Medium Foot Rebalance Discussion

[pompeytheflatulent]

And the Persian vs Macedonian match wasn't an anomaly either, it was the second time I've have played this match up and had similar experience in the first. Then there's the Indo-Greek vs Kushan match up, plus some poor newbie I played that mistakenly thought that Arab Conquest vs Arab City would be an easy game to ease him into multiplayer. At this point, if I want to play as the underdog, I just pick a famous conquering army from history, and play against their historically vanquished foes.

[Nosy_Rat]

The great armies succeeding needs to be taken in context. For example, Alexander the Great's army shouldn't necessarily dominate against other armies from later periods or different geographies. In principle armies became better with time so earlier armies should perhaps struggle more with later armies. Remember these armies, particularly the Roman armies, were optimised for the enemies they had to fight. Put them up against something different and they may not do so well. The league stats are based upon varied, often anachronistic, matches and so there is no reason why the great armies should be on top. However, having said that then I'd be surprised if the great empire armies were at the bottom.

I'm not even talking about anachronistic matchups. Here's two of my recent mirrored games with Macedonians vs Persians and Gauls vs Romans:

I'm not sure what those screenshots are supposed to mean, that currently Macedonians aren't superior to Persians and Romans aren't superior to Gauls?

[pompeytheflatulent]

The great armies succeeding needs to be taken in context. For example, Alexander the Great's army shouldn't necessarily dominate against other armies from later periods or different geographies. In principle armies became better with time so earlier armies should perhaps struggle more with later armies. Remember these armies, particularly the Roman armies, were optimised for the enemies they had to fight. Put them up against something different and they may not do so well. The league stats are based upon varied, often anachronistic, matches and so there is no reason why the great armies should be on top. However, having said that then I'd be surprised if the great empire armies were at the bottom.

I'm not even talking about anachronistic matchups. Here's two of my recent mirrored games with Macedonians vs Persians and Gauls vs Romans:

I'm not sure what those screenshots are supposed to mean, that currently Macedonians aren't superior to Persians and Romans aren't superior to Gauls?

Exactly that, in my experience.

[Schweetness101]

for what it's worth here is an updated table from seasons 1-7 combined, all armies with greater than 50 total games, ordered by win rate (wins/(wins+draws+losses))



most of the same armies are up at the top, but the Polish (favored by Fikabo, who did very well a season ago but did not participate this past season), and the Andalusians (used by me and harveylh and sennacherib) are now featured near the top.

[pompeytheflatulent]

To elaborate more on the Macedonian vs Persian match up, not only could the Persian field about 50% more cavalry, but their cavalry are generally more point efficient compared to the Macedonian ones (if you ignore the 2 bow-armed armored Iranian cavalry). Persians paying 44 points for superior/protected light spear, while Macedonians pay 40 points for average/armored light spear, or 40 points for unprotected light lancers (shudders). The lancer advantage vs light spear cav is easily negated by having to charge the light spear cav uphill, across a stream, or into rough ground. This the Macedonian would eventually have to do as their skirmishers are slowly losing their respective fight(mandatory 40 point light lancers, *shakes fist*). Notice how in the screenshot where the Macedonians "won", hardly any companion cavalry remained alive, much less as formed units, the pikes are completely turned around 180 degrees, with no way to deal with the Persian cavalry swarming around. When my opponent played the Macedonians, he bankrupted himself trying to match the Persians in cavalry, lost the cavalry fight anyways, and was left with hardly any thureophoroi support for his pikes. I distinctly remember one point in the battle where a Persian mercenary hoplite looked around, saw no Macedonian medium foot nearby, and hopped into a rough square in front of a pike unit and went "Come at me bro!"

