Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

[Kristopher]

Maybe I can find some answers here. "Teh intarwebs" has been useless to me so far.

 

I have a friend who insists that Native American horsemen were able to do all sorts of things in combat, such as hang onto the horse with just their legs and swing down to fire under the horse, ride hanging from one side so that they couldn't be seen from the other side, fighting from horseback without a saddle, etc -- basically, that all the stuff in 50s westerns and the old Wild West shows was based on reality, not just flashy showmanship.

 

But it strikes me as just that -- flashy showmanship, not something that was ever done outside of stunt performances. And I cannot it find anything in any of my research that even hints that it was ever anything more than that.

 

He wants to include it in a character for a game, and personally it strikes me as pure cheese.

[braincraft]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

You can ride without a saddle, but most people use one if they have one, for the same reason most people will shoot you with a rifle if they have one even though you can also kill people by throwing rocks at them.

 

Is it a cinematic game? Even for a realistic game, it's not like he's shooting lightning bolts out of his ass. Let him buy +1 or +2 to something RSR to represent stupid horse tricks.

[LordGhee]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Quick response

 

every thing you called cheese had a good reason to exist.

 

every stunt had a basis in real world need.

 

riding on the side of the horse for example is a native American invention, before the use of the gun one need to get close to use ones bow. Herd animals are not afraid of other herd animals but man on a horse will cause the deer or buffalo to run so this trick was needed to close with the herd. Mongols (cossacks) also used this trick for the same reason but in western Europe if one was hunting one needed to be able to jump fences so that skill was used more and ended up in the Olympics.

 

 

saddles protect the horse and allow the rider to stay on the horse easier.

 

sounds like your player understands the horse rider better.

 

I had a Hun type character that had clinging this allowed him to stand on the horses back, ride back wards so to shoot behind him and ride side saddle so not to be seen (this saved him once by the way) and it was limited to horses or horse like only (he could not cling to a mountain side but did once cling to a beam in a great hall.

 

Lord Ghee

[Kristopher]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Quick response

 

every thing you called cheese had a good reason to exist.

 

every stunt had a basis in real world need.

 

riding on the side of the horse for example is a native American invention, before the use of the gun one need to get close to use ones bow. Herd animals are not afraid of other herd animals but man on a horse will cause the deer or buffalo to run so this trick was needed to close with the herd. Mongols (cossacks) also used this trick for the same reason but in western Europe if one was hunting one needed to be able to jump fences so that skill was used more and ended up in the Olympics.

 

 

saddles protect the horse and allow the rider to stay on the horse easier.

 

sounds like your player understands the horse rider better.

 

I had a Hun type character that had clinging this allowed him to stand on the horses back, ride back wards so to shoot behind him and ride side saddle so not to be seen (this saved him once by the way) and it was limited to horses or horse like only (he could not cling to a mountain side but did once cling to a beam in a great hall.

 

Where would I find solid references to this kind of riding?

[runescience]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

These stunts are all great Ideas, but they are very hard to do with out spending a ton of points in 5th edition. I anxiously await the responses to the questions posted above.

[Susano]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Where would I find solid references to this kind of riding?

 

In all honesty, try Wikipedia and see if they list and sources.

 

Here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrianism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_warfare

 

The second link has a lot of good stuff you can work from.

[Kristopher]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Still not finding anything that's actually confirming this accrobatic, all-over-the-horse combat style as histotically sound.

[Susano]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Have you tried googling Mongol horse archer tactics?

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

I've seen pics of Comanches hanging on the side of the horse done by Frederic Remington (who is not known for fanciful subjects). Whether this was just showing off or a true war tactic remains unconfirmed, but logic says if you can ride like that, shooting a carbine from under the horse's neck would make you a hard target to hit. Given that a lot of the guns the Indians were able to get their hands on were smoothbore trade guns, it probably didn't throw off their accuracy too much to do it that way either.

[Outsider]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Its not all that expensive. Just have him buy up his riding skill and give each trick a negative modifier and a positive effect.

 

Example :

 

Bareback Riding : -1 Riding Check, -1 riding check if rider attacks, -1 more on the riding check per D6 added by move by/through

 

Riding on the side of the horse : -2 Riding Check, +2 DCV to rider, rider is concealed

 

Shooting under the horses neck : -3 Riding Check, -1 OCV, +2 DCV to the rider, rider is concealed (Restrictions : Requires saddle, not with 2 handed weapons)

[Manic Typist]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Here's the most important question: will letting him do this contribute to your fun as a GM, his fun as a player, and the fun of the rest of the group? Will it detract?

