Gettysburg - cavalry speed & fatigue

Just to be clear though, are you saying that we can give only one terrain penalty, which has to cover everything from woods, slopes to streams etc? Or have I misunderstood?

The terrain penalties are set in the csv file that each map has. See the csv files in the Courier&Maps mod folder \Maps for reference. These penalties are common to all units. But those penalties can be either enhanced or reduced across the board for the different unit types, (i.e. inf. cav. or art.). So we can increase them by, say, 20% for cavalry if that is what we decide upon and leave them as is for the other two branches.

Uncle Billy wrote:... But those penalties can be either enhanced or reduced across the board for the different unit types, (i.e. inf. cav. or art.). So we can increase them by, say, 20% for cavalry if that is what we decide upon and leave them as is for the other two branches.

Albeit with no evidence, I would have thought cavalry are less affected than infantry and artillery by most bad terrain. Heavy woods would, I think, be the exception. Although artillery would be worse.

I've just played a couple of games with Prairie Grove, using couriers and maps. I do love this map and the 'open' scenario, with its freedom to play as anyone.

In the first game I had a Reb division with some cavalry and they behaved themselves quite nicely. I was beginning to feel guilty about my moaning ...

In the second game I commanded a Union cavalry brigade and they did all the things I hate about cavalry. They constantly retreated despite high morale and very few casualties. One regiment went with three casualties. Two regiments managed to force an enemy regiment to retreat and then, with no enemy regiments within range, promptly retreated themselves. Aaaagh!

Blaugrana wrote:

Uncle Billy wrote:... But those penalties can be either enhanced or reduced across the board for the different unit types, (i.e. inf. cav. or art.). So we can increase them by, say, 20% for cavalry if that is what we decide upon and leave them as is for the other two branches.

Albeit with no evidence, I would have thought cavalry are less affected than infantry and artillery by most bad terrain. Heavy woods would, I think, be the exception. Although artillery would be worse.

In many cases, yes. The exceptions where infantry would have the advantage over cavalry would be rough terrain, i.e. steep slopes, sunken roads, woods and streams where the banks are both steep and brushy. The problem with the game is that changing the penalty for one changes it for everything.

I am not advocating anything be changed, I just wanted people to know that it could be done for any unit type.

I would say that cavalry are very much MORE prone to be adversely affected by all kinds of unfavourable terrain where infantry would be happier. But then wheeled artillery would be worse still and I'm not sure we want to progress far along those lines of enquiry or else we'll make our games a simple headache of route march management.

Having cavalry and artillery suffer a somewhat bigger penalty in dense woods seems a nice easy rule to introduce but how much benefit would it bring to our games?

We can take these factors into account in our rules though, without using any specifics.

If cavalry are unhappy crossing a creek with steep banks that infantry can more easily negotiate, what would the cavalry do? If caavlry came upon a belt of dense woodland, or rocky terrain or a steep slope that infantry can better negotiate... what would the cavalry do?

They go round it. They find an alternative route.

Which takes longer.

We use this simple fact to reduce the absolute speed of our cavalry to a reduced amount - 1.5x instead of 2x (which is what the KS rules would suggest - but then the KS rules have reduced speeds for all kinds of terrains and obstacles which we don't want t have to fiddle with in SoW).

My suggestion of 1.5x speed instead of 2x subsumes all the minor terrain issues into the value. A simple result. Now players don't have to worry about dense woods, rocky slopes or deep creeks and giving orders for their cavalry to move around them - its all taken care of at the macro level where we as players don't see it.

Martin - I take on board what you say about the KS rules and cavalry, I was just mentioning another fairly modern source of research.

I'm cautious about how this might go though. People are saying that the cavalry walk speed needs to be about the same as infantry due to mixed formations on the march, yet people are also saying they want cavalry to move about the battlefield faster than infantry and not be tired when it gets to where it has to fight.

I would disagree strongly if these requirements result in cavalry moving fast around the battlefield (fast as in about 2x infantry speed) yet not being tired when they reach the place they are required to fight.

The Reisewitz rules may be accurate - in fact they may be too detailed and their research is probably second to none, but these rules were in use for a different purpose to what SoW is doing. We need basic playability combined with sufficient realism and game balance. That is why I suggested a base cavalry move speed of about 1.5x that of infantry - not because it may be historically accurate but because it acheives the requirement in our games of getting cavalry to places faster than infantry without tiring them at all.

