Cavalry movement in Mass Combat (2e)

[Brother Raven]

I've had a quick look through and can't see this question asked elsewhere.


In my current campaign, the PC's are just about to lead a smallish army (2000 men) into battle, so I've been looking at the Mass Combat rules.


I was happy until I reached the Movement rates of various cavalry.


An average horse has a move action of 200yds/long tick, and 400 yds for a dash action.


An elite Skirmish unit (Dex 4, 0 Mob penalty) has Move 300yds, and Dash 900yds. :shock:


Now I can understand the Move being higher, manuverability etc, but the Dash just feels totally wrong. This seems highlighted by the fact that a decent Medium infantry unit (Dex 3, -1 Mob penalty) can also Dash faster than cavalry (Close=320yds, Relaxed=560yds).


Am I doing something totally wrong. If so, what? If not, any suggestions on how to sort it (I'm generally happy with the Move speeds, so mayby I'll just increase the Cavalry's Dash rates?).

 

[Sherwood]

Dont you know that in the good ol' days, infantry of all kinds could outrun horses?  lol  I've noticed that dispite good intentions, many game designers in an attempt to convert real life movement and time to a game turn system fall short.  My advice is to adjust the movement to your approval and just use it as a house rule.  As you go thru the Exalted system, you will find a few other items like that.  Exalted is still one of my two favorite games dispite that.  

 

[Vanman]

Don't mean to go off topic, but most game systems are like that. You'll never get a perfect system. It's just not going to happen. And don't forget the Golden Rule - if you don't like it, change it. I'm with Sherwood. Adjust the appropriate speeds to something you're more comfortable with.

 

[Ledaal Kajiri]

Generally I'd think that many of the animals need a artificial boost to speed...the horse, the cheetah, wolves...anything that's generally faster than a human but not necessarilly more agile than all humans. The movement rates are designed assuming one is dealing with human shaped beings...quadrepedal creatures built for speed will generally be faster than such. My own house rule for such is to double the move and dash of such creatures...it still leaves the most heroic characters a bit faster than the average animal (which sort of fits the setting...trully fast cahracters are exceptional beyond the norm), yet brings the animals to a more reasonable rate compared with the average man or woman in Creation.

 

[Obsidian Soul]

I've lived among horses all of my life.  My mother was ridding horses until a week before I was born and I rode on my first horse when I was a week old. I am a horrible rider, I'm too big for the horses my mom keeps, but I am a good horseman and know enough of their strength and weaknesses.


On a good surface, the average horse, with a rider, can walk twice as fast as the average human and can do it all day long, if they get an hour or two of rest along the way for watering and feed.  On the same surface, the same horse can run twice as fast for twice as long as the average human and the same horse can sprint twice as fast for twice as long.  


Horses are meant to run, a human cannot compete unless the horse's rider tries to sprint the horse for more than five miles, which will kill most horses.  The human will catch up with the dead or dying horse within an hour, if they are a hiker, and will be able to put it out of its misery, if it isn't dead already.


In combat, a horse will outrun and outfight a human, if its rider isn't a complete idiot and if it's properly trained.  A horse is, on average, four times as strong as the average man.  I've seen horses pick up men with their teeth, by the man's arm, and toss them like a rag doll.  Most strategy games don't take that into account.


My suggestion is to give calvary double the movement of infantry on good ground (desert or plains), same movement on average ground (forest or hills) and half the movement of infantry on broken ground (swamp or mountains).  A good calvary man knows that horses, for all of their speed and strength, have delicae legs and can break them if they are forced to run over bad ground.  Calvary, at the very least, should be fifty percent more effective than infantry, as they have greater mobility and their mounts, if trained, are good fighters as well.  I would personally rate a calvary man at twice the effectiveness of an infantry man.  


Pikeman are an exception.  If a pikeman is brave enough, they will stop a charge.  I would suggest forcing them to make a Valor roll.  If they fail, they run and the calvary chops them to pieces.  Flamecaster weapons would be effective against calvary, it would spoke the horses like nothing, as would any explosive blast until the horses got used to having such weapons go off near them.  I would suggest forcing the horses to make a Valor roll, with them running to get away if they fail, if they face massive lines of flamecasters or massive barrages of explosive blasts.  Southern calvary probably have horses that have been exposed to that sort of thing enough to get over it.

 

[Sherwood]

Overall that kind of formula should also work for other kinds of mounts as well, such as flyers.  You would then have to deal with envornmental conditions that would effect them, such as heavy rain or wind.

 

[Persell]

Actually I disagree. This is exalted. It is not a game of chivalry. The dragon blooded do not only field those gigantic legions with very scarce rider support because of their anima banners but because an exalted infantrist can be best supported by infantry, not by cavalry and lets face it, a horse only slows down an exalt in combat.


