Steppe Cv

[philqw78]

I think the issue is that "Steppe cavalry", as far as we can tell, moved like LH and fought like cavalry.

To a degree that is an operational difference not a battlefield difference.

?? What? They should operate in the game far differently than they do now.

[Jilu]

Is this a FOG problem or a competition problem?

[nikgaukroger]

Is this a FOG problem or a competition problem?

FoG.

[hazelbark]

Are you suggesting that LH BGs not count toward the army BG total or that they only count half?

If a current 14 BG army of 10 LH and 4 Cv breaks on 14 AP, then it would now break on 9 (5 for the LH and 4 for the Cv), but LH losses carry full weight (e.g., lose 5 BGs of LH = 10 AP, winner winner chicken dinner)?

That would certainly make the LH more cautious. But yes that was my musing not a firm 2.0 suggestion.

[hazelbark]

I think the issue is that "Steppe cavalry", as far as we can tell, moved like LH and fought like cavalry.

To a degree that is an operational difference not a battlefield difference.

?? What? They should operate in the game far differently than they do now.

What I meant was Steppe CV vs LH moved via comparable methods and speeds in a campaign context. Meaning movement over days and weeks.

[spikemesq]

IIRC - Ethan Zorick noted a similar problem for Ottoman Akinjis (sp?) under DBM years ago. Their historical behavior straddled the Cv/LH troop types, and Ethan spitballed a hybrid troop type to capture that.

Would a hybrid troop type work here? It could be pretty easy to implement, since the Steppe Cv already are listed as "either Cv or LH." The question is what characteristics from the two types would combine into the hybrid?

Move/Shoot like LH (1dp2b), but Close Combat like Cv (full dice)?
Maneuver like LH (7MU and skirmisher CMTs), but flee/charge like Cv (evade in single rank only, can charge at will, cause threatened flanks, etc.)?

I don't know the historical details well enough to make these calls, but obviously the hybrid should not be the "best of both worlds" - or it will be way too pricey and lead to teeny tiny Steppe armies, causing other problems.

Spike

[Strategos69]

There is a type of troops behavour missing too for ancients. Roman, Greek or Carthaginian cavalry did not engage in frontal combat against infantry. That way, I would say it is ok for movement but not regarding combat factors against medium and heavy foot.

[dave_r]

There is a type of troops behavour missing too for ancients. Roman, Greek or Carthaginian cavalry did not engage in frontal combat against infantry. That way, I would say it is ok for movement but not regarding combat factors against medium and heavy foot.

That's because they had a fair idea of what would happen. Probably exactly the same as would happen in a game of FoG - i.e. they'd get stuffed.

Every set of wargames rules has people trying to make special cases for the bloody romans!!!

[Strategos69]

There is a type of troops behavour missing too for ancients. Roman, Greek or Carthaginian cavalry did not engage in frontal combat against infantry. That way, I would say it is ok for movement but not regarding combat factors against medium and heavy foot.

That's because they had a fair idea of what would happen. Probably exactly the same as would happen in a game of FoG - i.e. they'd get stuffed.

Every set of wargames rules has people trying to make special cases for the bloody romans!!!

I invite you to make the calculations between normal legions of the Republic (average impact foot, swordsmen) and cavalry superior and armoured, the cavalry usually Carthaginians, Gauls or Hellenistic armies can field. In an equal points scenario, that means that the legionaries are 8 and the cavalry four, the legionaries are better at impact with a mean of 2 hits for 1+5/9 for the cavalry (I guess because the legionaries were famous in beating enemy cavalry at clash) whereas at melee cavalry have a mean of hits of 3 and the legionaries of 2+2/3. It doesn't seem to me to be badly beaten almost always. And if these are the odds, why don't we see those accounts of battles of cavalry charging into the middle of the enemy formation?

That is why I think cavalry is too powerful in the actual definition of it against infantry and there is this type missing in between of a lighter cavalry good against other mounted but not that good against formed and steady infantry.

[timmy1]

Dave_r wrote

'Every set of wargames rules has people trying to make special cases for the bloody romans!!!'

and I say, 'quite right too', as the owner of 2 Roman armies (3 if you count my Papal Italian Condotta). I like Romans (I have been told that I play my FoG:R Swedes just like Romans too).

Give me one good reason where should not be special rules for Romans :)

[philqw78]

Well, I suppose they did give us the aquaduct

[timmy1]

and ...

[Strategos69]

and ...

and the roads too!

[dave_r]

I invite you to make the calculations between normal legions of the Republic (average impact foot, swordsmen) and cavalry superior and armoured, the cavalry usually Carthaginians, Gauls or Hellenistic armies can field. In an equal points scenario, that means that the legionaries are 8 and the cavalry four, the legionaries are better at impact with a mean of 2 hits for 1+5/9 for the cavalry (I guess because the legionaries were famous in beating enemy cavalry at clash) whereas at melee cavalry have a mean of hits of 3 and the legionaries of 2+2/3. It doesn't seem to me to be badly beaten almost always. And if these are the odds, why don't we see those accounts of battles of cavalry charging into the middle of the enemy formation?

That is why I think cavalry is too powerful in the actual definition of it against infantry and there is this type missing in between of a lighter cavalry good against other mounted but not that good against formed and steady infantry.

OK - I will make the calculations. On equal points, we are assuming that the Romans are Armoured, Average, Impact Food, Swordsmen facing Armoured, Superior, Light Spear Swordsmen. That gives 6 Romans v 4 Cavalry.

The legion is at + in impact - they are likely to win 2-1. That gives around a 50% chance of the Cavalry going disrupted and a 33% chance of a death. We will assume that one of these happens.

