The hidden strength of the LF

[Duke68]

Hi, maybe this has already been asked but......
...... why LF haven't any malus on CT if they loose an impact or melee against HF or mounted troops?

MF have such malus, why LF don't? Do LF become courageous once committed (or forced) to fight?

And why mounted troops have to break-off in front of them in the jap if they are steady? In many cases they are fighting at ++poa and are clearly in advantage against LF.

IMHO it's a nonsense, breaking-off in front of an LF shooter BG only let my cavalry in danger of another round of missile fire for free

[jlopez]

I believe the reason is that LF fight with half the dice of other troops and that's enough of a disadvantage. Frankly, the chances of failing to rout an LF unit in melee with mounted are quite small and virtually inexistant with HF unless fragmented.

Julian

[nikgaukroger]

Correct - the rules writers tried to avoid any "double whammy" effects and, as you say, mounted are pretty good at sweeping away LF without the need for any additional help.

Mind you, it always amusing when the mounted don't and have to break off Most likely to happen to LH and is nicely backed up by Mark Anthony's invasion of Parthia

[Duke68]

I believe the reason is that LF fight with half the dice of other troops and that's enough of a disadvantage. Frankly, the chances of failing to rout an LF unit in melee with mounted are quite small and virtually inexistant with HF unless fragmented.

Julian

Well HF and MF have no real problem because they don't have to break-off.

For cav units the probability are not so high (imho) because in many cases acv BG have fewer stands than LF BG so in impact Cv probably fight with double dice but if the LF don't fail the CT after the impact (it's not so difficult to pass a CT if you have a general with you and rear support) in the subsequent melee phase dice are more or less the same for the two BG and there are good chances that the LF maybe loose a stand or two but don't fail the CT and then the cav BG must break-off from a fight that they are slowly but inesorably winning, nonsense

[nikgaukroger]

Personally I'll generally be happy if an opponent attempts (will need to pass a test in the open of course) to stand with LF infront of most mounted. The LF fight with half the dice at impact and in melee even with overlaps they will be a double PoA down against most mounted (mind you I'd like to think I'd commit enough mounted to do the job so wouldn't give up 2 overlaps). If they wish to put a general into a risky position with LF all the better.

Of course if you commit the wrong mounted and not enough of them, well ...

[Duke68]

Personally I'll generally be happy if an opponent attempts (will need to pass a test in the open of course) to stand with LF infront of most mounted. The LF fight with half the dice at impact and in melee even with overlaps they will be a double PoA down against most mounted (mind you I'd like to think I'd commit enough mounted to do the job so wouldn't give up 2 overlaps). If they wish to put a general into a risky position with LF all the better.

Of course if you commit the wrong mounted and not enough of them, well ...

A simple protected Cv light spear/swordmen should be enough in most cases but if the LF are protected javelinmen with light spear maybe I need a stronger Cv.

So we are talking about 2-3 times the point cost of a unit of LF caught in melee and if they don't drop in cohesion the Cv unit must break the contact even if they are at ++poa.

Why? They are not pikemen or spearmen or heavy infantry, they are poor protected and poor armed infantry in spread formation (or no formation at all).

The rule has a sense if the LF are in bad going a terrain not well suited for the cav style of combat but in the open imho there's no logic in forcing the mounted to break-off from a combat they could easily win.

[Fulgrim]

Several good comments above on how to handle this situation.

Still the orignal question stands:

Is it reasonable, (in historical context?), that the mounted breaks of from LF while having a superior edge in Melee?

As a non-scholar i would say 'no' as I belive that mounted more often than not would [continue to] ride down the LF, that disengageing a possibly "sticky" trooptype is harder and thereby perhaps more risky than disengageing a more rigid formation and thus it would be more reasonable to continue to press on LF than to disengage, at least in the open anyways.
I would say its reasonable to make LF a exeption to this rule as they are to some other rules (forcing a drop in cohesion level by charging rear etc).

