Cavalry can't catch Light Foot?

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall »

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.
Woopsie!! I meant to say 70-90yds per base frontage not MU - that explains that bit. :oops:

A long way for a sling agreed but in effect quite a bit of non bow skirmishing actually results in troops running forward to shoot and dropping back. There is no way a jav shoots 100 yards. These are game abstractions where the troops position reflects their "base" position and certain minor tactical action happens around them. For bows this is stand and fire for slings and jav it would be sneak forward an shoot a bit and drop back. They are all abstractions to make the overall balance about right. Looking too mathematically at it is usually an single track road to something that doesn't balance well in my experience, or route to large amounts of unnecessary complexity.
See my ealier posting on the subject and peoples reponses
Si
I see them. They fail to convince.
Well I've played about 160 games now so its founded on pretty good experience, but alas I note your local laws prohibit me from taking any cash from you :wink:

Anyway enjoy the rest of FOG and don't let this little item put you off...

Si
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"
Kineas1
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:49 pm

Post by Kineas1 »

Sure there is a big difference. : ) Thank heavens!

Perhaps I failed to make my point. All I meant to say was that LF DO have some options against Cav and LH in the so called real world--even given my limited and non-life-threatening experience, I can reason to a reality where LH and Cav would have to be somewhat cautious about committing to a hell-for leather advance and automatically "catching" the LF. Every time I've seen it done, it has been done by clever cavalry moving carefully, taking advantage of cover and ground, and then "dashing" thirty yards to contact.
Which is why I think that the FoG system is EXACTLY right.
Worth noting for the non-riders that just pushing your mount to a gallop over unfamiliar ground involves risk, without any enemy at all!
carlos
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:27 am

Post by carlos »

This is how silly Cav looks when trying to catch LF:

Image

LF teases Cav, Cav pursues, LF hides in terrain, repeat.
mikekh
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:26 pm

Post by mikekh »

:)

That monkey reminds me of my youngest son!
Claudius
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:09 am
Location: Sinuessa

Post by Claudius »

There seems to be much philosophy [viz., infinitesimals] and not enough history in some of our posts on this subject.

Historically, mounted operating in generally open terrain would easily run down any foot, especially foot running [fast!!!] for their lives [e.g. the Towton rout]. People just do not run that fast for long distances vis-a-vis horses.

Perhaps using the concept of average movement rates does not work for situations where mounted would make an extra effort to run down dismounted units or when attacking. Kn seems to get really shortchanged by the limited FoG movement rate assumed for them. Historically, the warhorses could move at significant speeds when needed.

For a better treatment, why not have mounted either move at "cruise" MU [when re-positioning for example]; or at a higher "pursuit/attack" speed when the situation demands it?

Thanks/Cheers
Kineas1
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:49 pm

Post by Kineas1 »

Okay. Just for the sake of argument, list all the places where Psiloi (light foot, not routers of HF or MF, within historical context) are noted as "caught" by historical cavalry. Or even light horse.

I ask this tongue in cheek, as using gamer definitions for historical troop types is the fastest path to various heresies. But seriously, and with no intention to manipulate data or "win" an argument, let's list all the instances of infantry skirmishers being run down by cavalry between, say, 3000BC and 1500AD.
stecal
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:21 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Contact:

Post by stecal »

I could see a very good argument for all mounted to get a +1 to the die roll for pursuit distance. That should solve the problem.
Clear the battlefield and let me see
All the profit from our victory.
miffedofreading
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 317
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 4:00 pm
Location: Reading, England

Post by miffedofreading »

Except Elephants :lol:

Actually I think that is an excellent idea.
ars_belli
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 540
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:18 pm
Location: USA

Post by ars_belli »

Kineas1 wrote:Okay. Just for the sake of argument, list all the places where Psiloi (light foot, not routers of HF or MF, within historical context) are noted as "caught" by historical cavalry. Or even light horse.

