Horses in War of Rights

[Lenny]

So, one of my favorite things about the civil war is cavalry, and by this I mean true cavalry, the kind that are mounted with sabers gallantly charging the enemy. I know we have cavalry units, but these are not true cavalry as they are not on horses. They are essentially infantry with some better clothing and weapons. I would love for cavalry to be implemented into this game, I feel like it would add another layer to the strategy in a game. As the first troops to clash would be cavalry, it would be a contest to see who could use these units most efficiently. Thoughts on this?

[McMuffin]

They said they do plan to implement infantry. Although I'd be curious to hear how they plan to do it or if these plans have changed.

[Lenny]

Yeah, I just want my horses. I feel like it would also make the game even better if all of the sudden you turned around to see a massive horde charging at you, and you and your men have to reform and counter this.

[STOTS]

Game is based on the Antietam battle. It's not Mount and Blade. So I'm guessing no cavalry or even horses as there were no mounted cavalry fights.

[Leifr]

If we ever reach the point where horses are viable, I’d rather see them added only for the officers.

[Bad Adz84]

I would like to see it on a map one day, I think the tactics has changed though from a gallant charge to route the enemy off the field with dragoons to a more guerrilla warfare style. Cavalry units were vauable and turned mostly into gathering intelligence and basically disrupting enemy supply lines and being a nuisance. With expensive repeating rifles they could strafe enemy line flanks but charging a line of musket spears was probably not cost effective. I still like to see cav units just not in big numbers, a handfull of guys with repeaters can cause no end of trouble on our battlefield. Possibly even Overpowered?

[Hinkel]

While we already have the 4th Pennsylvania and the 1st Virginia Cavalry ingame, we would like to support horses one day.
But its not a priority right now and will most likely be introduced after the even more complex artillery system.

The first system, which could introduce rideable horses might be a courier, which has to ride between the generals and the regiments in the field, to bring orders forward :)

[Lenny]

Thank you. For the information.

[A. P. Hill]

Ultimately, I want to see horses teamed to the limbers of the artillery so that it can be player controlled and mobile.

I am also looking forward to seeing mules in game as well for the mobility of the quartermaster wagons.

(To dream ... )

[Sox]

I never, ever, want to see mounted cavalry in War of Rights. As you all know the days of 'the kind that are mounted with sabers gallantly charging the enemy' were long gone by 1862. I have zero interest in standing on a battle line only to have a rambo cavalrymen scything through it from behind. Maybe there are players who could be trusted to use mounted cavalry as it was actually used in the war, most would just abuse it.

[brentcarter]

Cavalry only maps & battles.

[Lenny]

I'm sure you would have to make some system for it, but it could work out well with some minor tweaks.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Ultimately, I want to see horses teamed to the limbers of the artillery so that it can be player controlled and mobile.

I am also looking forward to seeing mules in game as well for the mobility of the quartermaster wagons.

(To dream ... )

Yeah man that would be cool. Being able to shoot out the enemy horses so they cant re-maneuver their arty would be interesting

[Alasdair]

I suppose it's fair to assume that horses would be implemented in a limited capacity. Though it would add another layer to battles, the current focuses are strong enough to not feel like something is missing.

Plus, there's still solid cavalry regiments on M&B to satisfy that craving when I feel like trampling people underfoot. :cool:

[dirtyjack]

I would start simple with giving officers the horse option if they want to be mounted. Maybe NCOs later to encourage an in-game messenger system between lines. Once they got the basic system implemented, they can go larger scale with dragoons and cav units.

[thomas aagaard]

I never, ever, want to see mounted cavalry in War of Rights. As you all know the days of 'the kind that are mounted with sabers gallantly charging the enemy' were long gone by 1862.

Actually the days of cavalry charges was not there yet.
It takes 2-3 years to train a new regiment of cavalry... If you got experienced NCOs and officers.
And even longer without them.

By 64 Union cavalry had finally learned how to fight both on foot and mounted. They often charged home with drawn sabers against CSA cavalry. It was way more decisive than taking the firefight on foot... especially because the csa cavalry by this stage of the war often did not have sabers.

