Damn Light Horse again

[ethan]

But is it actually a typical LH army? I think most of the work is done by the Cv.

All the "LH Armies" I have ever seen are the Graham Briggs "Air and Grit" variet. 7-9 BGs of LH, 2-4 BGs of cavalry and/or knights and possibly a few BGs of LF.

[Ghaznavid]

The last tournament on german soil came close with Mongol Conquest at 80.3 points in 4 games.
But is it actually a typical LH army? I think most of the work is done by the Cv.

Doesn't matter IMO, as it is not the problem. You do not get an average of about 20 points per game by just evading and avoiding combat. I assumed it is about toning down the ability of skirmisher armies to avoid defeat not to ensure armies with sizable skirmisher contingents can't win anymore. Sure, to win with Mongols you need to screen part of the opponents army with your LH, slowly falling back, while concentrating on other parts with the Cv. If the ability to actually do so is already considered a problem (and it's not as easy as good players make it appear) then it is asking for historically very effective armies to be neutered into obscurity (as they seem to've been in DBM). That would be a completely misguided and unacceptable approach in my not so humble opinion.

[Ghaznavid]

All the "LH Armies" I have ever seen are the Graham Briggs "Air and Grit" variet. 7-9 BGs of LH, 2-4 BGs of cavalry and/or knights and possibly a few BGs of LF.

Just that Mongols do not get LF. No idea about the Mongol army that won in Italy. The army Martin played very successfully recently had 6 BGs LH (3 sup, 3 ave) and 5 BGs armoured, superior Cv (yes just 11 BGS).

[peterrjohnston]

And why did you allow an army from EoD in an OoF themed tournament?

Matteo meant Mongol Invasion

[kevinj]

I agree that a Mongol army winning a OOF theme is not where I see the problem. I would regard that as a significant achievement given some of the other armies in that book. As has already been said, if you're scoring 80+ points, you're not doing it by just running away and not giving your opponent the chance of a game.

[michaelguth]

"Metagame" is a term which describes the game outside of the game rules. This may have many aspects. Army choice is one element of the metagame. If everyone at every tournament shows up with one army, then it makes sense to tailor an army to defeat that army. Speed of play is an element of the metagame, and this varies from individual to individual. Meet a slow player early in a tournament and you will either lose a top score, or become so frustrated at the speed of play that you may begin to make rash and careless mistakes.

Regarding the difficulty of defeating light horse armies, the term 'metagame' has definite relevance. Increase your build total from 400 to 600 points on the same size board, and watch the problem of light horse evasion tactics disappear. Similarly, take your 4x6 board and turn it into a 3x5 and again the light horse archetypes will have serious trouble. Finally, call a win a win, and a loss a loss without the absurdity of scoring points, and people may start bringing close combat troops rather than risk losing a game by losing a single fragmented LH unit.

Mike Guth

[hazelbark]

I think people mis-stake the concern about LH.

It is very silly to say such and such an army or tactic proves ___ when the player is a superior skilled player.

The downside of rule-ruffles is when players earlier in the learning curve take a historically sucessful army and feel it gets easily beaten then they question the game and don't advance up the curve.

I remember an old Board Game Storm of Arnhem. First time you played the Germans easily demolished the Red Devils. Until you thought through the rule mechanics then the Devils couldn't be dislodged. It took 3-5 games to learn how tensley balanced it was.

It too lost a lot of converts because people didn't go up the curve.

So the wrinkle with the LH issue, is it takes too long to figure out how, to handle the LH.

[david53]

So the wrinkle with the LH issue, is it takes too long to figure out how, to handle the LH.

After many games at quite a few comps I took a Knight Army along to the Challange, considering I am one of those people on the dark side(I play Mongal,Seljik armies mostly)

I found not the LH a problum with my Knights but the fact that in one of my games I spent 3 1/2 hours chasing Cavalry that could never be caught with my Knights you move 5 I move 4 around a double sized Steep hill. I tried closing the table down but there was still ample room to keep out of my way.

Now because of this do we need to change the rules with regard to Cavalry moving and turning or the movement distance?

[Mehrunes]

The last tournament on german soil came close with Mongol Conquest at 80.3 points in 4 games.
But is it actually a typical LH army? I think most of the work is done by the Cv.

Doesn't matter IMO, as it is not the problem. You do not get an average of about 20 points per game by just evading and avoiding combat. I assumed it is about toning down the ability of skirmisher armies to avoid defeat not to ensure armies with sizable skirmisher contingents can't win anymore. Sure, to win with Mongols you need to screen part of the opponents army with your LH, slowly falling back, while concentrating on other parts with the Cv. If the ability to actually do so is already considered a problem (and it's not as easy as good players make it appear) then it is asking for historically very effective armies to be neutered into obscurity (as they seem to've been in DBM). That would be a completely misguided and unacceptable approach in my not so humble opinion.