BTW obsidian, some of your numbers are way off for the past of horse combat. In former times marching horses slowed down armies because of the tremendous amount of maintenance needed to keep the horses going, just as an example.

 

[Vanman]

Actually I disagree. This is exalted. It is not a game of chivalry. The dragon blooded do not only field those gigantic legions with very scarce rider support because of their anima banners but because an exalted infantrist can be best supported by infantry, not by cavalry and lets face it, a horse only slows down an exalt in combat.

For Exalted, yes. But I believe the question came up with regard to the troops the Exalted were leading in battle. Exalted infantrymen may be better than cavalry, but mortal cavalry would be, IMO, more effective than mortal infantry.

 

[Obsidian Soul]

It depended on if you had enough grooms and if you had enough fodder and grain at the end of the road.  If you are talking about an invasion with uncertain supplies and a force with no trained grooms, yes, because a horse cannot steal all of the food from the civilians and let them starve and infantrymen can check their own feet for damage.  I tend to be of the opinion that one needs to crusify soldiers that steal from civilians, but that is just because I was in the military and tend to therefore judge soldiers more harshly than people who have not been in the military.  


If you have an infantry that doesn't support itself by stealing from the civilians, which has to rely on a supply line as well, and if you have one trained groom for every five to six horses, then calvary will be better than the infantry, as calvary can go further and come back in the same day than an infantry force.  You have to have sufficient remounts, at least two, so that the calvary men only have to use the same horse once every three days.  Otherwise, quality will go down.  If you have sufficient supplies, grooms and remounts, calvary will be much more effective than infantry.

 

[Persell]

It depended on if you had enough grooms and if you had enough fodder and grain at the end of the road.  If you are talking about an invasion with uncertain supplies and a force with no trained grooms, yes, because a horse cannot steal all of the food from the civilians and let them starve and infantrymen can check their own feet for damage.  I tend to be of the opinion that one needs to crusify soldiers that steal from civilians, but that is just because I was in the military and tend to therefore judge soldiers more harshly than people who have not been in the military.  
If you have an infantry that doesn't support itself by stealing from the civilians, which has to rely on a supply line as well, and if you have one trained groom for every five to six horses, then calvary will be better than the infantry, as calvary can go further and come back in the same day than an infantry force.  You have to have sufficient remounts, at least two, so that the calvary men only have to use the same horse once every three days.  Otherwise, quality will go down.  If you have sufficient supplies, grooms and remounts, calvary will be much more effective than infantry.

Actually that is wrong again. Cavalry marches slower than infantry because of the care a horse needs every day before you start and afterwards. and it cannot walk all day long with a rider on top either. you might be right when saying that a horse can walk longer than you, but it cannot walk longer than a trained roman soldier for example who was used to marching all day long. or any other proffessional soldier in the history of warfare.


and your moral point of view about what armies should do or should not do has nothing to do with a discussion about the CAPABILITIES of riders, horses and infantry. and you really have no right to assume who here judges soldiers' behaviour how, just so you know.


furthermore, combat effectiveness. again, a generel statement that riders are more effective in combat is rubbish. even on a flat surface an infantryline with pikes is going to own most cavalry charges or at least turn them into bloody melees with no certain outcome, most of the time the charge broke historically. and that is on flat terrain. infantry can trench itself in, use fortifications or in exalted use magic to hinder the movement of enemy troops etc. furthermore, infantry can wear artifact armour which is probably too heavy for riders and it negates every advantage horses have.


so for exalted, horses=nay.

 

[Ker'ion]

Perhaps this portion of Wikiality might be of some assistance.


And isn't there a type of Artifact landmine?

 

[Obsidian Soul]

The one enemy that the Romans could not beat were the Parthians, who were horse archers, and the Parthians did not even have stirrups, good bits and bridles or decent saddles.  The greatest empire before modern times was not Rome, but the Mongolian Empire, conquered with trained horse archers.  Obviously, if a second rate empire that relies on horse archers can hold off the Romans and a first rate empire was able to conquer most of the known world, an area three times that of what Roman ever conquered, than calvary is superior than infantry if you know how to use it.  While the overall technology seems to be Iron Age, the world of Exalted seems to be equal to be much more advanced with horse technology.  The comics show stirrups and modern saddles, bits and bridles, as well as modern horse collars for the wagons.


A trained hiker, if lightly encumbered and on good roads, can do sixty miles in a day.  A trained horse, with a rider, can do one hundred and twenty miles in a day, as long as you do not need him anymore that week.  A calvary forces, if they have a guarentee of food and care at the end of the day, can travel twice as far as an infantry force.