The reason why we rarely read about it is because it didn't happen as part of big battles, but when regiment and brigade sized cavalry formations clashed in the days before and days after a big battle.

I think a late war cavalry battle could be very interesting... but it was just not part of the Maryland campaign.



Originally something I posted on another forum in a debate about revolves vs sabers... but all of it are cases of union cavalry using mounted charges as a way of winning a fight.

All of it are about the battle of mine creek. reports from different union officers.

Here is what Col. John L. Beveridge, Seventeenth Illinois Cavalry wrote in is report.
"On the 25th, after the battle of Mine Creek, when the brigade was ordered to the front, the regiment occupying the center of the column in the order of march, where the ground would permit by doubling up the column, was ever at the front, and made one gallant charge upon the enemy with sabers drawn, in column of squadrons. The enemy did not wait to receive the charge and no damage was done to either party."
OR. series 1, books 41, page 378

Major Abial R. Fierce, Fourth Iowa Cavalry
My regiment had just formed on the extreme left of our line when I commenced the charge. The three companies on the right of my regiment charged through the line of the Tenth Missouri Volunteer Cavalry Regiment, which was formed in their front. In that charge we crushed the enemy’s right completely. We pressed them so close that I cut eight rebels from their horses with my own saber. My regiment captured over 200 prisoners with two stand of colors.
page 336
(he is complaining earlier in the report that his unit don't get sufficient credits for the victory... so I would take his claim with a grain of salt.)

Colonel Chas. W. Blair 14th Kansas cavalry
The head of the column was here checked by a heavy fire from the field, and it was evident that another battle was to be fought. Accordingly the general formed his brigade in close column of companies, and made them a little speech while forming to the effect that it made no difference whether there were 1,000 or 10,000 men on that field, he wanted them to ride right over them and saber them down as fast as they came to them. The men responded with a yell, the dismounted skirmishers tore down the fence in the face of a galling fire, and the column swept through it like a tornado.
page 605

To be fair one officer Col. John F. Philips, commander of the 1st cavalry brigade wrote:
My brigade was precipitated on the enemy’s center and left with tremendous energy, when the fighting became general and terrific. The impetuosity of the onset surprised and confounded the enemy. He trembled and wavered and the wild shouts of our soldiers rising above the din of battle told that he gave way. With pistol we dashed into his disorganized ranks and the scene of death was as terrible as the victory was speedy and glorious. Major-General Marmaduke, Brigadier-General Cabell, some colonels, several line officers, four guns, one stand of colors, and a large number of prisoners were captured by this brigade.
Page 352.

What is clear is that the union cavalry after using dismounted skirmishers in the opening part of the battle to clear fences, won the battle by a direct mounted charge... where sabers was very clearly used very effectively.

[Melonfish]

Cavalry of this period generally used their speed and mobility for scouting or taking up advanced positions and blocking, fighting as infantry (though with the faster firing carbines).
Cavalry charges did happen but mostly via skirmish actions or as thomas points out, against other cavalry.
I'm that regard cavalry vs cavalry maps with the ability to dismount would be rather epic.
I wouldn't however add cav to an infantry skirmish map, they'd be massively OP with regards to speed alone. How we deal with cannon is going to be another issue tbh.

[Charles Caldwell]

I cant for the life of me see how Cavalry will work in this game. The Maps are too small to make Cavalry effective, and they are too big a target! It'll be like shooting big fish in a small barrel. I mean, just shoot the horse and turn a dashing cavalryman into a fancy dressed infantryman in one shot. :)

[Hinkel]

I cant for the life of me see how Cavalry will work in this game. The Maps are too small to make Cavalry effective,

Since all skirmish maps are based on one huge map (4x4 km), the map is big enough to offer room for cavalry.
I think the entire map would feature over 200 different NW maps :p

[Pootis]

I can definitively see how Cavalry would work in game- right now, normally, you have to send like 2 guys forward to scout the enemy, and communicating with other lines can be kind of awkward. Plus if those scouts have to keep being sent forward, you can end up bleeding a lot of morale, so Cavalry would be a welcome replacement for that tactic.

