Napoleonic Cavalry vs. Infantry

[Juvenal]

Originally Posted by JaM

Juvenal: but that didnt started with ETW... even previous games were hollywoodish - just remember RTW and its "Gladiator"-like units...

...and MTW where Kings could slaughter entire units single-handed.

Indeed CA's battle system isn't accurate in RTW, although at least units fought in lines and had morale checks and fatigue.

The problem is that CA's battle system, founded on melee and 20-unit armies each with a single commander fighting in a small bare arena, just doesn't fit the Napoleonic period. Anyone who has studied a Napoleonic campaign or battle is going to be very disappointed by the lack of recognisable units (battalion/regiment/brigade), the lack of meaningful battlefield manoeuvre and the lack of chain-of-command. Throw in infantrymen fighting single combats and cavalry charging to contact and then fighting a melee while standing in line, and the whole thing could become laughable.

In ETW, the reason given (by Jack Lusted) for infantry not fighting shoulder-to-shoulder was that this would hamper the combat animations. I think this illustrates perfectly that historical accuracy is not the top priority for CA, they are making a game and they want it to look exciting and be easy to play, hence the single-combat animations, the tendency of units to fight almost to the death, and lack of an orders system.

I suppose it looks like I'm ranting here, but I'm not really. CA are perfectly entitled to make whatever game they think best, whereas I am part of a tiny minority of their potential customers who want a kind of battle simulator that helps me improve my understanding of the dynamics of Napoleonic warfare.

[GrinningManiac]

Another thing to bear in mind (not sure if this has been mentioned in the 7 pages of posts) is that the cavalry-infantry relationship in ETW is COMPLETLEY wrong from the start, anyway

Squares didn't neuter or buffer charges, they wre psychological tools that kept the men confident, and simaltaneously made the horses refuse and shy away, natural animal instincts telling them not to run at walls of sharp sticks

Cavalry wasn't "stopped" in these times, it was deterred or defeated. Infantry one-on-one with cavalry was useless, but they never were, so that's a useless argument as well

[Didz]

@JaM: Thats very true. I suppose the real difference is that it matters more now. Perhaps, it has something to do with how recent the historical period is thats being portrayed, or how popular it is. I'm just wondering what the reaction would be, for example, if Total WW2 was launched with a similar mix of fantasy units, inaccurate uniforms and vehicles, and adjusted weapons performance.

Do you think that would create even more discord?

@GrinningManiac: Yeah! I think that pretty much got done to death in the previous seven pages of post. Whether CA will get it right for NTW is another matter.

[Didz]

Originally Posted by meidaniarya

ETW just cant recreate the psychological impact of seeing a superior force charging at you and looking absolutely determined to take your position no matter the costs

It could...CA just choose not to implement their game that way.

Every unit in the game has a dynamic morale status which alters to reflect its tactical situation. You can see it being reported in game. e.g. steady, shaken, wavering, concerned about casualties, concerned about fightening unit nearby, under artillery fire, concerned at fire from astern, enemy behind flank, happy that flanks are secure, etc.

In fact, on the face of it CA have done a sterling job covering all the morale influences that might affect a unit in combat.

The problem seems to be in the implementation. Just like the diplomatic relationship factors, funny things seem to happen in the application of morale bonuses and penalties during battle. For example: I've seen units happy that their flanks are secure when clearly they aren't, and likewise I've seen solitary units claiming to be happy to have friends nearby.

So, there are problems with the system, but essentially the mechanism is in place and ready to be used to recreate the morale effects of a cavalry charge. Basically, all CA need to do is detect the presence of enemy cavalry within charge reach of an infantry unit, which is not prepared to receive it, and give that unit an instant and perpetual morale penalty until it either breaks, forms square or the cavalry go away.

Its really that simple, and it would work. In my games I know that if I wait until an infantry unit is reported as 'Shaken' and then charge it with cavalry, there is at least an 80% certainty that they will rout and I can slaughter them. So, if all infantry units (not in square) received an instant morale penalty equal to 'Shaken' when cavalry are within charge reach of them it would more or less solve the problem.

For example a rule something like:

'Infantry will be classed as 'Shaken', if they are not in square, or under suitable cover, and have a steady cavalry unit mounted on fresh or active horses, capable of reaching them, before they have time to complete a transition into square.'

