HW v Mounted

[Scrumpy]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but what is the reasoning behind HW not counting at impact v mounted troops ?

Cheers

[philqw78]

Is there any reason it should have an advantage at impact against mounted?

[MatthewP]

At a guess Hw are usually swung from behind the shoulder (mace, two handed sword etc). This doesnt really give you any protection against a charging horse where you really need something pointy (spear, light spear, pike) or a mass of missiles (impact foot) to ward of the full impact. This theory doesnt quite work for polearms. Is suppose they lie somewhere in between. Maybe half a poa rounded down to zero

[hammy]

This theory doesnt quite work for polearms. Is suppose they lie somewhere in between. Maybe half a poa rounded down to zero

That is why most billmen are heavy foot.

Should charging knights have an advantage against billmen? I would say that it feels wrong if they don't.

[dave_r]

I would guess it is a range thing. The range of a large two handed cut and thrust weapon is about one metre. The range of a lance is about three metres.

Other foot which gain a POA have spears or pikes or throwing spears (i.e. Pilum or heavy throwing weapon) which gives them a similar (or greater) range than the mounted coming towards them.

Once the mounted have finished their charge, they are down to individual hand weapons with the same range as the infantry's heavy weapon.

[nikgaukroger]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but what is the reasoning behind HW not counting at impact v mounted troops ?

Cheers

Because.

[marco]

very funy m gaukroger
but i think that the most is the chinese anti cavalry squad : heavy weapon foot...

[philqw78]

But at least they get to be HF, unlike most chinese HW stuff, that is MF and therefore at double minus

[grahambriggs]

I'm sure this has been covered before, but what is the reasoning behind HW not counting at impact v mounted troops ?

Cheers

I would imagine the issue is that most foot weapons that help against a mounted charge do so either by some sort of missile to slow the horse down, or by a specific anti cavalry drill where something pointy is braced by the ground/men behind or is long enough to stop the horse.

Most heavy weapons weren't of that nature. So if I have, say, a two handed axe, I either have to have a well timed swing or I might be better off just bracing against the shock of the charge.

There's also the game mechanics, of course. If HW got a POA against mounted men at arms on foot and billmen would be the equal of mounted knights.

[Fulgrim]

Well several types of "HW" are in fact weapons with several functions, including a spear-function. For example the halbred. They had/could have (depending on shaft length etc) the same functionality as other weapons included in the spears category when used to thrust. There is no reason beyond rule-simplification due to the mongrel-like Heavy weapon category to not give them (multi-potent pole-arms that is) "spear" POA at impact. FOG doesn't handle them (multi-potent pole-arms that is again) well, but there is nothing stopping you to give them Spear POA at impact or something when appropriate in friendlies. Or look around for a more detailed or "better" set of rules.

[hammy]

Well several types of "HW" are in fact weapons with several functions, including a spear-function. For example the halbred. They had/could have (depending on shaft length etc) the same functionality as other weapons included in the spears category when used to thrust. There is no reason beyond rule-simplification due to the mongrel-like Heavy weapon category to not give them (multi-potent pole-arms that is) "spear" POA at impact. FOG doesn't handle them (multi-potent pole-arms that is again) well, but there is nothing stopping you to give them Spear POA at impact or something when appropriate in friendlies. Or look around for a more detailed or "better" set of rules.

You could consider some of the various medieval bill type weapons as spears rather than heavy weapons. The real problem is that if you have heavy weapons giving a POA against lancers then what is the point of knights?

The only troops that are prevalent in the medieval period who knights would have an advantage against at impact would be archers :O

Personally as things stand I don't see a major problem. Heavy weapons are not as good against lancers as a spear wall. Seems fair to me.

[Scrumpy]

The Huscarls at Hastings are in trouble then. I agree with the comment about the Chinese, my native American troops suffer a double minus aginst mounted at impact, and if they can survive that, then they have a chance in melee. Downside is that they will bounce any mounted troops if they remain steady, and face the dilemma all over again in my opponents next bound.

Why did they bring in billmen & halberdiers during the hundred years war if they were so worse off against mounted than the spearmen they already had ?

[philqw78]

The Huscarls at Hastings are in trouble then. I agree with the comment about the Chinese, my native American troops suffer a double minus aginst mounted at impact, and if they can survive that, then they have a chance in melee. Downside is that they will bounce any mounted troops if they remain steady, and face the dilemma all over again in my opponents next bound.

Why did they bring in billmen & halberdiers during the hundred years war if they were so worse off against mounted than the spearmen they already had ?

The Huscarls were uphill and bordered by spearmen and superior. I would bank on them winning. But they didn't. Why billmen? Cheap and cost effective. Same as the points really. Also they are not that bad off. A single minus at impact then evens. And Native americans soon picked up on using horses once they could get them.

