Mounted combat is an important element of much fantasy literature, and I've always wanted to include it in my games.  Unfortunately, I've never really found a satisfactory way to do so.  The difficulties I've encountered, primarily in D&D, were


1)   Dungeon environments aren't conducive to riding horses


2)   The speed is so great that a normal battlemat can't accommodate mounted movement, especially if there are unmounted characters about.  A horse can cross the entire mat and be off the far side in one turn, which makes tracking position difficult at best.


3)   There weren't very good rules for horse movement.  Frex, a galloping horse does not turn or stop on a dime.  Also, a lot of things done historically in mounted combat were not included in the rules.


So I did some research and wrote rules for riding and mounted combat in my game.  I included things like gaits, speeds, turning radius, jumping, stopping distance, riding tricks, spooking, endurance, and so on.  I'm pretty pleased with the result – I think the rules are both realistic and cool.  What I do not yet know is whether they're fun to use.  I'll test them out, but in the meantime I'd like to ask,


What game systems have you played that did a good job with mounted combat?  What made them good?  What pitfalls have you found in using mounted combat?  What do you want out of a ruleset pertaining to mounted combat?

I think Fantasy Hero does a fairly good job of mounted combat, especially if you expand the grid out to a larger scale or use a giant mat.  Why is related to the rest of the questions.

The inherent problem with mounted combat is the extension of the problem with combat in general, only intensified.  It's the tension between being able to fight well from horseback versus the cost to the character.  Perhaps it is a trained skill that requires some considerable investment, but if you build the game that way, the realistic effect is that most of the characters needs to dismount to fight. This means that you can't have a running mounted fight that is palatable to most gamers, because then all that most characters can do is cling to the horse and run/chase.  So for the same reason in general combat that a wizard gets a staff and has a mild chance to hit something, the mounted rules tend to work better when they deliberately back away from more than token training requirements to do the basics.  In turn, that means a mounted specialist needs something to justify the investment.  So what I want from rules for mounted combat is to thread this needle as well as the underlying system can manage.  I expect compromises.

One thing I've found, almost by accident, is that in small skirmishes it will help a lot if the rules for ranged combat are a bit more realistic.  Namely, that ranges for a clean shot are drastically shorter than most modern systems but that damage is more of a threat.  In turn, that makes being able to stay mounted and attack fully a huge benefit simply from the mobility.  It also creates an interesting dilemma for the ranged attackers.  Do they hold fire to take one shot at a reasonable  range or do they take more shots as pot shots earlier? Likewise, for those characters with some mounted fighting ability but maybe not their best thing, it encourages them to ride close to the target then dismount--maybe even occasionally dismounting dramatically in various ways.

My acid test is why do people charge?  This applies both to mounted and running charges.  If the primary reason is usually bonus damage, then the system is off in respect to mounted combat and skirmishing.  If the primary reason is to cover the ground in a hurry, then I'm happy.  (There are, of course, exceptions, such as charging with a lance and/or charging a large creature with significant armor and health, where every bit of extra damage could matter.)

A mounted charge works best as a 'shock' tactic. Think pre-Wehrmacht blitzkrieg. While a horse won't try and charge an obstacle, a good rider can generally get them to stomp a human into the ground. Either medieval lance charges, or the later Renaissance era saber charge.

Using D&D/PF as a guideline, I would allow for a free-action Intimidate (Demoralize) check as part of a mounted charge. Your system may vary.

GURPS does pretty good.  The one second time scale keeps things on the battlemat a bit better and because horses have Enhanced Move x2 , they can only accelerate their Base Move in one turn and have to move two hexes to turn one hex side at top speed.  Lance damage is based on the horse's strength or was in third edition, I'm not sure about fourth honestly.  It might be a variation on the slam rules mass x speed / 100 dice.

Quote from: David Johansen on April 27, 2022, 02:39:28 PM
GURPS does pretty good.  ...  have to move two hexes to turn one hex side at top speed.  ...

Thanks, I will have to check that out.  As a bit of possibly interesting trivia, I found a published scientific paper on horses' turning radius.  Assuming that I got the math right, if one wants to simulate a continuous turn with 60 degree turns on a hex map, the required distance between turns varies from 0 at a walk, to about 125 feet for a quarter horse going full out.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 27, 2022, 07:46:02 AM
I think Fantasy Hero does a fairly good job of mounted combat, especially if you expand the grid out to a larger scale or use a giant mat.  Why is related to the rest of the questions.

