Would infantry charges actually confer much advantage?

[fsn]

I think it depends on the period and the environment. I suspect ancients are more prone to the charge because of the technology.

Of the Napoleonic period, Gunther E Rothenberg wrote "Surgeon General Larrey of the Grande Armee found only 5 bayonet wounds and concluded that the effect of the weapon was primarily psychological. And one of Wellington's senior medical officers George J Guthrie asserted that 'formed regiments charging with the bayonet never meet and struggle hand to hand and foot to foot; and for this best possible reason, that one side turns and runs away as soon as the other side come close enough to do mischief.'"

Gunther E  Rothenberg, The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon, Batsford, 1977, Pg 66

I suspect that as the technology of war creates increasing distance between opposing forces, the surprise of having someone charging at you with a bayonet had increased psychological effect. Obviously, if your primary tactic is a bayonet charge that impact may be somewhat diminished. I'm thinking of the mass charges of the Chinese in the Korean war for example.   

[Heedless Horseman]

[quote author=sultanbev link=msg=349605 date=1668502555

There is a descriptive somewhere by a historian of how most ancient combat usually starts. Two opposing blocks approach each other, shouting insults, jeering and banging shields. Lobbing javelins if they have any. This might go on for a bit. Sometimes a champion from one side will challenge a champion from the other to single combat. More often at random points along the line, a bolder man with clumps of taggers-on seeking bravado will move forward and try and take a swipe at someone in the opposing line. Then retire a bit. Then randomly repeat for both sides randomly along the line, until one side is ordered to charge, or the other skulks off anyway having lost a few men.
Mark

Did they even HAVE Football back then? Hooligans will be Hooligans!
[/quote]

[mmcv]

I do think ancients rules should have two types of "melee" - one with the usual charge, and another where two blobs just sort of intermingle at very close range, like an advance to contact rather than a specific charge. Morale rather than casualties would determine the outcomes in both cases.

Mark

One of the things I like about Strength and Honour is that battle lines tend to push each other about until someone piles up enough advantages to start the rot.

Yeah I would agree.

In my rules there are two phases of close combat, the Melee phase which is the more general push and pull of the lines, then the Shock phase which is when an opening has been created and can be exploited. More disciplined troops have advantage in Melee as they're more likely to hold the line and keep a steady fight, while more ferocious troops tend to have an advantage in the Shock because they can use their aggression to exploit the opening and potentially break the enemy. Most effective is using a combination of these troops in the same combat.


The charge test at present takes place before advance to melee and is more intended to see how determined (or not) a unit is to make contact with the enemy. Not all circumstances require it, but it can infer an advantage if they score highly enough.

It sounds like the consensus is there is a bit of a charge advantage in some situations, provided the troops are up to the task, enough to potentially justify some sort of bonus.

From my re-enactment days I would argue that an infantry charge does carry a degree of advantage, if only in added momentum.

Momentum is an interesting idea. Rather than giving the unit a bonus (which could get muddy in multi unit combat) the bonus could go to the pool of command points for that unit's commander (which can be used later in the turn for additional actions or to boost combat rolls).


This was one of the ideas I was toying with, rather than having a test, simply have a cost/benefit based on the difference in quality between the charging and charged unit. Charging a higher quality unit costs the difference in command points, charging a lower pays you back the difference.

My only issue with this is it requires a little more bookkeeping as I haven't fully settled on a fixed "quality" rating for units, generally preferring more conditional modifiers and bonuses to reduce/eliminate on table clutter.

Missile fire, until recently, seems to have been less effective than many rules make it. Missile fire slowly whittles away the enemies strength and saps their will. Melee shatters one side or the other.

Yeah this is very much my approach. Missile fire and skirmishing has more of a harrying effect. It might, if concentrated enough or really lucky, break an enemy unit, particularly if they're exposed and out of line. Otherwise it will mostly just be an annoyance to test the resolve of the troops and potentially having to spend command points steadying them. There isn't even an attack roll for firing or skirmishing, just units indicate where they focus their harassment and the targeted unit will have to test their loyalty/resolve next time they activate.


The Japanese Sengoku Jidai rules (which are the most mature ones I'm working on) do have some allowances for charging concentrated gunnery, which is why I'm reluctant to drop charging entirely. Though that's only really relevant quite late on in the period when guns were significant enough. The more western feudal rules I have, mostly based around the Crusades, don't really have to deal with gunnery, and cavalry charges were more prominent, which would infer advantage, but the two rule sets share a lot of DNA so would be good to have a consistent approach.

For my "Heroic" rules which are mostly based around Homeric warfare but I'm broadening to include pretty much any army that operated in a "heroic" way (Celts, early Japanese, pre-Columbian Americans, etc) I have done away with charging tests as the emphasis is more on the push and pull between commanders trying to control their armies and individual champions aiming for personal wealth and glory, then saving their own skins once they've acquired a suitable amount of said wealth and glory rather than keeping up the fight.