[Schweetness101]

perhaps the heavy foot major empire armies like the Romans were in large part successful against huge hordes of medium foot historically because of the terrible maneuverability and overall command and control of tribal confederations in battle, as well as their lack of professionalism and poor equipment (outside of well armored nobles). Like at the battle Battle of Mons Graupius:

https://youtu.be/ujIY99dwi5Y?t=382

my point being that, by comparison with the historical situation, Romans as an example aren't nearly as dominant in frontal combat vs their northern warband type foes in game as they seemed to be historically, and those foes have way better maneuverability and cohesion in game than they did historically. Perhaps non-professional medium foot should not be getting an assumed maneuverability advantage at all? Maybe non-professional medium foot should be reclassed as 'Warriors'? Maneuverability would seem to be the product of discipline and training regardless of weight of equipment or density of formation.

Not sure though, that would really involve changing many in game dynamics. Perhaps it is worth looking at the idea mentioned earlier of getting rid of the medium/heavy foot distinction and instead basing maneuverability and terrain affects on unit quality, armor, and capabilities. That way you could have say, maneuverable, heavily armored swordsmen who aren't badly disrupted by rough terrain, like legions, and just protected but close formation non-maneuverable units badly disrupted by terrain, like pikes, rather than just calling both of those 'heavy infantry' and giving them the same terrain disruptions.

[Schweetness101]

To elaborate more on the Macedonian vs Persian match up, not only could the Persian field about 50% more cavalry, but their cavalry are generally more point efficient compared to the Macedonian ones (if you ignore the 2 bow-armed armored Iranian cavalry). Persians paying 44 points for superior/protected light spear, while Macedonians pay 40 points for average/armored light spear, or 40 points for unprotected light lancers (shudders). The lancer advantage vs light spear cav is easily negated by having to charge the light spear cav uphill, across a stream, or into rough ground. This the Macedonian would eventually have to do as their skirmishers are slowly losing their respective fight(mandatory 40 point light lancers, *shakes fist*). Notice how in the screenshot where the Macedonians "won", hardly any companion cavalry remained alive, much less as formed units, the pikes are completely turned around 180 degrees, with no way to deal with the Persian cavalry swarming around. When my opponent played the Macedonians, he bankrupted himself trying to match the Persians in cavalry, lost the cavalry fight anyways, and was left with hardly any thureophoroi support for his pikes. I distinctly remember one point in the battle where a Persian mercenary hoplite looked around, saw no Macedonian medium foot nearby, and hopped into a rough square in front of a pike unit and went "Come at me bro!"

the weakness of the Hellenic lists in general, and especially against medium foot heavy lists, is in large part due to pikes being so expensive and so few in number even in the lists where they are supposed to be the backbone of the army. This particular case might be remedied in part by a small nerf to medium foot, and in part by an overhaul to pikes. Speaking of which...another shameless plug for the pike mod:

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=98056&p=841420#p841420

[Nosy_Rat]

I'm not even talking about anachronistic matchups. Here's two of my recent mirrored games with Macedonians vs Persians and Gauls vs Romans:

I'm not sure what those screenshots are supposed to mean, that currently Macedonians aren't superior to Persians and Romans aren't superior to Gauls?

Exactly that, in my experience.

That's definitely not my experience, especially in Romans vs Gauls match up (warbands are like the worst unit in the game, imo). Though to be fair I played little of Classical lately.

[pompeytheflatulent]

To elaborate more on the Macedonian vs Persian match up, not only could the Persian field about 50% more cavalry, but their cavalry are generally more point efficient compared to the Macedonian ones (if you ignore the 2 bow-armed armored Iranian cavalry). Persians paying 44 points for superior/protected light spear, while Macedonians pay 40 points for average/armored light spear, or 40 points for unprotected light lancers (shudders). The lancer advantage vs light spear cav is easily negated by having to charge the light spear cav uphill, across a stream, or into rough ground. This the Macedonian would eventually have to do as their skirmishers are slowly losing their respective fight(mandatory 40 point light lancers, *shakes fist*). Notice how in the screenshot where the Macedonians "won", hardly any companion cavalry remained alive, much less as formed units, the pikes are completely turned around 180 degrees, with no way to deal with the Persian cavalry swarming around. When my opponent played the Macedonians, he bankrupted himself trying to match the Persians in cavalry, lost the cavalry fight anyways, and was left with hardly any thureophoroi support for his pikes. I distinctly remember one point in the battle where a Persian mercenary hoplite looked around, saw no Macedonian medium foot nearby, and hopped into a rough square in front of a pike unit and went "Come at me bro!"