[hammy]

Why did they bring in billmen & halberdiers during the hundred years war if they were so worse off against mounted than the spearmen they already had ?

Good question....

In practice though spearmen are only OK as long as they are steady. Disrupted spearmen don't last long against knights.

Heavy weapons still have a chance when disrupted. Also dismounted knights are really rather good against spearmen. Not so good against billmen.

If you consider that the longbow reduced the number of mounted knights on the battlefield then billmen can do really nasty things to spearmen.

[philqw78]

Why did they bring in billmen & halberdiers during the hundred years war if they were so worse off against mounted than the spearmen they already had ?

Good question....

In practice though spearmen are only OK as long as they are steady. Disrupted spearmen don't last long against knights.

Heavy weapons still have a chance when disrupted. Also dismounted knights are really rather good against spearmen. Not so good against billmen.

If you consider that the longbow reduced the number of mounted knights on the battlefield then billmen can do really nasty things to spearmen.

You are answering the perspective from a game point of viewe Hammy, not the real reasons.

[nikgaukroger]

Why did they bring in billmen & halberdiers during the hundred years war if they were so worse off against mounted than the spearmen they already had ?

Which would you choose, in game terms, to face off knights - HF, Protected, Poor, Defensive Spear or HF, Heavily Arrmoured, Superior, Heavy Weapon ?

That is essentially the English choice.

BTW, the answer to the original question is, as it always is for these questions, that it gets the combat results (and troop deployment incentives) that the rules writers felt best reflected history. Of course, YMMV as to whether their view of history is correct.

[Fulgrim]

Why did they bring in billmen & halberdiers during the hundred years war if they were so worse off against mounted than the spearmen they already had ?

Which would you choose, in game terms, to face off knights - HF, Protected, Poor, Defensive Spear or HF, Heavily Arrmoured, Superior, Heavy Weapon ?

That is essentially the English choice.

Sorry, but that is a rather silly answer. Thats only the choice you would make using the army list created for FOG under the rules imposed in the GAME of FOG - not what the English did choose! If the spear would have been a "better" choice they would have been HF, Sup, HA, (?)Sp in FOG terms. You are repeating Hammy´s mistake just some posts above.

[hazelbark]

Well several types of "HW" are in fact weapons with several functions, including a spear-function. For example the halbred. They had/could have (depending on shaft length etc) the same functionality as other weapons included in the spears category when used to thrust. There is no reason beyond rule-simplification due to the mongrel-like Heavy weapon category to not give them (multi-potent pole-arms that is) "spear" POA at impact. FOG doesn't handle them (multi-potent pole-arms that is again) well, but there is nothing stopping you to give them Spear POA at impact or something when appropriate in friendlies. Or look around for a more detailed or "better" set of rules.

Well you may be trolling here for a fight, or trying to propagandize another set of rules that says there is a significant difference betweeen steel smelted in Bruges vs Gent.

But honestly I don't see your critique as historically valid. The big problem with the examples from 14th and 15th century england, is they really didn't face large numbers of mounted knights or lancers.

If historically you look at the prefered choice of armies that needed answers to large numbers of mounted, they moved toward the Pike. I believe the Dutch and Swiss and possibly the Germans, Italian and Spanish all came to that conclusion.

So in purely late medeval Europe terms, the Halbred and Bill were giving way to the Pike by 1500. I believe the halbred and bills and other polearms did have two functions that were important. They had reach (helpful vs foot and Mounted) and to some degree they were designed to deal with thicker armour. The Russel Crowe, Mel Gibson history aside it does appear that Knights had some kind of initial edge in combat versus these compared to Pike. Maybe even a great edge. The Knights often lost due to poor tactics or sheer being out numbered.

Now what a heavy weapon means in the New World or biblical times, is a very different kettle of fish. There I think there is an argument that the classification and interaction are based on ideal game mechanics.

But from a historical technological perspective, the rules don't seem far wrong on this interaction. They certainly give the "top down" feel.

[Fulgrim]

Nope, not trolling, apologies if it seems like so. I do agree that Knights had an edge vs multi-functional polearms, proper knights that is - not mtd in general.

[grahambriggs]

Halberds would surely not have been as effective as spears or pikes against a mounted charge. The extra weight of the head would be an issue and It's difficult to see how the second rank can bring their weapons to bear as easily. After all, the Swiss migrated to pikes from choppies.

It is true that the games system has to simplify. Local or campaign specific amendments could improve halberds a litle (maybe treat them as one better morale class for the impact only).

In the American lists there were a lot of weapons/fighting styles where we had to consider "are these troops HW, IF, Sw, LS, or Off Sp". In the end we tended to go for weapons that were essentially crshers or momentum based (e.g. weighted clubs) as 'heavy weapons" even if they had some slashing blades on. The only exception being if there was evidence that charges were fierce, in which case they might be impact foot.