Slitherine

Most troops are not running a marathon prior to battle, so even if a man has more stamina than a horse, (as you suggest but which I am sceptical of) for short distances the horse is certainly faster. Though I didn't realise that the proposal was for HF to move 4" outside 6" tactical distance, which I suppose would speed up the move to combat.

RE horse movement.
I've learned a lot about horses recently ... changed some of my views on cavalry. I'm no expert, but I wish someone had told me this stuff before. Might have saved some arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_gait
A simple breakdown of basic horse gaits. I hear it can vary quite a bit from horse to horse.
A horse can supposedly maintain a trot (Approx 8mph, slightly faster than the average "fit" human runs a mile at 7mph) for hours without tiring, it's their basic speed. There are fast and slow variations on the trot. I'd say the trot is probably more tiring on the rider, than the horse ... since a rider usually "posts" his trot to avoid bouncing against the horse. It's harder than it sounds, I'm taking some riding lessons right now. All I have to say is wear tight underwear...

The gallop, can be up to 30mph, but most horses can only go 1 or 2 miles before they need to rest. You could easily outrun any man at this speed and within this distance.

I would presume the canter/gallop was saved for emergency use, or pursuits, or crucial charges perhaps.
I imagine the trot would be an effective charge speed and decisive-movement speed -- it's similar to a human run -- and it is the speed at which horses naturally move about and are the most agile.
And the good old walk is for basic maneuver and positioning -- and would be just as fast as humans walk. It would be the easiest way to stay in formation.

What does this mean for FoG? Well, I'm afraid to open my mouth. I've never been completely happy with the way this game treats mounted troops. But it's too much to change now.

Well people can run antelopes to death. Thats my defence. But the thing is outside of combat range horses, especially horses pulling a cart or with some fat bloke on top, are not going to move much faster than men for extended periods without tiring both man and horse. Inside combat range when it matters they will.

pezhetairoi wrote:RE horse movement.
I've learned a lot about horses recently ... changed some of my views on cavalry. I'm no expert, but I wish someone had told me this stuff before. Might have saved some arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_gait
A simple breakdown of basic horse gaits. I hear it can vary quite a bit from horse to horse.
A horse can supposedly maintain a trot (Approx 8mph, slightly faster than the average "fit" human runs a mile at 7mph) for hours without tiring, it's their basic speed. There are fast and slow variations on the trot. I'd say the trot is probably more tiring on the rider, than the horse ... since a rider usually "posts" his trot to avoid bouncing against the horse. It's harder than it sounds, I'm taking some riding lessons right now. All I have to say is wear tight underwear...

The gallop, can be up to 30mph, but most horses can only go 1 or 2 miles before they need to rest. You could easily outrun any man at this speed and within this distance.

I would presume the canter/gallop was saved for emergency use, or pursuits, or crucial charges perhaps.
I imagine the trot would be an effective charge speed and decisive-movement speed -- it's similar to a human run -- and it is the speed at which horses naturally move about and are the most agile.
And the good old walk is for basic maneuver and positioning -- and would be just as fast as humans walk. It would be the easiest way to stay in formation.

What does this mean for FoG? Well, I'm afraid to open my mouth. I've never been completely happy with the way this game treats mounted troops. But it's too much to change now.

According to Memorandums of field exercise for the troops of gentlemen and yeomen cavalry (1795):

When it is intended that a charge should be made, the commanding officer is to be one horse's length in front of the center file, which is at that distance to follow him exactly; he is to take particular care to go perfectly straight...

..."MARCH" (at a walk)
"TROT" (without hurrying)
"GALLOP" (a steady canter)
"CHARGE"
For about 100 yards as fast as the slowest horse in the troop can go.

Out of our period, but gives some idea of what was considered feasible by part-time soldiers on, (I would guess) their own horses.

Horse breeding (and training) has an imact. In our period, steppe ponies had better endurance than European knights' horses, but the latter had a faster sprint (normally used in the charge).

There is just no way that the Heavy Infantry are going to move as fast as anything mounted either in battle or not. Yes, skirmishers, and that is why they have the same speed as cavalry but tactically the heavies cannot keep up, not least because of the kit they are usually wearing. The Heavy Infantry, remember will also be weighed down, often with armour and always with a heavy shield and other kit. Difficult to run fast and keep in formation in that situation.

player wrote:There is just no way that the Heavy Infantry are going to move as fast as anything mounted either in battle or not. Yes, skirmishers, and that is why they have the same speed as cavalry but tactically the heavies cannot keep up, not least because of the kit they are usually wearing. The Heavy Infantry, remember will also be weighed down, often with armour and always with a heavy shield and other kit. Difficult to run fast and keep in formation in that situation.

What about unprotected HF?

Now you are just clutching at straws.

But what's the reason that MF can move as fast as knights HCh and elephants then? Are you suggesting that they be reduced to a 3MU move?

knights move slower because they are often weighed down with armour. Real Heavy chariots with a solid wooden frame and 3 or more men and armoured horses are also carrying a load. They were therefore used tactically at a slower speed. Medium foot are lighter armed and not as compact as heavies.
Anyway, my view is that all mounted should move faster than foot, even the lights but I am not touting that generally as I am not completely sure on that point, except for the HF which shouldn't be increased to the speed of any mounted.

player wrote:knights move slower because they are often weighed down with armour. Real Heavy chariots with a solid wooden frame and 3 or more men and armoured horses are also carrying a load. They were therefore used tactically at a slower speed. Medium foot are lighter armed and not as compact as heavies.
Anyway, my view is that all mounted should move faster than foot, even the lights but I am not touting that generally as I am not completely sure on that point, except for the HF which shouldn't be increased to the speed of any mounted.

Movement allowances in the game are not based purely on how fast the troops can move.

For example, troops within 6 MU of enemy, even if the enemy is broken and facing away, have their movement allowance halved. Commanders with LF BGs move 4 MU in difficult terrain, those on their own move 3 MU.

Therefore even if all mounted troops could move at a faster speed (i.e. distance per unit time) than all foot troops, this would not necessarily translate into a higher movement allowance in the game (i.e. distance per FOG turn).

player wrote: Anyway, my view is that all mounted should move faster than foot, even the lights but I am not touting that generally as I am not completely sure on that point, except for the HF which shouldn't be increased to the speed of any mounted.

The problem here is that we are comparing and assuming that open ground equals to a nice flat surface, which you don't find easily in some parts of Europe. Lands that have been heavily "humanized" might look like that right now, but for most virgin lands irregularities are very common. And in those irregularities horses do suffer much. For example, in the battle of Platea, the Persians did not risk to go to higher grounds with the cavalry (I guess because they lost any advantage of speed in those). And this takes me to something I can't see from an individual perspective: how a man, presumably forced to dismount, can be as fast or faster than a heavy infantry man in a marsh, broken ground or woods? In those terrains horses do slow down movement.

I am well aware that the movement rates are not based exactly on how fast a man or a horse can move in ideal conditions, that is given. They however are based on how a troop type functioned tactically on the battlefield. Cavalry took the role of taking the flanks generally because they could move faster. Of course if they have to move through difficult going then their movement is reduced and that is reflected in the rules already. I stand by my view that HF stay at 3" move, at least within 12" of enemy.