Can you tell I've had too much time to think and not enough time to paint and play lately!

[mmcv]

Wargames include a charge bonus to incentivise charging - it's better to charge than be charged. This gets the game going, rather than having two opposing forces just standing there doing nothing.

Does this reflect reality? No idea. But then I don't think any wargame comes anywhere near being close to a simulation of the real thing.

My skirmish/harrying rules should help with this to be fair, as a unit can always inflict some level of attrition, meaning if they stand at range and poke away at each other it'll increase the chance of one side getting unlucky and having one of their units break and run, which could then provide an opening for a charge anyway.


One of the key things I want to do is to try and get a concept of taking actions because they make tactical sense, not because of artificial rule constraints. Though I may well be being naive in that.

[mmcv]

Did they even HAVE Football back then? Hooligans will be Hooligans!

Interestingly, Justin Swanton in Ancient Battle Formations (I think it was) does recommend watching footage of football hooligans fighting, particularly those in Eastern Europe/Russia where it's still prevalent, as a way of understanding what two masses of men coming together in a melee might look like. They do tend to hold a line for a while and you can see the line rotate as they spread out as well. Then one side will generally break and run.

[mmcv]

I suspect that as the technology of war creates increasing distance between opposing forces, the surprise of having someone charging at you with a bayonet had increased psychological effect. Obviously, if your primary tactic is a bayonet charge that impact may be somewhat diminished. I'm thinking of the mass charges of the Chinese in the Korean war for example.   

Yes absolutely. That definitely seems to be the case once firearms become the primary tool of war.


The Japanese Banzai charges come to mind, initially terrifying, but after experiencing them the Americans found if they stood and fired they'd generally mow them down. But then they had to experience them over and over in a short span so learnt quickly, whereas in ancient or even early modern times, most people would only actually be in a big battle once it twice in a life time, maybe more for professional or warlike peoples, but the time to learn that response is much greater than if you're dealing with it every day. 

In ancient battles as well lines tended to be much thicker, so there was a greater density of people behind you, and those at the back aren't going to see the charge up close so be less inclined to run away immediately. Whereas if there are only a few ranks then it's much more tempting to break and run.

[Big Insect]

That's the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament badge.

That is what I meant - thank you 

[Gwydion]

I suspect an infantry charge does convey an advantage of varying degree depending on the period and cultural expectations. (but not through impact?)

Pre gunpowder - people closed (and charged?) to contact because that was the way to settle the battle.

Gunpowder - not so much, but when people did charge the outcome seems to have often been decisive -  not in the sense of crossing bayonets (although there are all sorts of reasons to be cautious about Larrey's comments and subsequent interpretations) but because the side on the receiving end legged it or the attacker lost impetus and a firefight broke out.

Cultural expectation?

Pre gunpowder armies generally seem to have expected to resort to hand to hand combat at some stage and been accustomed to a more violent life.
Did running in as a charge to physical contact happen? And how much morale effect was there, cf gunpowder period above - not clear.

People were killed by hand held weapons as evidenced by physical remains, but how much was in combat and how much in pursuit is always open to interpretation.

My feeling is that there was what we think of as face to face melee, but how much advantage charging into it conveyed is open to question. It depends on how 'kinetic' you think the contact was. Analogies with rugby and reenactment pike miss the vital apprehension of death. So too generally do riot police v protestors and football hooligans. The latter tell us something about mob mentality and the value of cohesion but not a lot about two groups intent on killing up close with spears, and swords (whatever Swanton says).

In a wargame (depending on the level of granularity and scale of action) I would test the will of the intending charger to see if they will continue to close through those last thirty yards or so, and if they do, then test the ability to stand of the defender - if the attacker is coming in, the defender should suffer a morale minus and be very likely to run. If they stand I don't think there is likely to be much impact advantage from an infantry charge.

If the attacker fails to close  - what then? Stand and lob short range missiles until one side pulls back? And this is the difficult time when we might get a charge into the retreating side and all those injuries we find on the few surviving bodies from medieval battle.

Or  you could just roll all that into a couple of dice throws   - charge yes or no, then charger +1 in combat (wrapping up psychological threat and any physical impact in one).

[steve_holmes_11]

I think it was WRG 6th which incorporated a charge test.
I don't remember much about it, except that a really high result gave the impetuous charge, a lower result a charge.
I'm hazy whether even lower scores produced a refusal to charge.

As I said earlier, it's that willingness to get stuck in which characterises effective infantry close action.
All the way from Achilles Myrmidons to special and airborne forces of today.

