4 base skirmishing BGs

[david53]

And unless the LH player is extremely incompetent, the cavalry will never catch the LH by charging.

Unless you get within 2mu of course.

The LH player would have to be incompetent to move to within 2 MU in his own move. If the cav get within 2 MU in the cav move the LH player then just moves back in his own.

I find catching skirmishers with battle troops a very interesting dance. But probably very unrealistic.

Yes but would you have caught them in real life, would you have bothered at all. Say armoured Lancers would they catch swarms of Lighter horse no in fog there is a chance sometimes. Can Heavy foot catch LH no could they in real life?, medium foot whoever/whatever they were they are still foot should they catch Mounted not really.
What is being asked is a chance for proper troops to catch lights.

[nikgaukroger]

I remember being concerned that non skirmisehr shooting was not really effective enough compared to skirmishers through the testing phase but the various ideas tested to improve shooting from non skirmishers made their shooting too effective. Knocking back the effectiveness of skirmisher shooting by a CT modifier didn't occur to me at that time.

Indeed it is a comment that arises from time to time - in fact the boy Porter raised it only last night at Central London. Currently for most shooters in the lists if you have a choice between LF and MF the LF option is usually the non-brainer option unless you are using the shooters as supports. Such a no-brain choice cannot be right IMO.

Obviously there are a number of exceptions to this but there is usually an "add on" they have to their basic shooting function - English Longbowmen are obviously one (shooting les affected by armour, are Swordsmen), Christian Nubians are another (Superior) as are Immortals (Armoured and have an Impact capability).

[david53]

Currently 2 BGs of 4 LH will outshoot 1 BG of 4 armoured bow cavalry. It's an effect that seems a little strange.

Not really. LH move to shooting range. Shoot. Either LH has a small chance of disruption. Cav has a much greater chance. Next turn cav charges, probably won't catch them unless the LH is poorly positioned, and can bolster, and it won't get shot. This will also open a gap for support troops to pass through unhindered. But again this takes the situation in isolation and takes no account of what your support troops, nor indeed the remainder of your army is doing.

Well yes, it depends on what else is happening. The LH player could be shooting from the flank, or have other troops to charge the cavalry from the flank.
But on stand-up shooting, the cavalry have more chance of having to take CTs. And the solution that specialist shooting cavalry have to charge other shooters? Surely they should be shooting back at least as good if not better?

Arn't a lot off Cav/Bow/Sword Superior so re-roll their dice I can only think of a few Superior LH types?

[hammy]

Yes but would you have caught them in real life, would you have bothered at all. Say armoured Lancers would they catch swarms of Lighter horse no in fog there is a chance sometimes. Can Heavy foot catch LH no could they in real life?, medium foot whoever/whatever they were they are still foot should they catch Mounted not really.
What is being asked is a chance for proper troops to catch lights.

But in FoG armoured lancers can't catch light horse if the light horse are more than 2 MU away. Where is the issue? Even if the move of LH was dropped to 6MU armoured lancers would need to be within 3MU to catch them and there is no reason I can think of for bow armed light horse to be left within 3MU of cavalry that they can shoot from upto 4MU away from.

If for some reason the LH player decides to put his light horse right in the face of an enemy cavalry BG to stop them from wheeling or advancing by anything other than a charge then I don't have an issue with the light horse having a chance of being caught. To be honest if you are on a horse facing me and I am very close on a horse facing you then when I charge you you have to turn round and while you are doing that I might just catch you.

As things stand a BH of LH within 1 MU of a BG of cavalry will get away 11 times out of 12 which isn't bad. If LH only moved 6MU then they would still get away *edit again* 7 times out of 9.

[nikgaukroger]

So what your asking for is a major change in the rules then, but you call me a flat earther cause i don't agree with you. I still say cause a minority on the forum says something is broken dos'nt mean its correct.

Bear in mind that only a minority of players actually post on the forum, however, the Benny Hill stage is an issue that is frequently mentioned to me at competitions (along with amny other things ). Now I suspect that I get my ear bent on these sorts of things more than many as people perceive (rightly or wrongly) that I have some sort of influence over FoG so I suspect that I am in a better position than many to judge whether something is causing concern. (Apologies if that sounds rather big-headed, however, I think it is true - feel free to disabuse me if you wish )

BTW I am also quite sure that you don't get much in the way of Benny Hill because you are a decent chap who just doesn't do that and so it is less likely to appear in your games.

To compare AM to FOG R still dos'nt make it right from what i gather two different rule sets.

Indeed they are, however, they share a large amount of commom mechanism and the changes, in these cases, were made, on the whole, becuase of the FoG:AM experiences - so I would suggest that a suggestion they would be good for FoG:Am is not out of place.

BTW If CMT were passed on 8 for all troops whats the point of taking Drilled troops and paying the extra points for them.

Because when they pass Drilled troops can do things that Undrilled cannot - the double benefit I mentioned.

While were at it dropping LF to 4 MU are you going to drop MF to three MU or are they to move at the same speed as Lights? look out for loads more medium foot armies then.

Ah yes, I forgot to mention that - MF to 3MU as well (as in FoG:R) - good call.

