Steppe Cv
Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Random mounted Vs infantry thought. Should armour difference count if the infantry are Steady? On the assumption that whilst the infantry are Steady the mounted are, more or less, standing off a bit prodding away/throwing things/etc. and not up close and personal which only occurs when the infantry are not Steady.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
Hmmm...wouldn't that unbalance the relation between Knights and medieval spearmen?
Knights already are at -1 POA in impact, and then would be at -1 POA at Melee too, unless they somehow disordered the spearmen at impact....
Makes me wonder why medieval armies bother to bring knights, spearmen being so much better....
OTOH maybe most medieval spearmen should be classed as poor (without the option to upgrade to average), that would balance a bit the fight between them, otherwise in themed competitions I guess knights would be useless.
Knights already are at -1 POA in impact, and then would be at -1 POA at Melee too, unless they somehow disordered the spearmen at impact....
Makes me wonder why medieval armies bother to bring knights, spearmen being so much better....
OTOH maybe most medieval spearmen should be classed as poor (without the option to upgrade to average), that would balance a bit the fight between them, otherwise in themed competitions I guess knights would be useless.
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
- Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain
In your example note that you moved from average protected legions to armoured to raise your point. If I had gone for the worst legions, I could have chosen the poor ones, but they were also exceptional. Protected average should be the norm for most legions at least for III BC. And I am not claiming that the legions have an advantage, but only that it is slight and I think it should be bigger (for example, closer to that one of the phalanx), proven by the fact that the cavalry never tried to charge frontally the legions. The cavalry I picked (armoured superior) can be fielded by Carthaginians, Gauls or Syracusan can have and I used an example with two overlaps, which in battles would not be the case usually.dave_r wrote:
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?
Regarding maths, whether you choose your scenario or mine, the point is that the different is slight (they are usually even in melee and the legionaries better at impact) in favour of the legionaries for a kind of battle that was unthinkable in Ancient times.
This sounds like a reasonable idea. Agree with Tim in that some playtesting would be required, but I don't see a problem.nikgaukroger wrote:Random mounted Vs infantry thought. Should armour difference count if the infantry are Steady? On the assumption that whilst the infantry are Steady the mounted are, more or less, standing off a bit prodding away/throwing things/etc. and not up close and personal which only occurs when the infantry are not Steady.
Perhaps the Knights v Pike interaction might be a bit unbalanced. The French regularly rode down the Low Countries Pikemen. At -- at impact and -- at melee that is very unlikely to happen.
Perhaps this bonus would be only for those troops who don't already take away the sword capability - i.e. not OF/DS or Pikemen.
Evaluator of Supremacy
Just to continue the diplomacy.Strategos69 wrote:In your example note that you moved from average protected legions to armoured to raise your point.
Look back at your post - you never said the legions should be protected. Even so, they are onto a winner being + at impact.
Should they? Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Given that in FoG, armour is used slightly woolily to ensure that certain interactions work then I think you've just made this up in a vain attempt to prove your point. Whatever that was.If I had gone for the worst legions, I could have chosen the poor ones, but they were also exceptional. Protected average should be the norm for most legions at least for III BC.
Given that the difference is slight then the cavalry will break off. Giving the legions another chance at impact when they are at +And I am not claiming that the legions have an advantage, but only that it is slight and I think it should be bigger (for example, closer to that one of the phalanx), proven by the fact that the cavalry never tried to charge frontally the legions. The cavalry I picked (armoured superior) can be fielded by Carthaginians, Gauls or Syracusan can have and I used an example with two overlaps, which in battles would not be the case usually.
Regarding maths, whether you choose your scenario or mine, the point is that the different is slight (they are usually even in melee and the legionaries better at impact) in favour of the legionaries for a kind of battle that was unthinkable in Ancient times.
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
dave_r wrote: This sounds like a reasonable idea. Agree with Tim in that some playtesting would be required, but I don't see a problem.
Perhaps the Knights v Pike interaction might be a bit unbalanced. The French regularly rode down the Low Countries Pikemen. At -- at impact and -- at melee that is very unlikely to happen.
Except the days of great French victories (and a few spectacular losses) are when we classify them as Spearmen not Pikemen.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
- Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain
It would not be LH because of that willing to engage in close combat against other cavalry, even lancers. Cavalrymen armed with javelins sometimes did engage in close combat (I have in mind the description of one battle against Pyrrhus and the Romans: if I find the quote, I will post it), but some other they did some skirmishing action (which would be better covered by javelins capability). I am not questioning that Carthaginian and probably Greek cavalry was superior to Roman, nor more armoured (Polybius precisely described them as so), but to what extent capturing well cavalry battles does depict well when the cavalry was not used in a historical way like attacking infantry.hazelbark wrote: So I gather what you are really saying is the Republican-era cavalry ought to be able to fire with javeliens and not be armoured and probaby not superior? But not be LH either?
