Ancient cavalry, too powerful in FoG?

[grahambriggs]

Just a plus one on the CT for being steady foot would make a BIG difference. It would also prolong foot v foot combat which sometimes is over very quickly. But this would make impact foot less effective. Unless they bring in -2 on CT for losing to undrilled impact foot and staying -1 for losing to drilled IF.

And round and round in circles we go.

I was thinking of this being just for HF vs mounted. I don't think there's a need for it in foot v foot combat. Yes that can be over quickly once they get to grips but it takes foot longer to close to combat than mounted.

[lawrenceg]

Hmm, yes playing around with the death roll might help the bigger battalions. Perhaps a +1 on the death roll if winning or drawing would help matters.

You could even scale death roll modifiers based on the size of the BG but that migh be in effect a double whammy.

How about +2 of you win or draw and are fighting with as many or more dice than your opponent, +1 if you are have fewer but more than half as many dice and +0 if you have half the number of dice you are against.

Also for shooting +2 if you take fewer than 1 HPB, +1 of you take 1HPB or more.

I agree that the +2 on death rolls does cause a problem in that the expected number of base losses does not scale properly with BG size, and this tends to skew things in favour of small BGs.

I'm not sure this suggestion would fix the problem (in close combat anyway) as if you have half the dice then it is probably a BG of 4 double overlapped, 4 dice versus 8 dice. With 8 dice against you, several hits is likely, so there is still a chance of losing a base even with +2.

IMO the problem is small BGs with small numbers of dice against them. So 2 BGs of 4 fighting one of 8 can expect to take 2 hits on each BG, for zero chance of losing a base, while the 8 expects 4 hits for a 1/3 chance of losing a base. Of course it is not as simple as that, but it illustrates the nature of the problem.

This is why I think we need to look at ways of gently reducing the chance of a base loss, rather than making it a sudden cut-off. Maybe something like giving a saving throw if you fail the death roll instead of a + on the death roll itself.

Something like

+1 becomes save on 5+
+2 becomes save on 4+
+3 becomes save on 3+

It would need a closer look and testing to calibrate it correctly. Elephants could get a better save if they are proving too brittle at present. It might also be necessary to consider allowing BGs of 2 to carry on fighting (or at least have a chance of doing so) when they are reduced to one base.

[philqw78]

Change the drawing mod to +1 the winning mod to remain at +2

This way an 8 Base BG that inflicts 2 hits on each of 2 BG and also takes 2 hits from each would take a base loss 50% of the time. It would inflict a base one third of the time but would inflict 2 base losses 1 in 36 times. Much better than now, as the 8 can now actually inflict a loss and a base loss hurts a 4 more than an 8.

[Strategos69]

If cavalry are so rubbish why did cavalry rule the battlefield for about 1000 years from 500 to 1500 AD?

In one word: stirrups.

This would mean that for example Norman knights charging a militia spear formation (protected defensive spear) would be -- at impact and - in melee. Is this really what you think is correct?

Lancer cavalry into bowmen, even unprotected bow with no melee capability would have the lancers impacting at a + (with the bow having extra dice for shooting) and + in melee. Surely having way better armour, a quality melee weapon and a warhorse against a bloke with a fruit knife and a jerkin is pretty much the definition of a big advantage?

In my first post I said that the changes are mainly thought for cavalry before Christ times, books 1 and 3 (although, I am not certain, all pre stirrups cavalry could fit). In Ancient times, horsemen had little stability and literally men could grab the horseman by a leg and throw him to the floor to kill him. You are right that I forgot about medium foot bowmen, but they are really scarce in the time frame I had in mind. Indeed, given the instability of horsemen, I don't think that those cavalrymen were that advantaged against them.

Regarding the debate about Middle Ages, I do not have an opinion of my own. I have only read this article, where the author quotes other works that state that the knights charges have been overestimated. Basically it is said that the cavalry charge had more a psychological impact and it was usually succesful when attacking poorly trained militia that had received before a shower of arrows.

[nikgaukroger]

If cavalry are so rubbish why did cavalry rule the battlefield for about 1000 years from 500 to 1500 AD?

In one word: stirrups.

A useful link for you if you think that - http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/shock.php

In my first post I said that the changes are mainly thought for cavalry before Christ times, books 1 and 3 (although, I am not certain, all pre stirrups cavalry could fit). In Ancient times, horsemen had little stability and literally men could grab the horseman by a leg and throw him to the floor to kill him.

A bit of a wild generalisation there I feel - have you, for example, seen how stable a rider is in the horned Celtic/Roman saddle?

[Strategos69]

A bit of a wild generalisation there I feel - have you, for example, seen how stable a rider is in the horned Celtic/Roman saddle?