Therefore in Melee, the Legions have 6 dice against 3, with the fight at Evens. That will mean the legions should win 3-1 or 3-2. The Cavalry have a 50% chance of losing a base and around an 70% chance of going Fragmented. Assuming one of these happens the Cavalry are now stuffed.

Which is exactly why in history Carthaginian Cavalry didn't charge the centre of a Roman line. Which is why there are no historical accounts of it. This is also why we don't need a new troop type in FoG to cover it.

[Strategos69]

OK - I will make the calculations. On equal points, we are assuming that the Romans are Armoured, Average, Impact Food, Swordsmen facing Armoured, Superior, Light Spear Swordsmen. That gives 6 Romans v 4 Cavalry.

Supposing later legions of II BC rather than III BC. Hannibal could arm up to 8.000 lybians with chainmails at Cannae after defeating the Romans several times (Trasimene, Trebia, and more than six months of skirmishes).

The legion is at + in impact - they are likely to win 2-1. That gives around a 50% chance of the Cavalry going disrupted and a 33% chance of a death. We will assume that one of these happens.

Assuming that that happens the odds at impact are a little better for the cavalry (1 and a half more or less) and the drop of a level should be less often than 50% of the times as cavalry reroll 1's.

Therefore in Melee, the Legions have 6 dice against 3, with the fight at Evens. That will mean the legions should win 3-1 or 3-2. The Cavalry have a 50% chance of losing a base and around an 70% chance of going Fragmented. Assuming one of these happens the Cavalry are now stuffed.

Which is exactly why in history Carthaginian Cavalry didn't charge the centre of a Roman line. Which is why there are no historical accounts of it. This is also why we don't need a new troop type in FoG to cover it.

Again, in half of the cases. Legionaries rely on winning impact. In the other half of the cases the cavalry would be even, That would be an expectation for both of 3 impacts. Thus, legionaries rely mostly on the result of the impact phase, which seems odd to me given what we want to represent. Given that it never happened (any general would have considered that a suicide) it seems a pretty balanced combat.

[lawrenceg]

Which is exactly why in history Carthaginian Cavalry didn't charge the centre of a Roman line. Which is why there are no historical accounts of it. This is also why we don't need a new troop type in FoG to cover it.

Possibly the reason why cavalry fought on the flanks is that victorious cavary on the flanks could immediately use its mobility to get around the enemy rear, whereas victorious cavalry in the centre would have to fight through another two lines of infantry. The enemy's cavalry would also be on the flank, so naturally this would lead to cavalry fighting cavalry, not infantry. This has nothing to do with the prospect of success in a cavalry versus infantry fight. It's all about exploitation of the success.

If there are no recorded instances of cavalry fighting infantry then we can't draw any conclusions about what the result would have been if they had fought.

[HannibalBarca]

That plus the point that your cavalry are:

* more expensive to equip and maintain;
* require scarce resources (trained horses);
* slower/more difficult to replace;
* comprised of all the local bigwigs and probably your mates;
* strategically crucial for non-battlefield roles.

They're not the sort of soldiers you want to send into "meat-grinder" situations, even if you think you'll win. Use the plebs for that! Heavy body counts in your ancient cavalry wing just cannot be countenanced.

[hazelbark]

Again, in half of the cases. Legionaries rely on winning impact. In the other half of the cases the cavalry would be even, That would be an expectation for both of 3 impacts. Thus, legionaries rely mostly on the result of the impact phase,

I don't see the math supporting this statement. The impact phase is better for the Legion, but the melee phase is fine as well. The cav is unlikely to win either way. And because of the impact phase even a massed 2 Bgs of CV vs 8 bases of legion are not exciting prospects for the CV.

[Strategos69]

I don't see the math supporting this statement. The impact phase is better for the Legion, but the melee phase is fine as well. The cav is unlikely to win either way. And because of the impact phase even a massed 2 Bgs of CV vs 8 bases of legion are not exciting prospects for the CV.

It depends on the scenario we are talking about. If cavalry is armoured and legions not, the case is quite different as the cavalry would be better at melee. What I am saying is that the legionaries victory is modest, not overwhelming, actually modest enough to consider attacking them in certain situations, which never happened.

The cavalry I am talking about was armoured mainly with javelins, that they threw in succesive run and attack rounds. They had little stability on the horse and actually were not considered as superior riders. They were more willing to engage in close combat than light horse, but actually did not do it against heavy infantry. The interaction seems right as it is with light troops and other mounted (except maybe elephants), but not with main line infantry. As I see the rules, if something was unthinkable, it should be really discouraged by the combat modifiers and actually it does not seem so to me.

[dave_r]

I don't see the math supporting this statement. The impact phase is better for the Legion, but the melee phase is fine as well. The cav is unlikely to win either way. And because of the impact phase even a massed 2 Bgs of CV vs 8 bases of legion are not exciting prospects for the CV.

It depends on the scenario we are talking about. If cavalry is armoured and legions not, the case is quite different as the cavalry would be better at melee. What I am saying is that the legionaries victory is modest, not overwhelming, actually modest enough to consider attacking them in certain situations, which never happened.

The cavalry I am talking about was armoured mainly with javelins, that they threw in succesive run and attack rounds. They had little stability on the horse and actually were not considered as superior riders. They were more willing to engage in close combat than light horse, but actually did not do it against heavy infantry. The interaction seems right as it is with light troops and other mounted (except maybe elephants), but not with main line infantry. As I see the rules, if something was unthinkable, it should be really discouraged by the combat modifiers and actually it does not seem so to me.

Actually, that was nothing like what you were talking about. You asked me to do the maths on a scenario of your devising, which I did and now you are moving the goalposts.

To answer your question - yes if you pick the worst legions possible and the best cavalry available and give the Cavalry an advantage in numbers then they will probably win.

Given normal Legions and normal Cavalry the Cavalry will lose - Now that your original point has been discredited what are you trying to say now?