The only defence in this situation would be to a) form square or b) run for cover c) inflict enough casualties on the cavalry to change their morale state to 'shaken' or 'wavering'. If the infantry can do either then the cavalry cannot rout the infantry and therefore will not close.

[Juvenal]

There were attempts made with the RTR mod for RTW to improve the characteristics of infantry-cavalry combat, the approach being to reduce cavalry melee stats while increasing charge bonus. The effect of this was that if the initial charge failed to rout the infantry, then the cavalry would themselves be unable to hold their own in melee after the charge bonus wore off.

This stopped the interminable cavalry-infantry melees, but I wasn't satisfied with the resulting dynamic of charge to contact followed by immediate pull-back repeated ad-infinitum.

I believe that what we need is for melee to be decisive but risky. Therefore cavalry should perhaps be given low charge and melee stats, but have the frighten-infantry attribute. Both infantry and cavalry should also have lower morale, so that melee is more likely to lead to one side or the other routing.

Provided that routers self-rally when out of danger, this might give a better battle dynamic. Oddly, one of the first things modders changed in RTW was to actually increase morale because battles often ended at first contact with one side or the other routing off the field. Luckily, routing behavior was improved in M2TW so that routers were much more likely to self-rally when out of immediate danger (which also casued complaint amongst players irritated that the enemy wouldn't stay routed!).

Of course lower morale could lead to too much routing under fire, it is a delicate balance.

[Didz]

The problem with what you describe as being attempted with the RTR mod, is that cavalry did not charge home unless the infantry were in a panic. The key skill of a cavalry officer in the Napoleonic era was to be able to judge when infantry would stand and when they wouldn't.

If it was obvious that the intimidation wasn't working and the infantry were going to stand their ground and fire into you a point blank range, then you didn't close but pulled back and started the whole process again. [As an aside, infantry should not fire on cavalry at ranges greater than 50 paces, if they do, they take an extra morale hit immediately for being faced by cavalry with empty muskets, and the cavalry get a morale bonus for tricking the infantry into firing too early.] What the RTR example does is put the cavalry into melee contact with unbroken infantry which is unfair on the cavalry and unrealistic as it means the cavalry have shot their bolt and wasted themselves.

This is the biggest problem with ETW at the moment. Cavalry do charge into squares and formed infantry and do stand around getting shot at close range, when in fact they should go no-where near a steady infantry unit capable of doing them harm.

My personal belief is that if NTW is going to stand any chance of meeting the game play standards expected for a Napoleonic period strategy game then melee's need to 'not happen'. No amount fiddling with the melee stats will acheive anything close to the Napoleonic tactic's used on the battlefield.

As for Self-rallying, what ought to happen is something very close to the ETW 'Rout' < 'Shattered' system. Routing troops should certainly rally if left to their own devices, but by pursuit and continued attrition they will eventually become 'Shattered' which means all command and control is lost and they will literally disperse. Likewise, rallying units should not all return to the colours, a percentage should simply keep running, so rallied units should not be as powerful as they were before.

[Juvenal]

Yes I agree that prolonged melee shouldn't occur. That is why I was musing about the effects of reducing both infantry and cavalry morale, while giving cavalry the frighten infantry attribute (if there is such a thing in ETW).

But what can't be achieved with modding is the desired either/or result... either infantry routs or cavalry breaks off their charge. That would need a change to the game engine.

[Didz]

Yes! unfortunately without proper modding tools its not possible to get into the rules used by the AI to govern unit behaviour, so we are stuck with whatever rubbish CA produce in that respect. However, I still think the right mechanic's are in place its just that they aren't being used properly.

Incidently, there obviously is a 'Break-off/abort' mechanism in the game, because (you probably noticed) prior patch 1.5 infantry had a behavioural rule that triggerred just such a movement as soon as you switched your artillery from roundshot to cannister. They would advance quite aggressively at your guns until you flicked the switch and then do a rapid about face and fall back to the edge of the cannister cone and wait there till you switched back to roundshot.

So, the mechanism is in their somewhere, it just needs to be implemented so that cavalry faced with steady infantry, fall-back beyond effective musketry range and wait for the infantry to waste their volley and start reloading.

[Randall Turner]

This "fall back" vs. steady infantry is only applicable to infantry in square formation, not infantry in line.

