"Armoured superior cavalry versus protected average spearmen are approximately a 50-50 proposition. ..... So, my conclusion is that the rules might possible give a slightly higher chance to the cavalry but it's not a big issue and one that should only be considered after knowing what v2.0 will do, if anything about armour and the relative cheapness of superior troops - both topics already discussed at great length. "
I'm not sure I'd regard Cav vs Spear coming out as being a 50/50 proposition as entirely sensible - either for historical reasons, or for game balance.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
"Armoured superior cavalry versus protected average spearmen are approximately a 50-50 proposition. ..... So, my conclusion is that the rules might possible give a slightly higher chance to the cavalry but it's not a big issue and one that should only be considered after knowing what v2.0 will do, if anything about armour and the relative cheapness of superior troops - both topics already discussed at great length. "
I'm not sure I'd regard Cav vs Spear coming out as being a 50/50 proposition as entirely sensible - either for historical reasons, or for game balance.
To be precise "best quality cav vs mediocre spear" is a 50/50 proposition. Other interactions with a lower quality advantage for the cav are not a 50/50 proposition. Historically (for books 1 and 3), armies should have a much lower proportion of "armour superior" for their cavalry. Throwing your relatively scarce best cavalry into frontal attacks against the enemy's masses of mediocre infantry for a 50/50 outcome is "hazardous" in my view. For tournaments (and game balance) it may be an issue of point difference for protected versus armoured and average versus superior. No doubt given free choice of the lists players will swan around with armoured superior troops rather than protected average.
Giving steady HF a POA versus cavalry means that in all combinations of light spear cavalry versus spearmen, the infantry have a marginal to significant advantage (versus the current 50/50 to significant advantage). In the Rance article, I noted the author states, "Holding firm in the face of charging cavalry was one of the most psychologically demanding tasks for infantry".
I'm more familiar with accounts of the Napoleonic wars, where one can still debate the chances of "cavalry versus steady HF (in square)". There are those who would confidently state that only one square was ever broken during the entire series of wars (i.e., for game purposes that's 0% chance). Regardless of what it means to be "broken", the British accounts of Waterloo state that no squares were broken, yet the 27th Foot suffered 71% casualties and that's "eliminated" in a wargame. One also has to wonder why - even if Marshal Ney was mad - Napoleon, a somewhat better than average commander, ordered even more cavalry to support the attacks - given that chance is practically 0% for cavalry breaking squares. The causalities for the 27th Foot are notable as an extreme case but a review of other units shows that quite a number of other battalions suffered quite badly.
"Armoured superior cavalry versus protected average spearmen are approximately a 50-50 proposition. ..... So, my conclusion is that the rules might possible give a slightly higher chance to the cavalry but it's not a big issue and one that should only be considered after knowing what v2.0 will do, if anything about armour and the relative cheapness of superior troops - both topics already discussed at great length. "
I'm not sure I'd regard Cav vs Spear coming out as being a 50/50 proposition as entirely sensible - either for historical reasons, or for game balance.
Considering the cavalry player is investing a lot more points why not. Coming out with a 50% chance when putting 50% more points (4 cav v 6 foot) in harms way is not a good idea.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
"Armoured superior cavalry versus protected average spearmen are approximately a 50-50 proposition. ..... So, my conclusion is that the rules might possible give a slightly higher chance to the cavalry but it's not a big issue and one that should only be considered after knowing what v2.0 will do, if anything about armour and the relative cheapness of superior troops - both topics already discussed at great length. "
I'm not sure I'd regard Cav vs Spear coming out as being a 50/50 proposition as entirely sensible - either for historical reasons, or for game balance.
Considering the cavalry player is investing a lot more points why not. Coming out with a 50% chance when putting 50% more points (4 cav v 6 foot) in harms way is not a good idea.
Because protected spear are already generally regarded as being a very poor bet against any sort of armoured foot, so if their compensating "upside" is a 50/50 against (more expensive, but in the real world, very common) mounted, this still seems to me to imply that they are poor value "overall", i.e. vs a wide a range of their likely opponents.
