The hidden strength of the LF

[philqw78]

Statistics cause the logic that it is not necessary.
Statistically LF are very unlikely to remain steady. If they do the mounted, except elephants, break off, which we have been given a historical example of. Although the mounted may have been fleeing you say.

Logically if the mounted were in amongst the LF and rounding them up their (loose) formation would be compromised to such an effect that the were not a coherent unit, one could say that they were disrupted. In the case of them being in such a state the Cav would not break off.

They effect you are stating is the micro effect of the dice. The mounted won the combat by scoring more hits. That doesn't matter. The mounted did not disrupt the enemy's fighting effectiveness, the combat is drawn, the LF are intact and under control. The mounted don't like it and break off.

[nikgaukroger]

Statistics cause the logic that it is not necessary.

Quite. No need for rules to cover things that are quite unlikely - you just get clutter. IMO it is a rule writing fact that if you are writing rules to cover 4500 of warfare you will inevitably have a lot of cases where you need to draw the line as to what to rule on otherwise you end up with a 500 page rule book before you know it.

This is a good case of this.

Mind you I maintain that as an unlikely event there is enough historical basis for it

Also if this case was my biggest rules issue I'd be extremely happy that it was an unlikely occurance - means the rest of the rules must be keeping me happy

[shall]

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.

All these relationships were extensively tested (10.000 runs on simulators) and then related back to history to the best of our knowledge, and common sense checked by the 3 of us.

Our view on this one was boradly as follows FWIW:

1. LF will usually go DISR when hit by mounted (or worse). In the open, if the usual Ave UnProt LF, they will be at -- POS vs Cv every time and have 1/2 as many dice. So typically 4 Cv dice plays 2 LF dice. If the LF have a swarm of numbers then at best 4 vs 4. In the 2 vs 4 sitution the avreage hits are 2.67 vs 0.67 before re-rolls (usually for the Cv only), or vs 1.33 if there are 4 dice worth. So typically we will have the foot taking CTs on -2 for losing the combat, maybe another -1 if lancers. It will take a 9 to avoid going DISred. Should be needed twice, so about 1 chance in 15 of them not being DSRed. You can improve that a fair bit with rear support or general, but even with both you will be DISred roughly 2/3rd of the time after 2 rounds.

2. We felt this was reasonable and if any mounted felt such good reistance from such unlikely culprits they would back off warm up and charge again to make use of their momentim as they would anything else proving resistive. This makes sense as it would be their way of avoiding getting swamped by numbers.

3. Impotantly this set up also gives Superior LF a much better chance of escape as they will hang on much more often. With no break off there is little to choose between them asthey will die like any others but with a break off the superior ones have a much better chance of survival (though still not good).

4. The - for MF in open in the CT works in conjuntion with the odds of losing. Strong MF in open do well, but not good when they get on the back foot. The 1/2 dice for LF and lack of POAs makes it much much more likely they lose in the first place and by a fair bit. So no need for additional -1, but then again it would do no great harm either if it did apply. The -s and odds of needing to test always need to be comboned.

Overall I think it is important for the LF to have some small chance of escape, and then some even smaller chance of victory. I am sure it happened in reality on rare occasions. Many things will have happened that we did not read about in the press of the day. It will be a rare event by design but will happen - see it as a fun challenge when it does. I doubt many of our favourite generals had the benefit of POAs and a way to calculate their odds - they had many a surprise to deal with

By the way, if we had we had no break off my betting is I would now be answering a stream about how someones cavalry charged LF, didn't win and got gradually overwhelmed by numbers .. why is it that Cav don't break off vs LF!!!

Si

[rbodleyscott]

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.

Unrestrained logic in wargames rules can lead to all sorts of strange effects. In one old set of ancients rules you required to score a 6 to hit fully armoured cataphracts. There was also a rule that cavalry became one point harder to hit if they dismounted. All very logical but it meant that if you dismounted cataphracts they became completely invulnerable.

Even some more recent rules have had some very unbalanced effects resulting from the cumulative effect of factors.

