Has got me thinking about ArmHrs and troops who might qualify - we have generally been quite conservative about handing it out.
For the Muslim middle east this is going to be a good starting point - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318424017_Horse_Armour_in_the_Medieval_Islamic_Middle_East (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318424017_Horse_Armour_in_the_Medieval_Islamic_Middle_East) - be interested in thoughts of anyone who is inclined to read it.
Please bear in mind the definition of ArmHrs - "Horses with complete mail covering or substantial plate mail covering which reduces damage from missile fire." - although, of course, there can be flexibility to get the right game effect.
OK, I have downloaded the document and will try to find the time to read it.
First a few questions though:
What is the actual meaning of AmrHrs in the lists? I mean, I know what it stands for, but practically, its use seems to have been mostly associated with a (supposed, might be right though) EFFECT of that armour that causes there to be slower TuGs that are close, cannot skirmish etc.
So in that sense, it doesn't mean what it means, if you know what I mean... ;)
Meanwhile we're using miniatures (usually based on historical sources) that have armoured or partially armoured horses. Think of the Sassanid armoured horse archers from PSC or the Scythians from Lurkio, both brands closely associated with the game, and we ignore the armour on those.
Also: partial or full armour, metal or felt or leather (or even bits of horn): The way you've formulated it, seems indeed to confirm my initial remark that it is not so much about the armour, as it is about the unwieldiness of the stuff hanging off the horse, slowing it down and limiting its movement. If that is the case, speaking of horse armour might be a misnomer. Maybe then it's rather about the 'heavyness' of the troop type?
It would be interesting to read what contemporary writers had to say about the speed of certain armoured horses.
If on the other hand the actual armouring effect does indeed interest you, there are several things to consider: should we rate full and partial horse armour differently? Were felt and leather really that much less effective against arrows than metal? Or was it perhaps a deliberately compromise to maintain speed and agility while offering slightly less protection?
All in all, what I'm trying to say is: 'Let's clarify our terminology first.'
Constructively,
Huub
Like most classifications in MeG we primarily look for getting the effect right. For ArmHrs the primary effect is resistance to shooting to justify a colour drop on shooters who are shooting at them - the "reduces damage from missile fire" bit of the definition. It is definitely not just having some sort of horse armour - not all horse armours are equal. Material of the armour is not an absolute - metal is a useful guideline but there are currently ArmHrs where non-metallic is included.
Of course, a lot of the time the sources are not kind enough to come out and say that straight up, although some do, so that is where the fun begins ;D
We're also pretty much looking at full rather than partial horse armour - armour effects are not dependent on the direction shooting is coming from and we're not in the market to change that. Split UGs with some classified as ArmHrs are a possibility though, however, I think that you'd still be looking at a reasonable proportion of armoured horses who meet the effect criteria (1 rank from 10 isn't going to cut it ;D ).
...ok, not done reading it by a long shot yet, but first impression is that among islamic armies, horse armour comes from the Turkic and Persian element, so my first instinct would be not on the early Arabian conquest armies, but as soon as Islam moves east/starts using slave soldiers of Turkic stock, and even becomes largely dominated by Turkic emirs, it will get introduced and it wil reach a fairly high level around the crusades, mostly on guys like the mamluks (so again originally slave soldery of Turkic stock). At the same time, I would think that they knew what they were doing and wouldn't have used metal amour too much in possible desert heat. Who knows they may have ditched it in certain campaigns?
To be continued.
Also, just a random thought: to my mind it makes sense that if two steppe peoples, both shooting arrows from horseback, have to face each other, they will try to gain the upper hand by introducing something new, so the armour would have been part of an 'arms race' amongst those peoples. Arabians may just have happily borrowed it.
Still, just spitballing here.
Quote from: Glactophagos on July 24, 2023, 09:36:32 AM
Also, just a random thought: to my mind it makes sense that if two steppe peoples, both shooting arrows from horseback, have to face each other, they will try to gain the upper hand by introducing something new, so the armour would have been part of an 'arms race' amongst those peoples. Arabians may just have happily borrowed it.
Still, just spitballing here.
IMO it is pretty nailed on that horse armour is a steppe development.
so, what about parthian cats and byzantine cats ? They were designed to fight mounted shooty and for the byzantines to break infantry formation ..so what is your idea behind the message ?
Interested in which cavalry other than those who already have it might arguably be candidates for ArmHrs.
I guess eastern and Asian armies will be the targets
The nobility in steppe armies perhaps, and ghilman, although I've read in the document (I think) the Egyptians ditched it it some point.
All of them at all dates?
Not something I know a lot about, but considering the many steppe/ghilman type cavalry figures with horse armour that I have (and the numbers available in figure ranges generally), I found remarkably few MeG armies where I could actually use them, and when I did find them, often there was only one eligible TUG.
The bar for horse armour in the game is quite high (reasonable, because it halves the casualties). That said, it is consistent with MeG's treatment of armour generally - nearly all levels of armour (from a semi-naked Gaul to a fully equipped hoplite) are lumped together as "protected", only cataphracts or post 1200 AD-ish proper knights get "Fully armoured".