Put another way, if the default type of cavalry are presented with the choice of charging protected spearmen or armoured swordsmen and they conclude that they actually don't really care which target they choose, that's a/ odd, and b/ a missed opportunity to make the game more interesting.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
madaxeman wrote:Because protected spear are already generally regarded as being a very poor bet against any sort of armoured foot, so if their compensating "upside" is a 50/50 against (more expensive, but in the real world, very common) mounted, this still seems to me to imply that they are poor value "overall", i.e. vs a wide a range of their likely opponents.
True protected average spear are a poor value...period. Giving them a POA against cavalry won't make them any less of a speed bump against so many other troop types that aren't cavalry. In fact we can lump them in with protected average cavalry. Maybe we can even have segregated tournaments for "protected only" troops.
Or, as you say,..."to put it another way", if I want to beat up on your average protected spear, I'd rather use superior armoured spear than superior armoured cavalry as they are both cheaper and much more effective.
Your option of choosing between protected spear and armoured swordsmen seems a little irrelevant to me. Both tasks are well down my list of things to do for what should be one of the best manoeuvre units in my army. But I suppose there are those commanders that prefer frontal attacks against prepared troops as the manly thing to do.
shadowdragon wrote:
Napoleon, a somewhat better than average commander, ordered even more cavalry to support the attacks - given that chance is practically 0% for cavalry breaking squares. The causalities for the 27th Foot are notable as an extreme case but a review of other units shows that quite a number of other battalions suffered quite badly.
The point for Napoleon was combined assaults: whereas a square formation (a mass of men) is good for repelling cavalry charges, it also pins you and you make a good target for artillery and other infantry. I am not saying that Ancient cavalry was not good (it had its uses), but as madaxeman pointed out, it is just not that historically the behaviour is different than the one we can see on tabletops, but in game terms if everything can be used against anything, then the game misses its point.
Given that Greek cavalry never charged frontally with success a steady formation of hoplites, there are two options to deal with it: you can transform the cavalry (by turning it into light horse, but then you will be getting the interactions with other cavalry wrong or the same if we downgrade all superior armoured cavalry to protected average) or try to correct the negative side effects by altering the PoA's. And I think that the second way is the best way both to capture the historical flavour of it and have a funnier game. The proposed changes are intended for:
- Making cavalry less prone to charge frontally foot
- Making them suffer if they are caught in a melee
- Giving them some more chances when receiving a charge and accomplising defensive roles.
madaxeman wrote:Because protected spear are already generally regarded as being a very poor bet against any sort of armoured foot, so if their compensating "upside" is a 50/50 against (more expensive, but in the real world, very common) mounted, this still seems to me to imply that they are poor value "overall", i.e. vs a wide a range of their likely opponents.
In competition games should be added here.
Put another way, if the default type of cavalry are presented with the choice of charging protected spearmen or armoured swordsmen and they conclude that they actually don't really care which target they choose, that's a/ odd, and b/ a missed opportunity to make the game more interesting.
Making crap cheap troops better will not make the game more interesting, it will make it more of a drudge as tables fill up with crap that you can't get around or through, no matter if you are superior cavalry or heavily armoured Varagians.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
Strategos69 wrote:And I think that the second way is the best way both to capture the historical flavour of it and have a funnier game.
Funnily (i.e., strangely) enough, in the English language, a fun game which is more fun (i.e., more enjoyable) isn't necessarily funnier (i.e., more laughable), but a funnier (i.e., more laughable) game can certainly be a lot of fun (i.e., enjoyable). English is a funny (i.e., strange) language.
Having lived in a foreign country, I appreciate the challenges of mastering the nuances of another language, but that one made me smile - I hope you don't mind that!
madaxeman wrote:Because protected spear are already generally regarded as being a very poor bet against any sort of armoured foot, so if their compensating "upside" is a 50/50 against (more expensive, but in the real world, very common) mounted, this still seems to me to imply that they are poor value "overall", i.e. vs a wide a range of their likely opponents.