A faster move rate should be available to a cavalry commander as well, but that rate should incur penalties, otherwise cavalry players will be "running" their regiments everywhere and will not use the walk move and we'll end up with the situation I said I was fearful of in my first post - superfast supermen.

I'd like to see a cavalry walk somewhat faster than an infantry walk (as I've already said) so that a cavalry "run" is hardly needed but is available at a push. I'd like a cavalry player to think of "running" his cavalry in the same terms that an infantry player does - it has to be done at times but for short periods only and it comes with a penalty.

Mr. Digby wrote:I would say that cavalry are very much MORE prone to be adversely affected by all kinds of unfavourable terrain where infantry would be happier.

I think the effects on fatigue of most bad terrain on cavalry should be no worse than for infantry. Crossing tall cornfields etc? Easier for cavalry than infantry, I'd say. Certainly not worse.

I also don't like the 'averaging out of fatigue' idea. If something really affects your men's fatigue (say a river), avoid it (look for a ford, bridge). Or take the hit.

Relative speeds of walk - I think we should go with the Kriegspiel x2. It seems accurate and reasonable.

Mr. Digby wrote:I'd like a cavalry player to think of "running" his cavalry in the same terms that an infantry player does - it has to be done at times but for short periods only and it comes with a penalty.

I agree.

All good stuff gentlemen. This conversation is giving us a better feel for the issues, and I think we will get to a reasonable answer in the end. And we don't actualy need to crack it in one go. It may be that our first attempt is just a step in the right direction.

To provide further fuel to the flames ......err debate, here are a couple of bits of data from the k/spiel manuals. The first is a table from von Reisswitz (1824), which goes into some detail on the influence of ground on movement of different types of troops, moving over different types of terrain.



Please note that all figures quoted are per two minutes (which is what tripped me up when I misstated the cavalry charge speed in my very first post).

The second is a comment from Baring's translation of von Tischwitz (1862), that on long marches cavalry and horse artillery can march for 80 minutes at 'trot & walk', but must then go for at least 40 minutes at the 'walk'

Martin (J)

Charles Grant also referenced the break in cavalry speeds when on the march, IIRC he said that the British cavalry manuals of the 1930s which he was familiar with prescribed 25 minutes at the trot, 25 minutes at the walk (I am assuming rider dismounted) and 10 minutes rest for each hour.

I think its time for us to make a change, whatever it is (I have no preference) and play a couple of test games using it then talk about the results.

Should we keep cavalry fatigue the same for now, but increase the basic walk speed and add a penalty for dense woods and creeks, then see what happens?

@Martin J: At what settings did you set the cavalry in your scenario?

I did run some tests a while ago and I found a pretty huge impact when increasing the caliesthenics from 7 to 8 or even 9. When using the flat Kansas map, I could gallop from one end to the other of the map, and the horses would only tire a bit and regain their readiness rapidly.

I also tested the cavalry types when charging ("OOBMOD") and IIRC type 2 was the type that could melee much better than type 1.

re uneasy cavalry: I also noted that cavalry is very much in danger of auto-retreating, especially when under artillery fire. But I think this is realistic, so I try to rest the cavalry out of sight of enemy artillery until used.

What bothers me is that unmounted cavalry seems to move slower and tire more quickly than infantry. Why should that be? These soldiers were riding a horse before, have their baggage with the horses and now when unmounted they can barely walk 100 yards? Must really be the cavalry boots

Mr. Digby wrote:I think its time for us to make a change, whatever it is (I have no preference) and play a couple of test games using it then talk about the results.

Should we keep cavalry fatigue the same for now, but increase the basic walk speed and add a penalty for dense woods and creeks, then see what happens?

Yes, let's make a change & test it out.

From what Uncle Billy said earlier in the thread, I'm not sure we can change the speed at the moment, as you have to do that via the unitglobal.csv file (currently closed to MP). It may be that all we can do in the short term is reduce fatigue? Perhaps UB can confirm or deny?

From what I can gather, it's quite likely that unitglobal.csv and some other closed files are going to be opened up to MP in the next patch, so we will probably want to come back to this issue then, if not before.

Martin (J)

Fiddling with cavalry speed raises several questions with regards to what is gained and the consequences. First, cavalry was not a major player in ACW battles. I understand the European bias towards that arm, but what do you want it to be able to do that it can't do now? If we increase the speed by 50% what is the cavalry commander going to do with the new found speed? One thing comes to mind. Rapidly get behind enemy lines and attack the artillery or infantry from the rear and then disappear. That did not happen in ACW battles for two reasons. First the cavalry was by and large confined to the road system due to the American terrain. Second, rifled artillery made forming cavalry into large organized groups on a battlefield nearly impossible. We can simulate the first by upping the fatigue for crossing rough terrain by a significant factor. The rifled artillery issue has no modable solution.

