"The Trouble with Horses" Topic

Hi gang,

So I'm working on my skirmish game Strike Force Commander, and I'm having some internal debates about the nature of mounted warriors, etc.

I'm of too many schools of thought on how they should be represented, so I thought I'd start a poll on my blog to help get some feedback that I can measure on the matter from all of you.

It's at 4sparta.blogspot.com

Please vote, and then if you have additional comments, air them here.

Thanks,

Faust

I will let you know right off that a title of Strike Force Commander does not sound appropriate for rules that appear to be aimed at the forums you cross-posted to.

Ancients?
Medieval?
Renaissance?
Wild West?

They sound either (A) Modern or (B) Sci-Fi in nature.

Also, without seeing your poll, I would imagine that the use of a horse in combat changed drastically between Ancient times, and say, the American Civil War?

Well, SeattleGamer, considering that all of the periods listed have, at one time or ,consisted of a small force dedicated to striking against the enemy, hence 'strike force', I think the name is going to stand.

And, yeah, without looking at my poll you would have to use your imagination….

True, but for a historical setup, you may wish for 'Skirmish' or 'Raid'. Strike Force makes it sound like you've got Chuck Norris leading an attack on a bunch of terrorists.

I voted rather than argued. But that is just the kind of guy I am. Boring.

I voted on the two model approach since it is a skirmish game & includes the Old West. Mainly because of the ease of plains Indians (& some whites) to mount & dismount as situations required. Not sure if that would be the correct approach for other periods. You would need to work out the effectiveness of a trooper without his mount. There is always the chance of being injured when hitting the ground when your mount has been shot out from under you. A horseman might not be as effective of a fighter on foot due to training, equipment, or being dazed from the fall.

Yeah, well, the name of the game is not up for discussion.

Rusty & Elaine, thanks for staying on topic.

Elaine, good points all.

I gotta go with SeattleGamer and Robin on this one and say that the name doesn't seem to fit the period you're trying to game. But hey, whatever. It's a free country.

If you're doing skirmish, I would say that it would be better to make the horse and rider two separate entities for casualty purposes. I think it adds a much more interesting layer to the battle.

The game is a historical all periods ancient to modern skirmish system. Small bands of 5-15 models, any time period. The name is not changing.

The last time I checked the poll, it was neck and neck between single model removed completely and two models.

I agree with MeroMero & Elaine that at this level, having more granularity may be better. However, the voices in my head are also thinking more along the lines of ease of play.

Gove the scale of game, personally I'd go with two models. As has already been mentioned, there would be a considerable difference in how mounts were used by, let's say, a medieval knight, a Napoleonic French lancer and an ACW or Plains Wars cavalryman.

That's right. Some horsemen were just as adept at being dismounted as mounted. This would be like a US cavalryman, Indian, Australian Light Horseman, etc. Some, like Parthian cataphracts or late midieval knights would be downright helpless if they lost their horse, and so either casualty would disable them.

I agree. I have accounted for the skill of the rider in the special abilities you can buy for your force.

Currently, I have the rules targeting the model as a single piece, then once hit, randomising the damage result between mount and rider.

There's a niggling sense that something else would be better, hence the poll.

I did vote. Two models, hits dealt randomly. At the skirmish level a soldier is a soldier, and I can't imagine that just because I'm a cavalry guy, if my horse gets shot out from under me that I take my war toys and head for home.

I'm now on foot, and I still have an enemy to kill or mission to accomplish.

And I came into this post via the ACW forum initially, and those cavalry were trained to get where they needed to go, then dismount and fight on foot (with one trooper out of 4 assigned to hold the horses).

And in the Wild West, horses were transportation. So it wouldn't make much sense to have the rider removed from play because the horse took a hit.

I do get the "streamlining" angle though, so that might be a factor. Just depends on how much granularity you want.

Steve

Seattle, that's fine if you're a horsemen from the 19th century, but what if your a cataphract cavalryman clad in so much segmented armor you can hardly move and armed only with a 12-foot kontos. I think that for a guy like that, having a horse get hit means game over, man.

I like the way Faust mentioned that he's randomizing the hit between horse and rider, so that one goes down and one stays in the fight. For certain heavy cavalry types, I think a hit on either would mean you've lost the whole "unit".

I voted. Like others have said, at this level I would prefer to see them handled that way. In a larger game I would definitely vote for dealing with them as a single unit. My reasoning is simple: even if you shoot the horse, the guy might not be injured enough to keep him from fighting! Heck, the dead horse suddenly becomes possible cover, so someone with a bow or a rifle could be even more formidable as a sniper.