[hammy]

Well yes, it depends on what else is happening. The LH player could be shooting from the flank, or have other troops to charge the cavalry from the flank.
But on stand-up shooting, the cavalry have more chance of having to take CTs. And the solution that specialist shooting cavalry have to charge other shooters? Surely they should be shooting back at least as good if not better?

Arn't a lot off Cav/Bow/Sword Superior so re-roll their dice I can only think of a few Superior LH types?

There are indeed quite a lot of superior bow sword cavalry about and 2 BGs of unprotected bow light horse cost less than one BG of armoured superior shooty cavalry.

With 2 BG of LH facing 4 cavalry in a single rank the LH will cause a CT on the cavalry 69% of the time. The cavalry will cause a CT on each BG of LH 34% of the time. In this situation where the AP are roughly equal the odds seem quite close for causing tests at least. Where there is an advantage to the LH is that there is a 6% chance the cavalry will lose a base as opposed to no chance the LH will lose a base.

There are quite a few armies that can have superior LH bow, it is just that they don't seem to see the table that often, possibly because people think that superior LH are a bit of overkill.

[peterrjohnston]

There are quite a few armies that can have superior LH bow, it is just that they don't seem to see the table that often, possibly because people think that superior LH are a bit of overkill.

The most extreme would be Vlad's army, in which you could take 11 BGs of LH who are superior, bow, light spear, swordsmen. Would be a bit short on generals though. Been tempted to try it for fun...

[hammy]

There are quite a few armies that can have superior LH bow, it is just that they don't seem to see the table that often, possibly because people think that superior LH are a bit of overkill.

The most extreme would be Vlad's army, in which you could take 11 BGs of LH who are superior, bow, light spear, swordsmen. Would be a bit short on generals though. Been tempted to try it for fun...

Huns, Mongols of all types, early Hungarian and I am sure there are a few more out there.

[Mehrunes]

Huns, Mongols of all types, early Hungarian and I am sure there are a few more out there.

Actually not very exotic armies. At least all three are played here in Germany (and the community is still sparse).

[grahambriggs]

BTW If CMT were passed on 8 for all troops whats the point of taking Drilled troops and paying the extra points for them.

Because drilled troops don't have to take CMTs in many moves types that undrilled troops do. Even if it was an 8 to pass, I'd still take drilled over undrilled for any non-skirmishers other than cavalry; drilled and undrilled cavalry being almost the same in capabilities.

Unfortunately there's a big difference between drilled and undrilled cavalry. The former can expand and move if they pass CMT. This greatly increases their ability to catch skirmishers in their restricted zone, so keeps LHa great deal more honest. That meant my 18 point undrilled EAP cavalry weren't too good at running LH to groud but the 19AP drilled guards were much better.

[david53]

There are quite a few armies that can have superior LH bow, it is just that they don't seem to see the table that often, possibly because people think that superior LH are a bit of overkill.

The most extreme would be Vlad's army, in which you could take 11 BGs of LH who are superior, bow, light spear, swordsmen. Would be a bit short on generals though. Been tempted to try it for fun...

Huns, Mongols of all types, early Hungarian and I am sure there are a few more out there.

Kushan,Ancient British,Alans,Picts,Sassanid Persian,Palmyrian,
Ottoman TurksSerbian,Bulgarian,Lithuanian,Polish,Catalan,AlbanianBlack Sheep Turcoman.

Two books only all over 16 bases average LH

[david53]

Well yes, it depends on what else is happening. The LH player could be shooting from the flank, or have other troops to charge the cavalry from the flank.
But on stand-up shooting, the cavalry have more chance of having to take CTs. And the solution that specialist shooting cavalry have to charge other shooters? Surely they should be shooting back at least as good if not better?

Arn't a lot off Cav/Bow/Sword Superior so re-roll their dice I can only think of a few Superior LH types?

There are indeed quite a lot of superior bow sword cavalry about and 2 BGs of unprotected bow light horse cost less than one BG of armoured superior shooty cavalry.

With 2 BG of LH facing 4 cavalry in a single rank the LH will cause a CT on the cavalry 69% of the time. The cavalry will cause a CT on each BG of LH 34% of the time. In this situation where the AP are roughly equal the odds seem quite close for causing tests at least. Where there is an advantage to the LH is that there is a 6% chance the cavalry will lose a base as opposed to no chance the LH will lose a base.

There are quite a few armies that can have superior LH bow, it is just that they don't seem to see the table that often, possibly because people think that superior LH are a bit of overkill.

How would you change this effect of LH average shooting at Superior Cavalry in one rank then that would'nt swing the balance too much in the cavalry favour?

[hammy]

How would you change this effect of LH average shooting at Superior Cavalry in one rank then that would'nt swing the balance too much in the cavalry favour?

As I said earlier I think that giving non skirmishers or at least steady non skirmishers a +1 on CT when shot may tone down skirmishers enough.

Overall I think that shooting is a touch too effective in FoG, you won't for example get the day long battles between horse archer armies and marching foot armies simply because the foot will get shot to pieces at no risk or at least no real risk to the lights.

