typical French army of four corps
After a lot of consideration I think I may have
come up with an answer to uneven cavalry v infantry combats.
Previously the only infantry defence against
cavalry in my rules was to form square. Infantry caught in line or
column were very likely to be broken and routed. This resulted in
very static games when one side had cavalry superiority.
I want to be able to introduce larger cavalry
formations in my campaign. This would probably result in more uneven
wargames where one side had more cavalry than the other. I wanted
to make the cavalry less all powerful against larger bodies of infantry.
All combat in my rules are decided as one brigade
against another. The balance of cavalry to infantry within corps is
one to four. So one cavalry brigade could pin four infantry
brigades in square and thus dominate the game.
I do not want to change the structure of the
rules. I want to maintain the one brigade v one brigade
principle. After some consideration I have found a very
simple solution.
When one infantry brigade is charged by one
cavalry brigade the infantry will get plus one for each formed infantry brigade
within supporting distance (which is 4"). A corps advancing
with four infantry brigades in column of march will now be more than equal to a
single cavalry brigade. Should the cavalry charge one brigade, the
infantry will count plus three for the supporting brigades.
The infantry will, of course, be very vulnerable
to artillery fire. And also to enemy infantry lines.
Both of which is as it should be. But at least it will prevent one
cavalry brigade preventing a whole corps from advancing.
The revised rule can be read by following the
link below to my Napoleonic Wargame Rules and clicking on Rule 15 under Labels
on the right.
This seems to be a very neat and sensible solution to the problem you had with the rules 'as written'.
ReplyDeleteI hope that it works as well in practice as it would appear that it should.
All the best,
Bob
Hi Bob
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment
You are quite right to be cautious about how it will all work out in practice. All too often a rule amendment seems very clever at the theory phase, only to come badly unstuck once it is subjected to a little play testing!
regards
Paul