Ancient cavalry, too powerful in FoG?

[rpayne]

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.

I don't think people should be basing things on examples from a single game.

Today I had a unit of unprotected Bow break a unit of Pike in melee. I wouldn't call this particularly indicative of anything other than hotshot dice.

[pezhetairoi]

@shadowdragon
Well greetings. I didn't notice that we are neighbours! That explains why I find you so polite, eh?

@strategos69
I have been using the Persian armoured superior bow/sword -cavalry exactly as you described -- shoot until you get a disrupt, then charge in. It works like a charm (usually) with very little risk. That I don't have a problem with. Their advantage is portable missile fire, and if they are patient they can get lucky with good dice and a bad CT from their opponent. It feels right. The tactic has a lot of historical backing. In fact it could have been used at the Thates river (ahem!).
I am a little unhappy with the fact that the same 4 bases of cavalry can charge 6 bases of STEADY protected spearmen with an approx 50/50 chance of success. The POAs, they are exactly the same as for lancers and light spear.

@ Authors and others
Now please, don't get me wrong. I quite like this game and am happy to play it as is. Any comments I make are only suggestions about what I'd experiment with if it was up to me (and it isn't).
I see a simple one line fix -- Any mounted, -POA versus steady spearmen/pikemen HF (in melee chart only). Melee is where I find it doesn't quite work. This may be only an in-period problem, and that is all I can comment on. I've noticed this because that's all I ever play.

@ Dave_r
You may be confusing me with strategos69.

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.

No, we don't. That's not called deduction, that is called invention. Or guessing. If you'd like to jump to conclusions about a few lines in Diodorus , that's up to you. But I can't follow you there. Not without a parachute -- its a long drop.
Diodorus didn't even care to tell us the details. He found the tragic story of the two warring brothers more compelling than this battle.

The only plausible theory is that a frontal cavalry charge broke the infantry. Sorry if that doesn't fit in with your thoughts.

The only plausible explanation is a direct frontal cavalry charge on steady drilled mercenary spearmen on the open plains? I'd give it a little more thought....

[dave_r]

"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.

And did you read the response to those Adrian? Julian's description of Singara tells us nothing apart from that Julian was a masterful leader and was absolutely brilliant. Who wrote this account again? I seem to recall the other accounts being somewhat disputed as well.

"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, 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.

Well, if you are attempting to quote a small skirmish were a bunch of chaps were defending a riverbank uphill then it's getting desperate. But the bottom line is that there are as many accounts of infantry duffing up cavalry as there are of cavalry duffing up infantry. So the fights should be about even, which they currently are.

So as I have previously posted, I don't see a problem here?

[nikgaukroger]

"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.

And did you read the response to those Adrian? Julian's description of Singara tells us nothing apart from that Julian was a masterful leader and was absolutely brilliant. Who wrote this account again? I seem to recall the other accounts being somewhat disputed as well.

Well here we have a comedy of errors from Adrian and Dave. The highlights:

Adrian - it is Labianus' account that has useful details of Singara not Julian's which has more or less nothing.

Dave - Julian did not command at Singara he was writing a panegyric about Constantius II, plus Ammianus has accounts where Roman infantry clearly beat Sasanid cavalry in a straight fight.

[dave_r]

"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.

And did you read the response to those Adrian? Julian's description of Singara tells us nothing apart from that Julian was a masterful leader and was absolutely brilliant. Who wrote this account again? I seem to recall the other accounts being somewhat disputed as well.

Well here we have a comedy of errors from Adrian and Dave. The highlights:

Adrian - it is Labianus' account that has useful details of Singara not Julian's which has more or less nothing.

Dave - Julian did not command at Singara he was writing a panegyric about Constantius II, plus Ammianus has accounts where Roman infantry clearly beat Sasanid cavalry in a straight fight.

Well, I was just remembering what Adrian posted a while back

However, my last point stands - we have as many accounts of Infantry duffing up Cavalry as Cavalry beating infantry. Obviously it depends on the circumstances, but Roman infantry against Cavalry is even's and evens, with the Romans likely to be Superior, so I don't see the problem here.

If we are talking about lancer armed cavalry riding down MF then again, that isn't exactly unsurprising is it?

[ValentinianVictor]

"Well here we have a comedy of errors from Adrian and Dave. The highlights:

Adrian - it is Labianus' account that has useful details of Singara not Julian's which has more or less nothing.