I ask this tongue in cheek, as using gamer definitions for historical troop types is the fastest path to various heresies. But seriously, and with no intention to manipulate data or "win" an argument, let's list all the instances of infantry skirmishers being run down by cavalry between, say, 3000BC and 1500AD.
I second the motion. If the historical occurrence of non-skirmish cavalry running down and catching light foot was frequent enough to justify the sorts of changes some people are proposing, then it should be relatively easy to find and cite examples from the historical sources. By the same token, documented instances of light skirmish foot successfully eluding cavalry would also help contribute some substance to the discussion.

Cheers,
Scott
stecal
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 316
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 4:21 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA USA
Contact:

Post by stecal »

The problem with documentation is that how often did the chroniclers of battles record the less heroic actions of the glorious cavalry riding over the slave levies/camp servants/peasants who served as LF slingers & archers? Did they even notice that those rabble they just rode thru were combat troops? I would think that it wouldn't even be worth wasting ink on.
Clear the battlefield and let me see
All the profit from our victory.
carlos
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:27 am

Post by carlos »

As easily as some of you can't understand how LF can evade mounted in the open, I can't understand how a steady, organised formation of mounted can pursue LF in the open and catch them w/out breaking formation. There already is a mounted formation for catching light foot, it's called light horse.
ars_belli
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 540
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:18 pm
Location: USA

Post by ars_belli »

stecal wrote:The problem with documentation is that how often did the chroniclers of battles record the less heroic actions of the glorious cavalry riding over the slave levies/camp servants/peasants who served as LF slingers & archers? Did they even notice that those rabble they just rode thru were combat troops? I would think that it wouldn't even be worth wasting ink on.
Well, evidence of some kind would be preferable to pure speculation, especially when suggesting that a substantive rule change is required. Come on guys, surely this is based on something more than the unsupported 'common sense' notion that battlefield cavalry 'must' always catch infantry, or the mechanics found in other ancients rule sets. A number of historical sources have recorded battles in some depth and detail, and modern scholars have also done all sorts of work reconstructing additional details of ancient and medieval battles. If there is some actual evidence to support the idea that in this instance the rules produce unhistorical results, then those supporting that contention need to present it.

Cheers,
Scott
imanfasil
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 4:18 pm
Location: Texas

Post by imanfasil »

I'll do my part and brush off some of my tomes of history, but I think the problem is that you don't get a lot of LF/Psiloi action detailed in any historical records. Some of the few exceptions I can think of are in reference to some of the more 'mountainous' encounter Alexander had as he drifted further East and of course they were only mentioned becuase they had an effect due to the terrain.

If a few score of naked men with sharp sticks could tie up a unit of the world's finest cavalry for the length of an entire battle, I'm thinking several things: (1) We would have records of it (2) It would have 'caught on' like the spear and the pike! (3) the wargaming period often referred to as the 'Age of Cavalry' would be known as the 'Age of Knaves'.

As we don't tend to do a lot of tournament gaming, I think we will just adopt the suggested +1 on pursuit/charge rolls for mounted troops in the open.
carlos
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 516
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 9:27 am

Post by carlos »

imanfasil wrote:If a few score of naked men with sharp sticks could tie up a unit of the world's finest cavalry for the length of an entire battle,
But they don't tie up an enemy cavalry unit for the length of an entire battle. Unless the cav unit wants to, that is.
Seldon
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 145
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 11:25 pm
Location: Austin, TX

Post by Seldon »

Carlos your analogy is too much ... I am still laughing !!!
Simply perfect !!!
shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall »

imanfasil wrote:
If a few score of naked men with sharp sticks could tie up a unit of the world's finest cavalry for the length of an entire battle,

But they don't tie up an enemy cavalry unit for the length of an entire battle. Unless the cav unit wants to, that is.
We did afiar bit for reading and the rules amke sense with what we found...

From a game point of view all the options are with the Cv

a) if you want to chase the cavalrty you will chase them down and kill them in roughly 6 moves whatever in the open - 30 MU taking you off the far table edge with 1 double move (so in under half a game when playing at full speed)
b) if you have better things to do ignore the LH - there is nothing they can do to you to stop you even if you show them your bum!

