Byzantine Lancers: how to use

[Athos1660]

and to be clear, I don't agree with that interpretation

I may be mistaken but I am under the impression that the only difference between Richard and you is that :
- You would like to have one unit able to use two tactics : skirmishing with bows and charging
- But in the FoG2 series, if an historical unit was able to use two tactics, then there will be two in-game different units using each only one tactic : in this case, the "Thematic Lancers & Archers" able to charge and the Detached Thematic Archers able to shoot and evade (+ other Nomad Horse Archers and LH Archers). The same happens in Pike and Shot : historically, units mixing Pikes and Musketeers ('P&S') could detach small groups of musketeers as LF. In P&S, there is two kinds of units : mixed infantry and LF. Up to you to select the unit/tactic you want to use in game (during force selection and on the battlefield).

(as Richard mentioned it in his last post.)

[Geffalrus]

I may be mistaken but I am under the impression that the only difference between Richard and you is that :
- You would like to have one unit able to use two tactics : skirmishing with bows and charging
- But in the FoG2 series, if an historical unit was able to use two tactics, then there will be two in-game different units : in this case, the "Thematic Lancers & Archers" able to charge and the Detached Thematic Archers able to shoot and evade (+ other Nomad Horse Archers and LH Archers). The same happens in Pike and Shot : historically, units mixing Pikes and Musketeers ('P&S') could detach small groups of musketeers as LF. In P&S, there is two kinds of units : mixed infantry and LF. Up to you to select the unit/tactic you want to use in game.

(as Richard mentioned it in his last post.)

My contention is that since the Byzantine cavalry were trained to use both bow and lance, and carried some combination of them into battle, they were designed to use two different tactics, picking which one they would use on the fly. I didn't even consider this idea until FoGM created the Best Equipped Cavalry for the Mongols who were hybrid lancers who could evade. So really, it's whoever developed that game's fault.

I'm quite happy to stick to using a combo of bow horse and hybrid lancers, though that is somewhat hindered by the fact that most Byzantine lists have a 2-1 ratio of hybrid lancers to bow horse. Experimentation shall continue.

[MarcoCato75]

In that case, why do they have 50% bows allowing them to shoot immobile at a distance, and not just a small Impact PoA boost (if possible : +15, +20, +30... ?) a bit like the Auxilia Palatina and their darts they used only during (enemy) charges and who have no shooting capabilities ?

After reading all the posts, this looks very interesting for representing the use of the bows in this special units if the archers on them didnt reach the 50% of their men (I always thinked that the use of darts for late empire units is very well represented).

Also today I was analysing the Byzantine lists and I noticed that there is a difference between early skutatoi which description says that they have a proportion of archers and consecuently they cannot shoot as they were carrying darts (im not sure if they receive a bonus for their archers?) and later skutatoi (which have 50% of archers and can shoot, as persian/assyrian foot). I suposse that this difference is again for the number of archers that the unit had, but im not sure if this could be the case of the lancers.

An important question here is if the decision to represent shoot capability for a mixed unit (like skutatori, persian infantry, etc...) is purely based on the number of soldiers carring shooting arms (50% or more) or also have in mind the skill of the men using it.

[Nijis]

I didn't even consider this idea until FoGM created the Best Equipped Cavalry for the Mongols who were hybrid lancers who could evade.

Having played the Mongols in the last DL game, I would have preferred for them not to be able to evade. It was relatively easy for a force with lancers, or even light spear cav, to force a retreat and overtake them from behind, especially if it's a chain-pursuit after routing another unit.

I don't supposed it will be added, but I would like the ability to give a unit with evasion capabilities the order to stand in place. Barring that, I'd prefer to have my lancers not evade.

[deeter]

That was a player-requested addition to FOG I wherein the player could select either an always evade, never evade and situation stance for evasion-capable units. Unfortunately, that didn't make it into FOG II.

Deeter

[kongxinga]

I don't know much about Byzantine cavalry doctine, but I always enjoy the long quotes from primary sources to support a position.

