How much mounted

[hazelbark]

I note the following:
1) Alasdir in the UK is winning consistenly with mounted
2) when we started we wondered if this was a foot driven game
3) last year i took a mounted heavy german catholic list and romped (i think)
4) this year's german catholic i tried a foot heavy version which was fun, but harder to close the deal with more risk.

So I think every one believes mounted are more important than we first thought. So a few random questions.

a) Is mounted less important at 900 points?
b) for assymetrical battles is it less unbalancing to add a few more average pike and shot BGs?
c) what effective counters are people finding to mounted?

[stecal]

I was surprised how effective it was to run 2 superior cuirassier horse units frontally into a average P&S unit. If the P&S get disrupted at impact it is all over for them. If it doesn't work the horse just leave in the JAP.

counters: early tercios & artillery (when it works & the horse roll a 1 and lose a base, forcing a CT everytime after from 1 hit in 3 at -1)

[ravenflight]

I was surprised how effective it was to run 2 superior cuirassier horse units frontally into a average P&S unit. If the P&S get disrupted at impact it is all over for them. If it doesn't work the horse just leave in the JAP.

counters: early tercios & artillery (when it works & the horse roll a 1 and lose a base, forcing a CT everytime after from 1 hit in 3 at -1)

I have to admit that I was surprised how effective pistoleers were against Pike&shot.

[madaxeman]

I note the following:
1) Alasdir in the UK is winning consistenly with mounted
2) when we started we wondered if this was a foot driven game
3) last year i took a mounted heavy german catholic list and romped (i think)
4) this year's german catholic i tried a foot heavy version which was fun, but harder to close the deal with more risk.

So I think every one believes mounted are more important than we first thought. So a few random questions.

a) Is mounted less important at 900 points?
b) for assymetrical battles is it less unbalancing to add a few more average pike and shot BGs?
c) what effective counters are people finding to mounted?

My take on the importance of mounted is that the advantage comes into play through being able to overwhelm all of the enemy mounted through superior numbers and then picking off a couple more units to break the enemy army, rather than winnning on a wing and rolling up the centre.

With most European armies being something like 12 BGs, typically 1 Gun, 1-2 Dragoons, 5-7 foot and 2-4 mounted units it is almost impossible to put a serious mounted force on both flanks, so a big all mounted army can overwhelm even the stronger flank pretty easily. Also, apart from Superior Cuirassiers, most armies have a choice of mounted who are just "diffierent" rather than "better" than any possible opponents, and relatively few Superior ones too so the all-Superior, all mounted types can chew them up through weight of numbers and shooting. And once 3 of your mounted units are down, you are a long way towards the 6 needed to break the army...

So,

a) Yes... but not that much. I personally feel that FoGR could easily go to 900AP for singles and 1000AP for doubles with no ill effects on gameplay.
b) If the P&S are prepared to hunker down and live with a draw rather than chasing a difficult win, yes
c) I have yet to work this one out but I suspect the answer lies something along the lines of being more pragmatic regarding terrain choices, being less aggressive with the foot and not trying to chase enemy mounted, being bold enough to put at least one pike and shot unit into a flank sector, and maybe just by taking more mounted and less foot.

[alasdair2204]

There is no such thing as to much mounted?

To be fair now other than in themed competition where I play all mounted if I think I can get away with it I play with less mounted than I used to and more foot and artillery. The reason for this a good player with P&S foot (normally Ben) rolled up my all mounted armies several time so they are a bit more balanced than they used to and enable me to beat that P&S unit put in the flank which was previously causing me lots of problems and even this takes time. That said a properly supported P&S unit beats my mounted 90% of the time, its the isolated units I pick on. I think its about playing what you enjoy and what you are good with, at Rollcall I came first with Tatars (all mounted) and 2nd was Irish 95% foot, I think the more common problem is people get what they think is balanced army without any specific thought on how they are going to win

Just my thoughts

Alasdair

[MatteoPasi]

I
c) what effective counters are people finding to mounted?

5 suggestions:
1. bayonettes
2. mounted (if You can't beat them do like them)
3. terrain (this require good dicing at deployment)
4. Keils
5. be elsewhere than Alasdair
Matteo

[madaxeman]

I think the more common problem is people get what they think is balanced army without any specific thought on how they are going to win

100% agree. I know I am guilty of this time and time again...

[MatteoPasi]

"balanced army" or "BE LANCED" ?

[timmy1]

To Alisdair they are all lambs to the slaughter so are 'BA LANCED'...



I will get my coat and hat...

[quackstheking]

I think the more common problem is people get what they think is balanced army without any specific thought on how they are going to win

100% agree. I know I am guilty of this time and time again...

Well that's what Hannibal says after he reviews all your games!!

Personally I think you should use Early TYW Swedish again so we can get some more comments from Pricess Madeleine - you may not win but what stunning eye candy she is (the figures look nice too!!!).