ACW cavalry really had only three roles in the war until mid-1864, scouting, raiding supply lines and guarding the flanks of the army during battle. The first can't be done due to SOW limitations, the second is irrelevant for our purposes, which really leaves only the third. If the idea is to add a fourth, plains indian style hit and run tactics on the battlefield, it will make for a very different game.

I also tested the cavalry types when charging ("OOBMOD") and IIRC type 2 was the type that could melee much better than type 1.

Actually it is the other was around, I get them confused too. Just look at the table at the bottom of statetable.csv when in doubt.

What bothers me is that unmounted cavalry seems to move slower and tire more quickly than infantry. Why should that be? These soldiers were riding a horse before, have their baggage with the horses and now when unmounted they can barely walk 100 yards? Must really be the cavalry boots

IIRC this was to simulate the fact that they did not make very good infantry. They could hold for a short time, but not to the same extent as trained infantry.

Leffe7 wrote:@Martin J: At what settings did you set the cavalry in your scenario?

I did run some tests a while ago and I found a pretty huge impact when increasing the caliesthenics from 7 to 8 or even 9. When using the flat Kansas map, I could gallop from one end to the other of the map, and the horses would only tire a bit and regain their readiness rapidly.

The Confederates were all increased to the maximum (9). However I've found from my own experience testing the scenario on that map, that the cavalry still tire somewhat easily. That is an interesting point re the Kansas map though. A further warning that we must be careful not to create ‘uber-cavalry’, even if only on certain maps.

Some of the the Union cavalry in the scenario were also at 9, but most had forced-marched for days and were quite worn down. It was probably not a coincidence that those regiments performed poorly in the actual battle. As well as starting them tired, I game them a lower callisthenic value, on the basis that horses do not recover from over-exertion as quickly as men. Indeed if pushed too far horses undergo an irreversible physiological change to their lungs, and will not recover however long they rest for.

Leffe7 wrote:I also tested the cavalry types when charging ("OOBMOD") and IIRC type 2 was the type that could melee much better than type 1.

All the cavalry in the scenario were Type 1, as these regiments were not trained or equiped to charge formed infantry. I ended-up commanding some cavalry and, towards the close of the game, tried to charge some of Shoup’s shaken men. Never managed to get my troopers to charge, although they would charge guns. Overall my take on that aspect was that it worked ok. I *think* that is the general view, which is why we’re concentrating on speed & fatigue, which all agree do need looking at.

Leffe7 wrote:re uneasy cavalry: I also noted that cavalry is very much in danger of auto-retreating, especially when under artillery fire. But I think this is realistic, so I try to rest the cavalry out of sight of enemy artillery until used.

Yes, very wise. I also gave cavalry lower starting morale than infantry overall. That was partly to generate this sort of historical skittishness, and partly to ensure they would struggle against formed infantry if the engine did allow them to charge (in spite of my best efforts). I also game them lower 'edged' ratings than infantry, as most had neither sabres nor bayonets.

Leffe7 wrote:What bothers me is that unmounted cavalry seems to move slower and tire more quickly than infantry. Why should that be? These soldiers were riding a horse before, have their baggage with the horses and now when unmounted they can barely walk 100 yards? Must really be the cavalry boots

I hadn’t noticed that. Which is not to say you’re wrong

Martin (J)

Uncle Billy wrote:Fiddling with cavalry speed raises several questions with regards to what is gained and the consequences. First, cavalry was not a major player in ACW battles. I understand the European bias towards that arm, but what do you want it to be able to do that it can't do now? If we increase the speed by 50% what is the cavalry commander going to do with the new found speed? One thing comes to mind. Rapidly get behind enemy lines and attack the artillery or infantry from the rear and then disappear. That did not happen in ACW battles for two reasons. First the cavalry was by and large confined to the road system due to the American terrain. Second, rifled artillery made forming cavalry into large organized groups on a battlefield nearly impossible. We can simulate the first by upping the fatigue for crossing rough terrain by a significant factor. The rifled artillery issue has no modable solution.

ACW cavalry really had only three roles in the war until mid-1864, scouting, raiding supply lines and guarding the flanks of the army during battle. The first can't be done due to SOW limitations, the second is irrelevant for our purposes, which really leaves only the third. If the idea is to add a fourth, plains indian style hit and run tactics on the battlefield, it will make for a very different game.