Si
Simon Hall
"May your dice roll 6s (unless ye be poor)"
Kineas1
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:49 pm

Post by Kineas1 »

I'd say that if you can't find a historical example to back a gaming theory, then it has no validity whatsoever.

Now, I appreciate that it is possible that war games Psiloi are like 50 times more effective than their historical counterparts, who were so useless that they didn't even serve as a speed bump... or that war games allow them to function like Napoleonic skirmishers, when there's no evidence to support that. These and many other heretical notions are possible, and with research, might be proven correct. But in the current system, given the underlying assumption that there were psiloi and they had a certain battlefield effect, let's be fair. The designers need to see a set of data points from which to base their conclusions.

I'll contribute a couple, one, albeit from memory; in the pipe rolls on English sergeants (SteCal will remember the guy's name--come'on, we all read the same stuff) mentions that their own knights faired so badly that the pitiful Scots cavalry managed to chase down his Welsh. I can't remember the wording, but it seemed to be clear that his men were skirmishing and the Scottish horse rode them down.
The second is better, both because I can quote it at length, and because it is a better sample from a more expert witness. This is Xenophon's "Anabasis" below, books 3 and 4. You can go to the site yourself at

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/ ... BOOK%20III

"The rearguard of the Hellenes suffered for a while severely without being able to retaliate, for the Cretans had a shorter range than the Persians, and at the same time, being light-armed troops, they lay cooped up within the ranks of the heavy infantry, while the javelin men again did not shoot far enough to reach the enemy's slingers. This being so, Xenophon thought there was nothing for it but to charge, and charge they did; some of the heavy and light infantry, who were guarding the rear, with him; but for all their charging they did not catch a single man.

The dearth of cavalry told against the Hellenes; nor were their infantry able to overhaul the enemy's infantry, with the long start they had, and considering the shortness of the race, for it was out of the question to pursue them far from the main body of the army. On the 10 other hand, the Asiatic cavalry, even while fleeing, poured volleys of arrows behind their backs, and wounded the pursuers; while the Hellenes must fall back fighting every step of the way they had measured in the pursuit; so that by the end of that day they had not gone much more than three miles; but in the late afternoon they reached the villages.

Here there was a return of the old despondency. Cheirisophus and the eldest of the generals blamed Xenophon for leaving the main body to give chase and endangering himself thereby, while he could not damage the enemy one whit the more. Xenophon admitted that they were right in blaming him: no better proof of that was wanted than the result. "The fact is," he added, "I was driven to pursue; it was too trying to look on and see our men suffer so badly, and be unable to retaliate. However, when we did charge, there is no denying the truth of what you say; we were not a whit more able to injure the enemy, while we had considerable difficulty in beating a retreat ourselves. Thank heaven they did not come upon us in any great force, but were only a handful of men; so that the injury they did us was not large, as it might have been; and at least it has served to show us what we need. At present the enemy shoot and sling beyond our range, so that our Cretan archers are no match for them; our hand-throwers cannot reach as far; and when we pursue, it is not possible to push the pursuit to any great distance from the main body, and within the short distance no foot-soldier, however fleet of foot, could overtake another foot-soldier who has a bow-shot the start of him. If, then, we are to exclude them from all possibility of injuring us as we march, we must get slingers as soon as possible and cavalry. I am told there are in the army some Rhodians, most of whom, they say, know how to sling, and their missile will reach even twice as far as the Persian slings (which, on account of their being loaded with stones as big as one's fist, have a comparatively short range; but the Rhodians are skilled in the use of leaden bullets[2]). Suppose, then, we investigate and 18 find out first of all who among them possess slings, and for these slings offer the owner the money value; and to another, who will plait some more, hand over the money price; and for a third, who will volunteer to be enrolled as a slinger, invent some other sort of privilege, I think we shall soon find people to come forward capable of helping us. There are horses in the army I know; some few with myself, others belonging to Clearchus's stud, and a good many others captured from the enemy, used for carrying baggage. Let us take the pick of these, supplying their places by ordinary baggage animals, and equipping the horses for cavalry. I should not wonder if our troopers gave some annoyance to these fugitives."