Good discussion! As I have it set up currently, when a Rider's mount takes a dirt nap, he must check to see if he is affected as well. It's basically a 'how bad did I fall' type of thing.

I have included a condition that if you don't have a suitable model representing the fallen rider, then you remove the whole model. I think that most gamers should have the time to make a foot version of a mounted model. Since we're only talking about 15 or fewer models, I felt it reasonable.

Hi Faust

I voted for seperate models. If it is skirmish and scenario based, it might be nessecary for figs to dismount to enter a building, loot a body, grab an item that is the objective etc. It might be an idea if the chance of the rider taking damage would be influenced by the speed at which the mount last moved, ie if a charging horse gets killed or badly wounded, the guy on the back is in big trouble, less so from a stationary mount. This way, dismounted characters could try to grab free mounts from characters who had been shot off the back or who had themselves dismounted. Also if the horse and rider were to be hit as a unit, and then the shot randomised to see which one was hit, I would have the much bigger chance to hit the horse (65-70% +).

voted for the 3rd option ( 2 seperate models) just too much importance for both horse AND rider in various situations that will come up at the skirmish level to not make both seperate targets and such! Sounds like a good concept for Outlaws vs posses, Cavalry vs Apaches, Range Wars, Texas Rangers vs Comancheros and on and on!! Good luck!

I must say that I think separate models is the way to go. Even medeival knights expected to continue battle when unhorsed.

With separate models you not only allow cover from dead horses, you also allow remounts for those who were "unhorsed" from horses who were "unridered".

Think Ned Pepper from True Grit.

Kreoseus2, I do have a proportional adjustment for the random damage roll. On a d10 1-6 hits the horse, 7-10 hits the rider.

I am less torn over the issue of having a separate horse and rider, mostly do to the arguments I've read here.

My next challenge is the effect of damage on a mount. My thinking is that the horse is either effective or not, with no middle range of injury. It seems to me that horses can become lame/useless pretty fast.

Thoughts?

Seems you have either a major horse wound that would eliminate it from being utilized by the rider (killed or severely crippled), or a minor wound. Just for "grins" you might incorporate a quick "morale check" on the minor wounded horse to see if it stays under control of the rider or holder or bolts away uncontrolled either with the rider still on board or away from the dismounted man!!

I agree that horses can be made ineffective very quickly. They are wonderful animals, but a bit fragile in some respects. In Gutshot we have seven different types of mounts (5 horses and 2 others), and each has a different capacity for damage. I'm not suggesting you adopt our approach, but it might be interesting for you to look at. You can download our Horse Record Sheets here:

hawgleg.com/downloads.asp

If you want to compare them to human movement, our base movement rates are:

Crawl = 1 inch
Walk = 3 inches
Trot = 6 inches
Run = 12 inches

Thanks, MMitchell. I'll check them out. I drafted my new mounted rules last night and finished them at lunch today. I will know whether I did the right thing once I've typed them up tonight.

I'm going with the principle that a horse is either fit or lame. In or out of play. And based on our discussion here about sizes of horses and what a bitch it would be to have one fall on you, I've come up with some playable approximations of that I think.

Well, I spent all of saturday re-writing my Cavalry rules for SFC.

Here's a snapshot of what I came up with:

Cav models are treated as a single model for targeting and such, but once hit, you randomize to see if its horse or rider that take damage.

You can dismount and remount if you tied the horse down, or you can send it to the rear and stay on foot the rest of the game.

Horses come in two types: Riding & War. Riding checks are required if either mount or rider are injured, to keep the rider in the saddle.

I'm very happy with what I've written, and it is a more thorough treatment of a difficult rule.

Thanks for your discussions & ideas.

Faust

If the mount takes a hit that incapacitates it while it is being ridden you may need to build in a test for the rider to remain uninjured when he jumps or falls off of the stricken horse.

I have injury results for thrown riders. I also have a method of taking out either horse or rider with my game's equivalent of a 'called shot'.

And John, very funny. I'll drop you a line soon. ;)

"Poll closed", poop. I think riders should be condisdered separate casualties from horses unless the horsey is moving fast, then forget the rider if the horse goes down. In a standing or static melee or moving slowly, the rider might get up or stay on his feet when his horse is downed. I would make hitting the horse 2/3 and the rider 1/3 chance and make it random. (btw, Templars always land on their feet and keep fighting, but you should know that already)

"btw, Templars always land on their feet and keep fighting"

Yes they do…..;)