limiting the power of LH

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:56 am

a quick thought. i'm thinking of testing an idea to limit the power of LH.

the idea is to implement a command radius rule.

if a BG is out of command radius of the general it can't move. if it is attacked it loses a POA.

the intent is to cause players to firstly, spend a little more on generals. a LH army will likely have to spend points on an IC and at least one FC (instead of four TCs). secondly, it will mean that 16BG LH armies will have to "bunch up" a little more.

i was wondering if command radius had been trialled in play-testing, and what the results were?

GKChesterton1976 · Post by **GKChesterton1976** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:52 am

Are you that convinced that LH is overpowered. They still can't kill that much.

Adrian

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 7:32 am

Using this even if you had an IC, 2 FC and a TC you would only cover about 10% of the table in command radius.

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:11 am

it's not the amount that LH kill, it's the ability to harass and not be touched. here in new zealand we use open-period games, which means armies like hellenistics are unfieldable.

plus, taking an IC and three TC would remove up to three BG from a 16BG army.

the intention isn't to exclusively limit LH. the idea is to limit the numbers of BG in 800point armies, and force players to keep their forces closer together. in other words, use historical tactics like; wing, centre, wing.

Lycanthropic · Post by **Lycanthropic** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 8:28 am

And we all know that historical tactics like galloping past an enemy and shooting them with a bow from horseback is complete nonsense.

A parting shot about light horse................

OldenTired · Post by **OldenTired** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:09 am

Lycanthropic wrote:And we all know that historical tactics like galloping past an enemy and shooting them with a bow from horseback is complete nonsense.

A parting shot about light horse................

i misread that and saw "parthian shot".

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:40 am

OldenTired wrote:it's not the amount that LH kill, it's the ability to harass and not be touched. here in new zealand we use open-period games, which means armies like hellenistics are unfieldable.

My intial thought would be to play themed tournaments. My second would be to bring armies designed to smash the pesky LH to little bits, massed cavalry lancers spring to mind as a way to give shooty light horse a real problem.

If players are taking LH armies then keep your hellensitic army tight, have an IC and make it very difficult for them to shoot you up. Armies with just LH are very difficult to force a win with against more solid opponents. When players using them find that they aren't winning then they will bring more ballanced forces.

The issue is that historically there were very few occasions where a hellenistic army beat a horse archer army and probably none where the 'points' were anything like even.

plus, taking an IC and three TC would remove up to three BG from a 16BG army.

I normally take 4 generals so that wouldn't be a big problem. The command radius thing would be though as once some LH evaded they would stand round like lemons until a general got nearby.

By all means try the idea in a club game but I suspect you will find it deeply unsatisfying. Perhaps double radius to allow normal opperation but not the current very tight command radius.

the intention isn't to exclusively limit LH. the idea is to limit the numbers of BG in 800point armies, and force players to keep their forces closer together. in other words, use historical tactics like; wing, centre, wing.

I am in the camp that doesn't have a problem with lots of BGs. I just look at lots of BGs as lots of easy kills. BGs of 4 are terribly brittle and a dead BG of 4 is still 2 APs.

The army we used at Usk fought with an infantry centre and two wings of cavalry and skirmishers with the cavalry using the infantry as a solid base to fight round. Sounds pretty historical to me.

I am wondering if there is a group think thing going on in NZ at present. It is possible that there is something that other countries have missed but in the UK there is no donimation by armies with lots of BGs. Other than Graham Evans all the other top players use 'normal' sized armies of 12-14 BGs at 800 and 16 or so BGs at 900 points.

zoltan · Post by **zoltan** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:43 am

Well as another Kiwi, and one currently trying to master the use of a large BG LH dominant army, I do not support my erstwhile comrade.

Interesting to note that Kiwis came 1st and 4th at the Oz nationals last weekend using, yup, large BG LH dominant armies. In contrast, I came last in a comp I attended last weekend with a large BG LH dominant army, winning the horse's (archer's) arse trophy!

Just as there was an answer to Attilla and Chinghis, there are answers to large BG LH dominant armies in FoG - be a better general for starters!

In reality there is only one guy in NZ doing very well with a large BG LH dominant army (he also won in Oz). But he's always been a good player under any ruleset.

Polkovnik · Post by **Polkovnik** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:52 am

I also think it's unnecessary to limit them, but if you really want to I would require a CMT for any move outside command radius, rather than not allowing them to move at all.
What about just reducing the table size ?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:55 am

Stephen he speak the truth

IMO the LH horse archer armies are some of the easiest to get to grips with when you start FoG as they quite forgiving and are able to avoid harder hitting but more pedestrian armies.

I think every country where FoG has taken off has had an initial "shooty horse armies are the mutts nuts" phase.