In competition games should be added here.
True - assuming I suppose that historical refights use more protected and average cavalry than a tourney player might take at 800 AP
Put another way, if the default type of cavalry are presented with the choice of charging protected spearmen or armoured swordsmen and they conclude that they actually don't really care which target they choose, that's a/ odd, and b/ a missed opportunity to make the game more interesting.
Making crap cheap troops better will not make the game more interesting, it will make it more of a drudge as tables fill up with crap that you can't get around or through, no matter if you are superior cavalry or heavily armoured Varagians.
I have no problem with Varangians carving through protected spears, but I find it more of a drudge turning up to competitions and club games to play multiple iterations of largely the same game in which a small subset of troop types charge headlong into anything and everything they might conceivably come across and still stand an evens or better chance of winning.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
@ Shadowdragon -- woo hoo, Data! Very usefull, thank you. I hadn't the time to do that myself.
I think we are about to disagree about the conclusions, but my feeling is that your results are reported fairly. I also liked your idea of "context" for the engagement rather than raw statistics.
And I think you are right, there are a lot of better things for cavalry to do. But this should be on the list of things you should almost never do.
I play both sides of this fight at home. I didn't know it was as good as 50/50, but I always suspected it it was better than it should be.
Within the context of an integrated "classical" army It's even better. Here's how I see it:
From the cavalry players point of view -- Hmmmm I could charge those hoplites ... 50/50. My opponent has maneuvered well and kept his line, and I have missed the opportunity to outflank him. I'm stuck here facing hoplites. Not the best situation, but If I win, he's in a bad spot. If I lose, I might be disrupted (also a 50/50), but I (may) have some support to fall back on and a chance to recover. If I have a commander with me, that might tip the odds a little in my favour. Looks like little risk for possibly a big gain.
From the hoplite players point of view -- Hmmmm, I have some enemy cavalry dead-ahead. I have (only) a 50/50 chance of holding them with these men. My men are part of a long line of similar troops, and the chances that I have a commander next to them are really slim since they're trying to win me the battle elsewhere. I don't really have much choice other than to stand here and take it. If I win, I can bounce him-off for a little while and maybe in two turns, charge him if I was lucky and he suffered. If I lose, possibly next melee there will be a big 3-base-gap in my line and cohesion tests for my neighbours. If either of them blow their rolls, this battle is over. Yikes!
From what I understand, FoG tries to put the player in shoes of the general. It strives to offer the player the same concerns and decisions the general faces on the hour of battle.
Should this have been a concern for an ancient Greek hoplite general? "Please, don't charge directly into my fresh, ordered hoplites in the open with the cavalry!" What? Really?
I'm with madaxeman and strategos69 on this one. 50/50 is way too good for the cavalry. Cavalry against other cavalry, 50/50 is reasonable. They are expensive (and they should be) but they should still have to work for their victory like their historical counterparts did -- find a flank, come from uphill, charge some unsuspecting peltasts etc .... When they find their advantage they should be bloody-handed murderers, but until then, they are overpriced horse-fanatics.
A 50/50 fight is what you should expect for your hoplites against other common hoplites, pray to the gods and hope you sacrificed enough goats. To a hoplite general there doesn't seem to have been much concern paid to cavalry unless they had caught them in some disadvantage -- encircled/from the flank, ambush, after sustained missile barrage, whatever. From what I've read of the sources.
I fear changing the points costs will have little effect on the overall simulation. I'd like to see something else. There may as well be other changes in the works (armour POAs?) that will do the job, but some change in the actual combat results seems to be the point of the matter. IMHO, a frontal charge should be in the 10% success range -- last refuge for the desperate! (and terribly exciting if you pull it off).
