 |
Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Siward
Recruit
Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 40
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:07 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Mark Stone wrote: |
There's a mechanism that could accomplish this using existing rules mechanics in a new way, and I've proposed it privately to FHE before (as far as I know it is filed for future consideration). This would also address the Byzantine skirmish problem. Here it is:
1. Disallow skirmish formation to MC and HC.
2. Introduce three new troop types, available as list rules to appropriate lists:
* Light Medium Cavalry (LMC)
* Light Heavy Cavalry (LHC)
* Light Extra Heavy Cavalry (LEHC)
3. LMC, LHC, and LEHC have the following characteristics:
* They are eligible to evade in any situation just like Light Chariots
* When losing in combat they must break off just light Light Chariots
* If armed with a missile weapon they may adopt skirmish formation
4. On lists to which applicable, the list rule would be: "Option to turn entire units of MC, HC, or EHC into LMC, LHC, or EHC respectively... any"
This approach basically forces a player to think of his cavalry as either shock-oriented or missile-oriented. If shock-oriented, then they are proficient in both lance and bow (typically), and of course you pay more for them than just lance armed troops. The down side is that you can't skirmish, evade etc. And why should you be able to? You're shock mounted. If missile-oriented, then you get to do all the cool things missile troops can do, like evade and skirmish, but the flip side is you are more brittle in hand to hand combat, losing out on the recoil option and having to break off instead.
Just my opinion on an issue I grant is highlyl subjective, but I think this would get us a lot closer to representing the way horse archers actually performed historically, and would give pure lance-armed cavalry a better match-up against their bow-armed counterparts.
-Mark Stone |
I really like the concept of this although EHC skirmishing is one I would have a problem with. There just has to be some loss of mobility when you armour a horse.
LHC and LMC is a great idea. I would vary the effect a bit though.
Anything LHC/LMC would only fight one rank in depth.
As you suggested HC/MC cannot skirmish.
These would be the only rule changes required.
Unfortunately lists would need a bit of work. I would suggest though that all non-lance armed HC/MC would become LHC/LMC. Troops with current list rules such as Thracian/Thessalian HC would still become LHC but their list rule would remain giving them 1.5 ranks. As LHC they would still also be able to skirmish. This would be in keeping with improving their performance in period.
All Lance only HC/MC would remain so retaining the benefit of 1.5 ranks.
For all other Lance armed MC/HC armed with a missile weapon you could have a universal option to make them either MC/HC or LMC/LHC. This would be an all/none option per troop type. As an example in the Late Achaemenid Persian you could have the Bactrians as LHC L, B and the Saka as HC L, B. I know this is leaving the decision to the player choosing the army but lets face it, their is controversy surrounding virtually any L, B or L, Jls MC/HC as to true nature of how they fought.
I feel this does solve the problem for Byzantine EHC as they would now be hitting harder than HC who want to skirmish. I also think it solves the current inequity that pure Lance armed cav such as Normans face when up against L, B HC. It would also bring the humble Jls, Sh MC/HC back into the picture a bit as they could match it against MC/HC with L, B who can skirmish. Since this is what many Dark Age armies had it would help them out.
Cheers..........Geoff |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Noel White
Recruit
Joined: 13 May 2006
Posts: 62
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:30 am Post subject: shieldwall |
|
|
Here's my suggestion for Shielwall.
I say keep it simple.
Slap this on the appropriate troop types in the lists...
"Shieldwall" : -1 tactical factor if charging a shieldwall who received the charge halted. exception: pike, LTS, and 2HCT.
In my opinion, not too much, not too little and it adds a little flavour. In combination with a hill the Normans will have to try all the tricks.
However, a "shieldwall" is a rather primordial tactic for those with spears and big shields. Any close order foot unit should be able to claim it. I think this shieldwall discussion is exposing some deeper problems with the core rules.
I can't help ya there.
Noel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tibor
Recruit
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: LHC and LMC |
|
|
This is a very interesting discussion but I see enormous complication here in deciding who should and shouldn't be LHC/LMC. I like Siward's easy solution as it classifies cavalry with a simple diagnosis but it still leaves many armies and troop types out in the cold.
