[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: (TFT) more on Cavalry Charges

> From: "Dominic Desrosiers" <dominic_desrosiers@hotmail.com>
> Subject: Re: (TFT) more on Cavalry Charges
> Right, I think three deep is a reasonable infantry deployment, but I have no
> problems with tinkering (that's the point right ?).

Deeper formations have been used historically, but threes a good start
for comparative testing. The Romans used 8+ deep against cataphracts and
the Sarmations.
> Also moral will not be a factor, we will assume that nobody will break ranks
> and run before contact is made or during the fight.

This is probably 80% of the 'historical' problem. Most troops in the
various periods broke when charged by cavalry. The ones who stood,
usually won. Of course the standing ones probably had the right
equipment! Pikes come to mind...
> From: Justin Sandock <jsandock@numa-inc.com>
> You are correct the Lancers of the Roman era did not have stirrups. They
> were still effective in their role though. I'll expound more in my next
> post.

Yes, they were, but not as effective as stirruped heavy horse. I forgot,
is there any difference between the two in TFT? Looking forward to more
data and thoughts though, I've enjoyed using Melee in the past as a
skirmish game.
> From: Justin Sandock <jsandock@numa-inc.com>
> Subject: FW: (TFT) more on Cavalry Charges

> Final Analysis

> I think this reflects the reality (or maybe just my reality) of mounted
> combat. 

I think for the period you've stated, Roman late Republic, early
Imperial that this is an excellent analysis. Late Republic, early
Medieval is a different kettle of fish. That would also be fun to game
> Does this fit the playtesting data?
> I open the floor to flames/questions
> From: "Dominic Desrosiers" <dominic_desrosiers@hotmail.com>
> Let's give them stirrups then.

Fair enough! This would give it true HC capabilities.
> Right, I would consider an average cavalryman DX 14 ST 12 a cut above an
> average infantryman DX 12 ST 12.  My reasoning is that mounted unit has a
> higher value than a foot unit and requires a higher degree of skill and
> deftness which is reflected in the DX score.

Hmm... If we stick with the Roman theme, I'd say the heavy infantry is
probably as good if not better.
> From: "Dave Seagraves" <dseagraves@austin.rr.com>
>    This thread about mass combat, shock, and breaching the line reminded me
> of two fascinating articles last year in /Armor/ magazine.  One article went
> into detail about the value of shock in (modern) warfare (and how we don't
> take advantage of it enough) and the other was a discussion of breaching ops
> in the Gulf War.  

Shock can work both ways, rapid movement and concentrations 'go aft
aglay'. However, it's one of my favorites for cardboard and lead

Jim Eckman
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"