Steppe Cv

[Strategos69]

Right, and your point is? Cavalry with Lt Spear and Swd model this perfectly?

I posted that to make a difference between that cavalry and light cavalry, which would not engage in close combat. But, in the other hand, the figths are described as mobile, with going back and forward moves. It does not look like to me what cavalry in FoG is right now.

[dave_r]

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.

The last time you attempted to justify your rantings with evidence, you only provided half the evidence. The majority of elephant combat happened in the East - you said you knew nothing about that combat. At which point I decided it was pointless to continue...

Here again, you haven't posted anything remotely new or anything that doesn't work, just some half baked argument which really doesn't hold any water. Romans won against the Phalanx because they had a wider frontage and could then get around behind them.

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.

You seem to get confused in the middle of that statement - you need to be very clear whether you are talking about Legions or Legionaries. We know surprisingly little about Roman equipment and tactics.

[Strategos69]

Well, basically my point in that thread was that FoG rules did not cover well Western Mediterranean elephants, the only ones I am interested in. I doubt I will play Eastern armies. And as long as there is a problem with Western elephants, I think that something needs to be fixed for FoG 2. As I told you there, it might Eastern elephant warfare well covered for them, but as long it is not well covered for the other part, something has to be solved, more even when the armies that can have elephants don't use them.

Here again, you haven't posted anything remotely new or anything that doesn't work, just some half baked argument which really doesn't hold any water. Romans won against the Phalanx because they had a wider frontage and could then get around behind them.

And you base that on what sources? In FoG games I guess. Please, let's be serious. Roman legions and phalanxes did fight frontally. In Pydna some gaps appeared in the center of the line because of the terrain. In Cynoscephalos, the victorius phalanx run down hill and then the Romans send some of their rear rank maniples to surprise them to the Macedonian rear.

You seem to get confused in the middle of that statement - you need to be very clear whether you are talking about Legions or Legionaries. We know surprisingly little about Roman equipment and tactics.

Well, unhappily we lost the fragment of Polybius which described the tactics (but not the other books where actual battles were described; Osprey publishes whole books on the subject of Roman tactics, so something can be said though), but we have a fairly clear description of the weapons and armour (Pol., Hist, VI, 23) plus hundreds of schollars doing archeological research.

23 The next in seniority called hastati are ordered to wear a complete panoply. 2 The Roman panoply consists firstly of a shield (scutum), the convex surface of which measures •two and a half feet in width and four feet in length, the thickness at the rim being •a palm's breadth. 3 It is made of two planks glued together, the outer surface being then covered first with canvas and then with calf-skin. 4 Its upper and lower rims are strengthened by an iron edging which protects it from descending blows and from injury when rested on the ground. It also has an iron boss (umbo) fixed to it which turns aside the most formidable blows of stones, pikes, and heavy missiles in general. 6 Besides the shield they also carry a sword, hanging on the right thigh and called a Spanish sword. 7 This is excellent for thrusting, and both of its edges cut effectually, as the blade is very strong and firm. 8 In addition they have two pila, a brass helmet, and greaves. 9 The pila are of two sorts — stout and fine. Of the stout ones some p321are round and •a palm's length in diameter and others are a palm square. Fine pila, which they carry in addition to the stout ones, are like moderate-sized hunting-spears, 10 the length of the haft in all cases being about three cubits. Each is fitted with a barbed iron head of the same length as the haft. 11 This they attach so securely to the haft, carrying the attachment halfway up the latter and fixing it with numerous rivets, that in action the iron will break sooner than become detached, although its thickness at the bottom where it comes in contact with the wood is a finger's breadth and a half; such great care do they take about attaching it firmly. Finally they wear as an ornament a circle of feathers with three upright purple or black feathers •about a cubit in height, the addition of which on the head surmounting their other arms is to make every man look twice his real height, and to give him a fine appearance, such as will strike terror into the enemy. 14 The common soldiers wear in addition a breastplate of brass a span square, which they place in front of the heart and call the heart-protector (pectorale), this completing their accoutrements; but those who are rated above ten thousand drachmas wear instead of this a coat of chain-mail (lorica). The principes and triarii are armed in the same manner except that instead of the pila the triarii carry long spears (hastae).

