madaxeman wrote:That's quite cute. I'd been thinking of something similar,but hadn't gotten past the problems of preserving the legion vs pike/spear interaction (which does need the armoured POA) and also making some hoplites better than others.
Restricting the lost POA to cavalry is very tidy.
Hmm, that would not bother me too much. You'd have to reduce the points cost for armoured cavalry though as they already suffer from shooting, even if armoured. It would also make Protected cav more appealing due to cheaper points cost and being on same factor as armoured against protected foot for a lot of the time.
Wouldn't bother me either. Would it apply to all cavalry or just non-shock cavalry?
Who in their right mind would charge Armoured Cavalry into Armoured Spearmen? They are at minus at impact and minus in melee, even against protected hoplites they are minus at impact and evens in melee, but the hoplites usually have the numbers. The only time you charge is when you fail your test.
The problem with protected hoplites is against armoured foot, not cavalry. This is what needs to be addressed - quite a nice idea, but perhaps foot shouldn't gain an armour POA against steady spearmen.
dave_r wrote:Who in their right mind would charge Armoured Cavalry into Armoured Spearmen? They are at minus at impact and minus in melee, even against protected hoplites they are minus at impact and evens in melee, but the hoplites usually have the numbers. The only time you charge is when you fail your test.
The problem with protected hoplites is against armoured foot, not cavalry. This is what needs to be addressed - quite a nice idea, but perhaps foot shouldn't gain an armour POA against steady spearmen.
No. The problem is with even point competition games wherv people min/max best/worst troops.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
dave_r wrote:Who in their right mind would charge Armoured Cavalry into Armoured Spearmen? They are at minus at impact and minus in melee, even against protected hoplites they are minus at impact and evens in melee, but the hoplites usually have the numbers. The only time you charge is when you fail your test.
Wee talking Protected Spears here, not Armoured - which are quite good enough already.
If the Cavalry are Superior (which they always are) and Superiority is worth around half a POA the cavalry are down 1/2 POA at impact and up 1/2 POA in melee. Thats not too bad - or is too good, depending on how you look at it.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
dave_r wrote:Who in their right mind would charge Armoured Cavalry into Armoured Spearmen? They are at minus at impact and minus in melee, even against protected hoplites they are minus at impact and evens in melee, but the hoplites usually have the numbers. The only time you charge is when you fail your test.
Wee talking Protected Spears here, not Armoured - which are quite good enough already.
If the Cavalry are Superior (which they always are) and Superiority is worth around half a POA the cavalry are down 1/2 POA at impact and up 1/2 POA in melee. Thats not too bad - or is too good, depending on how you look at it.
The cavalry are unlikely to win big, if they win at all in melee - in which case they break off. They are likely to be either disrupted or a base down following melee, and then typically they charge in again at minus and with much fewer dice.
Knights can do it because they get two dice per base, Cavalry need to send in multiple BG's for this to work - in which case you would expect 130 pts of Cavalry to dispose of 42 points of spearmen.
dave_r wrote:Who in their right mind would charge Armoured Cavalry into Armoured Spearmen? They are at minus at impact and minus in melee, even against protected hoplites they are minus at impact and evens in melee, but the hoplites usually have the numbers. The only time you charge is when you fail your test.
Wee talking Protected Spears here, not Armoured - which are quite good enough already.
If the Cavalry are Superior (which they always are) and Superiority is worth around half a POA the cavalry are down 1/2 POA at impact and up 1/2 POA in melee. Thats not too bad - or is too good, depending on how you look at it.
Indeed, if by any means the cavalry manages to disrupt the spearmen, they get an extra PoA for the swordsmen capability. That is a PoA up, and 2 up when the spearmen are FRG. I really wonder how the interaction Persian cavalry armed with bows and with the possibility of evading looks like if they are facing BG's of protected spearmen (it would be in the period 450-420, when hoplites are downgraded). If the Persians have a lucky shot they become their best weapon to break through the Greek line. Aren't the Persians superior and even elite then?
dave_r wrote:Who in their right mind would charge Armoured Cavalry into Armoured Spearmen? They are at minus at impact and minus in melee, even against protected hoplites they are minus at impact and evens in melee, but the hoplites usually have the numbers. The only time you charge is when you fail your test.
