Cavalry can't catch Light Foot?

[pyrrhus]

So as a newbie what tactics do you use against the LF ? to get rid of them .or can you afford to just to ignore them ?do you need cavalry in larger bg's (6?) will we see larger bg's of LF?

[pezhetairoi]

This same condition has bothered me in another system (wrg-warrior) as well.
Cav seem a little too slow.
This is my opinion, and not any sort of attack.

According to the distances, mounted men are 0% faster than men on foot. What?
When maneuvering, this sounds plausible, it is the charge that seems a bit wrong. I don't think anyone can disagree.
See: Racetrack.
The real problem steps in with the "you go, I go" turn system. Cav get close (as they should have to), LF get far, Cav get close, LF get far etc... All the while the light foot shoot and shoot. With the Impact phase first, chargers never get that chance to close the gap with the burst of speed mounted troops are known for.

Now according to my expectations, I'd want the LF to be able to delay Cav, but I always assumed the delay was caused by the cavalry taking a long time to kill them all as they run for their lives , and also taking a long time to extricate themselves from the blood-thirsty situation and rally for further action. More often than not, the cavalry would take the charge too far, actually kill too few, but "destroy" the enemy light foot. The Cav would suffer a little and come out tired. The LF target probably wasn't worth the time/casualties in the greater scope of the battle.

Now if this continued (but failed) charge situation (as currently expressed in the rules) is supposed to simulate this there is some consistency and some inconsistency. The charge is carried too far, and it takes a long time. However the LF likely suffer nothing, are not destroyed and remain in play, and the cavalry have a much greater chance of serious casualties, and possibly destruction for each turn the chase continues.

Some Solutions:
1 - Tweak the move distances. This is harder than it sounds. All of the distances are interacting with all the others. If you change one, you'd have to recalculate all the rest and you may end up where you started.
2 - Give (some/all) mounted troops a bonus to the charge move -- problems see above.
3 - A cohesion test for LF charged by mounted (evade or not!) When they start to fail, the desired effects come into play as they slowly deteriorate (stragglers are killed, have less time to shoot back). Might be open to abuse with multiple charges/targets, but I might test it out.

[shall]

If you try the games you don't need any of those to make it work - it already does and is quite carefully set up to do so.

LF are not stupid - they don't by choice come so close to mounted that they are doomed to die...this is an asumption that is not backed up by history or logic. They too know the risks. They keep their distance unless forced close by the mounted troops movement.

This is the dynamic that FOG is set up to directly reflect. If you move the Cv agressively the LF have a really bad time in the open.

Si

PS at the scale we are working an all out charge is about 1MU in length I suspect.

[Jhykron]

If you try the games you don't need any of those to make it work - it already does and is quite carefully set up to do so.

Respectfully, we must be talking about a different game.

LF are not stupid - they don't by choice come so close to mounted that they are doomed to die...

Now that's really assuming that they have a choice, isn't it? Ideally, they find some cover or heavy troops to protect them. But if their commander sends them out in the open...

Anyway, what is your definition of "close"? An average, non-thoroughbred horse can gallop 30 miles per hour. Unless your idea of effective bow or sling range is completely different than mine, there is no distance the LF can shoot the cavalry and not be "close".

this is an asumption that is not backed up by history or logic.

That is an -interesting- generalization of history, to say the least. To say nothing of logic.

Or, more succintly, I disagree on both counts.

They too know the risks. They keep their distance unless forced close by the mounted troops movement.

Which the mounted troops can't force in FOG, because the LF move just as fast on their turn.

This is the dynamic that FOG is set up to directly reflect. If you move the Cv agressively the LF have a really bad time in the open.

If you consider no chance of being caught (or 1 in 36 if they want to shoot) to be a really bad time...

PS at the scale we are working an all out charge is about 1MU in length I suspect.

That may be true for infantry. Cavalry would need more than that distance just to accelerate to "charge speed".

[shall]

Can't say I agree with you on much I'm afraid...

e.g.

