ANTI-CAV units

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:25 pm

What about the previous view of Sir John Hawkwood's knight dismounting with shortened lances as Spearmen at Castigano iirc ?

Or is the thought of drilled, superior, heavily armoured, spearmen just too much ?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:44 pm

Scrumpy wrote:What about the previous view of Sir John Hawkwood's knight dismounting with shortened lances as Spearmen at Castigano iirc ?

Or is the thought of drilled, superior, heavily armoured, spearmen just too much ?

Possibly OK if they were Defensive Spears - mind you check what Tibetans dismount as ...

Actually I have e feeling we didn't have them as we didn't think they were based on a credible source, although I also seem to recall that since then I've seen that is was more credible.

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:11 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
batesmotel wrote:
ethan wrote: Who used cataphracts against the Byzantines? In any case I thought the Menavlatoi were generally incorporated into the mass the archers/spear units and that seperately deploying them was not standard practice, but something done on occasion?
Sassanids are the obvious ones.

Wrong period for the Nikeforian list.

But I think that the Thematic list also gets Menaulatoi. Not sure if any earlier ones do. The Thematic list probably starts close enough in time to at least allow for memory of fighting Sassanid cataphracts to affect tactical doctrine. (But then the Byzantines still often referred to Petchenegs, etc, as Skythians so there was obviously some tendency to archaicize.)

Chris

p.s. Was William of Tyre the source for the Arab SHC (Agulami?) that used to appear in the WRG Arab lists?

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:20 pm

Can we have that as an errata in time for Fall In ????

benos · Post by **benos** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:24 pm

ok wandering a little off topic, but looking over the later medevial knights dismounting, the only a-historical result i find is arbedo , where dismounted italian condottori beat swiss halberdiers , precipitating the swiss move towards pikes.
those milanese knights need to be pretty lucky to beat swiss halberdiers as is, even with crossbow fire softening them up.
though i think for this battle to work the swiss halberdiers could be counted as offensive spear (for this battle only)

back on thread, the lack of a -1 to the cohesion test seems to be the main factor the authors were using to set these troops as anti-cavalry. which seems reasonable enough, depending on the evidence for success of the troops in question (which i know little enough of) i suspect a lot depends on the quality of the cavalry. there is a big range in how good it is!

Ben

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 7:51 pm

Ok Polkovnik I wrote "Yes you did - you asked for a "simple modification in the rules".

Rules a a living thing . if you do not let them grow up they die and no rule is perfect but evry rule is perfectible . Does it bother you that I ask for small modifications or solutions ( simple ones ) to try to reflect in a better way what some units were able to do or were designed to do . Some people say : prove they were better than other units . I may ask : prove they were not as efficient than other units . Why would an army create special units if it was not to react tosome kind of special situation . Menvlatoi were also used in the numerous Byzantine Civil wars and also simply to break a cavalry charge ( Ok everybody agrees, there was cavalry on each side ) .

The rules are he samefor everybody and I play with the rules . How can we find proof that those units were in a way efficient, well find me proof that they were not !

By the way menvlatoi were first used in this way : they had to go in front of the skutatoi unit to break/blunt the ennemy cavalry charge . That tactic was latter adapted. they had to go forward but mix with the first spearmen line as loses were otherwise to heavy . the simple fact that the tactic was modified, adpated is for me proof enough hat it did , in some way work, otherwise it would have been abandonned as it was quite a costly sqecialised unit. the same may certainly be applied to chineese anti-cav units .

Otherwise we will have to find some survivors of that time to help us explain all of it

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:07 pm

I admire your tenacity Jacques, but asking to prove something did not happen is the same as me asking you to prove that in every ancient battle no cavalry ever increased speed to pass through skirmishing Foot. It can be hypothesised, it cannot be proven. It is the end result that is important

But to the topic at hand, perhaps they should have been impact POA of defensive spear and melee POA of Hvy Wpn. This would deter them from charging cavalry, but would also make them worse against infantry.