Wee talking Protected Spears here, not Armoured - which are quite good enough already.
If the Cavalry are Superior (which they always are) and Superiority is worth around half a POA the cavalry are down 1/2 POA at impact and up 1/2 POA in melee. Thats not too bad - or is too good, depending on how you look at it.
Indeed, if by any means the cavalry manages to disrupt the spearmen, they get an extra PoA for the swordsmen capability. That is a PoA up, and 2 up when the spearmen are FRG. I really wonder how the interaction Persian cavalry armed with bows and with the possibility of evading looks like if they are facing BG's of protected spearmen (it would be in the period 450-420, when hoplites are downgraded). If the Persians have a lucky shot they become their best weapon to break through the Greek line. Aren't the Persians superior and even elite then?
The persians are never better than even at impact as they have no impact capability and they can be at evens, plus or double plus depeding on the order of the spearmen. We have to simulate breaking the enemy by shooting - this is what this models.
The Persians have very few elite troops and these are in BG's of two - it would be suicide to charge hoplites with these. The superiors have a slightly better chance, but it is very slim as they have to be in single rank.
madaxeman wrote:If the Cavalry are Superior (which they always are) and Superiority is worth around half a POA the cavalry are down 1/2 POA at impact and up 1/2 POA in melee.
dave_r wrote:The cavalry are unlikely to win big, if they win at all in melee - in which case they break off. They are likely to be either disrupted or a base down following melee, and then typically they charge in again at minus and with much fewer dice.
Superior troops half a POA down at impact and half a POA up in melee are "likely to be either disrupted or a base down after melee" ??? You mancs are an optimistic lot eh !
dave_rn wrote:Knights can do it because they get two dice per base, Cavalry need to send in multiple BG's for this to work - in which case you would expect 130 pts of Cavalry to dispose of 42 points of spearmen.
Because of the importance of mobility in FoG, 130 points of cavalry can however easily choose to gang up on 42 points of spearmen.
What we are discussing here though is, in the context of a whole battle, should 42 points of spearmen (which as a BG is still just as valuable as any of the other 11 BGs in a "typical" army) be quite so high on the "that BG represents a decent target for us" list for the more mobile cavalry vs other 11 units in the enemy army.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
madaxeman wrote:What we are discussing here though is, in the context of a whole battle, should 42 points of spearmen (which as a BG is still just as valuable as any of the other 11 BGs in a "typical" army) be quite so high on the "that BG represents a decent target for us" list for the more mobile cavalry vs other 11 units in the enemy army.
They aren't though. Cavalry don't make a beeline for spearmen they tend to head for Bowmen or other Cavalry where they are at + in impact.
madaxeman wrote:What we are discussing here though is, in the context of a whole battle, should 42 points of spearmen (which as a BG is still just as valuable as any of the other 11 BGs in a "typical" army) be quite so high on the "that BG represents a decent target for us" list for the more mobile cavalry vs other 11 units in the enemy army.
They aren't though. Cavalry don't make a beeline for spearmen they tend to head for Bowmen or other Cavalry where they are at + in impact.
I wonder what they would be pointing at when the enemy does not have bowmen and just one BG of cavalry. The cavalry should be trying to chase skirmishers and look for the flanks of the phalanx whereas the hoplites do their best to protect them with terrain, even getting into it. The problem is that right now the hoplites themselves do not seem a completely stupid choice given the troops available.
dave_r wrote:
We have to simulate breaking the enemy by shooting - this is what this models.
Something that never happened against continental Greeks, like frontal charges of the Persian cavalry routing the hoplites.
dave_r wrote:
The Persians have very few elite troops and these are in BG's of two - it would be suicide to charge hoplites with these. The superiors have a slightly better chance, but it is very slim as they have to be in single rank.
2-4 actually for Early Achaemenid Persians. Not that this matter though, but if I played Early Persians I think they would be better to break the hoplites line than medium foot light spear.
madaxeman wrote:What we are discussing here though is, in the context of a whole battle, should 42 points of spearmen (which as a BG is still just as valuable as any of the other 11 BGs in a "typical" army) be quite so high on the "that BG represents a decent target for us" list for the more mobile cavalry vs other 11 units in the enemy army.