You are right that all can't be accounted in one word. It is true that it is not just the styrrups, but there are other factors that lead to a change in the predominance of the infantry to that of the cavalry. A long story to tell, with social and political connotations in the background. What is true is that cavalry from 500 to 1500 AD was more stable than before and they can't be compared because of that.

Regarding the use of Celtic Roman saddle, it is important to note that it did its appearance in the Celtic world (according to Quesada's Arms of Greece and Rome, a book I strongly recomend where there is a chapter about styrrups precisely, by the way) in the II century BC and the Roman saddle (a copy from the Celtic one) did it the I BC. Greeks used a blanket as a saddle and many Ancient Spanish and some Italian peoples mounted bare. Stability was a problem for Ancient horsemen, but it is also true that it wasn't that important that it was impossible to fight on a horseback.

There are two extreme points here: mounted did have problems even to keep on their horses in Ancient times on the one hand and knights with styrrups were an unstoppable force. I guess the truth might be in between. According to what I have read, I think it is possible to charge with a lance even without a saddle and, if trained properly, being able to hurt badly your opponent and still remain on the horse.

I note here that I did not propose to get rid of the charging point for cavalry lancers, for example, as we know about the agressive use of them by Hellenistic armies. But I don't think that Roman, Celtic or other Gerek cavalry were alike. They were not armed with xyston but with javelins, which are usually shorter than infantry spears. That means that the only advantage in a charge Macedonian cavalry had, longer spears, is not available to them.

The problem I see is that the way PoA's are allocated in FoG do not fit what I have read in Ancient accounts of battles or secondary sources about the behaviour in combat of cavalry. For example, there is an interesting article in the magazine Ancient Warfare (II.4) about the defensive roles of the Greek cavalry. After reading from here and there I got to these conclusions:
- Ancient cavalry was not a shock force, and certainly not against heavy and medium foot (and I include here the medium foot as some might be classed both ways).
- Ancient cavalry was good against scattered enemies. In the description of the battle of Syracuse between siciliots and Athenians, it is interesting how the Syracusan cavalry prevented the pursuit of their own troops
- Cavalry combats were mobile and lasted less than infantry combats, involving usually turns and counter marches

Therefore, besides what I proposed before (- PoA for charging and + PoA for heavy and medium infantry at melee) it can be conceived, if some balance is thought to be needed, to make that impact foot, offensive spearmen and others (if I forget any) do not get a +PoA at impact when charging cavalry to represent the ability of the cavalry to attack those who went too far from the main body of the unit.

[nikgaukroger]

Therefore, besides what I proposed before (- PoA for charging and + PoA for heavy and medium infantry at melee) it can be conceived, if some balance is thought to be needed, to make that impact foot, offensive spearmen and others (if I forget any) do not get a +PoA at impact when charging cavalry to represent the ability of the cavalry to attack those who went too far from the main body of the unit.

So if I read you aright, you'd be adding a - PoA to all those ancient cavalry (by which you are talking, I think, about the non-xyston armed types of the BCs) who are already a PoA down against HF?

(I'll leave MF out of this at present as there are issues there)

[Strategos69]

So if I read you aright, you'd be adding a - PoA to all those ancient cavalry (by which you are talking, I think, about the non-xyston armed types of the BCs) who are already a PoA down against HF?

(I'll leave MF out of this at present as there are issues there)

Effectively, I am referring to those BG's and I am not certain if this should apply to the lancers. Right now, they are not exactly one PoA down. At impact they are, regardless of who charged. At melee, given that they are armoured they tend to be even or a PoA up. The interaction in my proposal would end up:

-- PoA if they charge non FRG heavy or medium foot
- PoA or even (depending on troop type) if they charge FRG foot
- PoA if they are charged by heavy or medium foot (although it might be considered that heavy or medium foot do not get a +PoA when charging mounted for the reasons explained)
(against legionaries average protected) even (new + PoA for heavy infantry vs armour PoA)
(against hoplites average protected) -- PoA (as long as the spearmen are steady; even if the hoplites are not steady)

This way cavalry of that time would be good against other cavalry and skirmishers and attacking line troops on the flank or rear, which was the case within the period.

[hammy]

If your concern is that early cavalry ate IYO too effective against infantry then surely a better solution would be to lobby for the grade of these troops to be lower than it currently is.

If all the classical mounted who are currently superior are reclassified as average (special pleading allowed) then surely that would make them a lot weaker against foot.

Of course it would also speed up cavalry vs cavalry combats, I am not sure if you want that or not.

Dumping whole POAs on huge numbers of troops is not IMO a good thing to do.

[madaxeman]

If your concern is that early cavalry ate IYO too effective against infantry then surely a better solution would be to lobby for the grade of these troops to be lower than it currently is.
If all the classical mounted who are currently superior are reclassified as average (special pleading allowed) then surely that would make them a lot weaker against foot.
Of course it would also speed up cavalry vs cavalry combats, I am not sure if you want that or not.
Dumping whole POAs on huge numbers of troops is not IMO a good thing to do.