I disagree with a number of morale-only assertions in this thread w/regard to cavalry vs. line. First of all, the desired end result is to accurately model real-world events. Our Quatre Bras example is a good test case, in that the allies were rather blase about advancing in line when cavalry was in the area. I count at least five cases of cavalry routing infantry in line, and no cases of line standing against cavalry in the open. It sounds a lot like you guys are trying to say that if infantry passes a morale check vs. cavalry while in line, they have a good chance of winning by "standing off" the cavalry. That's simply not accurate if there is any discontinuity in the line, ie, a flank.

I also disagree that unrouted infantry in line would be able to hold their own against cavalry, and the assertion that the only effect of a square is morale. This is silly. Infantry depends on an unbroken line of bayonets discouraging cavalry from closing. If a line isn't continuous, ie, closed ala square or "infinite length" ala a battle length line, cavalry will swirl around and close on the unprotected side. When that happens, the cavalry will butcher the infantry.

By the Quatre Bras scenario - Any hand waving you guys come up with that results in something other than cavalry winning 97% of the time against an infantry line in the open, is flawed. (97% is from 50% failure chance * 5 regiments routing == 3.1% chance of standing.)

[JaM]

as mentioned before - Battle of Minden is an example, where Infantry in line faced and defeated French cavalry by concentrated fire - but of course, it is not example from Napoleonic era.

[Randall Turner]

Originally Posted by JaM

as mentioned before - Battle of Minden is an example, where Infantry in line faced and defeated French cavalry by concentrated fire - but of course, it is not example from Napoleonic era.

Nope. (did you read the preceding posts, JaM?)

Originally Posted by ASL Veteran

"Few were killed by gunshot wounds, but, with the exception of about 10 in every squadron, they were all torn from their horses, trampled to death, or had their limbs broken. "

Man, I had trouble quoting that excerpt. Follow the link to ASL's original post and read it, JaM. It wasn't the infantry fire that caused the charge to screw up.

[JaM]

yes, they fell from horses causing other lines to fall over them. ( i was mentioning the Minden in the begining of this thread btw..) - infantry doesnt need to kill cavalrymen, kill or wound horse is enough to make charge fail... i was mentioning it because it was concentrated fire that made those lines fall down, not some terrain or other things.

[Didz]

Originally Posted by Randall Turner

This "fall back" vs. steady infantry is only applicable to infantry in square formation, not infantry in line.

I disagree with a number of morale-only assertions in this thread w/regard to cavalry vs. line. First of all, the desired end result is to accurately model real-world events. Our Quatre Bras example is a good test case, in that the allies were rather blase about advancing in line when cavalry was in the area. I count at least five cases of cavalry routing infantry in line, and no cases of line standing against cavalry in the open. It sounds a lot like you guys are trying to say that if infantry passes a morale check vs. cavalry while in line, they have a good chance of winning by "standing off" the cavalry. That's simply not accurate if there is any discontinuity in the line, ie, a flank.

I also disagree that unrouted infantry in line would be able to hold their own against cavalry, and the assertion that the only effect of a square is morale. This is silly. Infantry depends on an unbroken line of bayonets discouraging cavalry from closing. If a line isn't continuous, ie, closed ala square or "infinite length" ala a battle length line, cavalry will swirl around and close on the unprotected side. When that happens, the cavalry will butcher the infantry.

By the Quatre Bras scenario - Any hand waving you guys come up with that results in something other than cavalry winning 97% of the time against an infantry line in the open, is flawed. (97% is from 50% failure chance * 5 regiments routing == 3.1% chance of standing.)

I think your getting a bit confused, becuase this thread isn't exactly very disciplined in its organisation of the information.

The biggest problem is that there is an evolution taking place somewhere between 1650 and 1800, which results in a change in the relationship between infantry and cavalry. I've tried to discuss the nature of this evolution and why it occurred and so far the only response I've got is that it didn't happen. e.g. That cavalry never took any notice of infantry, and rarely attacked them, so nothing about infantry or cavalry changed in the period from the medieval knight to Napoleonic cuirassier. So, presumably one morning the infantry wole up and decided to start forming square when attacked by cavalry, except that we donlt even know which morning that was, or which year it was in. One minute they were forming schiltron's and hedgehog's, then for some reason they decided not to bother, then they decided to form squares instead, for no apparent reason

Something happened though because as JaM has quite rightly pointed out British and German infantry in line defeated the cream of the French cavalry at Minden, and infantry in general during the early 18th Century routinely faced cavalry charges in line.

