ANTI-CAV units

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:11 am

In the latest army book we discover the chineese anti-cav units . What seems strange is that they are relativly weak anti-cav units . The same with the byzantine menvlatoï . Those units are created in order to counter cavalry but a less efficient than others . they are equiped with heavy weapons which gives trhe a 0 bonus against charging cavalry . So lancers and spear armed cav always have à + factor against those units .

There is a problem here .

Perhaps a simple modification in the rules would correct , what I perceive as a problem in recreating the right effect . Units that have the specific mission of countering cavalry and equiped with HW could negate the spear and lance effect of the cavalry and it should be specified as a special ability in the army list ( but then why use offensive or defensive spearmen, units much more efficient against cavalry )

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:26 am

They are better against mounted than other Chinese Foot. Being HF the Cav do not get an extra POA in the open and being HF they do not suffer an extra minus in the Cohesion test.

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:43 am

And the HW means that armoured or HA cav don't get a POA for better armour in melee. I suspect that's the real benefit of these troops (as they are no better in terms of impact POA than MF Light Spear).

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:45 am

Perhaps they have Lt Sp and Hvy Wpn. As they are worse than HF Lt Sp and MF Off Sp.

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:56 am

bahdahbum wrote:Perhaps a simple modification in the rules would correct , what I perceive as a problem in recreating the right effect .

I hardly think we should change the rules because one person perceives there to be a problem !

I'm sure the list authors think the Anti-cav units have the right effect as they are - otherwise they would have classed them as spearmen, not heavy weapon.

Intothevalley · Post by **Intothevalley** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:03 pm

I don't think HW troops are that useful against mounted. In the open they're one down at impact against most mounted (even the LSpear types), and at best evens in the melee (most mtd have sword). If they stay steady then the mounted get to break off and charge in again at advantage in their next turn, so eventually they'll go down. The anti-cav units only have HW - I don't think that LSp/HW is a permitted combination.

As someone else has said HF are better against mounted than the MF mostly found in Chinese armies, but that still doesn't make them good.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:11 pm

Intothevalley wrote:... and at best evens in the melee (most mtd have sword)

They are at worst evens in melee, unless fighting in two directions. At best they may be ++ if some Burmese Unprotected Lt Sp cav fight them. I don't think there is anything in the rules preventing Lt Sp/Hvy Wpn. It would make no difference when fighting foot. And would improve performance against mounted to a perceived acceptable level.

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:46 pm

philqw78 wrote: I don't think there is anything in the rules preventing Lt Sp/Hvy Wpn.

It's not in the rules but I would say it's one of the unwritten rules of list design (like the fact that no troops can have full capabilities in missile, impact and melee).
IMO Light spear and heavy weapon are mutually exclusive - how can you be throwing or thrusting a spear whilst also weilding a two-handed weapon ?

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 12:56 pm

Polkovnik wrote:
philqw78 wrote: I don't think there is anything in the rules preventing Lt Sp/Hvy Wpn.
It's not in the rules but I would say it's one of the unwritten rules of list design (like the fact that no troops can have full capabilities in missile, impact and melee).
IMO Light spear and heavy weapon are mutually exclusive - how can you be throwing or thrusting a spear whilst also weilding a two-handed weapon ?

Szekeler LH have Bow, Lt Sp, Sw.
Put a point on your axe so its a bit like a spear, or put a chopper on your spear so its a bit like an axe. I think the Chinese may have done that.

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:04 pm

Yes, I know there are exceptions.

Didn't halberds have points on the end ? So swiss HW could be Light Spear also, by that argument. Surely if the authors thought they operated like spearmen they would class them accordingly.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 1:10 pm

I'm not saying they should be, but everybody else seems to think that since they are anti-cavalry they should be OK against Cav at impact. I really don't care

bahdahbum · Post by **bahdahbum** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:02 pm

it's not only chinese . Byzantines have the same kind of units . menvlatoi, designed to counter catapfract type charges and equiped with special sturdy spears, very thick . They had to stop/blunt the cav charges . But HW does not do a great job of it as they have no + against cavalry . The same for chineese anti cav units . There is a problem here . As said it might help to equip them with light spears as well ot find another simple legant solution as giving them a special + against cavalry because of training ..I did not speak of changing the rules but find a solution either inside the rules or adapt but very slightly .

