Would infantry charges actually confer much advantage?

[mmcv]

Overhead fire is another gaming bugbear of mine.

I'm almost tempted to open a new thread.

My rules are generally dealing with mixed arms units a lot of the time so it's a bit more abstracted. Units can be in an attack formation (no ranged attacks, melee forward), a ranged/firing formation (better "firepower" but weaker in combat) or a balanced formation that assumes interspersed firing and melee, for instance crusader infantry with archers and crossbowmen firing within the shield lines, or small bow and gun units in feudal Japan supported by spear lines. They can detach into their constitute parts at times but always keeping in mind that interplay between the ranged harassment, steady line and shock troops. Certainly all the evidence I've read of archery is that it was generally at a fairly flat trajectory at closer than expected ranges, then would hide behind the main line when the enemy closed.

[mmcv]

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.

That does sound pretty much like what my current charge mechanic does, it's only required for the last move into combat and failing will generally pull them up short, but still in "shouting range".


I think I'm trying to be ruthless with making the rules as minimalist as possible. At the moment there are four different tests that can be done at various stages in the battle - loyalty/resolve, charge/move into contact, melee and shock. Trying to think of ways to reduce that to make things even simpler. But maybe it's overkill. In the current iteration it's a simple d6 test with only a couple of potential modifiers with a 4+ success. Where I'm dithering a bit if if 6+ should be a charge bonus, and 1- a flinch. 

Tempted to maybe keep the test but add the result to the command pool rather than the unit, that way representing the momentum it gives to the unit and it's compatriots rather than being just the unit itself. One of the key aspects of the rules is a unit out on its own is basically a gonner, a unit in formation surrounded by allied units is incredibly resilient.

[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.

I wonder if distance from home played a part. Often ancient armies were fighting to defend their land or at the borders of their and their enemies lands. Whereas professional armies (both pre and post gunpowder) were more likely to be fighting far from their homes. I imagine people are less likely to run away if defending their own lands and family than if just fighting for a few coin far from home.

[Big Insect]

It might be worth re-reading Keegan's 'Face of Battle' (great book) as he looks closely at the way men behave under close combat situations.

[Ithoriel]

I wonder if distance from home played a part. Often ancient armies were fighting to defend their land or at the borders of their and their enemies lands. Whereas professional armies (both pre and post gunpowder) were more likely to be fighting far from their homes. I imagine people are less likely to run away if defending their own lands and family than if just fighting for a few coin far from home.

Sumerians in the Levant, Egyptians in the Levant too, Greeks in Egypt, Macedonians in India, Romans in Britain - all far from home and apparently quite happy to get stuck in. Fighting for hearth and home might keep a losing army in the field longer though.

[mmcv]

Sumerians in the Levant, Egyptians in the Levant too, Greeks in Egypt, Macedonians in India, Romans in Britain - all far from home and apparently quite happy to get stuck in. Fighting for hearth and home might keep a losing army in the field longer though.

Yeah that was more what I was thinking, with the examples there being slightly more professional armies rather than seasonal levies (in some cases)

It might be worth re-reading Keegan's 'Face of Battle' (great book) as he looks closely at the way men behave under close combat situations.

Don't think I've read it, will add to the list thanks

[hammurabi70]

I wonder if distance from home played a part. Often ancient armies were fighting to defend their land or at the borders of their and their enemies lands. Whereas professional armies (both pre and post gunpowder) were more likely to be fighting far from their homes. I imagine people are less likely to run away if defending their own lands and family than if just fighting for a few coin far from home.

But could work the other way: when far from home you have nowhere to run to whereas those close to home might have somewhere sensible to escape to.

[mmcv]

But could work the other way: when far from home you have nowhere to run to whereas those close to home might have somewhere sensible to escape to.

Also true, fairly situational I guess. Big difference between "if I run away the enemy are going to burn my lands and kill me and everyone I love" and "if I run away the king will have to pay a big tribute to the enemy so taxes will be higher for a while"

[John Cook]

For what it is worth, it seems to me that the problem with some rules is that the melee that follows a charge, when the charged unit holds and receives the charge, rather than running away, goes on for what seems to be an inordinatley long time.  The impression I get about charges, in most periods, and in most generalised of terms, is that if one side is not also charging that put them at a disadvantage, that melees don't go on for long and the casulaties are caused when one side flees.  So, rather than giving a charge bonus, perhaps a better approach would be to give the charged unit a penalty, if it is not counter charging.

[mmcv]

For what it is worth, it seems to me that the problem with some rules is that the melee that follows a charge, when the charged unit holds and receives the charge, rather than running away, goes on for what seems to be an inordinatley long time.  The impression I get about charges, in most periods, and in most generalised of terms, is that if one side is not also charging that put them at a disadvantage, that melees don't go on for long and the casulaties are caused when one side flees.  So, rather than giving a charge bonus, perhaps a better approach would be to give the charged unit a penalty, if it is not counter charging.

I do model this somewhat. Melee is an opposed roll. Those in attack formation are assumed to counter charge so both get the formation bonus from that. Those in firing formation get a penalty by trying to stand and shoot to drive off the charge, if they fail to do so they are at a disadvantage. Balanced formation gets neither bonus or penalty as they're assumed to respond accordingly, e.g. use the enemy advancing time to bring their spears up to bear. Loose formation is also at disadvantage in melee, though in the crusades rules there are evasion mechanics they can use.

[Ithoriel]

In Ancient battles the bulk of the battle seems to be the main bodies indulging in a shoving match until one side breaks and is butchered. Different, of course, if one or both sides are primarily cavalry.

As a very broad generalisation, it seems to me that the closer in time to the present you get, the briefer hand-to-hand combat gets.

[mmcv]

In Ancient battles the bulk of the battle seems to be the main bodies indulging in a shoving match until one side breaks and is butchered. Different, of course, if one or both sides are primarily cavalry.

As a very broad generalisation, it seems to me that the closer in time to the present you get, the briefer hand-to-hand combat gets.

Yeah that's been my perspective too. Guns really shifted the paradigm as they became more prevalent. That's one interesting thing about trying to model Sengoku Jidai Japan as it really went from medieval to early modern at an accelerated rate. Guns became highly effective at battlefield control but most fights were still finished at the spearpoint. So for them melee is pretty brutal, whereas the medieval rules has a little more back and forth and resilience to the units for close combat.

[John Cook]

As a very broad generalisation, it seems to me that the closer in time to the present you get, the briefer hand-to-hand combat gets.

It is well known that "they don't like it up 'em"