Gettysburg - cavalry speed & fatigue

Mr. Digby wrote: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.

I want cavalry regiment to be able to fight. They often retreat after a couple of minutes' fighting. As I mentioned the other day, a regiment retreated with very high morale, not tired and with three casualties. Some times i've seen regiments retreat without fighting at all.

Mr. Digby wrote:... it actually may not be much quicker at all from A to B as the crow flies.

If we ignore the Kriegspiel walk and trot speed of double infantry's walk speed (and lots of other info already discussed).

Mr. Digby wrote: ... we must be prepared for cavalry to almost always lose against like numbers of infantry, because that is historical.

Agreed.

MajorByrd wrote:I think I just heard Bedford Forrest turn in his grave

Good. I hope it hurts.

Well not only Bedford Forrest for that matter. Buford at Gettysburg certainly stood his ground against line infantry and so did Forrest on several occasions. While I agree that they shouldn't be able to defeat like numbers they should certainly be able to stand for more than 30 seconds.

MajorByrd wrote:Well not only Bedford Forrest for that matter. Buford at Gettysburg certainly stood his ground against line infantry and so did Forrest on several occasions. While I agree that they shouldn't be able to defeat like numbers they should certainly be able to stand for more than 30 seconds.

Good points Sven. If one looks at Forrest's battles, you get a very different view of ACW cavalry capabilities.

Here are two examples:

Brice’s Cross Roads (June 64): with something over 3,000 cavalry, Forrest attacked and routed a Union force of over 8,000. The bulk of the Union force was infantry.

Tupelo (July 64): with 8,000 men Forrest & SD Lee again attacked a much larger Union force of mainly infantry. Knowing Forrest's reputation, the rather nervous Union force had constructed breastworks. This was actually one of Forrest’s rare defeats, and he mishandled the battle, possibly due to the shared command.

For current purposes the key thing is that at both Brice’s Cross roads and Tupelo Forrest fought essentially an infantry battle. In both cases the Confederate cavalry attacked on foot, against a greatly superior, mainly infantry force. At Tupelo Forrest’s corps suffered over 15% casualties (30-35% in some brigades), but even after that, it was the Union force which retreated. Notwithstanding his losses, Forrest was still able to mount a pursuit the next day.

I can quote other examples of cavalry fighting (and winning) against infantry from the Trans-Mississippi, which is my main area of ACW interest.

I am not suggesting that Forrest should be the benchmark for cavalry in the game, but the above should warn us against blanket statements about cavalry ineffectiveness. So much depended on circumstances.

Martin (J)

Battles are won by good generalship, not by good troops.

You can always cite examples to support an opposite view but great generals are renowned as great generals for a reason - they could achieve things others could not.

Forrest was just an uncannily expert commander at what he did, small to medium mobile raiding warfare.

Buford was also a singularly good soldier who was in the right place at the right time. Heth was a singularly indifferent opponent who was acting without knowing what he was coming up against. That first few hours at Gettysburg was a situation decided by the respective leaders and the situation - clear in the mind of one man and completely confused in the mind of the other. It wasn't about simple numbers of troops or how good they were.

As to cavalry speeds Jeff, the Reisswitz rules are not the Bible, historical events are as factual as we can get and there's many accounts of cavalry moving across the battlefield at a pace not much quicker than infantry, they also need clear open terrain to be an effective weapon - the kind of terrain you don't find very much in North America where the Civil War was fought.

Creekbeds, scrubby woodland, rocky ground, lines of walls, fences, farms. Infantry will be faster across such terrian or at least tire less.

I'm the devil's advocate here. We mustn't make cavalry powerful, in the ACW they were not, they were, apart from a few theatres of open ground, mostly useless, unless it was pretty late in the war and your uniform was blue.

Anyway, we're turning in circles now. We should make a small change and play a game or two. If we can't alter speed, lets alter fatigue. Lets increase the numbers for cavalry and see what happens. The weakness of dismounted cavalry in combat is a problem, I don't think the rules allow us to replicate Bufords or Forrests deeds, the software isn't subtle enough for that and we shouldn't try to tweak our rules so that what was exceptional becomes the norm, wargamers do this with rulesets far too much.

