PDA

View Full Version : Game mechanics aside: How would flying cavalry be used?



deuxhero
2012-04-10, 11:30 PM
How would Pegasus/Wyvern/Gryphon/Hippogriff/Broomstick/Whatever cavalry be used? (ignoring all the obvious physics problems of course)

How would they be armed? Any reason to give them melee weapons over missiles?

Would usage differ from mundane mounted archers (Harassment, scouting, skirmisher)?

Ravens_cry
2012-04-11, 01:17 AM
Well, a big part of that question is how common are they? Can you stick any Joe Militia Reservist on a flying mount, or is it a super elite force, with numbers in the low tens, if that?
One use, especially with invisibility spells, is one of the first uses for aeroplanes and balloons, reconnaissance over the battlefield.
If it's common enough, it would make sieges difficult at best if supplies can simply be airdropped in. While there is definite weight restrictions on what even a massive dragon can carry, scrolls and wands of certain utility spells can preform the same functions as some bulk items and be much lighter, not to mention getting VIP out and in. On the same note, a classic castle becomes indefensible when bombing runs and parawizards can simply fall in.
So the siege, and hence the castle as we know it is an obsolete anarchism in a world with substantial air power.

kieza
2012-04-11, 02:05 AM
Well, as I see it, there are several differences between aerial mounts and aircraft

-They're easier to destroy. It's generally easier to kill a horse-sized living creature than to take out an aircraft.
-They take longer to produce. If it takes 3 years to raise a griffon or whatever to maturity, you need to start breeding replacement mounts 3 years in advance of when you anticipate casualties, or you need to always breed more mounts than you train riders, in order to make up for casualties.
-They can't be mothballed. Fighters have low maintenance costs when they aren't in use; griffons still eat as much when they aren't going into combat. Also, griffons and hippogriffs and whatnot can't be turned into farm animals as easily as a warhorse in peacetime, so it becomes costly to have lots of mounts sitting around not being ridden.

So, basically, this boils down to a shortage of replacement mounts; it's not like a fighter pilot, where if he survives being shot down, you can just ship out a new fighter, and it's not like traditional cavalry where you can find a new horse in any stable. You have to take a new mount out of your expensive pool of spare mounts, ground another rider, or wait three years to breed a new mount.

So, aerial cavalry isn't going to be doing a lot of dogfighting. Only when it becomes absolutely critical will a general send them into direct combat, because losing even a mount is a pretty expensive hit. Aerial cavalry is going to be doing light-combat stuff:

-Scouting
-Raiding (Being able to fly, and land in rough terrain, makes them great at rear-area raids)
-Couriers and Supply Runs
-Personnel transport: This is something I've used a couple of times in campaigns. If a mount can carry a second passenger, you can have an infantryman ride pillion, and either land them near the front lines, or drop them off with a feather fall. Then the rider gets away from the fighting.

My players really grew to hate heavy-infantry airdrops. Just when the enemy artillery and mages have them pinned down, I liked to have griffon riders drop a couple of big, tough soldier-types in their midst. Killed two players that way...

Mastikator
2012-04-11, 02:34 AM
Flying overcomes nearly all obstacles and make protecting any single location or person nearly impossible. One nation that has a single troop of flying creatures that can carry an elite soldier can make a surgical strike against the leadership of another nation and force them to surrender, without ever engaging in open battle even.

ScubaGoomba
2012-04-11, 02:44 AM
Pirates. Pirates all the way.

I'm planning on putting my players into a desert and they'll be traveling a sand ocean for a majority of the time. Pirates and raiders over any kind of vast sea would likely use flying mounts to board other ships and scout around. While they aren't the same as actual aircraft, they're also easier to use in these kinds of cases. When you're traveling over any kind of unwalkable terrain, the more large vehicles you have, the more you're burdened. One large ship could house all of the mounts, which can then run ahead to do any kind of small transportation that might be necessary.

As kieza said, it's not very efficient to use them in the throws of combat. Air drops are great and the mounts can fly back to the ship after doing what they need to do.

Killer Angel
2012-04-11, 02:58 AM
-They're easier to destroy. It's generally easier to kill a horse-sized living creature than to take out an aircraft.
-They take longer to produce.


Both true



-They can't be mothballed. Fighters have low maintenance costs when they aren't in use;

(citation needed)


griffons and hippogriffs and whatnot can't be turned into farm animals as easily as a warhorse in peacetime, so it becomes costly to have lots of mounts sitting around not being ridden.

(snip)

-Scouting
-Couriers
-Personnel transport

These kind of services can be easily done also during peacetime.


Only when it becomes absolutely critical will a general send them into direct combat, because losing even a mount is a pretty expensive hit.

Absolutely true.

Yora
2012-04-11, 06:38 AM
The most simple way would be mounted infantry. Using the flying mounts for rapid movement, but leaving them behind in a battle. You just can't fight with melee weapons in flight and if the mounts are doing all the fighting, they would do a lot better if they are not burdened by carrying the extra weight of a rider who doesn't contribute anything.

But having infantry that can move at great speed and ignore terrain, and even pass over enemy lines to some extend, would be extremely valuable.

Spiryt
2012-04-11, 07:10 AM
Flying cavalry would be completely impossible, so really, in fantasy word one got to ignore a lot of rules/hand-wave stuff as magic etc.

So depending on way of imagining it, such flying cavalry can really have very gritty feel or be straight out miraculous mean of transport/destruction/communication.

All depends.



