The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[paulmcneil]

Using Light troops to make non-light troops turn and being able to flank/rear charge them with a non-light unit on the next turn is obviously the opposite of a brillant tactic to say the least, wasn't it ? That's the kind of "tactic" that should be removed from the game, shouldn't it ?

Did I say it shouldn't be? Or are you using the usual tactic of arguing against something I haven't said? That should be removed from the stream shouldn't it?

Unit costs don't include exploits players discover and use.
When exploits are removed, costs remain the same.
Period.

Have fun.
Cheers!

Love the use of "Period" exudes authority and finality, gave me goosebumps, always good to close down discussion on a discussion page, especially from pesky paying customers. I have noted players exploiting the fact that large Pike units rally from rout relatively easily, and can sit in a square without being flanked, surely we don't think they are good tactics do we? Can someone remove those exploits please?

Have a nice day!

[SnuggleBunnies]

I don't think they are widely considered exploits in need of removal. Square especially is really not an exploit. If you're forming squares you're probably losing and it doesn't tend to help. The light horse pinning trick was clearly considered an exploit in the sense that their ability to do so did not match Richard's conception of their abilities historically or as priced.

Have a nice day!

[Ludendorf]

There's also pinning in medium horse with lights or other mediums. Should Medium horse suffer some kind of check if they lose melee and can't fall back against infantry? It is just as frustrating to fall victim to, yet at the end of the day, it is a level playing field. Hell, that kind of strategy is almost mandatory if you want to take an all-medium horse army against, say, a Greek hoplite list.

[paulmcneil]

I don't think they are widely considered exploits in need of removal. Square especially is really not an exploit. If you're forming squares you're probably losing and it doesn't tend to help. The light horse pinning trick was clearly considered an exploit in the sense that their ability to do so did not match Richard's conception of their abilities historically or as priced.

Have a nice day!

Trick?

[Triarii]

The light horse pinning trick was clearly considered an exploit in the sense that their ability to do so did not match Richard's conception of their abilities historically

Which is probably the rationale - Richard could confirm - and absolutely the gamey tactic which allowed this felt very wrong and needed fixing.

It has, however, applied to all lights and rightly or wrongly also neutered the lance armed and semi armoured LH. These are not good skirmish troops and not good anti-skirmisher troops. Previously in the game attacking from the rear they often stood a good chance of sticking and causing confusion this even with with no blocking of the fall back square. This as a tactical possibility is particularly different to the gamey tactic of using skirmish equipped light units with the fall back square blocked (who would never otherwise stick) to cause a facing change.
There is an argument that the flank threatening and turning is what non-skirmish LH were intended to do historically (e.g. Byzantine flankers and also Meccans victory at Uhud (625CE)) and so in their case the turn to face was not atypical.

The blanket change for all lights is understandable but certainly makes the Bedouin army list far less effective and why would anyone now pick an expensive Byzantine flanker unit. There is always scope for discussion and perhaps certain LH exceptions for armour and/or weapon type should apply. That would not be too difficult an exception.

No tetchiness intended in my post just an observation about a troop type that I feel has been made too ineffective in an otherwise welcome change.

[Ludendorf]

It does kind of make me wonder. Can a unit of 240 cavalrymen really ignore a body of horse half their size crashing into their flanks without turning the formation to face, even if they are just light horsemen armed with javelins and short swords? It feels like the kind of thing which SHOULD be a problem.

[paulmcneil]

It does kind of make me wonder. Can a unit of 240 cavalrymen really ignore a body of horse half their size crashing into their flanks without turning the formation to face, even if they are just light horsemen armed with javelins and short swords? It feels like the kind of thing which SHOULD be a problem.

I guess that's why, more or less, every light cavalry manual ever written advises putting LC on the wings to turn the enemy's flanks. But given Lights (cav or inf) don't disrupt enemy heavier units when hitting them in the flanks even in bad terrain, and can't make them turn either, then it calls all that accumulated wisdom from practical experience on the battlefield into question?