 

If your answers are yes and no, respectively, just figure out a reasonable price, and look forward to seeing it used.

 

Right?

[keithcurtis]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Can the style be simulated with a custom Martial Art?

 

Keith "?" Curtis

[Kristopher]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

I'm not so much a question of how to simulate it, as it is a question of how authentic the style is. It's not supposed to be a highly cinematic and stylized setting.

[Kristopher]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

I've seen pics of Comanches hanging on the side of the horse done by Frederic Remington (who is not known for fanciful subjects). Whether this was just showing off or a true war tactic remains unconfirmed' date=' but logic says if you can ride like that, shooting a carbine from under the horse's neck would make you a hard target to hit. Given that a lot of the guns the Indians were able to get their hands on were smoothbore trade guns, it probably didn't throw off their accuracy too much to do it that way either.[/quote']

 

It strikes me as a good way to fall off your horse.

[Captain Obvious]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

It strikes me as a good way to fall off your horse.

 

Jumping out of an airplane with a parachute that barely slows you down doesn't make much sense either, until you look at it in a military context.

 

If your chances of getting shot while sitting normally are greater than your chances of falling off the horse while hanging on the side, it's a good trade-off. Granted, I'm not nearly enough of an equestrian to say that it is indeed a viable technique, but it doesn't seem too far out.

 

You could build it as some kind of Power, like a super-skill. That would make it into something you need to have specific practice in, so that not everyone can do it. That would keep its use down without totally eliminating it.

[Markdoc]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

I'm not so much a question of how to simulate it' date=' as it is a question of how authentic the style is. It's not supposed to be a highly cinematic and stylized setting.[/quote']

 

In truth, although all these things almost certainly were done (by a few people, at least), it was also almost certainly something you did to impress your buddies and chicks (like Celtic warriors running out along the chariot yoke) - not because it made you a more effective combatant.

 

In fact, it almost certainly made you a *less* effective combatant.

 

Trying to shoot a carbine while hanging off the side of your horse is certainly going to make you far less likely to hit anything than sitting and aiming (and even that's a lot harder than *standing* and aiming, which is what a most carbine-armed cavalry was trained to do, regardless of what you see in the movies). Rolling around in the saddle might make you a harder target - but it also makes you far more likley to lose control of your mount or fall off and get trampled by your buddies, regardless of how good you are.

 

And in battle, nobody's shooting at "you" anyway: they're shooting at "that mass of men and horses". Moving around in the saddle is far more likely to get you killed in that situation than holding your shield ready and watching for arrows coming your way. In a hand to hand combat situation it'll get you killed pretty damn fast.

 

But having said that, if the player wants to buy "cool riding tricks", then as a GM, I'd be inclined to alow him.

[eternal_sage]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

hell, i'd shift the burden of proof to him (as it logically should be anyway). you never have to prove a negative (i.e. something doesn't exist/can't happen) only a positive (i.e. it does exist/can happen). since your stance is that it was NOT a viable option, then make the player find the proof for you, on the grounds that once (s)he does, you'll allow it. then you save you a headache, and maybe (s)he'll learn something.

 

thats my take on it....

 

 

oh, and no, i wouldn't allow it if its not a cinematic game, personally, but thats my own opinion on the matter.

[Kristopher]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

hell' date=' i'd shift the burden of proof to him (as it logically should be anyway). you never have to prove a negative (i.e. something doesn't exist/can't happen) only a positive (i.e. it does exist/can happen). since your stance is that it was NOT a viable option, then make the player find the proof for you, on the grounds that once (s)he does, you'll allow it. then you save you a headache, and maybe (s)he'll learn something.[/quote']

 

Well, he insists that it's an established fact, end of story, and even when I say "I can't find anything about it despite hours of research", he just again insists that it's entirely historically accurate. It's a long story, but I don't know if basically saying "prove it" would be the most productive approach.

