cavalry regrouping

[zellak]

One of the best features about Fog is that the cavalry, if it does not break into the enemy when charging it bounces off.

All , and i mean all, which is rare, of the guys at my club like this idea.

However , when they break off, they must turn to face the enemy at the end of the move.
This is sometimes a really bad idea as they might be Fragmented.
Then the enemy foot follow up.
Then the cavalry can either stand and attempt to rally , or turn around without moving . and get charged in the rear.
Nobody likes this ...... well at my club at any rate.

Now the reason given to me in the Fog Forum was so that the game could reach a quick conclusion for tournament play.

All well and good for the historical tourny chappies, but i would prefer cavalry to be a bit more mobile, and yet not break the game balance.

So i would like to suggest:

Cavalry Regroup - Cavalry with this upgrade need not turn to face the enemy when they break off , +3 points per base.


How far away from the mark is 3 points per base ?

Any opinions ?

Any suggestions for a better title for this upgrade ?

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

If the cav go back 5 inches only LF could charge you. They are unlikely to bounch you You can move away next go from MF/HF.

If your not playing in tourneys and with friends I would say that you should just change the rules with no points change for the troops involved. Turning 180 would be a bad bad idea in my book as its a nightmare to turn back around.

[nikgaukroger]

If the cav go back 5 inches only LF could charge you. They are unlikely to bounch you You can move away next go from MF/HF.

If you break off in your turn's JAP in the following (enemy) turn even HF/MF can advance and put you in the restricted area - makes moving away difficult ...

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

Agreed but thats the price of failure

[SirGarnet]

If you break off in your own bound, the enemy foot can approach but if you are not shock then turn about 180 and evade if they charge. Or bolster a level if you can. Or stick it out.

Cav break off really isn't a sword and sorcery topic,

but I can make it one by noting the question of whether the wave attacks of Orcs of Middle Earth prior to the military reforms of the later Third Age should be modeled with a break off mechanism to get the right effect.

[zellak]

Agreed but thats the price of failure

Not really...its a game mechanic to stop cavalry running off and regrouping (so that they can charge again later in the day).

As they did.

The game mechanic enables HF to follow up cavalry and kill them off.

My suggestion is for cavalry to pay +3 points per base, and not have to turn to face their opponent after they break off.

But to choose to do it later.

[zellak]

Cav break off really isn't a sword and sorcery topic,

If you dont want to playtest it thats cool with me.

[grahambriggs]

One of the best features about Fog is that the cavalry, if it does not break into the enemy when charging it bounces off.

All , and i mean all, which is rare, of the guys at my club like this idea.

However , when they break off, they must turn to face the enemy at the end of the move.
This is sometimes a really bad idea as they might be Fragmented.
Then the enemy foot follow up.
Then the cavalry can either stand and attempt to rally , or turn around without moving . and get charged in the rear.
Nobody likes this ...... well at my club at any rate.

Now the reason given to me in the Fog Forum was so that the game could reach a quick conclusion for tournament play.

All well and good for the historical tourny chappies, but i would prefer cavalry to be a bit more mobile, and yet not break the game balance.

So i would like to suggest:

Cavalry Regroup - Cavalry with this upgrade need not turn to face the enemy when they break off , +3 points per base.


How far away from the mark is 3 points per base ?

Any opinions ?

Any suggestions for a better title for this upgrade ?

Appreciate it's your opinion but what has this to do with Swords and Sorcery? This is trying to change a basic rule mechanic.

I believe the reason given was not "so the game can reach a quick conclusion for tournament play". I believe it was something along the lines of "We considered that and felt it made cavalry unbalancingly good". i.e. that if those were the rules cavalry could ride up, try a charge, and if it didn't work ride off again.

At least the mounted get a turn's grace to rally back and be bolstered by a general. Other troop types have to just keep on fighting.

[zellak]

Appreciate it's your opinion but what has this to do with Swords and Sorcery? This is trying to change a basic rule mechanic.