That's is nearly that what I meant with the my rhetorical question. Actually it isn't the typical LH army people are complaining about (although the whole army is capable of skirmishing away).

[madaxeman]

So the wrinkle with the LH issue, is it takes too long to figure out how, to handle the LH.

After many games at quite a few comps I took a Knight Army along to the Challange, considering I am one of those people on the dark side(I play Mongal,Seljik armies mostly)

I found not the LH a problum with my Knights but the fact that in one of my games I spent 3 1/2 hours chasing Cavalry that could never be caught with my Knights you move 5 I move 4 around a double sized Steep hill. I tried closing the table down but there was still ample room to keep out of my way.

Now because of this do we need to change the rules with regard to Cavalry moving and turning or the movement distance?

Welcome to our world.

Cv vs Kn, MF vs HF, LH vs Cv - it's the same problem/issue, it's just a lot easier to execute an escape successfully with LH.

(Or, with my Manchester hat on, your army composition was clearly rubbish and you played like a muppet, OK it may well have been 3.5 hours of your life utterly wasted in a game which bore no resemblance to any sort of historical simulation and which was clearly unwinnable to boot, but get over it, the rules are prefect as written, keep throwing your time and money at game you no longer enjoy as the only solution is to keep coming back for more at the next tournament - or the only alternative is to realise that you are a soft southern jesse and admit Dave Ruddock is not the new Geordie Messiah).

[nikgaukroger]

Welcome to our world.

Cv vs Kn, MF vs HF, LH vs Cv - it's the same problem/issue, it's just a lot easier to execute an escape successfully with LH.

Play 25mm.

[david53]

So the wrinkle with the LH issue, is it takes too long to figure out how, to handle the LH.

After many games at quite a few comps I took a Knight Army along to the Challange, considering I am one of those people on the dark side(I play Mongal,Seljik armies mostly)

I found not the LH a problum with my Knights but the fact that in one of my games I spent 3 1/2 hours chasing Cavalry that could never be caught with my Knights you move 5 I move 4 around a double sized Steep hill. I tried closing the table down but there was still ample room to keep out of my way.

Now because of this do we need to change the rules with regard to Cavalry moving and turning or the movement distance?

Welcome to our world.

Cv vs Kn, MF vs HF, LH vs Cv - it's the same problem/issue, it's just a lot easier to execute an escape successfully with LH.

(Or, with my Manchester hat on, your army composition was clearly rubbish and you played like a muppet, OK it may well have been 3.5 hours of your life utterly wasted in a game which bore no resemblance to any sort of historical simulation and which was clearly unwinnable to boot, but get over it, the rules are prefect as written, keep throwing your time and money at game you no longer enjoy as the only solution is to keep coming back for more at the next tournament - or the only alternative is to realise that you are a soft southern jesse and admit Dave Ruddock is not the new Geordie Messiah).

Now Tim your just an unbeliever Dave R(Geordie Type is the Messiah)

Maybe I just played it wrong or maybe my opponent played it right kept out of the way of the Knights, I'll have to do some more research into it.

Maybe more themed tournaments were there is at least a chance of a historical game and match up.

Sorry not a soft Southern Jesse more like a big soft Northern Jesse

[david53]

Welcome to our world.

Cv vs Kn, MF vs HF, LH vs Cv - it's the same problem/issue, it's just a lot easier to execute an escape successfully with LH.

Play 25mm.

I remember having some great games at Roll Call two years ago lost them all but good fun.

[Ghaznavid]

Welcome to our world.

Cv vs Kn, MF vs HF, LH vs Cv - it's the same problem/issue, it's just a lot easier to execute an escape successfully with LH.

Play 25mm.

Or play chess. No troop types or dice to blame. If you lose it's just your incompetence, no excuses (builds character), if you win it is all your achievement, no excuses for your opponents (builds self-esteem). Personally I got a lot of character out of it.

[ShrubMiK]

And those who lose with the black pieces can complain about the rules being biased against the type of army they were using, and start long-winded threads about how to resolve the problem

[bddbrown]

So the wrinkle with the LH issue, is it takes too long to figure out how, to handle the LH.

After many games at quite a few comps I took a Knight Army along to the Challange, considering I am one of those people on the dark side(I play Mongal,Seljik armies mostly)

I found not the LH a problum with my Knights but the fact that in one of my games I spent 3 1/2 hours chasing Cavalry that could never be caught with my Knights you move 5 I move 4 around a double sized Steep hill. I tried closing the table down but there was still ample room to keep out of my way.

Now because of this do we need to change the rules with regard to Cavalry moving and turning or the movement distance?

Welcome to our world.