Mr. Digby wrote:As to cavalry speeds Jeff, the Reisswitz rules are not the Bible,

Nope, but they're not a bad basis when aiming to play games based on kriegsspiel.

there's many accounts of cavalry moving across the battlefield at a pace not much quicker than infantry
Do these accounts say the cavalry were going at their walk & trot speed and still couldn't go faster than infantry?! An example of something's given speed at any one occasion doesn't say anything about average speed, maximum comfortable speed etc.

they also need clear open terrain to be an effective weapon
As mounted cavalry, perhaps. Most of this debate has been about the cavalry travelling faster than infantry and then dismounting and fighting on foot. They don't need the steppes to be able to do that.

Creekbeds, scrubby woodland, rocky ground, lines of walls, fences, farms. Infantry will be faster across such terrian or at least tire less.
I disagree. A regiment of curassiers (sp.?), perhaps. ACW cavalry I don't see why.

I'm the devil's advocate here. ... We're turning in circles here.
I agree.

In the ACW cavalry were, apart from a few theatres of open ground, mostly useless, unless it was pretty late in the war and your uniform was blue.
If we are aiming at keeping the cavalry useless, it was pointless starting this discussion.

We should make a small change and play a game or two.
I agree. Change cavalry's walk speed to twice its current value. This would be in line with KS rules, historical use of walk and trot and seems entirely reasonable to me. Cavalry will still be skittish and not able to slug it out for long with infantry, as this appears to be hard coded.

Creekbeds, scrubby woodland, rocky ground, lines of walls, fences, farms. Infantry will be faster across such terrian or at least tire less.
I disagree. A regiment of curassiers (sp.?), perhaps. ACW cavalry I don't see why.

Horses are still used quite a bit in western Colorado for travel in the forests and mtns.and working with cattle. They stick to trails and open areas. Rocky ground is avoided like the plague due to the danger of a stumble and throwing the rider or breaking the horse's leg. Brushy ground is difficult enough for humans to walk through and is impenetrable to horses. Horse trails make very large detours to get around the willow thickets we have out here. Substitute greenbriars for willows in the east and I'd be surprised if you could even lead a horse through them. Fences have to be knocked down or a gate found. Jumping the fences is Hollywood. Custer's reports of his actions during the valley campaign confirm this.

We can't modify speeds until the next patch is released. I still suggest that we change the fatigue levels of the type 2 cavalry, (mounted infantry), to that of type 1 and see how that affects their behavior.

Uncle Billy wrote:

Creekbeds, scrubby woodland, rocky ground, lines of walls, fences, farms. Infantry will be faster across such terrian or at least tire less.
I disagree. A regiment of curassiers (sp.?), perhaps. ACW cavalry I don't see why.

Horses are still used quite a bit in western Colorado for travel in the forests and mtns.and working with cattle. They stick to trails and open areas. Rocky ground is avoided like the plague due to the danger of a stumble and throwing the rider or breaking the horse's leg. Brushy ground is difficult enough for humans to walk through and is impenetrable to horses. Horse trails make very large detours to get around the willow thickets we have out here. Substitute greenbriars for willows in the east and I'd be surprised if you could even lead a horse through them. Fences have to be knocked down or a gate found. Jumping the fences is Hollywood. Custer's reports of his actions during the valley campaign confirm this.

Granted that in the western part of Nebraska, rocky terrain is the anomaly. Rather, the ranchland is cover with sagebrush, soapweed and rattlesnakes. The only trails are the ones through the hills made by the pick-ups doing the monthly check of windmills for water. When moving cattle or checking the pasture for down critters, there is no trail to follow. Rather, you just give the horse his head and he will bring you safely through the rough country. Now, as to the east during the war, there appears to have been quite a bit of open terrain that allowed both infantry and cavalry to move freely about.

As to jumping fences, yes, the Federal cavalry had a hard time and was always looking for a gate or opening. However, that is another story for the early Confederate cavalry. Remember, the Rebel cavalry furnished their own horses and many brought their "hunters" with them whereas the Federal cavalry relied upon the repo-deport (remount station) for their animals of which many were probably better suited for the glue factory. Of course, that had changed by the end of the war. Also, the majority of the Confederate horsemen not only furnished their own horses, most were of the agrarian culture and were used to riding whereas the preponderance of northern horsemen were city slickers, many of whom had never seen a horse other than those pulling a carriage or trolley. Not only did the horses have to been trained to be accustomed to gunfire, military tactics, et. al., so did the men!

Jack
aka Kerflumoxed

WSH Baylor wrote:Rather, you just give the horse his head and he will bring you safely through the rough country.

Which would be useless for military operations, or would slow cavalry to a snail's pace if each mounted regiment followed the horse ahead in single file.

That's my point - generally speaking Europe is good ground for massed mounted operations, generally speaking, large tracts of North America is not.