Another alternative that I suspect you really won't like would be to remove or reduce the + on death roll from shooting for skirmishers or possibly more interrestingly for unprotected skirmishers.

[ethan]

To compare AM to FOG R still dos'nt make it right from what i gather two different rule sets.

Indeed they are, however, they share a large amount of commom mechanism and the changes, in these cases, were made, on the whole, becuase of the FoG:AM experiences - so I would suggest that a suggestion they would be good for FoG:Am is not out of place.

This is something I would really like to see post FoG R. Those rules that are differeint in R than AM because of experience playing the game - not because of historical changes, new troop or weapons, etc - harmonized with AM. If we think letting anyone wheel more than 90 degrees is a bad rule, let's get it into AM, etc.

Having the rules be the same as much as is historically reasonable also makes it so much more pleasant to try and play both sets of rules. The large number of minor changes from DBM to DBR that mostly seemed to be there so they were different rules really kept me from playing DBR.

[david53]

How would you change this effect of LH average shooting at Superior Cavalry in one rank then that would'nt swing the balance too much in the cavalry favour?

As I said earlier I think that giving non skirmishers or at least steady non skirmishers a +1 on CT when shot may tone down skirmishers enough.

Overall I think that shooting is a touch too effective in FoG, you won't for example get the day long battles between horse archer armies and marching foot armies simply because the foot will get shot to pieces at no risk or at least no real risk to the lights.

Another alternative that I suspect you really won't like would be to remove or reduce the + on death roll from shooting for skirmishers or possibly more interrestingly for unprotected skirmishers.

Not to keen on any off it to be honest.

I think the fact against armoured foot I need 5's to hit most foot in Bg's of eight bases need four hits to get a minus and you say the lights are over strong?

You wander across the table in your armoured BGs with the LH doing nothing to you in shooting(I would love to find this mystry great shooting the LH have) and yet you still feel the urge to swing it in favour of the non light troops?

This arguement has been brought up at least every 6 months about LH and before someone jumps in lets be honest thats what it is about. Peoples impression that LH are too good, too good at shooting too good at running away.

I'll go with Nic about the movement rates that should be brought in but wait for the outcry if you drop the medium foot to 3MU now that should be a laugh.

[hammy]

As I said earlier I think that giving non skirmishers or at least steady non skirmishers a +1 on CT when shot may tone down skirmishers enough.

Not to keen on any off it to be honest.
I think the fact against armoured foot I need 5's to hit most foot in Bg's of eight bases need four hits to get a minus and you say the lights are over strong?
You wander across the table in your armoured BGs with the LH doing nothing to you in shooting(I would love to find this mystry great shooting the LH have) and yet you still feel the urge to swing it in favour of the non light troops?
I'll go with Nic about the movement rates that should be brought in but wait for the outcry if you drop the medium foot to 3MU now that should be a laugh.

As you are an undoubted fan of light horse Dave I didn't think you would be keen.
If you see BGs of 8 armoured foot on a regular basis then I have to say that differs from what I have seen. Normally it is 6s of armoured and 8+ for protected. You almost never see 6s of protected because they are simply too vulnerable to shooting.
I would also suggest that skirmishing light horse should have next to no chance of hurting well armoured foot. Have you read the accounts of the battles in the Crusades? Infantry with a dozen arrows sticking out of their armour but no injury?

I have just thought of another variation on the +1 CT idea. In a lot of ways the issue is light horse at close to their maximum shooting range having significant effect on solid troops. What about +1 on the CT for steady troops who are shot entirely by skirmishers from more than 2 MU?

[nikgaukroger]

I have just thought of another variation on the +1 CT idea. In a lot of ways the issue is light horse at close to their maximum shooting range having significant effect on solid troops. What about +1 on the CT for steady troops who are shot entirely by skirmishers from more than 2 MU?

If you were going to go with that sort of CT modified I think you're starting to get more complication that is really worth it there. 4 MU is after all effective bow range.

[Delbruck]

One possible radical solution (which would never be adopted) is to do away withe the LH category, and instead make LH a function of formation of the cavalry. For example, a BG Huns in more than one rank is treated as cavalry is today but a BG in one rank has the movement ability of LH. Shooting for the cavalry would remain the same as today. To act as LH the cavalry would have to be in one rank, usually four bases wide. This would greatly restrict the ability of LH to dance around and gang up on the end of a line, but would retain the other movement abilities of LH.

Perhaps the this ability to move into one rank and act as LH could be restricted to those categorized as LH today. But I think they would need to have some disadvantage fighting normal cavalry straight up, equivalant to the disadvantage MF has against mounted in impact.

Hal

[nikgaukroger]

Peoples impression that LH are too good, too good at shooting too good at running away.

Leaving aside Tim's hippotoxatophobia there is a real reason for that. I'm a fan of LH armies and I think they're not quite right at the moment, both on a game and historical basis.

[david53]

I would also suggest that skirmishing light horse should have next to no chance of hurting well armoured foot. Have you read the accounts of the battles in the Crusades? Infantry with a dozen arrows sticking out of their armour but no injury?

True but I have read that the mongol bow was as powerful as the self bow used by there enemies. I'll go back and check the sources but I do think the steppe bow is quite strong.