The inherent problem with mounted combat is the extension of the problem with combat in general, only intensified.  It's the tension between being able to fight well from horseback versus the cost to the character.  Perhaps it is a trained skill that requires some considerable investment, but if you build the game that way, the realistic effect is that most of the characters needs to dismount to fight. This means that you can't have a running mounted fight that is palatable to most gamers, because then all that most characters can do is cling to the horse and run/chase.  So for the same reason in general combat that a wizard gets a staff and has a mild chance to hit something, the mounted rules tend to work better when they deliberately back away from more than token training requirements to do the basics.  In turn, that means a mounted specialist needs something to justify the investment.  So what I want from rules for mounted combat is to thread this needle as well as the underlying system can manage.  I expect compromises.

One thing I've found, almost by accident, is that in small skirmishes it will help a lot if the rules for ranged combat are a bit more realistic.  Namely, that ranges for a clean shot are drastically shorter than most modern systems but that damage is more of a threat.  In turn, that makes being able to stay mounted and attack fully a huge benefit simply from the mobility.  It also creates an interesting dilemma for the ranged attackers.  Do they hold fire to take one shot at a reasonable  range or do they take more shots as pot shots earlier? Likewise, for those characters with some mounted fighting ability but maybe not their best thing, it encourages them to ride close to the target then dismount--maybe even occasionally dismounting dramatically in various ways.

My acid test is why do people charge?  This applies both to mounted and running charges.  If the primary reason is usually bonus damage, then the system is off in respect to mounted combat and skirmishing.  If the primary reason is to cover the ground in a hurry, then I'm happy.  (There are, of course, exceptions, such as charging with a lance and/or charging a large creature with significant armor and health, where every bit of extra damage could matter.)

Thanks for sharing your insight - I can tell you've thought about this.  In my system enough riding skill to use a weapon without penalty costs about half of what a weapon skill costs, and applies across all weapons.  This feels about right to me, but only time will tell.  For the rest, I really need to test the rules out.  My standard is that every rule should add interesting decisions and tactical depth to the game.  And unfortunately there's no good way to tell if that's the case without spedning the time to playtest.

Greetings!

Mounted Combat and Mounted Warfare is very important. I use D&D, and have created various kinds of equipment for characters to use, whether Player Characters or NPC's in the world.

I have a whole section of magic items devoted to Mounted Warfare.

I have developed and detailed special rules and templates for different kinds of horses; Work Horse; Riding Horse; War Horse; Steppe Horse; Primordial Horse.

In Thandor, I also have various character backgrounds that focus or highlight Mounted Warfare. In addition, I also use special feats that can be selected by characters that further enhance their mounted warfare abilities.

As for dungeons limiting the use of horses or other mounts, I simply also embrace many adventures that are overland wilderness adventures that don't have anything to do with subterranean dungeons. Traveling, making epic journeys, is an important part of heroic adventure. Even on a smaller, local scale, escorting a friendly caravan, going on a patrol of the frontier, riding out to check up on some border fort or outpost--all can be the basis for solid, exciting and entertaining adventures!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2022, 07:04:16 PM
Greetings!

Mounted Combat and Mounted Warfare is very important. I use D&D, and have created various kinds of equipment for characters to use, whether Player Characters or NPC's in the world.

I have a whole section of magic items devoted to Mounted Warfare.

I have developed and detailed special rules and templates for different kinds of horses; Work Horse; Riding Horse; War Horse; Steppe Horse; Primordial Horse.

In Thandor, I also have various character backgrounds that focus or highlight Mounted Warfare. In addition, I also use special feats that can be selected by characters that further enhance their mounted warfare abilities.

As for dungeons limiting the use of horses or other mounts, I simply also embrace many adventures that are overland wilderness adventures that don't have anything to do with subterranean dungeons. Traveling, making epic journeys, is an important part of heroic adventure. Even on a smaller, local scale, escorting a friendly caravan, going on a patrol of the frontier, riding out to check up on some border fort or outpost--all can be the basis for solid, exciting and entertaining adventures!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I agree that travel can and should be a major part of adventures, with "dungeons" being optional.  To take a classic example, The Hobbit is about 80% overland adventure, with Lonely Mountain, the elven dungeons, and the passage through the misty mountains being the rest.  I think the reason that dungeons are so prevalent is that they are easier to write and their constrained geography means there's less stress on the DM to improvise.

Would you care to share any details on the things you've written for mounted combat?  I think I've covered every area I would want to, but it's possible I'm missing something important.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 27, 2022, 07:46:02 AM
The inherent problem with mounted combat is the extension of the problem with combat in general, only intensified.  It's the tension between being able to fight well from horseback versus the cost to the character.  Perhaps it is a trained skill that requires some considerable investment, but if you build the game that way, the realistic effect is that most of the characters needs to dismount to fight. This means that you can't have a running mounted fight that is palatable to most gamers, because then all that most characters can do is cling to the horse and run/chase.  So for the same reason in general combat that a wizard gets a staff and has a mild chance to hit something, the mounted rules tend to work better when they deliberately back away from more than token training requirements to do the basics.  In turn, that means a mounted specialist needs something to justify the investment.  So what I want from rules for mounted combat is to thread this needle as well as the underlying system can manage.  I expect compromises.