WSH Baylor wrote:Remember, the Rebel cavalry furnished their own horses and many brought their "hunters" with them whereas the Federal cavalry relied upon the repo-deport (remount station) for their animals of which many were probably better suited for the glue factory. Of course, that had changed by the end of the war. Also, the majority of the Confederate horsemen not only furnished their own horses, most were of the agrarian culture and were used to riding whereas the preponderance of northern horsemen were city slickers, many of whom had never seen a horse other than those pulling a carriage or trolley.

This is a good point about early war Reb cavalry and I think we're all in agreement that it was better than Union caavlry until at least mid-war (1863).

The problem is how to incorporate this in the game.

A bunch of farm boys able to ride well and jump fences still doesn't make an effective military unit unless semi-disciplined raider units are your goal. These irregular cavalry were comon in the Reb armies as late as the Gettysburg campaign but they just were not reliable.

So - we can't modify the speed - can we modify their morale and other effectiveness and their fatigue? It looks like even the former isn't practical given Martin's attempted adjustments for the Price Goes Home scenario.

It looks like we could be just stuck with what we've got until NSD begin work on SoW v2.

Blaugrana wrote:Jack wrote:

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

And it's here! As I bought it I don't even need to wait until Christmas Day.
Thanks again, Jack.

[quote="Mr. Digby"]
A bunch of farm boys able to ride well and jump fences still doesn't make an effective military unit unless semi-disciplined raider units are your goal. These irregular cavalry were comon in the Reb armies as late as the Gettysburg campaign but they just were not reliable.

Au Contrare! Many of the early war Southern units, including cavalry, were composed of pre-war militia units that, much lilke the U.S. National Guard, "drilled" once a month. For example, reflect upon the Black Horse Troop (1st Va. Cavalry) at 1st Manassas who performed yeoman service in helping to rout the Union forces.

In fact, it was a northern commander who moaned about the need for an effective cavalry force needing two years of training and preparation to become an effective fighting force. I would suggest that the South had the more effective fighting force as a result of the pre-war training which contradicts your depiction of a "bunch of farm boys" as a "semi-disciplined raider unit."

Jack
aka Baylor

How many men were in these units? How much effect did they have on the war?

Everyone can always quote one example to prove something, but we need to look in general terms over a long period and wide theatre. We can't design our cavalry around the events of one battle, we need to design cavalry units that are generally representative of the whole war.

Mr. Digby wrote:How many men were in these units? How much effect did they have on the war?

Everyone can always quote one example to prove something, but we need to look in general terms over a long period and wide theatre. We can't design our cavalry around the events of one battle, we need to design cavalry units that are generally representative of the whole war.

Good grief, Martin! I am beginning to wonder if you might be a mental midget....operative words MIGHT BE because I know you are not! It is like trying to discuss something with Hancock the Mediocre who always has a sophist argument in his back pocket to explain his irrational statements.

Okay, there were 952 designated cavalry units from the 11 Confederate states and the border states. Pick the ones you would like to know and I will try to answer your questions: "How many men in these units? How much effect did they have on the war?" Or, perhaps, you would like them all!

Here's an example I already mentioned, the First Virginia Cavalry: "The 1st Virginia Volunteer Cavalry Regiment was a cavalry regiment raised in Virginia for service in the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War. It fought mostly with the Army of Northern Virginia.

"The 1st Virginia Cavalry completed its organization at Winchester, Virginia, in July 1861, under the command of Colonel James Ewell Brown (J.E.B.) Stuart at the command of General Thomas Jackson. Unlike most regiments, the First contained twelve companies. The men were from the counties of Amelia, Augusta, Berkeley, Clarke, Frederick, Gloucester, Jefferson, Loudoun, Rockbridge, Rockingham, and Washington.

"After taking part in the First Battle of Bull Run, the unit was brigaded under Generals J.E.B. Stuart, Fitzhugh Lee, Williams Carter Wickham, and Thomas T. Munford. It participated in more than 200 engagements of various types including the Seven Days Battles and Stuart's ride around McClellan. The regiment was active in the conflicts at Gainesville, Second Bull Run, Antietam, Fredericksburg, Kelly's Ford, Chancellorsville, Brandy Station, Gettysburg, Bristoe Station, the Wilderness, Todd's Tavern, Spotsylvania, Bethesda Church, and Cold Harbor. Later it was involved in Jubal Early's operations in the Shenandoah Valley, the defense of Petersburg, and the Appomattox Campaign.

