The One Ring
http://gbain.powweb.com/

Concerning Cavalry
http://gbain.powweb.com/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=21157		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  General Elessar [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Concerning Cavalry
I'd like to have a tactical discussion on cavalry in SBG. Their pros and cons, and tactics both for and against them. Please don't just fantasize, speak from experience or not at all.

One the biggest and most overlooked advantages of cavalry, in my opinion, is the rider's increased height. This enables the rider to see, and therefore get into combat with, models your opponent thought were safe.

As for tactics against cavalry, I've had surprising success recently in killing my opponent's mounts instead of just going for the rider. The mounts are usually easier to kill than the rider, and a model is significantly less of a threat once it's mount is killed.
Author:  Elrondio [ Fri Jul 08, 2011 6:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
Well in my experience with cavalry I feel they are good in certain scenarios, strategies, and situations. Cavalry are good at being the hammer in the hammer and anvil strategy as the charge is able to kill off many of your opponents guys quickly. There is a downside to this though because the cavalry is then exposed way too much to bow fire and to me that's there downfall :sad: . In a Take and Hold scenario though they are the ultimate troops being fast and effective
Author:  fritskuhntm [ Mon Aug 01, 2011 5:09 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
My Galadhrim Calvalry stayed protected behind the shield wall flanks, then swept around at the charge to attack behind: slaughter. Their increased range made up for lack of lances by reaching far behind the enemy line. In another battle, I had three Calvary on each flank, moving swiftly up the sides under cover of terrian. That tied up two groups of enemy at his starting point, ready to protect. I had not intended it as a feint, but swept back in time to come behind his main force at the meeting of shield walls. Every time I had retreated against his Uruks, shooting, he said, "Elves are wimps". I managed to delay the clash of shields until my Cavalry could return. By that time, his two squads were left scampering to rejoin the main force. Too late. In two isolated units, they marched into a small sea of Uruk blood, too far apart to do more than wait their turn for destruction. A glorious Elven victory, thanks to the range of those amazing Elven steeds.
Author:  Sir Richard [ Mon Aug 01, 2011 7:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
Sounds exciting! :D I'm thinking of getting some gondorian cavalry along with faramir, and I'm going to include a banner on a horse as well. Any opinions as to how to use banners on horses?
Author:  Elrondio [ Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
@Sir Richard, when using a banner bearer on horse back you have a great opportunity to always have relief where it's needed. For instance, let's say you have made a shield wall and on your left side some orcs are threatening to push through your line, well you can move the banner bearer quickly over to that side and make sure that your left side of the shield wall is holding. Then you can move it quickly ( again ) to where it is needed. The whole point to put a banner bearer on a horse is so it can rush relief to where it's needed, hope this answers your question 8)
Author:  cereal_theif [ Mon Aug 01, 2011 4:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
I use 3 swan knights and imrahil behind my dol amroth pike and shield block. This uses the cavalries height and movement to get in amongst the oppositions tasty spearsmen.

With evil I use DM(not dangermouse but dark marshall) with my cavalry as he does the same as imrahil and has super fight (if needed) and magic.

Cheap might cannot be under estimated with cavalry. Imrahil wants to be heroic in combat not in the move phase.
Rohan minor heroes, rangers of the north, beregond, or for evil, sharku, ....

I recently tried out rangers of the north supporting imrahil in this way and allowed the prince to smash many many baddies.

Banners might seem points eaters but as most people are quick to buy spears and more spears you may well need the banner,
Author:  Sir Richard [ Tue Aug 02, 2011 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
yes, thanks Elrondio I was mainly thinking to get the banner on the horse 'cause it looks REALLY cool, but it'll help in the game as well! :D
Author:  Raggbur [ Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:21 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
General Elessar wrote:
One the biggest and most overlooked advantages of cavalry, in my opinion, is the rider's increased height.

But also a disadvantage imo. Take gothmog bx., I usually don't put him on a warg, cause he's verrry vurnerable for archers if you put him where he (imo) needs to be, behind a line of morannons.
Another disadvantage of mine is that, if I use cavalery to deliver a hard punch to my enemies 'formations', I personally need a hero of some sort to make sure they're charging and not being charged. But I also need a hero to lead my troops, so 2 in total. Not big problem with orcs of course, but when playing gondor at low points for instance, it's very hard to include cavalery.

Personally, I'm (as you might notice) not an adam troke class tactician, so it could be I'm just talking nonsens.
Author:  ChristsSoldier [ Sun Nov 27, 2011 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
Banners for use with cavalry generally aren't as effective as with infantry. This is because the larger base size of cavalry means that the 3" range of the banner will only impact a couple fights at most. With infantry, it is possible to influence multiple fights because the bases are smaller and the fighting is more compressed.
The mounted banner bearer for infantry is an interesting idea, except I imagine it will be a very nice (and tall) target for enemy archers.

The best tactic for cavalry is to go all archers (Outriders) and just shoot forever without engaging. 8) Obviously, this is quite boring and very bad sportsmanship, :oops: but it can still be incorporated into your tactics to some degree. Cavalry are great at taking objectives, flanking, and providing supportive fire. As was mentioned before, having a small cavalry group come out from behind a shield wall to flank the enemy is a great tactic. The increased height of the cavalry also means that if they are bow-equipped (Rohan), then they can shoot over the top of your shield wall as your entire army is advancing. What's more, your infantry can still move at 5" (or 6 if elves) while still laying down arrows each turn. Cavalry can increase your entire army's mobility and flexibility.
Author:  GothmogtheWerewolf [ Sun Nov 27, 2011 8:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
@ChristSoldier, please stop regurtating old threads.
Author:  hithero [ Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:
@ChristSoldier, please stop regurtating old threads.