[braincraft]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Are you trying to run a historically accurate campaign? How accurate? 13th Warrior accurate or Saving Private Ryan accurate? Tombstone accurate or Master and Commander accurate? How cinematic? Lethal Weapon cinematic or Romeo Must Die cinematic? Godfather cinematic or Once Upon A Time In Mexico cinematic?

 

My main concern is with how the effect is going to be modeled in game terms. As I've said, if all he wants is to get a small advantage and look cool, let him buy a CSL or two with RSR and Only On Horseback, and I'm sure he'll be ecstatic, and the game will end up being more fun for everybody. If he wants to use his arguments as an excuse to buy game-breaking powers, then explain to him that you're afraid he'll unbalance the campaign and ask him to readjust accordingly.

 

Also, what kind of point and power levels are you shooting for with this game? If everyone's a 250-point heroic badass, denying someone a few harmless tricks in his area of specialty is pretty lame. If everyone's a 50-point competent normal, it's more difficult to argue that he deserves something outlandish.

 

You keep saying that your decision is based on research, but that seems besides the point to me. Are you playing a game or a simulation? Will this really ruin anyone's fun?

[Kristopher]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

It'll ruin my fun if I have to roll my eyes and play along with something that's goofier than a pet racoon at least once a game session.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Braincraft has got the basic gist of the matter, but my question is this:

 

What weapon?

 

You can fire a one-handed firearm underneath a horse if you're hanging off the side, but hanging off the side is a typical 'protect my ass' or 'conceal my ass' tactic in a small-unit combat. It's dangerous, but it's the horseman's equivalent of a Dodge. Actually firing IS HISTORICAL -- but you're about 5x more likely to spook your own horse than actually hit something unless they're RIGHT NEXT TO YOU. Firing a carbine? -8 OCV, plus a dex and/or strength roll to hang on to the gun.

 

NOBODY rode backwards to fire their weapon (rifle or bow) over the haunches of their horse; that's three movements more likely to get you thrown than to get the opponent successfully hurt. What was done is called a 'Parthian Retreat' or, more accurately, the 'Parthian Shot' -- used mostly by Eurasian nomads, but once the Great Plains tribals acquired the horse, could have been readily reinvented. The rider twists their torso around and fires at the pursuing enemy; usually the pursuing enemy (who is typically heavier cavalry) gets a faceful of arrows and tired horses for their efforts.

 

Pretty much anything else is just showing off stunt riding -- good for impressing girls out of combat, good for getting yourself dead IN combat.

[AmadanNaBriona]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

 

Pretty much anything else is just showing off stunt riding -- good for impressing girls out of combat, good for getting yourself dead IN combat.

 

unless you're already engaged in some pretty damnfool maneuvers, like trying to board a train in motion, in which case some stunt riding tricks become handier.

 

Sounds like the idea for the character might have some inspiration from Skeeter Jackson from Wages of Sin, who was raised by Yakka Mongols and later uses a lot of the tricks he'd learned in Roman area combat. From what I've read about light cavalry tactics and what I've seen from my ex (who did western, dressage and endurance riding), a lot of these tricks aren't all that cinematic.

 

Possibly completely worthless, but most likely occasionally handy in very special circumstances.

[S. John Ross]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

Well' date=' he insists that it's an established fact, end of story, and even when I say "I can't find anything about it despite hours of research", he just again insists that it's entirely historically accurate. It's a long story, but I don't know if basically saying "prove it" would be the most productive approach. [/quote']

 

You don't have to put it quite so bluntly if he's likely to be sensitive about it; make it an implied part of the design process: "Alright, but bring a book or two about it, and we'll design the abilities based on the material directly, that way we're working from common ground and it'll save confusion in play."

 

"And you'll need to let me know what your pet raccoon eats."

[S. John Ross]

Re: Mounted Combat, and a Question of Historical Accuracy

 

In truth' date=' although all these things almost certainly were done (by a few people, at least), it was also almost certainly something you did to impress your buddies and chicks (like Celtic warriors running out along the chariot yoke) - not because it made you a more effective combatant. [...'] But having said that, if the player wants to buy "cool riding tricks", then as a GM, I'd be inclined to alow him.

 

Ditto on that. When I first saw this thread, my response was "My god, someone's found the American history version of the dreaded what-can-a-katana-really-do question!"

[braincraft]

Hell, everything!

 

"And you'll need to let me know what your pet raccoon eats."

 

Anything.