They aren't though. Cavalry don't make a beeline for spearmen they tend to head for Bowmen or other Cavalry where they are at + in impact.
I wonder what they would be pointing at when the enemy does not have bowmen and just one BG of cavalry. The cavalry should be trying to chase skirmishers and look for the flanks of the phalanx whereas the hoplites do their best to protect them with terrain, even getting into it. The problem is that right now the hoplites themselves do not seem a completely stupid choice given the troops available.
It's funny, but I just don't see entire armies of hoplites.
dave_r wrote:
We have to simulate breaking the enemy by shooting - this is what this models.
Something that never happened against continental Greeks, like frontal charges of the Persian cavalry routing the hoplites.
But other hoplites did and were. If hoplites were subject to Longbowmen they would possibly break.
dave_r wrote:
The Persians have very few elite troops and these are in BG's of two - it would be suicide to charge hoplites with these. The superiors have a slightly better chance, but it is very slim as they have to be in single rank.
2-4 actually for Early Achaemenid Persians. Not that this matter though, but if I played Early Persians I think they would be better to break the hoplites line than medium foot light spear.
Strategos69 wrote:2-4 actually for Early Achaemenid Persians. Not that this matter though, but if I played Early Persians I think they would be better to break the hoplites line than medium foot light spear.
But not as good as immortals.
And cheaper too.
The early Persians get 0-4 bases of guards (elite or superior) armoured cavalry and 6-12 bases of superior armoured Persian/Median cavalry. Historically, the encounters between Greeks and the early Persians end at 460BC which means the Greek hoplites will still be armoured and the Persian cavalry had best look for a hanging flank. The late Persians get 0-4 bases of elite armoured cavalry and 12-42 bases of any combination of superior/average/poor and armoured/protected Persian+ cavalry (only up to 8 armed with bows). However, you'd have a hard time convincing me that a late Persian army of 46 bases elite/superior armoured cavalry is historical (for one it would be really tough to recreate Alexander's victories) - although I'm sure you would see that in a tournament.
Before Alexander we have the Spartans mucking around in Asia (with superior protected hoplites) and the "ten thousand". The later case is interesting since the Persian king choose not to attack them, but perhaps that makes sense. Why risk a 50-50 battle with your best cavalry when the Greeks are leaving the empire anyway and you've got the risk of civil war at home where the cavalry might be an essential component of the army. It shows the difference between a one-off battle and a real campaign where risking high quality troops that can't easily be replaced in encounters where they might have a marginal advantage (never mind 50-50) is perhaps unwise.
As well, a lot of the discussion above seems to be based on the player with the average protected hoplites sitting around doing nothing in fear of enemy roving packs of killer superior armoured cavalry. Well I guess if you choose to fight with an army of naught else than average protected spearmen then, "you're a better man than I am, Gunga Din".
Who in their right mind would charge Armoured Cavalry into Armoured Spearmen? They are at minus at impact and minus in melee, even against protected hoplites they are minus at impact and evens in melee, but the hoplites usually have the numbers. The only time you charge is when you fail your test.
True, i don't see a problem in the interaction, cavalry vs spearmen, if we consider one on one, a BG of 8 protected spearmen vs 4 armoured cavalry (to keep points similar), the advantage is clearly with the spearmen.
The immortals are even at impact and a PoA down/even at melee (depending on the armour). They can have as many as cavalry. The other option is a PoA down at both phases of average troops. I am not saying that the interaction is wrong for the infantry, but there is an incentive for an agressive use of the cavalry because it is a too powerful option compared to the historical performance.
Just a funny (or should I say fun? I guess I have a hard time getting the difference ) note: Thesalian cavalry in the period 450-420 (out of Medic wars) is + at both phases or ++ in melee depending on armour against immortals. Isn't that the world the other way round?
Strategos69 wrote:The immortals are even at impact and a PoA down/even at melee (depending on the armour). They can have as many as cavalry. The other option is a PoA down at both phases of average troops. I am not saying that the interaction is wrong for the infantry, but there is an incentive for an agressive use of the cavalry because it is a too powerful option compared to the historical performance.
