How does the cavalry system work?

[Saddletank]

Remember lancers also carried a sword and were expected to drop the lance and draw swords after the initial contact. Some nations had the second rank of men in a lancer unit armed with swords only, or at least the men left their lances in camp and went into action sword-armed to make up for the very brief lack of combat ability the front rank may suffer when dropping their lances.

I'm pleased others agree with me that a cuirass did not really help a man in a cavalry melee due to the nature of mounted swordfight combats and where blows normally fell on the upper body. I also recall reading accounts at Waterloo where cuirassiers thrown from their horses struggled to get up off the ground and were bayonetted by infantry coming out of their ranks in the squares. If the target wore a cuirass where did these bayonet thrusts go? Answer - face, neck, arms, legs, armpits, etc - the same places sword cuts fell when the rider was mounted.

A lot of people forget that under every pretty cavalry hat was a steel skullcap. Thank you for mentioning that Destraex.

[Destraex]

It must be said though Saddletank that armoured cavalry would be no less effective and probably fairly well trained for the breastplate they wore and would probably cause fear in other cavalry?
If I had a breast and back plate as the french heavies did I would be pleased that other heavy cavalry could not simply stab me in the chest and hit my core early. I know you say this rarely happened due to the horse head sort of shielding the torso but I still would have taken heart

[Saddletank]

You're right. There's no doubting that cuirassiers of all armies that used them were some of their best-trained cavalry and the French more than most. They were superb horsemen and horses, at least until 1812 and in 1813-1814 still got what there was of the better horses and recruits.

I think of this as analogous with WWII tanks. Many wargamers like to discuss endlessly the stats of such-and-such a tank vs another, how the test data of AT guns means such-and-such a tank can be penetrated at what range. Almost all of this is irrelevant when you get into actual combat due to the infinite number of variables. A tank on its own is no use at all; like a cuirass. Its the crew (aka wearer) inside it that counts.

German Tiger tank crews were pretty well trained, led and motivated. So were French cuirassiers. Its these factors that make them formidable military units, not the Tiger tank or cuirass itself.

Consider this - the French cuirassiers were very good troops, for the most part. When an opposing army is beaten by them in battle it is natural for that nation (Prussia, Russia, Austria, whoever) to refuse to accept that their cavalry is worse - so they look for other reasons why their men lost and conveniently come up with the cuirass itself as the reason these cavalry were so formidable. I think if the French heavy cavalry didn't wear cuirasses but were simply "horse" regiments, they'd have been no less formidable troops.

[Xaver]

For cavalry a great part of their combat value is in the horse, when France suffer shortage of good horses his cavalry reduce efficiency a lot, only the superior tactics and training to use the tactics cover this and well, the bad status of allied cavalry helps to... english had the best horses but the less experienced and not specially well trained and commanded cavalry... the rest of continental cavalry suffer like french the horses problem but usually had more experienced troops maybe except Prusia that do a very strange thing and center in "med" and light cavalry and "landwer cavalry" somethign WTF :pinch:

Light and heavy cavalry... well, the "armor" had minimal impact at the point that at the ranges they fight in melee a pistol can pen the armor... in late war quality was less impresive than in first days and with bigger numbers of soldiers to equip you can find not full equiped units or with low quality armor.

Lanciers is other history... in Waterloo they use practically all the time lance, didnt discard it until was broken because can simple destroy with no effort allied cavalry... when Ponsoby was killed the lancer that do it deal with around 10 british cavalry guys and kill or routed them... maybe this is why in XIX century lanciers occupy the main body in cavalry arm... only the pure light survive and heavy more as "decorative" and less fighting.

Any way something true about cavalry is that when you use it you have a great chance to have a "single shot weapon" very powerfull but you need use it when is needed it can win a battle or simple waste a lot of resources for nothing.

[Destraex]

To answer my question though. Cavalry in SOW:W are all treated the same. Which is unfortunate because they really did have so many more ways of charging and operating than the generic random way this game will treat them.

But it is over all still better than most games I suppose. Just not the kind of full over haul of mechanics I was hoping for compared to SOW:G.

[Saddletank]

What I got from the dev teams answers here is that different cavalry types are not treated the same. Cuirassiers do have a bonus and I got the impression that there are different melee factors for different weapons (lance, sabre, straight sword). I presume light cavalry have a task to perform in the sandbox campaign that heavies do not and also presume they can skirmish.

[mitra76]

To answer my question though. Cavalry in SOW:W are all treated the same. Which is unfortunate because they really did have so many more ways of charging and operating than the generic random way this game will treat them.

But it is over all still better than most games I suppose. Just not the kind of full over haul of mechanics I was hoping for compared to SOW:G.

Permit me to disagree, it could exist many ways to charge (trot, in forager, gallop) some more used than others, but they were linked to the situation not to the cavalry type. Hussars of Napoleonic Wars were not the Hussars of Spanish Succession War, for training or for tactical use.