[SnuggleBunnies]

I don't think Lance armed lights have been neutered. I've used and had them used against me very effectively without pinning them. I do think light horse archers in general are a bit more expensive than they're generally worth though.

[MikeC_81]

Love the use of "Period" exudes authority and finality, gave me goosebumps, always good to close down discussion on a discussion page, especially from pesky paying customers.

This is rich coming from a person who in recent weeks has made his own authoritative statements with a heavy emphasis on the finality of his conclusions as being *truth* all the while refusing to answer questions that might undermine his position. Kettle, Pot, Black?

I have noted players exploiting the fact that large Pike units rally from rout relatively easily, and can sit in a square without being flanked, surely we don't think they are good tactics do we? Can someone remove those exploits please?
Have a nice day!

The term exploit, as generally defined in gaming, is the use of the ruleset to generate events or outcomes in the game which does not conform to the vision of the ruleset designer due to oversight or unforeseen consequences. Thus whether a particular rule or outcomes of a particular rule is considered an exploit is solely at the discretion of the game/rule designer. The use of LH to turn formed units to expose flanks, frequently in combination with another mechanic by which units cannot fallback if their retreat square is blocked was deemed to be something that was not intended by RBS and therefore is an exploit. While it has taken a while for it to be removed, it nonetheless remains by definition, an exploit.

The phenomenon of Pike units rallying more often because they frequently do not suffer the -1 or -2 die roll modifier to low unit strength has not been communicated by RBS as an unintended consequence of his ruleset. This is despite the fact that we know he monitors his thread closely and has not commented on it as an issue in his eyes, allows us to come to the conclusion that it is not an exploit.

As for pikes forming a square, it is probably one of the most useless maneuvers in my book as it surrenders all ability to influence the battlefield since it can no longer attack or exert ZoC control without spending an entire turn to come out of square. It provides no protection to its friends around it, nor does it impede the movement of enemy troops other than occupying the one square it currently sits on and is at the mercy of skirmishers who can relentless pelt them with missiles and progressively strip the unit of its precious Deep Pike PoA while it is totally impotent.

It does kind of make me wonder. Can a unit of 240 cavalrymen really ignore a body of horse half their size crashing into their flanks without turning the formation to face, even if they are just light horsemen armed with javelins and short swords? It feels like the kind of thing which SHOULD be a problem.

I can't remember where, but in the past, RBS has likened LH and LF as units represent elements that would never 'charge home' so to speak and was intended more to represent loose screens of troops that that would never close effectively with formed units. This is probably why LF is simply not allowed to charge MF and HF at all unless they are in rough or outright fleeing. I believe the quote went something like how formed troops would treat these units with disdain or something like that. How lancer equipped LH, a unit capability that clearly is meant to be used in close combat, is meant to jive with this interpretation, I cannot answer for.

[Sennacherib]

my thoughts on the game, chance is important and some situations are ridiculous ( new ZoC rule, charge in the rear were you lost, flee movement ). Chance is even more important when two good players confront each other and there is no bad plan or 'bad' army composition on a side, Pete say one on ten i disagree it is far more in my opinion. Last season on division A classical Antiquity on first game contact i loose one general in four games ! in three of these games i loose three generals in combat, add this, rally, double moral down and it make a difference on a battle. But Ok as far as i play with miniatures games luck is a factor that you must accept… maybe it can be better but i can't argue my English is not good enought.
My worst concern about the game are "horde" armies, and this is why i play less and less in tornament….

Schweetness 101

[Sennacherib]

My worst concern about the game are "horde" armies, and this is why i play less and less in tornament….

The Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons armies are not in the tournament this time as they are being changed. Which other armies do you think are a problem?

No others in particular but i find that game favorize number over qualities and maneuver.