50% Bow is very weak, would they not be simply used to force an engage on your terrain/terms? IE forcing down a enemy cav with height advantage. It is unlikely you can mass enough firepower for a single turn 10% loss cohesion drop, but over several terms you can probably whittle a stubborn unit in good terrain to abandon the position or become vulnerable to a charge.

I recall another thing is to force infantry with advantages against cavalry when defending, but whom have the malus (unless charging mounted shock troops), that is, heavy weapons, pikes, offensive spear, impact foot, to either stand and slowly get shot to bits, or commit to a stupid charge where they lose their POA bonus and get minced in the impact round, possibly on bad terrain too. Only do this if you have ranged fire superiority of course, or your lancers are going to be shot up.

Cheap lancers with no ranged capability are often able to ZOC enemy heavy infantry (pikes, offensive spear, impact foot, heavy infantry of both heavy and medium types) and act as a screen to shooty armies by staring down heavy infantry. With 50% bow they can do more than stare and actually shoot. Obviously still unsure if they are cost effective for this capability, as they are certainly not cost efficient (the cost algorithm iirc penalizes shooty, melee-y type troops in a big way, either shoot, or either melee, but better not both).

[BMAXIMUS]

Are we trying here to solve a problem which doesn't exist ?
I mean if the byzantine lancers were too expensive, byzantine should be at a disadvantage vs other armies.
This should results in byzantine doing less well in the current tournament. This is not what I see in my case (even though I'm struggling to get the best of the byzantine lancers I've seen the byzantines doing better than the other armies). I'm sure we can easily extract some statistics from the data of the current tournament and check if the byzantines are at a disadvantages or not).

50% Bow is very weak

Byzantines lancers are 4 "things" units (BG I think ?), so 50% is equivalent un 100% of light horse archer. Also Tagmatics are superior , which enhance the bow capabilities.
Finally bow vs cavalry "double" relatively the damage (compare to infantry). Waiting for enemy lancers to be in range and shoot at them steadily does actually some significant damage, which can change the outcome of the following melees. So I think there actually quite effective vs enemy cavalry (and you can definitely get the 10% loss cohesion by shouting with 2 or 3 ).

[Jagger2002]

The Byzantine army is a pretty good army against historical opponents. Nice matchups. You can get problems when you use the Byzantines against non-historical opponents.

[Jagger2002]

The Byzantine army is a pretty good army against historical opponents. Nice matchups. You can get problems when you use the Byzantines against non-historical opponents.

[Geffalrus]

Are we trying here to solve a problem which doesn't exist ?
I mean if the byzantine lancers were too expensive, byzantine should be at a disadvantage vs other armies.
This should results in byzantine doing less well in the current tournament. This is not what I see in my case (even though I'm struggling to get the best of the byzantine lancers I've seen the byzantines doing better than the other armies). I'm sure we can easily extract some statistics from the data of the current tournament and check if the byzantines are at a disadvantages or not).

50% Bow is very weak

Byzantines lancers are 4 "things" units (BG I think ?), so 50% is equivalent un 100% of light horse archer. Also Tagmatics are superior , which enhance the bow capabilities.
Finally bow vs cavalry "double" relatively the damage (compare to infantry). Waiting for enemy lancers to be in range and shoot at them steadily does actually some significant damage, which can change the outcome of the following melees. So I think there actually quite effective vs enemy cavalry (and you can definitely get the 10% loss cohesion by shouting with 2 or 3 ).

The problem isn't that Byzantine armies in the game are under powered - I certainly never said that. My issue is just a matter of having a different interpretation of how to implement an in game unit to make it match up to what we see from the historical sources. People have different interpretations, and if the developer doesn't agree, then it's a moot point. There are two proposed changes (give them evade, or trade the ranged ability for increased impact POA vs. certain targets or all targets), and either the developer likes them or he doesn't.

