Re: Flying Magic in HeroQuest

From: danhalberd <dan_at_...>
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 21:11:10 -0000

• In HeroQuest-RPG_at_yahoogroups.com, Alison Place <alison_place_at_...> wrote:
  >
  > I'd argue for both the possibilities. Yes, if you
  > wish to visit the Sky Realm, this will take you there.
  > However, birds are the archetypal Sky creatures, and
  > the vast majority of their lives is spent in the
  > Middle Air very close to ground level. So, troops of
  > low-flying cavalry sound perfectly possible.
  >
  > I ask myself, though, whether flying cavalry in an
  > engaged battle is really a bright idea. (Mind you, if
  > it's possible, it will happen.) Yes, you can rain
  > arrows down from on high out of range, but your
  > accuracy diminishes badly. Using enough magic to
  > ensure continued accuracy will drain your reserves
  > pretty quickly.
  

In a battle when shooting at formed bodies of enemy troops such as heavy infantry or cavalry accuracy probably isn't that significant. Volume of fire directed in the correct general direction is what is required.

> Also, your horse will now need armour all over its
> body to protect from grievous belly wounds and
> shattering leg wounds if flying low enough to
> sharpshoot without magic. How much encumbrance can
> they fly with? When flying in the Middle Air (and
> anything in reasonable arrow range would be), sylphs
> would be a huge danger.

Historically skirmishing horse archers such as Skythians, Kimmerians, Huns etc. didn't use horse armour at all and generally didn't wear much personal armour either. They relied on their mobility to avoid enemy attack. This would certainly be enhanced by being air-mobile. The main danger that such troops faced historically was being charged by javalin or lance armed light or medium cavalry. The horse archers would then wish to keep their distance and there was a danger that a planned skirmishing retreat would turn into flight especially if they were poorly disciplined. They were however effective against heavier cavalry whose horses would tend to become winded in the pursuit before coming to effective range. Armoured horse archers were gnerally deployed either as heavy cavalry such as some Byzantines and Assyrians or some heavier Skythian cavalry. Some were also cataphrachts like Parthians.

I think an army without airmobile troops of their own would have serious problems dealing with them in the same way that infantry armies often had terminal problems dealing with horse archers.

> The major advantages of such cavalry might are their
> inherent manoeuvrability, plus great recon. Once the
> two sides are engaged, flying archers are mostly just
> a danger to both sides.
>
> I can see one other huge danger they can present - a
> crushing ground charge into an unprotected rear. If
> both sides have flying powers though, then you have
> dogfights all over the air. As in WWI, with not too
> much effect on the troops below. Both sides need the
> air abilities, but once both have them, not a lot
> changes. It's still the ground troops that take the
> battlefield.
>
> So, when both sides are used to their presence, their
> usefulness as a flying corps will often be limited to
> the preliminary stages.
>
> Alison