Rubbish. First of you claim you are talking about protected spearmen only, then you give the POA's as if though they are armoured? Then you claim that Armoured Cavalry are a class above protected spearmen whilst ignoring armoured spearmen. There have been examples provided of Cavalry riding down hoplites so we know it happens, it is a rare occurence because it didn't happen that often. In the game it is a rare occurence as well.
Let it go and move on.
Just a funny (or should I say fun? I guess I have a hard time getting the difference ) note: Thesalian cavalry in the period 450-420 (out of Medic wars) is + at both phases or ++ in melee depending on armour against immortals. Isn't that the world the other way round?
Thessalian cavalry is never at ++ against Immortals because the Immortals are armoured - only Cataphracts and Knights are at ++ against Immortals. The immortals get the option to be protected as well, but the Thessalians can be average.
If you are going to take the best available option for all the cavalry and the worst available option for the infantry then yes, it is likely the Cavalry will win.
Thessalians are only armoured and I provided both possibilities (protected and armoured, both of the possibilities for the Immortals) and I said there is a problem in the time frame 450-420 according to the lists. Describing the Immortals as armoured seems right for game terms (because if not the Immortals are very bad troops as all protected ones) but that is not consistent really with the armour they wore. To put it in other terms: linothorax (protected hoplites) were as much protected (or more) than immortals (a case for making all line infantry armoured, maybe). Anyway, + at both phases doesn't seem wrong to you for something Greeks never dare to try? In fact in the Persian wars they gave up to gather any mounted and preferred to stay on hills. It is just another example of crazy interactions that I guess never came to the mind of the designers because in the vacuum do not seem feasible but when in a game, they really are.
Ok, so now let's take the example of the worst cavalry the Greeks can field, average protected light spear. They are a + PoA at impact against Immortals (the best infantry the Persians cal field) with a -1 for CT and a PoA down at impact. The Greeks would have numerical advantage! Unless they make it on the shooting phase, the elite of the Persian infantry might have a hard time against the worst mounted the Greeks can throw. I am not saying that this is a great advantage, but only that this cavalry is overrated compared to what they did historically.
Regarding the battle in the Thates river, there can be many interpetrations but the sources do not say that a mounted frontal charge of cavalry put into rout the hoplites. I can also say that the mounted charged on the flanks, that it was infantry who did route them and basically there would not be a certain support for any of our speculative interpetrations of the battle.
Strategos69 wrote:Thessalians are only armoured and I provided both possibilities (protected and armoured, both of the possibilities for the Immortals) and I said there is a problem in the time frame 450-420 according to the lists. Describing the Immortals as armoured seems right for game terms (because if not the Immortals are very bad troops as all protected ones) but that is not consistent really with the armour they wore. To put it in other terms: linothorax (protected hoplites) were as much protected (or more) than immortals (a case for making all line infantry armoured, maybe). Anyway, + at both phases doesn't seem wrong to you for something Greeks never dare to try? In fact in the Persian wars they gave up to gather any mounted and preferred to stay on hills. It is just another example of crazy interactions that I guess never came to the mind of the designers because in the vacuum do not seem feasible but when in a game, they really are.
The designers also say that armour is also used to get the correct interaction between historical troops.
Ok, so now let's take the example of the worst cavalry the Greeks can field, average protected light spear. They are a + PoA at impact against Immortals (the best infantry the Persians cal field) with a -1 for CT and a PoA down at impact. The Greeks would have numerical advantage! Unless they make it on the shooting phase, the elite of the Persian infantry might have a hard time against the worst mounted the Greeks can throw. I am not saying that this is a great advantage, but only that this cavalry is overrated compared to what they did historically.
But they aren't. Can you provide evidence of infantry duffing up Cavalry?
What about the 17 Sung Cavalry who killed several thousand infantry?
Regarding the battle in the Thates river, there can be many interpetrations but the sources do not say that a mounted frontal charge of cavalry put into rout the hoplites. I can also say that the mounted charged on the flanks, that it was infantry who did route them and basically there would not be a certain support for any of our speculative interpetrations of the battle.