I was thinking about this and came up with another reason mounted combat is problematic in RPGs.  In a mounted fight there can be PCs of 3 different types:  those on foot, those who are mounted but must dismount to fight, and those who can fight from horseback.  The issue is that these groups have vastly different mobility on the field.  If those with greater mobility use it, they leave the rest of the party behind, splitting the force, which is usually a bad idea, both for tactical and game-fun reasons.  If they don't use their greater mobility, then the resources they used to purchase it are wasted and they're weaker than their companions in stationary combat.

There's a couple of approaches on could take to address this issue. The easiest is to give everyone mounted combat ability at no cost.  It would work, but I'm not a fan.  The solution I favor is to simply call out this issue in the game book, and the players can design their characters to have similar levels of riding ability, if they wish.

I ran a campaign that focused on the grassy steppes of the Moonsea (literally called the Sea of Grass). It was kinda eye-opening running mounted combat rules (both ranged and melee) from the DMG and CH:F. It was easier than I expected and harder to convey the immediate advantage to new players.

I mean, you can move 1/2 and shoot but at a far larger distance! And you can strafe without engaging! But because AD&D is based on whiffing as a defense there was enough early negative feedback in their missed shots that my players shut down early. So we did not get to see as much due to timidity and frustration.

As for hard bank turns, well that's where Sprinting Optional Rules helped. Just get creative with Dex, Str, and Con checks. Perfect? No. Sufficient? Yes. Hard. Nah. (Was it used much? No, bad to-hit dice rolls and negative modifiers really clammed up player experimentation -- a pity.)

The advantage of determining engagement range (always staying away from slower on-foot opponents) was overwhelming. It was more a matter of whether the dice would let the players hit and end the experience quickly or not. Outside of the rare lucky ranged weapon against a mounted strafe (and as GM I could figure out the system mechanics how to "delay/ready" an action against a mount approaching. but there was no guarantee that the far moving mount would choose to engage close enough those rounds) there was no real threat against my PCs.

Behind the scenes mechanical knowledge, with a few non-player observers also noticing the same, it was a resounding advantage -- and a surprisingly fast implementation of rules. With more experienced players it really ups the party threat level, if they can coordinate. I would gladly use it again, a lot cleaner in practice than one would think upon a first read. At this point I am tempted to toy with the jousting rules, too.

I never got around to running a Horde campaign in Ta'an, or a camel-based one for Calimshan, Ta'an, Mulhorand, or Anauroch. On my to-do list.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 29, 2022, 02:27:18 AM

Quote from: SHARK on April 28, 2022, 07:04:16 PM
Greetings!

Mounted Combat and Mounted Warfare is very important. I use D&D, and have created various kinds of equipment for characters to use, whether Player Characters or NPC's in the world.

I have a whole section of magic items devoted to Mounted Warfare.

I have developed and detailed special rules and templates for different kinds of horses; Work Horse; Riding Horse; War Horse; Steppe Horse; Primordial Horse.

In Thandor, I also have various character backgrounds that focus or highlight Mounted Warfare. In addition, I also use special feats that can be selected by characters that further enhance their mounted warfare abilities.

As for dungeons limiting the use of horses or other mounts, I simply also embrace many adventures that are overland wilderness adventures that don't have anything to do with subterranean dungeons. Traveling, making epic journeys, is an important part of heroic adventure. Even on a smaller, local scale, escorting a friendly caravan, going on a patrol of the frontier, riding out to check up on some border fort or outpost--all can be the basis for solid, exciting and entertaining adventures!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I agree that travel can and should be a major part of adventures, with "dungeons" being optional.  To take a classic example, The Hobbit is about 80% overland adventure, with Lonely Mountain, the elven dungeons, and the passage through the misty mountains being the rest.  I think the reason that dungeons are so prevalent is that they are easier to write and their constrained geography means there's less stress on the DM to improvise.

Would you care to share any details on the things you've written for mounted combat?  I think I've covered every area I would want to, but it's possible I'm missing something important.

Hobbit is a novel, while most dungeons are big in games. If the Hobbit were put into a game, a lot of that travel would be quickly resolved and the time would focus on the encounters (often combats) instead. While not always indoors/underground, encounters usually have a limited area involved, and nothing limits that area easier than a dungeon.

