Steppe Cv

[grahambriggs]

Personally I find single rank cavalry to be particularly effective against light horse but only if the cavalry are superior.

Giving battle troops a +1 to a CT if shot entirely by skirmishers would make both this type of cavalry and MF bow more attractive and also reduce the power of massed skirmisher armies bith of which are IMO good things.

Perhaps it would help to understand why superior cavalry are effective at this task but average generally not? Is it that one will win the shooting war with skirmishers whereas the other will not?

[hammy]

Personally I find single rank cavalry to be particularly effective against light horse but only if the cavalry are superior.

Giving battle troops a +1 to a CT if shot entirely by skirmishers would make both this type of cavalry and MF bow more attractive and also reduce the power of massed skirmisher armies bith of which are IMO good things.

Perhaps it would help to understand why superior cavalry are effective at this task but average generally not? Is it that one will win the shooting war with skirmishers whereas the other will not?

Good question,

I think that the the problem with the average ones is that they are just that little bit to fragile. If you put an average BG of 4 base near enemy that can shoot then it is likely to end up taking CTs and being average failing the tests it very much on the cards. If average light hores fail a test or even two then you just pull them out. If average cavalry fail then you can't pull them out. Even if you turn them round ready to pull out then you end up with them being useless for the next pair of turns at least.

[grahambriggs]

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.

There are some interesting parallels between Shooty Cav and shooty MF in terms of what good troops look like. i.e. armoured superior with bow is good. Protected average undrilled less good. So I think one part of the fix would be to make superior armoured less cost effective and average/poor protected/unprotected a bit better that would help.

If we were not worried about making drilled superior armoured shooty cavalry supertroops (they're already pretty good) then we could perhaps improve shooty cavalry to make that as good a choice as LH. Ways to do that would include some or all of:

- single rank cav don't get the -1 for threatened flank/table edge
- allow single rank cav to fall back in some manner before the enemy as the current method feels too clumsy, options:
........turn 180, move up to 1MU, turn 180 as a complex move (sounds small but less likely to be caught while evading)
........allow evading troops the option of a 180 degree turn at end of evade move - or maybe make it compulsory (only really benefits cav)

[madaxeman]

The "split shooting, and round down" rule also tends to favour LH over CV at the moment - LH shoot one dice per 2 ranks anyway, and with their greater maneuverability are far more able to get into positions where their shooting is most effective.

When I use Cv - and even more so, foot bowmen - they fairly often seem not to be able to use all of their supposedly greater firepower due to their dice being split between several cunningly placed units of skirmishers.

[waldo]

The "split shooting, and round down" rule also tends to favour LH over CV at the moment - LH shoot one dice per 2 ranks anyway, and with their greater maneuverability are far more able to get into positions where their shooting is most effective.

When I use Cv - and even more so, foot bowmen - they fairly often seem not to be able to use all of their supposedly greater firepower due to their dice being split between several cunningly placed units of skirmishers.

Imagine the success Euclid would have had at FoG.

Walter

[expendablecinc]

The "split shooting, and round down" rule also tends to favour LH over CV at the moment - LH shoot one dice per 2 ranks anyway, and with their greater maneuverability are far more able to get into positions where their shooting is most effective.

When I use Cv - and even more so, foot bowmen - they fairly often seem not to be able to use all of their supposedly greater firepower due to their dice being split between several cunningly placed units of skirmishers.

A good fix for this was presented a while back somewhere I think.

Removing the +2 to death rolls vs shooting if target is skirmishers and the shooters are not. (or something along those lines at least.

Effect - skirmishers are more likely to be fear real shooters which also solves another stated probelm whereby LF shooters are almost as good as MF shooters in a shootout (and often better because they also can manouver more easily to maximise effecting shots).

IMO this is a better solution that somehow hindering the skirmisher manouverability or isolated solutions like increasing the manouverability of cavalry.

[grahambriggs]

Personally I find single rank cavalry to be particularly effective against light horse but only if the cavalry are superior.

Giving battle troops a +1 to a CT if shot entirely by skirmishers would make both this type of cavalry and MF bow more attractive and also reduce the power of massed skirmisher armies bith of which are IMO good things.

Perhaps it would help to understand why superior cavalry are effective at this task but average generally not? Is it that one will win the shooting war with skirmishers whereas the other will not?

Good question,

I think that the the problem with the average ones is that they are just that little bit to fragile. If you put an average BG of 4 base near enemy that can shoot then it is likely to end up taking CTs and being average failing the tests it very much on the cards. If average light hores fail a test or even two then you just pull them out. If average cavalry fail then you can't pull them out. Even if you turn them round ready to pull out then you end up with them being useless for the next pair of turns at least.

So the difference from average LH seems to be that if they become unsteady they can't get out of danger quickly enough. And if they do get away it takes them too long to get back into the fray.

Off the wall suggestion, what if we allowed missile armed (or steppe) cavalry a break off move if they've dropped cohesion due to shooting this bound? It would allow them a breathing space and they'd be able to get back into the fray if need be. Might be interesting to make this mandatory but it could be optional. I think probably troops unable to break off (e.g. due to enemy behind them) wouldn't need the cohesion drop for not being able to break off (they've already done one drop this bound).

It would be more of use to the Average guys, as they fail tests more. It might even mean that the protected/unprotected guys could go in double rank against missile troops. It wouldn't change the interaction with non missile troops. It does mean that you have to remember that they dropped this bound, but you need to do that anyway so you can see whether a bolster test can be done.

[hazelbark]

Off the wall suggestion, what if we allowed missile armed (or steppe) cavalry a break off move if they've dropped cohesion due to shooting this bound? It would allow them a breathing space and they'd be able to get back into the fray if need be. Might be interesting to make this mandatory but it could be optional. I think probably troops unable to break off (e.g. due to enemy behind them) wouldn't need the cohesion drop for not being able to break off (they've already done one drop this bound).

You would need to think this through as I could see some players trying to lock them forward and prevent a break off. Not sure circumstances but I would give that some thought.

But including that the break off can take you off board edge for 2 AP could be nifty. Add in the VMD to the break off.

As I think about it, maybe just make it a standard evade rather than a break off. That way they are less manuverable having to turn and come back.