I agree. I use cavalry armies all the time but avoid using it as I just consider it to be too silly (yes, even in competition..)
"potholes, small rises and dips in otherwise level ground"

Cavalry tend to break legs when pot holes are around - hence armies digging them. Conversely, you or I on foot can pretty easily navigate them no matter how close you stand to me.

Gees Marty & Dru, haven't you seen The Man from Snowy River - those horses were galloping up and down mountains where I dare say a phalanx wouldn't have been able to maintain its order

Quote from: martymagnificent on March 17, 2019, 06:19:47 AM
I'm aware of no historical example of a mounted army seeking out the broken ground for a fight with foot.

Can't say that an example springs to my mind either (other than to use as an ambush which I'm pretty sure there are examples).

"Cavalry tend to break legs when pot holes are around...foot can pretty easily navigate them..."

Would like to see some evidence of this.  If your point is true, then why didn't dismounted cowboys catch wild horses by herding them into broken ground? The answer is that they didn't.  They rode other horses and used lassos.

I rode horses growing up.  Never saw a horse break a leg by stepping in a pothole.  Matter of fact, I would rather ride a horse through broken ground than walk through it myself.  Horses, having four legs, can get through rough terrain faster.  Humans walk on two legs because it is more efficient in terms of consuming calories, not safer. 

Quote from: sppenn on March 18, 2019, 11:32:17 AM
"Cavalry tend to break legs when pot holes are around...foot can pretty easily navigate them..."

Would like to see some evidence of this.  If your point is true, then why didn't dismounted cowboys catch wild horses by herding them into broken ground? The answer is that they didn't.  They rode other horses and used lassos.

Well the infantry digging pot holes as a defense against cavalry seem to think it was a good idea - do we think they were wasting their time? A bit out of period but rabbit warrens causing issues for cavalry in the ECW is a reasonably common thing, got the Earl of Northampton killed at Hopton Heath IIRC.

As for the cowboys, ride horses because you can then keep up with the ones you are trying to catch I would suggest - I think chasing wild horses on foot is just a way to get shagged out for no return. It'd also probably be daft to herd horses you want to catch into terrain where they may get injured.

Quote
I rode horses growing up.  Never saw a horse break a leg by stepping in a pothole.  Matter of fact, I would rather ride a horse through broken ground than walk through it myself.  Horses, having four legs, can get through rough terrain faster.  Humans walk on two legs because it is more efficient in terms of consuming calories, not safer.

How about bodies of cavalry in combat situations? A bit different from individuals or small numbers in non-combat situations.

And back to the point made earlier - "I'm aware of no historical example of a mounted army seeking out the broken ground for a fight with foot." In MeG you positively do so, and commonly - is such an approach justified by history?

Quote from: sppenn on March 18, 2019, 11:32:17 AM
"Cavalry tend to break legs when pot holes are around...foot can pretty easily navigate them..."


I rode horses growing up.  Never saw a horse break a leg by stepping in a pothole.

William III might disagree with you there...

i think the descriptio6 with Uneven ground is very poor.  Potholes would be very dangerous for cavalry.   There are however areas of ground that probably are easier for cavalry to negotiate than formed infantry.

I have argued in the past that armies should be allowed to buy one pre-prepared terrain piece representing either Rough (pits etc.)  that they would get to place in their own deployment area after outscouted troops have been deployed , or Open (smoothed ground) that they get to place before compulsory terrain pieces.  I have tried this in a friendly scenario game and it worked okay.

Richard

"...infantry digging pot holes as a defense against cavalry seem to think it was a good idea.."

True.  Good point.  Broken ground slows down cavalry.  And my reference to my childhood horseback riding days is anecdotal.

But, I'm still not convinced that uneven ground affects close order infantry, close order cavalry, and loose order cavalry.  The rule in the terrain sheet says that "potholes, small rises and dips in otherwise level ground" is to be taken as "rough for close" order troops. I'm OK with that for reasons already stated.  I'm not sure why potholes would affect loose order cav more than loose order infantry. 

Not trying to sound as closed minded here as I suspect that I am. 

This particular piece of of terrain has always seemed odd in its effect and I have long tried to suggest it be changed.
So, what about if this terrain type was turned on its head?
Why not change it to unusually flat/level ground, leave infantry factors as is but give cavalry a plus one in impact?
Generals sometimes, time permitting, prepared or specifically chose areas of ground to suit full cavalry charges. This would still make this terrain choice viable for mounted without reducing the cohesion of foot.
Just a thought.....
Lance.

I quite like lance's idea. Of course it probably has a few balance implications, but then all terrain does.
Certainly I think it makes more sense than the current rule does.

Quote from: Lanceflint on March 18, 2019, 04:25:23 PM
This particular piece of of terrain has always seemed odd in its effect and I have long tried to suggest it be changed.
So, what about if this terrain type was turned on its head?
Why not change it to unusually flat/level ground, leave infantry factors as is but give cavalry a plus one in impact?
Generals sometimes, time permitting, prepared or specifically chose areas of ground to suit full cavalry charges. This would still make this terrain choice viable for mounted without reducing the cohesion of foot.
Just a thought.....
Lance.

I don't really see the need for such a terrain type, or at least an Open Space would cover it nicely.

Open space would make more sence

Quote from: martymagnificent on March 16, 2019, 08:55:44 PM
It does seem odd that we have terrain where cavalry is better than infantry.

Not aware of any other set of rules that has something like it.

Martin

No it was a deliberate invention after talking to lots of riders.
As they are four legged and don't work in formation, minor folds in ground don't affect them at all.
Bit they do make holding close formations difficult.
So the idea came from there and is indeed new but I think correct.

Solid infantry armies sought out nice flat plains where keeping formation was easy.
When in Russia a lot of the steppes was actually quite bumpy and would be hard to hold a line of hoplites together.
The description is probably not my best work ...

So there you have the rationale exposed at least.
Perhaps it should be limited to certain territory types?
But I did think you could find that mid ground between flat and rough in most places.

S

I like the idea of being able to put down an 'open space' where terrain is excluded.

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on March 19, 2019, 04:48:36 PM
No it was a deliberate invention after talking to lots of riders.

But we must remember that modern riders do not participate in unit sized combat situations where, I suggest, the dynamics would be different.

Quote
As they are four legged and don't work in formation, minor folds in ground don't affect them at all.

I don't think that the idea that they don't work in formation is not tenable. Just look, for example, at the emphasis on keeping formation in the Byzantine manuals, or the crusader desire to keep their formations intact so as to deliver the most effective charge against the moslems.

Quote
Solid infantry armies sought out nice flat plains where keeping formation was easy.
When in Russia a lot of the steppes was actually quite bumpy and would be hard to hold a line of hoplites together.

Most ground is not perfectly flat and has various lumops and bumps, its the reason they moved around in a more open formation that they fought in to ensure they kept in reasonable order - so I'd not overplay that rationale and to be honest I think there is an elemnt of overthinking here. Also, if receiving a cavalry charge the foot will be stationary and able to hold a nice compact formation - moving around is what causes most issues in broken ground, standing still isn't.

And we still get back to the the point made previously- "I'm aware of no historical example of a mounted army seeking out the broken ground for a fight with foot." In MeG you positively do so, and commonly - is such an approach justified by history?