I believe the reason given was not "so the game can reach a quick conclusion for tournament play". I believe it was something along the lines of "We considered that and felt it made cavalry unbalancingly good". i.e. that if those were the rules cavalry could ride up, try a charge, and if it didn't work ride off again.

Its a basic rule mechanic to ensure tournament games come to a quick conclusion when using cavalry.

There is never going to be a S&S tournament. Ever.

Cavalry did break off, outrun their foot opponents, and did rally and charge again later. Its undisputed.

If its not for you then dont use it....no problem.

However if you have played a lot of FoG and would like to venture an opinion on a change in points, (in order to keep game balance intact ) i would be interested to hear it.

[grahambriggs]

Appreciate it's your opinion but what has this to do with Swords and Sorcery? This is trying to change a basic rule mechanic.

I believe the reason given was not "so the game can reach a quick conclusion for tournament play". I believe it was something along the lines of "We considered that and felt it made cavalry unbalancingly good". i.e. that if those were the rules cavalry could ride up, try a charge, and if it didn't work ride off again.

Its a basic rule mechanic to ensure tournament games come to a quick conclusion when using cavalry.

There is never going to be a S&S tournament. Ever.

Cavalry did break off, outrun their foot opponents, and did rally and charge again later. Its undisputed.

If its not for you then dont use it....no problem.

However if you have played a lot of FoG and would like to venture an opinion on a change in points, (in order to keep game balance intact ) i would be interested to hear it.

Well, I guess that's your opinion and mines different, Hey ho

I don't see why there will never be a S and S tournament - some DBM competitions allowed fantasy armies after all.

In terms of how much this would be worth - certainly more to undrilled cavalry than to drilled (since drilled can do useful things in this situation). But i think the problem is that if, say, you wanted that to be 3 points per base then that might work against some foot. But then you make your cavalry much more expensive, and your army smaller. So you'll be much more vulnerable against other troop types.

Also, I've not really found this rally back facing the enemy to be a problem when using Ilkhanids or Bosporans. If I manouver before charging then the foot might not fancy following up and exposing flanks; especially when I can go one deep to evade their charge.

[SirGarnet]

If they turn in break off, they could then charge in their next Impact Phase against the BG that moved to block their rear rather than the BG they were engaging. It's certainly different from the way things are now.

For points I suggest you start high and work down if it proves too expensive once people know all the ways the rule can be used.

The design principle was that cavalry are not Light Horse and get in trouble if they forget it. They do have break off, and sometimes evade, but are by design more committed in the face of the enemy. I doubt it's a good general change - for some troops, however, such as flyers, maybe . . . .

[zellak]

[quote="grahambriggs]
In terms of how much this would be worth - certainly more to undrilled cavalry than to drilled (since drilled can do useful things in this situation). But i think the problem is that if, say, you wanted that to be 3 points per base then that might work against some foot. But then you make your cavalry much more expensive, and your army smaller. So you'll be much more vulnerable against other troop types.
[quote]

So you pay your money and take your choice.

Its a matter of finding a fair cost.

If its to high then its not worth losing troops for.
If its to low then its a no-brainer and you would buy it for all shock cavalry without considering otherwise.

Also i realise its possible to find tactics to alleviate the problem, but its a game mechanic induced problem, and dare i say it ... with no real historical reality.

Heresy Heresy.....

[zellak]

For points I suggest you start high and work down if it proves too expensive once people know all the ways the rule can be used.

The design principle was that cavalry are not Light Horse and get in trouble if they forget it. They do have break off, and sometimes evade, but are by design more committed in the face of the enemy. I doubt it's a good general change - for some troops, however, such as flyers, maybe . . . .

Is 3 points a base to low?

If you feel only flyers should be entitled to the change, then great, try it out and let us know how it went.

[willb]

As noted this is a change in the basic game mechanics for a standard class of troops. While things like magic users and flying creatures would require additional rules to cover their abilities, those rules would not be changing any of the standard troop types in FOG. This sort of thing could be something you could use as a house rule, but would not be something that would be part of a fantasy add on. Your arguments are based on your perception of how the historical troops behave and are meant to change the way the perform in the basic rules. Altering the way a basic troop type behaves can have very serious consequences with regards to how that troop type interacts with the other troop types. This would be more in the line of something that should be discussed in the regular FOG forum.

