@ leatherneckGA. That link does not work for me.
It has been suggested to me on another forum that I get the below book and that the differences in the way cavalry charge and engage is much more different than nothing, especially with regard to the way the different weapons systems operate: Large Stabbing Sword, Curved Slashing Sword, Lance. Musket/Pistol... the rare dismounting of dragoons.
http://www.amazon.com/With-Musket-Canno ... 1885119275
Some of the outcomes from our discussions:
(i) Cavalry had specific roles for the most part (although some like dragoons were jacks) and were trained for them. Thus by virtue of the training more than physical differences they were better at those roles. One exception being that heavy cavalry being bigger had better ability to simply knock the enemy over (which they did by charging boot to boot keeping close formation and thus charging slower) and a second one being that light horses are simply more nimble on the turn (not speed) than heavies. The quality of the training was far more important than the physical difference. However there was therefore a difference that should be shown in Scourge of War Waterloo
(ii) Horses (cavalry) needed gaps in a line before they would even contact infantry. I am assuming with cav vs cav that the horses were not afraid.... except maybe in the case of seeing all the pointy sticks the lancers carried. Cavalry once again would not close with pointy sticks even to this day.
(iii) Cavalry will by extremely superior to the infantry (or disordered infantry) in a one on one duel with sword or musket. The cavalryman winning 9.5 times out of 10.
(iv) Breastplate heavies were no more effective in melee than non breast plated opponent cavalry but that the way they charge and the initial impact was what made them effective. Mortality rates were higher amongst the enemy because of the way the heavies stabbed.
(v) Lancers seem to be more effective killers than almost any other cavalry and yet were a tiny percentage of western cavalry. However once in melee it would have been hard for them to defend. Some say they are not really battle cavalry and certainly that cossacks were only good at destroying armies on the march.
There is a lot of argument about whether lancers were good at killing infantry or cavalry. Opinions usually very strong about one but not the other.
(vi) On their own against infantry, cavalry needed to create a gap through gunfire before closing or their horses would simply not finish a charge..... if the enemy had fixed bayonets (does the game allow you to fix bayonets or just assumes this is done?).
(vii) Some cavalry actions were actually simply that of one cavalry unit passing through another and galloping off with a few casualties as they passed through each other.
(viii) Lucky the game is completely moddable. The developers are being advised by there own experts because they admit there expertise lies with the ACW. It is good they are not blind about this. Moddable games though usually do not lend themselves to whole new mechanics and if cavalry act pretty much the same thats going to be hard to correct.
(ix) Cavalry should be able to fire their carbines and pistols in skirmish and the heavier cavalry and dragoons tended to have longer ranged weapons.
(x) Often Heavy Cavalry charged at a trot in close order and these options should be available in game for heavy cavalry but probably not light cavalry.
