Cavalry wedge - conform with DBMM?

I don’t see why it should only be limited to Knight wedges fighting foot.
After all, in DBA 3.0 the SCh and Ps elements aren’t limited in this way.
(And adding rules with exceptions just complicates things)

By the way, I’ve expanded this idea to also include LH ignoring
corner-to-corner overlaps, for the same reason that Ps do...
...they are lobbing missiles (javelins or arrows) from a distance,
and want to avoid standing toe-to-toe with their enemies.
(See fanaticus.boards.net/post/30985/ )

I do like this for LH. It makes them more useful for armies with a small number of "scouts" that can act as a nuisance and cover flanks. It allows armies a large number of LH the confidence to attack in a line on masse. It can allow the removal of the rear-support as a trade off, which shortens the line and causes that silly "die on fleeing" result.

Cheers

Jim

That is a good point Snowcat.

I must confess that I’m not looking at this from an historical perspective,
but merely from a ‘game-play-balance’ point of view...
...if Mr Barker wants me to have my 3Kn wedges on 1 BW deep bases,
where they’re likely to be destroyed when recoiling from a flank attack,
then give me an advantage for doing so, not penalize me with a disadvantage!
Otherwise I’ll just have my 3Kn on 30mm deep bases thank you very much.

Double-based troops only gain their +1 when in close combat with foot.
So 6Kn and 6Cv gain nothing when fighting mounted, but their extra deep
bases means they often can’t ‘shut-the-door’ and ‘hard-flank’ an opponent
simply because there isn’t enough room for them to do so (a disadvantage).

Perhaps Page 10 paragraph 8 should say:-
“An element not in frontal close combat but in mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front corner contact with any enemy
element (except Psiloi, Scythed Chariots, Light Horse, 6Cv, 6Kn, and 3Kn on 1 BW deep bases) overlaps this;”
(See figure 16c)

As for LH...well, we all know they are weak and underpowered.
Even Mr Barker knows this, which is why he gave them rear-support.
And it strikes me as being absurd to have skirmishing Psiloi armed with
javelins and bows ignoring corner-to-corner overlaps, yet skirmishing
Light Horse armed with the very same weapons won’t use them until
they can reach out and physically touch their enemies!

Having LH acting like Ps, in addition to gaining rear-support, might just
make the Huns, Mongols, Numidians and the like more of a threat rather
than being the poor quality Cavalry wimps they are at the moment.

(Come to think of it, the same could be said of the 3Ax and 4Ax Peltasts.
They too were armed with javelins, and liked to keep their distance.
Indeed, the Thracians were noted for inventing 'pelt-the-enemy-from-a-distance'
tactics, which proved to be so effective that the Greeks adopted it and even
gave up using their old 'toe-to-toe' fighting Hoplites. So did many others.
Perhaps ALL 3Ax and 4Ax troops should also ignore corner-to-corner overlaps.
It might make them survive a bit longer when fighting heavy foot...
...instead of being slaughtered like helpless sheep as they are at present.)

All right then Snowcat...
...let’s just stop at 3Kn wedges and LH can also ignore corner-to-corner overlaps.
(It was you that brought up Byzantine 6Kn Kataphraktoi )

Snowcat, Byzantine Kataphraktoi, yes.

Stevie,
I posed the question as the cavalry wedge was designed to be effective against infantry.
Nowhere in my reading, mention the wedge, as described by Philip von Seldeneck, used in cavalry battles.

However, shallow wedges sometimes occur when the better mounted knights move off the mark leaving others to play catch up.
Expanding the rule to include LH is interesting as this would better suggest their skirmishing role.

That’s a good bit of research Timurilank. 👍

There we have it then...following on from what both you and Snowcat have mentioned:-
“An element not in frontal close combat but in mutual right-to-right or left-to-left front corner contact with any
 enemy element (except Psiloi, Scythed Chariots, Light Horse, and 3Kn on 1 BW deep bases) overlaps this;”
 (See figure 16c)

6Kn and 6Cv don’t get this advantage, as they already have a +1 against foot,
which is much more powerful anyway.

And if players wish to depict their Germans as a 3Kn wedge on a 1 BW square stand,
which won’t get the +1 against foot as it’s not a double-base, but will get to ignore
corner-to-corner overlaps like Macedonian Companion 3Kn wedges, then let them.

After all, I’m the one that wants to use 3Bd to represent Alexander’s Hypaspists,
and to have the choice of placing Difficult Hills as Rough Hills instead of Bad Going...
...so I can hardly complain can I.

(Plus in HoTT I have my H.G.Wells/Jeff Wayne "War of the Worlds" style
Martian Tripods as Blades on 1 BW square stands, as they are simply far
tooooo large to fit on 20mm deep bases, let alone on 15mm deep ones!)

If the army list corrections ever see the light of day Stevie, I would suggest Medieval German, IV/13c and d, offer the knight as (6Kn or 3Kn).
Currently, the IV/30 Teutonic Order do have that option for both general and ritterbruder.
Basing 3Kn in wedge should be presented as an option as it is for the Companions and Scythians, see page 5, “can be on a deeper base”.

Coupled with the corner-to-corner solution for wedges, this would increase the options for players using Medieval Germans.

Further reading has revealed tactical differences between Upper and Lower Germany regarding cavalry and
Eltis presents the social and economic influences behind these differences.

Lances or gleven comprised of men-at-arms, coutillier, archer/crossbowmen and page, all mounted
and were grouped by their component parts at times when deployed.
This was the case at Seckenheim, as Frederick I deployed his mounted crossbowmen in separate formations, on either side of his men-at-arms.

Towns and Defence in Later Medieval Germany, David Eltis