Mongol heavy types were held back for a coup de gras charge and did not seem to skirkish that much although they retained that ability.
Light cavalry based armies would have a significantly reduced punch as well though their charging cavalry (HC under the rules) would then render their armies quite lightweight unable to hit hard with much at all.
This is just off the top of my head but a very careful analysis of the lists seem to be warranted.
Tibor
_________________
I love what I play - even if what I play doesn't love me! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1213
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| This is a very interesting discussion but I see enormous complication here in deciding who should and shouldn't be LHC/LMC. I like Siward's easy solution as it classifies cavalry with a simple diagnosis but it still leaves many armies and troop types out in the cold. |
I am very hesitant to throw my two cents in, but... I am not in favor of changing the way cavalry operates w/ the LEHC, LHC, LMC etc... I think it changes the game mechanics far too much. This change is not looking at a specific list and adding a list rule that would make a particular army function closer to how it did historically - it instead changes the entire core rules and how many armies function. Maybe I'm off on this and haven't had time to adjust to this thought, but I'm concerned about this idea.
Maybe this is for new thread and not on the dark age one. I'm curious about the dark age list rules - is there a rough time table w/ the changes being made public?
Thanks,
Buried in snow in New England,
Todd
_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mark Stone
Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Todd Kaeser wrote: |
| Quote: |
| This is a very interesting discussion but I see enormous complication here in deciding who should and shouldn't be LHC/LMC. I like Siward's easy solution as it classifies cavalry with a simple diagnosis but it still leaves many armies and troop types out in the cold. |
I am very hesitant to throw my two cents in, but... I am not in favor of changing the way cavalry operates w/ the LEHC, LHC, LMC etc... I think it changes the game mechanics far too much. This change is not looking at a specific list and adding a list rule that would make a particular army function closer to how it did historically - it instead changes the entire core rules and how many armies function. Maybe I'm off on this and haven't had time to adjust to this thought, but I'm concerned about this idea. |
I don't necessarily think you're wrong. This is a suggestion that would perhaps function better as a set of X-rules for a Horse Archer theme tournament than under the auspices of list rules. When I proposed this to FHE it was in response to their solicitation for X-rules. I think they put out that call on this forum maybe May of last year?
-Mark Stone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1213
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 6:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I don't necessarily think you're wrong. This is a suggestion that would perhaps function better as a set of X-rules for a Horse Archer theme tournament than under the auspices of list rules. |
Mark,
Ooooo, I like that idea for an X-rule in a horse archer theme - although I felt like I went through that last year at the Cold Wars mini seeing Huns, Skythians, and Mongols etc...
Todd
We're only a few months away here in New England to starting up our Wargaming season - sadly it only lasts for 6 months 
Todd K
_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Todd Kaeser wrote: |
| Quote: |
| I don't necessarily think you're wrong. This is a suggestion that would perhaps function better as a set of X-rules for a Horse Archer theme tournament than under the auspices of list rules. |
Mark,
Ooooo, I like that idea for an X-rule in a horse archer theme - although I felt like I went through that last year at the Cold Wars mini seeing Huns, Skythians, and Mongols etc...
Todd
We're only a few months away here in New England to starting up our Wargaming season - sadly it only lasts for 6 months
Todd K |
As an aside, perhaps better talked about in a separate thread, although I'm not starting it  ...
If you have a lot of table space with respect to the armies playing (i.e., 6x4 in 15mm on 1200 points) you're going to end up with light cavalry armies who place roads and open spaces and look for flanks. I think tournament organizers need to take care with regard to this issue. Imagine playing 15mm 1600 points on 8x5 (25mm) tables...similar issue.
I know there's an experimental rule to deepen the rear zone in 15mm sometimes (from 240p to 360p.)
Frank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Album
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
![[ Hidden ]](templates/subBlack/images/lang_english/icon_email.gif "[ Hidden ]"){kind=icon}