To put in other words, is a chainmail and no shield (or a small one) which does not cover the horse better protection than a meter and a half shield?nikgaukroger wrote: Random mounted Vs infantry thought. Should armour difference count if the infantry are Steady? On the assumption that whilst the infantry are Steady the mounted are, more or less, standing off a bit prodding away/throwing things/etc. and not up close and personal which only occurs when the infantry are not Steady.
I like this idea but it does not solve the problem that we have some guys just armed with javelins trying to go through a mass of men (and they would be even in most of the cases). At least it seems to me that most of the advantage legionaries would have should be in the melee phase (provided that they are steady) and actually it is not, even if we do not count the armour. Horses do not tend naturally to go through blocked places and if the infantry stands I can't see how cavalry can disorder a block of infantry.
-
- Colonel - Ju 88A
- Posts: 1536
- Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
- Location: Former British Empire
Armour still protects you from stuff that is thrown or prodded (which can happen in both directions).nikgaukroger wrote:Random mounted Vs infantry thought. Should armour difference count if the infantry are Steady? On the assumption that whilst the infantry are Steady the mounted are, more or less, standing off a bit prodding away/throwing things/etc. and not up close and personal which only occurs when the infantry are not Steady.
Also better armoured cavalry is more likely to close for a decisive engagement sooner.
Lawrence Greaves
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
- Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain
Actually it is an idea I have exposed in previous posts, like the one talking about the Romans. To make some historical scenarios work legions, especially the ones who faced Pyrrhus, have to be only protected when facing the phalanx. I agree that armour PoA has to be used vaguely to make interactions work, but that way all legions facing superior armoured cavalry should be made armoured when they have those cavalry counterparts, which is not the case in the actual list. And now it is even possible to have some BG protected and some armoured, which would be senseless if the assignation of armour is made on the basis of making the interactions work. Maybe you are right and legions should be all armoured (which can create problems in the battles Romans vs Pyrrhus) after a certain date (to solve it), but then it is the list what should be changed.dave_r wrote: Should they? Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Given that in FoG, armour is used slightly woolily to ensure that certain interactions work then I think you've just made this up in a vain attempt to prove your point. Whatever that was.
I see the melee as a protracted fight in closer quarters and in that kind of fight cavalry of that time would be disadvantaged as it relied on attack and run tactics throwing their javelins. To put it in game terms, this cavalry should be at -PoA at least in melee. You are right that the break off rule works well in this case.dave_r wrote: Given that the difference is slight then the cavalry will break off. Giving the legions another chance at impact when they are at +
-
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:18 pm
Back on the original topic: LH versus Cv rather than ancient cavalry fighting formed infantry.
Given the distinction in shooting POAs for single versus multiple rank cavalry as a shooting target, is there any reason why this shouldn't also be applied to light horse?
Presumably a double rank of cavalry represents a larger formation that is more vulnerable in the imagined ground scale. Why does this logic not apply to light horse double ranked formations too? Granted a looser formation is less susceptible to missile fire, but that is a Cv vs. LH issue, not a Cv (one rank) vs. Cv. (two rank) one. The deeper formation being a juicier target should apply equally to either Cv. or LH shouldn't it, regardless of the basic formation of either?
In other words, yes double-ranked LH will suffer less from missile fire than double-ranked Cv. but only to the same extent that single-ranked LH suffer less than single-ranked Cv. Won't they?
Given the distinction in shooting POAs for single versus multiple rank cavalry as a shooting target, is there any reason why this shouldn't also be applied to light horse?
Presumably a double rank of cavalry represents a larger formation that is more vulnerable in the imagined ground scale. Why does this logic not apply to light horse double ranked formations too? Granted a looser formation is less susceptible to missile fire, but that is a Cv vs. LH issue, not a Cv (one rank) vs. Cv. (two rank) one. The deeper formation being a juicier target should apply equally to either Cv. or LH shouldn't it, regardless of the basic formation of either?
In other words, yes double-ranked LH will suffer less from missile fire than double-ranked Cv. but only to the same extent that single-ranked LH suffer less than single-ranked Cv. Won't they?
