questions after first game

[bawawa]

Hi, we ve just played our first game (starter army : early swedish vs ecw parliamentary) : Sweden 1- England 0...but we did on a pre-established terrain so...
We have 2 questions, one for the rules, one more general :

1/ About unit who can evade, p87 it's written non shock cavalry formed up 1 base deep....in that case what troops exactly are defined by "cavalry", there is no definition in the index...is it meaning : "cavalier", or all non shock mounted ...(we considered non shock troop on horse....)

2/ We realized that in most of cases artillery is more efficient vs mounted than foot, so artillery is more efficient on the wing of the army than in center which is the historic place in most of cases (if we believe a lot of illustration from that era)...do you have idea about that ?
Friendly
Eric

[david53]

Hi, we ve just played our first game (starter army : early swedish vs ecw parliamentary) : Sweden 1- England 0...but we did on a pre-established terrain so...
We have 2 questions, one for the rules, one more general :

1/ About unit who can evade, p87 it's written non shock cavalry formed up 1 base deep....in that case what troops exactly are defined by "cavalry", there is no definition in the index...is it meaning : "cavalier", or all non shock mounted ...(we considered non shock troop on horse....)

2/ We realized that in most of cases artillery is more efficient vs mounted than foot, so artillery is more efficient on the wing of the army than in center which is the historic place in most of cases (if we believe a lot of illustration from that era)...do you have idea about that ?
Friendly
Eric

Taking the TYW I would have thought the artillery would be in the centre, it was as good IMO against infantry(not in the rules I know) as cavalry take artillery against early 19th century armies the way they bounced the ball into foot formations IMO it would work as well for ealier armies. Also having your foot behind the infantry allows support, if you have them on the flank cavalry can not intenpetrate.

Cavalry are for the most part bow armed troops these can evade, Cavalier determined horse Horse can't evade

I am sure someone with more experience will answer

BTW I can't beat the Swedes fought two Swedish armies lost both times.

[timmy1]

Cavalry are a troop type. Troop types are defined on page 22 and 165. Basically only troops in the army list as cavalry are cavalry. There are none in those starter lists.

[timmy1]

Dave, your memory fails you. You have beaten my Swedes twice (your 2nd and 4th games IIRC).

[deadtorius]

Page 25, lists shock troops:
any battle group including mounted with heavy lancers, light lancers, or impact mounted capability except light horse
Gendarmes
Cavaliers
Determined horse

then goes on to foot types.

Basically to be non-shock cavalry you pretty much have to be listed as horse under troop type in the army list.

[bawawa]

Page 25, lists shock troops:
any battle group including mounted with heavy lancers, light lancers, or impact mounted capability except light horse
Gendarmes
Cavaliers
Determined horse

then goes on to foot types.

Basically to be non-shock cavalry you pretty much have to be listed as horse under troop type in the army list.

I checked p22 troop type : cavalry seems to be a specific troop (I find some hussard for example) who is not in our starter lists, so horses even one base deep can't evade, only cavalry assuming they are not impact mounted, heavy or light lancer...so we have answer now !!!
Regards

[rbodleyscott]

To count as "non-shock cavalry" troops have to be of the "Cavalry" troop-type and not have "Light Lancers" capability (or "Heavy Lancers" or "Impact Horse", but there are none of those).

"Horse", "Cavaliers", "Determined Horse" and "Gendarmes" are mounted troops, but they are not "Cavalry" as the term is used in the rules, and they can never Evade from an enemy charge whatever they are armed with.

We do appreciate that "Cavalry" has a wider usage in general parlance. We could perhaps have called them "Sipahis" but that would seem a bit odd for (for example) 16th century Western troops so rated. The same issue applies to "Horse".

[bawawa]

That's very clear now, we were confused cause we didn't realized that there was some cavalry tpye in some list, and we missed the word in the troop type list, now it's clear !
Many thanks to all of you
I have another question in another topic !
Eric

[mbsparta]

We do appreciate that "Cavalry" has a wider usage in general parlance. We could perhaps have called them "Sipahis" but that would seem a bit odd for (for example) 16th century Western troops so rated. The same issue applies to "Horse".

........ I tried to get you guys to do that!

Mike B

[Rook]

Bawawa wrote about the effect of artillery on horse and placing them on flanks. During the English Civil War arty was often place in the centre as has been commented on. Often to protect it as it was seen as a status symbol for armies and period texts often loudly talk of the number of guns taken from the enemy. BUT it was also frequently placed on the flanks, especially when an army was not intending to attack. An example is Edgehill where at least two sources first hand Parliament sources (Fiiennes and Ludlow) report the best guns, presumably the biggest were on the right flank and a Royalist (Stuart) says they were in amongst the horse on the right wing. Source Edgehill byScott, Turton and Von Arni