry is 4 times of their standard value.
Especially when it can be assumed that infantry could always used rafts or what ever to support their bridge crossing assault while cavalry is simply forced to use the bridge only.

[Volcano Man]

Well, say you have a bridge, and you put cavalry in a column to charge across it. While I understand the rationale that the entire unit is funneled into a small place, the cavalry still charge into the the enemy's LOCAL defense of the bridge, and (presumably) breakthrough those defenses (if they were successful in the initial charge). If they were not successful, then they will suffer heavy losses and will be shot down either way.

The way I look at it is that cavalry are simply fighting on horseback, they aren't necessarily making one single charge into the enemy's lines. So, they charge a confined place at the actual bridge, push through, then continue to charge and assault enemy elsewhere beyond the bridge itself. If you don't rationalize it this way, then you have just as many problems with cavalry assaulting down roads too.

As for the infantry, I guess I think it would be different issue with fast moving cavalry on the assault versus slow moving infantry, at least in regards with crossing a bridge, and lack of momentum, and the full unit of infantry pushing forward on the bridge like hoplite infantry. ;) It would be very difficult to take the bridge by storm. But I suppose I could see how someone could make an argument here. But quite honestly, sometimes you do need that hammer to smash across a bridge and while the cavalry might do that for you, you will likely loose them all in the process, so its not like this is some sort of golden bullet way to deal with bridge defenses.

In any case, that is not to say that none of this will improve, but for the time being I don't think it is vital. No one has mentioned this since F14 came out, so I am more inclined to handle it over time.

[BigDuke66]

Again insightful post, thanks.

I guess no one mentioned it because theses situations are very seldom.
It was just that in this Dinant scenario I have a lot cavalry on the German side with only 3 Jäger battalions as infantry but many possible crossings.
And it seems that only the infantry was used to take the Citadel and Dinant, so wondered a bit that I got away with using the cavalry to so much effect and even ended the scenario with a major victory.

BTW I found a small French source that notes some points of the battle, special is that it indicates more French infantry and even some artillery was used to take Dinant back. Also a cut of the Dinant area is there that may lead to an adjustment in the hexfield elevation.
From what I see in that source:
- City should be lowered to be on level with the opposite riverside(100m) and the old castle should be placed higher as it was 100m above the city likely close to 200m. See map for a cut of the area.
- French 8. RI seems missing, it looks like they were assisted by the 73 RI and attacked over the Meuse and retook the city and citadel.
- Also artillery seems missing, something from the 27e RAC and also from the 15e RAC seems to have fired before the French attack at 16.00.
Here the source:
5. Combat de Dinant (15 août 1914)

[Volcano Man]

Unfortunately it is what it is, I have to move on to the next game in the series -- the Dinant scenario represents the best information that I had available at the time. I may revisit it at some point (I will save this info), but for now it will have to remain as it is.