You could, but you would probably be wrong. Given that we don't have a massive amount to go on, we have to take a guess at what is most likely that occured. That is known as deduction. A couple of days ago you were claiming the greeks weren't even hoplites? We do know that the enemy was mainly Mounted and that they put the Greeks and Thracians to flight - was the infantry they brought likely to do that? It is also unlikely that it was a flank charge as that would have been over too quickly for the Skythian Heavy Cavalry to bash the Cavalry in front of them and then turn 180 degrees to do them as well. The only plausible theory is that a frontal cavalry charge broke the infantry. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your thoughts.
"But they aren't. Can you provide evidence of infantry duffing up Cavalry?"
Don't you read anything people post Dave?
Have you not read Julian's description of the Battle of Singara? And what of the Battle of Narasara as described by Festus and others? How about Ammianus' description of the Battles of Ctesiphon and Maranga? And what about the two defeats Galerius inflicted on Narseh? All these battles were infantry heavy armies defeating cavalry heavy armies.
"What about the 17 Sung Cavalry who killed several thousand infantry?"
The other side of the coin is this, taken from Rance- At the battle of Callinicum in 531 'a small force of infantry and dismounted cavalry covered the Roman retreat in a manner strikingly reminiscent of Maurice’s foËlkon:the infantry, and few of them indeed, were fighting against the whole Persian cavalry. Nevertheless, the enemy could neither rout them nor otherwise overpower them. For constantly massed together shoulder-to-shoulder into a small space, and forming with their shields a very strong barrier, they shot at the Persians more conveniently than they were shot at by them. Frequently withdrawing, the Persians would advance against them so as to break up and destroy their line, but retired again unsuccessful.
Holding firm in the face of charging cavalry was one of the most psychologically demanding tasks for infantry; not only was late Roman infantry capable of standing up to cavalry attacks but deterring cavalry was actually one of its primary functions. On the sixth-century battlefield infantry retained an important, albeit more passive role, serving principally as a firm bulwark'
And yet another example, again from Rance- 'Narses’ deployment against the Ostrogoths at Taginae in 552 offers the most conspicuous example, but for the present purposes the preliminaries to the battle are of greater interest than the main engagement. These centred on a strategic hillock to the left of the Roman line, of which both sides sought control. Narses committed to its defence just fifty regular Roman infantry (§k katalÒgou pezoÊw), who positioned themselves along a watercourse running at its base. There they defied the repeated attempts of increasingly larger numbers of Ostrogothic cavalry to dislodge them. Procopius’ description is worth quoting at length, since although the word foËlkon was alien to his classicising vocabulary this is again clearly what he describes:
the fifty took up their position, standing shoulder to shoulder and deployed in the form of a phalanx as well as the limited
space permitted … The horsemen accordingly charged upon them with great tumult and shouting, intending to capture them at the first cry, but the Romans deployed together into a small space and forming a barrier with their shields and thrusting forward their spears, held their ground … By shoving with their shields and by the protection of their spears, which were dense but nowhere tangled, they defended themselves as steadfastly as possible against their assailants; and they purposely made a din with their shields, terrifying the horses, on the one hand, and the men on the other, with the points of their spears. And the horses became excited, because they were greatly troubled by the rough ground and the din of the shields, and also because they could not get through anywhere, while the men at the same time
were gradually worn down, fighting as they were with men packed so tightly together and not giving an inch of ground'
There are other examples, but the above serve just as well.
Today I had a 4 stand BG of MRR Roman cavalry charge into a disrupted BG of 8 Pyrrhic pike. The end result of the combat was a broken phalanx of pike that just happened to lead to the Roman victory. So based on this example I would argue that yes, ancient cavalry in FoG are overpowered.
But I have played game systems that take the other approach where it is nearly or totaly impossible for cavalry to break pike or spear frontally. While this may mirror the ancient authors it makes for a poor game. I am very happy with the balance between playing FoG as a game and FoG as a historic representation.
In my example above, had the pike been steady I am quite sure that Romans would not have won ... at least not under my control.
) note: Thesalian cavalry in the period 450-420 (out of Medic wars) is + at both phases or ++ in melee depending on armour against immortals. Isn't that the world the other way round?
