The 'Sharp Practice' Forum ~ View topic

I've got my hands on my Perry plastic Cuirassier (pretty pretty) and am now stuck trying to scheme a way to use them in traditional Sharp Practise scenarios.

They are decidedly unskirmishy. Hussars and Dragoons, at least, can dismount or fire form the saddle, and are the sort of unit you could use to accomplish storytelling objectives. Cuirassier, not so much.

Now the ideal, visually at least, is to get several groups of Cuirassier and run them up against my 80 man battalion of Black Watch Highlanders. That doesn't make for much of a skirmish game though and wouldn't be much fun to play.

Maybe their role is to sit off table and to come thundering in once some other trigger has been sprung.

According to Osprey MAA 64, the 14th Cuirassiers were in Spain from 1808-1813 and fought at Tudela, the siege of Saragossa, the battle of Saragossa, Villarreal, the siege of Lerida, Margalef-Lerida, the siege of Tarragona, Sagonte, Castalla and the Ordal pass.

Tudela
The only campaign Napoleon conducted in Spain
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_tudela.html

Saragossa
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/siege_saragossa_first.html

Sagonte
http://napitalia.org.uk/eng/sagns.shtml

Not much for cavalry to do during a siege though...

Chuck

Private Joined: 24 Mar 2009 Posts: 29

For Sharp Practice purposes the first thing that springs to mind is having a detachment of them moving with a supply convoy about to be ambushed by guerrilleros. Maybe the cuirassiers are new recruits from the depot on their way up to join the regiment. Maybe they are hardened veterans being sent to take up a new station and the unlusky guerillas don't know they are tagging along.

So you like the figures? Do you feel they are compatible with Fronrt Rank?

The thing that makes heavy cavalry awkward for a SP scenario, to my mind, is that they can do only one tactic: charge. Their gameplay would consist of three options each turn: try to position to charge, charge, or recover from charge.

Front Rank in the front rank, flanked by Foundry.

When the Perry Hussars enter the world, I'll be looking to finish up my 1eme Hussars regiment with 6 more groups of 12. This would be more for completionism than practical usefulness.

Private Joined: 24 Mar 2009 Posts: 29

Thanks for that. It looks like I "need" to add heavy cavalry to my forces also.

Sergeant Joined: 30 Mar 2009 Posts: 51

My perception of Sharp Practice & available troops is based as much on the BBC Series as anything. If you remember in the TV series, the camps were portrayed as company or even platoon sized affairs with a mix of troops "passing" by in the background. In some scenes you would see a dozen highlanders marching by in the background. In the next camp scene, you might see a troope of 6 Gendarmes, next scene maybe a dozen grenadiers or riflemen in the background. All this to say that I always envisioned my scenarios starting by a Major Hogan like character grabbing my big man (Shockley in my case) by the collar and saying, "Shockley Ole Boy, grab up whatever men you can find and go take that old castle on the hill..." In other words, I justify any troop type I want to use by imaganing that they were just hanging around camp and available for the foray. I dont worry too much about TO&E and realism. I guess you could get hung up on that if you want, but to me your loosing sight of what SP is all about - High Adventure!

There was a post on TMP from a SP gamer that mentioned he always sets his games up @ 1:20 scale because he didnt want to have to explain why a single cannon would be present in a skirmish game. While I respect his view, I thought to myself, "What a pity, you're missing out on what SP is all about. Just grab up a few of the boys and go take that fortress, just like in the TV series..."

Your thoughts on using Heavy Cav in SP are similar in nature to my own ruminations on Cav in general for this game system. I am near to completion of a set of campaign rules for SP that our club will be using. We look to have 10-12 gamers overall, playing every 4-5 weeks, on one large table and 1 or 2 smaller tables. The campaign should last over almost two years- we will start in 1796 and advance to 1815, fighting a successive year each night. Troop qualities will, to a degree, vary with the chronological successions of history for each nationality. Each player will develop two Big Men, an officer and an NCO, and up to two infantry groups. Success in battle, achieving personal objectives or remarkable battlefield actions, and finding money will allow accumulation of Experience, Reputation, and money- these in turn allow for promotion and increases in Status for the Big Men, and improvement in morale and training and equipment for the troops.