As people get more into the game this changes.

Lycanthropic · Post by **Lycanthropic** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:09 am

Indeed!

"You wound, like Parthians, while you fly, And kill with a retreating eye"

hoodlum · Post by **hoodlum** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:23 am

Maybe we are in an evolutionary phase where people learn to deal to the LH armies but its still doesn't take away from the pedestrian

grind of a foot army having to chase a LH army across the board or hunker down. there is not a lot for the Player to do. It may be historical but it is not much fun.

A couple of people have said they would play against such an army in a comp but would not do so socially.

The answer is ... Not themed comps plenty of skirmish armies in each period

Perhaps 2 aps for evading off the table. If you have actually chased the skirmisher across the table and forced them off the edge 1 AP seems a miserly reward. Indeed the skirmish player has got off lightly for not being able to manouvre sufficiently to avoid this mishap.

Perhaps as another ruleset permitted foot troops to double advance to within 50paces

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:03 am

Oooh. Back to 2 AP for evading off. I like this idea. If a BG routs off the owner gets no chance to rally it. Why should he, in effect, still count it as useful if it has run so far away it cannot be of more use in the current battle.

It would have changed the final result of our last game at Usk against us though. I had 2 BG of LH evade off table. One chased by elephants and lancers, One by Lh and Elephants. They soaked up 6 BG, an IC and a TC chasing them, troops that the ghaznavids would have found far more useful elsewhere. But the LH were too dangerous to ignore.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:21 am

hoodlum wrote:
Perhaps 2 aps for evading off the table. If you have actually chased the skirmisher across the table and forced them off the edge 1 AP seems a miserly reward. Indeed the skirmish player has got off lightly for not being able to manouvre sufficiently to avoid this mishap.

Works for me as mentioned elsehwere

jcmedhurst · Post by **jcmedhurst** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 am

The issue is that historically there were very few occasions where a hellenistic army beat a horse archer army and probably none where the 'points' were anything like even.

Don't know about that - Alexander managed it against the Skythians. Need to take more artillery evidently

John

MadBanker · Post by **MadBanker** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:12 pm

jcmedhurst wrote:
The issue is that historically there were very few occasions where a hellenistic army beat a horse archer army and probably none where the 'points' were anything like even.
Don't know about that - Alexander managed it against the Skythians. Need to take more artillery evidently

John

The Seleucid won quite a few battles against the Parthians too, even in the last decades of the 2nd century BC, when the Empire was very much on the slope to disintegration.
The idea, I think, is that a well used combined arms army has good chances against "one trick poneys" armies (pun intended for the LH)

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:15 pm

jcmedhurst wrote:
The issue is that historically there were very few occasions where a hellenistic army beat a horse archer army and probably none where the 'points' were anything like even.
Don't know about that - Alexander managed it against the Skythians. Need to take more artillery evidently

John

I was thinking of this one but IIRC it was all of Alexanders army against som Skythians and they didn't like being shot so went away and left him alone.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 3:05 pm

MadBanker wrote:
The Seleucid won quite a few battles against the Parthians too, even in the last decades of the 2nd century BC, when the Empire was very much on the slope to disintegration.

I keep seeing people say this - which battles were they? From what I recall in general the Parthians just retreated away from the Seleukids and the reoccupied territory.

The idea, I think, is that a well used combined arms army has good chances against "one trick poneys" armies (pun intended for the LH)

Some one tric ponies maybe, however, the pony mounted one tricksters seem to be a problem for the "balanced" types - at 800 points anyway ...

MadBanker · Post by **MadBanker** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:06 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
MadBanker wrote:
The Seleucid won quite a few battles against the Parthians too, even in the last decades of the 2nd century BC, when the Empire was very much on the slope to disintegration.

I keep seeing people say this - which battles were they? From what I recall in general the Parthians just retreated away from the Seleukids and the reoccupied territory.

Well, Antiochus III restored their (at least nominal) obedience after defeating them during his anabasis. Later, his son Antiochus IV was at first succesful against them before dying from illness (or a chariot accident, sources aren't too clear on this).
Much later, in the 120's BC, Antiochus VII was at first very succesful in battle against them (reconquering Babylonia, Mesopotamia and Media) and forcing Phraates II the Parthian ruler to negotiate.

david53 · Post by **david53** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 4:57 pm

OldenTired wrote:it's not the amount that LH kill, it's the ability to harass and not be touched. here in new zealand we use open-period games, which means armies like hellenistics are unfieldable.

plus, taking an IC and three TC would remove up to three BG from a 16BG army.

the intention isn't to exclusively limit LH. the idea is to limit the numbers of BG in 800point armies, and force players to keep their forces closer together. in other words, use historical tactics like; wing, centre, wing.

Is'nt this like MM then!