But this is just what i think, i would be glad to hear other views on the central issue.

[flameberge]

Several good comments above on how to handle this situation.

Still the orignal question stands:

Is it reasonable, (in historical context?), that the mounted breaks of from LF while having a superior edge in Melee?

As a non-scholar i would say 'no' as I belive that mounted more often than not would [continue to] ride down the LF, that disengageing a possibly "sticky" trooptype is harder and thereby perhaps more risky than disengageing a more rigid formation and thus it would be more reasonable to continue to press on LF than to disengage, at least in the open anyways.
I would say its reasonable to make LF a exeption to this rule as they are to some other rules (forcing a drop in cohesion level by charging rear etc).

But this is just what i think, i would be glad to hear other views on the central issue.

Though I don't know much about ancient history I'd have to agree that this makes no sense.

[hammy]

As a general rule standing to fight in melee with light foot will result in dead light foot. If by some miracle the light foot manage an impact and then a melee phase then the mounted have failed to really get stuck in and break off. I don't see a huge problem.

The impact will be double dice to the non light foot and almost certainly at a + so with say 4 dice vs 2 there is a huge chance that the light foot will lose the impact and a fair chance they will disrupt. Assuming they pass that and have a double overlap on a 4 base opponent (which means the chargers have really got it wrong) it is still odds on an advantage to the chargers as they should have at least one if not 2 POAs. Thay should result in another test for the light foot.

Yes the rules could have had another exception for breaking off to include light foot but is the complexity really needed? The more exceptions the more players will forget them and breakoff is allready one that a lot of people miss anyway.

The mounted vs foot interraction has been calculated considering breakoffs. If you must then think of a break off from light foot as being the light foot mustering a very determined ressitance, probably closing up to a much tighter formation and fending off the unwanted attentions of the mounted.

[nikgaukroger]

As a non-scholar i would say 'no' as I belive that mounted more often than not would [continue to] ride down the LF,

Personally I am quite happy that if the mounted do not cause a drop in cohesion in the 2 attempts they get then breaking off to try again is quite appropriate. I am with the rules writers in seeing mounted tending to fall back to try again if they don't get anywhere first time against infantry rather than getting into grinding contests.

The "[continue to]" bit you wrote is quite important here - if they have failed to cause a drop then they are not managing to ride down the LF so there is no question of continuing. If they start to ride them down - a failed CT by the LF - then they stick and continue.

Against all but the best LF - which realistically means Protected, Light Spear types - nearly all mounted have enough advantages IMO to get a historical result, but with the use of dice we can get atypical results, its one reason we use them.

I am reminded of the case where Persian cavalry failed to ride down Greek peltasts as a case where LF can stand up to mounted as did some of Mark Antony's LF types against Parthians as mentioned before. These are not typical examples but it did happen and the rules allow it, although it is the less likely result.

[jlopez]

Personally I'll generally be happy if an opponent attempts (will need to pass a test in the open of course) to stand with LF infront of most mounted. The LF fight with half the dice at impact and in melee even with overlaps they will be a double PoA down against most mounted (mind you I'd like to think I'd commit enough mounted to do the job so wouldn't give up 2 overlaps). If they wish to put a general into a risky position with LF all the better.

Of course if you commit the wrong mounted and not enough of them, well ...

A simple protected Cv light spear/swordmen should be enough in most cases but if the LF are protected javelinmen with light spear maybe I need a stronger Cv.

So we are talking about 2-3 times the point cost of a unit of LF caught in melee and if they don't drop in cohesion the Cv unit must break the contact even if they are at ++poa.

Why? They are not pikemen or spearmen or heavy infantry, they are poor protected and poor armed infantry in spread formation (or no formation at all).

The rule has a sense if the LF are in bad going a terrain not well suited for the cav style of combat but in the open imho there's no logic in forcing the mounted to break-off from a combat they could easily win.