the weakness of the Hellenic lists in general, and especially against medium foot heavy lists, is in large part due to pikes being so expensive and so few in number even in the lists where they are supposed to be the backbone of the army. This particular case might be remedied in part by a small nerf to medium foot, and in part by an overhaul to pikes. Speaking of which...another shameless plug for the pike mod:

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=98056&p=841420#p841420

Quit your shameless pimping! In this case, medium infantry was the only area where the Macedonians had an advantage (thureophoroi & thacians vs Persian's light spear/50% swordsmen). The Macedonians struggled to fight the Persian on anything approaching even terms in the open (Persians could field 8 mercenary hoplites and plenty of spare cavalry to threaten the pike's flanks).

[pompeytheflatulent]

I'm not sure what those screenshots are supposed to mean, that currently Macedonians aren't superior to Persians and Romans aren't superior to Gauls?

Exactly that, in my experience.

That's definitely not my experience, especially in Romans vs Gauls match up (warbands are like the worst unit in the game, imo). Though to be fair I played little of Classical lately.

Why send warbands against legions when there's plenty of 44 point cav or 36 point chariots willing to get into a staring contests or play grab-ass across half of the map with those legionnaires?

[stockwellpete]

1. HF/MF/LF's heavy, medium and light categorizes the tightness of the formation, not their armour rating. You can have armoured light foot or unprotected heavy foot in FOGII. Such category may not have the same meaning when used by historians out of the ring of tabletop games. The invention of the MF category in the ring of wargames may not be seen in history books, which usually only heavy or light are used.

Yes, that is correct. However, when you look at the difference in the % odds for HF shieldwall fighting MF Brythonics in open ground and then on rough terrain, it does seem very strange to me -

1) Open terrain, tracks and streams (both units are steady)
Impact 15-72-14
Melee 32-64-4

3) Rough ground and large stream (shield wall moderately disordered, Brythonics steady)
Impact 2-63-36 or worse
Melee 2-63-35 or worse

In terms of impact combats the HF go from losing 1 in 7 combats in open terrain to losing 1 in 3 on rough ground, whereas their winning chances drop catastrophically from 1 in 7 to 1 in 50 respectively! In subsequent melee rounds they have a 1 in 3 chance of winning in open ground but only a derisory 1 in 50 chance of winning in rough terrain. I just think that shift in odds is too much. Of course, it would be more difficult to maintain a shieldwall formation in rough terrain, but I don't think it would be that much more difficult given that the Brythonic fighters would also be suffering some difficulties from the terrain (even though that is not represented in the game). I think the odds for "rough ground" should be something like . . .

Rough ground and large stream
Impact 12-52-36
Melee 12-53-35

So they would still be disadvantageous, but not catastrophically so.

The other aspect to this question is what actually this "rough ground" is meant to be. I am suggesting that it might be re-configured as "lightly disordering terrain" while all the other terrain types stay as they are. This would also help to reduce further the number of stalemated battles where HF/ Cavalry armies stay in the open while MF armies move towards terrain.

[pompeytheflatulent]

The other aspect to this question is what actually this "rough ground" is meant to be. I am suggesting that it might be re-configured as "lightly disordering terrain" while all the other terrain types stay as they are. This would also help to reduce further the number of stalemated battles where HF/ Cavalry armies stay in the open while MF armies move towards terrain.

Wouldn't that require new graphical assets to be made so the player can distinguish them at a glance?

[stockwellpete]

Wouldn't that require new graphical assets to be made so the player can distinguish them at a glance?