As far as Byzantine armies are concerned, I would say that they are not exactly easy to play. Hybrid units for cavalry and sometimes infantry have a higher skill cap because you have more decisions to make with them; more tradeoffs at every decision point. This will increase the difference in results between players of different skill levels, depending on their relative opponents. For the Digital League army statistics record, we see that the vast majority of players prefer to use the 551AD list (Belisarius Army) and the 963 AD and later lists. These lists differ from the other Byzantine lists by including some of the heaviest units available for their eras. 551AD gets superior offensive spears, while the 963 and later armies get Elite Hybrid Cataphracts (Klibanophoroi) and Varangians (highly superior offensive spears with better armor). The 493-550AD list comes in pretty close with around half the number of matches played in the DL as those armies. Interestingly, that list has superior hybrid lancers, but none of the average hybrid lancers. Instead, they get the armored horse archers that you see with the Sassanid Persians. There are lists in between them that feature large amounts of the non-superior hybrid lancers, as well as the non-archer skutatoi........but those don't seem to get picked much in competition.

To me, this would indicate that while the armies are fine, players aren't particularly drawn to either of these units. Personally, I think the non-superior hybrid lancers just don't pack much of a punch, and in most every case, having the more expensive version, or having a cheaper dedicated horse archer, is better. That's just my opinion. I'd be interested to see what people think of the non-archer skutatoi too. Compared to normal 36 point defensive spears, they cost 8 points more and have slightly more armor and the maneuver trait. Not terrible, but point inefficient for forming your main line. The archer skutatoi are 3 points more expensive, and have only 50% spear in melee, but gain decent shooting equivalent to a 30 point light archer. For them, the maneuver train helps a lot since they do much more rotating to get in the right firing arc.

So yeah, in general, Byzantine armies are fine, but not all the units that compose them are equally useful. When players pick armies to fight competitively, they gravitate towards power units and away from the non-superior hybrid lancers. That's what it seems like to me.

[Athos1660]

My issue is just a matter of having a different interpretation of how to implement an in game unit to make it match up to what we see from the historical sources. (…) There are two proposed changes (give them evade, or trade the ranged ability for increased impact POA vs. certain targets or all targets), and either the developer likes them or he doesn't.

As far as Byzantine armies are concerned, I would say that they are not exactly easy to play. Hybrid units for cavalry and sometimes infantry have a higher skill cap because you have more decisions to make with them; more tradeoffs at every decision point. This will increase the difference in results between players of different skill levels, depending on their relative opponents.

I guess the current ranged ability or the proposed increased impact POA (I suggested) may both result in close outcomes if you use the shooting ability of the current hybrid unit strictly as Richard described their historical tactic : a way to prepare the charge. You shoot only at the target you’ll charge.

(That’s why the change may not be indispensable)

Btw using only this tactic also makes this unit easier to use in terms of decision-making, as it is a concern to you. You don’t have to decide either to shoot and try to avoid the enemy or charge it ; you just choose your target, shoot it (causing a few additional casualties) and charge it. So it wouldn't be an 'hybrid' unit, just a charging one. (The Detached Thematic Archers, other Nomad Horse Archers and LH Archers, able to shoot and evade, taking care of the other tactic : the skirmish)

As far as Byzantine armies are concerned, I would say that they are not exactly easy to play. Hybrid units for cavalry and sometimes infantry have a higher skill cap because you have more decisions to make with them; more tradeoffs at every decision point. This will increase the difference in results between players of different skill levels, depending on their relative opponents.

… while an hybrid unit able to shoot, charge and evade (ie using more than one tactic) would require much less skill like a Swiss army knife. I guess we all (more or less) play this game because it is skill-based. That’s why one unit = one tactic may be better ?

[Geffalrus]

… while an hybrid unit able to shoot, charge and evade (ie using more than one tactic) would require much less skill like a Swiss army knife. I guess we all (more or less) play this game because it is skill-based. That’s why one unit = one tactic may be better ?

