Mounted Infantry

[dave_r]

I have several armies which used to have mounted infantry in previous rule sets. From what I have seen of a couple of army lists it seems that it ws planned that there would be such a troop type, but Hammy tells me that they have been abandoned.

I have argued in the past that mounted infantry should play no part in the actual battle.

However I think that mounted infantry should have an effect on the initiative dice roll at the start of the game - Scottish Pikement are a good example -there are examples of the Scots choosing the fighting grounds because of their ponies allowing them to out manoever (or more accurately run away from) their English opponents.

I would suggest they not be as effective as normal Light Horse or cavalry - perhaps counting 2 elements of mounted infantry for one element of light horse or cavalry might be appropriate. Points costs could be tricky as well.

Thoughts?

[garyb]

Perhaps simulated best by the purchase of an inspired commander and getting the initiative bonus that he gets?

An option might be to allow an additional +1 on the initiative roll to be "bought" with army points, this would simulate the benefits of ponies well used in this example but also simulate paying for spies or focusing more effort on scouting in order to better prepare for the battle.

Just a thought, haven't played enough games to have an idea how many points would be a good balance for that.

Cheers,
Gary

[shangtuming]

Just some thoughts.

I think this an interesting idea as providing troops with mounts not only allowed them more manoverability but got them to the battlefield fresher. However I am not sure if the odd unit of mounted infantry would really make that much difference in the overall scheme of things.

It may be worth considering benifits in specific army lists for those that systematically used mounted infantry e.g. the +1 to intaitive or a choice of who deploys the first BG.

[sagji]

Just some thoughts.
It may be worth considering benifits in specific army lists for those that systematically used mounted infantry e.g. the +1 to intaitive or a choice of who deploys the first BG.

The simple way to do this is to add mounted infantry to the list of troups that can scout.

[lawrenceg]

If we do anything with mounted infantry, I wonder if we should distinguish between armies that had a few of them (such as the mounted longbowmen in DBM Medieval Portugese) and those that were essentially entirely mounted such as some Arab Conquest and Anglo-Danish armies and possibly the Kyrenean Greeks. In the latter case, one could justify an initiative bonus on the basis that they could get to an advantageous location more quickly.

If there were only a few mounted infantry, I think there would be no effect on initiative as scouting was probably a specialist role of "proper" cavalry/LH, but maybe we could allow those units (er, I mean "battlegroups") to flank march as "mounted".

Are there any historical accounts of mounted infantry staying mounted once deployment was over and the battle had started?

[nikgaukroger]

Personally, and despite my numerous mounted infantry figures, I'd leave any rules for mounted infantry to a campaign supplement as it appears to me that their influence was on the strategic level and not the tactical.

As far as I can remember there are no clear cut cases of infantry doing anything mounted within the context of a battle of the sort AoW is trying to represent. There may have been some with the Captal de Buch on his march round the side of the French at Poitiers but as this was a force of about 200 men it may be best seen as a 2 base BG of Gascon knights anyway.

[dave_r]

I'd leave any rules for mounted infantry to a campaign supplement as it appears to me that their influence was on the strategic level and not the tactical.

I would agree - but is the initiative roll at the beginning not determining the strategic advantage? Which is why I think mounted infantry should have an advantage over infantry - but not so that they would out do the specialists - i.e. cavalry and light horse.

[nikgaukroger]

For which you'd need some sort of points cost - what would you suggest?

[plewis66]

How about
'Use 10-20 bases of mounted infantry for +1 to scouting, at a cost of x'
'Use 20+ bases of m ounted infantry for +2 to scouting, at a cost of y'

The values of X and Y are beyond me...

[dave_r]

For which you'd need some sort of points cost - what would you suggest?

Since a field commander costs 15 points more than a terrible commander, the only difference between these two are 4 inches command radius and a +1 on the initiative roll.

Therefore a +1 on the initative roll to me is worth about 5 points. I don't think this should add to the cavalry bonus - it is either one or the other. i.e. + 4 is as good as it gets.

Therefore mount most infantry = 5 points which gives +1 on pre-initiative or
mount all infantry = 10 points which gives +2 on pre-initiative

[lawrenceg]

For which you'd need some sort of points cost - what would you suggest?

Since a field commander costs 15 points more than a terrible commander, the only difference between these two are 4 inches command radius and a +1 on the initiative roll.

Therefore a +1 on the initative roll to me is worth about 5 points. I don't think this should add to the cavalry bonus - it is either one or the other. i.e. + 4 is as good as it gets.

Therefore mount most infantry = 5 points which gives +1 on pre-initiative or
mount all infantry = 10 points which gives +2 on pre-initiative

So expanding on this suggestion:

Cost 1 point to mount an infantry BG (not just a base)

Initiative table
+1 if 10-24 bases of cavalry etc or over half the army's medium and heavy foot bases are mounted
+2 if over 24 bases of cavalry etc or all the army's medium and heavy foot bases are mounted


Outflanking march table

+1 if entirely of mounted troops including mounted infantry
-1 if outflanking march includes any Medium or Heavy Foot except mounted infantry

(I counted only MF and HF for initiative on the assumption that they are the ones that slow down your speed of march if not mounted. While this allows armies with little HF or MF to qualify for the plus cheaply, most such armies will have enough proper mounted troops to qualify anyway, or they will be massive LF armies, which could arguably deserve a plus ipso facto. In most cases I suspect this would work out around 4-5 points for half, 8-10 points for all, but it could be adjusted to +2 per BG if those with more experience of army lists think necessary. The majority of lists won't have a mounted infantry option anyway, so we only need to balance it for those that do)

Lawrence Greaves

[lawrenceg]

Are there any historical accounts of mounted infantry staying mounted once deployment was over and the battle had started?

The Varangian Guard are allowed to have on-table horses because in one battle
against the Normans they rode into an advanced position before dismounting. They
then got destroyed before the army caught up...

[rbodleyscott]

Are there any historical accounts of mounted infantry staying mounted once deployment was over and the battle had started?

The Varangian Guard are allowed to have on-table horses because in one battle
against the Normans they rode into an advanced position before dismounting. They
then got destroyed before the army caught up...

i.e they attacked before the rest of the army was deployed.

Does not need to be represented by mounted foot.