Also, griffons and hippogriffs and whatnot can't be turned into farm animals as easily as a warhorse in peacetime,

Warhorse couldn't be really used as farm animals either though, and knight/rider would rather drag anyone who would try it behind said horse. :smallwink:

Andreaz
2012-04-11, 08:48 AM
Aerial supremacy all the way. Flying gives you, as said, an incredible advantage due to the fact little can really stop you from shooting where it hurts.

There's not much to it...Either you're bombarding the enemy from above and dogfigthing enemy fliers or you're using them to deploy in key areas where you proceed on foot.

Ironvyper
2012-04-11, 10:54 AM
I mainly see them being used the way helicopters are now. To drop infantry off in hard to reach places.

They would probably also be used in sieges to fly overhead out of bow reach and drop things like alchemists fire down on flammable buildings and targets.

Gavinfoxx
2012-04-11, 11:43 AM
Mounted Archery...

kieza
2012-04-11, 11:44 AM
Warhorse couldn't be really used as farm animals either though, and knight/rider would rather drag anyone who would try it behind said horse. :smallwink:

All right, let me put it a different way: if you have more horses than you need for the army, there are plenty of civilians who could use them. Similarly, if you don't have enough, you can always buy or requisition from civilians. Very few people would have a need for a griffon or the money to support one (they're carnivorous, and that makes them expensive to feed).

In fact, let me rephrase the entire argument: every flying mount killed takes a rider out of commission. If you don't have a replacement, the rider is grounded. If you have a replacement, it's because you didn't train as many riders as you could have. With normal cavalry, there are plenty of people breeding horses; with fighter planes, you can ramp up production. With aerial cavalry, a defense planner is going to want to have as many riders as possible (I'm assuming the mounts are relatively scarce), and that means not having lots of replacements.

Knaight
2012-04-11, 11:46 AM
The way I see it, it depends entirely on the specific traits of these animals. Most critical are load, effective altitude and speed. This creates specific niches for different creatures. They can be broken down into nine categories, with load and speed on separate axis, with a simple two state evaluation for each. Note that I assume a general lack of overt magic, as it changes things significantly (a soft fall magic alone has huge implications).

Low Load, Low Altitude, Low Speed
These aren't going to be particularly useful, but have certain niches. Essentially, they replace standard cavalry and mounted infantry in areas where they can't be used. Consider bogs and swamps - that low speed is going to look very good compared to everything else on the battlefield, as everything else is hip deep in swamp water. As such, these allow strategic mobility of infantry in those areas, though they compete with boats. They also allow limited light cavalry, as archers on low flying mounts are highly mobile, and likely worth using light cavalry with melee weapons as a counter. These could also be significant in shipboard combat, as the sea is even less conducive to cavalry than swamps.

Low Load, High Altitude, Low Speed
These are limited reconnaissance and aerial superiority units. The altitude gives a high sight range, though high altitude, high speed cavalry are perfectly capable of ruining that particular capability. For aerial superiority, high altitude cavalry has a huge advantage over low altitude cavalry, and could keep even high speed low altitude cavalry from a certain area. Flying archers are still useful, but there should likely be a shift to dropping high density materials. There's also limited bombing utility, though the low load prevents this from being highly useful, still, a pouch full of pebbles loosed over an area are going to be dangerous by the time they reach the ground.

Low Load, Low Altitude, High Speed
These are the core mounted archers. Everything that low load, low altitude, low speed mounts do, they do better, and their cavalry role extends past hampered terrain. Moreover, in areas such as swamps as sea they are far better as both cavalry and mounted infantry than slower equivalents.

Low Load, High Altitude, High Speed
These are the ideal reconnaissance units. They also have extreme battlefield potential, as a rock dropped from something moving quickly towards you is about equivalent as one fired towards you. The trick involving pebbles is much more useful than with low speed cavalry, and individual heavier rocks can now be used as siege equipment. There's also some utility for combining high speed charges with high speed missiles, a crossbow fired forwards from a quickly diving mount is going to put its bolt through basically any armor for a decent range.

High Load, Low Altitude, Low Speed
These have some overlap with the low load creatures, in that they can simply carry lots of infantry from place to place. However, these can also carry heavier things, which gives them broader utility. For instance, they could supply boulders to conventional siege engines, and help with supply trains in less than ideal environments. If the loads are high enough, they could also be useful moving the siege engines themselves, which makes retreat without losing them easier, and deployment nightmarish.

High Load, Low Altitude, High Speed
These are primarily battlefield and strategic movement units. The high load and speed makes them useful for mass deployment, mass evacuation and rapid movement of siege engines. They're also useful hunting down high load, low altitude, low speed mounts. Their direct battlefield use is against massed infantry and cavalry, flying low with boulders, then throwing them. These boulders have largely horizontal movement and can likely kill lots of infantry or cavalry each.

High Load, High Altitude, Low Speed
These are bombers, and anti air units. In siege situations, they can drop boulders and do far more damage than conventional siege engines. In battlefield situations, they're better off dropping lots and lots of smaller rocks, a rain of rocks could cover a large area, and be incredibly destructive. In both cases, incendiaries are also useful, as the high impact on the ground leads to large areas covered, alternately it can be dropped in liquid form from the air, as a rain of fire.

High Load, High Altitude, High Speed
These can do everything any of the others can do, and likely do their jobs better. However, they are particularly notable for strategic movement. They can move troops right over enemy air cavalry unable to sustain the altitude, they can out maneuver high altitude but slower mounts, and they bring a lot of gear. They are also notable for the capacities shared with their low speed counterparts.

GraaEminense
2012-04-11, 11:53 AM
Bah, partially ninja'd.

Game mechanics aside, it all comes down to the setting and to the abilities of the animal.

