Horsemen of the Harnen as Horse Archers?

[Request a new user name]

Having played Harad extensively now, I have a question as to why Horsemen of the Harnen are not Horse Archers while The Serpent Black are?

If the Harnen Cavalry got their start guarding Ivory Trade Caravans, wouldn't it stand to reason they developed Horse Archery skills doing so?

What was the source and rational for this otherwise solid unit?

[Aradan]

Why do you think it's more reasonable for caravan guards to be horse-archers? A unit tasked to protect a 'target' would need to be able to be 'stationary' and hold against direct attack, so it would have to be stronger in melee. A horse-archer unit would be better for the attackers actually, with its speed and mobility and the ability to strike from a distance and run.

[Request a new user name]

Why do you think it's more reasonable for caravan guards to be horse-archers? A unit tasked to protect a 'target' would need to be able to be 'stationary' and hold against direct attack, so it would have to be stronger in melee. A horse-archer unit would be better for the attackers actually, with its speed and mobility and the ability to strike from a distance and run.

Well because arrows allow them to defend from a distance and deter attack that much better. Also the wide desert makes archery desirable for defenders, especially if attacked by horsemen. That way you can shoot the horses from under the riders and reduce them to foot infantry who are easier to kill while defending your charges.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

Why do you think it's more reasonable for caravan guards to be horse-archers? A unit tasked to protect a 'target' would need to be able to be 'stationary' and hold against direct attack, so it would have to be stronger in melee. A horse-archer unit would be better for the attackers actually, with its speed and mobility and the ability to strike from a distance and run.

There's actually that much thought put into the units? I'd expected something to do with balance and numbers and statistics only, but you guys keep surprising me.

[Aradan]

We're awesome like that...

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Agreed.

[Thangaror]

Hail to the FATW-team!



If Harad receives a bloody horse archer unit I'll run mad. Their cavalry-heavy armies are already a nuisance.

But since we are at it discussing units: Why do Swordsman of the Shadow lack shield-wall ability? They are disciplined, well trained etc.

[Aradan]

The idea is that soldiers of the cult fight in a less "team spirit" way than the Dunedanic units, so they would go more for the personal glory thingy and not fight in a shield-wall. We can re-examine that though.

[Aradan]

I'm not sure your reasoning is sound.

If the enemy is cavalry, having a bow is not much use, since the enemy is moving. A spear is way better if you want to kill a horse. Being able to deter an attacker from a distance isn't that much worth, because you could always be ambushed or the raiders could attack from anywhere, in which case it would be some time before the guards would know what's happening and respond with a concentrated volley. Also, if you are a horse-archer, what do you do when a heavy guy comes at you? You move a bit further to avoid him. But you can't do that while protecting a caravan, because then you'll leave the caravan unguarded.

Ideally perhaps the guards should have both bows and spears and also swords and heavier armour etc. But the idea is that they are cheap-ish guards that protect against raids, and for that purpose the most cost-effective thing imho is a horseman with a spear and a shield.

[Spike]

well, actually, simple bows is cheap to use, and giving horsemen of harnen model a bow only need pretty minor changes in the model.

but in gameplay terms, it will be over over over OP, bow + lance + numerous + cheap =

[Request a new user name]

I'm not sure your reasoning is sound.

If the enemy is cavalry, having a bow is not much use, since the enemy is moving.

Which makes the horse larger target and easier to hit.

A spear is way better if you want to kill a horse.

But in turn means you have to be braced in formation and up close if on foot, or close the distance if on horseback while being under missile fire.

Being able to deter an attacker from a distance isn't that much worth, because you could always be ambushed or the raiders could attack from anywhere, in which case it would be some time before the guards would know what's happening and respond with a concentrated volley.

Which is less an issue in the desert and proper scouting and outriders provide plenty of warning.

Also, if you are a horse-archer, what do you do when a heavy guy comes at you? You move a bit further to avoid him. But you can't do that while protecting a caravan, because then you'll leave the caravan unguarded.

But if you want the caravan, you got to close with the heavy guys and in a shooting match, heavily armored Horse-Archers will outshoot unarmored ones as their armor deflects arrows.

Ideally perhaps the guards should have both bows and spears and also swords and heavier Armour etc. But the idea is that they are cheap-ish guards that protect against raids, and for that purpose the most cost-effective thing imho is a horseman with a spear and a shield.

But if the raiders are smart, they shoot the horses dead, killing the mobility of the guards allowing them to pick them off, but if the Horsemen of the Harnen have bows, they can deter raids even better.

Quite frankly its smarter for caravan guards to have bows for deterent effect more than any other, because a bandit can always hit another caravan that is less protected, but if its horses are shot dead, they can't raid and their survival chances in the desert goes down.

[Thangaror]

But if you want the caravan, you got to close with the heavy guys and in a shooting match, heavily armored Horse-Archers will outshoot unarmored ones as their armor deflects arrows.

So what you basically want is a 70 men strong Serpent Black, with less heavy armour but added a spear and shield (shield compensating the lack of armour)?
Sorry, but that's plainly absurd.

I do agree that a bow would be quite useful to protect such a caravan. But a medium-armoured, melee-capable, cheap and numerous unit is nonsense, in game-play terms anyway, but also in real world (or real Middle-earth). As Aradan said, horse-archery requires a lot of training, thus the Horsemen would become way to pricey to hire for guards. Also these are but mercenaries, unlike the Rohirrim who are trained elite soldiers or the nobles of Khand.
Also you've to become rid of the idea, a desert is but a plain of sand. Horse-archers need firm, even ground to maneuver. This might not be given anywhere in the desert (as soon as there are dunes, horses become somewhat useless, horse-archers almost completely). Also Harad has lots of savannah with bushes and woods.

