Suggested amendments - Determined Horse

[khurasan_miniatures]

Additionally as over the period armour is less and less important it seems reasonable that the rules go this way as well.

It's true that heavy armiur became increasingly irrelevant as the period wore on, but that was due to the increased range and penetration of infantry firearms, rather than any change in cavalry combat. Having 3/4 armour was a substantial advantage in cavalry combat, but the suits were expensive and not impervious to musket fire, so fell out of favour.

[rbodleyscott]

Additionally as over the period armour is less and less important it seems reasonable that the rules go this way as well.

It's true that heavy armiur became increasingly irrelevant as the period wore on, but that was due to the increased range and penetration of infantry firearms, rather than any change in cavalry combat. Having 3/4 armour was a substantial advantage in cavalry combat, but the suits were expensive and not impervious to musket fire, so fell out of favour.

Which is true and suggests that this should perhaps be dealt with as a points cost issue. Cuirassiers are probably currently slightly underpriced (as confirmed by their currently popularity), as well as determined horse being overpriced.

[ravenflight]

Which is true and suggests that this should perhaps be dealt with as a points cost issue. Cuirassiers are probably currently slightly underpriced (as confirmed by their currently popularity), as well as determined horse being overpriced.

Is this a pipe dream though? Can we have a points adjustment? If slitherine didn't allow a points cost review on FoG:AM is anthing going to be different in FoG:R?

On another point (if what you say is correct, Richard) is it reasonable/feasable for comp organisers to say 'Horse cost 1 point more & Det Horse cost 1 point less? I mean, would that cause problems. I know I'd be a bit put out if I had to amend my list because of an off the cuff points adjustment (even though this would benefit me). How 'fixed' are people on their army lists?

These reasons make me think that another solution needs to be found - giving Det Horse something for free (-1 to horse losing againt Det Horse for example)

[Eques]

.

I think where the problems occur is when the conditional POAs for Sword/Pistol combine to produce a ++/-- effect. This is the case with Poles vs Cuirassiers. If they fail to disrupt the Cuirassiers they are effectively finished, if they succeed they are on only on evens.

I don't think it necessarily a bad thing that some troops are better than others, and that some are significantly better than others.

Otherwise we've just got a very ornate game of checkers on our hands.

[ravenflight]

.

I think where the problems occur is when the conditional POAs for Sword/Pistol combine to produce a ++/-- effect. This is the case with Poles vs Cuirassiers. If they fail to disrupt the Cuirassiers they are effectively finished, if they succeed they are on only on evens.

I don't think it necessarily a bad thing that some troops are better than others, and that some are significantly better than others.

Otherwise we've just got a very ornate game of checkers on our hands.

The thing is though Eques, troops like Det Horse cost SO much in comparison to Horse, when Horse are significantly better. I've had ONE situation where I managed to get a BG of Horse vs a BG of Det Horse where it bogged down to a slog match that the Det Horse would likely have eventually won, BUT (and I guess this is the kicker) the Det Horse were SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive.

For the most part, Det Horse are going to be overwhealmed by more heavily armoured cheaper mounted.

In the case I mentioned, I was advantaged on Impact then disadvantaged in Melee. He had 4 dice I had 6 (because of overlaps) meaning it was a slog. Yes, I may have disrupted him on impact (I didn't - I think statistically it's hard to do - superior, rear support, generally only winning by 1 etc) but even THEN it would have been 3 dice going for 4's vs 6 dice going for 5's AND they cost just over half! What's more, this was very hard to orchistrate. Generally I'll ge going up against a solid block where I won't have overlaps.

So, yes, it's fine to have troops substantially better, but points should reflect that.

[Eques]

Yes I agree it makes sense to amend point values when it turns out certain troops are under/over-valued.

More sense as a general principle than actually fiddling with the rules themselves.

[ravenflight]

I just had a thought about improving Det Horse - what if they got ++ on overlap? That would really increase their chance of winning against isolated horse/cav. Not sure if it would be enough as I believe for the most part they aren't going to find many isolated Horse/Cav.

When Det Horse (Cavaliers etc) fought horse/cav did they generally have 'overlap advantages'???

[timmy1]

The issue is more the impact IMHO. If we allowed DH (and French style En Haye Gendarmes) to count overlaps in the impact phase, you would get less of the troops in column against DH and the Commanded Shot would have more reason to stay with the Horse...

[Three]

Not all DH were all-out chargers though, the Ironsides and their "good round trot" weren't.

[nikgaukroger]

Not all DH were all-out chargers though, the Ironsides and their "good round trot" weren't.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here

[Three]

Not all DH were all-out chargers though, the Ironsides and their "good round trot" weren't.

Not sure what point you are trying to make here

That allowing overlaps for DH in impact might be ok for troops that fought historically by all out charge, but might it not also encourage ahistorical use of Ironsides, which are classed as DH but did not fight in that manner?

[ravenflight]

That allowing overlaps for DH in impact might be ok for troops that fought historically by all out charge, but might it not also encourage ahistorical use of Ironsides, which are classed as DH but did not fight in that manner?

Then perhaps they shouldn't be Determined Horse? I don't know - but how is that any different from how it is now? As it stands they are shock mounted that have to charge (or receive a charge) to get their POA at impact. How would giving them the overlap (which I disagree with incidentally*) dice make people use them ahistorically in comparison to Maisons du Roi or Gustavus' Horsies?

