Cavalry

[Joshua l.Chamberlain]

Will the cavalry be less scidish in this game since buford held his ground like an infantry unit just with mobility. Since that was really the only major place cavalry was used at Gettysburg except I think for some stuff involving stuart on the last day.

[Jim]

Cavalry AI will be worked on. Bufords troops actually fought as light infantry as their horses were taken back to Cemetery Ridge, IIRC.

-Jim

[Joshua l.Chamberlain]

I did not know that they were cemetary ridge I just assumed that they were behind mcpherson's ridge with the wagons.

[JC Edwards]

I'm the big stickler for Cavalry....... so you can just about guarantee there will be improvements.

Most have already been implemented.......just need a little spit for the shine.

Norb and Jim both have been quite patient with my Ranting and Raving about having a more "forceful and tough" Cavalry all around and I believe most will be impressed.

[Gfran64]

JC,

This was one of my beefs with dismounted Cavalry: They get the benefit of the increased rate of fire with the Sharps/Spencer rifles but they don't take a manpower hit for the horse holders. I don't care about a separate horse holder sprite. But they shouldn't get the benefit of a full complement men on the firing line when they dismount. You can't have it both ways. As best as I could find, they lost about 20% of their total men to tend to the dismounted horses. That would be 100 men riding and 80 men firing. What are your thoughts on this?

GregB)

[BOSTON]

JC Edwards wrote:

I'm the big stickler for Cavalry....... so you can just about guarantee there will be improvements.

Most have already been implemented.......just need a little spit for the shine.

Norb and Jim both have been quite patient with my Ranting and Raving about having a more "forceful and tough" Cavalry all around and I believe most will be impressed.

Would the changes to cavalry be historically correct? or for the convienance of game play?

Hoistingman4

[JC Edwards]

Gfran64 wrote:

JC,

This was one of my beefs with dismounted Cavalry: They get the benefit of the increased rate of fire with the Sharps/Spencer rifles but they don't take a manpower hit for the horse holders. I don't care about a separate horse holder sprite. But they shouldn't get the benefit of a full complement men on the firing line when they dismount. You can't have it both ways. As best as I could find, they lost about 20% of their total men to tend to the dismounted horses. That would be 100 men riding and 80 men firing. What are your thoughts on this?

GregB)

I agree with you Greg.
As, according to the Cavalry Regulations by Gen. Phillip St. George Cooke, there would be a decrease in man power for the regiment during a dismounted engagement. Every 4th man would be charged with "leading the mounts to the rear of the centre".

Of course, in game, I'm not sure how the reduction of those men would be implemented.....Norb?

Hoistingman4

Would the changes to cavalry be historically correct? or for the convienance of game play?

.........I believe the answer would be a little of both. Yes, you want to have a more "historical correctness", but at the same time you also want something for the convenience of game play.

As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing like a good fight between horsemen! (or Horsemen and Infantry!!)

[BOSTON]

Love using the cavalry, looking forward to the improvements.:cheer: JC does the spencer rifle have a bayonet and how far is it's effective range? From what I've read I don't think all the cavalry had the same weapons at this time 1863. I would imagine the the cavalry would be at a disadvantage with infantry while engaged in a melee on foot, however raise hell at a distance.

Hoistingman4

[dale]

To the best of my knowledge the calvary did not even try to melee on foot. That would negate the two advantages that favored the Union calvary--firepower and mobility. The whole purpose of the Spencer repeating rifle was to deliver an such an awesome amount of firepower that infantry would not be able to close into a melee situation without taking devastating losses.

I so wonder about how much ammunition a Union calvaryman would take with him into a fight. It would seem that he would rapidly expend his supply given the rate of firepower he could sustain.

[BOSTON]

To the best of my knowledge the calvary did not even try to melee on foot. That would negate the two advantages that favored the Union calvary--firepower and mobility. The whole purpose of the Spencer repeating rifle was to deliver an such an awesome amount of firepower that infantry would not be able to close into a melee situation without taking devastating losses.

Mcphearson's ridge is what I had in mind, Union cavalry against Heth's infantry. I'll have to read a discription of the fight as to what happened. As far as game play I would think to send infantry in skirmish formation first with line formations to follow looking to melee, instead of being caught in a duel with a faster loading and more accurate weapon.