LF Archers vs. Cavalry

[TheGrayMouser]

And this is why i dont like the new evasion system, you have have enemy at 2 squares and him can magically catch you after evade 2 squares more.

If units can disengage after suffer casualties no problem but now for a light unit cached like this is his dead...

How would light infantry, after sprinting for their lives, and then assaulted in the rear by cavalry, then be able to disengage? This is no different than fog1 except that the lights will hold as the lessor evil if they would be likely to be caught in the rear. Honestly I don’t even feel that light foot should be allowed to voluntarily enter a Cavalry ZOC in the 1st place, unless in rough/cover. That would just in the long run make it harder to catch them I suppose..

[Cheimison]

And this is why i dont like the new evasion system, you have have enemy at 2 squares and him can magically catch you after evade 2 squares more.

If units can disengage after suffer casualties no problem but now for a light unit cached like this is his dead...

It's not really magic. Although lighter troops would tend to get away, due to mobility, bad luck happens; sometimes your troops turn wrong or run into each other and that lumbering barbarian with a five foot shield tags your ass. Battlefield behavior is not nearly as predictable or regular as it is in the game.

[Scutarii]

And this is why i dont like the new evasion system, you have have enemy at 2 squares and him can magically catch you after evade 2 squares more.

If units can disengage after suffer casualties no problem but now for a light unit cached like this is his dead...

How would light infantry, after sprinting for their lives, and then assaulted in the rear by cavalry, then be able to disengage? This is no different than fog1 except that the lights will hold as the lessor evil if they would be likely to be caught in the rear. Honestly I don’t even feel that light foot should be allowed to voluntarily enter a Cavalry ZOC in the 1st place, unless in rough/cover. That would just in the long run make it harder to catch them I suppose..

The problem born in the moment jabelin units miss the FOG I attack range... if you made cavalry ZOC negate lights enter you cant use jabelin units VS cavalry unless you flank them.

I dont say cavalry CANT catch lights after made them evade... i say that if lights mantein a distance between them and cavalry i dont see very normal see lights catched... is like a heavy foot that push back a javelin unit that has more action poins BUT they dont use them to evade and are catched... to do this in old FOG you need use infantry to made lights retreat and them use high mobility units to hunt evaded lights (other lights or cavalry).

The most extreme thing i saw was an archer unit with 2 squares between cavalry and them that cavalry attack, force evasion... and catch archers rear... if an unit use all his action points to move i dont see fair they receive a bonus to hunt while lights are not receiving a similar bonus to evade... if one unit has options to have extra points to hunt i think same thing is needed for preys... apart that we can talk about why a skirmish unit need use points to change facing when they dont have formation...

[TheGrayMouser]

They needed to have 2 range in fog1because no enemy unit could ever be adjacent to another without being in close combat. Zoc only exerts into the 3 front grids of any unit. Any way, I’m not really advocating such a restriction as other things would need be adjusted, it’s just I find it hard to believe light foot would try to close within 50 or 60 feet of formed Cavalry.

[rbodleyscott]

if an unit use all his action points to move i dont see fair they receive a bonus to hunt while lights are not receiving a similar bonus to evade

Both chargers and evaders get a random AP modifier, which can be -4AP (25%), 0 (50%), or +4AP (25%).

apart that we can talk about why a skirmish unit need use points to change facing when they dont have formation...

Nobody pays any AP for changing direction while evading (or pursuing).

------------------------------------------------------------------

We have some people complaining that evaders are too hard to catch, and others complaining that they are too easy to catch. Perhaps we got something right!

Whether we did or not, it is certain that we cannot please both these groups of people.

(Wait till we get to the Crusades!)

[keyth]

I’m happy with the way it works and like the random aspect. Which is why I was surprised that LF occasionally stand and fight in extremely poor circumstances... the can’t ‘know’ that they’ll be caught unless they try to evade...

[JorgenCAB]

So basically... if a LF stand in front of a regular Foot unit there is a 6.25% chance they are caught and if one square away 0% chance to be caught.

If LF stand one square away from cavalry there is a 31.25% chance the cavalry catch them while there is a 68.25% chance if they stand just in front of them.

There is roughly 31.25% chance for cavalry to catch other cavalry if they stand next to each other and 6.25% if there is a square between them.

I did not look at diagonal movement which might change the formula somewhat based on number of AP a unit have, but otherwise the above should be correct.

[rbodleyscott]

I’m happy with the way it works and like the random aspect. Which is why I was surprised that LF occasionally stand and fight in extremely poor circumstances... the can’t ‘know’ that they’ll be caught unless they try to evade...

They can have a pretty fair idea of their chances of getting away depending on whether the cavalry start their run up from far away or from very close. See Jorgen's post.

[keyth]

While I’m obviously not happy when my LF get run down, I’m happy that it’s normal behaviour Thanks for the responses.

[Scutarii]

Thanks for the info.

I understand that units evading use APs to start retreat because they are not facing retreat area (180º turn).

[rbodleyscott]

Thanks for the info.

I understand that units evading use APs to start retreat because they are not facing retreat area (180º turn).

They don't. All turns when evading are free, including the initial turn. Evading troops are not trying to stay in formation.

[lapdog666]

Heavy foot does not catch light units very often, it happens.

I really don't see much reason why cavalry should not catch light foot as long as they are in open terrain, seem appropriate. Outside Cataphracts there are no real heavy cavalry in this game.

The biggest complaint I have in FOG the tabletop game and this computer game are its almost neglect of the importance of command and control. We have WAY to much control over our armies. In ancient armies it was really rare for an entire army to be in motion at any one time, it took huge amount of effort to get large bodies of men moving, at least if you wanted them to move the way you wanted them to move. They did not really have radios back then so communication was very slow.
One of the reasons why the Roman army was so powerful was its decentralized command structure, or rather that command could come from both above or below.

this, i really hope some compromise is found. Ai should not be excuse

[Nijis]

Would be fun, though probably frustrating, to have Sub-Generals and the units under them acting somewhat independently.

I'd argue that the player doesn't just represent the general as an individual on the battlefield, but the tactical doctrine he's built with his subcommanders over the course of the campaign. Not the coach but the playbook, in other words. In the game, micro-decisions (ie, the order and timing of attack) are often more important than a grand battle plan. With a good general, subcommanders will make these decisions on their own initiative, knowing what is expected of them.

Re the original topic, I think it's reasonable for slower infantry to occasionally catch skirmishers, but I think it should maybe be a bit easier for foot skirmishers to break off after the initial round.

[Cheimison]

Would be fun, though probably frustrating, to have Sub-Generals and the units under them acting somewhat independently.

I'd argue that the player doesn't just represent the general as an individual on the battlefield, but the tactical doctrine he's built with his subcommanders over the course of the campaign.

As I've said regarding Paradox games, you are not actually supposed to be the 'king' - though the game gives you that pretence - you are a gestalt of abstraction called 'the State'.

[Nijis]

As I've said regarding Paradox games, you are not actually supposed to be the 'king' - though the game gives you that pretence - you are a gestalt of abstraction called 'the State'.

Yeah... I've probably read your comments on their forums, come to think of it.