Horse archer army usage

[LawrenceG]

I'll still stand by my point that barbarian foot armies need a bump more than horse archer armies...

I think they got a bit of a bump with the shift from dev charger to Short Spear and CFP Jav. Doesn't, however, help all of them. I think they are probably generally better in MeG than in any other system I've ever played (albeit often still not good)

Martin

I think the problem is they can't scout, can't manoeuvre and they can't shoot or fight apart from in the charge phase. That doesn't leave you many routes to victory.

[badhabum]

Funny ...to me that move was deforcing barbarian armies ...must be a gaming style problem

[nikgaukroger]

Back to horse archers.

I think one thing that makes them hard to play is that it is hard to get the Flexible types right when playing - by which I mean when to be Skirmisher and when to be Loose, and this is quite often determined by whether they will be facing shooters; also when to switch is another tricky thing to get right.

If you want to get into shooty mounted armies the late bronze age chariots are actually the bext place to start as they are Protected and you don't have to worry about the Flexible mechanics.

[Munster]

I think one thing that makes them hard to play is that it is hard to get the Flexible types right when playing - by which I mean when to be Skirmisher and when to be Loose, and this is quite often determined by whether they will be facing shooters; also when to switch is another tricky thing to get right.

That is a problem with all flexibles - the need to waste a card changing formation significantly hinders them. Rarely do I see a change, mostly they start in one formation and stay that way, so they have flexibility in where they are deployed (terrain) but not in movement

Given that open or closed formation is really an issue for the unit commander, not the general, I would propose, like in some other rule sets that they should automatically change formation to be in the appropriate/best formation for the terrain that they are in, and perhaps only need a card upgrade to change formation in other circumstances

[nikgaukroger]

I think that the other circumstances around which formation to use are more of a factor in playing flexibles than the terrain - Unprotected (which are the majority of mounted flexibles) when facing other shooters for example due to the vulnerability of Unprotected but then the desirability of Loose for combat and stopping double moves at 4 BW.

[Munster]

To an extent I agree, flexibles full stop are a problem, the issues of infantry flexibles (primarily terrain) and mounted flexibles (primarily being unprotected) are different, at present they pay an awful lot for not much utility, and it is an area that could do with extensive playtesting and thought, starting with what outcomes you actually want to represent for both.

[nikgaukroger]

Suggestions welcome.

[badhabum]

I think that the other circumstances around which formation to use are more of a factor in playing flexibles than the terrain - Unprotected (which are the majority of mounted flexibles) when facing other shooters for example due to the vulnerability of Unprotected but then the desirability of Loose for combat and stopping double moves at 4 BW.

Isn't it a price to pay for good PBS and OS ? If you play a tribal close order infantry barbarian army vs à mounted shooty slippery unprotected army you will be outmanoeuvred and must grit your teeth. So it is for unprotected mongol like that do face a lot of Genoese crossbowmen, welsh PB  but who are pretty happy when facing a horde of galatians or gallic warriors with no or very few shooters