Whats wrong with this? The thread isn't that old and he's added a valued suggestion.
Author:  Battalia [ Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
and better than starting a new thread
Author:  GothmogtheWerewolf [ Mon Nov 28, 2011 3:59 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
hithero wrote:
GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:
@ChristSoldier, please stop regurtating old threads.


Whats wrong with this? The thread isn't that old and he's added a valued suggestion.


This isn't the oldest thread he regurtated, just the last one so far, and I was getting tired of getting excited seeing a new thread only to open at and find it isn't.
Author:  Draugluin [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
You might want to use the right word before lecturing a user, Gothmog. Resurrecting is the word you want, not regurtated, which is not even a word.
Author:  GothmogtheWerewolf [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 9:43 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
No Draugluin I do not mean 'ressurected' although i could have said that, i meant regurgitating (which i cannot at the moment spell correctly), which is a word, usually meaning to be sick as it means reprocessing something that has already been digested. I am using it figuratively to mean he is bringing back an old, unwanted thread.
Author:  hithero [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 10:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
Anyway, at the end of the day, its down to the mods to decide whether a member needs a slap on the wrist, not other members!
Author:  Draugluin [ Tue Nov 29, 2011 11:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
GothmogtheWerewolf wrote:
No Draugluin I do not mean 'ressurected' although i could have said that, i meant regurgitating (which i cannot at the moment spell correctly), which is a word, usually meaning to be sick as it means reprocessing something that has already been digested. I am using it figuratively to mean he is bringing back an old, unwanted thread.


It means "to become thrown or poured back". Regurgitating a thread would mean he is cut and pasting from other threads to here. Resurrecting a thread would mean that he is bringing it back from death, which is what this thread was until he commented on it. Thus, regurgitating doesn't make sense in this context.
Author:  Uncle_Cthulu [ Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
Dispite the argument,
I would like to talk about cav, and this seems to be the thread for it.
We generally role on the legions tables for which missions we play, i find having cavalry in your army in those instances becomes invaluble, giving a force flexiblity to be able to achieve objectives quicker, or distract the enemy.
I find cav when sent around in small packs have the advatage to move quickly to where they are needed, often leaving enemy infantry stuck out in the open. I also like a couple of horsemen in the general melee just to get those cav charage bonuses.
One of my next 500 point forces is an all mounted Rohan force, and i have just picked up 4 sons of Eorl to support Eomer, Cav with 2 attacks they just look mean.
Author:  Beowulf03809 [ Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:36 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
Based on the army I would agree. But having Cav is not on my personal "must have" list in all cases (I "must have" 33% bows in nearly every one of my forces, for example).

On the side of Evil I really like having a small group of Warg Riders in most of my forces. They are relatively affordable, nice speed, decent defense (with shield) and the strength of the Warg on a successful charge attack is very good against most Warriors. But I often find that they are arrow magnets in the first turn or two. So I have to treat them as such. They will either soak up early ranged fire, which has the advantage of those shots not targeting the rest of your army, or else they will be ignored and get close enough to engage. If that happens then they can usually chew up the flanks (pun intended) of an enemy force a bit before getting caught and overwhelmed. Even in those cases, there is a fair chance that the Warg or Orc will still be alive and in the game at the end of a lost combat so you may be able to fight one more turn.

In such cases that I do use them, I rarely will bother unless I have at least 5-6. I have used 3-4 sometimes but find they just aren't enough of anything except a point sink. At six you have enough to be a threat. If you want to take them seriously though you must have a Captain or Hero in among them for an Heroic Move when needed. Six to eight Warg Riders with Shields and a Captain can be a nice punch to an army and when you consider the overall affordability of hordes of Orcs it's not hard to fit these into many forces.

For Men, I have played some SBG Rohan and Harad armies and found much of the same concepts apply to my style there as well. I do like both of these forces with bows on the Cav...more so with Rohan. I have played as much as 50% of my Harad force mounted but not enough games to get it down yet (it is fun having a Mumuk and a bunch of Harad Cav on the table). For Rohan my lists tend to either be about 60%-75% mounted (including my major Heroes) or mostly foot with a small Cav force similar to what I described for Wargs above. The mostly foot version is easier to play for sure as heavily mounted armies in SBG take a lot of practice to get down good. But Rohan has some very good, very affordable Heroes and a couple of these with a large mounted detachment can be a major hitting force. Eomer and Erkenbrand, each mounted and together in one army can put the hurt on a lot of foes.

We almost always play using random LoME scenario generation as well, and this is where I often discourage an all mounted force. There are several scenarios and/or deployment options where such an army is at a major disadvantage right from the start. If you know what you are playing, and who against, you have a better stance to decide if 100% mounted is a reasonable decision or not.
Author:  Uncle_Cthulu [ Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Concerning Cavalry
Thanks for the reply Beowulf03809,
Yep all mounted forces do suffer in random scenario generation, though being ill last week and watching all the extended editions again gave me a first for all mounted Eomers Eored. Though i do plan to do every War of the Ring faction in 500 point SBG format, with 2 Gondor and 2 Mordor factions -Fiefdoms and Osgiliath, and Minas Morgul and Cirith Ungol, that way vistors to my house have an awesome choice for a game, and i get to make some awesome displays:)
Though i do like Warg forces, and at times have fielded all warg lists, gives orcs that bite.
In the end the balance comes out though. I don't always field 33% bows, my Cirith Ungol list has 5 orc trackers in it for example,
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/