Like DBA/M was written for German/celts v's Romans it seems the rules weren't written with the chinese fully in mind and we will have to wait for a cure.

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Thanks Phil .

My main objective was to point what I perceive as a "problem" , a "potential incorrect" situation . latter we might find a solution for it . I never said that those anti*cav units should be killers of cav, but better "equiped" . No rule is perfect and no rule can cover all special cases . When we find or point out such a case, we should just try to find an easy way to adapt either the unit or the rules but smoothly, simply .

And thanks for the tenacity

I hope to meet you latter on the continent as I will be unaible to attend britcon 2010 .

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 10:15 pm

bahdahbum wrote:Does it bother you that I ask for small modifications or solutions ( simple ones ) to try to reflect in a better way what some units were able to do or were designed to do .

It doesn't bother me, no. I'm just pointing out that you're wasting your time. There are sometimes threads (like this) along the lines of "I think this is wrong and should be changed". Well, it's not going to happen - not in the forseeable future anyway, thankfully.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 3:40 am

philqw78 wrote:
Polkovnik wrote:
philqw78 wrote: I don't think there is anything in the rules preventing Lt Sp/Hvy Wpn.
It's not in the rules but I would say it's one of the unwritten rules of list design (like the fact that no troops can have full capabilities in missile, impact and melee).
IMO Light spear and heavy weapon are mutually exclusive - how can you be throwing or thrusting a spear whilst also weilding a two-handed weapon ?
Szekeler LH have Bow, Lt Sp, Sw.

You will note that have Bow only as LH, if you take them as Cv they become Bw*. The reason is simple that LH with Bow is already shooting like Bw*, so making them Bw* would have no effect on their shooting but make them cheaper.

Heavy weapon is already an impact and a melee capability and no troops can have two impact capabilities, hence no LSp + HW.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:01 am

Ghaznavid wrote:You will note that have Bow only as LH, if you take them as Cv they become Bw*. The reason is simple that LH with Bow is already shooting like Bw*, so making them Bw* would have no effect on their shooting but make them cheaper.

OK then Albanians have javelins, light spears and swords. And Aztecs: Jav, Impact foot, sword

the elephant man wrote: Heavy weapon is already an impact and a melee capability and no troops can have two impact capabilities, hence no LSp + HW.

Where does it say this? Anyway, it was a suggestion that could work and would not need the rules to change, just the list.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 6:38 am

philqw78 wrote:
Ghaznavid wrote:You will note that have Bow only as LH, if you take them as Cv they become Bw*. The reason is simple that LH with Bow is already shooting like Bw*, so making them Bw* would have no effect on their shooting but make them cheaper.
OK then Albanians have javelins, light spears and swords. And Aztecs: Jav, Impact foot, sword

And LH shooting with Javlins differs from LH shooting with bow how (range excluded)?
As for the Aztecs, I've not been involved with B&G and only skimmed the relevant threads here in the forum, so have no clear idea how the Atl-Atl shooting works exactly (i.e. do they shoot with two ranks at full effect? Or like Bw*? Or only from one rank? Is it free or does it cost points?), hence I can't comment, but yes the American armies do seem like a devation from the practice up to this day.

philqw78 wrote:
the elephant man wrote: Heavy weapon is already an impact and a melee capability and no troops can have two impact capabilities, hence no LSp + HW.
Where does it say this? Anyway, it was a suggestion that could work and would not need the rules to change, just the list.

It's been stated some time ago by one of the Authors here on the Board, sorry I've no inclination to search for it (with my usual luck it would just be one of the postings that vanished when the server was attacked last year).
And elephant man? Pfff ... I bet your nose is bigger then mine and anyway at least I'm not a gallic noble.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:00 am

Ghaznavid wrote:And LH shooting with Javlins differs from LH shooting with bow how (range excluded)?
As for the Aztecs, I've not been involved with B&G and only skimmed the relevant threads here in the forum, so have no clear idea how the Atl-Atl shooting works exactly (i.e. do they shoot with two ranks at full effect? Or like Bw*? Or only from one rank? Is it free or does it cost points?), hence I can't comment, but yes the American armies do seem like a devation from the practice up to this day.

