Considering the viability of cavalry units.
Considerations:
Most armies will start with a number of cavalry.
In the early rounds they will still be useful units, even worth buying for some armies.
They will be particularly effective in theatres such as the Eastern front and Middle East, where there is less concentration of artillery and fighters.
They will become obsolete as soon as tanks are available; a tank is always a better buy than cavalry.
So what combat values should they have? I’m assuming that all land units have the same movement, so perhaps cavalry have a recon role - promoting artillery in the absence of fighters? Effective in attack, pretty useless in defence.
I agree that cavalry would be more useful there than on the Western Front. Once this theatre had seen the establishment of a continuous front of trench lines running from Switzerland to the North Sea, the traditional roles of cavalry were pretty much neutralized. For an advancing friendly army, one of these cavalry roles was to perform scouting and screening ahead of it and on its flanks. For a friendly army that was engaged in combat against an enemy force, another cavalry role (when circumstances permitted) was to go around the opposing force and hit its flanks. On a continuous front hundreds of miles long, neither of these functions really applied. The scouting role was taken over by reconnaissance aircraft, which could overfly the trenches. Tanks allowed the front to be punctured at key points, a capability roughly along the lines of traditional cavalry’s flank-attack function…but with differences too, notably the fact that cavalry is traditionally much faster-moving than infantry, in contrast with WWI tanks which in most cases crawled so slowly that a man on foot could outpace them.
They will become obsolete as soon as tanks are available; a tank is always a better buy than cavalry.
I think cavalry became obsolete during the 1904 war in Manchuria, when modern machine guns become available. The only purpose it had in WWI, and WWII, was scouting and cutting supply lines in the forests and marshes on the Eastern front. But AA 1914 don’t have terrain nor supply rule, and since the map cut west into hundreds of small territories and the east in one big territory, it don’t open up for this units benefits
Calvary was rendered mostly useless on the westernfront due to barbwire, machine guns, and fast firing rifles, but it had battles where i could have made a difference.
When the campaigning season of 1915 opened, western allies expected to launch assaults that would break the the germans.
Attacks would begin with heavy artillary bombardment by field and seige guns. The infantry would go foward with bayonets and clear the trenches with calvary ready to charge through the breakthrough to dirupt the rear and reinforcments. Massed infantry columns would surge through and finish them off.
At Neuve Chapelle, this plan almost worked. The artillery smashed the front line, and the infantry got through will lightly held trenches. By the afternoon, they had advanced past the german defences into the open countryside. Runners were sent to get the cav.
However the runners took forever and the cav commanders waited even longer for confirmed orders. The germans sent in reinforcments and quickly dug new trenches before the calvary could get across the battle field. When the artillary was called to strike again, they ran out of ammunition and the attack stalled. Over the next infantry assaults, they suffered heavy casualtiesand called off the attack. If the cav had gotten the communication, it would have made a difference.
In the eastern front however barbed wire and machine guns were more thinly spread in the east allowing cav to be very effective. Cav could raid, scout and be used for reconnaissance which became impossible to do on the westernfront due to the confined battle areas… Even on the battlefield, cav could be effective when used in large numbers. Flanking was also more viable due to the wide open spaces of the front.
Heres what i propose.
Cavalry cost 4 to produce
Calvary attack on a 1 and defend on a 1 in France, Italy, and German provinces that dont border russia and austria. They provide no bonuses like on the easternfront and will be phased out it like in real life.
However on the easternfront( anywhere in Russia Austria Balkans.), Cav can upgrade the arty like planes do. Both combatent nations can get there arty upgraded in the battle. Planes will still provide their bonuses like usual with or with out cav. If cavalry numbers twice what the infantry are, they attack on a 3 and defend on a 2. This will represented that cavalry on the eastern front were dangerous at many occasions, and you needed a good amount of infantry to cover the flanks.
I dont know if cavalry were extensivily used in the middle east, india, or africa so im not sure what the rules should be there. Feel free to give advice on what else could be added.
I don’t think I would like a different set of rules for a unit based on where it was on the map. I don’t think anyone would buy a unit for 4 IPCs that attacks/def at 1 either. Inf attacks at 2 (3 w/art) so at a cost of 4 a calv unit could get an attack of 2, def at 1 sounds right. Allow attacking calv to boost a limited number of art.
