forum.wgcwar.com

I noted with some surprise that Kurdish cavalry (in at least the Dynastic Kurdish and Khwarizmian lists) are classed as Elite cavalry. My impression - which is based wholly on wargaming materials in this case - was that they were Arab-style lancers and swordsmen, lacking or at least not emphasizing archery, so I'd expected Jav Cav. So I'm simply curious what the "revisionistic" classification is based on.

The Kurdish cavalry are a tough case. They don't have bows, which eliminates Horsebow right away. And should eliminate Elite Cavalry, as you point out. If we do that the remaining choices are Knights, JavCav, and Bad Horse. They are too good for the latter, and not good enough for the former, so JavCav would seem (as you say) to be the right choice. And that works well for their interaction with foot. But it is totally wrong for their performance against the Horsebow and Elite Cavalry that surround them -- they would become the punching bags of the geographical region, consistently and seriously outmatched in every encounter, which doesn't fit. So Elite Cavalry gives them reasonable performance against the mounted troops of their historical enemies, if a bit too much evasion from the foot of their historical enemies; JavCav gives them the right performance against their enemies' foot but makes them too crappy against the mounted troops they faced.

Happy to listen to any suggestions.

Since I'm working on the battle cards, maybe I can find an answer in there. After a discussion with Duncan Head I've worked up a Battle Card that should be a neat simulation of the Murong Xianbei "chained together" mounted bowmen, even if it is a battle card for a single rare army. Maybe the Kurdish sword-armed cavalry (and the one or two other cases of sword-armed fierce cavalry -- IIRC, there are another one or two cases that might be worth representing) can find a solution through that mechanism.

Thinking out loud (this isn't doctrine by any means), maybe the solution is something like this:

Rate them Javelin Cavalry; Give them a battle card that gives them +1 vs mounted, but takes away the Shatter result that Javelin Cavalry have on Knights and Cataphracts and Elephants. That makes them a +3/+3 (so gives them the right performance vs. historical enemy mounted). Point value of the Battle Card would be 0 (no change from normal 4 pt cost). They would be better against Elite Cavalry and Horsebow, but slightly worse against Knights, Cataphracts, and Elephants. Not as good against foot as Elite Cavalry (because not as immune to being killed when doubled).

Thoughts? Perhaps too tough against enemy Javelin Cavalry, but on the other hand they might not face them often -- I'd have to look at their enemies' army lists. Maybe a bit too fast -- reducing their movement to 6mu might work better.

Although another solution would be to leave them as Elite Cavalry (which gives them the movement rate and combat factors) and change their combat results against everything to be that of Bad Horse (killed if doubled by anything). So they would end up as +3/+3 Bad Horse.

No rebasing would be necessary in that method, also.

There may be other troops that deserve this battle card as well.

There's a lot of Bedouin Jav Cav in their temporal and spatial vicinity.

Maybe they could be budget Cataphracts? They lack the complete armour, but they're CC-oriented cavalry who, AFAIK, weren't noted for charging like Franks. -1 pt, -1 CF? Do they need to be faster?

Andreas Johansson wrote: Maybe they could be budget Cataphracts? They lack the complete armour, but they're CC-oriented cavalry who, AFAIK, weren't noted for charging like Franks. -1 pt, -1 CF? Do they need to be faster?

Budget Cataphracts, or Expensive Bad Horse. Same-same, more or less. If we are making them Budget Cataphracts with a speed improvement, it might be easier to just take Bad Horse as the basis (rather than -1 to Cataphracts, +1 to Bad Horse).

I'm thinking Expensive Bad Horse might be best. +3 vs. foot, +3 vs. mounted, +2 vs. distant shooting, move 6, combat results as Bad Horse (which means dead if doubled by anyone, but not shattered by anyone) 4 pts. They'd be at a slight disadvantage v. Horsebow (Horsebow can disengage if they wish). Even with Elite Cavalry head-to-head, but not as good against other stand types where Elite Cavalry might survive a double. Disadvantage v. Knights or Cataphracts (but can disengage from either, as they are a bit faster). An all-around useful but not dominant troop type.

Can we call them "elite Bad Horse" or better yet, "not so bad horse"

Rod wrote:Can we call them "elite Bad Horse" or better yet, "not so bad horse"

We should do that just to tick off the players who didn't like the name Bad Horse!

I suspect that the other WGC Grey Eminences would nix the plan of calling them Mediocre Horse, NotSoBad Horse, FairlyGoodHorse, UnremarkableHorse, or the like...

Well, I probably should mention I plan to call my Sumerian straddle carts "Battle Mopeds"

I was just about to suggest Not So Bad Horse myself. Great minds, fools, etc.

But if the effect is just +1 CF, there seems no intrinsic reason to limit the card to just Bad Horse: you might one day decide some army needs killer Bow Levy or something, and then you could just apply the same battle card to them.

Andreas Johansson wrote:I was just about to suggest Not So Bad Horse myself. Great minds, fools, etc.

But if the effect is just +1 CF, there seems no intrinsic reason to limit the card to just Bad Horse: you might one day decide some army needs killer Bow Levy or something, and then you could just apply the same battle card to them.

It exists already in the (very draft) Fantasy Triumph battle cards. Allows representation of Elvish archers in fancy armor for example.

For the historical version, though, the army lists have to work with sets of players who will use battle cards, and also with sets of players who do not. They aren't mandatory. Converting a 4pt stand with no battle cards to a 4pt stand with battle cards works better with the army lists -- when the main type in an army changes points (as it would if we made the Kurdish Cav Bad Horse) the numbers have to be modified or it messes up the army list.