Cavalry points question

[Samei00]

Hi
why does Cavalry cost 2 points more for average and 3 points for superior compared to Horse?
As far as I can see only advantage of cavalry is Evade in a single rank which I'm not sure how commonly used a tactic that would be
(I saw a madaxeman combat report against ottomans where the ottoman cavalry didn't seem to use Evade)
Have I missed another advantage? otherwise 2 - 3 point premium seems a bit steep for Evade in a single rank
Also why does mounted bow cost 2 points (or am I wrong, don't have riles in front of me) : foot bow costs 1 point, mounted bow nowhere near as good as gunpowder weapons
Sorry I'm in a whingey mood

[rbodleyscott]

Hi
why does Cavalry cost 2 points more for average and 3 points for superior compared to Horse?
As far as I can see only advantage of cavalry is Evade in a single rank which I'm not sure how commonly used a tactic that would be
(I saw a madaxeman combat report against ottomans where the ottoman cavalry didn't seem to use Evade)
Have I missed another advantage? otherwise 2 - 3 point premium seems a bit steep for Evade in a single rank
Also why does mounted bow cost 2 points (or am I wrong, don't have riles in front of me) : foot bow costs 1 point, mounted bow nowhere near as good as gunpowder weapons
Sorry I'm in a whingey mood

Well the short answer is that it is because that is our estimate of the overall game value of these features.

In cases where we were in doubt, we chose to err on the side of making obsolete troop-type relatively less cost-effective rather than risk making them too cost-effective.

We had to put the price up on bow-armed cavalry from the values we initially chose, because using those lower points costs, Early Ottomans won the first two beta tournaments pretty handily.

This seemed to demonstrate that our initial estimates of the cost-effectivness of bow-armed cavalry were underestimates, and the last thing we wanted was for FOGR tournaments to be dominated by Early Ottomans!

(They are still effective, but probably need to be used differently.)

[Samei00]

hi
could it have been that the ottomans were commanded by a genius leading to a misleading impression of their effectiveness

[nikgaukroger]

hi
could it have been that the ottomans were commanded by a genius leading to a misleading impression of their effectiveness

Even allowing for the players ability the effect was, in the authors', opinion wrong - hence the current points costs.

[rbodleyscott]

hi
could it have been that the ottomans were commanded by a genius leading to a misleading impression of their effectiveness

Well Alasdair Harley may be a genius, but I am certainly not.

Even allowing for the players ability the effect was, in the authors', opinion wrong - hence the current points costs.

The interactions appeared to work very well, but nevertheless we found the Ottomans too good. The only conclusion we could come to was that we had underpriced them.

[Samei00]

I suppose the high points value of bow armed cavalry represents the tactical choices they can force on the enemy
If you have mounted troops with impact but no missile capability you have to close and charge as otherwise they can just stand there and shoot you and the extra 1"
compared to carbines mean they're more likely to evade a charge then turn round and keep shooting

[hazelbark]

We had to put the price up on bow-armed cavalry from the values we initially chose, because using those lower points costs, Early Ottomans won the first two beta tournaments pretty handily.

Will be interested in seeing how this holds up over time as people get used to dealing with them.

[Delbruck]

DEFINITIONS:

Cavalry: Most other mounted troops fall into this catagory. Thet are capable of skirmishing or forming a solid body to shoot or charge. They are not classified as light troops.

Shock troops: any battlegroup incliuding mounted heavy lancers, light lancers, or impact mounted capability , except light troops.

QUESTION:

Why are eastern mounted troops armed with lance classed as cavalry, when they are shock troops and cannot evade? What capabilility are they getting for the extra points?

[marty]

Why are eastern mounted troops armed with lance classed as cavalry, when they are shock troops and cannot evade? What capabilility are they getting for the extra points?

I've been looking through the rulebook and cant find any reason for this. They are simply more expensive and worse! Might need an errata.

Martin

[rbodleyscott]

Why are eastern mounted troops armed with lance classed as cavalry, when they are shock troops and cannot evade? What capabilility are they getting for the extra points?

I've been looking through the rulebook and cant find any reason for this. They are simply more expensive and worse! Might need an errata.

Martin

Or not.

That would involve adding complexity to the points system - unfortunately Cavalry lancers are just one of the losers from the policy of keeping the points system as simple as possible.

The alternative would have been to make Cavalry cheaper and Bow capability more expensive, but that would impact unfairly on bow-armed LH.

[kevinj]

That would involve adding complexity to the points system - unfortunately Cavalry lancers are just one of the losers from the policy of keeping the points system as simple as possible.

The alternative would have been to make Cavalry cheaper and Bow capability more expensive, but that would impact unfairly on bow-armed LH.

Would it not have been simpler and more equitable to reclassify Shock Cavalry as "Horse"?

[marty]

I dont think they can be reclassified as horse beacuse then they wouldn't have the defining negative characteristic of cav (not liking been shot at by gunpowder weapons).

This is a pretty serious inequity to impose for the sake of not adding a few words to the points system chart (ie the horse column becomes horse (or cav with lance), the cav column becomes cav who dont have lance). Even if they are charged the same as horse they are still a bad buy! I hope no one was planning a Rajput army or anything similiar.

Martin

[Delbruck]

So it costs superior shock cavalry an extra three points for the privilege of taking a -1 in the cohesion test when being shot at by firearms. Lucky for average shock cavalry it's only an extra one point. This all seems a bit WABish to me

Fortunately, there are some European armies, such as Scots, who also have the benefit of shock cavalry's special status.

[deadtorius]

Not exactly sure where you get this extra -1 for being shot at by firearms from, and this is from a noble Royalist whose Cavaliers (shock troops) get shot at by the nefarious Parliamentarian Carbines in every game. Fortunately needing a 5 to hit means few of the dice actually score the hit needed for the 1 hit per 2 bases from shooting. I don't mind paying the points to get them superior, both for re rolls and staying power. Although last time out I lost my commanded shot in the middle of two BG's who went disrupted and fragged from seeing that then went fragged routed from the next melee and then rout from the following charge... so much for that flank

[marty]

Not exactly sure where you get this extra -1 for being shot at by firearms from

The cohesion test chart in the rules.

elephants, cavalry, camalry or light horse shot at by firearms

It does not apply to cavaliers and the problem is not the cost of becoming superior. The problem is when you take cav with lance you lose the only advantage of being cav (evading), you keep the disadvantage and still pay more points than horse for the privelige!

Martin

[deadtorius]

So there was a hidden advantage to having cavaliers then. I think the rules are attempting to show why lancers started to disappear off the battle field, their countries could not afford the super high cost of fielding them any more