While light cavalry has a sure a different role out of battle as outpost, scouts, raids, pursuit, etc like described by De Brack in Light Cavalry Outposts, but in battle the use of cavalry of all the types is the same. Sure cuirasses (a late reintroduction also for the french) and big horses gave some advantage but is mainly a morale advantage.

It is good to remember the words of Ardant du Picq about the cavalry charge:

"
Cohesion and unity give force to the charge. Alignment is impossible at a fast gait where the most rapid pass the others. Only when the moral effect has been produced should the gait be increased to take advantage of it by falling upon an enemy already in disorder, in the act of fleeing. The cuirassiers charge at a trot. This calm steadiness frightens the enemy into an about face. Then they charge at his back, at a gallop.
They say that at Eckmühl, for every French cuirassier down, fourteen Austrians were struck in the back. Was it because they had no back-plate? It is evident that it was because they offered their backs to the blows.
Jomini speaks of charges at a trot against cavalry at a gallop. He cites Lasalle who used the trot and who, seeing cavalry approach at a gallop, would say: "There are lost men." Jomini insists on the effect of shock. The trot permits that compactness which the gallop breaks up. That may be true. But the effect is moral above all. A troop at the gallop sees a massed squadron coming towards it at a trot. It is surprised at first at such coolness. The material impulse of the gallop is superior; but there are no intervals, no gaps through which to penetrate the line in order to avoid the shock, the shock that overcomes men and horses. These men must be very resolute, as their close ranks do not permit them to escape by about facing. If they move at such a steady gait, it is because their resolution is also firm and they do not feel the need of running away, of diverting themselves by the unchecked speed of the unrestrained gallop, etc.
Galloping men do not reason these things out, but they know them instinctively. They understand that they have before them a moral impulse superior to theirs. They become uneasy, hesitate. Their hands instinctively turn their horses aside. There is no longer freedom in the attack at a gallop. Some go on to the end, but three-fourths have already tried to avoid the shock. There is complete disorder, demoralization, flight. Then begins the pursuit at a gallop by the men who attacked at the trot.

....

Because morale is not studied and because historical accounts are taken too literally, each epoch complains that cavalry forces are no longer seen charging and fighting with the sword, that too much prudence dictates running away instead of clashing with the enemy.
These plaints have been made ever since the Empire, both by the allies, and by us. But this has always been true. Man was never invulnerable. The charging gait has almost always been the trot. Man does not change. Even the combats of cavalry against cavalry today are deadlier than they were in the lamented days of chivalry.
The retreat of the infantry is always more difficult than that of the cavalry; the latter is simple. A cavalry repulsed and coming back in disorder is a foreseen, an ordinary happening; it is going to rally at a distance. It often reappears with advantage. One can almost say, in view of experience, that such is its rôle. An infantry that is repelled, especially if the action has been a hot one and the cavalry rushes in, is often disorganized for the rest of the day.
Even authors who tell you that two squadrons never collide, tell you continually: "The force of cavalry is in the shock." In the terror of the shock, Yes. In the shock, No! It lies only in determination. It is a mental and not a mechanical condition.
Never give officers and men of the cavalry mathematical demonstrations of the charge. They are good only to shake confidence. Mathematical reasoning shows a mutual collapse that never takes place. Show them the truth. Lasalle with his always victorious charge at a trot guarded against similar reasonings, which might have demonstrated to him mathematically that a charge of cuirassiers at a trot ought to be routed by a charge of hussars at a gallop. He simply told them: "Go resolutely and be sure that you will never find a daredevil determined enough to come to grips with you." It is necessary to be a daredevil in order to go to the end. The Frenchman is one above all. Because he is a good trooper in battle, when his commanders themselves are daredevils he is the best in Europe. (Note the days of the Empire, the remarks of Wellington, a good judge). If moreover, his leaders use a little head work, that never harms anything. The formula of the cavalry is R (Resolution) and R, and always R, and R is greater than all the MV squared in the world."

[mitra76]

I presume light cavalry have a task to perform in the sandbox campaign that heavies do not and also presume they can skirmish.

No not in this version, also if only cavalry brigades or divisions are split more frequently that infantry and are more rapid.

It is one of level of complexity to add in order to reach the final result. But before when possible I would like to improve the scouts role on the battlefield for the hunt them down, adding more feedbacks in courier. Like they are in GB they are useful only if you use all in sight setting. Somehow it could after been reused in the campaign.

It is one of must be of Alberto who did a good analysis of info possibles, but the time didn't permit to work on it.

[Gran Capitán]

Very nice read! :huh:

[Saddletank]

Great post Mitra. There is a lot that modern wargamers misunderstand about the Napoleonic battlefield.