No, you could use the current rough ground graphics as there wouldn't be 2 types of rough ground. It is just a case of changing the numbers relating to rough ground squares. Somebody else suggested somewhere that perhaps HF should be "slightly disordered" rather than "moderately disordered" in this sort of terrain, which sounds good to me.

[Schweetness101]

The other aspect to this question is what actually this "rough ground" is meant to be. I am suggesting that it might be re-configured as "lightly disordering terrain" while all the other terrain types stay as they are. This would also help to reduce further the number of stalemated battles where HF/ Cavalry armies stay in the open while MF armies move towards terrain.

Wouldn't that require new graphical assets to be made so the player can distinguish them at a glance?

I don't think he means introducing a new light rough ground, and keeping the old normal rough ground, but across the board changing the generic rough ground terrain to be slightly rather than moderately disordering, and keeping everything else (forests, marshes, difficult slopes, different kinds of streams, etc...) the same.

I take it this would mean you only get severe or even moderate disruption in those latter, rarer cases, and the much more common (really ubiquitous) rough ground is sort of downgraded in it's effects.

Would it be better to make rough ground only slightly disorder heavy foot and continue to not disorder medium foot, OR to make it continue to moderately disorder heavy foot but also slightly disorder medium foot?

[stockwellpete]

I don't think he means introducing a new light rough ground, and keeping the old normal rough ground, but across the board changing the generic rough ground terrain to be slightly rather than moderately disordering, and keeping everything else (forests, marshes, difficult slopes, different kinds of streams, etc...) the same.

I take it this would mean you only get severe or even moderate disruption in those latter, rarer cases, and the much more common (really ubiquitous) rough ground is sort of downgraded in it's effects.

Yes, that's right. That's what I mean.

Would it be better to make rough ground only slightly disorder heavy foot and continue to not disorder medium foot, OR to make it continue to moderately disorder heavy foot but also slightly disorder medium foot?

Don't know. Testing would have to sort that out, but probably the first option would be favourite.

[Nosy_Rat]

Exactly that, in my experience.

That's definitely not my experience, especially in Romans vs Gauls match up (warbands are like the worst unit in the game, imo). Though to be fair I played little of Classical lately.

Why send warbands against legions when there's plenty of 44 point cav or 36 point chariots willing to get into a staring contests or play grab-ass across half of the map with those legionnaires?

I don't want to get into theorycrafting in this thread, but you can't really force engagement without commiting warbands. The plan you describe can work if Romans don't anticipate it and deploy with expensive units maxed out and then still advance instead of assuming defensive position, but they definitely have tools to counter the cavalry and chariot spam. There's reason why nobody plays Gauls at the top of the DL, but Romans are still widely used, after all (spoiler: it's because warbands are trash and cavalry spam doesn't really work without reliable infantry line. Take a look at Andalusia if you really like masses of cheap cavalry).

[pompeytheflatulent]

That's definitely not my experience, especially in Romans vs Gauls match up (warbands are like the worst unit in the game, imo). Though to be fair I played little of Classical lately.

Why send warbands against legions when there's plenty of 44 point cav or 36 point chariots willing to get into a staring contests or play grab-ass across half of the map with those legionnaires?

I don't want to get into theorycrafting in this thread, but you can't really force engagement without commiting warbands. The plan you describe can work if Romans don't anticipate it and deploy with expensive units maxed out and then still advance instead of assuming defensive position, but they definitely have tools to counter the cavalry and chariot spam. There's reason why nobody plays Gauls at the top of the DL, but Romans are still widely used, after all (spoiler: it's because warbands are trash and cavalry spam doesn't really work without reliable infantry line. Take a look at Andalusia if you really like masses of cheap cavalry).

Take closer look at the screenshots. In both games it was the Gallic infantry wing that broke through and won the game. Since on the cavalry wing the Gaul could tie down 78 point and 61 point Roman Legions with 44 point cavalry and 36 point chariots, on the infantry wing the Gauls could afford to throw superior warbands against above average legions, regular warbands against italian foot, 2-on-1 flanks, and even more cavalry to exploit the breakthrough.