Ever ridden a horse - they accelerate much much faster than you think. <100 yds is ample to get up to speed. Plus these are not race horses they are warhorses - your image of hunt racing speed charges is not correct.

Ever tried sending troops out to certain death - they don't often obey thus it doesn't really happen in the real world. Of course they have a choice. Otherwise no-one would ever rout - it is hardly following orders after all!!

We'll just have to agree to differ

Which the mounted troops can't force in FOG, because the LF move just as fast on their turn.

All this shows is that you haven't worked out how to do it yet not that it can't be done in FOG.

Si

[Jhykron]

Can't say I agree with you on much I'm afraid...

Obviously. BTW, just to clear the air, there are a -lot- of things I like about the rules too.

Ever ridden a horse

Yep

- they accelerate much much faster than you think. <100 yds is ample to get up to speed.

Yes, but 1 MU is <<<< 100 yards, unless you think bows have an effective range of 400 yards. I'd say 30 yards is probably a better estimate...

Plus these are not race horses they are warhorses - your image of hunt racing speed charges is not correct.

Which is why I quoted an average gallop speed for non-thouroughbred horses... not a sprint speed for racehorses. But even a conservative 20mph is going to catch infantry in bow range...

Ever tried sending troops out to certain death - they don't often obey thus it doesn't really happen in the real world.

Ah yes. Those LF have access to battlefield arial reconnaissance and know for sure the orders are certain death.

Good thing no troops in history have ever gotten killed because their commander made a mistake.

Of course they have a choice. Otherwise no-one would ever rout - it is hardly following orders after all!!

I'd say there is something of a difference between routing as a melee outcome and being screwed by a deployment mistake, no?

We'll just have to agree to differ

That's plain. I have a firm gripe about this issue, but it may not be that vital in the big picture.

All this shows is that you haven't worked out how to do it yet not that it can't be done in FOG.

Even if you're right, it shouldn't be rocket science for cavalry to catch infantry in the open.

But I'll play along. You can have the 4-stand protected cavalry unit in the game I watched and I'll be the 6-stand slinger unit in front of it. Let's say we're just out of range... what are you going to do?

[shall]

All this shows is that you haven't worked out how to do it yet not that it can't be done in FOG.

Even if you're right, it shouldn't be rocket science for cavalry to catch infantry in the open.

But I'll play along. You can have the 4-stand protected cavalry unit in the game I watched and I'll be the 6-stand slinger unit in front of it. Let's say we're just out of range... what are you going to do?

Glad you like the rules overall. To help on your points (as we do agree in the main)....

The MU is NOT religiously fixed as it is not necesssary to do so, but of course has some broad calibration. 1MU is consderable more than 30 yards. Take historical max longbowrange as 6 MU and work backwards. Take roughly 250 men as a guide for a 40mm base frontage and work forwards. More like 70-90 yds per MU but not religiously fixed as I say. Hence my earlier comments and with that for an MU I guess much of it we agreeing upon.

As to your question - can we play for money Ok maybe not....the answer as posted earlier in this stream is........ (and you can see some odds that someone correctly worked out)

• Be in single rank as the Cv and a 6 for Protected to be fair, 4 if armoured is fine for the game - I accept
  
  When you come within 4MU I DONT charge but ride up to 0.05 an MU away
  
  You are now in trouble unless you can force my cohesion to drop as all you can do is run away every time until you leave the table and if I keep repeating this and charge you from close range the odds of catching you get rather high.
  
  With 1 shot each time you will not force my cohesion down easily with Sup Cv - they will usually need only a 6 with re-rolls - and anyway they can kill you esaily DSRed as well. On average you will get 2 hits on a 6 BG. 30% of the time you will fail to make them test. If armoured Cv in 4s then you need 5s to hit anyway.
  
  Your choices are pass a CMT to fall back - which you will fail more often than I fail my CTs. If you pass you can drop back to 3.95 MU and shoot again. If you fail you have to run off without shooting. If you pass I will repeat my move or charge if you get lucky and DSR me. If you haev ro run away I will ride up behind you and pin you fromthe rear. You are now stuck and have to run away more without shooting or I will massacre you.
  