[Request a new user name]

but also in real world (or real Middle-earth). As Aradan said, horse-archery requires a lot of training, thus the Horsemen would become way to pricey to hire for guards. Also these are but mercenaries, unlike the Rohirrim who are trained elite soldiers or the nobles of Khand.
Also you've to become rid of the idea, a desert is but a plain of sand. Horse-archers need firm, even ground to maneuver. This might not be given anywhere in the desert (as soon as there are dunes, horses become somewhat useless, horse-archers almost completely). Also Harad has lots of savannah with bushes and woods.

Actually its easy to train a horseman to shoot from a stationary horse and on the move. Not so easy to train a good archer to shoot from a horse.

Also if horse-archers need firm ground and being a horsemen myself, what makes you think spear charges to drive off bandits will work either when they enter the rocky parts of a desert or the dune seas where proper scouting is even more important?

Or if they stay stationary against opponents who are archers, they risk their horses getting killed, whereas if they had bows they could reply in kind and protect the caravan as it moves to safety. Even if they don't hit anything, the deterrent effect will be enough.

Given they protect Ivory Caravans which pretty lucrative, money isn't an issue though I will admit the cost of many units are on the cheap side and can probably be upped quite a bit because if you turtle as Harad and build only Ivory Trade routes, you will be raking in so much dough it isn't funny.

It should also be pointed out that historical trade caravans did have horse archers with them and the guards wore chain mail or scale if they could afford it and stuck close to the caravans and where terrain was too restrictive, dismounted to fight on foot.

Another problem is the game engine itself as horsemen can't dismount and fight on foot in RTW engine as they often historically did when the situation called for it and the limit on the number of weapons carried.

Also, horse-archers can actually never defeat an armoured force. Look at Carrhae. Without the cataphrachts the Parthians had been shooting volley after volley, and the Romans had been sitting comfortably in testudo, waiting for the Parthians to run out of arrows (yeah, granted this was infantry having scuta).

Don't know where this came from as I never claimed it, only that armored horse archers have an advantage over unarmored ones in a shootout. Also its folly for horsemen to charge unbroken troops:

1. Horses don't like bumping into people or into sharp objects pointing at them.

2. Its a good way to break the horses' legs from smashing into all those men, shields and weapons.

One thing I like bout this mod is that cavalry charges into tightly packed troops don't annihilate them and cause them to break. Though I must question how Royal Longbow men can take a cavalry charge from even Scarlet Shields with no shields and actually do well in melee when they are only 2 or 3 ranks deep and hit from both sides?

[Aradan]

It's the training that makes the unit 'expensive', not the equipment. Horse-archery is way harder than holding a spear.

[Aradan]

We will have to agree to disagree then. I don't think you're looking at it from the right angle, but I don't want to get into a drawn-out argument exchange either, because it's pointless; the unit will remain the same, both for the reasons outlined above and for others having to do with cultural 'traits' and gameplay/balance.

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

On average 89% of any desert is rocks. Rocks, cliffs, rocky outcrops. NOT ideal for horse archery. And I have to agree with Aradan on this one - caravan guards are point defense units. If they were horse archers they would simply be forced to retreat and thus expose the caravan. The looters would just chase the guards away, allowing a few guys to kill the drivers, steal the stuff and leave WITHOUT HAVING TO KILL THE GUARDS.

[Thangaror]

If they were horse archers they would simply be forced to retreat and thus expose the caravan. The looters would just chase the guards away, allowing a few guys to kill the drivers, steal the stuff and leave WITHOUT HAVING TO KILL THE GUARDS.

Yes, but the Horsemen of Harnen are melee units! From my perspective he wants simply to add a bow to the HoH. So, basically adding a ranged weapon to a melee unit. This means, the Horsemen would not have to retreat but simply put away the bow and use spear and shield. And this would make them severly op.

Also, horse-archers can actually never defeat an armoured force. Look at Carrhae. Without the cataphrachts the Parthians had been shooting volley after volley, and the Romans had been sitting comfortably in testudo, waiting for the Parthians to run out of arrows (yeah, granted this was infantry having scuta).

Btw, say, Cocroach, isn't it somewhat late in the year to still have a christmas avatar?

[Blatta Optima Maxima]

Yes, but the Horsemen of Harnen are melee units! From my perspective he wants simply to add a bow to the HoH. So, basically adding a ranged weapon to a melee unit. This means, the Horsemen would not have to retreat but simply put away the bow and use spear and shield. And this would make them severly op.

Also, horse-archers can actually never defeat an armoured force. Look at Carrhae. Without the cataphrachts the Parthians had been shooting volley after volley, and the Romans had been sitting comfortably in testudo, waiting for the Parthians to run out of arrows (yeah, granted this was infantry having scuta).

Btw, say, Cocroach, isn't it somewhat late in the year to still have a christmas avatar?

Read my post again. Carefully. It explains WHY DEDICATED HORSE ARCHERS CANNOT PROTECT CARAVANS.

And yeah, lance&bow is too expensive.


'Bout the avatar - I figured it looks better than the regular faction symbol, and everyone's used to it by now.

[Thangaror]

Read my post again. Carefully. It explains WHY DEDICATED HORSE ARCHERS CANNOT PROTECT CARAVANS.

No need to facepalm three times. I never said they could.

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

Btw, say, Cocroach, isn't it somewhat late in the year to still have a christmas avatar?

HERESY! It's never too late for Christmas!

OT: While I do see the use of horse-archery for protecting a caravan (when combined with a spear), it's -as has already been said- OP and would be too expensive for caravans to pay for.