"In April 1862, it totaled 437 men, lost eight percent of the 310 engaged at Gettysburg, and had 318 fit for duty in September 1864. The cavalry cut through the Federal lines at Appomattox and later disbanded. Only one man from this unit was present at the surrender. The field officers were Colonels R. Welby Carter, James H. Drake, William E. Jones, Fitzhugh Lee, William A. Morgan, and J.E.B. Stuart; Lieutenant Colonels L. Tiernan Brien and Charles R. Irving; and Major Robert Swan." ....and a cousin of my g-g-grandfather, Major John Marshall Hanger, served on Stuart's staff as QM and post-war served the reunited nation as a US amb. During the course of the war, 2,729 men served in the regiment. Unfortunately, I don't have the morning reports or monthly returns at hand, but if you are willing to provide the funding, I will be happy to obtain those for you, and for any other regiment you desire.

For the record, the individual company's were:
Co. A: Newton Light Dragoons
Co. B:
Co. C: Rockbridge Dragoons (1st)
Co. D: Clarke Cavalry (1st)
Co. D: Warshington Mounted Rifles; Washington Cavalry
Co. E: Valley Rangers
Co. F: Shepherdstown Troop
Co. G: Amelia Light Dragoons; Amelia Troop
Co. H: Loudon Light Horse
Co. I: Harrison Cavalry
Co. K: Rockingham Cavalry (1st); Howard Dragoons (2nd)
Co. L: Gloucester Light Dragoons; Glouscester Cavalry
Co. O: Sumter Mounted Guards

Now, what else can I add?

Jack
aka Baylor

While I do not have the source citations at my fingertips to support my claims off the bat, I do have a degree (B.A.) in history and have done a ton of reading on the Civil War.

From my understanding, the South had a military tradition which the North lacked and it showed during the first couple years of the war. This was especially apparent in both the cavalry and the generalship.

It has been my theory, which is unproven, that this martial tradition which gave the South an early advantage, was a direct result of slavery. Earlier in the 19th century, there had been some particularly bloody slave revolts. Nat Turner comes to mind. The result of these revolts was the formation of more militias in the south, which remained in business right up until the civil war. In fact, this is why the Confederates often wore gray. Militia uniforms were traditionally gray, regular army was blue.

Interestingly, both sides had units wearing both blue and gray, which caused some confusion on a few occasions in the early war.

In my theory, I compare the American South to ancient Sparta. Sparta had a strong martial tradition because they too feared the possibility of slave revolts. In Sparta, the population of Helots to Spartans often exceeded 4 to 1! I think there is some similarity in the psychology of both societies.

There's also the practice of primogeniture to think about. This was more common in the south. The practice left second sons to join the military. Again, another direct reason for a Confederate edge early in the war -- more of their sons had military training and experience.

Ultimately, these advantages allowed the South to prolong the war by winning a string of victories in the East up until Gettysburg. In the West, the South was slowly dismantled from the start.

The South could never stand up to the industrial might and manpower of the Union. In time, the South's great generals either perished, or were matched by equally capable generals in the Union. The same went for the cavalry.

Early Confederate cavalry was legendary for its acumen (F. Lee, Stuart/Eastern Theater). Later, the Confederate cavalry tended to be much more irregular (Mosby, Forrest/Western Theater). The different theaters had something to do with it too.

-Neal

Now we all know so much more (???), time for a quiz...

http://www.civilwar.org/education/contests-quizzes/quizzes/civil-war-cavalry-quiz/civil-war-cavalry-quiz.html

Father General wrote:While I do not have the source citations at my fingertips to support my claims off the bat, I do have a degree (B.A.) in history and have done a ton of reading on the Civil War.

From my understanding, the South had a military tradition which the North lacked and it showed during the first couple years of the war. This was especially apparent in both the cavalry and the generalship.

It has been my theory, which is unproven, that this martial tradition which gave the South an early advantage, was a direct result of slavery. Earlier in the 19th century, there had been some particularly bloody slave revolts. Nat Turner comes to mind. The result of these revolts was the formation of more militias in the south, which remained in business right up until the civil war. In fact, this is why the Confederates often wore gray. Militia uniforms were traditionally gray, regular army was blue.

Interestingly, both sides had units wearing both blue and gray, which caused some confusion on a few occasions in the early war.

In my theory, I compare the American South to ancient Sparta. Sparta had a strong martial tradition because they too feared the possibility of slave revolts. In Sparta, the population of Helots to Spartans often exceeded 4 to 1! I think there is some similarity in the psychology of both societies.