  This simulates well the idea of cavalry harassing LF who are wise enough to try at least to keep out of range. Of course if you choose to charge LF from several hundred yards away then I don't think you should catch them. But this is just wrong tactics with the Cv that's all.
  
  Of course it is really LH who should be doing this job so I would rather play the game with a BG of Huns and then you really are dooooomed!

See my ealier posting on the subject and peoples reponses

Si

[Paint_In]

I find this an interesting discussion due to 2 things.

First is that I think the discussion more or less makes clear to me that FoG has much more realism into it than I expected. The role for LF seems to be spot on in regards to their real life battlefield role. And historically cavalry just was not intended to chase LF around the park. That was were the own LF or LH came into play. Exception are of course all cav armies

The second point is that if you can have your mediocre to average LF occupy an average to good cav unit for a major part of the game you are either a very good general or your opponent is a very bad one (or any combination of both).

[hammy]

Consider a LF BG facing a cavalry BG, the LF move first and move full speed so on turn 1 they are 20" in from the baseline.

The cavalry are led by a general and move 10" on the first turn so are also at 20", our respective troops are now 8" apart.

The LF advance to 4" and shoot, they have a chance to disrupt the cavalry

The cavalry charge and the LF evade. The LF cannot shoot but the cavalry have the option to bolster any cohesion loss that may have resuted from any shooting. The LF are now around 19" from their baseline and the cavalry are 23" away. This can be repeated roughly 4 times and then the LF will be off the table.

Alternately, after the first turn the cavalry instead of charging wheel forwards (towards the rest of the enemy army perhaps) and put the end of the LF line in their restricted zone so:

Code: Select all

LFLFLFLF
LFLFLFLF

    Cv
   CvCv
     CvCv
      Cv

The LF are now restricted and while they can move away from the cavalry they must stay in front of them. This will significantly limit the ability of the LF to increase the distance between the BGs, it also meand that the LF are not preventing the cavalry from doing their main job of threateneing the enemy heavier troops.

I have in tournament games chased several BG's of enemy LF off table with medium foot who move slower than the LF, it has to be possible to do it with cavalry, it just means that the cavalry need to focus on the LF, possibly for rather longer than their owner wants.

[lawrenceg]

Code: Select all

LFLFLFLF
LFLFLFLF

    Cv
   CvCv
     CvCv
      Cv

"Curses, those dastardly cavalry are presenting their flank to us! Now we're trapped."

On the other hand, they could just stay there and shoot. When the cavalry charge, the LF just evade to their rear and have very little chance of being caught.

[hammy]

Code: Select all

LFLFLFLF
LFLFLFLF

    Cv
   CvCv
     CvCv
      Cv

"Curses, those dastardly cavalry are presenting their flank to us! Now we're trapped."

On the other hand, they could just stay there and shoot. When the cavalry charge, the LF just evade to their rear and have very little chance of being caught.

Very true, the main thing is that by doing this the cavalry can probably prevent the LF from pulling back quite as far. I have to say it is a theory and not something I have tried. Normally I use light horse to scare light foot away.

[Jhykron]

Glad you like the rules overall. To help on your points (as we do agree in the main)....

The MU is NOT religiously fixed as it is not necesssary to do so, but of course has some broad calibration. 1MU is consderable more than 30 yards. Take historical max longbowrange as 6 MU and work backwards.

I've seen "historical maximum longbow range" quoted from 180 to 270 meters. And that's assuming anyone ever fired that far on a battlefield. So 33 - 50 yards per MU.

Take roughly 250 men as a guide for a 40mm base frontage and work forwards.

Okay, say they're in a Hellenistic style phalanx at 2 cubits (1 yard) per man, and in 4 ranks. That's 64 yards per 40mm, or 1.6 yards / mm. Times 25.4mm (1 inch) = 40.64 yards per MU.