Downgrading a good slice of ancient cavalry to Average would be a good thing IMO. Mounted troops get POAs that reflect their performance against historical combat opponents, but practically all of them that appear on table also get morale advantages too over the far more usual "average" infantry. Making mounted on mounted combats faster would also be a good thing IMO.

Where you'd then need to look for knock-on effects would be in the increased succeptability of mounted units to LH shooting however

[Strategos69]

It is true that downgrading can be a quick solution, although the odds change slightly and still cavalry would be better against infantry than historically. In fact making cavalry combats faster is good for the period (but not enough as infantry combats should last more too). In fact, cavalry combats last less when superior troops face average ones.

As it has been said, the problem that will arise then is the interaction among cavalry units themselves. If we downgrade the elite and superior to average, then the average should be downgraded to poor and then the light horse can have a big effect on those. If we don't downgrade, then we have a historical problem regarding the interaction among them as there are no distinctions.

It can be thought this problem as only a minor matter for a short period, but as far as I know, it would be at least for 5 or 6 centuries covered by the game and my guess is that even in more periods we could find examples. In general, as I see cavalry definition, there would be three types of cavalry: light, skirmishing and only willing to engage in close combat in very advantegeous situations against other mounted or skirmishers; medium cavalry, willing to engage other cavalry in close combat and foot in advantageous situations; heavy cavalry, willing to engage heavy foot even frontally.

[madaxeman]

As it has been said, the problem that will arise then is the interaction among cavalry units themselves. If we downgrade the elite and superior to average, then the average should be downgraded to poor and then the light horse can have a big effect on those. If we don't downgrade, then we have a historical problem regarding the interaction among them as there are no distinctions

Depends - if you assume that most cavalry rated as "superior" should include a high proportion of "average" too, the cavalry-on-cavalry interactions don't really change - especially if you adopt a more nuanced view regarding the prevalence of "armoured" status too.

Then only the shooting issue then needs to be dealt with. Perhaps.

[pezhetairoi]

What I'd like to see...

1) More "average" mounted. That will have some good effects, but requires rewriting the lists and I'm not a fan of that. Hmm

2)A change in the mechanism.
In most cases of armoured cavalry versus protected spearmen types, the mounted count -POA at impact and then =POA (from better armour) in melee.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? If they had a chance wouldn't it be on the charge -- when they can use their lances, throw their heavy javelins? Try and rattle the nerve of the infantry?
And then if the spearmen held the charge -- shouldn't melee be a bloodbath? Short swords against spears and shields and denser formations? The horses have bucked-back or halted in front of the line, and now the foot soldiers can get aggressive. Not where I would want to be as a cavalryman.

A phase of Melee combat should be their punishment for failure at impact ... right now it's usually your best chance. Just seems backwards to me.

If there is a -POA in melee for mounted fighting steady HF, that may solve part of the problem.
It makes a charge against spearmen more risky. If you win an unlikely impact and the infantry DISR, you get swords and better armour in melee (Break-Through!). If you don't win impact you get another round at -POA and probably a break-off (Fall back!).
Thus the break-off makes more sense -- escape the danger, perhaps turn and try again. As the rules stand, there is no reason to break-off other than you MUST -- If you stayed in the melee you'd be more likely to win.

A simple change. Anyone see any unwanted effects? I think I'll play test this next time.

[expendablecinc]

...but I have been wondering if cavalry of Ancient times is somehow overrrated when dealing with medium and heavy infantry...

I think the best test of the validity of the cavalry effectiveness is how the matchup affects on table play.

I play hoplites a lot (its the most recent of the handful of armies I own) and love playing against cavalry in any form - particularly if they are silly enough to have a high PBI and hand me first move.

With Cav I'd only be looking to flank or skirmish steady hoplites.

Individual anonalies are bound to happen but the hoplites reign supreme in this matchup

[expendablecinc]

What I'd like to see...

...
2)A change in the mechanism.
In most cases of armoured cavalry versus protected spearmen types, the mounted count -POA at impact and then =POA (from better armour) in melee.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? If they had a chance wouldn't it be on the charge -- when they can use their lances, throw their heavy javelins? Try and rattle the nerve of the infantry?
And then if the spearmen held the charge -- shouldn't melee be a bloodbath? Short swords against spears and shields and denser formations? The horses have bucked-back or halted in front of the line, and now the foot soldiers can get aggressive. Not where I would want to be as a cavalryman.

A phase of Melee combat should be their punishment for failure at impact ... right now it's usually your best chance. Just seems backwards to me.

