Cantabrian - is it really needed?

[nikgaukroger]

Is Cantabrian a bit of unneeded chrome? If skirmisher cavalry were effective shooters why not just make them Skilled? Any formations that help them shoot are just subsumed into the classification.

[Princeps]

I suppose you would include African (the version for TUGs) in your questioning.

I use Cantabrian about 50% of the time I could take it. If I take it, it is usually to either (1) reinforce a Skilled-shooting force (e.g. in a Komnenan Byzantine ally, they paired well with Vardariots) or (2) have a bit of strong driver for my opponent to go for them, with usually some support behind.

If I intend to use SK only for harassment, I go without because of the reduced move distance and VMD (and points ^^, but mostly VMD).

Now is a specific classification needed rules-wise is a question, but history- and description-wise, I think it is interesting to have it, because not all light horse were simultaneously as nimble and as deadly as Mongols, Ottoman Akinjis or best-trained Pechenegs.

Antoine

[nikgaukroger]

Since you mentioned Mongols I'll comment that I don't think that those sorts of horse archer armies actually had separate skirmisher cavalry as MeG depicts, they just had horse archers (as in the Flexibles not the "heavies").

On African, hadn't considered it when musing - suspect it'd be in the same boat.

[Rino]

Cantabrian is a very interesting feature I'm taking regularly as well.
It increase shooting lethality but at the cost of reduced mobility, risk of being caught and impossibility to hold the line.
Cantabrian is a great alternative to skilled.
No reason to take it away, I think.

[nikgaukroger]

I use Cantabrian troops quite a bit as well, often in the ways Antoine mentioned. However, that is rather different from their being a good historical basis for the characteristic as opposed to classifying those troops as Skilled - especially in a game that could useful do with some simplification (IMO).

[lionheartrjc]

Cantabrian is really a halfway house between Experienced and Skilled shooters.  It doesn't follow that we could just make all Cantabrian shooters skilled and get the right effect.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

I'm failing to think of cases of such troops that justifies a halfway house to be honest.

Also rather begs a question of if there is one for mounted skirmishers why not for foot ones - or, indeed, any shooters.

[badhabum]

So either all cantabrians/africans should become "skilled" or we leave it as it is . The question for Nik is : what is the problem you want to fix ?

I might understand the mongols as I wonder why some are flexibles other skirmishers ( should check hunnic armies ) but many other armies do have only skirmishing cavalry that goes cantabrian and African is available only to loose cavalry .

It's perhaps not a perfect system but if it works why modify something that works and that players know and use regularly

[nikgaukroger]

The question for Nik is : what is the problem you want to fix ?

For the reasons already stated - it is unnecessary and would be a bit of a useful simplification.

[tarnowski1]

The question for Nik is : what is the problem you want to fix ?

For the reasons already stated - it is unnecessary and would be a bit of a useful simplification.

no strong opinion, how would you handle Spanish Best LH who are skilled and their 'normal' Lh who are cantabrian based?

[Princeps]

The question for Nik is : what is the problem you want to fix ?

For the reasons already stated - it is unnecessary and would be a bit of a useful simplification.

When it comes to the rules, perhaps.

Now, as for the description and history, I do believe Cantabrian is not a problem, rather the contrary: it gives the option to go for better shooting, at the risk of being caught more easily.

[nikgaukroger]

no strong opinion, how would you handle Spanish Best LH who are skilled and their 'normal' Lh who are cantabrian based?

Probably lump them together as all Skilled, or if its thought that there should be a proportion that are not as good as shooting, make them Experienced and allow a proportion to be upgraded to Skilled.

[nikgaukroger]

at the risk of being caught more easily.

I can't think of any historical justification for that - anything spring to mind that would support it that I am failing to recall? (entirely possible)

[badhabum]

So cantabrian is used "only" by skirmishing cavalry . A combat shy AV tug with cantabrian would cost 69 points if you take it skilled 86 points.

Cantabrian enhance the possibility to fail skirmishing far enough, even when running away but is 17 points cheaper than skilled .

I would either keep cantabrian or just go one step further : no more skirmishing cavalry as to me it was more flexible cavalry, even the numidians one's and that's another discussion .

So Skirmishing cavalry : I make the difference this way . Skirmishing Skilled are superbly trained and have been celebrated by judicious propaganda so they get the skilled award. Mongols or numidians being the epitome

Experienced with cantabrian are mounted shooters that are not as well trained in shooting but developped a way to enhance the effect of their shooting by adapting formation, training and coordination but there is a price ...you might get more easily caught .

In game terms it's been played that way since 2015/16 so why change now ? another change in the lists in our miniature collection and on the continent it is a pain in .....to get miniatures to complete our armies . SP and pikes by 9 are complicated enough believe me . It is a struggle .

Back to skirmishing . I can see the simplification aim but will it really simplify things ? I am doubtfull . In this case we might loose some flavour.

Or we go the whole way trough and admitt that skirmishing cavalry are a wargaming point of view with no historical foundation and go for all flexible cavalry which as it is my belief would be the right way to do it so switching the discussion to : mounted skirmishers only is it historical ?

[nikgaukroger]

I would either keep cantabrian or just go one step further : no more skirmishing cavalry as to me it was more flexible cavalry, even the numidians one's and that's another discussion .

We have had discussions about Numidians a couple of times (some time ago and I think the forum no longer has them on) and the conclusion has always been that the evidence of how they operated in not consistent with the MeG Flexible classification - mainly due to lack of any evidence for them charging anything other than "lights" IIRC.

Whether some other skirmisher cavalry should be classified differently is a good question though - as I mentioned above I don't think that for the "tribal horse archer" type armies any skirmisher cavalry is really justified.