Cavalry turning and moving backwards in one turn?

[davids]

No one seems to have raised this as a possible change (or have I missed it?) - meaning this is a forlorn hope, especially as Kevin shot it down in the thread about point changes - but is it not possible to give bow armed cavalry some manoeuvrability, eg as in FOGAM v2, where they can turn and move backwards in one turn (with a CMT)?

Cavalry only able to turn 90 and move, or turn around to prepare for a rear charge doesn't fit with the description or depictions of bow armed cavalry, eg Russians are shown riding and shooting backwards at Poles, and described moving backwards and forwards to shoot like Tatars (of course Tatar cavalry have the same 'stuck in the mud' problem ). This doesn't seem to match what cavalry can do in the game.

It would be a simple change, already playtested in FOGAM... any chance of throwing cavalry a bone...

[kevinj]

One of the bizarre changes that was made to FoG AM was that cavalry could turn 180 degrees twice in one turn and move, but couldn't turn 180 degrees once and move. This was originally considered as an option, but was found in playtesting to be too powerful, allowing the cavalry to shoot from maximum range with very little chance of being caught. As I mentioned previously, we didn't include any change to cavalry as,other than cost, it wasn't seen as a problem. However, if there's significant support for a change, we can reconsider. What do people think? Bear in mind that if we made a change here we'd probably also have to consider reducing moves when combined with a turn (as was done in FoG AM and the scale of the update then starts to increase significantly.

[nikgaukroger]

... the scale of the update then starts to increase significantly.

This is a serious concern for me. We have already gone a bit further than I originally anticipated and I'd rather not go further. I'm not even certain it was a good thing for FoG:AM.

[Vespasian28]

I think it was a good thing for FOGAM as it better replicated the tactics of falling back from the enemy rather than waiting until the enemy are the proverbial "gnats todger" away then gambling on the evade. And it was not a given but a CMT so still chances for them to be caught and moreso in FOGR with 8 being the universal CMT test pass.

That said I think you are right in that this revision has gone far beyond adding additional revisions at this stage. I thought we would just be sorting out artillery and look where we are now!

[marshalney2000]

I think Cavalry having the ability to back off is a sensible one.

[timmy1]

Would have to seriously redo the points thing again - probably remove the Cm bit and add 1 to every Cm/Cv points.

[marshalney2000]

So let it be written so let it be done.

[timmy1]

It will be written once the full results of the most recent Scotch FoG:AM/R tourney are made public...

[nikgaukroger]

... the scale of the update then starts to increase significantly.

This is a serious concern for me. We have already gone a bit further than I originally anticipated and I'd rather not go further.

For this reason, after thinking about it, we have decided this will not be added to what we are considering for the current update.

[marshalney2000]

To be fair though, it is quite a simple amendment as the principle and the wording can be lifted almost straight from FOG.

[marshalney2000]

Forgot to say, if you were fielding Tartar type Cavalry in FOGR would you not expect as a matter of course that they could back off from the enemy?

[DavidT]

When I have played my Poles v my friends Cossacks, the Cossack Cav are very limited.
If they are lucky when they evade from my Hussars, they can turn round and shoot each time they evade which gives them a chance.
However, if they roll long in their evade, they end up out of range and can only turn round, unable to shoot or ride away.
It definitely doesn't feel like a proper skirmish screen falling back as the enemy advance and in the numerous games we have played, only once has the Cossack Cav skirmishing actually been effective.
Usually they end up less than 1MU from the hussars who then have a high probability of catching them when they evade which has nearly always been the case.

[Jhykronos]

When I have played my Poles v my friends Cossacks, the Cossack Cav are very limited.
If they are lucky when they evade from my Hussars, they can turn round and shoot each time they evade which gives them a chance.
However, if they roll long in their evade, they end up out of range and can only turn round, unable to shoot or ride away.
It definitely doesn't feel like a proper skirmish screen falling back as the enemy advance and in the numerous games we have played, only once has the Cossack Cav skirmishing actually been effective.
Usually they end up less than 1MU from the hussars who then have a high probability of catching them when they evade which has nearly always been the case.

I think part of the problem is what we are observing in the discreet IGO-UGO system here isn't really what should be happening in this interaction. Cavalry typically didn't chase other cavalry for 150 meters, stop, let the other cavalry turn and approach, and then start moving again (think about it- the evaders are moving twice as much as the chasers). Real cavalry chases would be much less jerky and more fluid... if the chasers are in hot pursuit the evaders should be shooting backwards, and the evaders would only rally and turn if they cleared some distance or the pursuers were called off.

The other problem is one of legacy troop classification: we are arbitrarily separating horse archers into "cavalry" and "light horse" in cases where the real units in question didn't really have such distinctions. But addressing that requires some fundamental paradigm changes that are way beyond what we are trying to accomplish here.

[davids]

I understand this is not an update with wholesale revisions of game mechanics, but I would argue that changing the movement of cavalry (and it is not a massive change) to make them behave more as they did historically (IMHO) is no different from changing the movement of dragoons for the same reason, and is less of a change than adjusting points, autobreak levels or changing commanded shot from a separate unit to a base marker.

[Jhykronos]

I actually have no issue with going to the FOG-A 2.0 cavalry maneuverability... As I stated, I think the root problem of horse archer types is more fundamental, but this could at least help.

[marshalney2000]

It may also be relevant that a lot of FOGR players also play FOG and are familiar with mechanism so no real problem with implementation.

[tamerlan]

I would support the change as well, now bow cavalry, even at a reduce cost in points, are at an absolute disadvantage against pistol-pistol horse, not being able to skirmish properly as they tend to be caught far to easily for my taste.

Iñaki,