Bow, Pistol, or Light Lance?

[khurasan_miniatures]

As I announced we're making Caucasian States for FoGR (and any other rules!) and I've just been looking at my copy of CoE that arrived today. I'm glad I made the Caucasian States!

Question: there are all different types of noble cavalry, and I am making them all, except the light lance and bow*. Should I? I mean, practically speaking, will many gamers opt for that choice? Or does Horse Impact Pistol and or Cavalry Bow just about always make more sense?

(Ironically, the light lancers are described as the cavalry that supplied the Petyhorsy in Polish/Lithuanian armies, and those were the Circassians -- the troops my noble cavalry models were actually based on!)

What is a force mix that makes sense for the noble cavalry in the army -- all Bow, all Horse, or a mix? Any Unarmoured, or all Armoured? (Tell me fast as I'm about to have the unarmoured made! )

All the best,
http://khurasanminiatures.tripod.com

[kadeshuk]

It has to be a mix. Commercially , you almost certainly can't fail because you are likely to be the only game in town for this list. That also means that you have to be able to supply the troop options, or the prospective buyer will not commit.

[khurasan_miniatures]

Yes, that's right, just wondering what troops to supply. Will anyone ever buy unarmoured cavalry when armoured is an option? Will the light lancer option sell if pistol horse and archers are the alternative?

[kadeshuk]

I can only speak for myself, but in this period where shot plays an increasing part, armour falls away in importance. I would normally use unarmoured troops for battlegroups which I would wish to avoid melee combat, either as shooting or support units. The lance provides an effective backup impact weapon, so yes, I would use both were I to do this army.

[khurasan_miniatures]

Thanks for the thoughts on this -- in this list if you have the light lance, no nobles can have the impact pistol, and all then become bow*.

[kadeshuk]

Sorry, I wasn't being clear when stating which army date ; I do not think that I would consider using the list after 1620. Horse with impact pistol and sword does not seem the better option to me, though this is a mattter of taste. Much of the army would be bow-based anyway, and chances are that the nobles will have to run a lot and stand eventually. Bow* does it for me both armoured and unarmoured, but I could see opponents that I would wish to use bow, sword against . It's the sort of army where you wouldn't care if some of the figures had lance because it's a visual thing, and thus covers both eventualities.

[khurasan_miniatures]

Well, my line is post 1620! Cavalry with pistols or bow, and infantry skirmishers with turkish muskets.

[kadeshuk]

Extended to the complete army by the addition of lance armed cavalry, archers and spear-armed foot. I can't say how everyone builds an army, but my local experience is that you usually cover all choices . If you cannot, that often affects decisions on whether to start an army. I appreciate that you are the man that has to pay for the masters, moulds & castings; I used to be in the business myself. In my day, we took the list and did figures for every choice, though in those days it was a single figure for each type. You are your own master, and must make your own choices. No offence intended; I had looked at the photographs of your masters and thought them attractive but had not studied your proposed list of releases .

[khurasan_miniatures]

Thanks again, think I will indeed make the unarmoured nobles as well as the armoured. On the lancers, I think I will hav a few upper torsos made with lance and will sell them in the command set (which will be a set of three command bases, plus a few personalities like a man standing on the horse's back and shooting).

Having a few lancers in some of the units could mark the fact that the army is one of the Petyhorsy-tribe forces. Those were in fact the Circassians and they were not any more fond of the lance than any of the other Caucasian peoples. It was not a widely used weapon in the Caucasus, the deadly Shashka (large one edged sword) being the primary close combat weapon, along with pistols as the 17th C wore on. I think the light lance designation is more for effect than anything else.

[SirGarnet]

Yes, that's right, just wondering what troops to supply. Will anyone ever buy unarmoured cavalry when armoured is an option? Will the light lancer option sell if pistol horse and archers are the alternative?

I think the starter army mix for Caucasian States post-1620 is a reasonable "typical" tabletop army with a prudent mix of troops. The pistoliers are melee troops and Armoured is a key advantage against other mounted and non-Shot foot. The Noble horse archers are Bow-only so they can shoot and scoot (with Light Lance they are shock troops and can't evade), but also Armoured so they can more credibly threaten or be thrown into close combat either in support of the pistoliers or in another sector against targets weakened by the high volume of shooting this army can put out. Having them Unarmoured would be quite reasonable as well although their tactical use would be slightly different.

Lance/Bow are good to press horse archer cavalry, but lack flexibility. They are more close-combat oriented and can't evade, so having them Armoured (if any are fielded) would be a reasonable choice. From a non-historical game effectiveness perspective, I think post-1620 I would not have more than one BG of them, which would usually be in the second line in support of other mounted awaiting Lancer opportunities.

[khurasan_miniatures]

Thanks for that, but all of the noble cavalry must be lance-bow* if any are, so the gamer cannot have just one unit.

Under what circumstances do unarmoured nobles make sense? Is it only if they are bow armed, or do the unarmoured Pistol Horse have their uses too?

[SirGarnet]

Sorry, forgot the list restriction.

Unarmoured pistols would be a good choice for riding down shot formations without pikes (fairly common in Eastern Europe) since they would not benefit from their armour in melee anyway. They are also adequate against Bow/Swordsmen, having the Pistol edge in both Impact and Melee if steady. If they go unsteady in Melee the Swordsmen have the advantage so the pistoliers will miss having their armour. The hazard against horse archers, of course, is the shooting POA for lack of armour, so good tactics require that they arrange to charge from outside of 4 MU horse bow range. It does make things more interesting.

[khurasan_miniatures]

Thanks -- do they get the pistol in melée? They are impact pistol, melée swordsman. Does that change your answer? If so let me know as the unarmoured horse is just about to get made!

[batesmotel]

I would say go with the unarmoured horse. If nothing else, it would be good to have to mix in with armoured horse for more variety in a unit and it does give the option to do unarmoured BGs as well. With that and a few lancer torsoes available, It shouldbe possible to have a lot of variety in the mounted BGs.

Chris

[khurasan_miniatures]

Thanks, I think that's the natural gamer impulse -- sure, let's have more models!  :) As well it should be. But as it's going to cost twice the fee to have the unarmoured men made, unless there's a real interest in using them, I'd want to consider passing on them.  

I guess the question is, if you were fielding 8 units, would you field 6 armoured and two unarmoured, or would you find the 16 points to make them all armoured? Also, would you field them all unarmoured to save 64 points?

[SirGarnet]

I'd best not be specific re the actual list without getting it, but applying general principles of seeking economy of force as well as tactical flexibility suggests getting some of each and being smart about disposing them for the right tactical roles.

For irregular mounted I also like the practice some people adopt of putting 1 unarmoured per base in some mounted BGs to distinguish them and allow them to be downgraded but readily identifiable as having lighter armour.

[batesmotel]

Thanks, I think that's the natural gamer impulse -- sure, let's have more models!  :) As well it should be. But as it's going to cost twice the fee to have the unarmoured men made, unless there's a real interest in using them, I'd want to consider passing on them.  

I guess the question is, if you were fielding 8 units, would you field 6 armoured and two unarmoured, or would you find the 16 points to make them all armoured? Also, would you field them all unarmoured to save 64 points?

While it's for an Early Russian list rather than Caucasian, I've gone with 2 BGs of armoured Dvor (superior, bow, sword cavalry) and 2 BGs of unarmoured deti Boyarski (average, bow, sword cavalry), so would probably do similar in a Caucasian list, at least with bow armed cavalry.

Chris