I agree that we don't want to get cavalry making all the difference on the battlefield. That would not be ACW. But, if we want commanders to have cavalry commands, and we want them to be able to do anything useful once fighting commences, I think we need to change something.

An alternative is to not bother with cavalry at all, like the GCM guys.

At the moment, they are essentially just eye candy for human scouts and when it comes to fighting they are rubbish. They also move around the battlefield at the same speed as infantry, which is daft. Even the role you suggest above - that of guarding flanks - is beyond them. Their human commander can sit on the flank and warn of troops approaching, but his cavalry will run away if someone says 'boo' to them.

I think there is a risk of hit and run raids becoming a tactic (it would be fun for the cavalry commander after all) but their success would depend on very good use of cavalry and weaknesses in the forces being attacked (lone units etc). If they get too good we could easily reduce the size of cavalry regiments a bit, which would stop them becoming battlefield bullies.

Uncle Billy wrote:Fiddling with cavalry speed raises several questions with regards to what is gained and the consequences. First, cavalry was not a major player in ACW battles. I understand the European bias towards that arm, but what do you want it to be able to do that it can't do now? If we increase the speed by 50% what is the cavalry commander going to do with the new found speed? One thing comes to mind. Rapidly get behind enemy lines and attack the artillery or infantry from the rear and then disappear. That did not happen in ACW battles for two reasons. First the cavalry was by and large confined to the road system due to the American terrain. Second, rifled artillery made forming cavalry into large organized groups on a battlefield nearly impossible. We can simulate the first by upping the fatigue for crossing rough terrain by a significant factor. The rifled artillery issue has no modable solution.

ACW cavalry really had only three roles in the war until mid-1864, scouting, raiding supply lines and guarding the flanks of the army during battle. The first can't be done due to SOW limitations, the second is irrelevant for our purposes, which really leaves only the third. If the idea is to add a fourth, plains indian style hit and run tactics on the battlefield, it will make for a very different game.

It’s a fair question. Let me give you an answer drawn primarily from the actual day of Prairie Grove.

General Hindman had ordered Marmaduke’s cavalry division to lead the Confederate advance, and to press their march ahead of the main army to seize the vital crossroads at Prairie Grove. They would thus keep Blunt’s division and Herron’s reinforcements apart. After several miles, scouts found Herron’s advance guard (Bredett’s Union cavalry), which had made a brief halt for a brew-up. Marmaduke ordered an immediate attack, and part of Shelby’s Brigade rode on a further 1.5 miles and then attacked on foot. The Union cavalry were caught unawares and broke for the rear. The Rebs mounted-up again and pursued them. Meanwhile McDonald’s Brigade had worked around on a side road, and launched another dismounted attack on the Union 1st Arkansas Cavalry further up the road behind Bredett. They were joined soon by Shelby and together they put this further Union force to flight. So far the Reb cavalry had marched for 8 miles and then engaged in a running fight for a further 3 miles. And it was still only 8 am.

Some previously unengaged Rebs now pushed further on to locate Herron’s main body. The bulk of Marmaduke’s men were pretty tired and paused to rest their mounts and reorganise. They had secured the crossroads, together with the high ground to the NE of it (this is the ridge on the Prairie Grove battle-pack btw). The Confederate cavalry continued to hold the ridge while the rest of the army came up. This took another 3 hours. As it happened, it took the Union infantry & guns a while to arrive & deploy, so they were not attacked during this time. But Hindman was not to know that when he issued his orders that morning.

[NB Marmaduke’s men continued to hold part of it the ridge throughout the battle, and elements contributed to the repulse of 2 attacks by Herron’s infantry.]

So in answer to your question, I want *some* cavalry to be able to act as mounted infantry in *some* scenarios. To do that it should either:

(a) be able to move move faster than infantry for some miles and be in a fit state to attack, or

(b) move faster than infantry to secure a position, with some hope of holding it for a while if attacked

We cannot know the precise degree of Hindman’s expectations when he gave his morning orders. But I’ll settle for either/or and not and as I’m a reasonable man

The Confederate cavalry were here acting as mounted infantry. Like Jeff, at the moment I don’t think it can do that in the game, even with callisthenics set to the maximum.