So to your first point about using hybrid lancers - one round of 50% bow just isn't going to do much. It won't cause a cohesion check, and it won't do very many casualties. It certainly wouldn't be equivalent to a 50 POA advantage on impact. To the extent that the ranged ability of the hybrid lancers does work, it does so whet it's one of multiple units performing concentrated fire on an enemy unit. Which is not consistent with the idea that the bows were used as part of the charge, unless there's some extreme time dilation involved. Furthermore, there are multiple other units that have their ranged capability turned into impact POA. The javelins of light spear cavalry are represented by 50 POA on impact, not by a 1 range javelin attack ability like you see with light javelin cavalry. Similarly, light spear infantry and legions are all described as discharging a ranged weapon (javelin or pila) during the charge, which gives them either 100 or 200 POA on impact rather than a 1 range javelin attack. It is a clear design decision in this game to model some ranged attacks as impact poa rather than a targetable ranged ability. And so I think that the interpretation that the bows were used during the charge falls under that category of game mechanic interpretation, and so exchanging the 2 range attack for an impact poa boos would be consistent.

To you second point, the benefit of hybrid units is that they have tactical flexibility, at the cost of being more expensive. So when facing a pure unit in its element, the hybrid unit will struggle either because it is weaker in that element (hybrid lancers shooting vs. bow cav) or because you can bring a larger amount of the pure unit (hybrid lancers vs. pure lancers of equivalent morale and armor). It's a tradeoff, and tradeoffs make for great strategic and tactical choices.

And as far as it always being better for lancers to stand and fight instead of run away like puny evasion cavalry, I will counter by saying that lancers suffer far more than evasion cav if they are ever caught out of position. Pursuit into rough ground - they can't avoid a charge by medium foot now. Charged by elephants - now they're dead. Flank charged by foot - better hope the fall back spot is good ground. Disrupted by ranged units - completely forked if they're charged by infantry or cavalry. In all these situations, evasion cavalry at least have the option of fleeing the fight up to a range of 4 spaces. Yes there are cases where that can leave them vulnerable to a rear charge, but it is extremely hard to predict where they will end up, making the odds of lining up that rear charge very random. Unlike the much more predictable lancers. Pros and Cons.

[Athos1660]

So to your first point about using hybrid lancers - one round of 50% bow just isn't going to do much. It won't cause a cohesion check, and it won't do very many casualties.

... and it didn't IRL during a charge imho.

It certainly wouldn't be equivalent to a 50 POA advantage on impact.

I guess we disagree on the effectiveness of that RL shooting. A few arrows shot during a charge at a trot or a gallop from the only rear ranks didn't have a tremendous impact on the enemy imho. I for one initially thought of a small +10 or 20 increase. But I guess the shooting as currently implemented might as well simulate pretty well shooting from the rear ranks during a charge if one uses it before a charge.

[Geffalrus]

I guess we disagree on the effectiveness of that RL shooting. A few arrows shot during a charge at a trot or a gallop from the only rear ranks didn't have a tremendous impact on the enemy imho. I for one initially thought of a small +10 or 20 increase. But I guess the shooting as currently implemented might as well simulate pretty well shooting from the rear ranks during a charge if one uses it before a charge.

So from what I've read, the effectiveness of the arrows during the charge was that they made the infantry instinctively want to spread out as that was a common way to mitigate missile fire. However, spreading out opened gaps for the dense and pointy lancer formation to exploit. Infantry that bunched together at the approach of the lancers became a better target for arrows, so they were sort of damned if they did; damned if they didn't. Supposedly the Byzantine archery training focused on speed over power and accuracy so as to get as many arrows in the air as possible. That would make sense in the charging context to increase the desire of the infantry to spread out.