Historical horse armour must have been effective against the threats present at the time, otherwise they wouldn't use it. But I suppose in theory this is rolled up in the factors in MeG. I.e. when steppe nobles and ghilman are using horse armour, their opponents (often the same troops types) are implicitly assumed to be using stronger bows and armour-piercing arrows, so the two cancel out. I guess the OP is about whether that assumption is correct.
Quote from: LawrenceG on July 26, 2023, 05:02:13 AM
The bar for horse armour in the game is quite high (reasonable, because it halves the casualties). That said, it is consistent with MeG's treatment of armour generally - nearly all levels of armour (from a semi-naked Gaul to a fully equipped hoplite) are lumped together as "protected", only cataphracts or post 1200 AD-ish proper knights get "Fully armoured".
If you touch this that would be opening pandoras box but not impossible.
Semi protected for troops having only shields and no chainmail or other protection, instead of an armor difference, S on dice become wound.
But then would we want this ?
If horse archers get ARMHRS what about the shoot and scoot that are now their advantage ?
Some turcics and their succerssor and i guess Mongol armies would change considerably.
Hence my initial remark about what ArmHrs actuallt stands for...
If it turns them all into slow moving cataphract like figures, then no thanks...
I can't imagine Mongols or Kara Koyunlu for example handicapping themselves like that.
Clearly, for troops who did employ highly mobile skirmishing tactics ArmHrs is not going to get the right effect. That is pretty obvious.
However, even within armies that did that there is cope for some troops to have the classification whilst the majority don't. Those troops tend to come with other characteristics that are not applied to the rest of the troops - Shoot & Charge for example. There are quite a few lists where this is the case, are there other lists where it may well apply?
It may be useful to challenge ourselves on whether some of the armoured horse archer types actually did employ the mobile skirmishing tactics that their MeG classification allows.
There is also a related question to ArmHrs which is somewhat linked to my last statement. Is there more scope to use Shower Shooting to better represent some troops/armies. Sasanids spring to mind (not just the ArmHrs/FArm ones that the Middle Sasanid list already has).
Timurid Samarkand guard ?
As I understand it they were more used as the final crushing blow/breakthrough troops rather than standing around shooting for long periods and so the current classification (with ts Shoot & Charge) feels better.
Was there anything particular that is behind the query on these as a possible?
I thought about this and came up with an idea I think might be interesting to toy with: 3 types of horse protection, separated from rider protection.
Presently, we have basically 3 types of riders :
- Unprotected Riders (who must have Unprotected mounts)
- Protected Riders with "-"
- Riders with Armoured Horses (whether the riders are Prot. or FArm)
Now, what if we went with the same idea for mounts as we have for riders?
- Unprotected mounts (+1 to shoot at them)
- Protected mounts (no effect)
- Armoured mounts (-1 to shoot at them)
This might give wiggle room without disrupting game mechanics, by
- Introducing more mounts classifications to better reflect what we know
- Permit some combinations that are for now impossible (Unprot. Riders with Prot. mounts, or Prot. Riders with Unprot. Mounts)
What say you ?
Best,
Antoine
Unprotected riders with ArmHrs is only not an option in the army builder because we have not found any such to be included in the army lists. If any were found it would be added.
The idea of a colour upgrade when shooting at horses with no level of protection would break the rules as these form the majority of cavalry in the period MeG covers.
Quote from: nikgaukroger on July 31, 2023, 09:49:53 PM
As I understand it they were more used as the final crushing blow/breakthrough troops rather than standing around shooting for long periods and so the current classification (with ts Shoot & Charge) feels better.
Was there anything particular that is behind the query on these as a possible?
Nothing special just asking
Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 02, 2023, 08:34:05 AM
Unprotected riders with ArmHrs is only not an option in the army builder because we have not found any such to be included in the army lists. If any were found it would be added.
The idea of a colour upgrade when shooting at horses with no level of protection would break the rules as these form the majority of cavalry in the period MeG covers.
Then instead of a color upgrade : S becomes wound?
Quote from: Jilu on August 05, 2023, 06:22:42 AM
Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 02, 2023, 08:34:05 AM
Unprotected riders with ArmHrs is only not an option in the army builder because we have not found any such to be included in the army lists. If any were found it would be added.
The idea of a colour upgrade when shooting at horses with no level of protection would break the rules as these form the majority of cavalry in the period MeG covers.
Then instead of a color upgrade : S becomes wound?
The point is: the rules are calibrated to give the "right" result when the horse is unprotected. Therefore if you change the result to give more hits on unprotected horses you will get the wrong result (shooting becomes too effective).
I think the effect is the key thing here, in cases where a rider is protected, we're kind of saying that the horse and rider are in this effect band. When unprotected it's largely the same deal. Once you apply the notion of armhrs or fa you are giving a further resilience. For shooting a protected rider on an armhrs has better protection at mean point of failure against missiles, the horse. In melee the rider is the focus, but the rider has better survivability on an armhrs. So I think the mechanic is about right.
I agree there is probably scope to widen the net on some armies to include the option.
Some of the Arabians mentioned have been discussed, I would also suggest that maybe a tug of cats for Sarmations is probable given contemporary descriptions of their efficacy.
I would probably suggest that any armhrs also gets shove characteristic.