It takes six hours out of a day for a horse to forage for enough food on good land to keep them for a day, which is necessary if they do not have grain.  A good horseman will allow a horse to graze two hours in the morning, two hours in the afternoon and two hours at night.  This, on average, allows for five hours of travel at twelve miles per hour.  You can travel longer during the summer, but you need to stop more often to water the horses so they don't overheat and you cannot travel as long at winter, but you don't need to stop as often to prevent overheating.  While the horse is grazing, you can gather firewood, hunt, fish and mend the horse equipment.  A man traveling by foot may be able to walk for ten hours, but he has to take time at the end of the day to do all of the necessary chores, meaning he will have less time than the horseman.  Even a trained hiker will be more tired at the end of the day than a trained horse and trained rider that rode the same distance.


If you don't believe it, why the hell do you think that cowboys rode horses instead of walking?  The horse gave them more endurance and allowed them to cover more ground than they could on foot.  It also gave them an advantage of height, so they were not trampled.  Same process works in battle.  Calvarymen can cover more ground and strike faster, allowing them to engage more troops in less time with less energy expended than infantry.  In battle, fatigue will slow you down and that will kill you.  As a horse is much stronger than a human, the rider and horse can carry heavier armor than one of the infantry, making them less vulnerable to incidental damage. Due to the height advantage, horsemen can attack the head more easily and it is harder to block and parry their attacks because of the angles involved.


Of course, few armies are successful without infantry.  Infantry hold positions just as well as calvary and do not require nearly as much food or water.  Infantry are cheaper to outfit than calvary and, depending on the timeframe and country, a military could get five to twenty infantry of the same quality as calvary for the same price.  Against less experienced troops, however, calvary can slaughter the raw and green recruits faster than twenty times their number in infantry, just because they can chase a retreating and routed foe more easily.  This changes when firearms are introduced and becomes a non-issue by the 20th century, as trench warfare and machine guns make calvary only good for scouting.  


One thing about mines.  Horses have a sense of smell a little bit better than dogs.  Arabians can smell grass from ten miles away without difficulty and can smell even a trickle of water from a mile.  They can smell metal and explosives from one hundred feet, even buried under five feet of earth, so they are very good at avoiding mine fields and can even pick their way, slowly, through a mine field.  You only have horses dying from mines when their dumbass riders spur them into a gallop across a mine field.

 

[Persell]

I am not discussing against your half knowledge. If you don't believe me, read up the facts about horses. What you stated about for example the mongolian empire has few things to do with horses but with a host of other things.

 

[Sherwood]

Getting back to the original topic, there is a difference in the speed and performance of infantry and horses on a road march and charging into battle.  Under ideal conditions, you'll have rested troops and horses, well fed and provisioned, and in position before charging into combat.  An infantry charge can cover a good chunk of distance at a speed that they could not maintain over long distances, barring the intervention of some of the Dragon-Blooded charms for moving troops.

 

[Persell]

Okay, we have determined that under ideal sircumstances, with only mortals involved cavalry outperform infantry without doubt. The interesting part is, what x-factors there are.


The exalted factor can disturb any equation. An exalted infantryman will probably hold his ground against any mortal horseman. On the other hand, exalted ride charms do make exalted cavalry a possibility - even a Dragon Blooded cavalry (which, by the way, would be totally awesome).


Then there is Thaumaturgical boosts to morale and fighting prowess - potions, talismans and so on. And finally the favor of the gods.


It is a pretty complicated issue. Doesn't it, in the end, come down to the fact that cavalry just wins on the visual effect? A charging cavalry just looks cooler!

 

[Jukashi]

On thebroad subject of horses... if a Solar was somehow turned into a horse or similar creature, would they be able to use Ride Charms on themselves?

 

[Vanman]

Only if they were able to mount themselves.....

 

[Sherwood]

In my game I've taken to using chariots for Dragon-Bloods.  This lets them use their Essence and activate their anima banners without turning the horse into a crispy critter and gives them the speed.

 

[Obsidian Soul]

Safim, I've lived amongst horse for nearly thirty years now.  I was raised on real life stories of horses and read more than my fair share of riding and vet texts dealing with them.  I've mucked out their stalls, I've cleaned out their feet and I've held their heads when they had to be put down.  Safim, before I say something crass, what is it that makes you an expert on horses?  Is it because you've read a few books written by some academic armchair general whose never even bothered to ride a horse, much less had to deal with the day to day grind of horse care?


I do like the idea for DB chariots.  It would suffer problems in certain terrains, but every strategy has it's problems.  Do you have a DB driver and a DB archer?

