Gaming in fantasy Central Asia: more notes on mounted combat

Back in my first post about Central Asia, I made the point that it's a setting in which horses are not optional. Now, that's not strictly true: depending on exactly where you are, you might prefer to ride a camel, a pony, a sled pulled by huskies, a reindeer, or even your own reflection. But you need to ride something. Without some kind of mount, the landscape will eat you alive.

See? This kid has the right idea!

This means that if a fight breaks out anywhere except a city or a dungeon, it's probably going to involve two groups of mounted combatants. So it's worth making a few notes about the differences that makes. 

1: If only one side is mounted, then they are at a huge tactical advantage.

Basically, the side that has horses gets to decide how the whole encounter plays out. If they decide to attack, you can't outrun them. If they decide to run off, you can't catch them. If they decide to stay at range, you can't close with them. If they decide to get up close and personal, you can't get away from them. Your only real hope is to even the odds by shooting their horses.

2: Being on the receiving end of a cavalry charge is utterly terrifying

Anyone other than trained soldiers should really need to make a morale check to stand their ground with a bunch of horsemen charging towards them. If they fail, they scatter, throw themselves prone, and generally do anything they can to avoid getting mown down.

3: Getting trampled by a warhorse will fuck you up

If infantry do stand their ground, then unless they have spears or similar weapons to hold the oncoming horsemen at bay, the cavalry can simply ride right over them. If you find yourself in this unenviable position, then you must make a REF save or take 1d6 damage from being kicked and trampled: a breastplate or heavy shield reduces this damage by 1, and half plate or better reduces it by 2. This is in addition to whatever damage you take from being whacked by the guy on the horse - who, remember, is probably at +2 damage.

4: Height disadvantages suck

Anyone on horseback gets +2 to-hit vs. human-sized targets on foot, unless the footman is carrying a spear or similar reach weapon. (A jezail with a bayonet would do the trick.) By the same token, anyone on foot who doesn't have a spear or similar weapon gets -2 to hit anyone on a horse. They don't get any penalty for attacks on the horse itself, though.

5: You should probably be aiming for the horse

Horses provide cover (+2 AC) for their riders against enemy missile fire. This means that it will usually be much easier to hit the damn horse. Horses have AC 13 unarmoured, AC 15 in light barding, and AC 18 in heavy barding; a normal horse has 10 HP, and a warhorse has 15. Two or three musket rounds should do the trick.

6: Just assume that everyone is an awesome horse(wo)man all the time

Your PCs, and everyone they're likely to meet, have all been riding their whole lives. So rather than a complex system of riding rules, just assume that you can reliably accomplish any ordinary feat of horsemanship, and so can everyone else. Really extreme feats might call for either a Dexterity roll (as you try to keep your balance in extraordinary circumstances) or a Charisma roll (as you try to coax that little bit of extra performance from your steed), but these should be kept to a minimum.

If you ever encounter people who aren't amazing horsemen - most travellers from the east or west, for example - then just assume that you're a better rider than them in absolutely every way, and that whatever they try to do, you can do ten times better, while also cleaning your musket and/or firing your bow over your own shoulder. Because you are just that good.