How about something simple:
Cost 4, attacks at 2, def at 1 but when attacking can promote up to 2 art each. That way you don’t have to force a dog fight and lose a ftr to boost some of your art.
A cavalry unit
attacks on 3
defends on 2
It can move 2 spaces (like all land units with tournement-rules)
Every cavalry unit pimps one Artillery to 4.
I would say they cost 4 IPC.
In contested zones with an entrenched enemy they attack on 1.
(or even harder they can not attack in contested zones)
Some great replies there.
As far as the differences on the main fronts, would this be facilitated simply by increasing the number of areas in the east so that they are roughly the same size geographically as in the west?
This would require the unlimited rail movement, but might reproduce the small number of units/large number of tts nature of eastern front battles.
Something else I’ve proposed is that Russia is limited in the number of mechanical units it can produce in a turn, and that the UK cannot build them in India; so it may be more economical for them to buy cavalry than fighters or tanks in these circumstances.
Its true to say that to a large extent cavalry was obsolete by 1914, but the fact is that every army had large numbers of cavalry units - so why not include them?
You might as well say that since Battleships were effectively obsolete by WWII, they should not be included in games covering that period.
The reason i dont want cavalry to fight as well as infantry because on the western front, they were never as effective as infantry. Also alot of the defences used in battles were either prebuilt, or they were built fast enough before the enemy arrived. Hence why calvary should not be affective even on the opening battle.
The reason why calvary is so weak on the western front is because they were. The western powers did not keep recruiting more and more calvary during the war because their cost greatly outweighed their value. This is why calvary will be starting units in the game but phased out as they die. They should disappear on the westernfront like they did historically.
I split the areas where calvary could be affective because only in the easternfront, middleeast and africa could they be a useful unit. Maybe just have the cav out number the infantry to get combat bonuses, and upgrade 2 artillary foreach unit available. This way Russia and Austria wont have to buy as many planes as calvary could do the job. As calvary start dying out and they cant produce enough cav to cover the arty for an effective cost, they will have to buy planes. Itll be a gradual progress of building an airforce over the war and i think it would represent it historically.
In the middle east and africa, calvary could attack at a 3 and defend on a 2 all the time and give bonuses to artillary like the eastern front.
I think the only successful cavalry charge during WWI was the attack on Beersheba in the Middle East, so its safe to say it was obsolete. Maybe they can start with it, but cant buy it,
Last succseful charge of a cavalry brigade was on August 11th 1914 at Lagarde.
Theres no wikipedia article of the victory of the bavarian Ulanenbrigade in english, so here is the german link:
On the other hand cavalry was still used extensively in WWII on the Eastern front, a lack of useable roads for mechanical untis is one reason. One could argue that these were mounted infantry, but with the scouting role still relevant.
The cost of horse fodder was another reason they were phased out in the west.
On the other hand cavalry was still used extensively in WWII on the Eastern front, a lack of useable roads for mechanical untis is one reason. One could argue that these were mounted infantry, but with the scouting role still relevant.
The cost of horse fodder was another reason they were phased out in the west.
Horses were still needfull in wwII. But not relevant for battles.
The link you posted is irrelevant. Maybe a big Battle for polish historians, but for me it looks like 5 guys on horses tricked 2 kids with an antitankgun in the last days of the war…
Why would cavalry boost artillery? Aircraft do this due to their eye-in-the-sky capabilities, but I’m not sure I follow the connection of cavalry to my guns to shooting more accurately.
I do, however, see a connection between a successful overall attack (infantry, planes, arty, etc.) and a bonus to cavalry subsequent to that. If they served any unique use it was to take advantage of a breakthrough (much as what tanks would later do–or better, help create one).
Reading Norman Stone’s The Eastern Front (p.134-135), the mobility of cavalry divisions was a bit of a myth. Horses require a lot more food than men, and it caused massive logistical problems, especially train transport, for the Russian army. Given Russia’s already stressed rail infrastructure, all those cavalry divisions posed a strategic problem in addition to their tactical advantages.
On the other hand, cav divisions had their own organic artillery and machine guns.
The Middle East and German Southwest Africa (camelry, too, here) were also important places for cavalry or mounted infantry. In German East Africa, horses didn’t last too long due to disease.