To complete the description one specialist worker, those serving as hoplites, would earn one dracma per day, thus 360 dracmas a year, according to Classical authors (Thucydides). (I don't have data for the cost of life a century later in Rome, but my guess is that there have not been a huge change.) Can you imagine how much would be to afford a lorica so that only the ones with more than 10.000 dracmas in properties could own one? Hannibal armed his 8.000 lybians with them, after a couple of years of combats and several tens of thousands of soldiers killed.

[dave_r]

Well, basically my point in that thread was that FoG rules did not cover well Western Mediterranean elephants

No it wasn't, you said they didn't cover Elephants well. You need to be more precise about what you are saying or the meaning get's lost.

Here again, you haven't posted anything remotely new or anything that doesn't work, just some half baked argument which really doesn't hold any water. Romans won against the Phalanx because they had a wider frontage and could then get around behind them.

And you base that on what sources? In FoG games I guess. Please, let's be serious. Roman legions and phalanxes did fight frontally. In Pydna some gaps appeared in the center of the line because of the terrain. In Cynoscephalos, the victorius phalanx run down hill and then the Romans send some of their rear rank maniples to surprise them to the Macedonian rear.

Erm, all of them? The examples you post show the Romans getting behind the Phalanx????

Well, unhappily we lost the fragment of Polybius which described the tactics (but not the other books where actual battles were described; Osprey publishes whole books on the subject of Roman tactics, so something can be said though), but we have a fairly clear description of the weapons and armour (Pol., Hist, VI, 23) plus hundreds of schollars doing archeological research.

23 The next in seniority called hastati are ordered to wear a complete panoply. 2 The Roman panoply consists firstly of a shield (scutum), the convex surface of which measures •two and a half feet in width and four feet in length, the thickness at the rim being •a palm's breadth. 3 It is made of two planks glued together, the outer surface being then covered first with canvas and then with calf-skin. 4 Its upper and lower rims are strengthened by an iron edging which protects it from descending blows and from injury when rested on the ground. It also has an iron boss (umbo) fixed to it which turns aside the most formidable blows of stones, pikes, and heavy missiles in general. 6 Besides the shield they also carry a sword, hanging on the right thigh and called a Spanish sword. 7 This is excellent for thrusting, and both of its edges cut effectually, as the blade is very strong and firm. 8 In addition they have two pila, a brass helmet, and greaves. 9 The pila are of two sorts — stout and fine. Of the stout ones some p321are round and •a palm's length in diameter and others are a palm square. Fine pila, which they carry in addition to the stout ones, are like moderate-sized hunting-spears, 10 the length of the haft in all cases being about three cubits. Each is fitted with a barbed iron head of the same length as the haft. 11 This they attach so securely to the haft, carrying the attachment halfway up the latter and fixing it with numerous rivets, that in action the iron will break sooner than become detached, although its thickness at the bottom where it comes in contact with the wood is a finger's breadth and a half; such great care do they take about attaching it firmly. Finally they wear as an ornament a circle of feathers with three upright purple or black feathers •about a cubit in height, the addition of which on the head surmounting their other arms is to make every man look twice his real height, and to give him a fine appearance, such as will strike terror into the enemy. 14 The common soldiers wear in addition a breastplate of brass a span square, which they place in front of the heart and call the heart-protector (pectorale), this completing their accoutrements; but those who are rated above ten thousand drachmas wear instead of this a coat of chain-mail (lorica). The principes and triarii are armed in the same manner except that instead of the pila the triarii carry long spears (hastae).

To complete the description one specialist worker, those serving as hoplites, would earn one dracma per day, thus 360 dracmas a year, according to Classical authors (Thucydides). (I don't have data for the cost of life a century later in Rome, but my guess is that there have not been a huge change.) Can you imagine how much would be to afford a lorica so that only the ones with more than 10.000 dracmas in properties could own one? Hannibal armed his 8.000 lybians with them, after a couple of years of combats and several tens of thousands of soldiers killed.

To give an example, despite the amount of books on Roman tactics, we still don't know how the manipular formation works. We also don't really know how the auxiliaries were armed, nor what their function was, but I am probably talking about a different period of Romans - it seems you will only talk about Punic War era Romans. Incidentally, how do you know we lost the bits from Polybios regarding tactics? If we've never seen them?

The account above doesn't mention how much Chainmail costs - simply how much you have to earn to make it compulsory to wear chainmail - your conclusion is wrong, it doesn't cost 10 000 drachmas to buy, simply that if you are worth 10 000 drachmas or more you must wear chainmail. Much like Feudal equipment minimums. Quite why you mention Hannibal equiping his Libyan Vets with Chainmail is anybody's guess, but again, you make no point, simply regurgitating Polybios.