[MikeC_81]

Take closer look at the screenshots. In both games it was the Gallic infantry wing that broke through and won the game. Since on the cavalry wing the Gaul could tie down 78 point and 61 point Roman Legions with 44 point cavalry and 36 point chariots, on the infantry wing the Gauls could afford to throw superior warbands against above average legions, regular warbands against italian foot, 2-on-1 flanks, and even more cavalry to exploit the breakthrough.

An example of one or two games isn't compelling evidence. The fact that Gallic armies are unplayable if you want to do well in tournament play while the Romans remain a solid "1 - B" choice compared to pike armies is. The problem is being magnified into something greater than it is. We have a metagame issue in Late Antiquity right now, that's it and terrain that has generated passive play. It is unlikely we need to reinvent the wheel here.

perhaps the heavy foot major empire armies like the Romans were in large part successful against huge hordes of medium foot historically because of the terrible maneuverability and overall command and control of tribal confederations in battle, as well as their lack of professionalism and poor equipment (outside of well armored nobles). Like at the battle Battle of Mons Graupius:

https://youtu.be/ujIY99dwi5Y?t=382

my point being that, by comparison with the historical situation, Romans as an example aren't nearly as dominant in frontal combat vs their northern warband type foes in game as they seemed to be historically, and those foes have way better maneuverability and cohesion in game than they did historically. Perhaps non-professional medium foot should not be getting an assumed maneuverability advantage at all? Maybe non-professional medium foot should be reclassed as 'Warriors'? Maneuverability would seem to be the product of discipline and training regardless of weight of equipment or density of formation.

Not sure though, that would really involve changing many in game dynamics. Perhaps it is worth looking at the idea mentioned earlier of getting rid of the medium/heavy foot distinction and instead basing maneuverability and terrain affects on unit quality, armor, and capabilities. That way you could have say, maneuverable, heavily armored swordsmen who aren't badly disrupted by rough terrain, like legions, and just protected but close formation non-maneuverable units badly disrupted by terrain, like pikes, rather than just calling both of those 'heavy infantry' and giving them the same terrain disruptions.

Romans beat the Gauls and Germans in France and Northern Italy as well as the interior of Spain after the Punic wars based on their insane manpower and their ability to maintain armies in the field continuously while tribal confederations could not. The Romans lost as many times as they won. Entire consular armies were wiped out repeatedly and with regularity. The Roman-Gallic conflicts in the Polybian era saw the Romans frequently losing battles early in a conflict before securing victory in the conflict like at the battle of Arretium. Spain was like a Roman Vietnam which included more than one occasion where the Romans were absolutely humiliated throughout the 2nd century BC. The Cimbrian War during the tail end of the 2nd Century BC saw no less than 3 Roman armies wiped out in a decade before the situation was stabilized by Marius.

[MVP7]

I don't think any massive changes are necessary for balancing medium foot. Just making the Medium Foot pay for their maneuverability should help a lot. Some lower quality medium foot (that is not being used in the problematic lists) like Irregular Foot could be made unmaneuverable to keep the cost down.

The only gameplay change I'd really like to test is a small POA penalty for medium foot against cavalry in the open to give heavy foot a bit more distinct role.

[Nosy_Rat]

Take closer look at the screenshots. In both games it was the Gallic infantry wing that broke through and won the game. Since on the cavalry wing the Gaul could tie down 78 point and 61 point Roman Legions with 44 point cavalry and 36 point chariots, on the infantry wing the Gauls could afford to throw superior warbands against above average legions, regular warbands against italian foot, 2-on-1 flanks, and even more cavalry to exploit the breakthrough.

That's just player's mistake, though, not a sign of Roman inferiority to Gauls. Romans could've easily shifted their superior troops to face off against warbands before getting into such precarious postion.