Mounted armed with light spear- why choose this over lances?

[Intothevalley]

I don't know how much of an issue this actually is (I don't own any of the army books yet), but if offered a choice, is there any reason you would choose to arm your cavalry with light spear over a lance? Looking at the POAs, and effects on cohesion tests, it looks like the lance has a great advantage over light spear (other than CMTs to prevent charging without orders) - have I missed something else?

I only ask as my home-made Han Chinese list has an option for light spear armed cavalry (representing the ji/halberd armed units) and lance armed cavalry - am I a dufus for choosing light spear cavalry?

Thanks for your help!

[Noble]

Historical reasons? For when an army roster shows a certain percentage of lance armed and spear armed cavalry at a specific battle or in a specific campaign?

[Intothevalley]

That is of course a laudable reason - where you have the information. I personally have little idea what ratio of Han Chinese cavalry were armed with halberd or lance!

[carlos]

Plenty of reasons. Cav w/ light spear are better against some foot (spearmen I believe), can still count their PoA on terrain other than open and can evade. Cav w/ light spear are very versatile and can work in uneven terrain unlike cav w/ lance which can only work in open terrain.

[Noble]

... I personally have little idea what ratio of Han Chinese cavalry were armed with halberd or lance!

Neither do I in that case

Hmm, I'm not familiar with the FOG army lists, but they may give a rough historical breakup of relative troop compositions - I know some other systems that do.

Otherwise a little research into a major battle or campaign of that era and region may give an impression - or a fellow wargamer may already have researched it and drewn up an army roster. Take a look through Wikipedia (a good common starting point for an information overview, though semireliable for details), and skim the Internet, or if you're so inclined the local library (I found astoundingly well drafted orders of battles in otherwise dry history books ).

If all things fail, I would go by educated guesses - as, if I knew a certain class, say nobles and their retainers, were trained as lancers and everyone else not, I would take a lower percentage of lance armed cavalry and more with spears. Your choice to make exceptions, of course.

Only my point of view - historical gaming is a balance act between reenacting history and playing competitively - and everyone has to find their own place on that sliding scale - it's also a question of whether you like research, or rather just want to play - just choose your own style

[Intothevalley]

Plenty of reasons. Cav w/ light spear are better against some foot (spearmen I believe), can still count their PoA on terrain other than open and can evade. Cav w/ light spear are very versatile and can work in uneven terrain unlike cav w/ lance which can only work in open terrain.

I think the only time light spear armed cavalry would get a + against non-fragged spears would be against charging defensive spears, against which lancers get a plus also. Otherwise, I think they are worse off against all other foot that can get any impact POA against them, which includes non-charging spear, offensive spear, impact foot, light spear foot and pikes.

The terrain advantage is quite a slim one, given that the cavalry will be disordered, though in the unlikely event they were facing lancers in such terrain it would be useful.

But yes - the option to evade is certainly useful.

[carlos]

All I'm saying is it's not such a useless option. And cavalry is not that bad in disordering terrain especially because light spear cav usually are better armoured and have swordsmen unlike most terrain troops. Cav w/ lancers are going to be trounced by pikemen, HF spearmen or knights anyway, so at least the light spear option gives you some options against those troops.

[donal]

Cav armed with light spear do not count as shock therefore, IIRC, do not charge without orders
Don

[nikgaukroger]

And non-shock cavalry 1 rank deep can evade so you can use Light Spear cavalry as "heavy skirmishers".

[rbodleyscott]

And non-shock cavalry 1 rank deep can evade so you can use Light Spear cavalry as "heavy skirmishers".

This is their key advantage over lancers, and the trade-off leaves them roughly equal in our opinion - hence they cost the same points.

[olivier]

Light spear cavalry are at + against MF spearmen or IF, that's great to charge these nasty thorakitai

[Draka]

Asked this before in other threads (OK I'm stubborn) but as to the OP comment on these representing ge/ji armed cavalry, wouldn't the Heavy Weapon category be more appropriate? If allowed to mounted troops?

[Intothevalley]

And non-shock cavalry 1 rank deep can evade so you can use Light Spear cavalry as "heavy skirmishers".

Well, I confess I hadn't thought of the 'heavy skirmisher' concept - it certainly does make them more useful, and more flexible than lancers, though I think I'd prefer to use light horse in the sirmisher role where they are available. I'll try it out and see if it works.

Thanks for your comments.

[Intothevalley]

Asked this before in other threads (OK I'm stubborn) but as to the OP comment on these representing ge/ji armed cavalry, wouldn't the Heavy Weapon category be more appropriate? If allowed to mounted troops?

Heavy weapons aren't allowed to mounted troops - perhaps because they can't get the necessary 'swing' with them that foot soldiers can. If I recall correctly, under 7th ed. mounted with 2 handed weapons counted as side arms only, but 2 handed cut and thrust weapons did give a negative factor to enemies they fought.

[nikgaukroger]

I don't think there is anything that prevents Heavy Weapon being a mounted capability if it were deemed appropriate.

[Intothevalley]

I don't think there is anything that prevents Heavy Weapon being a mounted capability if it were deemed appropriate.

Oh right - I just couldn't see it as an option for mounted in the points costs table on page 149. Would certainly be interesting if they were allowed them.

[Draka]

One of the things that I had/have a problem with in 7th/Warrior is that there are only two categories of mounted weapons - Lance (Charging, countercharging or pursuing) and "All other ....". This is a very Western centric notion, and I am hoping in this ruleset to see the ge/ji and similar weapons used on the other side of the world see some love. And you do recall correctly that troops faced with 2HCT wielded by mounted took a negative tactical factor.

[SirGarnet]

I don't think there is anything that prevents Heavy Weapon being a mounted capability if it were deemed appropriate.

In which case, since Heavy Weapon is both an Impact and a Melee capability, they would have no other Impact or Melee capability. Would a missile capability be possible along with HW?

Mike

[nikgaukroger]

I don't think there is anything that prevents Heavy Weapon being a mounted capability if it were deemed appropriate.

Oh right - I just couldn't see it as an option for mounted in the points costs table on page 149. Would certainly be interesting if they were allowed them.

Indeed it isn't, however, I don't think that would prevent its use if justified.

[nikgaukroger]

I don't think there is anything that prevents Heavy Weapon being a mounted capability if it were deemed appropriate.

In which case, since Heavy Weapon is both an Impact and a Melee capability, they would have no other Impact or Melee capability. Would a missile capability be possible along with HW?

Mike

Possibly, but probably not a full one so you'd be looking at Bow* realistically.