My only issue is that the formation boxes will definitively have to be loosened a lot to avoid Cavalry commanders continuously charging the enemy and blowing all of a team's morale when the infantry barely gets time for a volley. The charges against a full line would be suicidal anyway- big hitboxes and all. But they'd help out a lot as potential couriers between lines on top of their skirmish role- run over to a line here, pass a message there, make sure everyone knows what everyone else is doing.

Skirmishing is normally something this game lacks at the moment, but Cavalry would help tremendously with that. It'd be the terror of a line to have a cavalry unit show up on the flank and unload a hail of carbine fire, just to retreat before the line can oblique-fire. Can't wait.

[Charles Caldwell]

Since all skirmish maps are based on one huge map (4x4 km), the map is big enough to offer room for cavalry.
I think the entire map would feature over 200 different NW maps :p

The 4km x 4km map would be big enough, but aren't we fenced in in a pre-determined section. Some of those Cornfield maps feel like a football pitch in size. Having 10 or so Cav players on it would be ridiculous.


I can definitively see how Cavalry would work in game- right now, normally, you have to send like 2 guys forward to scout the enemy, and communicating with other lines can be kind of awkward. Plus if those scouts have to keep being sent forward, you can end up bleeding a lot of morale, so Cavalry would be a welcome replacement for that tactic.

My only issue is that the formation boxes will definitively have to be loosened a lot to avoid Cavalry commanders continuously charging the enemy and blowing all of a team's morale when the infantry barely gets time for a volley. The charges against a full line would be suicidal anyway- big hitboxes and all. But they'd help out a lot as potential couriers between lines on top of their skirmish role- run over to a line here, pass a message there, make sure everyone knows what everyone else is doing.

Skirmishing is normally something this game lacks at the moment, but Cavalry would help tremendously with that. It'd be the terror of a line to have a cavalry unit show up on the flank and unload a hail of carbine fire, just to retreat before the line can oblique-fire. Can't wait.

Yep the 1 or 2 guy scouting method is a pain, but in this fast paced charge to the objective mechanism its the only thing we have. If battle maps were larger with multiple objectives, then Cav may be useful. Believe me I want Cav to work, but a lot of the maps just aren't suited for Cav. Some of the Wooded or town maps, mounted Scouts is asking for lost tickets (out of formation).

[Hinkel]

The 4km x 4km map would be big enough, but aren't we fenced in in a pre-determined section. Some of those Cornfield maps feel like a football pitch in size. Having 10 or so Cav players on it would be ridiculous.


There is a difference between the skirmish game mode we have right now and the historic game mode, which would feature the entire map (with multiple cap points and such)
The skirmish maps are based on the skirmish battles, which took place during the battle and they already have the authentic units, which took part in the fight there.

While there won't be any mounted cavalry on these skirmish maps (since there were no cavalry battles), they would be part of the historic battle mode, if we will feature mounted combat.

[Charles Caldwell]

Thank you, the historic full map and game mode is news to me and very welcome.... On 4x4km map Cav will be invaluable.

[[1st Cav] Shifty]

If they bring cav boys the 1st will be chasin you reb's down!! Ya better run!

[RhettVito]

If we ever reach the point where horses are viable, I’d rather see them added only for the officers.

+1 to that man !

[A. P. Hill]

Shifty;86133']If they bring cav boys the 1st will be chasin you reb's down!! ...

There were only 3 companies of the 1st U.S. Cavalry at Antietam, B, I, & K, and they spent a rather casual day on that 17th of September in 1862, huddled around the Pry House, being McClellan's HQ & QM guard. So, basically policing wagons.

What cavalry that did participate of Pleasanton's Division, only crossed the middle bridge and stopped 100 yards past the west end of the bridge and went no further. They were there protecting the Horse Artillery.

:)


(BTW, those are the only 3 companies in the Company Tool .)

[John Cooley]

Naturally, I am opposed to the whole "Officer's Only" school of thinking regarding horses in WoR.

