Riding combat

[Shostak]

Originally Posted by timm meyers

The combat adjustments for mounted combat (p.132) are elegant in their simplicity and do a fine job of modeling the basic advantages and disadvantages of horsemanship.

But the rules for multiple attacks per turn are limited to either those with a high adjDX loosing arrows from a bow or those with an additional weapon in hand. In the latter case, if that person does not have Two Weapons, both attacks are made at -6DX. An equestrian combatant is unlikely to have a weapon in each hand, so we'd be carving out a special case for them to attack more than once with a single weapon. If they are making multiple ride-by attacks, shouldn't each be made at a penalty of no less than -6?

[Axly Suregrip]

With regards to riding combat being too maneuverable for the speed, I am going to create a house rule. Thanks for the various inputs. I like keeping rules in ITL simple. I have added creature size because mass affects momentum in turns. ST 1 nuisance creatures are exempt. This is what I will go with:

For any creature travelling 15+ hexes in a turn (All: riding, no rider, flying, etc. Except ST1 nuisance creatures):

- Only one turn of 60 degrees (never tighter) is allowed every X hexes travelled. Where X is the size in hexes of the creature moving. That is, if a 3 hex creature makes a 60 degree turn and is travelling 15 or more hexes that turn, it may not make another turn until 3 hexes from that turn.

- If the creature makes a tighter turn in its movement before 15 hexes, it will be limited to 14 hexes of MA that turn.

[Shostak]

I've not tested this, but it might be worth trying out making the 60-degree shift cost a point movement, or perhaps 1/2 of a figure's size, rounded up.

[timm meyers]

Originally Posted by Shostak

But the rules for multiple attacks per turn are limited to either those with a high adjDX loosing arrows from a bow or those with an additional weapon in hand. In the latter case, if that person does not have Two Weapons, both attacks are made at -6DX. An equestrian combatant is unlikely to have a weapon in each hand, so we'd be carving out a special case for them to attack more than once with a single weapon. If they are making multiple ride-by attacks, shouldn't each be made at a penalty of no less than -6?

Yes a second and third attack is rightfully constrained by -DX adjustments and limited to learned skills like 2 weapons ability. When properly "engaged" the cavalryman is under the same constraints.
If no manuever rules are in place I would definately agree with -6DX adjustments as horseman would just unrealisticly run 24 hexes uninhibited to the flanks and rears of multiple enemies.

However the modeling of the speed (and momemtun) of mounted warriors is absent in the rules. The "ride by" strike is not a function of a warriors speed of arm but speed of mount. ie How many mail boxes can the delinquent teenager target with a bat from the speeding car in 5 seconds? The success of hitting the mailbox(s) is all dependent on the wayward youths skill. The number of targets is dependent on his transport speed.

The fact that the defender gets to strike back at a "ride by" (when facing the right way) would certainly balance most of the multiple strike effects. And again the possibility of having more than 1 extra enemy lined up like melons on a fence post is a very low probability in my opinion (and if they are, should reap the rewards of their stupidity). Remember the horseman could not ride by 2 enemies that would put him in their front hexes at the same time as he would become engaged and must stop his movement there.
However when the brigands break and start running you bet the target rich environment for the cavalryman is gonna be great!

Bow fire (and magic) is also broken when mounted. A horse archer is still limited in the number shots based on his skills/DX but needs to be able to fire the shot anytime during movement otherwise his speed advantage is void.

[phiwum]

I'd think that after hitting one mailbox, you have to reset the bat because it's bounce off the target.

In the same way, even if six figures are right in a row, I don't think a horseman can hit all six in five seconds.

[Axly Suregrip]

I with Phiwum. Multiple attacks for riders warp the game. Anyone on foot that get attacked should be allowed to respond with an attack. Then all you have is an extra action phase inserted into the turn sequence.

[timm meyers]

Originally Posted by phiwum

I'd think that after hitting one mailbox, you have to reset the bat because it's bounce off the target.

In the same way, even if six figures are right in a row, I don't think a horseman can hit all six in five seconds.

Example: A cavalry saber was a continuously favored weapon throughout history due to the fact that galloping horsemen dragged/slashed the weapon across their targets. A man on foot mainly relies on his strength/swing of a weapon while the kinetic energy of a heavy mass moving at speed was easily transferred through a saber slash with deadly effect.