They shoot like javelins

. 1 dice per 2 bases

philqw78 wrote:
the elephant man wrote: Heavy weapon is already an impact and a melee capability and no troops can have two impact capabilities, hence no LSp + HW.
Where does it say this? Anyway, it was a suggestion that could work and would not need the rules to change, just the list.

It's been stated some time ago by one of the Authors here on the Board, sorry I've no inclination to search for it (with my usual luck it would just be one of the postings that vanished when the server was attacked last year).

It was stated as one the main main ideas behind the rules, but not set in concrete.

Short-snouted Elephant Shrew wrote: And elephant man? Pfff ... I bet your nose is bigger then mine and anyway at least I'm not a gallic noble.

ROTFLMAO. Yes I'll make Teutonic Peasant one day.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 7:15 am

bahdahbum wrote:I hope to meet you latter on the continent as I will be unaible to attend britcon 2010 .

Athens???

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:04 am

I have to check with work

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:51 pm

philqw78 wrote:
Ghaznavid wrote:You will note that have Bow only as LH, if you take them as Cv they become Bw*. The reason is simple that LH with Bow is already shooting like Bw*, so making them Bw* would have no effect on their shooting but make them cheaper.
OK then Albanians have javelins, light spears and swords. And Aztecs: Jav, Impact foot, sword
the elephant man wrote: Heavy weapon is already an impact and a melee capability and no troops can have two impact capabilities, hence no LSp + HW.
Where does it say this? Anyway, it was a suggestion that could work and would not need the rules to change, just the list.

All of your examples follow the rule of not having more than one weapon with a poa in any single category, e.g. missile, impact and melee.

While I don't recall an explicit rule forbidding having multiple capabilities in a single category, there is clearly nothing in the rules that explains how to calculate poa's for troops with more than one. So it does seem pretty clear to me that the rules do not intend to allow troops with multiple capabilities in one category.

Chris

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:45 pm

Why did the medieval knights dismount to fight if they were significantly worse off ? Under FoG English knights would be average drilled v French superior undrilled, at impact the English would be on evens as opposed to one down if on foot.

I'm not complainging about the rules as much as asking for the theory behind it.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:59 pm

Scrumpy wrote:Why did the medieval knights dismount to fight if they were significantly worse off ? Under FoG English knights would be average drilled v French superior undrilled, at impact the English would be on evens as opposed to one down if on foot.

Possibly a bad example

The English started to dismount to fight the Scots not the French and then carried on using the combined arms of dismounted men-at-arms and longbowmen against the French as it was so effective.

I'm not complainging about the rules as much as asking for the theory behind it.

Gets thew right (in the writers views) effect overall.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:06 pm

Scrumpy wrote:Why did the medieval knights dismount to fight if they were significantly worse off ? Under FoG English knights would be average drilled v French superior undrilled, at impact the English would be on evens as opposed to one down if on foot.

I'm not complainging about the rules as much as asking for the theory behind it.

They are also Superior if on foot so do not suffer as badly from CT and base loss

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Thu Sep 24, 2009 2:41 pm

philqw78 wrote:
Scrumpy wrote:Why did the medieval knights dismount to fight if they were significantly worse off ? Under FoG English knights would be average drilled v French superior undrilled, at impact the English would be on evens as opposed to one down if on foot.

I'm not complainging about the rules as much as asking for the theory behind it.
They are also Superior if on foot so do not suffer as badly from CT and base loss

When you add in the fact that mounted they are only average swordsmen (no lance) as opposed to superior heavy weapons on foot it is not that silly an idea.