"warriors with multiple weapons and skill levels" Topic

The Comanche seem to have been dual armed with bows and with lances, and evidently many also owned a firearm. Plus of course clubs and hatchets and such, and shields, for hand-to-hand. I just counted 62 painted based mounteds, and they have just that mix, plus a revolver or two.

I also distinguish youths from bachelors from veterans from elites, which include heroes and sub-chiefs and named characters.

Should I, say, group all of the bachelors together, with an older subchief to rein them in? The boys definitely need to be grouped under a stern teacher whose priority is to get them a smidgen of experience without getting them killed. But an all-veteran group or groups are the most reliable and effective tactically.

BUT, INSTEAD, what about specialization by weaponry? The hunters who rode into buffalo stampedes to cut out and then put an arrow in a bison, and then do it again and again, had special skills (and trained horses) and tricks like the shooting from under the horses neck. Do I put them all together in an elite skirmishing group? And maybe all the berserkers in a lancers unit?

Otoh the Comanche enjoyed false charges and fake withdrawals and my rules will accommodate such guile. Skirmish with bows but if the Texans fire a volley switch at once to lances and charge? Have to be comfortable with both weapons for that.

Everyone seems to agree that the one shot trade muskets were inferior to the bows and lances. But what did they DO with them?

Then how best to depict them on the table? Put all the ones with firearms together? All the lancers together?

Or just as many groups as I have subchiefs each with an eclectic mixture of weapons visible?

Any advice?

You can do that, but it is not how they fought. A brave was free to follow or not follow a war chief at any time for any reason. Raiding groups were not based around age or weapons. You also have the warrior societies that have to follow their own rules but do not have to listen to others. Young teens would accompany raiding parties as observers and horse holders. A sort of gradual introduction to the sights and sounds of combat under the wing of more seasoned braves, but there was not a formal hierarchy in which the senior man was a sergeant and the teen was a private.

This is a difficult period to do well. There are a few rule sets that have tried to cover counting coup, good or bad medicine, etc. A brave can be riding along and see two crows flying in a circle. Uh-oh, bad medicine. See ya boys; my spirit guide is telling me to head back to camp. How do you model that other than as some kind of random event mechanism.

Trade muskets were also status symbols, so they served a function besides being a firearm. They also made pretty good clubs.

Did the Comanche apply war paint to their horses? If so and you don't think it might be too subtle, perhaps you could use variations in the horse warpaint to distinguish the skill level, personality, etc. of the warrior.

79th, yes, what you are saying is in line with what I am reading in a lot of other places. The AI uses the term "distributed leadership" with warriors choosing to ride with a leader, or not, on a temporary basis. How about this? I can easily generate characters and backgrounds and skill levels and temperaments and motivations for a dozen different leaders, or two dozen, and then somehow do recruiting for particular raids. That makes it more like a role-playing campaign.

Eumelus, I love doing warpaint on my horses, and will ponder that idea. I'm already using headgear as an indicator, r trying to.

It is indeed a challenge!

Did they decorate their trade muskets? The Pathan tribes on the Northwest Frontier did and so did many Balkan warriors in the 1700s and 1800s. If so, this might be used as a unit designator.

A simplified RPG sort of thing has something to be said for it, and not just for weaponry. There might be a certain element of charisma and role reversal where an older more experienced warrior might follow a younger man who just happened to know where the enemy was or what the plan was, at least until they got into hand-to-hand combat when he might show the younger guy how it was done.

Grelber

I'm thinking a 2d6 generator of five levels of a trait for a leader. 2-3, 4-5, 6-8, 9-10, and 11-12. That gives the middle level 16/36 probability, and the two extremes only 3/36. Traits would be personal courage, oratory, bearing and style, generosity, honor, loyalty to followers, ambition, tactical skill, risk-taking, etc. Generate personality for a specific miniatures, do background etc. that is fairly straight forward. But what would be the mechanism for recruiting followers? Two situations, maybe. I'm going to lead a raid (details) go or no go? OR three leaders are trying to raise a band for three different raids. Go or go or go or stay home? But do I want a game of politics?maybe I do, as a campaign?

Instead of grouping like-armed warriors into units (what are they? The army? ;-), I'd go with a random armed mix (which likely happened in real life?)
Should make your games more interesting, as well as challenging the player to make the best use of what he got.
As to what the warriors are armed with, you at least have to assume that they know how to use them to full effect (i.e. experience) No sense in carrying around something you can't use, unless it's only for show or some piece of recent loot…

Everyone has a bow, but not equal accuracy nor rate of fire, and everyone has a horse but not equal skill at fancy maneuvers. But I do have to decide from whose perspective the players are gaming. A large group, yes, it all comes out in the wash.

Up to 20 figures, I can see distinguishing them.
Past that, all I can say is that you must really like paperwork. 😄🍺
Non ego.

John, yeah, I hear you.

If you are fighting "battles" as opposed to skirmishes, I'd go the easy route and say that 1/2 the Indian unit can make a ranged attack.