Cv vs Kn, MF vs HF, LH vs Cv - it's the same problem/issue, it's just a lot easier to execute an escape successfully with LH.

(Or, with my Manchester hat on, your army composition was clearly rubbish and you played like a muppet, OK it may well have been 3.5 hours of your life utterly wasted in a game which bore no resemblance to any sort of historical simulation and which was clearly unwinnable to boot, but get over it, the rules are prefect as written, keep throwing your time and money at game you no longer enjoy as the only solution is to keep coming back for more at the next tournament - or the only alternative is to realise that you are a soft southern jesse and admit Dave Ruddock is not the new Geordie Messiah).

Simon Hall (using Parthian) and me (using French Ordonnance) played on the top table in the final round of the Challenge. By using knights to drive up the middle and the rest of my army to attack across half the table I was able to cut off a large chunk of his army and either shove it off table or shoot it to routing and got the baggage. Simon had very little room to or time to run away. It was a great game where both sides had chances to win the game. In the end we both took 10 attrition points off each other but either side could have broken the other army if certain dice rolls had fallen differently.

Light Horse and Skirmishing Cavalry are not an issue IMO. You have to be aggressive and have a plan that cuts off escape. Skirmishing cavalry are also very vulnerable to being lapped on their flanks unless they have a solid line and it is quite possible to pin them at angles so they cannot eacape very easily at all. I played French Ordonnance at Burton and killed handfuls of Light Horse, Light Foot and Cavalry.

It just takes a little practise and some balance to the design of your army.

Just my 2p worth.

[madaxeman]

Ordernnance French? Isn't that the army that can have loads of 4-strong units of cheap LF to bulk up the unit count?

Or is that me getting mixed up with another thread ??!!

[bddbrown]

Ordernnance French? Isn't that the army that can have loads of 4-strong units of cheap LF to bulk up the unit count?

Or is that me getting mixed up with another thread ??!!

Depends if you think 4 of them and a BG count of 13 turn the French Ordonannce into a skirmishing army.

[dave_r]

madaxeman wrote:
Ordernnance French? Isn't that the army that can have loads of 4-strong units of cheap LF to bulk up the unit count?

Or is that me getting mixed up with another thread ??!!

Depends if you think 4 of them and a BG count of 13 turn the French Ordonannce into a skirmishing army.

I recently used a French Ordonnance army at a 900pt Northern Doubles round. Faced two armies of LH and Knights and gave a kicking to both. Knights faced off against each other and then the Longbowmen blew lumps out of the enemy LH.

The big problem Light Horse against Bowmen (long or not) is that they can't get away - effectively Bowmen have a 10" projection rate, so if it all goes wrong then you can't get away without getting shot again. Of course if the bowmen are drilled, it makes it that much easier.

There are other ways as Bruce points out.

In fact, could we please stop telling everybody how to kill Light Horse. It is making my gaming much more difficult.

[azrael86]

The big problem Light Horse against Bowmen (long or not) is that they can't get away - effectively Bowmen have a 10" projection rate, so if it all goes wrong then you can't get away without getting shot again. Of course if the bowmen are drilled, it makes it that much easier.

I agree, it is truly tragic that LH might actually have to take a couple of shots where they aren't at a huge advantage.

Although of course most bowmen are average, whereas many Bw armed Cv and a substantial number of LH are superior....If you are undrilled, then the foot bowman has almost no chance of escaping if he disrupts (and being average is more likely to do so).

Lets add another culprit though: Ottomann Turk. The usual variant features Serbs: however, if there are no serbs, then the army can be fielded with everything able to evade except the janissaries. EVERYTHING has a missile weapon. The Janissaries are superior, and given the firepower they can hold on against pretty much anything except Heavy foot (who will struggle to reach them undisrupted, unless they are superior or elite. Facing such an army, LF is useless unless it is in terrain: Kn can never catch anyone: if you aren't a Cv/LH army then any Cv or LH you do have will be hopelessly outnumbered.

In reality, faced with this, you would take the Roman option and dig in. Perhaps a way forward is to permit MF or HF units to do just this, and if they are halted outside of close range for more than 4 turns, to claim cover against shooters. This wouldn't fix the problem directly, but it would perhaps stop the skirmishers winning.

Those saying 'it's a skill thing' don't seem to acknowledge that the level of skill to manoevre a drilled LH/Cv army is just NOT that great. If those who use them really think they are winning by skill, then by all means, turn up to Britcon with something Undrilled, or with few superior troops, for instance Isles and Highlands, and show us all how it is done.

25mm is not the answer: unless you propose 800 pts; and the entry level if plastics aren't available is prohibitive, certainly to new players and why should those, like me(and I'm sure most of you), that have thousands of 15mm figs be forced to change scale. It's be easier and cheaper to change ruleset.