Don

[shadowdragon]

I think the more common problem is people get what they think is balanced army without any specific thought on how they are going to win

100% agree. I know I am guilty of this time and time again...

Not only are you guilty, you persist in providing documented evidence here:

http://www.madaxeman.com/index.php

[donm]

I think some of the problem with playing Alisdair is the rules.

Unlike the ancient rules you always feel you are in the game while you are shooting at your opponent and so you move to get into a position to do this, even when it is the wrong thing to do.

At the weekend at Devizes Alisdair had two draws, one against Ben and Bob where he didn't like all the infantry and guns he faced and then against Steve and I, where he had an initial go at our flank, but once the balance shifted against him, he began to pull back. As we where not prepared to needlessly chase the game, a draw was agreed.

I have only played Alisdair once in singles and that was last year at Warfare. It was the first time I used the army and like so many others I tried to chase the game and lost. I didn't loose the army, but it was not far off.

The best advice I would give against cavalry armies, is to keep your infantry and cavalry working closely together and don't reinforce failure.

Just my view.

Don

[Maniakes]

at Rollcall I came first with Tatars (all mounted) and 2nd was Irish 95% foot,

Alasdair

To be fair the Irish did a spectacular bit of submarining. I met one mounted army and lost 25-0 then took on three largely foot armies (even the Ottomans were foot heavy!). So I don't think you can read too much into that as giving any answers how foot can beat mounted

Dave

[alasdair2204]

I think some of the problem with playing Alisdair is the rules.

Unlike the ancient rules you always feel you are in the game while you are shooting at your opponent and so you move to get into a position to do this, even when it is the wrong thing to do.

At the weekend at Devizes Alisdair had two draws, one against Ben and Bob where he didn't like all the infantry and guns he faced and then against Steve and I, where he had an initial go at our flank, but once the balance shifted against him, he began to pull back. As we where not prepared to needlessly chase the game, a draw was agreed.

I have only played Alisdair once in singles and that was last year at Warfare. It was the first time I used the army and like so many others I tried to chase the game and lost. I didn't loose the army, but it was not far off.

The best advice I would give against cavalry armies, is to keep your infantry and cavalry working closely together and don't reinforce failure.

Just my view.

Don

This is nowdays why unless in an open competition (Which Devizes was) I tend to play a more mixed army (still mounted heavy) because as Don says if you keep your foot and mounted close together mounted can't normally dent it which I think the rules have right however annoying it is to me. This combined with the frustration of a player staying in their terrain (normally for good reasons) means my armies are often more balanced than they used to be as I have to be able to get them out of terrain. That said most competition this year have been themed with a massive range of armies with not only me playing all mounted armies, at Rollcall me Ben and Pete Dalby had all mounted armies and at the other end of the spectrum were several all foot armies ie the Irish with all the range in between. The Dagestan at the weekend was just something different but won't take again as I had to agree two draws which i don't like doing so a more balanced army next time, that said I enjoyed the Johor Sultanate the weekend before with more elephants, now thats a thought

cheers

Alasdair

[hazelbark]

Alasdair

Question do you feel you opponents have made the maximum use of terrain to protect their flanks? I have found a lot of people pick the terrain they want for their army without consideration for the foe. So they tend to take smallish stuff to shunt to the side so the infantry has a nice open plain.

But for a foe known for a strong mounted game they really shoudl start off with a large 16 MU diamter rough or difficult piece. And then keep loading up form there.

[alasdair2204]

Alasdair

Question do you feel you opponents have made the maximum use of terrain to protect their flanks? I have found a lot of people pick the terrain they want for their army without consideration for the foe. So they tend to take smallish stuff to shunt to the side so the infantry has a nice open plain.

But for a foe known for a strong mounted game they really shoudl start off with a large 16 MU diamter rough or difficult piece. And then keep loading up form there.

For me its more people go for the terrain which is fine and then don't defend it properly, they maybe put a unit of dragoons in it if its on the flank, if its important to me I'll attack it with Heavy guns, skimishers (LF or Dragoons whichever my army has) and a unit or two of bow swordsman overwhelm them at that point, whatever I need to turn the line then once P & S are turned I can usually get a result, if they defend the terrain properly then i'm in trouble

cheers

Alasdair

[hazelbark]

For me its more people go for the terrain which is fine and then don't defend it properly, they maybe put a unit of dragoons in it if its on the flank,

What would you consider ("it depends") is defending terraain for say a later german cathloic or typical TYW army?

Dragoons plus what?

[alasdair2204]

For me its more people go for the terrain which is fine and then don't defend it properly, they maybe put a unit of dragoons in it if its on the flank,

What would you consider ("it depends") is defending terraain for say a later german cathloic or typical TYW army?

Dragoons plus what?

Easiest option is to push a P&S unit in the terrain but it would need general and rear support, the ideal would be an army with a detached shot unit of 6 muskets (more firepower and a general and rear support with the dragoons as well

cheers

Alasdair