More like 70-90 yds per MU but not religiously fixed as I say.

That would mean a self bow or sling is shooting 280-360 yards. I understand there needs to be some abstraction with the scale, and some of that may be "shooters zone of control", but that's more than double any reasonable shooting range for those weapons.

Hence my earlier comments and with that for an MU I guess much of it we agreeing upon.

Well, it clarifies the horse acceleration confusion, anyway. I think we have widely different ideas on shooting ranges (which, according to the book, are the basis for the game scale).

As to your question - can we play for money

I'm pretty sure there is some law against that in my state

Ok maybe not....the answer as posted earlier in this stream is........ (and you can see some odds that someone correctly worked out)

Be in single rank as the Cv and a 6 for Protected to be fair, 4 if armoured is fine for the game - I accept

Well, the game I witnessed was using the starter armies, which aren't exactly "optimized" like this. But it's really academic to my issue anyway.

When you come within 4MU I DONT charge but ride up to 0.05 an MU away

Yeah, you said that.

You are now in trouble unless you can force my cohesion to drop as all you can do is run away every time until you leave the table and if I keep repeating this and charge you from close range the odds of catching you get rather high.

But you're never going to be able to charge me from that close anyway. So those odds are meaningless.

With 1 shot each time you will not force my cohesion down easily with Sup Cv - they will usually need only a 6 with re-rolls - and anyway they can kill you esaily DSRed as well. On average you will get 2 hits on a 6 BG. 30% of the time you will fail to make them test. If armoured Cv in 4s then you need 5s to hit anyway.

Your choices are pass a CMT to fall back - which you will fail more often than I fail my CTs. If you pass you can drop back to 3.95 MU and shoot again.

3.05MU if I understand correctly, but it really makes no difference for the odds of being caught.

If you fail you have to run off without shooting. If you pass I will repeat my move or charge if you get lucky and DSR me. If you haev ro run away I will ride up behind you and pin you fromthe rear. You are now stuck and have to run away more without shooting or I will massacre you.

Which is -fine- with me. If your cavalry wants to keep chasing me, they're out of the battle at the cost of a very inexpensive skirmish unit (assuming you manage to chase them off the table before the game ends, which is -not- certain). Meaning I have the advantage everywhere else on the battlefield. If they don't keep chasing me, my LF can turn around and shoot them at will. Win-win, the way I see it.

From my perspective, your "correct" tactics are playing right into my hands.

This simulates well the idea of cavalry harassing LF who are wise enough to try at least to keep out of range.

It's not a question of wisdom, it's a simple question of velocity.

Of course if you choose to charge LF from several hundred yards away then I don't think you should catch them. But this is just wrong tactics with the Cv that's all.

Well, aside from our fundamental difference of scale understanding (see above), I'm not sure why you think this makes sense. If cavalry charge (move at) the LF from X distance they can't catch them. If they move at the LF from X distance to some shorter distance, then charge (move at) them, they have more of a chance of catching them (not true in FOG anyway -see above-). ?. ??. ???.

"Boss, we're being charged by cavalry 200 yards away!"
"Don't panic, kid, they can't catch us."

"Boss, those cavalry 200 yards away are moving at us!"
"Darn it, if they get up to 10 yards away, then charge us, we're in trouble..."

?
?
?
?
?

Of course it is really LH who should be doing this job so I would rather play the game with a BG of Huns and then you really are dooooomed!

True, but that's making assumptions about the composition of your army that may or may not pertain to a given matchup.

See my ealier posting on the subject and peoples reponses

Si

I see them. They fail to convince.

[babyshark]

"Boss, we're being charged by cavalry 200 yards away!"
"Don't panic, kid, they can't catch us."

"Boss, those cavalry 200 yards away are moving at us!"
"Darn it, if they get up to 10 yards away, then charge us, we're in trouble..."

As a curiousity, what do you contend should be the optimal outcome? That Cv should always catch the Lf with a charge? That Cv should mostly catch the Lf? That Cv should catch the Lf more often than they do under the current rules?

