Why no heavy cavalry?

[Old Man]

Re: Why no heavy cavalry?

 

I'd say that terrian' date=' economics, and technology would be your best bet on why no heavy cav. My fantasy world has huge swaths of tropical savannah, and is fairly advanced, technologically speaking. So, heavy cavalry are all over the place. [/quote']

 

Historically heavy cav fared poorly on wide-open terrain, where light mounted archers had the advantage. Slow, armored cavalry armed with lances has little hope of catching a formation of mounted archers, and it is extremely difficult to armor a warrior and his mount to the point where they are invulnerable to an arrow fired from a two-man composite bow.

[pinecone]

Re: Why no heavy cavalry?

 

Oh - and in a mostly unrelated note - in the game I am ramping up right now, I also have no heavy cav. The game reason is illustrated in the herophile art thread:

 

http://herogame.dans.cust.servlets.net/forums/showthread.php?t=32056

 

The real reason though is that I wanted to have a feudal warior class (knights, right?). On the other hand I didn't want all the emotional baggage that comes with the word knight. They behave in many ways more like samurai - but THAT word comes with even more misleading baggage.

 

So .. knights without horses and knights without land. That breaks one of the emotional links and makes it easier to feed the idea that the word "knight" does not mean "code of chivalry" or "damsels in distress" - but simply refers to a full-time warrior in heavy armour who fights for a lord.

 

cheers, Mark

I avoided the baggage in Runequest by calling them Thanes (basicly a professional weapon bearer) I think that is now official for Runequest/Glorantha now so I guess great minds think alike...

[Markdoc]

Re: Why no heavy cavalry?

 

I avoided the baggage in Runequest by calling them Thanes (basicly a professional weapon bearer) I think that is now official for Runequest/Glorantha now so I guess great minds think alike...

 

Yep - and thanes was one of the first words I thought of as well (also considered Hersir, Huskarl etc) because that's very close to the feel I am going for - in this setting, the 6 kindoms are scattered across multiple islands. Feudal lords are not landowners (or at least not primarily) - they are shiplords. Instead of owning X hides of land and supplying X knights, a shiplord must supply X ships (and the warriors to crew them) and have enough income to support that lot (from land, trade monopolies, whatever). So the military structure is a more formalised (and medievalised) version of the early scandanavian Leidang system.

 

But there's a catch. I'm IN scandanavia - so the word Thane (Thegn in Danish) carries if anything, even more baggage than knight - especially if I throw in the ships thing. Life's *****, no?

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: Why no heavy cavalry?

 

Assuming the technology is there then it's most likely an expense issue. It costs a great deal to outfit a heavily armored warrior, and even more to equip him with a strong horse. That horse needs to be trained, and then the man needs to be trained to use the horse. Even if you can outfit a few of these heavy cavalry, it's unlikely there will be many of them about..

 

Ah, but there's a catch. Although it's expensive, it's still cheaper than *losing*. Even people who lived in the wide open plains and relied on light skirmishing cavalry eventually recognised the need for heavier shock cavalry - or were subjugated by people who did. Of course, the shock cav don't need to be especially numerous.

 

So I'd go for other options.

 

1. It just hasn't happened YET. In Japan, it took a long time for them to get around to developing shock cavalry. But when it finally happened, Takeda Shingen's shock tactics crushed every army he faced, until he sat on an especially pointy potty. Everybody - and I mean everybody - immediately started to develop their own shock cavalry corps. But the idea had taken so long to take hold, the next big thing had already arrived. Mass cavalry charges against massed firearms, not so effective, neh?

 

That gives two options. A. Some genius works this out and starts conquering his neighbours. Soon, Heavy Cav are part of the landscape. There's plenty of roleplaying plot hooks here. Who is this genius? Where'd he get the idea from? What else has he got up his sleeve? Where can I get me some o' them? B. It's already been tried - and it's just not effective - it's too easy to spook or mind-control the horses, or they become uncontrollable when fireballs start flying, etc. In other words, magic does for shock cav what massed firearms did for them in Europe.

 

2. It hasn't happened for another reason. The horse god thing is not so silly - in Runequest, in fact, the main setting almost entirely lacks horse-mounted cavalry because of a pissing match between the various gods. So people ride all sorts of other things, but not horses. So the impala people, for example, have no shock cavalry. The Rhino people, on the other hand, have nothing else.

 

cheers, Mark

[Nightshade]

Re: Why no heavy cavalry?

 

Historically heavy cav fared poorly on wide-open terrain' date=' where light mounted archers had the advantage. Slow, armored cavalry armed with lances has little hope of catching a formation of mounted archers, and it is extremely difficult to armor a warrior and his mount to the point where they are invulnerable to an arrow fired from a two-man composite bow.[/quote']

 

Ah, but when you are facing things like giants, huge lizards, and other evil nasties that are large but perhaps not the fastest, heavy cavalry is a real boon.

 

Nightshade

[Old Man]

Re: Why no heavy cavalry?

 

giants' date=' huge lizards, and other evil nasties[/quote']

 

Yes, heavy cavalry would be a big help anytime you venture onto the non-Gaming Discussion board.

[Outsider]

Re: Why no heavy cavalry?

 

If militarily useful magic is common enough that it can kill the heavy cavalry concept, perhaps it is also common enough that it can save it.

 

In addition to his (expensive) Armor, his (expensive) Horse, and his (expensive) training, perhaps each heavy cavalryman carries a (yes, expensive) magical charm such as this :

 

15 (30) Suppression 1D6

____(+2) All Magican Effects simultaneously

____(+1) Continuous

____(+1/2) Reduced Endurance Cost (0 END)

____(+1/2) Persistent

____(+1) AoE Radius (3")

____(-1/2) OIF (Amulet, charm, whatever)

____(-1/2) No Range

 

While 1D6 isnt much, Suppress is cumulative, and uncapped in how much it can Suppress (Hero System Rulebook, Pg. 145, left side, 4th paragraph) So a Heavy cavalryman riding in Line (1 per hex) with his fellows will be within the radius of effect of 6 other cavalrymen, for a total of 7D6 off any magical effect thrown at him. If the cavalrymen are riding in a truly tight formation, stirrup to stirrup (2 per hex) then he will have 12 or 13 D6 of suppress defending him from magic. And that's just a single line of horsemen. If following lines are there, and following within ~20 feet, then each horseman will have even more D6 of suppress defending him.

 

Adding "increased radius" to the AoE will give the cavalry troop a truly staggering magic suppression ability... so long as they stay together.

[Vanguard00]

Re: Why no heavy cavalry?

 

If militarily useful magic is common enough that it can kill the heavy cavalry concept, perhaps it is also common enough that it can save it.

That is a pretty darn nifty idea. Consider it stol--er, borrowed.