* I think that giving the overlap dice would break from the basics of the rules too much. They would be the ONLY troop type to be able to do this, and it seems too much of a bandaid to me. A BETTER solution (if you thought the overall smash was necessary) would be a ++ POA as per Salvo foot. I think that could be crippling, but WOULD then get chargers charging - and boy, wouldn't the 'breakoff to have another go' be a tactic people would use. "Oh, I'm disrupted... I think I'll breakoff and charge again"

[nikgaukroger]

That allowing overlaps for DH in impact might be ok for troops that fought historically by all out charge, but might it not also encourage ahistorical use of Ironsides, which are classed as DH but did not fight in that manner?

If you check out the DH definition you will see that Ironsides, etc. are the typical type for it - although the speed of the charge has no real influence on whether troops are classified as DH anyway and thus would not be a factor in bases fighting, etc, that would be PoA territory.

[Sarmaticus]

There's an argument for accepting that DH were simply not as good as cuirassiers. Their arquebusier kit and horses made them more versatile and was more easily procured - both important considerations towards the end of thirty years of war or on an island not previously rich in the heaviest cavalry. C19th historians' views were influenced by the requirements of their contemporary.
If it's the points cost askew, then perhaps the bullet should be bitten: are amendments to a book of lists more heinous than amendments to the rulebook?

[Three]

That allowing overlaps for DH in impact might be ok for troops that fought historically by all out charge, but might it not also encourage ahistorical use of Ironsides, which are classed as DH but did not fight in that manner?

If you check out the DH definition you will see that Ironsides, etc. are the typical type for it - although the speed of the charge has no real influence on whether troops are classified as DH anyway and thus would not be a factor in bases fighting, etc, that would be PoA territory.

Nik, at the risk of sounding snide, I have read the DH definition, and I understand that the Ironsides are a typical type as defined. So too are the Finns and later French cavalry who charged with sword in hand and used their impetus but they fought in a different way to the Ironsides. I fully take the point about the speed of the charge.

I'm struggling to see where the confusion over my post is coming from, I was replying to the one immediately above it by Timmy1 at 1248

The issue is more the impact IMHO. If we allowed DH (and French style En Haye Gendarmes) to count overlaps in the impact phase, you would get less of the troops in column against DH and the Commanded Shot would have more reason to stay with the Horse...

Timmy is suggesting allowing DH overlaps in impact and from the context of the "en haye" in brackets is I think assuming that DH charge at the gallop like French Gendarmes. Some obviously did; I like the idea as it would enormously benefit my Polish Hussars for starters, I was merely pointing out that Ironsides, being part of the DH definition did not, and that by allowing overlaps in the impact phase it would encourage some players to use them in shallow, ahistorical, formations to get the overlap advantage, so if the idea is developed the definition of who it applied to would have to be tightened up and might make it more effort than it was worth.

RBS has posted in the past that it is wrong to think of DH as always fighting 1 rank deep, and the Ironsides are the best example I can think of where this is a reflection of how they fought, I don't have any issue with the definition, I was merely suggesting that tweaking the impact might cause another problem.

[timmy1]

Three

NMA is not my area of expertise however I was aware of the notes on fighting style in the rules definition. I was not suggesting that the Ironsides charged at anything other than a controlled trot, more that they did charge in - Parliament Horse do not seem to have so done. Their charge seems to be in a shallower formation than Trotters - I will trying to provide a reason for them to do that.

[Three]

Three

NMA is not my area of expertise however I was aware of the notes on sighting style in the rules definition. I was not suggesting that the Ironsides charged at anything other than a controlled trot, more that they did charge in - Parliament Horse do not seem to have so done. Their charge seems to be in a shallower formation than Trotters - I will trying to provide a reason for them to do that.

Fair enough, although the Northern Association horse under Fairfax weren't averse to mixing it from the start but gamers being what they are, allowing overlaps in impact would see the Ironsides used in exactly the same way on the table as those French Gendarmes you mentioned, which wouldn't be accurate in my opinion, that's all I wanted to highlight.

[JasonRain]

I wish you were correct but DH do seem to suffer from being less effective due to the impact rules

[kevinj]

Timmy is suggesting allowing DH overlaps in impact and from the context of the "en haye" in brackets is I think assuming that DH charge at the gallop like French Gendarmes. Some obviously did; I like the idea as it would enormously benefit my Polish Hussars for starters, I was merely pointing out that Ironsides, being part of the DH definition did not, and that by allowing overlaps in the impact phase it would encourage some players to use them in shallow, ahistorical, formations to get the overlap advantage, so if the idea is developed the definition of who it applied to would have to be tightened up and might make it more effort than it was worth.

RBS has posted in the past that it is wrong to think of DH as always fighting 1 rank deep, and the Ironsides are the best example I can think of where this is a reflection of how they fought, I don't have any issue with the definition, I was merely suggesting that tweaking the impact might cause another problem.

I think any solution will need to consider the different types involved. Allowing Overlaps at Impact does seem to be worth considering for Cavaliers, Gendarmes and Impact Horse DH. Perhaps the others could count as Protected if they had a second rank?