Rules => Bloody Barons => Topic started by: John Watson on February 13, 2019, 11:01:35 AM

Title: Thoughts on cavalry
Post by: John Watson on February 13, 2019, 11:01:35 AM
Another 2d.
BB current edition never really tackled cavalry so it's good to see this addressed with the new edition.
Historically WoR cavalry were either scourers/hobilars etc used for scouting, ambushes and so on, so not really battlefield troops. Lightly armoured for speed and agility. The others were the fully armoured knights, the tanks of their day. Relatively few in number, very expensive and devastating if used in the right way at the right time. They could, though, be very vulnerable to concentrated longbow fire and to infantry, if the cavalry are stationary.
So any rules, in my opinion, need to reflect this. To that end I would not restrict cavalry to only assaulting other cavalry, but I would give them a significant minus if any infantry they attacked included ordered longbow.
I would also say that cavalry should be allowed to draw a fight and if they do so become disordered. So if they win they retain order and if they lose they break off and retain order, but if they draw then any cavalry involved, on either side, stands and becomes disordered. This would then allow any lurking infantry or cavalry to pile in on the next turn, which I think reflects the cavalry's vulnerability once brought to a halt. e.g. Richard's charge at Bosworth.
Hope that makes sense.
Title: Re: Thoughts on cavalry
Post by: Leman on February 13, 2019, 01:02:05 PM
Agree about cavalry assaults. After all the Lancastrian cavalry made three uphill assaults against infantry at Blore Heath. If the rules are going to be used for historical refights then this consideration needs to be included.
Title: Re: Thoughts on cavalry
Post by: Stewart 46A on February 13, 2019, 04:33:45 PM
Were they successful Leman?
Title: Re: Thoughts on cavalry
Post by: Colonel Kilgore on February 13, 2019, 05:05:01 PM
They were for the Yorkists :)

Title: Re: Thoughts on cavalry
Post by: Leman on February 14, 2019, 08:14:15 AM
Nope, they were totally rogered and their army commander was killed - oops! However if you want to do a refight of the battle then quite a few cavalry are needed and it is worth including this aspect in the rules for completeness. Will the new rules include the historical battles scenarios?
Title: Re: Thoughts on cavalry
Post by: Leslie BT on February 14, 2019, 07:43:17 PM
Title: Re: Thoughts on cavalry
Post by: Leman on February 16, 2019, 11:30:33 AM
That’s great news. I am quite fond of historical scenario campaigns in which you simply total your wins against your opponent’s. It gives a nice string of games with a purpose without all the map, politics, economics, returning casualties stuff which often leads to the collapse of a campaign.
Title: Re: Thoughts on cavalry
Post by: Noggin on February 18, 2019, 12:17:43 AM
Reads to me as if they were Lancastrians carrying out the charge:
“The Lancastrians launched a cavalry charge and then made a second assault I n which Audley himself was killed. “
Title: Re: Thoughts on cavalry
Post by: martin goddard on February 18, 2019, 09:50:05 AM
Cavalry is a "special thing" in BB.
They will not usually be in the centre.
They will strike then fall back. This might entail them being bashed to pieces or breaking the enemy line.
i would expect them to appear in about a third of BB battles.
They need to either attack initially, or when a gap is made.
They will not take part in the push and shove of the wards.

The  challenge, is to capture the essence without giving cavalry an inordinate amount of the rule space. Cavalry occupy 1/5 of the game action.

Cavalry will be done in the first draft at the end of this week.