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
- Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain
That was the quote I was referring to before. Dyonissus of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities, XX, 2)
When the signals for battle were hoisted, the soldiers first chanted their war songs, and then, p393raising the battle-cry to Enyalius, advanced to the fray, engaged and fought, displaying all their skill in arms. The cavalry stationed upon both wings, knowing beforehand in what tactics they had the advantage over the enemy, resorted to those tactics, the Romans to a hand-to‑hand, stationary combat, and the Greek horse to flanking and deploying manoeuvres. 2 The Romans, when they were pursued by the Greeks, would wheel their horses about, and checking them with the reins, would fight an infantry battle; the Greeks, when they perceived that the Romans were their equals in combat, would swerve to the right and countermarching past one another, would whirl about their horses once more to face forward, and applying the spurs, would charge the enemy's ranks
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... s/20*.html
From that I deduct that cavalry was not exactly as light horse and the battle more a run and charge fight.
When the signals for battle were hoisted, the soldiers first chanted their war songs, and then, p393raising the battle-cry to Enyalius, advanced to the fray, engaged and fought, displaying all their skill in arms. The cavalry stationed upon both wings, knowing beforehand in what tactics they had the advantage over the enemy, resorted to those tactics, the Romans to a hand-to‑hand, stationary combat, and the Greek horse to flanking and deploying manoeuvres. 2 The Romans, when they were pursued by the Greeks, would wheel their horses about, and checking them with the reins, would fight an infantry battle; the Greeks, when they perceived that the Romans were their equals in combat, would swerve to the right and countermarching past one another, would whirl about their horses once more to face forward, and applying the spurs, would charge the enemy's ranks
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... s/20*.html
From that I deduct that cavalry was not exactly as light horse and the battle more a run and charge fight.
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
- Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain
Here you have the thread.timmy1 wrote:Please advise just exactly how protected legion model the historical Legion vs Phalanx interaction (unless you believe that the Phalanx should be deployed only 2 or 3 bases deep).
viewtopic.php?t=19354&start=20
and there the explanation (sorry for the off-topic in the thread)
I am not certain if I got your point. I was trying to say that legions changed over time and that is how we should look at them. If we do so, we will find that when pikes won, they have an advantage against legions and viceversa. Examples:
- Pyrrhus against legions (average protected): You would have a block of eight pikes (four deep) and six hastati 3 wide for equal points. They are even at impact; in melee (if nothing happens in impact) pikes would be with a net ++ but with two dice less. If we calculate the expected results that means an expected average of 2 hits for the legionaries and 2+2/3 for the pikes. Given that pikes won most of those battles, they have a slight advantage, but they can lose if they are not lucky (as they did in Beneventum).
- Succesors: most of those legions should be armoured and some of them superior (ten pike bases against 6 legionaries bases). Case 1 (protected, superior): legions are in advantage at impact (rerolls); in melee, provided that nothing happened before, pikes are still at 2+2/3 hits whereas legions rise to 2+1/3 hits for the rerolls (I hope my Maths are ok). This means that legions have an overall advantage over pikes, but they can still be broken by pikes, the impact and the first melee being key. In this case the extra 2 bases can't be used effectively by the pikes, but to cover loses.
This can be done with the several combinations of possible legions, but in the overall I think it captures the idea that legions will win the day when they did so historically. And here we did not take into account the superior mobility of legions compared to phalanx.
In my opinion after reading some historical accounts of battles between legions and pikes, results were given by other effects, like terrain, gaps appearing in the line, etc but FoG produces quite similar results without taking them into account. I can't hardley beleive that the pila can account for those results but the PoA for impact foot balances things (even if unbelieavable since the legionaries usually did not take the advantage first). In game terms as the expected results are those we could expect and if it works and that is ok, but not really for the right reasons.
Strategos69 wrote:Here you have the thread.timmy1 wrote:Please advise just exactly how protected legion model the historical Legion vs Phalanx interaction (unless you believe that the Phalanx should be deployed only 2 or 3 bases deep).
viewtopic.php?t=19354&start=20
and there the explanation (sorry for the off-topic in the thread)
I am not certain if I got your point. I was trying to say that legions changed over time and that is how we should look at them. If we do so, we will find that when pikes won, they have an advantage against legions and viceversa. Examples:
- Pyrrhus against legions (average protected): You would have a block of eight pikes (four deep) and six hastati 3 wide for equal points. They are even at impact; in melee (if nothing happens in impact) pikes would be with a net ++ but with two dice less. If we calculate the expected results that means an expected average of 2 hits for the legionaries and 2+2/3 for the pikes. Given that pikes won most of those battles, they have a slight advantage, but they can lose if they are not lucky (as they did in Beneventum).