These proposals were carried, and that night two hundred slingers were enrolled, and next day as many as fifty horse and horsemen passed muster as duly qualified; buff jackets and cuirasses were provided for them, and a commandant of cavalry appointed to command--Lycius, the son of Polystratus, by name, an Athenian.

IV

That day they remained inactive, but the next they rose earlier than 1 usual, and set out betimes, for they had a ravine to cross, where they feared the enemy might attack them in the act of crossing. When they were across, Mithridates appeared again with one thousand horse, and archers and slingers to the number of four thousand. This whole body he had got by request from Tissaphernes, and in return he undertook to deliver up the Hellenes to Tissaphernes. He had grown contemptuous since his late attack, when, with so small a detachment, he had done, as he thought, a good deal of mischief, without the slightest loss to himself.

When the Hellenes were not only right across, but had got about a mile from the ravine, Mithridates also crossed with his forces. An order had been passed down the lines, what light infantry and what heavy infantry were to take part in the pursuit; and the cavalry were instructed to follow up the pursuit with confidence, as a considerable 3 support was in their rear. So, when Mithridates had come up with them, and they were well within arrow and sling shot, the bugle sounded the signal to the Hellenes; and immediately the detachment under orders rushed to close quarters, and the cavalry charged. There the enemy preferred not to wait, but fled towards the ravine. In this pursuit the Asiatics lost several of their infantry killed, and of their cavalry as many as eighteen were taken prisoners in the ravine. As to those who were slain the Hellenes, acting upon impulse, mutilated their bodies, by way of impressing their enemy with as frightful an image as possible. "

Hope that helps,
Christian
verybizzyb
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 7:52 pm

Post by verybizzyb »

ars_belli wrote:
Well, evidence of some kind would be preferable to pure speculation... Come on guys, surely this is based on something more than the unsupported 'common sense' notion that battlefield cavalry 'must' always catch infantry... If there is some actual evidence to support the idea that in this instance the rules produce unhistorical results, then those supporting that contention need to present it.

Cheers,
Scott
I can't say I'm particularly bothered by the argument much but, in the interest of fairness, I think both camps should be challenged to present the historical evidence that supports their viewpoint, not just one side. Whichever side does so wins the argument...otherwise 'common sense' is a powerful force.
babyshark
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:59 pm
Location: Government; and I'm here to help.

Post by babyshark »

Kineas1 wrote:When the Hellenes were not only right across, but had got about a mile from the ravine, Mithridates also crossed with his forces. An order had been passed down the lines, what light infantry and what heavy infantry were to take part in the pursuit; and the cavalry were instructed to follow up the pursuit with confidence, as a considerable 3 support was in their rear. So, when Mithridates had come up with them, and they were well within arrow and sling shot, the bugle sounded the signal to the Hellenes; and immediately the detachment under orders rushed to close quarters, and the cavalry charged. There the enemy preferred not to wait, but fled towards the ravine. In this pursuit the Asiatics lost several of their infantry killed, and of their cavalry as many as eighteen were taken prisoners in the ravine. As to those who were slain the Hellenes, acting upon impulse, mutilated their bodies, by way of impressing their enemy with as frightful an image as possible. "
Interesting. Now we need to sort out what this means for FoG. From the sound of things, the Hellenes--even the cavalry--were unable to catch the enemy light foot. Of the several hundred engaged "the Asiatics lost several of their infantry killed." Apparently they escaped successfully back across the ravine. In fact, it appears that the Asiatic cavalry suffered more than the light foot.

Marc
Kineas1
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:49 pm

Post by Kineas1 »

Yes, that's what I read it to say...

Of course, a deep gully or a defile is a terrain piece. But I don't see that the addition of cavalry guaranteed that the skirmishers were toast, at least at shooting ranges.

There aren't a lot of examples this good in primary sources. Guys like Polybius had seen some action; Livy always seems suspect, Arrian is often talking about events a few centuries before. Xenophon was THERE.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”