Would infantry charges actually confer much advantage?

[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.

[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.