How the Mongols defeated their enemies

I’ve been experimenting with some ideas (Ha!...don’t I always. )

The Complex Method: just have Horse Archer bases 1 BW deep (i.e. 40mm if using 15mm figures),
and mount the horses so they are at the very back of their bases, with a gap to their front.
These act exactly the same as the present Light Horse using all the current rules as written.
They merely ‘look’ as if they are shooting from a short distance away.
(Nobody likes re-basing their figures, so just place a piece of card, 1 BW square, with a bit of
grassy flock in front of the Horse Archer figures...held in place with double-sided sticky-tape)

The Simple Method: let light Horse Archers shoot, with their current combat factors and effects, using
all the normal shooting rules (but remove their 'quick-kill' against Kn and Ele, or they'd be toooo deadly),
with a range of 2 BW...and unlike other shooters they CAN still shoot if they move more than 1 BW.
I would also do the same for LCh with bows.
This works fine, and makes them 'feel' and act like Horse Archers...the effect is roughly the same as
above, except not being in close combat they ignore adverse die rolls, unless the enemy is shooting back.
(The only problem is why anybody would take ordinary javelin LH when they could have shooting LH with
range instead? At least Javelin LH still DO retain their 'quick-kill' against Knights, and this might be enough
to make them useful and make the choice between taking shooting LH and close combat LH a bit more tricky)

In short, mounted bows become a new troop class:-
    LH, "Light Horsemen" with javelins (exactly the same as they are now).
    HA, "Horse Archers", range 2 BW, no 'quick-kill' against Kn or Elephants, but can still shoot if they move.

Yes, those posts are over a year old now. I posted them with the links because they were relevant to the recent discussion. It's very tricky trying to find the right balance between RAW and historical detail as we know it (or think we know it).

There are other LH that performed well, Numidians for instance were invaluable between the Carthaginians and Romans in the Punic wars, yet they are not Bw armed. Skythians, Hsuing nu were notorious and just as Hardy as Huns and Mongols. It's not necessarily the weapons employed but the skill level of the horsemen that you need to define. Is that done by move/action allowance, shooting/combat or other bonuses and/or a combination of all these factors?

We shouldn’t over emphasize the effectiveness of the Mongols. In fact they used the same
horse archer tactics as the earlier Pechenags, the Magyars, the Bulgars, the Huns, the Alans,
the Hsuing-nu, and even the ancient Scythians, long before the Mongols came to dominate.

No, the real reason why the Mongols were so successful was all due to the efforts of one man -
Temujin, known to us as Genghis Khan. It was his strong will that united the various mounted
tribes of Asia, and by enforcing his strict iron discipline upon his sub-commanders, who in turn
enforced their own strict iron discipline upon the horsemen under their command, created such
a formidable fighting force. But he also had the foresight and skill to impose a strict administrative
and bureaucratic system that held his empire together, ensuring that it lasted long after his death.

If the other horse archer armies of Asia, who used the same composite bow and tactics that the
later Mongols used, had a leader such as Genghis Khan, then it would have been they and not the
Mongols who formed the largest continuous land empire in history.
Indeed, the Huns under Attila almost did so, but he did not have the foresight and skill to create
such a strict administrative and bureaucratic system, so his empire quickly fell apart once he died.

(Nonetheless, the effectiveness and fighting style of horse archers has been completely overlooked in DBA)

Sounds like more than 'LH only pays ½ a PIP to move' may be required to fix this...?