In a semi-realistic setting, any kind of flyer would change the game enormously -much like aircraft historically did. As scouts and couriers they would make information much more available, especially in a world without radio. If they can carry significant weight they would be useful as bombers or troop transports, and would make it much harder to defend territory and defence in depth would be crucial. Warfare would have to adapt, but so would politics and all kinds of commerce depending on information or rapid transportation.

But, the more things in the setting that can do what flying cavalry can, the less impact they will have. In a high-fantasy setting with plenty of scrying, teleportation and Boots of Fanciful Flight available, they would probably be superfluous. The availability of flyer-killers (wizards, gunpowder, really big hawks) also matters -in a medieval setting without magic they would be pretty invulnerable, in a world with Wands of Flak not so much.

So what is the mount, and what is the setting?

Lord Tyger
2012-04-11, 12:03 PM
I know you said mechanics aside, but the mechanics (basic, if not game specific) are important to how they're to be used. How high and fast can they fly? How far? How easy are they to shoot down? How much can they carry, and what sort of munitions at those weights are available in your setting?

If they're only capable of a couple hours of sustained flight per day, then they have a completely different role, strategically and tactically, then if they can fly all day without fatigue becoming a concern. Something that can float a hundred feet off the ground is probably a lot easier to shoot down than something that can frolic among the clouds.

Karoht
2012-04-11, 12:08 PM
I would imagine their use to me more like the Hussars and Bow-Cavalry of old.
Except now they can strike almost anywhere on the battlefield, they have gravity mostly on their side for range and even impact, and even just dropping a load of rocks from a high height would be rather deadly, never mind dropping more strategic impliments such as handfuls of caltrops or buckets of oil.

Okay, someone is sieging my castle. They have footman at the front and archers at the rear. Great. My Gryphon riders fly around to the rear flank and fling Javalins at them, or shoot them, all from a height that the arrows likely can not reach, but the javalins and other ammo being fired down can in fact reach their formation.
To make matters worse, before the aerial assault, I drop a few shock troops behind them too, in order to cover retreat and cause disarray in their rear ranks, disrupt/destroy/capture supplies, etc.

So yeah, think of the Hussars, but with incredible reach to pretty much anywhere on the battlefield, and more tactical options like dropping caltrops and oil as well.

The minute it turns into an air to air combat, it gets dicey in a hurry. The opening volley of arrows/javalins will be devastating to both sides. Air to air melee isn't likely to occur.

Socratov
2012-04-11, 12:18 PM
well, for starters, it's faster then infantry. It's more agile then cavalary, and opens up options. Wheter it's scouting, ranged fighting, or attacking behind the enemy lines (for instance to get to the mages behind the enemy infantry). It also removes any territorial obstacles for messengers. recon becomes easier, battelfield directions become easier (imagine the general shouting orders from above to all troops, being able to oversee all of the battlefield). The sky is literally the limit.

Spiryt
2012-04-11, 12:47 PM
All right, let me put it a different way: if you have more horses than you need for the army, there are plenty of civilians who could use them. Similarly, if you don't have enough, you can always buy or requisition from civilians. Very few people would have a need for a griffon or the money to support one (they're carnivorous, and that makes them expensive to feed).



Horses are also very expensive to feed, especially any kind of 'performance' horses won't eat any junk that grows out there.

Argument with buying etc. them again can only stand for some cheap, not picky plough beasties, civilians won't have warhorses, fleet horses, coursers etc. in any sensible numbers.

Similarly no one normal will give some civilian his horse to 'use them' even if he's filthy rich.



Okay, someone is sieging my castle. They have footman at the front and archers at the rear. Great. My Gryphon riders fly around to the rear flank and fling Javalins at them, or shoot them, all from a height that the arrows likely can not reach, but the javalins and other ammo being fired down can in fact reach their formation.
To make matters worse, before the aerial assault, I drop a few shock troops behind them too, in order to cover retreat and cause disarray in their rear ranks, disrupt/destroy/capture supplies, etc.

Again, it depends on type of fantasy flying cavalry we're talking about here:

In more 'realistic' try at it, sensible amount of javelins and rocks, let alone shock trooper, is way to heavy and cumbersome stuff to raise to air by the power of muscles.

One would rather assume that somehow petite men/women without a lot of burden would be able to ride the pegasus/griffin reliably and on somehow larger distances.

Assuming that heavily armed and prepared warriors go, then two men on one griffin won't fly.

They have nothing to do with their mounts at the rears of army, probably will have to leave few of them to tend to them to keep them ready for retreat. And a lot of other logistic problems.

If we assume that "everything flies" , then really capabilities exceed stones and javelins greatly. 300 pounds of boiling tar or whatever, and one can set whole meadow at fire, I guess.


Similarly, culture around those beats would matter a lot - rare, mythical creatures tamed and raised together with their raiders since childhood, with unique bond etc.?

Or almost mass produced in some huge stables, horses with wings?

kieza
2012-04-11, 01:37 PM
Horses are also very expensive to feed, especially any kind of 'performance' horses won't eat any junk that grows out there.

Argument with buying etc. them again can only stand for some cheap, not picky plough beasties, civilians won't have warhorses, fleet horses, coursers etc. in any sensible numbers.

Similarly no one normal will give some civilian his horse to 'use them' even if he's filthy rich.

I'm not saying that farmers have warhorses. However, horse breeders would have breeds that that can be trained into warhorses, but would normally be used for something else. If your cavalry takes a lot of casualties, you find a horse breeder with the right breed of horses and buy some to train up. They aren't always perfect substitutes, but it's a better situation than with griffons, where there aren't any breeders who aren't already supplying the military.