Allot of nuance here. 6 mailboxes(targets/enemies) side by side? 6 mailboxes individually spaced at 6 houses? Could one expect to score/scratch the paint along the front of all 6 boxes? In both cases probably yes. Could one expect to knock each box off their posts? Obviously a no for the ones side by side, but a good chance of success on the house spaced ones. Can we expect potential damage to all boxes in both scenarios? I tend to think yes.

No matter how one chooses to view the mechanics involved the historical results that a mounted man was equal to 3 times or more of enemy footmen is well established. So for me giving cavalry more strikes is a fair and realistic model. TFT touches on this with the warhorse attack but due to engagement vs movement mechanics this fails to deliver the proper effect/balance. Maybe you limit the number of ride bys? Personally I see no reason too as the average tactical battlefield, using movement maneuver constraints, will naturally limit the # of ride by attacks possible.

[timm meyers]

Originally Posted by Axly Suregrip

I with Phiwum. Anyone on foot that get attacked should be allowed to respond with an attack. Then all you have is an extra action phase inserted into the turn sequence.

Yes as originaly proposed- " Any rider of a mount that is not stopped by normal engagement rules (I add mount and rider together as stated earlier so cavalry are treated as 3 hex creatures and only stopped by entering 2 single warriors fronts) may perform an unlimited number of "ride by" attacks during movement. The enemy may respond in kind if facing allows but "ride by" is treated as a pole weapon for strike order so unless they are mounted or pole armed will always strike second."

[phiwum]

Originally Posted by timm meyers

Example: A cavalry saber was a continuously favored weapon throughout history due to the fact that galloping horsemen dragged/slashed the weapon across their targets. A man on foot mainly relies on his strength/swing of a weapon while the kinetic energy of a heavy mass moving at speed was easily transferred through a saber slash with deadly effect.

Allot of nuance here. 6 mailboxes(targets/enemies) side by side? 6 mailboxes individually spaced at 6 houses? Could one expect to score/scratch the paint along the front of all 6 boxes? In both cases probably yes. Could one expect to knock each box off their posts? Obviously a no for the ones side by side, but a good chance of success on the house spaced ones. Can we expect potential damage to all boxes in both scenarios? I tend to think yes.

No matter how one chooses to view the mechanics involved the historical results that a mounted man was equal to 3 times or more of enemy footmen is well established. So for me giving cavalry more strikes is a fair and realistic model. TFT touches on this with the warhorse attack but due to engagement vs movement mechanics this fails to deliver the proper effect/balance. Maybe you limit the number of ride bys? Personally I see no reason too as the average tactical battlefield, using movement maneuver constraints, will naturally limit the # of ride by attacks possible.

If you attack a pedestrian with a lance, the lance will be knocked out of position for the next attack, surely. Same thing with a baseball bat and mailbox. You have to tense up for each attack just to hold onto the bat, and even then, the bat will be knocked out of position. It has to be so, unless (perhaps) you've bashed the mailbox so hard that it has come off the post with nary an effect felt in the bat. Very unlikely, I'd think.

I think a single ride-by attack per turn might be pretty reasonable. Being able to attack without ending adjacent to the target is pretty handy, even if they can counter. I don't know if its 3:1 effectiveness, to be fair.

[Bill_in_IN]

Originally Posted by phiwum

If you attack a pedestrian with a lance, the lance will be knocked out of position for the next attack, surely. Same thing with a baseball bat and mailbox. You have to tense up for each attack just to hold onto the bat, and even then, the bat will be knocked out of position. It has to be so, unless (perhaps) you've bashed the mailbox so hard that it has come off the post with nary an effect felt in the bat. Very unlikely, I'd think.

I think a single ride-by attack per turn might be pretty reasonable. Being able to attack without ending adjacent to the target is pretty handy, even if they can counter. I don't know if its 3:1 effectiveness, to be fair.

The real problem with the ride by attacks is that the TFT mechanics really don't allow for combining movement and attack phase. Even though pole weapon attacks are almost like attacking during movement phase, it really isn't. The pole weapon attack is resolved first at the beginning of attack phase.

I can functionally see where a rider with his arm stuck out while holding a sword and running down a line of foes could effectively be attacking at least more than one. However, the mechanics would throw off the entire turn. you would have to effectively flip back and forth between movement and attack phase to resolve such an attack. The TFT turn mechanics really doesn't support such an attack.

I could see a cavalry lance dealing out so much damage on the first foe that it runs through him and hits a character standing directly behind the attack. As creative as that may be, it is still resolved with normal turn phases.