"Hold your horses!" Topic

In which I challenge ChatGPT to write some rules:

See what you think.

Working on rules for horse holders in the Texans-Comanche fights. I know that different armies used either one man per three horses or one per four -- which was in itself a huge difference in firepower, to subtract 33% or 25% from the firing line. Iirc the Patriot militia in the south tended to picket horses well back from the battle and leave them untended. Do we have any data on Texan practice? Also, a horse holder would be pretty well protected from enemy fire, but I presume would need both hands and so could not fire back. Want to try your hand at writing a rule for a horse holder losing control if a horse is wounded or the enemy attempts a stampede through yelling and charging?

and the robot's answer:

This is a great, crunchy problem—exactly where history, common sense, and game design rub against each other.

1. What do we actually know about Texan practice?

Short version: Texans were much closer to southern militia practice than to European cavalry doctrine, and there is no evidence of a formalized "1 man per 3–4 horses" rule in Texan service. What existed was ad hoc, situational horse holding, shaped by terrain, enemy (Comanche), and urgency.

a. Texians were not line cavalry

Texan mounted men in the 1830s–40s were:

Riflemen who rode to the fight

Expected to dismount and fight on foot

Deeply suspicious of anything that reduced the firing line unnecessarily

Unlike dragoons or regular cavalry, they did not drill in fixed ratios of horse holders. The ethos was closer to:

"If we're going to stand and fight, somebody grabs the horses—figure it out."

b. Comparison to Patriot militia (your recollection is sound)

In the southern Revolutionary War:

Horses were often picketed well back, sometimes out of sight

No dedicated holders during the fight

This worked because the enemy was infantry, not a fast mounted force intent on stealing horses

That does not translate cleanly to Comanche warfare.

c. The Comanche factor changes everything

Against the Comanche:

Loose horses = catastrophe

Horse capture was often the primary objective

Texans knew that a sudden rush, feint, or mounted swirl could scatter unattended mounts in seconds

As a result, Texans generally:

Kept horses closer than Patriot militia would have

Used temporary holders, often rotating

Accepted a temporary reduction in firepower, but tried to minimize it

d. Plausible ratios in practice

From memoirs, battle descriptions, and common sense logistics, a realistic Texan pattern looks like this:

1 holder per 4–6 horses when:

Terrain was broken

Enemy pressure was uncertain

The fight was expected to be short

No formal holders when:

Horses could be hidden (ravines, timber, reverse slopes)

Engagement was sudden and brief

More holders (1 per 3–4) only when:

Horses were fully exposed

Texans expected harassment or a feint aimed at stampede

In other words: horse holding was reactive, not doctrinal.

That actually gives you a gift as a rules designer.

2. Can a horse holder fire?

You're exactly right to presume no.

A realistic horse holder:

Has both hands occupied (reins, lead ropes, calming)

Is behind the firing line

Is not in a firing stance

Is probably crouched, kneeling, or braced

Even if he has a pistol:

Using it risks losing control

The moment he fires, you're really resolving a horse control test, not an attack

So:
👉 Horse holders do not fire unless they abandon their role.

3. Draft rule: Horse Holders and Control

Here's a rule set that stays historically grounded and creates tension.

HORSE HOLDERS

Assigning Horse Holders

When a mounted unit dismounts to fight, the player must declare how horses are managed:

Picketed Back (terrain permitting)

Held by Designated Horse Holders

Loose (High Risk)

If horses are held, assign 1 horse holder per 3–6 horses.

Fewer holders = higher risk.

Each horse holder removes one man from the firing line.

HORSE HOLDER STATUS

Horse holders:

May not fire or reload

Are treated as in hard cover unless directly targeted

May move at half speed while controlling horses

LOSS OF CONTROL CHECKS

A Horse Control Test is required when any of the following occur within X inches of the horses:

A horse is wounded or killed

Enemy makes a mounted charge or feint

Enemy deliberately attempts a stampede (yelling, firing, rapid advance)

Artillery, explosions, or sudden mass movement nearby

Horse Control Test
Roll 1d6 per group of horses:

Modifiers

+1 if horses are veteran/trained

+1 if terrain offers concealment

–1 if enemy is Comanche or similarly skilled horsemen

–1 per horse beyond the holder's effective capacity (over 4)

–1 if a horse has already been wounded

RESULTS

6+ – Control Maintained
Horses remain steady.

4–5 – Partial Panic
Horses shift or rear.

Holder must remain stationary next activation

Unit suffers –1 morale while horses are unsettled

2–3 – Loss of Control
Horses break loose.

Roll scatter direction and distance

Any holder must choose:

Chase horses (abandoning combat)

Let them go (horses may be lost or captured)

1 – Stampede
Horses bolt wildly.

All nearby units test morale

Enemy mounted troops may attempt immediate capture

Recovering horses requires significant time or ends the scenario's foot phase

ABANDONING THE HORSES

A horse holder may voluntarily abandon control to:

Fire

Fight hand-to-hand

Flee

Doing so automatically triggers a Horse Control Test at –2.

4. Why this works (design-wise)

Forces the Texan player into exactly the historical dilemma

Makes Comanche intimidation tactics meaningful

Avoids rigid European ratios

Keeps Texans dangerous—but never safe

Creates cinematic moments: "Do I save the horses or the men?"

If you want, next we can:

Tune this for different terrain types

Create a Comanche-specific stampede action

Or balance this against revolvers vs bows so it all meshes cleanly

You're building a system that feels right, and this is very much on the right trail. 🐎

I am very pleased with the AIs rule, and will use it i small fights with a dozen or so per side. And it might scale up okay with groups of five and so about 60 miniatures per side. It is pretty granular but I think that is what skirmish games are about.

There seems to be a very high chance of a horse holder not being able to hold on to the horses.

Too high, do you think? It certainly makes the horses the schwerpunkt.

Let's see: assume a dozen rangers dismount in broken terrain to fight, with three horse holders each with four animals. Assume trained animals in concealment but facing Comanche, so a net +1. So 2/6 chances for a 6, and 2/6 chances for partial panic. And rolling for three groups. Yes, I agree. I think I delete the -1 for facing Comanche which then means each holder is fully in control 3/6 and partially in control 2/6. Might also extend partial panic to 3-5 and reduce loss of control to 2. That is the kind of juggling of factors that comes out of playtesting.

Going to a d10 instead of d6 helps, increasing chances of full control. With trained horses in cover only a 1 brings loss of control. That way the Comanche have to work for it.