If I had to identify key factors in successfully closing with the enemy, I'd go with:
  1. Cover the deadly ground quickly and arrive as a coordinated bunch.
  2. Minimise effect of enemy shooting (suppressive support shooting, use of cover/rushes, covered approach).
  3. If possible, hit the enemy from a disadvantageous angle.

Points 1 and 2 are heavily related to troop quality and training.

Number three relies on your battlefield commanders creating the right situation.
That's something  think we, as gamers, should be aiming for.

[Ithoriel]

I see you've succumbed to temptation and are referring to archery as "fire". 

I've seen Hollywood Sword & Sandal movies - everyone used fire arrows!

[mmcv]

I've seen Hollywood Sword & Sandal movies - everyone used fire arrows!

Especially when "draw, hold, and fired" in volleys over the heads of their compatriots... 

[steve_holmes_11]

Especially when "draw, hold, and fired" in volleys over the heads of their compatriots... 

Overhead fire is another gaming bugbear of mine. 

I'm almost tempted to open a new thread.

[steve_holmes_11]

Something else to consider during the hurly-burly of closing with the enemy.

Until fairly recently, the sustained rate of fire of defenders could be temporarily increased several fold when it really counted.

I'm thinking of examples like:
 * Horse and Musket artillerists.
 * Horse and Musket infantry (using Sharpe's patented tap loading).
 * Archers.
 * Regular infantry hurling their missile of last resort.
 * Breechloading rifles, taking less care about ammunition reserves.

Mechanical stuff like cranked crossbows and ancient artillery had less opportunity to "shoot from the hip".

[mmcv]

I suspect an infantry charge does convey an advantage of varying degree depending on the period and cultural expectations. (but not through impact?)

Pre gunpowder - people closed (and charged?) to contact because that was the way to settle the battle.

Gunpowder - not so much, but when people did charge the outcome seems to have often been decisive -  not in the sense of crossing bayonets (although there are all sorts of reasons to be cautious about Larrey's comments and subsequent interpretations) but because the side on the receiving end legged it or the attacker lost impetus and a firefight broke out.

Cultural expectation?

Pre gunpowder armies generally seem to have expected to resort to hand to hand combat at some stage and been accustomed to a more violent life.
Did running in as a charge to physical contact happen? And how much morale effect was there, cf gunpowder period above - not clear.

People were killed by hand held weapons as evidenced by physical remains, but how much was in combat and how much in pursuit is always open to interpretation.

My feeling is that there was what we think of as face to face melee, but how much advantage charging into it conveyed is open to question. It depends on how 'kinetic' you think the contact was. Analogies with rugby and reenactment pike miss the vital apprehension of death. So too generally do riot police v protestors and football hooligans. The latter tell us something about mob mentality and the value of cohesion but not a lot about two groups intent on killing up close with spears, and swords (whatever Swanton says).

In a wargame (depending on the level of granularity and scale of action) I would test the will of the intending charger to see if they will continue to close through those last thirty yards or so, and if they do, then test the ability to stand of the defender - if the attacker is coming in, the defender should suffer a morale minus and be very likely to run. If they stand I don't think there is likely to be much impact advantage from an infantry charge.

If the attacker fails to close  - what then? Stand and lob short range missiles until one side pulls back? And this is the difficult time when we might get a charge into the retreating side and all those injuries we find on the few surviving bodies from medieval battle.

Or  you could just roll all that into a couple of dice throws   - charge yes or no, then charger +1 in combat (wrapping up psychological threat and any physical impact in one).

Some interesting points. I do tend to subscribe more to the idea of most standing at spears length and poking away at each other's shields and a few brave maniacs attempting to break through and start a rout. Even in medieval accounts of cavalry charges, the tendancy was for the cavalry to charge then pull away at the last moment if the enemy didn't break, maybe chucking a few spears and wheeling away for another go. That's why I want to abstract a lot of that back and forth into the melee phase and keep the real destruction to the shock phase if triggered. Hence my question around the impact of charging itself. I suppose that does suggest that with enough impetuosity rather than the charging lines "bouncing" off each other, one side may have some advantage towards an immediate breakthrough if ferocious enough and therefore increase their chance of getting to the Shock phase in the first round of combat, rather than an attritional back and forth.

[Ithoriel]

To refer to Strength & Honour once again, I like the 'move to contact' mechanism used.

Players can opt to attempt to move adjacent to an enemy unit or to charge it.

A unit moving rolls to move and if not able to make contact moves as far as required by the player or the unit type after which play continues to the next unit.

If a charging unit rolls to move and fails to roll high enough to make contact, the charge fails and initiative passes to the other side. If it makes contact, combat ensues.

The first represents a unit moving into shouting, insults and the odd missile range, the second an attempt to get stuck in that may see the potential charger's courage fail.

All with a simple mechanism.