As for the battle of Thates River -- All that Diodorus says (20.22-26) is that "His (Satyrus') brother Eumelos was gaining the upper hand on the right wing and that his own mercenaries (the Greeks and Thracians) had been turned to flight". If the numbers are to be believed, the Greeks composed 2000 men of 22 000 foot (9%). There is no evidence that they were hoplites, and no evidence that they were broken by a mounted charge. Satyrus is described as breaking through some Sirace troops including foot, but the Sirace in later periods were not known for quality infantry. Hardly evidence for anything.
Please dont crucify me if this has already been mentioned or has some ramification that i havent thought of but what about something like this
Cavalry in melee does not get to count the POA for "better armour" when facing STEADY spears
(note when i say cavalry i mean just that , knights/cats could still count it)
Would make frontal assault on on protected hoplites less viable for historical cavalry oponents but still let cats/knights have a chance vs infantry
TheGrayMouser wrote:Please dont crucify me if this has already been mentioned or has some ramification that i havent thought of but what about something like this
Cavalry in melee does not get to count the POA for "better armour" when facing STEADY spears
(note when i say cavalry i mean just that , knights/cats could still count it)
Would make frontal assault on on protected hoplites less viable for historical cavalry oponents but still let cats/knights have a chance vs infantry
That's quite cute. I'd been thinking of something similar,but hadn't gotten past the problems of preserving the legion vs pike/spear interaction (which does need the armoured POA) and also making some hoplites better than others.
Restricting the lost POA to cavalry is very tidy.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
madaxeman wrote:That's quite cute. I'd been thinking of something similar,but hadn't gotten past the problems of preserving the legion vs pike/spear interaction (which does need the armoured POA) and also making some hoplites better than others.
Restricting the lost POA to cavalry is very tidy.
Hmm, that would not bother me too much. You'd have to reduce the points cost for armoured cavalry though as they already suffer from shooting, even if armoured. It would also make Protected cav more appealing due to cheaper points cost and being on same factor as armoured against protected foot for a lot of the time.
phil
putting the arg into argumentative, except for the lists I check where there is no argument!
pezhetairoi wrote:As for the battle of Thates River -- All that Diodorus says (20.22-26) is that "His (Satyrus') brother Eumelos was gaining the upper hand on the right wing and that his own mercenaries (the Greeks and Thracians) had been turned to flight". If the numbers are to be believed, the Greeks composed 2000 men of 22 000 foot (9%). There is no evidence that they were hoplites, and no evidence that they were broken by a mounted charge. Satyrus is described as breaking through some Sirace troops including foot, but the Sirace in later periods were not known for quality infantry. Hardly evidence for anything.
It is only no evidence if you choose to not look too hard
- If the greeks weren't hoplites, what were they? It is highly likely that they were hoplites.
- The Greeks were separate from the Skythian foot
- Both the Greeks and the Thracians were put to flight by a force of Cavalry
It should be noted that Eumeles was on the left wing...
pezhetairoi wrote:As for the battle of Thates River -- All that Diodorus says (20.22-26) is that "His (Satyrus') brother Eumelos was gaining the upper hand on the right wing and that his own mercenaries (the Greeks and Thracians) had been turned to flight". If the numbers are to be believed, the Greeks composed 2000 men of 22 000 foot (9%). There is no evidence that they were hoplites, and no evidence that they were broken by a mounted charge. Satyrus is described as breaking through some Sirace troops including foot, but the Sirace in later periods were not known for quality infantry. Hardly evidence for anything.
It is only no evidence if you choose to not look too hard
- If the greeks weren't hoplites, what were they? It is highly likely that they were hoplites.
As this is not rules related I can say that in this case Dave is probably correct. The battles was 310/309 BC and at that date Greek mercenaries would almost certainly have been hoplites.