To make a last ditch effort - FoG is about warfare from 3000 BC to 1500 AD. We don't need special rules for covering every last inch of detail for every period, which you seem to want.

Let it go.

[Strategos69]

Erm, all of them? The examples you post show the Romans getting behind the Phalanx????

Yes, the Romans on the left broke whereas those on the right did not, sending some of the rear maniples to attack them as the fleeing Romans on the left regrouped. No wider front as generals would adopt the same frontage to their enemies. There were exceptions to this like the wedge formations used by the Sacred Band in Tegyra, but certainly not the norm.

The account above doesn't mention how much Chainmail costs - simply how much you have to earn to make it compulsory to wear chainmail - your conclusion is wrong, it doesn't cost 10 000 drachmas to buy, simply that if you are worth 10 000 drachmas or more you must wear chainmail. Much like Feudal equipment minimums. Quite why you mention Hannibal equiping his Libyan Vets with Chainmail is anybody's guess, but again, you make no point, simply regurgitating Polybios.

Chainmail was not compulsory, but wise. A whole military panoply for a hoplite costed about 350 drachmas, like a year wage. Thus only those with 10.000 drachmas could afford saving that money. Many times, like the hoplite panoply, they were inherited because of the cost.

To make a last ditch effort - FoG is about warfare from 3000 BC to 1500 AD. We don't need special rules for covering every last inch of detail for every period, which you seem to want.
Let it go.

Which I think is a mistake though, because to cover warfare you need to depict sieges, one and maybe the most important for medieval Europe and certainly in some stages of Classical warfare. FoG is a game about historical battles thought to cover historical match ups. And sometimes special situations need special answers. That is why FoG:R was created. And even FoG AM is packed with special rules covered in general statements, a tricky way to deny the fact that a special situation is being modelled under the label of a general rule.

Again the same argument among people interested in history and the ones in a ruleset for tournaments. If a ruleset for historical wargaming is not reasonably well prepared to cover some basics of the period you want to cover, why using it? I thought FoG 2.0 was about making the game better in terms of historicity and playability, but mayne it was all about relaunching some lists for the next tournament. I guess I missed that part of the description of the forum.

[dave_r]

Erm, all of them? The examples you post show the Romans getting behind the Phalanx????

Yes, the Romans on the left broke whereas those on the right did not, sending some of the rear maniples to attack them as the fleeing Romans on the left regrouped. No wider front as generals would adopt the same frontage to their enemies.

This is complete rubbish. Generals often put troops on flanks with the specific intention of getting behind the enemy. They only really deployed deep when forced to by terrain.

The account above doesn't mention how much Chainmail costs - simply how much you have to earn to make it compulsory to wear chainmail - your conclusion is wrong, it doesn't cost 10 000 drachmas to buy, simply that if you are worth 10 000 drachmas or more you must wear chainmail. Much like Feudal equipment minimums. Quite why you mention Hannibal equiping his Libyan Vets with Chainmail is anybody's guess, but again, you make no point, simply regurgitating Polybios.

Chainmail was not compulsory, but wise. A whole military panoply for a hoplite costed about 350 drachmas, like a year wage. Thus only those with 10.000 drachmas could afford saving that money. Many times, like the hoplite panoply, they were inherited because of the cost.

This is also complete rubbish. Are you seriously trying to suggest that you had to own 10 000 drachmas before you could spend 350 drachmas on full equipment? Those hoplites who could afford the equipment bought it, those who couldn't didn't. seemples.

To make a last ditch effort - FoG is about warfare from 3000 BC to 1500 AD. We don't need special rules for covering every last inch of detail for every period, which you seem to want.
Let it go.

Which I think is a mistake though, because to cover warfare you need to depict sieges, one and maybe the most important for medieval Europe and certainly in some stages of Classical warfare. FoG is a game about historical battles thought to cover historical match ups. And sometimes special situations need special answers. That is why FoG:R was created. And even FoG AM is packed with special rules covered in general statements, a tricky way to deny the fact that a special situation is being modelled under the label of a general rule.

Yet more complete rubbish. What exactly does "special rules covered in general statements" mean? this completely defies belief. I look forward to rock solid examples of this.