I will note, as an aside, that this entire discussion has focused on a non-shooty Cv BG. Shooty Cv would change the whole equation.

Marc

[hazelbark]

As a curiousity, what do you contend should be the optimal outcome? That Cv should always catch the Lf with a charge? That Cv should mostly catch the Lf? That Cv should catch the Lf more often than they do under the current rules?

I will note, as an aside, that this entire discussion has focused on a non-shooty Cv BG. Shooty Cv would change the whole equation.

I have found the LF may dodge away for a round, but if they are not near something like serious terrain or friends they are doomed it is only a quesiton of how fast.

[Jhykron]

Wow, this thread is getting a lot of views for something where the rules question was completely answered in the first couple of replies.

As a curiousity, what do you contend should be the optimal outcome? That Cv should always catch the Lf with a charge?

That probably would bother me less. Heck, even if it took an average of 2 charges, to give the LF player time to rescue the LF, I'd have no complaints.

That Cv should mostly catch the Lf? That Cv should catch the Lf more often than they do under the current rules?

Yes and yes...

Look, in open terrain, cavalry are going to catch infantry, whether the latter have a head start of 100 yards or 1000 yards. I don't even understand how this is arguable.

Two features of the FOG system make it so things don't work this way.

First is the obvious point that the designers gave LF and cavalry the same movement rate.
Second is the turn sequence... as pezhetairoi pointed out: it's a move-countermove game where the LF player can simply back off to safety in response to the cav player's move. Additionally, the charge (impact) phase was put before the movement phase... in a traditional game where charges happen after movement, the cavalry are going to approach -then- charge close, making the LF's life expectancy that much shorter.

I will note, as an aside, that this entire discussion has focused on a non-shooty Cv BG. Shooty Cv would change the whole equation.

Well, it would change the matchup dynamics. I doubt it really effects my basic point.

[shall]

This is are all matters of practical game balance.

• If LF want to simply retreat at full speed, then the cavalry will catch them up - and quite quickly in fact - when they run out table. In the game this aritifical boundary is part of the mechanics we cannot avoid/can use to balance some mechnisms up. With a double move by CV they are 20MU in when this games starts - that is just 6 moves to the opposing base edge and the LF are toast. That will take about an hour I would say.
  
  If LF actually want to try to do anything useful they have to come closer to shoot and then they are going to get caught quite often in the open by Cv if the CV are used right even, with the same speed movement - see my earlier posts.
  
  Finally but most importantly it is not really CVs job to clear away enemy LF - that the job of other skirmishers and ideally LH. They catch LF quite easily.

So if you are asking do we allow you to run away with all your LF and run of table and suffer 1 AP loss each of for it if faced by troops with no missile weapons then the answer is yes and I am personally very happy with that. Note that if the CV are Bw armed then the skirmishers will likely cost you 2 AP as they get caught on the base edge shot to FRG and then charged and BRK.

Hope that helps comfort the overall effect on the scenario you postulate.

Si

[imanfasil]

I understand how it should be 'played'. I also understand that usually this is not a role for cavalry, but beggars can't be choosers...even in historic matchups you might sometimes not have a lot of choices, and playing armies from different times/regions against each other you can get some very 'special' matches.

I have no problem at all with how things play out during the charge phase... if they cav starts close they have a reasonable chance of catching the foot... if they charge from a mile away the foot simply backs off at similar speed and there is no chance. (For a practical example, go try to catch a dog who has escaped!)

What feels so wrong to me is that the foot is allowed a full move +/- in my turn, and then allowed another full move to get back into perfect shooting position during their turn. A restriction on what units can do following an evade on a prior turn is what is needed to make it all feel better. Allowing them to change facing and be able to shoot from whatever distance they wound up ahead of the charge would be reasonable, but letting them take a full move to perfectly reposition themselves at the distance they want to be at for that shot and the following charge seems like they are moving twice as fast as cavalry now, and that feels very wrong.