I’m not saying it should be able to act this way in all cases and in all theatres. I am not seeking to argue that this was normal in Virginia for example. But in the Trans-Mississippi, Confederate cavalry was frequently armed with infantry weapons, and often did act in this role - ie this was not unique to Prairie Grove. In 1863 both Union and Confederate cavalry fought in an infantry role at Honey Springs. At Helena also in 1863, Marmaduke’s men and other cavalry attacked fortifications on foot! In the 1864 Louisiana & Arkansas battles, cavalry brigades were used to attack Union infantry on foot.

Martin (J)

Indeed, cavalry was able to skirmish with their own kind and even go toe to toe with infantry for short periods of time, as Buford did at G'burg. But they were poor quality infantry by comparison. It wasn't until mid-1864 after three years of training did the cavalry become an offensive weapon rather than uniformed highwaymen. Cavalry just wasn't an co-equal branch of ACW armies. That's why very few books have been written about their accomplishments. We can't mod them into being better infantry. That is hardcoded.

What we will see by increasing their speed are regiments swooping in on a column trying to steal the artillery or they will run around the end of a battle line and attack it from the rear. I see no other result from increasing their speed. Neither of those uses are historically accurate.

Uncle Billy wrote:Indeed, cavalry was able to skirmish with their own kind and even go toe to toe with infantry for short periods of time, as Buford did at G'burg. But they were poor quality infantry by comparison. It wasn't until mid-1864 after three years of training did the cavalry become an offensive weapon rather than uniformed highwaymen. Cavalry just wasn't an co-equal branch of ACW armies. That's why very few books have been written about their accomplishments. We can't mod them into being better infantry. That is hardcoded.

What we will see by increasing their speed are regiments swooping in on a column trying to steal the artillery or they will run around the end of a battle line and attack it from the rear. I see no other result from increasing their speed. Neither of those uses are historically accurate.

Edward Longacre (a former teaching colleague) has written several Civil War books including this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Cavalry-Gettysburg-Tactical-Operations-Campaign/dp/0803279418

Perhaps, some of you might find this treatise on CW Cav. operations at Gettysburg a "gem" that mama might place under the tree for you.

Jack
aka Baylor

Uncle Billy wrote:Fiddling with cavalry speed raises several questions with regards to what is gained and the consequences. First, cavalry was not a major player in ACW battles. I understand the European bias towards that arm, but what do you want it to be able to do that it can't do now? If we increase the speed by 50% what is the cavalry commander going to do with the new found speed? One thing comes to mind. Rapidly get behind enemy lines and attack the artillery or infantry from the rear and then disappear. That did not happen in ACW battles for two reasons. First the cavalry was by and large confined to the road system due to the American terrain. Second, rifled artillery made forming cavalry into large organized groups on a battlefield nearly impossible. We can simulate the first by upping the fatigue for crossing rough terrain by a significant factor. The rifled artillery issue has no modable solution.

ACW cavalry really had only three roles in the war until mid-1864, scouting, raiding supply lines and guarding the flanks of the army during battle. The first can't be done due to SOW limitations, the second is irrelevant for our purposes, which really leaves only the third. If the idea is to add a fourth, plains indian style hit and run tactics on the battlefield, it will make for a very different game.

The greatest disservice that the game does to cavalry is allowing only two speeds: Walk and gallop and, therebuy, eliminating the most effective speed of a horse - the trot!! Having spent years portraying CW cavalry, having owned many horses ranging from Arabians, to Morgans, Tennessee Walkers and Quarter-Horses, and having spent countless hours in the saddle while working on a cattle ranch in my younger days, experience has demonstrated a well-conditioned horse can literally trot all day long with brief periods of rest and water. To ignore this simple fact by the games designers once again demonstrates their lack of knowledge regarding horse-flesh, much like Jim's lack of artillery experience other than "talking" to some members of the NSSA! In both these areas, following the playing of 2nd Manassas, I urged them to revamp their cav and arty "tactics" to no avail. Quite simply, if the games' horses were allowed to trot, you could cover the battlefield and portray one of the 3 primary uses of CW cavalry in a most realistic manner. As it now stands, none of the actual uses can be utilized as Kevin so rightly deduced. So, unlike what Martin said, "This conversation is giving us a better feel for the issues, and I think we will get to a reasonable answer in the end.", no reasonable or historically correct answer can be attained until the game designer(s) adds the correct dimension to cavalry. (This might be like driving a car with slow and fast! LOL)

It is quite evident that when the games were designed, there was simply not enough historical research conducted and that which was conducted was flawed. Another example is the manner in which the infantry marches in 2nd Manassas......three abreast! Shades of WWII Germans! Even with all that is right with the game, it still leaves quite a bit to be desired. The best could be better! And, unfortunately, it appears that Norb relied too heavily on folks that did not the best answers and were self-appointed experts. I still chuckle at the Confederate swallow-tailed guidons in the 2nd Manassas game. When I noticed these on the first game, I fired off a note mentioning that they were incorrect.....a figment of someone's imagination. Then, when they appeared in the new game, I sent Norb and Lil' Powell another note reminding them of the incorrectness. Fortunately, it arrived in time to replace them.