What I'm trying to get across is that with griffons, the military is presumably using the entire supply of untrained griffons, whereas there is usually some untapped supply of horses, either an outright surplus, or some breeds that normally wouldn't be trained as warhorses, but could be in a pinch. Thus, losing a mount is a worse outcome for griffon riders than for normal cavalry.

Ashtagon
2012-04-11, 02:27 PM
I'm not saying that farmers have warhorses. However, horse breeders would have breeds that that can be trained into warhorses, but would normally be used for something else. If your cavalry takes a lot of casualties, you find a horse breeder with the right breed of horses and buy some to train up. They aren't always perfect substitutes, but it's a better situation than with griffons, where there aren't any breeders who aren't already supplying the military.

What I'm trying to get across is that with griffons, the military is presumably using the entire supply of untrained griffons, whereas there is usually some untapped supply of horses, either an outright surplus, or some breeds that normally wouldn't be trained as warhorses, but could be in a pinch. Thus, losing a mount is a worse outcome for griffon riders than for normal cavalry.

Historically, the military did use the entire supply of horses that were suitable as heavy chargers. The supply issues raised with replacing a flying mount are exactly the same issues that the real world military had with replacing heavy warhorses able to carry an armoured knight.

These "horse breeders" you mention that have horses suitable for rapid training as replacement destriers simply didn't exist. For most areas in mediaeval Europe, military resources were operated on a command-economy basis (even civilian life worked that way in many areas). The only horse breeders allowed to have horses suitable for military use were under direct control of the nobles. For similar reasons of security, civilians without security clearance are not allowed access to tank factories.

Karoht
2012-04-11, 02:28 PM
Again, it depends on type of fantasy flying cavalry we're talking about here:

One would rather assume that somehow petite men/women without a lot of burden would be able to ride the pegasus/griffin reliably and on somehow larger distances.
Indeed. Assuming small, agile riders with bows and some arrows, a single flask of oil, and since they are lightweight, a bag or three of caltrops. Heck, shortbows are pretty likely, maybe even just lightweight throwing darts and let gravity do the bulk of the work.

Halflings are light, and they get racial bonuses to throwing stuff, if we want to start talking game terms.

Jay R
2012-04-11, 02:33 PM
Nobody has worked out how flying mounted troops should be used, so the first noble who works it out would have an incredible advantage. This means that there is infinite scope for new ideas.

In the middle ages, warhorses were expense to raise and train, and were primarily used only by the elite (knights and such). A cavalry unit had vastly greater mobility, height, and mass, which allowed smaller units to have a major effect.

Flying units would be even more rare. The mobility of the flying unit is greater, as is the height, but the mass would only matter if they landed for a charge.

The biggest difference is that the battlefield is no longer two dimensional. A cavalry charge can smash through the lines of infantry, stopped only by pike squares, with an invulnerable perimeter of layered pikes. But a flying unit doesn't have to attack the perimeter. Once the infantry form a pike square, the flying cav can attack in the middle and scatter them. So a single unit of flyers would eliminate the best defense against cavalry. I think I want one unit of flying cav for every ten units of cavalry.

A major use of aircraft is bombardment. They wouldn't be able to carry a heavy load, but they can vastly increase the value of magic. Imagine dropping loads of petroleum or smoke powder just before a fireball. Dropping loads of caltrops in front of the invaders would be useful, and the caltrops appear exactly where needed.

And the flyers only have to drop a few rocks to force the enemy to look up, instead of at your ground troops. In fact, imagine only two or three riders dropping bombs, amid an illusion of a hundred more.

Finally, flyers don't have to wade through the lines. If I have the only flying unit, they can attack the enemy's command post directly, and ignore all the warriors in front (as long as they fly above missile range). The enemy's battle structure can be (largely) ignored.

And then there are all the things an invisible flyer can set up. Get creative! In my last battle, I had a single invisible wizard flying behind the lines. He started the battle by killing the troll unit with two fireballs, while out of missile range of anyone else. He then cast Improved Invisibility and continued to harass the lines, while the main force was starting to attack. A Wall of Fog starting directly behind the front line meant the archers behind couldn't shoot at our cavalry, while our cavalry knew exactly where to charge.

warty goblin
2012-04-11, 02:44 PM
Indeed. Assuming small, agile riders with bows and some arrows, a single flask of oil, and since they are lightweight, a bag or three of caltrops. Heck, shortbows are pretty likely, maybe even just lightweight throwing darts and let gravity do the bulk of the work.

Halflings are light, and they get racial bonuses to throwing stuff, if we want to start talking game terms.

The difficulty hitting anything from the back of a flying horse is probably difficult to overstate. Horse archer is already extremely difficult, and shooting from the back of a faster moving, likely even less stable platform moving in three dimensions is going to be brutally hard.

This means you're going to have to swoop low in order to have enough chance of inflicting damage to be anything more than a nuisance to a well disciplined enemy. That in turn renders your force very vulnerable to conventional archers. Cavalry - even armored cavalry - can be stopped by arrowstorm, and horses (or whatever else) with big flapping wings and no armor are going to be even less arrow resistant, albeit harder to hit.

For recon they'd be a godsend, and they'd be handy for raiding if you could get enough, but in direct combat they seem like a less effective, more expensive horse archer.

