Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)
https://wargame.ch/board/nwc/

Gamier than a Grouse
https://wargame.ch/board/nwc/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=15078		 Page 3 of 4
Author:  Colin Knox [ Mon Mar 02, 2015 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
Got another one

Charge a square with cavalry and a single skirmisher. Push it back and destroy guns in it and then pursue into hapless units behind. :frenchvive1: thus separating the cavalry from the skirmisher so that they cannot be meleed by infantry the following turn. :frenchsalute: :thumbsup: :frenchshock:

Yep even a gamey buggar like me does not do one like that very often. I think Andy and Anton K suffered from one of these in our Leipzig no holds barred game.
Given the vast artillery resources of the Russians in some titles finding a way to smash em requires some thought :frenchdrunk:
Author:  Christian Hecht [ Tue Mar 03, 2015 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
That did work?
I would expect that a combined arms charge would lead at least to loosing the Charge bonus for the cavalry, that you were still be able to push a square back seems more than fortune.
Author:  Andy Moss [ Tue Mar 03, 2015 4:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
Yes, it's tactic that does work!
Author:  Michael Ellwood [ Tue Mar 03, 2015 5:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
Yes its rather cheeky and definitely gamey!

I at least make sure there is an equal sized formed unit attacking the square at the same time :thumbsup:

Most board games give an advantage to such a combined arms attack but really I have not been able to identify ANY case of both infantry and cavalry doing a combined melee on a square in any of my readings.

The infantry firing in support of cavalry who have forced infantry into square - Yes

Artillery bought up to deal with squares once cavalry have forced infantry into square - Yes

But no inf+cav melee.

The infantry seem to have been well out of the way in most cases where it was a planned and visible (to the friendly forces) cavalry attack.

Albuera was an interesting example where the Lancers actually attacked out of the 'gloom' / rain /mist (depending on the source) whilst the infantry were engaged at close range but again on a line and column not squares. The Highlanders attacking with the Scotts Greys at Waterloo another example but again the enemy were disordered/line and not square.

Anyone able to find any reference to a combined melee on a square by Inf/Cav?

I would suggest it didn't happen, as it wasn't required once the inf were in short range musket and or close range artillery. The squares simply surrendered or died in short order.

An interesting gamey topic :frenchhappy:
Author:  Jim Pfleck [ Tue Mar 03, 2015 5:12 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
So in Colin's example, does the cavalry get its charge multiplier?
Author:  Colin Knox [ Tue Mar 03, 2015 11:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
Hi Jim
No you need to ensure you cav stack is powerful in its own right best to pile it to the max and attack a smaller square officer etc.
Such as a 200 man one.
regards
Author:  Jim Pfleck [ Wed Mar 04, 2015 12:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
So the advantage is the continuation? That is something I have done, but not with a skirmisher, rather with formed battalions.
Author:  Colin Knox [ Thu Mar 05, 2015 3:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
The advantage is the pursuit yes. But also if there is a battery in the square you can wipe it out as the square gets pushed back
Using a skirmisher allows you to move up close unworried by artillery fire.

:frenchvive:
Author:  Christian Hecht [ Thu Mar 05, 2015 7:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
Not sure what is gamey about that, if a square isn't tough enough to hold it gets pushed back and the artillery overrun.
And the skirmishers are there to distract the enemy but as you should go for phased gameplay anyway you can direct all your fire and so can fire and the cavalry, I don't think skirmishers block visibility.

I tested and there seems to be no charge bonus but that had to be expected as a cavalry charge doesn't get the charge bonus if charging a square.

The only "gamey" thing is what Mike mentioned, that "combined arms" approach in this way seems not to fit into history.
Author:  Colin Knox [ Fri Mar 06, 2015 3:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
Christian Hecht wrote:
Not sure what is gamey about that, if a square isn't tough enough to hold it gets pushed back and the artillery overrun.
And the skirmishers are there to distract the enemy but as you should go for phased gameplay anyway you can direct all your fire and so can fire and the cavalry, I don't think skirmishers block visibility.

I tested and there seems to be no charge bonus but that had to be expected as a cavalry charge doesn't get the charge bonus if charging a square.

The only "gamey" thing is what Mike mentioned, that "combined arms" approach in this way seems not to fit into history.


Christian I think you have hit on the salient point. 'Gamey' is just a matter of opinion as to what is and is not. Some will feel things are and some not.
I actually don't mind what my opponent does at all as long as we agreed any house rules in advance.

That said I think now the game engine has advanced so much that I often play with no house rules. General Fredel and I and fighting it out at Austertlitz in such a manner.

I think determining what's gamey and what's not is much the same with historical house rules which in my opinion are often subjective as well. After all 'what more is history but a fable agreed upon'.

So in conclusion I agree nothing is gamey :frenchsalute: :russianveryhappy: :thumbsup: :frenchdrunk:
I am sure General Moss will buy into this. :frenchroll:
Author:  Jim Hall [ Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:40 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
Hi Colin

Your not related to Lance Armstrong, my drug of choice is Shiraz :D
Author:  Colin Knox [ Fri Mar 13, 2015 9:29 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
Hey Jim - my drug of choice is chardonnay :frenchdrunk:
No relation to that person. I certainly don't condone his actions, I was referring to house rules and the gamey tactics we suggested in the posts. Nothing more sinister although I think a blood doped regiment of old guard might be a handful. :russianveryhappy: :frenchvive:
Salute! :frenchsalute:
Author:  Eltjo Verweij [ Sat Mar 14, 2015 4:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
Colin Knox wrote:
So in conclusion I agree nothing is gamey


That is the correct answer for a Frenchman, they do not have a sense of honour like us in the civilized world of the ancien régime. :scottishduh:
Author:  Jim Hall [ Sat Mar 14, 2015 3:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
Hi Colin

Nice to see you have not had your sense of humour surgically removes.
The idea of the thread was to expose (if that's the right expression) all the gamey tactics.
Then its a level playing field, the novice can play the "grouse" at its own game.
Far to many plays on words in that I know :-)
Author:  Richard Bradshaw [ Sun Mar 15, 2015 7:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Gamier than a Grouse
And I, for one, appreciate the information put forth. That is one of the things I like about this place, besides all the smiley faces in their finest headgear, information readily put forth to inform and educate the less fortunate ( in the AAR section).
Page 3 of 4 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/