Slitherine

Wondering what people's thoughts are on this.

Particularly when the eastern books arrive.

the -1 CT for being shot at by firearms on top of the frequent -1 HPB. And of course the occasional death roll.

It seems LH will be very vulnerable to even say dragoons.

So LH may be needed in 6s to have more staying power?

Dragoons in 4's can skip the cohesion test if only 1 hit, 3's you test all the time. So LH in 4's should be test resistant but since each shot hit is a straight up death die roll the larger the unit the more resilient it will be. Guess it all comes down to will a 6 base LH unit have room to move about or will it get in the way/be blocked from evading by all the infantry that will be milling about behind it?

Dragoons in 4paks are tricky enough to move! I'd hate to have to move anything mounted in 6paks!

After - admittedly not a huge number of games I am coming to the conclusion that Cavalry need to be in 6 paks as well as the LH.
With 4 paks after one hit and a bad death roll you are testing every time you get hit thereafter and at -1 for 25% losses.
You are soon doomed, or at the very least nullified.
This is particularly so for Average units where the dice can be unkind.

As you pretty much have to mass your cavalry together to be effective they may as well be in larger units if allowed by the lists.

Admittedly you do loose some flexibility of response once you have a breakthrough but at least you might get a breakthrough!

Anyone else coming to this conclusion?

Theory needs tested - has anyone else tried out larger cavalry units?

Bert

I suspect that LH are going to be of relatively limited value in FOGR however they are organised. (This is intentional).

Unless I am mistaken it looks like all the lists so far only allow cav in 4's, looks like the early restoration Portuguese which can have up to 8 in one BG, now that would be a mass of horse flesh that would be hard to break, and find enough room to move it about.

rbodleyscott wrote:I suspect that LH are going to be of relatively limited value in FOGR however they are organised. (This is intentional).

We'll see how they are being used by the eastern books.

deadtorius wrote:Unless I am mistaken it looks like all the lists so far only allow cav in 4's, looks like the early restoration Portuguese which can have up to 8 in one BG

If it can, that will be a misprint, there certainly isn't any such BG in the final draft.

My mistake I was giving the lists a quick scan and read the wrong column, one of the split columns for total bases that was split in the Spanish list, thought it said 0-8 bases but it actually says 4 per BG 0-8 in the army
Guess my speed reading and data absorption are working at 2 different speeds....

I am thinking Ottoman Akinci LH bow average as an example.

2 wide 3 deep if in confined area. Same manuverablity to get away. More resilent. If operating out on the flanks versus enemy mounted they can be 3 wide.

LL
LL
LL

I don't think all would be this way, but maybe 1/3 to 1/2. Of course that depends on how man akinci you plan to have.

My observations were in relation to Eastern Armies and Cavalry not just LH.
I suppose we will have to wait and see how the cavalry in for example Russian and Persian armies are organised!

Also pistol shooting mounted must be allowed in 6 paks otherwise the three ranks shooting cannot be achieved unless the 4 pak is in column.
Although I must admit these were not the subject of my earlier observations and conclusions.

Never the less the games played so far have been seamless, stressless (as far as the rules go) and very enjoyable, no matter the outcome.

Time will tell what works best

Bert

LH in 4's can be a real pain. Not sure about 6s.

Used some Crimean Khanate Tatars in 4s yesterday against an Early Lithuanian army and found that those 4s ruled the board. They were nimble enough to get into and out of firing positions and are an effective weapon against mounted troops needing a 4 to hit rather than the 5 gunpowder weapons need.

The real stars of the show were a unit of 6 poor Muslin archers that failed to shoot up a Polish heavy armour lance/crossbow bg, so beat the living tar out of them in impact & melee, despite being 2 poa down !

I think some Lh dancing in front of shot & pike could be a useful weapon, firing at 4" range and dancing back away from the slow moving foot. Will have to try them out & see how it works.

Scrumpy wrote:

I think some Lh dancing in front of shot & pike could be a useful weapon, firing at 4" range and dancing back away from the slow moving foot. Will have to try them out & see how it works.

Won't the shot be shooting back?

Of course, supposing the foot are the standard 4;2 shot & pike...

At 4" shot 2 dice @ 5....Lh 2 dice @ 4... close range foot 4 @ 5. V 2 @ 4.

the Lh should have a slight advantage.

If the Lh are bow armed, then they will be rolling a death roll every time they get hit by the muskets - the foot won't.
Firearms v bows is not good for the fbowmen.

pyruse wrote:If the Lh are bow armed, then they will be rolling a death roll every time they get hit by the muskets - the foot won't.
Firearms v bows is not good for the fbowmen.

Good. I thought I'd missed something.

yes don't forget that bows have a +2 on the death roll, so you will need at least 3 hits to try and kill someone where as every it from the foot will be a full roll on the LH. I think my money is on fresh horse meat for the pike and shot for dinner. Also you move up to 4", next turn the foot moves into close range and shoots you at 4 dice........ keeps looking worse for the LH.

I have fouind that any horse in front of formed P&S is not a good idea.Best to keep the LH to harass the enemy horse and keep any dancing around P&S to the flanks.

mounted charging the front of formed pike and shot has not proved to be a good idea in our experience so far, the pikes stand the horse routs. at least that is how its happened for us each time.