However for some reason, that was no longer considered viable by 1800, and infantry routinely tried to form square, or mass when threatended by cavalry during the Napoleonic Wars. They didn't always though and there is evidence of infantry facing and defeating cavalry in line during this period too.

Generally speaking the infantry that broke when caught in line did so because they were caught off guard and paniced.

Infantry that were steady and met the cavalry calmly with a controlled volley usually prevailed. The point is that only an stupid cavalry commander would give them that chance, when there is no need to do so.

Your arguement seems to be that a stupid cavalry commander would still win 97% of the time just because he is on a horse, and we know that isn't true. The cavalry commanders who succeeded were the ones that knew when and how and when to attack, and how best to create panic in their oppoents.

There are numerous examples of both scenario's, therefore, its reasonably easy to work out what factors affected the outcomes and they are essentially psychological in nature as I listed earlier. It would therefore be totally wrong to give the a dumb cavalry commander a 97% chance of success, because we know that historically he would be doomed to failure.

What we don't know, because we are told it didn't happen, is why infantry never felt the need to form square at battles like Minden, Blenhiem, Rossbach, and Lutzen, but did at Waterloo, or indeed, when infantry suddenly decided it was necessary to form square and why.

And of course we also know it wasn't just infantry who could defend themselves against cavalry without the need for a square, artillery batteries could also keep cavalry at bay if the cavalry were forced to attack them frontally.

[JaM]

yup, i think you hit the nail in the head - what was different? a pride of noblemen! - in 18.century noblemen considered themselves followers of medieval Knights - their pride obscured their minds so they often attacked into prepared positions like crazy - something like that was not so often in Napoleonic era, where lower officers were no longer nobleman, but ordinary men - they didnt considered maneuver to attack a flank a dishonored behavior - warfare was no longer an gentleman affair - thus, line was not enough because it could be outmaneuvered - only idiot would attack line straight on especially if he could just attack flanks due to speed advantage cavalry had (infantry in line formation couldnt perform any effective maneuvers) - THAT is why square was suddenly needed - warfare stopped to be gentleman sport (it never was anyway)


so YES, if at Minden French commander attacked that line at flanks, they would won the battle... but instead they went against hail of musket fire ,got stopped and lost the battle...

if you look at square vs line, same unit could bring 4x more muskets and bayonets at line formation than it could do with square....

[CBR]

Oh so I guess it is a surprise to some that Lord Orkney mentions French units being in battalion squares at Blenheim? And why am I looking at some pictures of how squares could be formed from a manual that dates back to the English Civil War?

Infantry could form squares in the 18th century too. They rarely needed it as much as during the Napoleonic Wars though, as armies no longer deployed in the symmetrical linear formations that was so typical of the 18th century.

That is what I wrote in post #55 in this thread and that is about it. If infantry does not have its flanks covered and/or have large gaps between the individual battalions, it would be wise to use square. Sometimes such squares were just battalions squares and sometimes up to divisional squares.

If one looks at how armies were organised and deployed it is hardly a big surprise if squares (or rather the smaller battalion squares) were not used as much as during the Napoleonic Wars. If you just want one book then "The Army of Frederick the Great" by Christopher Duffy would be a good pick.


CBR

[JaM]

depends what type of square it was - Spanish Tercios used square formation, so it was nothing new... but we are talking about hollow square formed specially to repel cavalry...

[Didz]

Originally Posted by CBR

Oh so I guess it is a surprise to some that Lord Orkney mentions French units being in battalion squares at Blenheim?

Well I'm prepared to be enlightened but all I can find at the moment is this:

Just after 17:00 all was ready along the Allied front. Marlborough’s two lines of cavalry had now moved to the front of the Duke’s line of battle, with the two supporting lines of infantry behind them. Mérode-Westerloo attempted to extricate some French infantry crowded in Blenheim, but Clérambault ordered the troops back into the village.

The French cavalry exerted themselves once more against the first line – Lumley's English and Scots on the Allied left, and Hompesch's Dutch and German squadrons on the Allied right.

Tallard's squadrons, lacking infantry support, were tired and ragged but managed to push the Allied first line back to their infantry support. With the battle still not won, Marlborough had to rebuke one of his cavalry officers who was attempting to leave the field – "Sir, you are under a mistake, the enemy lies that way … "[73]

Now, at the Duke’s command, the second Allied line under von Bulow and the Count of Ost-Friese was ordered forward, and, driving through the centre, the Allies finally put Tallard's tired horse to rout.