Ashtagon
2012-04-11, 03:01 PM
The difficulty hitting anything from the back of a flying horse is probably difficult to overstate. Horse archer is already extremely difficult, and shooting from the back of a faster moving, likely even less stable platform moving in three dimensions is going to be brutally hard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yorHswhzrU

Lajos Kassai disagrees with you. Although to be sure, his targets are about 20-30 yards away. Otoh, he is firing at individual targets, whereas foot archers aimed at an area (a unit of soldiers), not an individual target.


This means you're going to have to swoop low in order to have enough chance of inflicting damage to be anything more than a nuisance to a well disciplined enemy. That in turn renders your force very vulnerable to conventional archers. Cavalry - even armored cavalry - can be stopped by arrowstorm, and horses (or whatever else) with big flapping wings and no armor are going to be even less arrow resistant, albeit harder to hit.

For recon they'd be a godsend, and they'd be handy for raiding if you could get enough, but in direct combat they seem like a less effective, more expensive horse archer.

If I had air units in an army, I've make them mounted archers, and use them against melee troops, keeping them well away from foot archers.

I'd also consider using them for their airlift capability, depending on their strength. The 'pilot' and mount would have to stay united though. Anyone trained to control a flying mount is too valuable to use as mere infantry.

Tvtyrant
2012-04-11, 03:15 PM
One thing we haven't mentioned is that a lot of flying mounts are carnivores. The cost of keeping a carnivore is something on the order of 100 times keeping a similarly sized herbivore, because you have to feed it farm animals.

So if you have a 1,000 pound griffon it is going to cost you tremendous amounts in order to pay for food for the cows, pigs, or other livestock which you are then feeding to the griffon.

Seharvepernfan
2012-04-11, 03:31 PM
Most of this has already been said, but: They are very expensive, and probably rare too. They won't be risked in direct combat, except in very special situations. They are mostly archery/mage platforms, recon, scouting, surveillance, messengers, supply, and insertion/evac. A specially defended aerial mount with a highly capable rider might be used in direct combat against other aerial mounts or other VIP enemies.

Also, people always say that castles would be obsolete in a D&D world, but that's just not true. It's like saying that fences, locked doors, and roofs are useless in real life. The castle keeps out all but those who can get past the walls or break them down, and those that can are relatively rare. Also, a castle in a D&D world is probably going to be a glorified gatehouse to a dungeon, which those fliers and wall-breakers are going to have difficulty with.

I imagine castles would have "roofs" in a D&D world, whether just screens to block sight or actual solid roofs for protection. They might also have magic wards to block scrying, teleportation, etc. Hell, they might end up being somewhat dome-like, or ziggurat shaped, kinda like colonial forts.

Spiryt
2012-04-11, 03:34 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yorHswhzrU

Lajos Kassai disagrees with you. Although to be sure, his targets are about 20-30 yards away. Otoh, he is firing at individual targets, whereas foot archers aimed at an area (a unit of soldiers), not an individual target.


Well, not sure what's the point - dude is Guiness record holder in this stuff, and indeed hits some close targets in very comfortable conditions, with probably as many attempts as he wanted, without stress etc...

His immense skills doesn't change the fact that horse archery is indeed difficult as hell.


I agree with Warty goblin - the problem with actual shooting from beyond the range of enemy missiles is pretty big one.

Assuming that gravity can assure decent effectiveness even from very large distances - which is good point - still the larger distance/height gets, one slight shake of the arm will result in missing by meters and then dozens
of meters.

It's pretty unavoidable, 0.5 degree of difference at the release will result in completely different trajectory provided enough distance....

And imprecision large even as bow shooting goes, would be hard to avoid at flying mount...


Indeed. Assuming small, agile riders with bows and some arrows,

Getting small riders will tend to limit poundage of bow they can employ, especially since they cannot use their legs etc. as foot archers.

Drawing a heavy bow is in good part technique to use muscles optimally, but still physical limitations will stay the same.

Captain Six
2012-04-11, 03:50 PM
A flying mount would probably work better as a siege weapon than cavalry. Assuming no magic, other than the existence of a griffon-like creature, I'd probably train a rider to focus entirely on maneuverability and dropping large rocks. Probably give them a crossbow to snipe other griffon riders from doing the same thing. Even just harassing the griffon into bucking off his rider would be enough to put it out of commission and perhaps count it among the spoils of the battle. Which brings me to point two: Putting your strongest warrior on one would be a terrible idea. If that warrior were to have his horse shot out from under him he'd get a bit bruised or injured falling off (and most rule systems don't even bother with the possibility) stand up and then keep on fighting. He couldn't do that falling off a griffon. The fatality rate on such a rider would be incredible.

Elvenoutrider
2012-04-11, 04:07 PM
Once you have already spent as much as it takes to have the flying mount and the soldier with the training to ride it, why not fork over the extra money for a bigger weapon. Flying cavalry shouldnt be engaging the enemy within range of their cavalry, they should be armed with wands of fireball or some setting equivalent so they could do a large amount of damage and still stay out of reach of the enemy infantry. A full squad of mounted cavalry should be in charge of carpet bombing the enemy forces or transporting high valued individuals such as healers or wizards. If your force doesnt have enough money for this kind of weaponry the mounted units should be couriers or scouts, not combatants.

This all of course changes depending on the tech level of the campaign. A setting with blimps and repeating firearms would change around everything I wrote in the last paragraph. A setting with modern firearms would have no use for air cavalry.

Diskhotep
2012-04-11, 06:07 PM
I highly recommend Naomi Novik's Temeraire novels. They are set in an alternate earth where many species of dragons exist. Most nations have tamed/trained dragons to serve as an air force. Since the novels take place in the Napoleonic era and the dragons are quite large, they tend to have not only pilots but full crews like a sailing vessel.

