Fighting Light Horse Armies

[madaxeman]

I believe I won - you;d need to check with Mr Ruddock for the exact shore though

The exact score was 10-10. Which is what I presume you meant and not where the beach was? Tim's Morally Bankrupt Dom Rom Swarm lost 10/15 AP's and my morally upright and brave Skythians lost 12/17 AP's I think.

He did take some pictures of a particularly nice evade with some of my Cavalry though, which I am sure will have a full airing on the madaxeman site.

Comments throughout the game included:

"The evade rules were written by a Fox"
"The whole game was written by the authors so that they could simply manoever their LH around"
"What's the point"
"Do you honestly enjoy playing with Light Horse?"
"It's just wrong that you only lose 1 AP when fleeing off table"

I think Tim made sure at least one of the above statements was repeated at least once every three minutes or so

Despite Tim's comments above, I like playing with Light Horse armies

That's a gross and outrageous misrepresentation of what I said.

I believe I said "..written by a weasel", not a fox.

Otherwise,....

[iversonjm]

One thing that has occurred to me as I have been pondering this issue, is that many--even most--players get sloppy moving their light horse BGs. With a 7MU move and little need ever to take a CMT everyone knows that the Lh can get to where they need to be, and so both players eventually stop worrying about sweating the details of how they get there. And against an army with only a few BGs of Lh this may not matter much.

But against a Lh-based army, I think it matters a very great deal indeed. The trick for the Lh player is to set his BGs up so that they sit on the corners of your BGs, giving his shooting full effect and yours limited or no effect. This reduces the Lh risk to almost nothing. In my next game against an LH-based army I will insist--in the most gentlemanly manner possible--that all the 90 degree turn + simple advance moves (for example) be marked beforehand, properly measured, and front corners pinned for wheels. I suspect that this will make a great deal of difference in the flexibility of the Lh.

Any thoughts on that?

Marc

Beware that tactic Marc. Its been my experience that people who try that approach are often hoist on their own petard. The LH generally DO have the maneuverability to get where they need to be somehow, even when formalities are scrupulously observed, while the more plodding heavy cavalry/infantry types generally do NOT . . .

[Delbruck]

Not only is the Madaxeman right, he may even be sane. The horsed nomads of the steppe were the despoilers of civilization. They were truely evil. Ayone who attempts to simulate their behavior should be treated no better.

As a civilized man I propose a civilized solution - a tax.

Any army which exceeds 100 points of LH should lose 100 points of troops from their army total. As a punishment for their evil ways the owner of a LH army would lose the equivalent points as their historical counterpart; as these men would have left the main army to pillage the innocent.

Hans
The true defender of civilization

[DaiSho]

Any army which exceeds 100 points of LH should lose 100 points of troops from their army total. As a punishment for their evil ways the owner of a LH army would lose the equivalent points as their historical counterpart; as these men would have left the main army to pillage the innocent.

Hans
The true defender of civilization

To me this makes a great deal of sense.

When you consider the Hun, Lighthorse/Unprotected/Superior/Bow/Swordsmen at 10AP, that 100AP would buy you exactly 10 bases, which is exactly enough to get the +1 to your initiative.

Anyone who goes over this should be appropriately treated.

No, wait a second, my Palmyrans have 136 AP of LH.

I propose we ammend it to be anyone with more than 100AP of superior LH...

Ian

[ethan]

I would really only think the following are worth considering for actual changes:

- Troops that flee off table count as 2 attrition points lost
- Perhaps some adjustment to the Steppe terrain type

[lawrenceg]

What Tim fails to mention (appreciate ?) is that commanding a LH army against a competently commanded non-LH-army is also very frustrating.

It has certainly put me off using LH armies except in themes where a battle is likely to occur. (i.e. Ones where a substantial proportion of the armies are cavalry/LH or Kn/LH armies).

So what tactics does a competently commanded non-LH-army use?

[rbodleyscott]

What Tim fails to mention (appreciate ?) is that commanding a LH army against a competently commanded non-LH-army is also very frustrating.

It has certainly put me off using LH armies except in themes where a battle is likely to occur. (i.e. Ones where a substantial proportion of the armies are cavalry/LH or Kn/LH armies).

So what tactics does a competently commanded non-LH-army use?

Mainly deploy in a tight formation in a corner and wheel out from there. You won't win in the time limit but nor will the LH army, and hopefully he will be as frustrated as you and less likely to bring the army again.

That's my level of skill, but a more skilful player (such as my son Ned) can also manage to trap some LH and slaughter them. Don't ask me how, it must be some kind of voodoo, but I did not enjoy it being done to me.

[stenic]

That's my level of skill, but a more skilful player (such as my son Ned) can also manage to trap some LH and slaughter them. Don't ask me how, it must be some kind of voodoo, but I did not enjoy it being done to me.

Of course it could be that Ned's "competently commanded non-LH-army" wasn't competently commanded but only that it seemed like it. Relatively.



Thought any more about HOTT Berekely yet? And is Ned likely to come or does college loom?

Steve P

[mellis1644]

I would really only think the following are worth considering for actual changes:

- Troops that flee off table count as 2 attrition points lost
- Perhaps some adjustment to the Steppe terrain type

In another thread someone made the suggestion that the 2 attrition point lost for fleeing off the table would be triggered by the loss of an armies camp. Otherwise it would stay at 1 point.

I think is is not really adding much complexity but means all armies but especially the skirmisher based ones would have to defend their camp to avoid the loosing draw/loss, which does make sense and yet does not cripple them that much either. After all if the camp is gone and the troops are away from the field of battle you should basically have lost

This is a simple 'house rule' which needs some play testing but may help in some cases.

[hazelbark]

So what tactics does a competently commanded non-LH-army use?

Mainly deploy in a tight formation in a corner and wheel out from there. You won't win in the time limit but nor will the LH army, and hopefully he will be as frustrated as you and less likely to bring the army again.

Well if the LH attack down the table edge they an extra -1 for the CTs caused by shooting and they flank march creates a giant whole they pour through.

[hazelbark]

- Perhaps some adjustment to the Steppe terrain type

While I don't think the Steppe terrain is as big a deal, i do think the ability to take a hill and put brush or whatever on it that takes away a 2nd choice is un-needed.

[Blathergut]

- Perhaps some adjustment to the Steppe terrain type

While I don't think the Steppe terrain is as big a deal, i do think the ability to take a hill and put brush or whatever on it that takes away a 2nd choice is un-needed.

NoooOoOoooOoo! This has to be the fave tactic of ancient Spanish commanders everywhere!

[rbodleyscott]

So what tactics does a competently commanded non-LH-army use?

Mainly deploy in a tight formation in a corner and wheel out from there. You won't win in the time limit but nor will the LH army, and hopefully he will be as frustrated as you and less likely to bring the army again.

Well if the LH attack down the table edge they an extra -1 for the CTs caused by shooting and they flank march creates a giant whole they pour through.

You are welcome to try it.