Slitherine

zellak wrote:In the version i read, the Normans started with archers on the shieldwall , then went in with infantry, then a cavalry attack in which the Bretons were routed and the other cavalry fell back.

Then after a lull in the fighting,the archers were sent in again , firing high into the rear ranks, and finally another cavalry attack was eventually launched late in the day and the Saxons broke .

So at some point the the cavalry fell back through the archers, and stopped to regroup.

I suppose a dark age battle might not be the best place to start , as there are so many conflicting theories.

i will look around.

I would think there are better battles to illustrate your point than this one Zellak. One on the key features here is that the English tried to avoid following up the Norman mounted. It's only when the Bretons on the Norman left fled/fell back that the facing English ran down the hill in pursuit, getting whacked by Duke Willaim's milites when they were on level ground.

I suppose it could be said that this is a reason why the foot might not advance 3MUs to finish off the cavalry - getting isolated - which can happen in FoG if you set it up right.

Hi There, I've been following this thread with some interest and I have a question for the group.

Historically, in what depth were cavalry normally deployed?

The reason I'm asking for is that my understanding of the charging rule is that only units that are more than one base deep are prevented from evading. If that's the case then it seems to be a tactical flaw on the part of the general for letting his mounted cavalry get into that position in the first place rather than a rules flaw.

Cheers

Auld Chevalier

P.s. This is my first post so Hello to everyone

AuldChevalier wrote:Hi There, I've been following this thread with some interest and I have a question for the group.

Historically, in what depth were cavalry normally deployed?

The reason I'm asking for is that my understanding of the charging rule is that only units that are more than one base deep are prevented from evading. If that's the case then it seems to be a tactical flaw on the part of the general for letting his mounted cavalry get into that position in the first place rather than a rules flaw.

Cheers

Auld Chevalier

P.s. This is my first post so Hello to everyone

The number of ranks depends on army and period. The Byzantines varied from 5 to 10 ranks depending on quality. Others usually were 8 or 10.

Deploying cavalry in a single base depth represents the wider spacing used by skirmishers compared to the closer formation that would be used for combat.

With regards to your last comment, even cataphracts tended not to charge into contact with steady close order infantry (see the account of Carrhae - Parthians vs Romans).

AuldChevalier wrote:Hi There, I've been following this thread with some interest and I have a question for the group.

Historically, in what depth were cavalry normally deployed?

The reason I'm asking for is that my understanding of the charging rule is that only units that are more than one base deep are prevented from evading. If that's the case then it seems to be a tactical flaw on the part of the general for letting his mounted cavalry get into that position in the first place rather than a rules flaw.

Cheers

Auld Chevalier

P.s. This is my first post so Hello to everyone

Hi there, welcome to the boards.

Its not really evading that is the problem, the rules say" In historical battles, mounted troops often made repeated charges on steady enemy foot, falling back to regroup after each one." (page 106)

The change i am playtesting, is to allow mounted the choice of not turning to face their opponents at the end of the break off move, and if they wish, fall further back and regroup. ( For a points increase of course).

Having played the rules a few times though doesnt Cav have a reasonable chance of winning the combat in the first place against heavy foot, I will use spear as an example.

i.e normally at - during impact and then evens or a + if the spear went disrupted.

Is this not a higher chance than they had anyway? Of charging steady heavy foot from the front. The foot might have numbers in theory but in practice it doesnt normally work out that way.

I mention this as ive seen Cataphracts charge into pike frontally and break them. Against the odds but not as likely to fail as you would think.

So do you need an extra rule to make mounted better against foot?

MARVIN_THE_ARVN wrote: So do you need an extra rule to make mounted better against foot?

If you remember my first post, the guys at my club really liked these rules.

But we agreed that Cavalry / Chariots should be able to break off from contact and then dictate the tempo of the fight.
Its the only thing that didn't feel right to us. So i thought i would bring it up here and see if anyone else had playtested house rules, or was willing to playtest them.

I did originally take this point up in the historical section, where RBS admitted that its a game mechanic to bring tournament games to a speedier conclusion. see.....rules questions....page 4...cavalry turning 180 degrees...zellak.

I think the amendment would also be useful for flyers.
When they break off they are not going to sit within bowshot to regroup.