The Union Order of Battle for Antietam was much more robust than portrayed here and while I will admit that the Northern Commanders utilized their assets unwisely they did field a substantial amount of Cavalry units ...
5th United States
6th United States
8th Illinois
3rd Indiana
1st Massachusetts
8th Pennsylvania
4th Pennsylvania
6th Pennsylvania
1st New York
12th Pennsylvania
8th New York
3rd Pennsylvania
Horse Artillery:
2nd United States, Battery A, B, L and M
3rd United States, Batteries C and G
15th Pennsylvania (detachment)
Escort Cavalry:
1st Michigan Cavalry, Company L
1st Maine Cavalry, Company G
6th Pennsylvania Cavalry, Companies B and G
1st Maine Cavalry (detachment)
6th New York Cavalry, Company D and K
2nd New York Cavalry, Companies A, B, I and K
Independent Company Oneida (New York) Cavalry
4th United States Cavalry, Company A
4th United States Cavalry, Company E
Quartermaster's Guard:
1st United States Cavalry, Companies B, C, H, and I
Provost Guard:
2nd United States Cavalry, Companies E, F, H, and K
8th United States, Companies A, D, F, and G
19th United States, Company G and H

I don't think I need to list the Confederate Cavalry assets to belabor the point.

Cavalry was always an important and integral part of every battle plan Lee devised and upon J.E.B. Stuart's death he is reported to have said that he could hardly keep from weeping at the mere mention of Stuart's name and that Stuart had never given him a bad piece of information.
His contributions, and closeness to the Capitol when he was mortally wounded, resulted in a personal visit by President Davis.
He took General Stuart's hand and asked "General, how do you feel?"
Stuart answered "Easy, but willing to die, if God and my country think I have fulfilled my destiny and done my duty."

Restricting Cavalry is not only unwise but not historical and a slight on those brave Troopers who did what Cav always does ...
"MOVE STRIKE DESTROY"
- 116th Cavalry Brigade Combat Team Motto

[John Jones]

At the risk of crossing the boundary into the Historical Discussion thread (and at the risk of crossing my WoR Commanding Officer!) I spent part of the afternoon not doing my work but reading this article about JEB Stuart's performance in the Maryland campaign. http://antietam.aotw.org/exhibit.php?exhibit_id=430.

As for much history, the writer's perspective should be taken into account but nonetheless, the article serves as a balanced counter-narrative to the halo that seems to exist around JEB Stuart.

In summary, it assesses that Stuart's performance during Lee's Maryland Campaign as mixed : "his screening was very good, his rear guard actions mixed, and his scouting poor."

It is also useful in highlighting (at least to my reading) that most of the cavalry action at Sharpsburg/Antietam took place before and after the 17th September, with most CSA units (and probably Union units) engaged in screening or guarding/supporting artillery on the main day of the battle (I am happy to be corrected by A P Hill and others on this score) and is therefore arguably beyond the scope of War of Rights in it's current iteration.

As I have been a proud member of a Cavalry Company for well over a year, I am perhaps more eager than many to see cavalry introduced but reluctantly and sadly I must agree that we should not see it on the field for the moment.

On the other hand, cavalry should be an integral part of Historical Battles mode (whatever that looks like) for the invaluable contribution it made in shaping the battlefield prior to contact and disengagement of the infantry formations.

[John Cooley]

Well put First Sergeant, as always.

[Leifr]

It's not that I am strictly for "Officer's Only" John, moreso that I feel it is more pragmatic to allow them and perhaps a courier, in a non-combatant form, access to a horse before anything else. It must be a substantial effort to even have a horse properly interact with the game in a realistic and enjoyable manner. To then build a combat system on top of this would be something else and, dare I say, will eventually take up a great time on CFG's part. We're still lacking anything substantial with the sabre on foot, nevermind trying to put that on horseback. Small steps my friend...

I look forward to the day when mounted troops can field themselves properly in-game.