Jack
aka Kerflumoxed

Guys, we need to be so very cautious when quoting historical accounts. Remember that everything in SoW is speeded up to enable gameplay that won't bore 95% of players to sleep. The game is already running at 4x or 5x the actual real timescale. So our 2.5 hour batles are actually 12.5 hours.

Now think again of how much real cavalry would be capable of doing anything after that amount of fighting and manouvering.

@Digby: the speeding up applies to all troops. I don't see its relevance to the relative strengths, fragility or speed of cavalry vs infantry.

1) cavalry walk at the same speed as infantry, which is wrong, and
2) they are skittish to the point of uselessness.

@Jack. Thanks for your expert input. I think we can work with the two speeds we've got, though. Just have normal walk speed in game represent walk and trot, which cavalry can do, by all accounts, for a long time, and have this as double infantry walk speed. If you need to go slower, stop every now and then.

After a little while of 'walking' cavalry will still need to be rested awhile if you want them to do any fighting. At least if they have got there at twice the current speed they will have some time to calm their nerves before they have to face combat.

If people choose to throw cavalry around the battlefield away from supporting infantry or artillery, they'll have to be very careful who they pick a fight with. But they may be able to play a useful minor role.

Jack wrote:

Edward Longacre (a former teaching colleague) has written several Civil War books including this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Cavalry-Gettysburg-Tactical-Operations-Campaign/dp/0803279418

Perhaps, some of you might find this treatise on CW Cav. operations at Gettysburg a "gem" that mama might place under the tree for you.

Thanks for the reference, Jack. It does look like an interesting book.

Jeff wrote:

After a little while of 'walking' cavalry will still need to be rested awhile if you want them to do any fighting. At least if they have got there at twice the current speed they will have some time to calm their nerves before they have to face combat.

Unfortunately the game doesn't work that way. If the speed of the cavalry is doubled, it will only incur half the fatigue when going over the same terrain. Fatigue is calculated every 5 seconds. So distance is measured in time, not in feet. That's not a bad game mechanic since keeping track of the distance in feet and type of terrain covered for every unit would be a lot of record keeping. Whereas time is common to all of them.

Jack wrote:

Edward Longacre (a former teaching colleague) has written several Civil War books including this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Cavalry-Gettysburg-Tactical-Operations-Campaign/dp/0803279418
Perhaps, some of you might find this treatise on CW Cav. operations at Gettysburg a "gem" that mama might place under the tree for you.

Thanks, Jack. A second-hand copy in the UK should be on its way to me, courtesy of Amazon, soonish

Unfortunately the game doesn't work that way. If the speed of the cavalry is doubled, it will only incur half the fatigue when going over the same terrain. Fatigue is calculated every 5 seconds. So distance is measured in time, not in feet. That's not a bad game mechanic since keeping track of the distance in feet and type of terrain covered for every unit would be a lot of record keeping. Whereas time is common to all of them.

Thanks for this explanation, Kevin. This is, IMO, all to the good. As, per your explanation earlier, cavalry's relative fighting weakness is hard coded, then tipping the scales a bit on speed, and hence fatigue (only to historical levels, mind) is, IMO, worth a try.

Blaugrana wrote:@Digby: the speeding up applies to all troops. I don't see its relevance to the relative strengths, fragility or speed of cavalry vs infantry.

Its relevence isn't relative to the three arms, its about quoting historical accounts that say "in two hours hard fighting his troops were still fresh", when in SoW terms we need to be aware that "two hours" is under 30 minutes. We shouldn't expect our troops to be aable to fight for two hours and still be capable. That's the point I wanted to make.

Blaugrana wrote:1) cavalry walk at the same speed as infantry, which is wrong, and
2) they are skittish to the point of uselessness.

I am not convinced about #1. There's much evidence to suggest that the need to preserve horseflesh and its slowness through/over certain types of terrain means it actually may not be much quicker at all from A to B as the crow flies.

I do agree with #2 but we must be prepared for cavalry to almost always lose against like numbers of infantry, because that is historical.

I think I just heard Bedford Forrest turn in his grave