Dave - Julian did not command at Singara he was writing a panegyric about Constantius II, plus Ammianus has accounts where oman infantry clearly beat Sasanid cavalry in a straight fight."

I can only say from my part that the only accounts I have are from Festus, Eutropus, Zosimos, Sozemon, Socrates etc, I cannot find Libanius account of Singara in either Vol 1 or Vol 2 of the Loeb Libanius Orations. I would welcome being pointed at which Libanius translation I need to seek out.

And I don't think that Dave took on board that the other quotations from Rance related to full scale battles where part of the Roman force was attacked, not to skirmishes.

[ValentinianVictor]

Anyway, I fully accept that 'shock' cavalry such as Cataphracts and Clibanarii did frontally attack infantry, its just I do not believe the evidence is there for cavalry such as Roman Equites asnd similar types did it.

[nikgaukroger]

I can only say from my part that the only accounts I have are from Festus, Eutropus, Zosimos, Sozemon, Socrates etc, I cannot find Libanius account of Singara in either Vol 1 or Vol 2 of the Loeb Libanius Orations. I would welcome being pointed at which Libanius translation I need to seek out.

Dodgeon & Lieu.

[dave_r]

"Well here we have a comedy of errors from Adrian and Dave. The highlights:

Adrian - it is Labianus' account that has useful details of Singara not Julian's which has more or less nothing.

Dave - Julian did not command at Singara he was writing a panegyric about Constantius II, plus Ammianus has accounts where oman infantry clearly beat Sasanid cavalry in a straight fight."

I can only say from my part that the only accounts I have are from Festus, Eutropus, Zosimos, Sozemon, Socrates etc, I cannot find Libanius account of Singara in either Vol 1 or Vol 2 of the Loeb Libanius Orations. I would welcome being pointed at which Libanius translation I need to seek out.

And I don't think that Dave took on board that the other quotations from Rance related to full scale battles where part of the Roman force was attacked, not to skirmishes.

The other quotation was a draw - neither infantry or Cavalry were broken?

What is your point though Adrian - where does the game not match your quotations?

[ValentinianVictor]

I can only say from my part that the only accounts I have are from Festus, Eutropus, Zosimos, Sozemon, Socrates etc, I cannot find Libanius account of Singara in either Vol 1 or Vol 2 of the Loeb Libanius Orations. I would welcome being pointed at which Libanius translation I need to seek out.

Dodgeon & Lieu.

Thanks Nik.
Just read the relevant Libanius translation in Dodgeon & Lieu. All I can say is that its essentially the same account given by Festus and Julian (I'm surprised they dont mention Julian's account), the only difference being that Libanius states the Romans chased the Sasanids for 150 stades, he makes more mention of the troops types at the battle, and he credits Constantius with winning the battle of Singara.

[nikgaukroger]

What is your point though Adrian - where does the game not match your quotations?

How would he know, he doesn't play FoG.

[nikgaukroger]

Thanks Nik.
Just read the relevant Libanius translation in Dodgeon & Lieu. All I can say is that its essentially the same account given by Festus and Julian (I'm surprised they dont mention Julian's account),

They have it in my copy

the only difference being that Libanius states the Romans chased the Sasanids for 150 stades, he makes more mention of the troops types at the battle, and he credits Constantius with winning the battle of Singara.

Many material differences IMO, some of the detail is rather useful - like the Persian cavalry charging the Roman infantry

[dave_r]

What is your point though Adrian - where does the game not match your quotations?

How would he know, he doesn't play FoG.

Its a real pity when those "historians" who have a bee in their bonnet attempt to influence a game that they have never played or play very infrequently. Other rulesets have suffered massive problems because of this issue.

[david53]

Its a real pity when those "historians" who have a bee in their bonnet attempt to influence a game that they have never played or play very infrequently. Other rulesets have suffered massive problems because of this issue.

I think there are many people on here who read the histories and do play the game, that this would'nt happen in the FOG ruleset.

[nikgaukroger]

Its a real pity when those "historians" who have a bee in their bonnet attempt to influence a game that they have never played or play very infrequently. Other rulesets have suffered massive problems because of this issue.

I think there are many people on here who read the histories and do play the game, that this would'nt happen in the FOG ruleset.

What is important is that the writers know how the game plays.