[A. P. Hill]

I think the clarification that was missed with the "Officers Only" statement is that as long as we are in Skirmish Mode, horses should be relegated to Officers Only as the skirmish areas are too confined for large if any cavalry action. (This statement needs a disclaimer, When artillery becomes employable by players, I would like to see horses available to make the artillery mobile.) I think when the battlefield mode is presented and released, there should be room for some cavalry, but again it would be ahistorical to have them roaming all over the field.

On the 17th, there were very little if any cavalry interaction with the battle. Stuart of course with his division of cavalry held Lee's Left (or Jackson's left) on the Nicodemus farm and heights. McClellan's Cavalry, as stated, was being improperly used and deployed. Pleasanton's total losses for his cavalry division on the 17th September, 108. (https://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=7016)

His main task was to support artillery. Not open an attack.


The biggest CSA cavalry action was at Crampton's Gap. (https://www.battlefields.org/learn/maps/cramptons-gap-september-14-1862) September 14th.



Here is Pleasanton's entire Maryland Campaign After Action Report. (http://civilwarhome.com/plsntsn.html)

[John Cooley]

Thanks for those clarifications .... helped.

I completely agree ...
Skirm - Officer Only and I really like the Courier Idea.
It would be a great way to Test horses at different speeds and across multiple terrain types.

[SouthCarolina]

Lot of cavalry action is mentioned in the following book: "The Battle of south Mountain" by John David Hoptak

[John Jones]

Lot of cavalry action is mentioned in the following book: "The Battle of south Mountain" by John David Hoptak


I don't think there's much dispute that the cavalry was busy before and after 17th September but War of Rights as it stands covers the battle fought on the 17th, when I hope between us we have been able to show in the above posts, both sides cavalry played a relatively peripheral role.

The more thought I have given this topic the less I think we should see cavalry on the field. Even in the Historical Battle mode, assuming it still covers those actions fought on 17th, I think there is less scope for cavalry than I originally believed -though I think it should still be present.

Small steps is great and I agree that Officers and messengers should serve as the test bed for how horses can be introduced, although I am curious as to how messengers would work when most organised Companies use TS or similar to communicate.

It's completely wild speculation on my part about about what Historical battles might look like but I think mounted cavalry should be present is sufficient quantity to be able to carry out screening, scouting, support and liaison duties etc. but not in numbers that would completely unbalance the game and detract from the fundamentally infantry based battle that took place. For the sake of argument, based on a server population of 100 players per side, capping strength as say, 12-15 horses might constitute a minor threat to most infantry without unbalancing the game (12-15 might, however, cause serious difficulties for a disorganised mob that pays no heed to formation, just as it should be).

I'm assuming that by the time Historical Battles is introduced, server populations will be significantly higher - otherwise I can't see it working, as all our assumptions are based on this increase ( +1 to Sox for keeping pointing this one out).

[SouthCarolina]

I don't think there's much dispute that the cavalry was busy before and after 17th September but War of Rights as it stands covers the battle fought on the 17th, when I hope between us we have been able to show in the above posts, both sides cavalry played a relatively peripheral role.

The more thought I have given this topic the less I think we should see cavalry on the field. Even in the Historical Battle mode, assuming it still covers those actions fought on 17th, I think there is less scope for cavalry than I originally believed -though I think it should still be present.

Small steps is great and I agree that Officers and messengers should serve as the test bed for how horses can be introduced, although I am curious as to how messengers would work when most organised Companies use TS or similar to communicate.

It's completely wild speculation on my part about about what Historical battles might look like but I think mounted cavalry should be present is sufficient quantity to be able to carry out screening, scouting, support and liaison duties etc. but not in numbers that would completely unbalance the game and detract from the fundamentally infantry based battle that took place. For the sake of argument, based on a server population of 100 players per side, capping strength as say, 12-15 horses might constitute a minor threat to most infantry without unbalancing the game (12-15 might, however, cause serious difficulties for a disorganised mob that pays no heed to formation, just as it should be).

I'm assuming that by the time Historical Battles is introduced, server populations will be significantly higher - otherwise I can't see it working, as all our assumptions are based on this increase ( +1 to Sox for keeping pointing this one out).