There's also the practice of primogeniture to think about. This was more common in the south. The practice left second sons to join the military. Again, another direct reason for a Confederate edge early in the war -- more of their sons had military training and experience.

Ultimately, these advantages allowed the South to prolong the war by winning a string of victories in the East up until Gettysburg. In the West, the South was slowly dismantled from the start.

The South could never stand up to the industrial might and manpower of the Union. In time, the South's great generals either perished, or were matched by equally capable generals in the Union. The same went for the cavalry.

Early Confederate cavalry was legendary for its acumen (F. Lee, Stuart/Eastern Theater). Later, the Confederate cavalry tended to be much more irregular (Mosby, Forrest/Western Theater). The different theaters had something to do with it too.

-Neal

A similar theory was the topic of a book by Grady McWhiney and co-author several years back. Check this out:

http://www.amazon.com/Attack-Die-Military-Southern-Heritage/dp/0817302298

This is a few years old and was the subject of some minor controversy, but is interesting reading. Someplace in my library I have a copy, but like most things in my life, my library remains unorganized. Nevertheless, you might find it enjoyable.

For Martin II who has an interest in the western Confederate armies, I dug this one off my shelf for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Confederate-Cavalry-River-Stephen-Oates/dp/0292711522

It is entitled, "Confederate Cavalry West of the River". Stephen Oates is a quite-familiar author to most CW "bugs" and he produced this volume at the beginning of our Civil War Centennial in 1961. Martin II also might find it interesting, especially because of the chapter titled: "The Organization of the Cavalry, 1862."

Enjoy

Jack
aka Baylor

http://books.google.com/books?id=cPJH0GOe8EMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=attack+and+die&source=bl&ots=ROUEFstYbr&sig=LhRmxqK_NeTwgeiUQtok5LcLOls&hl=en&src=bmrr&sa=X&ei=7mVBUNr3JKnM2gXPl4DQDA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=attack%20and%20die&f=false

You can read most of Attack and Die on google books for free.

I love that book. Some really good information about the evolution of assault columns in charges during the war.

WSH Baylor wrote:For Martin II who has an interest in the western Confederate armies, I dug this one off my shelf for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Confederate-Cavalry-River-Stephen-Oates/dp/0292711522

It is entitled, "Confederate Cavalry West of the River". Stephen Oates is a quite-familiar author to most CW "bugs" and he produced this volume at the beginning of our Civil War Centennial in 1961. Martin II also might find it interesting, especially because of the chapter titled: "The Organization of the Cavalry, 1862."

Enjoy

Jack
aka Baylor

Many thanks Jack. I have it

Good recommendation though, because it's an excellent book. It was his very first I think, and came out of his doctoral thesis. It's an unusual subject and engagingly-written. The only book I can think of that covers the whole topic of cavalry in that theatre.

As you seem interested in this stuff, let me return the favour and recommend a couple to you in response:

'Polignac's Texas Brigade'. Slim volume on one of the least reliable cavalry units the Confederacy fielded anywhere, being raised by conscription, partly from Texas counties which had voted against Secession! It initially operated in Arkansas and the Indian Territory. It was dismounted in 1862, reorganised, and became quite an effective infantry unit in Louisiana in 1864, by now under the command of a French aristocrat. Funny old world..........

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Polignacs-Texas-Brigade-Alwyn-Barr/dp/B0006BZKGC/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356196450&sr=1-1

'Between the Enemy and Texas'. This is a history of Parson's Texas cavalry brigade, a rather more efficient outfit, which fought in Arkansas and, Louisiana, and remained mounted.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Between-Enemy-Texas-Parsonss-Cavalry/dp/0875653073/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356196784&sr=1-1

Martin (J)


PS your other book recommendation looks interesting. I see what you mean re controversy. Reviews range from one to five stars!

kg little mac wrote:http://books.google.com/books?id=cPJH0GOe8EMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=attack+and+die&source=bl&ots=ROUEFstYbr&sig=LhRmxqK_NeTwgeiUQtok5LcLOls&hl=en&src=bmrr&sa=X&ei=7mVBUNr3JKnM2gXPl4DQDA&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=attack%20and%20die&f=false

You can read most of Attack and Die on google books for free.

I love that book. Some really good information about the evolution of assault columns in charges during the war.

Thanks Mark. I'll check it out. I'm never clear on what the deal is with google books. Sometimes you get virtually the whole thing, and sometimes just a few chapters, and sometimes nothing at all. Presumably it's subject to individual agreement with the publisher, if the book's still in copyright?