FWIW, this is the only issue any of us have had with FoG.... otherwise we're all eager for more army books to release.

[MadBanker]

What feels so wrong to me is that the foot is allowed a full move +/- in my turn, and then allowed another full move to get back into perfect shooting position during their turn. A restriction on what units can do following an evade on a prior turn is what is needed to make it all feel better. Allowing them to change facing and be able to shoot from whatever distance they wound up ahead of the charge would be reasonable, but letting them take a full move to perfectly reposition themselves at the distance they want to be at for that shot and the following charge seems like they are moving twice as fast as cavalry now, and that feels very wrong.

Couldn't agree more.

[Kineas1]

I'm sure I'll regret this.

Okay, so first, as a player, I find that LF are just the right amount of disadvantaged by LH and by CAV. Maybe this is a 25mm thing, but at that scale, regardless of the MU distance, either the LF gets dusted off and I get to maneuver with my cav, or the LF gets pushed off the table or has to make difficult choices. I have seen a game in which the cav accomplished very little. I wasn't playing in it, so I don't know what the owning players intention was. From a safe distance it looked as if he wasn't being as aggressive as I would have been... as RBS says above, I'd press up to a nat's todger, take the shooting, and eat him...

Now as a reenactor--(and a rider) last year in a "war game" (200+ reenactors on a side) my elite Light Infantry ran down a cavalry unit and slaughtered them. Infantry is faster than cavalry in ALL sorts of conditions. In effect, cavalry is faster on a mowed lawn. Throw in some water and some rocks and a few very low hills (like, less than ten feet tall) and your infantry is safe forever. And none of that terrain that we used to keep the cavalry at bay would even have showed up on a FoG board.

I confess that the scale is MUCH smaller --in effect, each side was one base. But I am comfortable operating in the face of cavalry, unless the terrain is perfectly smooth, and then, as Mr. Scott says, I snear at senior officers trying to push my men out on the billiard table....

As a final note, the best cavalry unit in our part of the hobby is led by two lifelong riders, one a hunter, the other a veteran of the (UK) lifeguards. They have quite a few tricks for operating against infantry in difficult terrain. It is worth noting, however, that they are the ONLY cavalry I've seen who seem to know these tricks.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[hazelbark]

Now as a reenactor--(and a rider) last year in a "war game" (200+ reenactors on a side) my elite Light Infantry ran down a cavalry unit and slaughtered them. Infantry is faster than cavalry in ALL sorts of conditions. In effect, cavalry is faster on a mowed lawn. Throw in some water and some rocks and a few very low hills (like, less than ten feet tall) and your infantry is safe forever. And none of that terrain that we used to keep the cavalry at bay would even have showed up on a FoG board.

10 foot tall hill in any short distance is a serious military obtacle. If you visit histocial battlefields to a modern eye the hill look very gentle, but when people are atop them trying to hurt you they get big fast. I think players have grand ideas what the board looks like but in real like it didn't take much to effect people.

I confess that the scale is MUCH smaller --in effect, each side was one base. But I am comfortable operating in the face of cavalry, unless the terrain is perfectly smooth, and then, as Mr. Scott says, I snear at senior officers trying to push my men out on the billiard table....

Big training difference here. In effect you are saying you are a well drilled, high morale unit relatively speaking. In a lot of historical circumstances the cavlary would be the more expereinced, well drilled, higher morale types. And the foot sloggers would rather be back home.

As a final note, the best cavalry unit in our part of the hobby is led by two lifelong riders, one a hunter, the other a veteran of the (UK) lifeguards. They have quite a few tricks for operating against infantry in difficult terrain. It is worth noting, however, that they are the ONLY cavalry I've seen who seem to know these tricks.

But historical ancient and medieval cavalry have far more expereience riding down peasants much like your two experienced riders.

Lastly (And i do mean this respectfully) there is a bid difference in being threatened with a bruise versus maiming and death. I realize you realize this, but it is always worth remembering.