How common was fully armoured horse in late 15th century?

[craig.w]

Hello,

Just wondering how common armoured horses were in late ie were there enough for whole units to be equipped? Or should it be an option? The reason I ask is that at this time the main weapons are crossbows, powerbows and firearms. All three ignore the amour when you charge them, so the actual utility of the armour is at its least in this time. The lists in Italians wars basically force you to pay for something that often doesn't work and slows the cavalry down to boot.

Thanks,

Craig

[lionheartrjc]

I actually think this may be more of a rules issue than a list issue.

The Arm Hrs/Fully Armoured represents the improvement in armour generally and particularly the development of steel plate armour from the 1420s onwards.  Armour improves as the penetration capability of weapons improves. Classic improvements in attack results in improvements in defence that lead to improvements in attack.

I am not quite sure what the answer is.  Although ArmHrs cost (in points terms) more, so do the Firearms/Crossbow/Powerbow compared to weapons with equivalent ranges.  So you can argue that everything sort of balances out.   Note that ArmHrs is still effective at more than 1BW against Crossbow/Powerbow.

Certainly there are no plans to change the lists.

Richard

[nikgaukroger]

Considering there were hundreds of Italian cavalry so equipped in 1424 and there would just be ever increasing numbers after that thanks to the massive and high quality Italian armour industry I think there is no issue. The resurgence of cavalry at the end of the 100YW and after is also rather suggestive 

[nikgaukroger]

As to whether they should be compulsory here is an interesting snippet relating to the men-at-arms from the Ordonnance of Abbeville, July 31, 1471 of Charles the Bold:

"Without imposing bards for the horses, the Duke observes that he will be grateful to the man-at-arms who will procure them."

[craig.w]

I actually think this may be more of a rules issue than a list issue.

The Arm Hrs/Fully Armoured represents the improvement in armour generally and particularly the development of steel plate armour from the 1420s onwards.  Armour improves as the penetration capability of weapons improves. Classic improvements in attack results in improvements in defence that lead to improvements in attack.

I am not quite sure what the answer is.  Although ArmHrs cost (in points terms) more, so do the Firearms/Crossbow/Powerbow compared to weapons with equivalent ranges.  So you can argue that everything sort of balances out.   Note that ArmHrs is still effective at more than 1BW against Crossbow/Powerbow.

Certainly there are no plans to change the lists.

Richard

Maybe the upgrade for crossbow can be removed against charging fully armoured horses? They'd still be ignoring the armoured horse and rolling white, just not a 50% chance of doing a wound.  The general consensus down under is that knights are  better since they became -/FArm and moved faster. Paying 22 points a base (31 for superiors) to move slower, be worse in terrain and occasionally work against a long range crossbow shot is pretty stiff. It should be a refund!

[craig.w]

Considering there were hundreds of Italian cavalry so equipped in 1424 and there would just be ever increasing numbers after that thanks to the massive and high quality Italian armour industry I think there is no issue. The resurgence of cavalry at the end of the 100YW and after is also rather suggestive 

As Richard noted, my query is probably more a rules query. In game terms, for Western European historical match ups at the end of the 15th century, horse armour is probably a detriment. It even gives powerbow a free long range shot on white dice if they manage to move last and go to 4.5BW distance!

[nikgaukroger]

Maybe the upgrade for crossbow can be removed against charging fully armoured horses? They'd still be ignoring the armoured horse and rolling white, just not a 50% chance of doing a wound.

I suspect you could argue that the dice downgrade for shooting at ArmHrs should apply even within 1 BW for Powerbow and Crossbow.

The general consensus down under is that knights are  better since they became -/FArm and moved faster. Paying 22 points a base (31 for superiors) to move slower, be worse in terrain and occasionally work against a long range crossbow shot is pretty stiff. It should be a refund!

Agreed it doesn't seem worth the points. I'd not take ArmHrs where there was an option to have it or not to have it 

[Simon Meg-Meister]

interesting issue.
Possibly having the + when charged cancelling FArm but not HArm makes sense.
It is the sub-period I know least so open to input from those who know more.

Si

[martymagnificent]

I wouldn't have thought downgrading shooting effects was the answer. We aren't exactly playing a game dominated by shooters. I would simply make horse armour free for non-close mounted. You are trading the protection for the speed.

Martin

[Simon Meg-Meister]

Might work nicely. 
I will add to my post travel recovery pondering list.

S

[Dru]

I wouldn't have thought downgrading shooting effects was the answer. We aren't exactly playing a game dominated by shooters. I would simply make horse armour free for non-close mounted. You are trading the protection for the speed.

Martin

Making Cats even worse in comparison. They already are a sub-optimal choice vs their Loose compatriots (hi there magic terrain)

[craig.w]

I wouldn't have thought downgrading shooting effects was the answer. We aren't exactly playing a game dominated by shooters. I would simply make horse armour free for non-close mounted. You are trading the protection for the speed.

Martin

Making Cats even worse in comparison. They already are a sub-optimal choice vs their Loose compatriots (hi there magic terrain)

Yeah, I love cataphracts but only because they look like tanks on the battlefield. They are nothing special. Keeping them expensive and making loose cavalry with armoured horse cheaper won't be doing them many favours.

[martymagnificent]

Making anything cheaper/better makes everything else worse in comparison.

I see no reason to single out cataphracts for special concern as a result of this prospective change. Their historical interactions with 15th Century knights were limited.

Martin

[craig.w]

Marty, you suggested making horse armour free for non-close mounted, therefore cataphracts would stay the same and medieval knights would go down, so cataphracts would be worse off, not sure why cataphracts should get the bum deal. Moving 4BW for cataphracts and being bad in terrain is just as bad as it is for armoured horse knights, but they will pay net 17 points because they are close and because loose trade speed for armour they get a freebie. That would imply that close order cavalry is around 17 points overcosted.