Martin (J)

Mr. Digby wrote:So - we can't modify the speed - can we modify their morale and other effectiveness and their fatigue? It looks like even the former isn't practical given Martin's attempted adjustments for the Price Goes Home scenario.

It looks like we could be just stuck with what we've got until NSD begin work on SoW v2.

Yes we can modify morale, fatigue and various other stuff. Let me take you all through my thinking when I constructed the Price Goes Home scenario. Hopefully it should give everyone an insight into what can and can’t be done. I won’t give everything away in case we play the scenario again, but in any case I will make various changes to the scenario in that event.

Movement
----------
I increased the ‘Callisthenics’ value for all Confederate cavalry to the maximum, since I was already concerned that they fatigued too easily. I did not do this for most of the Union cavalry, which had been worn-down by the long forced-march from Missouri. In the latter case I also increased their starting fatigue.

Charging
--------
Given my view that cavalry in the Trans-Mississippi almost never charged formed infantry, I early on decided to make them Type 1 cavalry. In theory this prevents them charging infantry but lets them say charge guns, so it was just the result I wanted. I worked with Kevin for a while testing this theory, but found that I could still get them to charge, albeit with some difficulty and a great deal of clicking!

I was still concerned about this, so decided to modify 2 other ratings: ‘Morale’ & ‘Edged’, so that even if they did charge infantry, they were likely to come off worse. I felt both changes were justified in their own right, as:

(a) cavalry on both sides could be skittish when under fire, and were generally less disciplined than infantry. Indeed this is something about which ACW commanders complained at length.

(b) cavalry in this theatre were rarely armed with edged weapons. Specifically they usually lacked sabres, and although many on the Confederate side were armed with infantry weapons, it seems unlikely they had bayonets at Prairie Grove (although I’m not certain on this point)

As it happens, the combination of my weakening some of these factors, together with the heavy fatigue penalty, may have unduly limited cavalry effectiveness.

Shooting
--------
I decided to make most Confederate cavalry more effective than the Union equivalent in a fire-fight, because they by and large were, many being armed with rifles rather than the inadequate cavalry carbines of the latter. I did this by increasing their ‘Firearms’ factors. I gave them a lower factor than infantry however, to reflect the need to detail 25% of their strength as horse-holders.

Other
-----
I made other changes to ‘Experience’, ‘Morale’ and 'Marksmanship' of individual units, to reflect their historical circumstances & quality. There are other factors which can also be adjusted on a unit-by-unit basis, such as skill in ‘Open’ and ‘Close’ order fighting. Also ‘Surgeon ability’ and ‘Horsemanship’ - haven’t worked out what that does, but it could be useful to us if we can find out.

Hope that helps.

Martin (J)

Martin, did you put a '2' in column L of the OOB for the cavalry entries?

Uncle Billy wrote:Martin, did you put a '2' in column L of the OOB for the cavalry entries?

No a '1'. Think that's right isn't it?

Things are a bit confusing as the non-charging cavalry is normally referred to as Type 2, yet you have to put a 1 in the OOBMOD column to make cavalry Type 2. Err...I think.

I don't think you ever put a 2 in the column, because if you put nothing it's automatically Type 1, which can charge.

Where's that head-exploding emoticon when you need it? This'll have to do

Maybe it's a '1'. I thought it was a '2'. I always get confused when dealing with the cavalry types. Though I'm certain type 2 cavalry is the non-charging one. In any case, I didn't notice any gratuitous cavalry charging in the scenario.

Uncle Billy wrote:Maybe it's a '1'. I thought it was a '2'. I always get confused when dealing with the cavalry types. Though I'm certain type 2 cavalry is the non-charging one. In any case, I didn't notice any gratuitous cavalry charging in the scenario.

No, that at least seemed to be historical to me. Towards the end of the game I got on the flank of Shoup's division with a brigade of Union cavalry. Some of his regiments were clearly shaken from previous combat, and I tried a few times to charge without success to see what would happen. I was pleased to find that the troopers wouldn't do it.

Maybe my fears after our earlier tests were overdone, Kevin? But perhaps if I hadn't reduced the base morale of my cavalry, they would have charged? Is this even a factor the game takes account of?

A bit later I actually got accross Shoup's line of retreat, before he pushed me off it again. And I was able to charge some artillery, before he retook it. So that seemed ok too.

Martin (J)

There is a morale minimum below which a unit will not charge. I think it is 'willing', but I am not certain.