Your point about the point cost of an LF unit is not that relevant. What counts are attrition points and both the LF and its Cv opponent are worth two attrition points. Generally speaking, it is not a good idea to fight the battle with your LF unless you really have to or the odds are well in your favour. In any other situation all you'll manage to do is to start fighting with the heavy stuff several attrition points down which is a BAD thing.

I'm with Nik on this one. You have to be pretty desperate or rash to choose to stand with LF against mounted. Even in terrain it's often better to evade and come back to shoot them up rather than risk such an uneven fight.

Julian

[bobm]

I took the rule to be a good way of handling standard mounted practice of riding through, and then back through an open enemy formation. If the foot haven't fallen to bits the mounted would ride further on their return journey than if chaos reigns.

[Fulgrim]

As a non-scholar i would say 'no' as I belive that mounted more often than not would [continue to] ride down the LF,

(snip)

The "[continue to]" bit you wrote is quite important here - if they have failed to cause a drop then they are not managing to ride down the LF so there is no question of continuing. If they start to ride them down - a failed CT by the LF - then they stick and continue.

(snip).

Here is a misunderstanding or rather our views are differing - i do see it as they continue, they are (or imo should be) "rounding up" the LF. See a pack of sailfish hunt a shool of smaller fish youll understand what i mean. There is no way to catch many chasing hither and dither so after the initial charge they start "rounding them up" and killing them from outside in. It works very well. "Killing them from outside" does not mean breaking of, it means keeping constant pressure on the LF.

After the initial charge failed, and it can basically only fail due to the LF evading (not Evadeing as per the rule) direct contact, NOT due to the LF closing up - they would be a sure target if they did. The cav would try to pin the LF, not turn tail and exposing their voulnerable backs. If the cav leaves as in "breaking of" they would be:
a) herrased and take casualties
b) let the LF slip away
Neither is desirable from the Cavs point of view.

The swedish word for "breaking of" is directly translated: "bounce". I think this describes the circumstances pretty good:
The mounted bounce of a solid body of foot because they fail to make enough "impression" on the foot and are risking to be locked in melee at a disadventage (horses are fragile, more so when stationary). The action requires:
1) A solid taget, ie the foot
2) a more mobile body of mounted

In the case of LF niether comply since:
z) LF is not solid, if a tag should be attached to them "sticky" is more appropiate, keeping some distance but not letting go unless by own will.
x) Mounted are not as quick as LF in turning and tight manouvers, horses are not even as fast as humans at the initial acceleration.


@bobm: I read your rationale for the rule as supporting "my" view. If they ride trough they would not break of, ie return to their initial position, would they? They are "rounding up" the LF...

@General: again, the issue is not points effectiveness or attritionpoint smartness - the issue is:
Is it reasonable, (in historical context?), that the mounted breaks of from LF while having a superior edge in Melee?
Melee includes the "rounding up" part, impact/charge do not.

[nikgaukroger]

May I repeat that historically - as I noted above - on occasion mounted did fail to break LF types and were "bounced". This, however, was unusual.

My FoG experience so far is that LF can on occasion "bounce" mounted, however, this is unusual and usually the LF get ridden down if they manage to stand in the first place.

So far my experience is that FoG accords fairly well with history - and I've played quite a bit now as have the others posting who appear to share my viewpoint

I think there is a fundamental problem here with a couple of people appearing to assume that the unusual case in the game is in fact the likely one.

However, if anyone would like to stand with large amounts of LF in front of, say, my Seljuqs I would not stop them - although I don't easy victories all that enjoyable I prefer to be stretched.

[philqw78]

I prefer to be stretched.

Someone who is obviously not on this list comes to mind when I see such open targets

[paulcummins]

stretched open targets heh?

good job someone is here to poke around in the doubelentendres

[Fulgrim]

May I repeat that historically - as I noted above - on occasion mounted did fail to break LF types and were "bounced". This, however, was unusual.