Schweetness 101

[rbodleyscott]

So are Lights going to get a reduction in cost as their use in outflanking has just been removed?

No

[paulmcneil]

Love the use of "Period" exudes authority and finality, gave me goosebumps, always good to close down discussion on a discussion page, especially from pesky paying customers.

This is rich coming from a person who in recent weeks has made his own authoritative statements with a heavy emphasis on the finality of his conclusions as being *truth* all the while refusing to answer questions that might undermine his position. Kettle, Pot, Black?

You're right I am a terrible person.

[edb1815]

It does kind of make me wonder. Can a unit of 240 cavalrymen really ignore a body of horse half their size crashing into their flanks without turning the formation to face, even if they are just light horsemen armed with javelins and short swords? It feels like the kind of thing which SHOULD be a problem.

I guess that's why, more or less, every light cavalry manual ever written advises putting LC on the wings to turn the enemy's flanks. But given Lights (cav or inf) don't disrupt enemy heavier units when hitting them in the flanks even in bad terrain, and can't make them turn either, then it calls all that accumulated wisdom from practical experience on the battlefield into question?

Perhaps a generalization given the broad time period FOGII covers. Maybe we could say LC was used to harass the enemy flanks until we get to late antiquity when you see lance armed LC like the Bedouins or the Byzantine flankers. LC in Greco-Roman warfare were essentially mounted javelineers used for scouting and to harass the enemy heavy infantry from a distance. Similarly LC horse archers didn't close with good ordered enemy formations. Maybe I am reading too much into your use of "turning the flank" which implies a major movement which I equate more with P&S armies (or Napoleonic tactics). Curious though if anyone knows which ancient writer provided details of LC tactics?

As to the question above I do not envision the heavy cavalry standing still whilst a unit of LC threatens their rear. Certainly they could turn a squadron (or Ilae) to face that threat which might be enough to see off the skirmishing LC.

[Swuul]

Regarding battle-sizes in Digital League. Pete told a moment ago the difference of battle-sizes (Medium in Classic and Later Antique, Large in Biblical and Early Medieval) is for variety reasons. I have to say I personally have this season began to dislike the Medium sized battles, as there the randomness plays a bigger role than in Large battles, and the armies can be more versatile in Large than in Medium. A couple doubledrops in a single turn feels bad in Large battles but in Medium battles it is quite devastating, a generals death is nasty in Large but crippling in Medium.

If at some point it was to be decided all eras would be played as Large battles, I for one would be in the crowd performing the standing ovation

[MikeMarchant]

Regarding battle-sizes in Digital League. Pete told a moment ago the difference of battle-sizes (Medium in Classic and Later Antique, Large in Biblical and Early Medieval) is for variety reasons. I have to say I personally have this season began to dislike the Medium sized battles, as there the randomness plays a bigger role than in Large battles, and the armies can be more versatile in Large than in Medium. A couple doubledrops in a single turn feels bad in Large battles but in Medium battles it is quite devastating, a generals death is nasty in Large but crippling in Medium.

If at some point it was to be decided all eras would be played as Large battles, I for one would be in the crowd performing the standing ovation

Here, here!


Best Wishes

Mike

[devoncop]

+100

[desertedfox]

Ditto. Large is far more enjoyable for at least anyway.

[nyczar]

This thread seems to have meandered far and wide of late but I definitely want to weigh in to say I prefer 1600 point battles for the reasons Swuul wrote. I know one idea against this is the extra time it takes to set up and play turns....i dont think that this is a significant objection, I am equal time proportions anxious and elated no latter if the game is 1200 or 1600.

[Ludendorf]

On that topic, what effect has 1600 point games had upon the large vs small elite army debate? I would have thought more points would give the more expensive army a bit of breathing space. There's more room for those elite troops to score disruptions and fragmentations over time if the army sizes are greater and flanking units have a longer march to get around the flanks and into the guts of the enemy army. Should be a simple matter of surface area.