Quote from: Mishihari on April 29, 2022, 02:37:55 AM
I was thinking about this and came up with another reason mounted combat is problematic in RPGs.  In a mounted fight there can be PCs of 3 different types:  those on foot, those who are mounted but must dismount to fight, and those who can fight from horseback.  The issue is that these groups have vastly different mobility on the field.  If those with greater mobility use it, they leave the rest of the party behind, splitting the force, which is usually a bad idea, both for tactical and game-fun reasons.  If they don't use their greater mobility, then the resources they used to purchase it are wasted and they're weaker than their companions in stationary combat.

There's a couple of approaches on could take to address this issue. The easiest is to give everyone mounted combat ability at no cost.  It would work, but I'm not a fan.  The solution I favor is to simply call out this issue in the game book, and the players can design their characters to have similar levels of riding ability, if they wish.

When I mentioned "compromises", that's one of them.  If the desire is strong enough to make the game somewhat realistic in regards to mounted combat, then you put managing that problem back on the GM and/or players.  In that regard, it's no different than what you'd do with a game that wanted to focus on sailing a lot.  Either your characters that don't function well in that environment need to enjoy that challenge as players, or everyone needs to play a character with some moderate baseline of competence.

Where the other route starts to look more appealing is when the game is expected to change environments frequently.  After all, there are specialized abilities for urban, dungeon, swamp, etc. too.  And mounted combat is an environment-related thing:  Doesn't function at all on the ocean, high mountains, narrow dungeons, dense swamps, etc.  Has some obvious limitations in ruins, forests, hills, etc.  Is very advantages in grasslands, plains, road travel (in some cases, taking into account the stamina of a single horse being worse than walking over sufficient distance).  So in that case, the choices are:  Reduced realism to satisfy the players, increased competence of the starting character to at least have a baseline, or everyone takes turns being "out of their element" and can enjoy that for what it is. 

Note that it really doesn't matter for this particular question how you achieve the baseline competence--game gives all the characters that competence for free or you simply play more powerful characters and insist that everyone use some of that power get the competence. It does, of course, matter in the larger question of how the system works and any exceptions that players can make.  I've banned "pacifist" characters from some games on the grounds that they wouldn't fit.  Well, by the same token you can have "must be this tall on the riding scale" to play in this campaign.  Riding is something I usually don't want to force or ignore.  So I tend to go the route of blurring the realism a little to accommodate characters that take it and characters that ignore it.

As a related note (really!), in my current campaign, I wanted being literate to represent both a serious investment of the character, be somewhat rare, and for it to be notably valuable for those that had it.  We are working through how to finesse this as we go, with rules tweaks, because some of the characters that don't have it are causing the players to feel it.

I Don't know where I got them (probably from the RuneQuest biom) but my house rules are:
* Rider uses the worst between weapon and ride skill for all ride/attack rolls
* Rider has Advantage against unmounted

Also in RuneQuest type systems I'd adjust to hit rolls so riders hit unmounted in the arms, chest and head, and unmounted hit riders in the legs and abdomen.

Savage Worlds actually has decent Mounted Combat rules. Similar to what Ruprecht stated, a character uses the lowest of the Fighting or Riding skill. So to be good at fighting while mounted, a character actually needs to know how to ride at a level comparable to their fighting ability. I always prefer giving my players choices, so I have a houserule when playing Savage Worlds that a character can use their higher Fighting skill, but a roll of 1 or 2 hits their mount. And injured mounts rear-up, break off course, or otherwise fail at any commands.

As far as using mounts on a tabletop, I've gotten to the point where I don't care so much about verisimilitude or "realism" as much as I care about narrative cohesion. Does it really matter if a mounted unit turns on a dime or needs to move X hexes beforehand? Nope! At least not to me. I'm perfectly capable of abstracting movement in these cases, or applying a penalty to the attack roll if the maneuver sounds a little too daring. Maybe I'm just getting lazier in my old age, but I'd rather slim down the number of specialty rules I need to remember. I just want to have fun, not solve a calculus problem.

One problem that can be hard to address is the horse itself.  A ton of muscle with hard sharp hooves charging right at you is a really scary thing.  D&D puts warhorses in the 3HD range making them more powerful and tough than most of their riders.  In GURPS they've got a 30 - 40 Strength and that's a heap of damage from a kick or slam.  And even if you kill them there's all that momentum unless you're using a braced spear or pike.  And the guy on the back has a long lance and he's trying to make sure you don't do that, though I suspect horse archers are best for the job.

Anyhow, Rolemaster Standard System caps ranks in Mounted Combat at the Riding Skill's ranks and caps Offensive Bonus while riding at the Mounted Combat skill.  Lances get the best damage and horses are about twice as fast as humans though I've seen high elves that could outrun them.