If this is all to do with a "problem" in tournaments, and tournaments alone, surely the solution should be included in the tournament house-rules and not the core game?

Without introducing new concepts, is the issue that there should be a greater distinction between cavalry and knights/cataphracts in fighting style rather than just time period/armour? If cavalry, for example , had a -POA in mêlée versus MF/HF, but knights/cataphracts didn't, wouldn't this work ...

You can't quote Phil. You're still in Nidd.

That is 17 point-per-base Libyphoenician cavalry against 8 p.p.b. Syracusan hoplites (let's say they're drilled too). If you replicate that across your fighting width (with impact +POA for the hoplites, then evens at mêlée), you're going to get outflanked somewhere!

Nevermind retreating in the face of the enemy, I've always wondered why there's no CT test for troops that evade a charge. (It might even help in that Cav. versus LH debate too!) Yes, light troops are supposed to fight like this, but a sustained pursuit ought to scatter tham as a coherent fighting ...

Back on the original topic: LH versus Cv rather than ancient cavalry fighting formed infantry.

Given the distinction in shooting POAs for single versus multiple rank cavalry as a shooting target, is there any reason why this shouldn't also be applied to light horse?

Presumably a double rank of ...

That plus the point that your cavalry are:

* more expensive to equip and maintain;
* require scarce resources (trained horses);
* slower/more difficult to replace;
* comprised of all the local bigwigs and probably your mates;
* strategically crucial for non-battlefield roles.

They're not the sort ...

I run a VERY fun Ordonnance Burgundian army with mixed ordonnance BGs of Def Sp front rank & Longbow back rank.


These guys are more vulnerable than pure bow BGs to defensive spear charging .

Well the bowmen are dearer...

Anyway, it does seem a little bit of an oddity, but also remember that ...

WotR armies can have a nasty mix of HW and LB units that work well together :D

but it just seems wasteful to have so much armour on your can-opener wielders.

Not really. The better armor gives you the +POA, even though the HW negates the enemy's +POA.

The advantage of taking heavily armoured ...

I'm not saying that it isn't a sensible concept, Simon, but that is at odds with the way the rules are written with respect to terrain.

"Battle group disorder" - page 26: "Only bases marked 'A' [bases at least partly overlapping a rough terrain area] are in the rough terrain..."

At impact, mounted troops could be uphill for +, or versus medium or light foot for +, or heavy/scythed chariots (with exceptions) for +, or lance/knightly lance (with exceptions) for +, or heavy weapon versus foot for +...

Out of interest, what are the numbers if the pike start off disrupted and/or disordered? (And indeed if they are only three deep?)

For the specific situation tested, elephants charging a formed phalanx of fresh, unengaged pikemen on flat, open ground, the result doesn't seem too unreasonable to me.

Wargames are not supposed to be credible, that is to say you could be mistaken into thinking that the half-inch tin models were actual soldiers. They're only supposed to be good enough approximations. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

Actually the companion books state that commanders should be depicted as ... not based as.

That strikes me as an odd reading of it. Basing is surely a part of the on-table depiction?

At any rate, that would still give a basing scheme for commanders as a choice of anywhere from 40x1mm to 40x40mm ...

I know. Morale is what he wrote and I assume by that he meant cohesion level. It certainly doesn't read as quality, which is what it ought to have been.

Also, I don't know if it's just a slip-up, but they have to be the same or better quality rather than morale, don't they?

OK Steve, just for you, the Tupi are mostly MF, Protected or Unprotected, Bow*, Heavy Weapon.

Send in the skilled swordsman conquistidor. :evil:

Surely for conquistadors, you just want the Tlaxcalan list. Add a 4-base BG of HF superior, drilled, armoured skilled swordmen (1/2) and MF superior ...

A few of those look like they are going to be very speculative lists (even for historical wargames) given how little we know about their cultures, let alone their armies!

I've always thought that the most aesthetic (although expensive!) way to do it, particularly for scales with a high figure-to-base ratio would be to make some extra bases for each troop type in the army. They'd be the same models, but with a few dead ones, disorganised battlelines, men running away ...

Immortal Fire:
(III:p15) Early Achaemenid Persians - 0-4 Unprotected, Poor, Undrilled Bow Camelry
(or 4-6 Protected, Poor, Undrilled Bow Swordsmen Camelry for Cyrus' Lydian campaign)
(III:p49) Early Successor - 0-4 Unprotected Poor Undrilled Bow Swordsmen Camelry