[SirGarnet]

As noted this is a change in the basic game mechanics for a standard class of troops. While things like magic users and flying creatures would require additional rules to cover their abilities, those rules would not be changing any of the standard troop types in FOG. This sort of thing could be something you could use as a house rule, but would not be something that would be part of a fantasy add on.

While good lists that work with plain vanilla FOG (aka "Basic" as I call them) have the broadest usefulness, they don't work for some armies - the approach I'm urging on the Yahoo forum is to start with basic lists that can be readily used, and secondly add on specific troop or rule modifications the list designer finds necessary to make the army work properly. Dealing with many more than one world and different physical laws in some cases, there need to be army specific and fantasy realm-specific mods. Players can use some, all, or skip them and play vanilla.

I think it has to be built that way beyond general structural rules providing the framework for things such as flyers and magic that's consistent with FOG as a land combat-centered game where magic and flyers are ancillary elements.

So zellak can change break off rules in mods for a list. If people don't find it credible, then I hope there is a vanilla version they can play. If, willb, as you say, it's a proposal to change the basic rules, then there's room for that on the main forum.

Mike

[zellak]

As noted this is a change in the basic game mechanics for a standard class of troops. While things like magic users and flying creatures would require additional rules to cover their abilities, those rules would not be changing any of the standard troop types in FOG. This sort of thing could be something you could use as a house rule, but would not be something that would be part of a fantasy add on. Your arguments are based on your perception of how the historical troops behave and are meant to change the way the perform in the basic rules. Altering the way a basic troop type behaves can have very serious consequences with regards to how that troop type interacts with the other troop types. This would be more in the line of something that should be discussed in the regular FOG forum.

So we are allowed to invent new troop types for magic / flyers/ giants/ undead/dragons/ Gods, but cannot talk about house rules ...why not ?

[willb]

I didn't say you couldn't talk about your proposal. Any time you propose a significant change like this you are going to get all kinds of responses. Some positive and some negative. You have to be able to accept these responses as that is part of playtesting any rule set or rule proposal. You should see some of the responses I had to an idea I proposed for heroes on the yahoo group. I can fully understand how you and your friends may feel about what could happen to cavalry that bounces off steady infantry, especially if they are fragmented. However, what you are proposing is a change to the basic rules mechanisms for cavlary. As Mike said, this could be a special mod. A change like this would require extensive playtesting to determine the point cost. You should also provide historical evidence to support that non-skirmish order cavalry who charged into steady foot and got into trouble were able to do as you are suggesting, unless you are going to use this as a mod.

[zellak]

I see, so if i cite the battle of Hastings say. Which is fairly well documented , the Norman cavalry could not break the shield walls and fell back to their own lines, rallied and charged back up the hill several times.

No where , as far as i can remember,does it say that the Normans turned again within effective bowshot (5 MU),probably half way up the hill, and stayed there until they were in good order and ready to launch another attack.

This is off the cuff, but i bet i can find a few more.

[ars_belli]

No where , as far as i can remember,does it say that the Normans turned again within effective bowshot (5 MU),probably half way up the hill, and stayed there until they were in good order and ready to launch another attack.

Actually, everything I have read about Hastings indicates that something very much like that sequence did occur.

5 MU would equate to approximately 160-200 yards, which seems a pretty reasonable 'fall back and regroup' distance for charging cavalry, as opposed to skirmishing light horse. 5 MU also falls outside of effective bow range, although it does fall within maximum range.

Cheers,
Scott

[zellak]

In the version i read, the Normans started with archers on the shieldwall , then went in with infantry, then a cavalry attack in which the Bretons were routed and the other cavalry fell back.

Then after a lull in the fighting,the archers were sent in again , firing high into the rear ranks, and finally another cavalry attack was eventually launched late in the day and the Saxons broke .

So at some point the the cavalry fell back through the archers, and stopped to regroup.

I suppose a dark age battle might not be the best place to start , as there are so many conflicting theories.

i will look around.