Pikes didn't win most of these battles. Against Romans they lost.
The thread you quote above doesn't really tell us anything at all - just some statisticans moaning.
- Succesors: most of those legions should be armoured and some of them superior (ten pike bases against 6 legionaries bases). Case 1 (protected, superior): legions are in advantage at impact (rerolls); in melee, provided that nothing happened before, pikes are still at 2+2/3 hits whereas legions rise to 2+1/3 hits for the rerolls (I hope my Maths are ok). This means that legions have an overall advantage over pikes, but they can still be broken by pikes, the impact and the first melee being key. In this case the extra 2 bases can't be used effectively by the pikes, but to cover loses.
This can be done with the several combinations of possible legions, but in the overall I think it captures the idea that legions will win the day when they did so historically. And here we did not take into account the superior mobility of legions compared to phalanx.
All of this is based on your own opinion and none of it actually based on any historical evidence or facts whatsoever. To sum up - you've just made that up.
In my opinion after reading some historical accounts of battles between legions and pikes, results were given by other effects, like terrain, gaps appearing in the line, etc but FoG produces quite similar results without taking them into account. I can't hardley beleive that the pila can account for those results but the PoA for impact foot balances things (even if unbelieavable since the legionaries usually did not take the advantage first). In game terms as the expected results are those we could expect and if it works and that is ok, but not really for the right reasons.
The standard Roman Legionary is Armoured, Superior, Impact Foot, Skilled Swordsmen. Against pike that is a fair fight - which is why the rules work. You are just muddying the waters for no apparent reason.
Evaluator of Supremacy
Right, and your point is? Cavalry with Lt Spear and Swd model this perfectly?Strategos69 wrote:That was the quote I was referring to before. Dyonissus of Halicarnassus (Roman Antiquities, XX, 2)
When the signals for battle were hoisted, the soldiers first chanted their war songs, and then, p393raising the battle-cry to Enyalius, advanced to the fray, engaged and fought, displaying all their skill in arms. The cavalry stationed upon both wings, knowing beforehand in what tactics they had the advantage over the enemy, resorted to those tactics, the Romans to a hand-to‑hand, stationary combat, and the Greek horse to flanking and deploying manoeuvres. 2 The Romans, when they were pursued by the Greeks, would wheel their horses about, and checking them with the reins, would fight an infantry battle; the Greeks, when they perceived that the Romans were their equals in combat, would swerve to the right and countermarching past one another, would whirl about their horses once more to face forward, and applying the spurs, would charge the enemy's ranks
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/R ... s/20*.html
From that I deduct that cavalry was not exactly as light horse and the battle more a run and charge fight.
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
- Posts: 1375
- Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
- Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain
Let's see the new shot of diplomacy.
By most I mean that Pyrrhus (the first fight between legions and phalanx) won all battles but one (Beneventum, and I would not blame the phalanx for losing that), at a costly price. And those "statisticians moaning" were trying to show how the interaction works. This is only a reply to an offtopic question.dave_r wrote:
Pikes didn't win most of these battles. Against Romans they lost.
The thread you quote above doesn't really tell us anything at all - just some statisticans moaning.
First, the authors of the game made it up. Ask them why they have classed the troops that way. I have only "made up" how things woud fit better after reading some books that legions won most of the battles they fought against Succesors. That was my personal approach to how to depict that. i could go to the sources again, but I remember the last time we had this kind of debate in the elephant thread, and it ended up when I had to check all those quotes for you and you disappeared from the conversation. Read about Pydna or Cynoscephalos and you will see first the pikes better, then being disordered when exploiting the victory as gaps appear and finally losing. Ask the "moaning statisticians" how you can better have that with the actual rules.dave_r wrote:
All of this is based on your own opinion and none of it actually based on any historical evidence or facts whatsoever. To sum up - you've just made that up.
The standard Roman legionary... from Caesar times! Legionaries were recruited each years, some of them forming entirely new units with not much war experience. Precisely when they fought Carthaginians, campaigns became larger in time and that made appear the veteran legions in the III and II BC, which were first rare and then became more common in the II BC.dave_r wrote:
The standard Roman Legionary is Armoured, Superior, Impact Foot, Skilled Swordsmen. Against pike that is a fair fight - which is why the rules work. You are just muddying the waters for no apparent reason.