With their cavalry in headlong flight, the remaining nine French infantry battalions fought with desperate valour, trying to form square.[73] But it was futile. The French battalions were overwhelmed by Colonel Blood’s close-range artillery and platoon fire. Mérode-Westerloo later wrote – "[They] died to a man where they stood, stationed right out in the open plain – supported by nobody."[73]

The [French] foot remained in the best order I ever saw, till they were cut to pieces almost in rank and file. – Lord Orkney.[73]

Originally Posted by CBR

And why am I looking at some pictures of how squares could be formed from a manual that dates back to the English Civil War?

I think you'll find those are not squares, but stands or 'hedgehogs', or perhaps schiltrons if they are early images. The issue really is why they were deemed necessary then but not in the intervening period between the decline of the pike and the napoleonic era.

Originally Posted by CBR

If one looks at how armies were organised and deployed it is hardly a big surprise if squares (or rather the smaller battalion squares) were not used as much as during the Napoleonic Wars.

My understanding is that squares are used much more during the Napoleonic Wars, rather than less often.

Indeed by the end of the Napoleonic Wars it was considered almost standard practice to form some sort of square or mass to defend against cavalry. To the point where the mere threat of a cavalry presence could stagnate whole sections of the battlefield as the infantry formed into these formations.

We don't see that in the battles of 18th century, or if it happened, then it does not seem to be mentioned in the battle reports.

[CBR]

Originally Posted by JaM

depends what type of square it was - Spanish Tercios used square formation, so it was nothing new... but we are talking about hollow square formed specially to repel cavalry...

But what is the difference? The main point for squares was to have no open flank and rear. As described in "Imperial Bayonets" by Nafziger:

The 1812 regulation eliminates the hollow square formation in favor of a dense column formed from the Angriffscolonne. This formation is very closely related to the French "colonne serre" and the Austrian Bataillonsmasse

Then look at the figure below the text and you will note there is not much hollowness left in such formations.

Originally Posted by Didz

I think you'll find those are not squares, but stands or 'hedgehogs', or perhaps schiltrons if they are early images. The issue really is why they were deemed necessary then but not in the intervening period between the decline of the pike and the napoleonic era.

You can find Lord Orkney quoted in "Marlborough as military commander" By Chandler. And Lord Orkney's letters can be found The English Historical review volume XIX (1904) From epub on Googlebooks:

I went to the head of several esquadrons and got 'em to rally and form upon my right and left, and brought up four piece of cannon, and then charged both foot and horse. The horse were put to flight, but their foot remained in battallion quarre in the best order I ever saw, till they were cut to pieces almost in rank and file. The foot consisted of the three brigades of Bobeck, Bellisle, and Debuile

He also mentions a hollow square in a later campaign.

From "The military experience in the Age of Reason" by Duffy p216:

In the Napoleonic period the square was the classic formation which was adopted by foot soldiers against cavalry. In the Age of Reason, however, linear tactics were paramount, and the square was normally adopted only by isolated bodies of infantry, like the French units which so often had to fight for their lives against swarming Austrian hussars during the War of the Austrian Succession.

Then please note how armies generally deployed in that era. If they had the room, you will find army wide deployment in a long infantry line with most if not all cavalry on the wings. In the Napoleonic era it looks a lot more like, to use a more modern term, a series of independent battlegroups. A brigade would find itself with open flanks a lot more often.

My understanding is that squares are used much more during the Napoleonic Wars, rather than less often.

If my post was not clear then yes that is what I meant. Of course I don't think anyone has made a statistic for it, but I'm sure on average there was a higher occurrence of squares per x number of battalions compared to an Age of Reason battle.

CBR

[JaM]

thing is, in ETW we only have hollow square, which gives immediately after button is pressed morale and melee bonuses, even if square is not formed yet... that is hardly anyhow realistic... Do you wanna bet it will be the same in NTW?

[CBR]

Originally Posted by JaM

thing is, in ETW we only have hollow square, which gives immediately after button is pressed morale and melee bonuses, even if square is not formed yet... that is hardly anyhow realistic... Do you wanna bet it will be the same in NTW?

I'm sure that it will be the same in NTW. The Total War engine has IMO become a bit of a cliché as it is pretty much the same formula just with different graphics. If one likes the formula, then one should not get too focused on historical accuracy.


CBR