I designed the SPI game Wellington's Victory back in 1976 and I just bought this treatment by Hexasim. I haven't played the game yet, but I agree the inability of cavalry to countercharge without withdrawing first makes little sense to me. Assuming they can get through or around the artillery, they would charge to protect the battery, which would be vulnerable to either skirmishers or an infantry melee assault. It's more likely that the artillery might relocate and let the cavalry deal with the infantry assault. But, the combination of artillery and cavalry is ideal. If the infantry form square, they will be decimated by the artillery. If the infantry advance, they will be ridden down by the cavalry, which should pose a significant morale threat. The only question is the cavalry might need to pass a morale check before charging. Given that this is early in the day and the cavalry is fresh, they would almost certainly charge.
Thank you for posting this video. I cannot help you with the cavalry quandary, but I certainly like the size of these scenario maps. Brings back memories of playing Field Commander: Napoleon.
Thanks for this analysis. I wonder if the reason for the rule might be "design for effect", so that the impact of the cavalry on this specific battlefield is not overwhelming and that the options presented to the players are further restrained. Am I correct in recalling that at this point in the era that cavalry were sometimes used as a covering force for limbered artillery in retreat, and therefore less likely to engage infantry formations on the march? I'm not entirely sure of either proposition, but your presentation makes it more likely that I'll try to hunt out a copy of the 2nd edition of the game hereabouts. Thanks again.
I'm no expert but I thought the light cavalry were for reconnaissance and the heavy were for shock. It would make sense for the light to cover retreats too. The horse artillery can withdraw before infantry but foot artillery can't. Maybe allowing counter-charging from a combined stack just caused complications that I'm not seeing at the moment. But you can do it if enemy cavalry enter their ZOC so why not?
@@chrisyates3598 I agree: the differentiation in cavalry is important. It may well be that a combined stack is the problem, that counter-charging has to await dispersal. I'm further enlightened by Leslie Davis' response below. Thank you.
Thanks for the video! Just getting to scenario 2 myself and found your thoughtful comments. As for the counter-charging of cavalry from the artillery position, would there perhaps be a doctrine that if artillery is about to fire at incoming infantry (with grapeshot) it would be too dangerous for the cavalry to be milling around in between the guns and the attacking enemy infantry? I see you posted on BBG on this issue and no takers so far :) too bad the designer didn't chime in. Are the rules different for other (previous) games of the series? You mentioned you had played some of them.