Again the same argument among people interested in history and the ones in a ruleset for tournaments. If a ruleset for historical wargaming is not reasonably well prepared to cover some basics of the period you want to cover, why using it? I thought FoG 2.0 was about making the game better in terms of historicity and playability, but mayne it was all about relaunching some lists for the next tournament. I guess I missed that part of the description of the forum.

Except it is well prepared to cover the basics of the period in question - i.e. 3000BC to 1500AD. You want it to cover 300BC - 200BC. That being the case you need to use a different set of rules. Whining that it is a tournament set of rules simply doesn't make sense - it is clearly a game based on history, but it is also a game.

Whilst it is said that amateurs talk tactics and professionals talk logistics, I suspect I wouldn't particularly like a game that modelled dysentry, disease, desertion, tiredness, forage etc etc. I want to be a general, not a quartermaster.

[Jilu]

Guys you killed the topic with your off topic arguments.

it is about Shooty CV and LH.

[david53]

Something that nags me from time to time.

The way FoG is designed steppe type horse archers should be represented by Unprotected or Protected Cv - operating in a single rank when skirmishing - or at least the Cv option should be at least as attractive as LH. However, for a number of reasons it is preferable to have these horse archers mainly as LH.

I wonder what changes would be suitable to make taking the Cv option at least, or preferably slightly preferable, option for these troops? I have sometimes pondered about such Cv in a single rank having a 6MU move and some sort of turn 180 and move a bit option to allow them to do a bit more after they have evaded. Hammy's old idea of a + CY modifier if shot at (wholly or mainly?) by skirmishers may have benefit as well.

Though we would get back to the topic.

I agree with you something needs to be done to allow Cavalry Bow/Sword a chance of being picked over LH Bow/Sword.

I have started to use a Mongol Type army just to see:

a. What are the issues when using Protected Bow Sword Cavalry

b. What might be done to allow them to be used more than say LH.


Dave

[hammy]

Though we would get back to the topic.

I agree with you something needs to be done to allow Cavalry Bow/Sword a chance of being picked over LH Bow/Sword.

I have started to use a Mongol Type army just to see:

a. What are the issues when using Protected Bow Sword Cavalry

b. What might be done to allow them to be used more than say LH.

IMO there is nothing wrong with protected bow sword cavalry as long as they are superior. Average bow sword cavalry are pretty rubbish but the superior ones are a key component of my Hungarian lists. I am looking at other armies that can mix protected cavalry (ideally drilled) with decent heavy troops.

Sadly last weekend's experiment with Elephants and shooty cavalry didn't work.

[lawrenceg]

IMO there is nothing wrong with protected bow sword cavalry as long as they are superior. Average bow sword cavalry are pretty rubbish but the superior ones are a key component of my Hungarian lists. I am looking at other armies that can mix protected cavalry (ideally drilled) with decent heavy troops.

That may be so, but the original post is about normal (default) steppe cavalry, which is Average LH, or Average cavalry (protected or unprotected).

The point being made are:

1. the cavalry incarnations are pretty rubbish.
2. the LH incarnation is not as good in close combat as "Steppe Cavalry" was historically. Allegedly.

[hammy]

IMO there is nothing wrong with protected bow sword cavalry as long as they are superior. Average bow sword cavalry are pretty rubbish but the superior ones are a key component of my Hungarian lists. I am looking at other armies that can mix protected cavalry (ideally drilled) with decent heavy troops.

That may be so, but the original post is about normal (default) steppe cavalry, which is Average LH, or Average cavalry (protected or unprotected).

The point being made are:

1. the cavalry incarnations are pretty rubbish.
2. the LH incarnation is not as good in close combat as "Steppe Cavalry" was historically. Allegedly.

IMO the only real issue with the cavalry incarnation is that they can't really get out of Dodge unless they are charged. You can turn them 180 but then they stop being able to shoot. It might be enough to 'fix' them if they could shoot to the rear like LH do.

[dave_r]

IMO there is nothing wrong with protected bow sword cavalry as long as they are superior. Average bow sword cavalry are pretty rubbish but the superior ones are a key component of my Hungarian lists. I am looking at other armies that can mix protected cavalry (ideally drilled) with decent heavy troops.

That may be so, but the original post is about normal (default) steppe cavalry, which is Average LH, or Average cavalry (protected or unprotected).