I think there is a fundamental problem here with a couple of people appearing to assume that the unusual case in the game is in fact the likely one.

Irrelevant. If you include me in "a couple of people" you are wrong. And the reasoning is wrong aswell. The unusal case at hand should be treated as such - that is not what you are adressing - your persian example is an example of a unsuccessful try to break off if i remember correctly where the Cv are actually "loosing", is that not so? That is impossible in FOG unless the BG is broken and that issue is adressed in another thread. To my understanding you are actually taking an example that in FOG terms translates to the LF winning over the mtd. A rare case indeed, no wonder its few historical examples of that.
The 2:nd problem we are adressing in this thread is in essence "why does a mounted BG break off when it fought to a (morale) "Draw" versus LF when it has all incentives to press on?".

Im just a person that like to find peculiarities and persue them untill they are eresed or ive leart something new (yes, im a picky customer ). I have so far not heard a good reason explaining why mtd in general "bounce" from LF. Rather Hammy inderectly agreed to the reasoning:

Yes the rules could have had another exception for breaking off to include light foot but is the complexity really needed? The more exceptions the more players will forget them and breakoff is allready one that a lot of people miss anyway.

I have put forward my views on the problem at hand, and so far ive got mostly "But with xx POAs vs yy dice this should not happen often and only vs certian types of LF"-types of answers. That is not good enough, that is irrelevant.

The question still stands.
(If not the answer is: "yes, its an irregularity but we do not want to add a further small amount of complexity to the game. We do not belive our customers are smart enough to remember the rules as it is allready." that is.)

I do think youll find more puzzled players as it is actually, since IMO its unlogical.

Mind you - i do not "demand a change", but id like a good explanation or a lesson. I am fully awere that I am no specialist in this.
I am a happy customer concering FOG, i just dont swallow it whole. And I realize perfectly well that there is always compremises that has to be done - but im also of the belif that compromises should be good and backed by a good steady rationale. Here i have not heard it so far.

Hmm.. to tired, and rambeling I realize.

[jlopez]

the issue is:
Is it reasonable, (in historical context?), that the mounted breaks of from LF while having a superior edge in Melee?
Melee includes the "rounding up" part, impact/charge do not.

OK, let me put it this way. Is it reasonable for a BG of 8 protected, HF, average, offensive spearmen to fragment at impact after charging a BG of 8 LF, average, unprotected, l.spear, javelins in the open and then breaking in the melee? I think it a pretty unlikely historical scenario but it happened to me through sheer bad luck. I can't reasonably explain it as the superior fighting skills of the LF so I'll have to explain it another way such as one of those occasions where a unit simply panicked and ran away when faced with a determined enemy, in this case probably as a result of a devastatingly effective volley of javelins.

Where the LF vs mounted scenario is concerned, why not just abstract it another way? How about, the cavalry charged through the LF, turned around and charged through again back to its starting position ready for another charge?

It's just a game mechanism, if you really want a logical explanation for a every possible situation you'll have to use your imagination, the authors simply can't be expected to provide them for what is in effect a pretty unlikely scenario: Mounted charge, LF choose to stand ( ), LF pass test ( ), LF survive impact ( ), LF survive melee ( ).

Julian

[nikgaukroger]

Hmm.. to tired, and rambeling I realize.

Don't worry - dribbling on and on is all part of a forum

[Duke68]

Yes the rules could have had another exception for breaking off to include light foot but is the complexity really needed? The more exceptions the more players will forget them and breakoff is allready one that a lot of people miss anyway.

From my personally point of view the answer is yes, it's a very little add on to the actual rules that should be included (at least in the errata).

FoG has already a lot of exceptions, adding one more doesn't change the complexity of the ruleset and avoid some unrealistic situation that could arise throwing dices.

IMHO LF should have a -1 on CT if they loose an impact or a melee against HF or mounted (the same -1 that MF have in the same situation) and mounted should not break-off from LF.

It's a matter of logic not statistic.