In our view LF having -1 on the CT vs mounted as well as only getting half their dice, and usually having worse armour and weapon capabilities may be logical but it has too much effect.

It is also our view that cavalry doctrine was to break off and charge again if an initial attack failed to make an impression on enemy infantry.

These current rules are not errata - they were carefully considered and get the effect we intend.

[Fulgrim]

Thanks!

Great post Simon, your post settled the "issue" as far as I am concerned.

Best ragrds,
John

[Duke68]

Unrestrained logic in wargames rules can lead to all sorts of strange effects. In one old set of ancients rules you required to score a 6 to hit fully armoured cataphracts. There was also a rule that cavalry became one point harder to hit if they dismounted. All very logical but it meant that if you dismounted cataphracts they became completely invulnerable.

Even some more recent rules have had some very unbalanced effects resulting from the cumulative effect of factors.

In our view LF having -1 on the CT vs mounted as well as only getting half their dice, and usually having worse armour and weapon capabilities may be logical but it has too much effect.

It is also our view that cavalry doctrine was to break off and charge again if an initial attack failed to make an impression on enemy infantry.

These current rules are not errata - they were carefully considered and get the effect we intend.

The example you made is a little different from our case an it's a clear example of a ruleset not well tested in all of its part.

I know that your system has been widely tested and that most situation or rules comes from your perception of warfare simulation and the need for a solid but not too much complicated ruleset.

And I really like many things of FoG but not all, this is one of the few things in FoG that I hope could be changed.

From my wargaming experience (more than 15 years) if the chances that a particular situation arise in history are very small it's better not let it happen in the rules than give it a low (but not zero) probability of happening.

If you let 1% that a 25mm ATG could destroy a King Tiger it will happen in too many games for sure (Murphy's law is far more precise than statistic laws).

Back to our case: cavalry is the bane of light infantry, if they fail to evade they are dead in almost cases.
The few history cases where they survived or managed to repel the cavalry are already simulated by the lucky dices that sometimes could happens in FoG, there's no need to extend their capability forcing the cavalry to break-off.

Always in my (very) humble opinion of course.

[shall]

Back to our case: cavalry is the bane of light infantry, if they fail to evade they are dead in almost cases.
The few history cases where they survived or managed to repel the cavalry are already simulated by the lucky dices that sometimes could happens in FoG, there's no need to extend their capability forcing the cavalry to break-off.

Always in my (very) humble opinion of course.

YesI hear you but to cut to the centre of it basically this is just a small difference in personal preference and nothing else ....

With what we have the LF have perhaps a 5% chance of surviving and a substantial difference in prospects between Sup and Ave; and with your proposal the chance would be about 1% with no difference between Sup and Ave in practice, but much more chance of the cavalry getting trapped and swamped in the process.

So its a choice at the margin where the two systems will give 95% the same ourtomve - at the margin I prefer the one we have made. Personally I prefer the bell curve to keep its edges as this adds realistic entertainment to the game and in my 35 years of gaming have come to the view I find this more interesting as a game as you get occasional dramatic to deal with, which is part of the fun. As long as they don't dominate a game I view this as agood thing, but that will be down to personal preferences, that's all. I also prefer the break off as I believe cavalry who are struggling to make and impact would do that normally as an SOP.

At a practical level of a comp there is almost no chance of any of these LF/Cv issues dominating a game and doing more than create some unacticipated fun and panic. So it really ain't terribly material either way, just a nuance.

If not destroying some LF with Cv is your game turner you needed a bigger and better plan I would suggest

So really I see this debate as just a fine choice at the margin with pretty limited effect on anything really. In my own games the only LF that have survived this were Sup Cretans, and I think they deserved to do so (but they would have died with no breka off). That's 1 event in maybe 300 games now.

Cheers

Si

[rayfredjohn]

I prefer to be stretched.

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

Is that meeeeee


Ray

[pezhetairoi]

As the Cav player, I'd be happy to break-off and get 2 chances to smack them down next turn!