My thoughts on cavalry have come from the direction of how to incorporate them tactically in SP, rather than how to help them be part of a battle storyline; this is our general approach to the system- battle interactions are primary, and story is developed secondarily through personal objectives or the play of Bonus Cards.

Some of the cavalry ideas I am working into the campaign rules follow-

(1) React: SP rules actually allow this already via the Make Ready command, but it is worth emphasizing as a game tactic- putting a Cav unit on React (Make Ready) allows them to interfere with the movement and actions of the enemy; I add that any kill by arty removes the React status, unless the Cav are of Guard quality

(2) Lancers- I wanted to give reason for players to consider Lancers as an option in their Cavalry development que (which i did not mention before, but that would require explaining another concept and supporting rules...), more than the existing SP bonus/minus; so I give Lancers attacking unsquared infantry, unloaded squared infantry, or any crew, an extra 2d6 in melee before % mods.

(3) Heavy vs Light Cav- Heavies already get a bonus against Lights in SP, but I have given Lights a bit more tactical advantage in a minor way- we always use 2 Tiffin cards (I call them c'est le Guerre cards) in the Action deck; since charging Cav can advance towards a target on the Tiffin, I simply allow Light Cav to do this on the roll of the first Tiffin; this may not reflect a battlefield reality of the era, Light vs Heavy, but I thought we would try it out for flavor

(4) Recall: I worked in a set of rules that allow Cav with a Trumpeter to attempt to hold order after a successful rout of the enemy, rather than automatically chasing the routers based upon casualty differences. Brits get negative mods for making successful recall of course (but not the KGL!), and Cossacks, or Cav who lack trumpeters, follow the standard SP rule in this regard.

One other Cav related issue I have wrestled with- the Routing of an infantry unit after a Defeat by 2 from Cav- this can occur to an infantry unit that has not lost its Bottle, yet Routing is defined based upon Bottle Status- how have others resolved this issue?

lamont

I like the Lancers idea but I'd give them that bonus against squares also. It still shouldn't be enough but it gives them enough that they might try it.

Lights have the tactical advantage that they can skirmish and use carbines, even fighting dismounted if they choose. I don't think lights need a movement advantage over heavies.

re: trumpeter. As long as it is a chance to recall, not guaranteed, that sounds great.

Perhaps when troops rout from a successful cavalry charge, the minimum shock that the routing troops recieve is the amount required to rout them, therefore they will 'lose their bottle'

There are plenty of problematic cavalry rules.

We're finding that we're going to have to get rid of the 'shooting at DOnkey Wallopers' rules because the game cannot handle what to do with single dismounted figures running around trying to find their horses, which group they are now in, etc. We're instead going with a straigh 5,6 saving through for all mounted figures. It has less character but less problems.

I want to count skirmish infantry as unformed infantry when being attacked by cavalry. Skirmishers should have to fear something.

We were doing a scenario once where cavalry were at the bottom of a ravine, looking up at skirmish infantry in the woods above firing down on them. After looking at the tables, the cavalry took the 'sensible' option and dismounted, walked up the side of the ravine, and routed the enemy skirmishers.

There's no rules for horse holders when dismounting cavalry. Even when a mounted big Man dismounts to enter a building, is his horse a separate model that must be accounted for or does it magically appear whenever he next decides to mount up?

I would like to make a calvary unit my "Heros" unit in the upcoming campaign at our club. This type of unit suits my favored style of play, but some questions arise in my mind.

A question that stumps me involves the matter of Karabiniers. They seem to have origionally been 'Mobile Infantry' but by the Napolionic era simply an elite unit. The confusion in my mind is: were they an infantry unit or a cavalry unit? ... and perhaps more importantly; did they routinely fight dismounted?