It's basically Master and Commander on dragonback. The mechanics of aerial combat are well thought out, and dragons are treated almost like living aircraft as opposed to flying mounts.

dps
2012-04-11, 08:32 PM
The most simple way would be mounted infantry. Using the flying mounts for rapid movement, but leaving them behind in a battle. You just can't fight with melee weapons in flight and if the mounts are doing all the fighting, they would do a lot better if they are not burdened by carrying the extra weight of a rider who doesn't contribute anything.

But having infantry that can move at great speed and ignore terrain, and even pass over enemy lines to some extend, would be extremely valuable.

Yep. Look at airmobile units in the real world--they fly to the battle zone in helicopters, but they fight as infantry once they get there.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-04-11, 09:05 PM
In a D&D-style universe, Flying Cavalry would only be used for the transport of elite troops. Either they work as mobile weapons platforms (caster + mount) or low-tech commando drops (PC + mount) but they're not going to be mass-deployed for war-fighting for the reasons stated above.

Their most obvious use is as scouts. In particular, flying scouts with access to instant communication (e.g. Sending) can give an army of any size a tremendous advantage against forces not similarly equipped. Without instant communication they are much less useful but can function as long-distance messengers.

Of course, this has all been said before. What hasn't been said is that flying mounts are intelligent. That means they can drop off someone and be told to fly home -- which allows a small unit of fliers to do impressive troop deployment even without finagling an additional rider on them.

kieza
2012-04-11, 11:15 PM
Now that we seem to agree about flying cavalry being support troops, where do airships come into the picture? Aircraft carriers? Battleships? Bombers? I'm working on a setting with both, so I'm curious how you think they'd be used in conjunction.

Oracle_Hunter
2012-04-11, 11:47 PM
Now that we seem to agree about flying cavalry being support troops, where do airships come into the picture? Aircraft carriers? Battleships? Bombers? I'm working on a setting with both, so I'm curious how you think they'd be used in conjunction.
A lot depends on how you design you airships.

If they're classic "gasbag" airships then they shouldn't be moving too fast but they should have massive carrying capacity. If technology is worthwhile in your setting (i.e. it makes more sense to have a bigger canon than hire a wizard) then these will make excellent artillery platforms. They have superior spotting and a ridiculously long horizon.

If, instead, you're making "magic airplane" airships then they'll function much like modern airplanes to the extent that technology is not outstripped by magic. In particular, large-scale materiel transport works well since magic generally has a problem with transporting lots of people or things long distances.

Kogak
2012-04-12, 01:38 AM
I highly recommend Naomi Novik's Temeraire novels. They are set in an alternate earth where many species of dragons exist. Most nations have tamed/trained dragons to serve as an air force. Since the novels take place in the Napoleonic era and the dragons are quite large, they tend to have not only pilots but full crews like a sailing vessel.

It's basically Master and Commander on dragonback. The mechanics of aerial combat are well thought out, and dragons are treated almost like living aircraft as opposed to flying mounts.

I was going to suggest just this. Each sort of dragon in the books is placed in some sort of category, with the smallest being approximately the size of a horse (if I recall) and being limited to scout, sentry and messenger duty. The largest would have many crew members to perform 'boarding actions' and repel enemies. With only one person flying a mount large enough to carry three, you are vulnerable to anybody smart enough to have two friends dumb enough to try to jump from one flying creature to another. As mentioned above, everything else depends largely upon the types and availability.

I would have a hard time seeing any kingdom lacking in some form of air support however expensive though. Another book series (1632 by Eric Flint) is an alternate history that later addresses the changes to basic warfare planes brought even without weapons. The available intelligence on enemy movements hundreds of miles away makes many maneuvers extremely difficult to pull off. Particularly if you have no idea what the commander with said flying units is doing yourself. If I recall one of the first difficulties facing aviators in WWI (aside from firing through propellers) was how to bring down observation balloons. Non-mobile aerial platforms were giving one side (German I believe, it has been a long time) such an advantage that generals felt the need to dedicate their own aircraft to their destruction.

Ricky S
2012-04-12, 01:46 AM
Ooh something to throw at my PC's.

I dont know about you guys but I think the best way to use them is for battle wizards. Flying above the battlefield and sending fireballs into enemy ranks seems like the best way of doing it. Why fire a single arrow when you can blast an entire area? The issue of weight doesnt really come into play either as the flying mount will only have to carry a wizard who is usually the lightest person in a party. Accuracy is also a non issue.

Killer Angel
2012-04-12, 02:10 AM
I dont know about you guys but I think the best way to use them is for battle wizards. Flying above the battlefield and sending fireballs into enemy ranks seems like the best way of doing it. Why fire a single arrow when you can blast an entire area? The issue of weight doesnt really come into play either as the flying mount will only have to carry a wizard who is usually the lightest person in a party. Accuracy is also a non issue.

A wizard can already do this, flying by himself and staying invisible.
Putting him on a pegasus / griffon, only creates a primary target for retaliations. You're basically placing two very valuable assets in a single place... if you lose 'em, it would be painful.

Jay R
2012-04-12, 11:23 AM
Battle support, yes. But I still think a single elite fighting unit that doesn't have to fight through their lines is an immense asset. As soon as the enemy's shield wall or pike square is formed, attack from behind or inside.

Medieval battle formations concentrate their firepower on the front. The flying unit doesn't have to attack these Maqinot lines.

CGforever!
2012-04-12, 03:16 PM
A wizard can already do this, flying by himself and staying invisible.
Putting him on a pegasus / griffon, only creates a primary target for retaliations. You're basically placing two very valuable assets in a single place... if you lose 'em, it would be painful.