[shadowdragon]

@shadowdragon
Well greetings. I didn't notice that we are neighbours! That explains why I find you so polite, eh?

Politeness and forebearance are essential traits for effective, electronic text communication where you don't have the benefit of auditory and visual cues. It's not so much from being Canadian as from bitter experience.

I have been using the Persian armoured superior bow/sword -cavalry exactly as you described -- shoot until you get a disrupt, then charge in. It works like a charm (usually) with very little risk. That I don't have a problem with. Their advantage is portable missile fire, and if they are patient they can get lucky with good dice and a bad CT from their opponent. It feels right. The tactic has a lot of historical backing. In fact it could have been used at the Thates river (ahem!).

It works as long as your opponent doesn't have offensive spearmen and doesn't have a plan to use them aggressively. I tried this with both the Persian foot and mounted, but they ended up being with some angry offensive spearmen charging into their ranks. The cavalry could evade...to a point and the MF persian foot had to stand and take it.

I am a little unhappy with the fact that the same 4 bases of cavalry can charge 6 bases of STEADY protected spearmen with an approx 50/50 chance of success.

Don't misquote my earlier "data" or I'll send the boys around! It's 50-50 provided the cavalry have the advantage of both quality and armour and the spearmen don't have any terrain advantage. That should not be reduced to "4 bases of cavalry can charge 6 bases of STEADY protected spearmen with an approx 50/50 chance of success". Those caveats are important.

I don't have a problem with this since (1) historically (for the book 1 and 3 periods) I don't believe that most of the cavalry was "armoured superior" and what little cavalry was was too valuable to risk on 50/50 ventures and (2) in tournaments , where you will see players take the as much as cavalry from a book 1 or 3 list allows as "armoured superior" the players need to compete with a wide range of armies and "protected average spearmen" probably aren't common.

I fully agree with what Richard Bodley Scott posted earlier (i.e., cavalry probably have a slightly better chance than warranted, but it's still not a good idea; and that the lists are structured to both allow representation of historical battles and give tournament players a competitive chance).

By the way, even if we had the POA you described there still be cases where some type of cavalry would have a 50-50 or better chance (e.g., armoured superior cavalry versus poor protected spearmen). So then what? Add another POA disadvantage for the cavalry? If you don't think cavalry should frontally charge steady spearmen then you actually looking at a rule that forbids it or requires a CT.

[shadowdragon]

@shadowdragon
Well greetings. I didn't notice that we are neighbours! That explains why I find you so polite, eh?

Politeness and forebearance are essential traits for effective, electronic text communication where you don't have the benefit of auditory and visual cues. It's not so much from being Canadian as from bitter experience.

To understand the distortion of text only communication, rumour has it that in "real life" dave_r is a loveable, diplomatic sort.

[dave_r]

@shadowdragon
Well greetings. I didn't notice that we are neighbours! That explains why I find you so polite, eh?

Politeness and forebearance are essential traits for effective, electronic text communication where you don't have the benefit of auditory and visual cues. It's not so much from being Canadian as from bitter experience.

To understand the distortion of text only communication, rumour has it that in "real life" dave_r is a loveable, diplomatic sort.

Lies. All of it.

[shadowdragon]

Politeness and forebearance are essential traits for effective, electronic text communication where you don't have the benefit of auditory and visual cues. It's not so much from being Canadian as from bitter experience.

To understand the distortion of text only communication, rumour has it that in "real life" dave_r is a loveable, diplomatic sort.

Lies. All of it.

I believe the report came from the Ministry of Truth (the WAR IS PEACE - FREEDOM IS SLAVERY - IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH boys).

[ValentinianVictor]

"What is important is that the writers know how the game plays."

And that's the most important thing of all, it does not really matter a damn what I or anyone else thinks, its down to the authors themselves how they think the rules reflect the reality of warfare.

I've not actually said anything about changing rules, all I have given is examples of ancient warfare that appear to run contrary to the accepted thinking i.e. cavalry routinely frontally charged infantry and when they did they ran them down.

Most ancient rulesets upto fairly recent times were affected by this mentality, influenced by 19th and early 20th century historians who used one battle in particular as evidence that cavalry were superior to infantry, the battle in question being Adrianopolis 378AD. Thankfully modern historians have challenged that viewpoint and things are not quite so clear cut as they initially seemed.