I never disputed anything I merely pointed out a book. As it stands with the game it will include the South Mountain maps where the Cav played a even more active role which would further give meaning to add horses to the game 'not only for the Antietam battles but also the South Mountain battles' in a later stage.

[Quaker]

As well as the historical case, I think even just a squadron of cavalry on each side would mix gameplay up more compared to infantry vs infantry alone which can sometimes be too static on some maps.

Knowing there was a group of cavalry out there that could suddenly charge and be upon you would add to the immersion and potentially affect the way infantry manoeuvre and fight.

Though I do hate the idea of killing horses, even in a game. :(

Technically it may be a little problematic? I read a post by Trusty (I think) the other day explaining some issues they’re having with calculating how or where bayonets hit so I imagine cavalry melee would be more difficult. And issues like lots of fences and thick woods on some maps may be very limiting for cavalry.

[John Jones]

I never disputed anything I merely pointed out a book. .
Apologies, perhaps my choice of words. I did not intend to mean that anything was under dispute as in an arguement- only to say that the evidence indicates that the 17th was a quiet day for the cavalry.

[SouthCarolina]

Apologies, perhaps my choice of words. I did not intend to mean that anything was under dispute as in an arguement- only to say that the evidence indicates that the 17th was a quiet day for the cavalry.


No worries. I would still hope it will be added even if it needs to be in smaller numbers if the big map will be released there is enough places for the cav to be effective or dismount when needed.

[[1st Cav] Shifty]

I honestly believe they should add cavalry when the bigger maps release and even then it would be unlikely for the cav to charge the enemy as the cavalry would find the enemy dismount, shoot and then mount and ride back or to a different location, i really do believe cav would be such a great asset in this game.

[Sox]

Shifty;86270']I honestly believe they should add cavalry when the bigger maps release and even then it would be unlikely for the cav to charge the enemy as the cavalry would find the enemy dismount, shoot and then mount and ride back or to a different location, i really do believe cav would be such a great asset in this game.

If players CAN do it, then they will, if mounted Cavalry are added then people will 100% charge infantry. As mounted scouts they would be great, as dismounted skirmishers they already are great, as couriers....definately. We have problems with lone wolves as it is, can you imagine what that'll be like if you give them horses? Players who want to play the game as civil war cavalry would be fine on horses.....give them to everyone and it'll be chaos.

[tolis500]

That would be beautiful!

[[1st Cav] Shifty]

a quick fix for that when game releases private servers for the events, just like any other line battle game the server has rules one of which could be cav cannot charge though i think they should make it possible.
personally i think private servers will fix alot of things.

[amelius]

If we ever reach the point where horses are viable, I’d rather see them added only for the officers.

That would be AMAZING...

[88th_jeremu]

I think it'd be cool to see horses as actual creatures in-game. I think that they could make it so that horses can frighten (although it should be more difficult than in M&B and in real life), but only when the rider is dismounted. I like the idea of having one man being able to manage 10 or so riderless horses, so that the maximum number of men can be on the front line. Having simple AI with the horses so that they'll path-find like in The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, or Kingdom Come: Deliverance, would be a nice touch. On the one hand I think having one man staying behind the skirmish line with the horses is realistic, I don't think that it's necessarily practical for game-play. In events, I have no doubt someone would be fine managing the horses, but in random matches, I am doubtful.

As to the effectiveness of charging, I think that it would not be difficult to make cavalry charges punishing. One could make it so that if a horse is dismounted it has more health than when mounted, and you could make the effectiveness of hits on horses change based on distance to the firer. This way a ball hitting a horse within 10 metres of the firer would kill it instantly (with the exception of revolver and carbine rounds, for cav vs. cav gameplay), punishing the rider for getting too close, but making long-range play more viable, and having it so that cavalry couldn't be neutered early in the game by a bunch of well-placed rifle rounds at long range. Making bayonets easy at killing horses and their riders would also deter Napoleonic tactics.

Limbers would be something interesting to handle, and I'd love to see the ability for gunners to hop onto a limber and ride it like a wagon, as I've seen with Napoleonic horse artillery. I doubt foot artillery would do that, but having it as an option sounds like fun.