Yes, but the caster flies at the mounts' speed, doesn't use his own spells for the flight (saving them for attack spells), isn't dispellable, and has a few other lesser uses. You could even put two small sized casters on one.

CGforever!
2012-04-12, 03:19 PM
A wizard can already do this, flying by himself and staying invisible.
Putting him on a pegasus / griffon, only creates a primary target for retaliations. You're basically placing two very valuable assets in a single place... if you lose 'em, it would be painful.

Yes, but the caster flies at the mounts' speed, doesn't use his own spells for the flight (saving them for attack spells), isn't dispellable, and has a few other lesser uses. You could even put two small sized casters on one.

Ashtagon
2012-04-12, 03:38 PM
How useful would air cavalry lancers be anyway? I imagine that any attempt to charge at ground targets would run a very real risk of impaling their lances into the ground. Ground cavalry doesn't have that issue because of the more horizontal attack angle.

warty goblin
2012-04-12, 03:46 PM
How useful would air cavalry lancers be anyway? I imagine that any attempt to charge at ground targets would run a very real risk of impaling their lances into the ground. Ground cavalry doesn't have that issue because of the more horizontal attack angle.

Of very limited use. All the people on the ground need to do is keep their spears pointed upwards and unless you fancy disemboweling your griffon on the first pass, you aren't gonna be stabbing anybody. Even flying low enough to strike with a spear seems very hazardous to me

Could be quite handy for chasing down fleeing people though.

Jay R
2012-04-12, 11:28 PM
How useful would air cavalry lancers be anyway? I imagine that any attempt to charge at ground targets would run a very real risk of impaling their lances into the ground. Ground cavalry doesn't have that issue because of the more horizontal attack angle.Of very limited use. All the people on the ground need to do is keep their spears pointed upwards and unless you fancy disemboweling your griffon on the first pass, you aren't gonna be stabbing anybody. Even flying low enough to strike with a spear seems very hazardous to me

Which is why you do this right when the cavalry is about to strike their front.

Use a mix of units. I want about one flying cav unit for every ten regular cav. The best defense against cav is a pike square, but that leaves no pikes free to point upward. or, if all the pikes are pointing upward the cavalry charge is unopposed.

We all know the value of a flank attack. The flying cav have just opened up a whole new dimension (literally) of flanking maneuver.

Killer Angel
2012-04-13, 02:24 AM
Yes, but the caster flies at the mounts' speed, doesn't use his own spells for the flight (saving them for attack spells), isn't dispellable, and has a few other lesser uses. You could even put two small sized casters on one.

Phantom steed gives you a similar goodness. A couple of spells won't affect too much the wizard's options, and if someone can dispel the magic mount, can also easily kill the livin one.
But this is not the real point: I'm not sayin it wouldn't work, I'm saying that a flying mount usually has a better use carrying peoples that cannot fly by themselves.

Ashtagon
2012-04-13, 06:02 AM
Which is why you do this right when the cavalry is about to strike their front.

Use a mix of units. I want about one flying cav unit for every ten regular cav. The best defense against cav is a pike square, but that leaves no pikes free to point upward. or, if all the pikes are pointing upward the cavalry charge is unopposed.

We all know the value of a flank attack. The flying cav have just opened up a whole new dimension (literally) of flanking maneuver.

Most in-game flying creatures large enough and willing enough to count as mounts cannot hover. This makes it practically impossible to maintain a unit formation and coordinate a charge with another unit elsewhere (such as on the ground).

Jay R
2012-04-13, 10:44 AM
Most in-game flying creatures large enough and willing enough to count as mounts cannot hover. This makes it practically impossible to maintain a unit formation and coordinate a charge with another unit elsewhere (such as on the ground).

If I know the speed of both units, I can easily start them so that they hit the line at the same time. The easiest way is to fly at the same speed as the cavalry charge, forty feet ahead. Drop one rock or bomb as you pass the front line, and turn and land thirty feet past the front line.

It doesn't need to be exact. I can get distracted when a flight of pigeons passes over; surely hippogriffs overhead will distract the line to some extent, even if they don't hit at the exact same second.

hydroplatypus
2012-04-13, 11:36 AM
I always think of areal cavalry as bombers in D&D settings. Basically you get somebody onto a griffon or something and give him either a bag of holding filled with rocks, or a necklace of fireballs. At max altitude a type 1 bag of holding deals 20d6/1 pound object, so 17500 damage average over the area the rocks hit at (if my calculations are correct). Alternatively give him a few necklaces of fireball and have him throw them downwards. Not nearly as effective, but much more flashy.

If this seems cheap then hire a halfling to ride with you and shove a few people into a type 4 bag of holding. Give the halfling feather fall somehow, and when he hits the ground have him open the bag. If each soldier weight about 200lb with gear than you have just gotten 7 troops per bag to the rear of the enemy. Bags may be retrievable later. Alternatively simply land and take the people out of the bag, and go back to your army for more troops.

There are even good reasons to do this. Suppose a relatively low level world. An empire has only 3 wizards capable of casting fly or similar. So instead of putting them in combat unless an emergency pops up they are set to crafting magic items. This allows their flying cavalry to attempt similar tactics using the wizards magic items.

Also if I ever get around to running a campaign I am so using air-dropped shock troops on the PCs. Seems a marvelous idea. Probably wouldn't use the bag of holding cluster bomb idea, as it seems too cheap. Too much damage for too little effort.