Where could you find a game piece to represent cavalry? I’ve not seen anything that fits the 23mm size very well.
I use older risk peices for cav. They dont fit the best but its the closest i got.
@Quintus:
I use older risk peices for cav. They dont fit the best but its the closest i got.
Looks to be a good size. I looked around for anything that came close, and found zilch. Maybe HGB will cook up something. I know they have a French cavalry piece in the works. Maybe an uhlan and a cossack can be slipped in…
Last succesfully cavalry charge was actually during ww2. Amedeo Guillet successfully charged british armored divisions and put their tanks on fire with incendiary bombs. The objective was to slow down the british units to let the big bulk of the african Italian division to evaquate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amedeo_Guillet#World_War_II
Guillet’s most important battle happened towards the end of January 1941 at Cherù when he decided to attack enemy armoured units. At the end of 1940, the allied forces faced Guillet on the road to Amba Alagi, and specifically, in the proximity of Cherù. He was entrusted by Duca Amedeo Of Aosta with the task of delaying the allied advance from the North-West. The battles and skirmishes in which this young lieutenant was a protagonist (Amedeo did not have the appropriates rank, but he commanded an entire brigade) are boldly written in the British bulletins of war. The “devilries” that he created from day to day, almost seen as a game, explains why the British called him not only “Knight from other times” but also the Italian “Lawrence of Arabia”. Horse charges with unsheathed sword, guns, incendiary and hand bombs against the armoured troops had a daily cadence. A look at official documents show that in January 1941 at Cherù "… with the task of protecting the withdrawal of the battalions… with skillful maneuver and intuition of a commander… In an entire day of furious combats on foot and horseback, he charged many times while leading his units, assaulting the preponderant adversary (in number and means) soldiers of an enemy regiment, setting tanks on fire, reaching the flank of the enemy’s artilleries… although huge losses of men,… Capt. Guillet,… in a particularly difficult moment of this hard fight, guided with disregard of danger, an attack against enemy tanks with hand bombs and benzine bottles setting two on fire while a third managed to escape while in flames."In those months many proud Italians died, including many brave Eritreans who fought without fear for a king and a people who they never saw or knew. Even today, the “Devil Commander” uses words of deep respect and admiration for that proud population to whom he feels himself in debt as a soldier, Italian and man.
Looks to be a good size. I looked around for anything that came close, and found zilch. Maybe HGB will cook up something. I know they have a French cavalry piece in the works. Maybe an uhlan and a cossack can be slipped in…
The 2002 edition of Sid Meier’s Civilization: The Boardgame includes these Gunpowder Era Dragoons. The first picture below isn’t taken from a good angle, but the second one is a bit better. I like to think of these units as representing French WWI mounted cuirassiers (if there was such a thing).
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/873915/sid-meiers-civilization-the-boardgame
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/89426/sid-meiers-civilization-the-boardgame
@CWO:
Looks to be a good size. I looked around for anything that came close, and found zilch. Maybe HGB will cook up something. I know they have a French cavalry piece in the works. Maybe an uhlan and a cossack can be slipped in…
The 2002 edition of Sid Meier’s Civilization: The Boardgame includes these Gunpowder Era Dragoons. The first picture below isn’t taken from a good angle, but the second one is a bit better. I like to think of these units as representing French WWI mounted cuirassiers (if there was such a thing).Â
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/873915/sid-meiers-civilization-the-boardgame
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/89426/sid-meiers-civilization-the-boardgame
Great find! French cuirassiers did ride into battle, complete with breastplates in the early part of the war. Usually, they had covers for their helmets and plates to decrease their visibility.
Austro-Hungarian hussars (I think) also wore their crested helmets even after becoming dismounted units, for a while. They probably ditched these once the steel helmets became available, but in some photos, you can see that old style helmet covered over with canvas, etc.
The modern cavalry from Civ remind me of mounted Schutztruppe units (in East Africa), or perhaps better, the mounted elements of the Seebattalion in China!
Has anyone seen cavalry sculpts on Shapeways that might fit this time period and/or scale?
Also available are these two-part units from War! Age of Imperialism. They’re rather large for A&A purposes, but they don’t look quite so bad next to the WWI A&A sculpts than next to the generally smaller WWII A&A sculpts.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/859746/war-age-of-imperialism
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/859747/war-age-of-imperialism