The point being made are:

1. the cavalry incarnations are pretty rubbish.
2. the LH incarnation is not as good in close combat as "Steppe Cavalry" was historically. Allegedly.

The problem is that steppe Cavalry can be Protected or unprotected and if they are Mongols (or some other Steppe nations) can be Superior as well.

I have been thinking about this for a while and still haven't come up with an answer...

[Jilu]

IMO the only real issue with the cavalry incarnation is that they can't really get out of Dodge unless they are charged. You can turn them 180 but then they stop being able to shoot. It might be enough to 'fix' them if they could shoot to the rear like LH do.

totaly agree but at the same time you have keep the chance for their oponents to engage them

[ethan]

IMO there is nothing wrong with protected bow sword cavalry as long as they are superior. Average bow sword cavalry are pretty rubbish but the superior ones are a key component of my Hungarian lists. I am looking at other armies that can mix protected cavalry (ideally drilled) with decent heavy troops.

This is sort of the problem. LH Bw/Sw are perfectly fine as average and the cost of superior here is not trivial, given how important army size is this is not unimportant. If 10AP a stand average LH Bw/Sw are good then if you want to see the Cv version on the table then at the very least the 11AP Protected Average Bw/Sw cavalry need to have a place...or we need to adjust the AP. Perhaps at 9AP we would see those on the table.

[david53]

IMO the only real issue with the cavalry incarnation is that they can't really get out of Dodge unless they are charged. You can turn them 180 but then they stop being able to shoot. It might be enough to 'fix' them if they could shoot to the rear like LH do.

totaly agree but at the same time you have keep the chance for their oponents to engage them

To allow LH to shoot behind and not allow Shooty Cavalry to do the same, just to me seems not right, cavalry can evade in one rank(ie they are in a loose enough formation) yet they find it to hard to shoot backwards.

What do you do when the enemy camp out a mm from the front of your Shooty Cavalry BG formed up in one line. Should you turn around but then you can't shoot and even Knights(much less Lancer Cavalry) have a good chance of catching you as i found out when 2 of my Cavarly BGs were caught by knights. Anyone got a idea how to use them correctly?

[ethan]

What do you do when the enemy camp out a mm from the front of your Shooty Cavalry BG formed up in one line. Should you turn around but then you can't shoot and even Knights(much less Lancer Cavalry) have a good chance of catching you as i found out when 2 of my Cavarly BGs were caught by knights. Anyone got a idea how to use them correctly?

One option is to simply not allow any to shoot to the rear...

[philqw78]

One option is to simply not allow any to shoot to the rear...

Which is not a problem for the LH as they simply move forwards to 4 MU then turn around. Cavalry either turn around or move away.

[grahambriggs]

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

This seems like a good approach to me. They can race around and shoot like LH, can fight, so would be nasty on the flanks of the enemy. However, would need to be in a single rank to evade, so shooting ineffective if anything serious comes into charge range.

Would this better reflect the historical behaviour of the troops than the current options? Is it worth the same AP?

Regards

Graham

[nikgaukroger]

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

This seems like a good approach to me. They can race around and shoot like LH, can fight, so would be nasty on the flanks of the enemy. However, would need to be in a single rank to evade, so shooting ineffective if anything serious comes into charge range.

Would this better reflect the historical behaviour of the troops than the current options? Is it worth the same AP?

Not really IMO. They need to be able to shoot effectively and be relatively fluid in behaviour across the battlefield, not just be effective on the flanks.

One issue with allowing single ranked Cv some more manoeuvre options may be that they end up too effective, of course, however, it crosses my mind that if something like Hammy's +1 CT modifier for being shot at by (mainly) skirmishers were also there it would be a suitable balance, and give a decision to the Cv player as to what formation they need. (Skirmishers being defined as LF, LH and single ranked Cv)

[lawrenceg]

Not really IMO. They need to be able to shoot effectively and be relatively fluid in behaviour across the battlefield, not just be effective on the flanks.

One issue with allowing single ranked Cv some more manoeuvre options may be that they end up too effective, of course, however, it crosses my mind that if something like Hammy's +1 CT modifier for being shot at by (mainly) skirmishers were also there it would be a suitable balance, and give a decision to the Cv player as to what formation they need. (Skirmishers being defined as LF, LH and single ranked Cv)

This might make armoured drilled bow/sword cavalry too good, even with the +1 CT modifier. It would need some careful looking at.