However, what actually happened is speculative as the whole of the evidence for the battle is:
At about this same time in the region of the Pontus, after the death of Parysades, who was king of the Cimmerian Bosporus, his sons Eumelus, Satyrus, and Prytanis were engaged in a struggle against each other for the primacy. Of these, Satyrus, since he was the eldest, had received the government from his father, who had been king for thirty-eight years; but Eumelus, after concluding a treaty of friendship with some of the barbarians who lived near by and collecting a strong army, set up a rival claim to the throne. On learning this, Satyrus set out against him with a strong army; and, after he had crossed the river Thates and drawn near the enemy, he surrounded his camp with the waggons in which he carried his abundant supplies, and drew up his army for battle, taking his own place in the centre of the phalanx as is the Scythian custom. Enrolled in his army were not more than two thousand Greek mercenaries and an equal number of Thracians, but all the rest were Scythian allies, more than twenty thousand foot-soldiers and not less than ten thousand horse. Eumelus, however, had as ally Aripharnes, the king of the Siraces, with twenty thousand horse and twenty-two thousand foot. In a stubborn battle that took place, Satyrus with picked cavalry about him charged against Aripharnes, who had stationed himself in the middle of the line; and after many had fallen on both sides, he finally forced back and routed the king of the barbarians. At first he pushed on, slaying the enemy as he overtook them; but after a little, hearing that his brother Eumelus was gaining the upper hand on the right wing and that his own mercenaries had been turned to flight, he gave up the pursuit. Going to the aid of those who had been worsted and for the second time becoming the author of victory, he routed the entire army of the enemy, so that it became clear to all that, by reason both of his birth and of his valour, it was proper that he should succeeded to the throne of his fathers.
Nik Gaukroger
"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith
TheGrayMouser wrote:Please dont crucify me if this has already been mentioned or has some ramification that i havent thought of but what about something like this
Cavalry in melee does not get to count the POA for "better armour" when facing STEADY spears
(note when i say cavalry i mean just that , knights/cats could still count it)
Would make frontal assault on on protected hoplites less viable for historical cavalry oponents but still let cats/knights have a chance vs infantry
In this post we don't crucify, we just bite
Regarding the proposal, I posted something similar as one of many proposals, but I did not emphasized that much. The problem I have is that the changes would be too limited and it does not correct problems with some HF and MF swordsmen and still protected cavalry has better chances than it should. Example:
Roman cavalry average armoured light spear swordsmen. Right now, against MF Gauls and Spanish (Hannibals army) they are +1 PoA at both melee and impact. That seems too much to me. The way in which the changes are worded make that troops with already any PoA against mounted can prevail, whereas others that do not have them are still even or -PoA due to the tie resolution PoA of the light spear.
By the way, all the changes proposed here are for the cavalry type units and they would not apply to knights or cataphracts.
pezhetairoi wrote:I think we are about to disagree about the conclusions, but my feeling is that your results are reported fairly. I also liked your idea of "context" for the engagement rather than raw statistics.
And I think you are right, there are a lot of better things for cavalry to do. But this should be on the list of things you should almost never do.
Howdy, neighbour.
One of the great things about this hobby is that two people can look at the same situation and come to different conclusions. Feel free to disagree with me. I know the people who work for me do.
madaxeman wrote:I find it more of a drudge turning up to competitions and club games to play multiple iterations of largely the same game in which a small subset of troop types charge headlong into anything and everything they might conceivably come across and still stand an evens or better chance of winning.
Glad to see that the ancient British art of understatement is alive and well!
madaxeman wrote:That's quite cute. I'd been thinking of something similar,but hadn't gotten past the problems of preserving the legion vs pike/spear interaction (which does need the armoured POA) and also making some hoplites better than others.
Restricting the lost POA to cavalry is very tidy.
Hmm, that would not bother me too much. You'd have to reduce the points cost for armoured cavalry though as they already suffer from shooting, even if armoured. It would also make Protected cav more appealing due to cheaper points cost and being on same factor as armoured against protected foot for a lot of the time.
Wouldn't bother me either. Would it apply to all cavalry or just non-shock cavalry?