All of which taken together seems like a reasonable justification for an impact poa boost, and also why my initial suggestion was to have it apply to infantry. Having thought about it more, it seems like it could also have an element of the Darts POA to it. Darts give +100 defense impact poa unless facing armored infantry or heavily armored cavalry, in which case they only get +66 poa. In this case, the Byzantine Charge POA could give +50 POA unless facing armored infantry or cavalry, in which case it becomes only +25 POA. The idea here being that armored units are less vulnerable to the arrows, less likely to feel the need to spread out, and thus the effect of the pre-charge arrows is lessened. Arrows pinging off armor is still unsettling, so that's why there'd still be some benefit.

This would give Byzantine lancers a bit of a pre-knight aspect. Compared to other lancers, they'd hit harder vs. your basic infantry swarm, but only slightly harder vs. cavalry. Superior armored lancers would be slightly weaker than Superior Byzantine lancers on impact.......but they'd be cheaper by 8 points and equal in melee, and they'd do just fine vs. the Above Average variety barring the usual insane luck. In purely cavalry fights, the idea would be that normal lancers would be more cost effective, as the extra points spent on the Byzantine lancers would be for impact poa bonuses vs. infantry. Knights are a step beyond that with even more impact vs. normal lancers and extra melee poa.

[Athos1660]

@Geffalrus : I guess we have to agree to disagree for the moment. A matter of conviction

btw Cronos in his 18th century mod created a mounted unit unable to shoot at a distance but able to shoot at an unengaged unit only during the charges, ie before the impact, causing casualties before the calculation of the Impact outcome. I don't know whether or not such feature and animation would cause specific lags or FPS drops. I guess it'd make the unit a bit weaker compared to currently as it would make it shoot less often. But a priori it could be another interesting way to simulate the tactic of shooting arrows only during the charge imho.

[rbodleyscott]

50% Bow is very weak

Byzantines lancers are 4 "things" units (BG I think ?), so 50% is equivalent un 100% of light horse archer. Also Tagmatics are superior , which enhance the bow capabilities.

Actually, because of the way the shooting calculations work (to mimic the tabletop rules), a 50% bow unit shooting at close range is in fact 66% as effective as a 100% bow unit, not 50% as effective.

[BMAXIMUS]

50% Bow is very weak

Byzantines lancers are 4 "things" units (BG I think ?), so 50% is equivalent un 100% of light horse archer. Also Tagmatics are superior , which enhance the bow capabilities.

Actually, because of the way the shooting calculations work (to mimic the tabletop rules), a 50% bow unit shooting at close range is in fact 66% as effective as a 100% bow unit, not 50% as effective.

Am I wrong to think that 50% bow of a 240 men unit as the same amount as firepower than an 100% bow 120 men (light horse archer ?) or 50% 480 (skoutatoi & archer) the same as 100% 240 (light archer ) ?
What is this close range rule ?

[rbodleyscott]

Byzantines lancers are 4 "things" units (BG I think ?), so 50% is equivalent un 100% of light horse archer. Also Tagmatics are superior , which enhance the bow capabilities.

Actually, because of the way the shooting calculations work (to mimic the tabletop rules), a 50% bow unit shooting at close range is in fact 66% as effective as a 100% bow unit, not 50% as effective.

Am I wrong to think that 50% bow of a 240 men unit as the same amount as firepower than an 100% bow 120 men (light horse archer ?) or 50% 480 (skoutatoi & archer) the same as 100% 240 (light archer ) ?
What is this close range rule ?

It is based on the tabletop rules, where most cavalry and infantry formed up two "bases" deep. At long range the infantry (not the cavalry as they had no long range) shot with half of the bases. At short range, infantry and cavalry shot with the whole the first rank of bases with bows, and half the second rank of bases with bows. Note that this means that a 50:50 unit with only its second rank with bows, would shoot with the full effect of that single rank. Hence a 50% unit shoots at 50% but a 100% unit shoots at 75% at close range. So the 50% unit shoots at (50/75*100 =) 66% of the effect of the 100% unit at close range.

As to your question, the answer is yes.

[BMAXIMUS]

Thanks for the clarification.