If there is a -POA in melee for mounted fighting steady HF, that may solve part of the problem.
It makes a charge against spearmen more risky. If you win an unlikely impact and the infantry DISR, you get swords and better armour in melee (Break-Through!). If you don't win impact you get another round at -POA and probably a break-off (Fall back!).
Thus the break-off makes more sense -- escape the danger, perhaps turn and try again. As the rules stand, there is no reason to break-off other than you MUST -- If you stayed in the melee you'd be more likely to win.

A simple change. Anyone see any unwanted effects? I think I'll play test this next time.

Mellee phase is definately a punishment if they dont disrupt spearmen at impact. They dont get thier swordsman and ofter are overlapped.

Think of the hoplite phalanx as a creme bullee.
- hard shell and take a fair whack to crack it (ie disrupt at impact)
- If you succeed everything is soft and gooey from there on in. (++ adn most likely superior in mellee)
- If not you are mostly impotent in contact (ie mellee) and your only recourse is to pull back for another crack (ie fallback vs steady foot in the JAP)

[nikgaukroger]

If your concern is that early cavalry ate IYO too effective against infantry then surely a better solution would be to lobby for the grade of these troops to be lower than it currently is.

If all the classical mounted who are currently superior are reclassified as average (special pleading allowed) then surely that would make them a lot weaker against foot.

Of course it would also speed up cavalry vs cavalry combats, I am not sure if you want that or not.

Dumping whole POAs on huge numbers of troops is not IMO a good thing to do.

I would tend to agree with Hammy, if you were to be making changes here PoAs are probably not the way to do it.

[Strategos69]

Shouldn't it be the other way around? If they had a chance wouldn't it be on the charge -- when they can use their lances, throw their heavy javelins? Try and rattle the nerve of the infantry?

Effectively, I totally agree. The interaction is odd and completely counterintuitive.

I would tend to agree with Hammy, if you were to be making changes here PoAs are probably not the way to do it.

It might be a big change but I would reconsider the interaction in other periods too. I would if I knew them better. The problem is that, if not touching PoA's at all, the possibilities change only slightly. Indeed, as pezhetairoi said, the interaction seems to me the other way rounds as it should and even there should be a difference between charging mounted and receiving a charge from them.

[HannibalBarca]

Without introducing new concepts, is the issue that there should be a greater distinction between cavalry and knights/cataphracts in fighting style rather than just time period/armour? If cavalry, for example, had a -POA in mêlée versus MF/HF, but knights/cataphracts didn't, wouldn't this work better for all time periods covered (ambitiously) by the one set of rules? Your hobilars should interact with infantry much more like ancient cavalry than your knights do*, shouldn't they?

*without fudging the issue using armour and quality, they should be to differentiate different types of cavalry and knights from each other!

[pezhetairoi]

@expendiblecinc
My feeling is that melee isn't much punishment at all.
My point of view comes from the cavalry, as I regularly play Late Ach. Persian and Alex Mac. I'm afraid I'm guilty of charging all sorts of steady foot (and winning) when I shouldn't have historically been able to do so. The bow-swordsmen ted to do just as well as lancer/LS guys.
The damage is usually done in melee, with my 4 dice at even POA rerolling 1-2s. My average Off Sp opponent may have more dice, but the rerolls matter. If I have any sort of support with me, he is in bigger trouble as they will suck-off some of his dice.
I think your creme brulee (mmmm, creme brulee) analogy is sound, but my experience is that in melee you get an even better crack at the crust then you did in impact, and thus gameplay doesn't match your analogy.
I'm assuming here that the cavalry are superior (probably have a commander) and are armoured, and that the infantry is average and protected offensive spear. As the cavalry player its usually easy to set this up.
The better armour POA brings you up to even advantage, and it is pretty easy within the context of a game to make sure that any massive overlaps are are dealt with: I find going after smaller groups, bringing support, or hitting them at a corner where they can't expand is usually enough.
Just out of curiosity (and unrelated to this post), which city-state do you play? I have some hoplite mercs that I'm thinking of expanding into an army.


@others
A -POA a big change? I would have thought redoing the lists to change some cavalry to "average" or "protected" is much more work.
My knowledge of later periods and mounted troops is very sparse, and it is likely that I have overlooked something there -- I was hoping someone could point it out before I get to carried away!
Whatever the writers do with the rules, in the universe of "my dining room" it may become a house rule, but just know I haven't thought of everything. So feedback would be appreciated.

[madaxeman]

I'm assuming here that the cavalry are superior (probably have a commander) and are armoured, and that the infantry is average and protected offensive spear.

This doesn't strike me as specifically a "cavalry vs infantry combat mechanics" issue, it's part of a broader "the POA for armoured is too effective" issue, plus a "very few infantry are superior but most cavalry are" issue.