Jay R
2012-04-13, 12:27 PM
Also if I ever get around to running a campaign I am so using air-dropped shock troops on the PCs. Seems a marvelous idea. Probably wouldn't use the bag of holding cluster bomb idea, as it seems too cheap. Too much damage for too little effort.

But it's so iconic: "Rocks fall; everybody dies."

Knaight
2012-04-13, 12:40 PM
But it's so iconic: "Rocks fall; everybody dies."

It also seems relatively easy to counter for a small group of individuals with some magic capability, where it really isn't for an army. In D&D, this would be a mere Wall of Stone, that catches a bunch of the rocks and leaves a gap due to the horizontal velocity, in most fairly free Noun-Verb systems there are numerous ways to handle it, in a system based on summoning there are living shields, so on and so forth.

Plus, as long as we are assuming that there are extra dimensional spaces, putting one of those in the way should work beautifully.

Diamondeye
2012-04-13, 12:56 PM
Now that we seem to agree about flying cavalry being support troops, where do airships come into the picture? Aircraft carriers? Battleships? Bombers? I'm working on a setting with both, so I'm curious how you think they'd be used in conjunction.

What do you mean by these terms? Actual waterborne battleships and carriers? They'd come into play in more or less the same ways as they did historically. In pretty much any fantasy setting you could plausibly have a small "aircraft carrier" of a large ship with a 6-12 pegasus-mounted troops.

If you mean flying aircraft carriers and battleships (i.e. not flying in outer space, but in the atmosphere) they're really kind of impractical and most actual justifications for them end up being silly and amateurish. If you just think they're cool, you can think up just about any justification for them you want since they have no real-world equivalent. They have the size and vulnerability of a real ship, but are way up in the air where they are easily attacked by antiair weaponry, and they would be far less resistant to damage than a water borne ship becuase you only need to knock out it's ability to fly and it crashes.

Bomber depends on what kind of bomber you mean. A close-air-support attack aircraft or fighter bomber is a bomber of sorts (like flying cavalry being used on the battlefield in fantasy or an A-10 in real life), there are larger interdiction and medium-range bombers such as the F-15E, F-111, B-58, Su-24 or -34 or Panavia Tornado, and then there are strategic bombers like the B-52. A dragon could be a strategic bomber.

hamishspence
2012-04-13, 01:01 PM
A dragon could be a strategic bomber.

Or a very close air support unit, with Strafing Breath (Dragonlance Campaign Setting).

Wiwaxia
2012-04-13, 07:30 PM
One thing we haven't mentioned is that a lot of flying mounts are carnivores. The cost of keeping a carnivore is something on the order of 100 times keeping a similarly sized herbivore, because you have to feed it farm animals.

So if you have a 1,000 pound griffon it is going to cost you tremendous amounts in order to pay for food for the cows, pigs, or other livestock which you are then feeding to the griffon.

The majority of flying mounts would probably be pegasi, for this reason (although they'd still be much more costly than a regular horse, because flight takes a lot of energy). Unless griffons have a major advantage in terms of caring capacity, altitude, endurance, speed, etc., they'll probably only be for ceremonial purposes (something like a mounted lion). Dragons and anything else with an innate ranged weapon would probably justify the additional cost (depending on the strength of said weapon), as the rider doesn't have to be an archer, and they don't have to waste carrying capacity on rocks. Depending on your style of dragon, in terms of armor and firepower, they may even be able to approximate the abilities of WWI or even WWII fighter, albeit in vastly smaller numbers.


I thing the single biggest use for fliers would be hit and run raids on supply lines or encampments either via bombing or strafing, or by airlifting in infantry. Because the addition of a third dimension changes a siege so drastically, you might see flier mobilized; not for combat, but simply to keep the other side's fliers at bay (unless the fliers are low flying or slow, in which case archers would be about a effective, and cheaper).

hydroplatypus
2012-04-13, 07:52 PM
But it's so iconic: "Rocks fall; everybody dies."

Yup certainly iconic. I just don't want to be a mean DM. Now if they are intentionally screwing up the plot then maybe this is in the cards

I initially got the bag of holding bomber idea in a superweapon thread. People were talking about orbital bombardment and destroying idea after idea as there is a cap on fall damage. I though, well if we can't get around the cap, lets just drop more objects. Not the best super weapon from that thread (that goes to the guy who opened gates to the sun, and somehow crashed the moon into the earth if I remember correctly), but it certainly was among the more powerful ones that work by RAW. 17500 is certainly nothing to sneeze at, and as your level 1 mounted trooper can use it it becomes very useful.

Mithric Gunn
2012-04-13, 11:46 PM
If you're talking a standard fantasy world, seems flying cav would of two kinds:
1. as mentioned many times, flying dragoons. Comandos able to strike at will well behind enemy lines, mount up as the enemy reacts, and strike elsewhere.
and
2. Wizards. A wizard on foot can strengthen others, maybe throw a spell a good ways, depending on terrain. A mage on a flying beast can cast wherever he wants, without much worry of retaliation, even if he isnt capable of sustained flight magic(also, mounts are usually unaffected by spells that disrupt magic).

Also, to counter this advantage, I would assume flyers with natural forms of attack, especially intelligent creatures such as dragons. Building Underground fortresses could also help negate an enemies' flight advantage, forcing them to come to you, though sieges could get nasty.

Archery suffers from poor accuracy when combined with a flying mount, and requires accuracy or numbers to be effective. Magic items(bombs and the like) could work, though it seems dragoons could double up on those just as well.
Also keep in mind most flying mounts are potent weapons themselves. A griffon is more than capable of fighting alongside a dismounted dragoon, if trained well.