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:30 pm

as hf they can probably take a charge (on a - poa) then they get to be a cheap way of fighting off the mounted as it doesnt matter how much heavy armour the cav have got.

seems reasonable to me

HW is the new super weapon - beware

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:34 pm

Not with my dice they dont. Even with a poa on Lt Chariots my billmen lose horribly !

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:56 pm

bahdahbum wrote:......As said it might help to equip them with light spears as well ot find another simple legant solution as giving them a special + against cavalry because of training ..I did not speak of changing the rules but .....

Yes you did - you asked for a "simple modification in the rules".
There are not going to be changes to the rules or army lists (well not in the near future anyway) so it's pointless saying this should be changed or that should be changed. It's not going to happen.
The list authors will have chosen the capabilities of these troops to most accurately reflect their performance. If you think their interpretation is incorrect you should provide evidence that these troops could stand up to a cavalry charge. Just being called anti-cav doesn't make them so !

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:52 pm

bahdahbum wrote:it's not only chinese . Byzantines have the same kind of units . menvlatoi, designed to counter catapfract type charges

Who used cataphracts against the Byzantines? In any case I thought the Menavlatoi were generally incorporated into the mass the archers/spear units and that seperately deploying them was not standard practice, but something done on occasion?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:10 pm

Polkovnik wrote: The list authors will have chosen the capabilities of these troops to most accurately reflect their performance.

As the list writers understand the performace ...

If you think their interpretation is incorrect you should provide evidence that these troops could stand up to a cavalry charge. Just being called anti-cav doesn't make them so !

There is even a forum dedicated to such things

batesmotel · Post by **batesmotel** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:13 pm

ethan wrote:
bahdahbum wrote:it's not only chinese . Byzantines have the same kind of units . menvlatoi, designed to counter catapfract type charges
Who used cataphracts against the Byzantines? In any case I thought the Menavlatoi were generally incorporated into the mass the archers/spear units and that seperately deploying them was not standard practice, but something done on occasion?

Sassanids are the obvious ones. There are also the fully armored Arab mace wielding cavalry mentioned in some sources around the Crusades that might count as similar. (They qualified as SHC in old WRG army lists. I'm not sure what the current thinking is about their historical basis. I haven't seen anything like them in the FoG Crusades lists.)

Chris

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:13 pm

ethan wrote:
bahdahbum wrote:it's not only chinese . Byzantines have the same kind of units . menvlatoi, designed to counter catapfract type charges
Who used cataphracts against the Byzantines?

Well the Praecepta and Taktika imagine enemy catafracts - major enemies of the period would be the Hamdanids and Fatimids; a bit of an interesting question really ...

In any case I thought the Menavlatoi were generally incorporated into the mass the archers/spear units and that seperately deploying them was not standard practice, but something done on occasion?

As the front rank of the infantry formation. This was obviously so successful that in the Taktika where Ouranos updates the Praecepta he recommends that it may be necessary to double the depth of the infantry formation ... (which incidently is one reason the Byzantines can have their infantry in 8s whilst other lists with similar infantry can't)

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:14 pm

batesmotel wrote:
ethan wrote:
bahdahbum wrote:it's not only chinese . Byzantines have the same kind of units . menvlatoi, designed to counter catapfract type charges
Who used cataphracts against the Byzantines? In any case I thought the Menavlatoi were generally incorporated into the mass the archers/spear units and that seperately deploying them was not standard practice, but something done on occasion?
Sassanids are the obvious ones.

Wrong period for the Nikeforian list.

ANTI-CAV units

ANTI-CAV units

Re: ANTI-CAV units