Mounted troops vs Infantry

[Toms0lo]

I remember my first tabletop game (WRG 5th) Cesarian Romans vs Sassanid Persian Clibanaries, frontal shock without any preliminary preparation and despite all the good things I had read about Cesar's legions staying power, the game was over in one combat round??¦
30+ years of Wargames Research Group romantic over-estimation of mounted troops over infantry has made most people in our community believe that this is realistic.
The hardest clich?© in our world is that ancient cavalry could frontally run down trained infantry without any preliminary preparation. In ancient related battles, even so called shock cavalry with lance was usually confined to the wings and expected to push back enemy cavalry with the hope to later make the difference from the flanks/back or left in reserve until horse archers had prepared the ground. Middle-ages allowed knights to have the "upper hand" only due to the disaffection of trained infantry, but as soon as they were back, mounted troops tended to avoid them again??¦

I understand from Design Philosophy, comments and sample army lists that you have the tools (trained troops, impact, etc??¦) to reflect these nuances.

Will it be the case ?

Thomas

[hammy]

Mounted shock cavalry that charge reasonable quality infantry are by no means on a sure thing in AoW. In the game I played on Monday using Navarese against Scots Common (the Scots are classified as spearmen in AoW BTW) I charged a total of five times with two goups of knights. On every occasion I failed to break the spearline and eventually both groups of knights picked up enough casualties that they became useless.

Where cavalry can be very effecitve against foot is if the foot are softend first by either the shooting of the cavalry in the case of ghilmen and such or supporting archer groups as should have been the case for my Navarese.

Dailami are able to stand toe to toe with ghilmen in the open, Alumghavars are not roadkill to knights.

On the other hand lesser foot are significantly more vulnerable to mounted.

I hope that is what you wanted to hear.

Hammy

[Toms0lo]

Thanks Hammy for answering again my questions...

Yes ideed your report sounds promissing.

Agreed ! Lesser quality troops, even armed with spears, are not safe against shock oriented mounted, no problems with that.

[hammy]

Thanks Hammy for answering again my questions...

Yes ideed your report sounds promissing.

Agreed ! Lesser quality troops, even armed with spears, are not safe against shock oriented mounted, no problems with that.

The key for spearmen against shock mounted is that unless the spear are steady (i.e. have not been disrupted or disordered) they will stand a decent chance but should their formation crack either on impact or as a result of shooting then they are in big trouble.

Poor quality spear will be more vulnerable to missiles, less effective in combat and all more vulnerable.

[moswin]

Re: Caesarian Romans vs Sassanid Persian Clibanaries, frontal shock

From what I've seen of AoW rules in a group play test, there is a concerted emphasis on classifying troops and nuances (points of advantage in AoW parlance) based upon their actual tactical behaviour and preferences, rather than focussing on their equipment. So this means that the bulk of Sasanian Savaran (even those in later periods that may have been centrally armed and equipped with lance, bow and shield) will be classified as armoured cavalry who tactically emphasise shooting with bow, often stationery and in depth.

Historically, non-elite units of Savaran confronted with decent quality Roman infantry appear to have either evaded or been caught largely stationary - their training and tactics leading them to try and shoot a determined opponent from range rather than charging or counter charging. Once an enemy was disordered, demoralised or the Savaran's missiles were exhausted, they might close to melee.

When asked to melee against decent and organised steady foot, even elite Savaran units struggled to make an impression (see Battle of Callinicum 531AD) and I believe that AoW has the mechanisms to model this rather better than most rules.

[whitehorses]

Thanks Hammy for answering again my questions...

Yes ideed your report sounds promissing.

Agreed ! Lesser quality troops, even armed with spears, are not safe against shock oriented mounted, no problems with that.

The key for spearmen against shock mounted is that unless the spear are steady (i.e. have not been disrupted or disordered) they will stand a decent chance but should their formation crack either on impact or as a result of shooting then they are in big trouble.

Poor quality spear will be more vulnerable to missiles, less effective in combat and all more vulnerable.

So who are more lethal to Steady Foot?
Elephants, Medieval Knights or Bow-Armed Cavalry?

Ellephants appear (from reports on the Forum) to leave Jumbo-sized footprints where Foot *were*
Medieval Knights can ride down any Foot if they win the initial Impact
Bow-Armed Cavalry can shoot Foot at range, then charge in when the Foot go Fragmented or worse



Cheers,
Jer

[Toms0lo]

Medieval Knights can ride down any Foot if they win the initial Impact

As many other would do if they win the initial impact (Gauls, Romans, most cavalry...)
The question is really against which foot will they have "a good chance" to win the initial impact ?
Seems that we got already several clues from Hammy, it will certainly not be a clear path against trained and steady foot.

Thomas

[killerhobbit]

30+ years of Wargames Research Group romantic over-estimation of mounted troops over infantry has made most people in our community believe that this is realistic.

I wonder how all these mounted armies will do against hussites.
If infantry armies always have to loose against mounted, they themselves should always loose against hussite warwagon.

or the rule just please the majority of wargamers, who own mounted armies.

Lets see

[stevesykes]

Killerhobbit wrote:
I wonder how all these mounted armies will do against hussites.
If infantry armies always have to loose against mounted, they themselves should always loose against hussite warwagon.

Surely mounted perpetually losing to Hussites depends on having a player as bone-headed as Sigismund? At Kutna Hora, Pippo Spano won by outflanking the Hussites rather than charging them head-on - possibly worth his IC points!

[SMK-at-work]

I remember my first tabletop game (WRG 5th) Cesarian Romans vs Sassanid Persian Clibanaries, frontal shock without any preliminary preparation and despite all the good things I had read about Cesar's legions staying power, the game was over in one combat round??¦
30+ years of Wargames Research Group romantic over-estimation of mounted troops over infantry has made most people in our community believe that this is realistic.

nothing to do with the rules per se, but a lot to do with the state of knowledge of the time - the Sassanids would invariably have been armed with lance as well as bow - something we now take to be fairly unlikely/rare. Using those same rules those same Sassanids without lance would not be anything nearly as dangerous.

WRG are a convenient fall guy for all sorts of things, but that's just lazy thinking.

[shall]

Just to say...

We have gone back to new views on history as much as possible to avoid the "received wisdom" syndrome.

Sassanids for example work like real sassanids. They are defined as Bow/Swordsmen in the main.

Most foot are pretty solid vs mounted until the get disrupted, which represents them losing a little cohesion and order...........thereafter it can get messy. Not all o course....in the open at least.

If anything we have tried to correct a number of questionable beliefs created by wargames rules of the past. I am sure we haven't fully succeeded, but at least our hearts and minds started in a good place. I personally feel we have got largely there. But the I am biased of course....

Si

Ps I believe the only massive defeat for a hissite wagong lager was against something we would see as a mounted army. Matt heywood sent me the details - I forget the battle but it may be the one mentioned.

[ars_belli]

Just to say...

We have gone back to new views on history as much as possible to avoid the "received wisdom" syndrome.

Let me just add my thanks to the authors for that. It is one of several things about AoW that has converted this non-WRG/DBx player from an early skeptic to someone who eagerly awaits the rule set's commercial release.

Cheers,
Scott