 

[Persell]

Safim, I've lived amongst horse for nearly thirty years now.  I was raised on real life stories of horses and read more than my fair share of riding and vet texts dealing with them.  I've mucked out their stalls, I've cleaned out their feet and I've held their heads when they had to be put down.  Safim, before I say something crass, what is it that makes you an expert on horses?  Is it because you've read a few books written by some academic armchair general whose never even bothered to ride a horse, much less had to deal with the day to day grind of horse care?
I do like the idea for DB chariots.  It would suffer problems in certain terrains, but every strategy has it's problems.  Do you have a DB driver and a DB archer?

Like always you are only going on assumptions and never ever bother with trying to falsify them.

 

[Solfi]

... that doesn't really clarify anything. Unless the only purpose of the post was to get all pissy and unconstructive.

 

[Persell]

Same as his post really, or do you think being able to kill a horse and clean its stable combined with some spare time riding lessons made obisidian an expert on medieveal horse combat?


On the contrary, the armchair generals or experts he is mocking have had thourough experience with the topic through science or actual experience and it is a given fact that for example a horse+rider is slower on a march than an infantrist, due to all the maintenance that comes with a horse.


another thing is that horses are fragile creatues which obisidan seems to forget between all the medicine modern horses get treated these days, contrary to the abilities people in former times had to prevent the rapid spread of worms or diseases.


thirdly, how in the world makes riding a horse him an expert on actual horse combat. knight armies have been beaten thouroughly by peasent armies with long sticks. and any other kind of ranged weapon nearly nullifies the actual use of horses. horse riders are specialists, shock troops, and not the be and end of medieveal combat. exalted chose to represent that with the rules it gave to horses and mounted combat and I think arguing against that with some crude and wrong real life logic is awkward at best.


I apology for not stating that earlier.

 

[Persell]

If you have sufficient supplies' date=' grooms and remounts[/b'], calvary will be much more effective than infantry.

A trained hiker' date=' if lightly encumbered and on good roads, can do sixty miles in a day.  A trained horse, with a rider, can do one hundred and twenty miles in a day, as long as you do not need him anymore that week.  A calvary forces, [b']if they have a guarentee of food and care at the end of the day, can travel twice as far as an infantry force.

(my own highlights)
I would much appreciate if people took the time to actually read the posts they are arguing against. We all know, that no strategy guarantee anything. Using a cavalry can be catastrophic under some sircumstances and win the battle under others. This was never the topic.


The question was about the dashrates of horses. Can a horse run faster than a man? Yes, of course it can! So of course the dashrate has to be corrected. Please!

 

[Sherwood]

I do like the idea for DB chariots.  It would suffer problems in certain terrains' date=' but every strategy has it's problems.  Do you have a DB driver and a DB archer?[/quote']
Sometimes.  There is not enough DBs to pair them off in large numbers, but in my game, the Empire and Looksky has a small chariot detatchment with exceptional horses.  The downsides for them is first, when in the field you have the added supply problem of feed for the horses.  Second, you have the need for care of the horses.  Third, there is the extra space needed for the horses and chariots.  Looksky has several airships that they use to rapidly deploy troops until more ground forces arrive, but they do not have the room to deploy more than a very small number by air.  The chariots move on developed roads and have the benefit of the DB charms to help speed them along.


I have not used the mass combat rules in my game to have to worry about coming up with numbers to represent the abilities of the chariot teams.  I usually just describe the overall battle and have the players tell me what they are doing.  Any ideas on numbers for a chariot unit?

 

[Obsidian Soul]

Safim, I would suggest for you to start by reading Xenophon's On Horsemanship and Lippett's Cavalry section on The Tactical Use of The Three Arms, as they are both available on the net.  That will give you enough of a basis to understand the level of your ignorance.   Until then, please do not comment on matters relating to calvary or horses, as the depths of your ignorance is giving me a headache.  Until then, I will not consider you worthy of notice on this subject.


Ormseitr, unfortunately the people who write for Exalted are very good at writing background and very bad at writing rules that reflect the capabilities of real life.  I have always said that if game should err, it should err in a way that makes everything seem more impressive than it really is, not less, unfortuanately the people at WW do not think that way.  The dash rate of a cavalry should be twice that of a similarly armored infantryman.  On very bad ground, like swamp and marshland, cavalry could still go twice as fast as infantry, as infantry is greatly slowed by going through a morass like that, but one would loses anywhere from ten percent to fifty percent of the horses to broken legs and riders to injury or death from falls, as mention in Lippett's discussion of the fate of Napolean's Fifth Cuirassiers in one of Napolean's battles against the Austrians.  


In general, it is a bad idea for cavalry to charge infantry straight on when the infantry is in a defensive position.  Cavalry's greatest strength is in its mobility and it should always attack from the flanks or the rear.  A straight on attack also leaves cavalry vulnerable to archers.  The Knights at the Battle of Cressy forgot that lesson and they were slaughtered as a result.  As I have said before, use cavalry to rout a foe and to harass them while they are running.