I seem to remember that one in every 4 troopers was tasked to "care for the horses" when the unit fights dismounted. This may relate more to the U.S. Cavalry of the 1870's but the ratio seams reasonable. This would reduce the effective fighting force by 25% when dismounted as the trooper charged with caring for the horses would cease to be an effective combatant.

Another question that comes up stems from the fact that they used carbines. It seems these weapons might have a reduced range with possibly the following values: 0-9", 4-6, and 9-18" 5-6. I really hate suggesting alterations to the core rules as it leads to the interjection of each individuals perspective, but in this case could it be a simple omission? I defer to others more knowledgable on period weapontry.

In the campaign context starting with a calvalry unit could present some problems, namely: the unit may be precieved as more powerful than a similarly sized infantry unit of 12 men. They definately would be faster at siezing objectives, but if they over extend their support they make themselves vulnerable to concerted attacks by the enemy. By forcing the the dedication of handlers the effective fighting force weighs against the cavalry when dismounted. A reduction in the innitial trooper count could also balance this concideration.

I have heard players remark that isolated cavalry units seem vulnerable in the game which seems right from the things I read. Because their strenths stem from mobility their atvantage when moving in cover is negated. This consequently makes them more attractive targets in the open, especially for longer ranged artillery. Also their combat effectiveness when mounted in woods is poor which weighs against them.

To Henri's comments regarding 'Donkey Wollopers'- while the rule implies a casualty save especially in a campaign context. The rules effectively relegate the trooper to the status of a non-combatant where as big men may continue dismounted. This does beg the inclusion of untended horses on the table, perhaps even as objectives. The table on page 21 is suggestive of additional game dynamics. For me "Sharp Practice" is about leadership. I always try and take additional big men whenever possible. In house rules we have employed units of different levels of excellence cost varying amounts. Additional big men cost even more. I think the inclusion of these additional, even independent big men is warrented in the context of the game. While not historically distributed at the proper ratios of soldiers to officers several characters from the BBC mini series stand out. Wellington's intellegence officer Nan (not sure of the Spelling) working behind enemy lines, the scarred British Engioneer - Major S. Piecroft and the sinister french agent Ducos. All this points to additional big men gathering stragglers, rescueing pinned horsemen and intereacting with needy women that combat units seem to have no time for. Perhaps instead of retireing to the rear the stragglers remain stationary untill influenced by a big man friend or foe, such as in muster or capture.

Hi Dan-

some quick answers on your can questions: Carabiniers can be confusing- they originated in name from Cavalry that carried "carbines" as opposed to the infantry arquebus in the 16th century- there use as gun-toting horse guys was completely disrespected by Napoleon, who chose to make them into shock cavalry (Heavy Cav) due to their fancy name and historically elite status- in 1812 they were even wearing cuirasses- so they would not be used for their fire combat abilities pretty much anywhere in the Napoleonic era-

it can be confusing because some troopers of the elite companies of the foot legere were also called Carabiniers- look for light infantry uniforms with a bearskin for head wear- sort of like the grenadiers of the light infantry-

horse holders so cav could get off and fight with guns-- that is all post Balaclava (that is, ACW)- would be considered a waste of good cavalry function in Napoleon's day- and frankly, horsy guys were just not trained so much to stand there and load and fire, repetitively-

the trick to using small cav groups in SP is to have good quality vs enemy AND a good Big Man attached- so when you catch 12 infantry out in the open with your six cav, you are doubling up a lot more dice for fisticuffs rolls-

i think the power in cav in SP is the ability to project power at a distance of about 20" (average roll on 3d6 + 3 per die)- or rather the threat of that projection

as far as running cav in the campaign- each player has a cavalry officer Big Man who can be promoted and developed- his rank and reputation will define the limits of what cav you can bring to the table should you roll up cav in your support troops; he just never shows up unless you do get cav in your force- you will want to use him aggressively to gain the experience and reputation required for advancement- that could be fun

lamont