The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[devoncop]

Should there be a rule against pure horse armies in the tournament?`SInce one side has to win decisively and not just by percentages, playing against a 100 percent horse army is meaningless as they have to run around in circles to get on their opponents flank. Anyone playing against them will avoid that and so it becomes a dead end. My current opponent has done exactly this.

If there is one sight that lurches me into a depression it is seeing someone has selected a pure horse archer army.

It is not that I am likely to lose (I am) or that they will blow away all opposition and win the Division at a canter (sorry!) ...they won't as horse army archers have barely won a Division or come close in recent seasons to my recollection but that fighting them is just BORING.

If you manage to win the 3 dimensional game of chess and box them in a corner (totally unrealistically btw) you will slaughter them and there will be no contest. If you don't you will get chipped away at until either time runs out or you have lost the 40% differential. Either way hardly engaging in my humble opinion.

Having said all that..should they be banned....no.

The current fashion for banning things that some folk don't like has no place in the League in my view. They are a historically authentic army and exist in the game so players who like to play them have as much right to use them as the heavy infantry fanboys or those who love the equally controversial medium infantry swarms.

Just my two cents worth as the Americans would say

[schmolywar]

My sentiments there. It should be discouraged however. It can ruin anyones win streak if your opponent chooses to do so. My opponent only had the pure horse army against me and not against the rest of the division.

[kronenblatt]

My sentiments there. It should be discouraged however. It can ruin anyones win streak if your opponent chooses to do so. My opponent only had the pure horse army against me and not against the rest of the division.

Which era, division, and which army lists are you referring to? Isn't that merely his/her way of picking an army composition most likely to beat you, your army list, and your likely army disposition and tactics?

[General Shapur]

Crassus had a similar opinion after Carrhae I believe.

[SimonLancaster]

Pure horse armies are annoying and boring. Not sure about banning them. This is another reason why I prefer the Classical period.

[schmolywar]

Regarding Crassus; That battle had a conclusion.

[schmolywar]

My sentiments there. It should be discouraged however. It can ruin anyones win streak if your opponent chooses to do so. My opponent only had the pure horse army against me and not against the rest of the division.

Which era, division, and which army lists are you referring to? Isn't that merely his/her way of picking an army composition most likely to beat you, your army list, and your likely army disposition and tactics?

Middle ages. Division B. Our battle was the only time he chose pure horse army. Just out of spite I assume as he had lost all the other battles.

[paulmcneil]

Is there any chance of banning all infantry armies? People I'm playing keep using them to pen my horse army in a corner and destroy it. I think they are doing it out of spite.

[devoncop]

My sentiments there. It should be discouraged however. It can ruin anyones win streak if your opponent chooses to do so. My opponent only had the pure horse army against me and not against the rest of the division.

Which era, division, and which army lists are you referring to? Isn't that merely his/her way of picking an army composition most likely to beat you, your army list, and your likely army disposition and tactics?

Middle ages. Division B. Our battle was the only time he chose pure horse army. Just out of spite I assume as he had lost all the other battles.

Not necessarily a fair conclusion.

In my last match as the underperforming Arabs in LA this week I had the grim task of facing the Huns. Not an enemy infantryman to be seen.

I had literally no choice but to pick every Cavalryman available leaving me with just the mandatory suicide squad of massed archers and some very nervous foot skirmishers.
I did this because had I gone for a more balanced army the Battle wouldn't have last more than about ten turns !

I will still lose as both my generalship and my Arab Cavalry are "sub optimal" but at least the score has achieved respectability.

If you were facing your army in Middle Ages Div B using your opponents army and were in dire need of points perhaps going all horse army would make perfect sense on the battlefield that they were presented with ?

[schmolywar]

Is there any chance of banning all infantry armies? People I'm playing keep using them to pen my horse army in a corner and destroy it. I think they are doing it out of spite.

Look in a regular rule battle this is all good because of the percentages force you to up one each other. People have to engage each others forces. In the digital tourney its near impossible since infantry has to chase down the cavalry and even then it will end in a draw as you have to win decisively. He wasnt facing another horse army and his army setup isnt made up exclusivly of horses either, far from it. He just just chose all horse for some reason. He chose not to engage, basically waiting for me to come forward so he can creep up on my flanks, as expected. Once that is done what else is there to do in a battle like that? It will end in a draw regardless! There is no incentive for either party to engage! No baggage train to capture, no village to loot, just chasing each other until time runs out.

[Ludendorf]

I usually use a mixed cavalry/infantry formation with light cavalry support to hunt down horse armies. Infantry armies with at least some cavalry support usually get the better of the horse, and you can catch the horse as long as your cavalry are supported by infantry not far behind. (Unless you're a warband army. The poor buggers.)

[SimonLancaster]

Yes, I hate horse armies but I think you can give it a good go and use certain tactics to chase the enemy down. Long line of men, try to stop them flanking, use artillery, infantry storm in after your cavalry!!

[SnuggleBunnies]

Nosy_Rat destroyed with horse armies in two battles this season, and trust me he did not run from the fight. I deployed defensively and he overran me anyway. If your opponent chooses to set up for a draw, that's too bad - though really that sort of behavior hurts his overall season score more than yours, as if he does that every time he'll have precious few wins, at least in higher divisions where players will refuse obvious bait.

Setting up for a draw is not exclusive to horse armies anyway. You can pile your entire army of Medium Foot in the forest. Or you can pile your heavy Impact Foot in the Open and refuse to maneuver anywhere that's not flat. Horse archer armies are interesting, different, and take a great deal of skill to use well. If you have an army that fares poorly against, them, too bad. Some armies are better at fighting certain setups than others.

[DanZanzibar]

...On the topic of setting up draws - not when people run away.

I got frustrated today when after 6 turns my opponent still hadn't left the +100 POA hills he began on to venture out into what is otherwise a giant open battlefield. His army is actually more an open field army than mine so that's not the issue. I'm still advancing on him and will find a way to make it happen... but I let it get to me. I told him that sitting back like that makes your opponent solely responsible for giving either player a chance at winning points... which it does but I'd rather not get bent out of shape when people do this.

To be fair to my opponent, I've seen people camp harder in completely unassailable positions. As well, I've played another match with him and it was an excellent match full of aggression. It's just one game... but I still don't understand why people think that their opponent should be the one that makes sure it doesn't end as a scoreless draw. I wish there was a good solution, in terms of rules that could be applied, that would fix this problem. Having a layer of "etiquette" is never ideal as players should only be restrained by the actual game rules in my opinion. The 25% threshold is an understandable attempt to encourage the correct play but players can still just expect their opponent to be motivated by this.

Anyone have any ideas for a concrete rule that would help this? Another question too... I've heard Ludendorf and SnuggleBunnies talk about this and they seem to have a better, more positive perspective and don't seem to get as bothered as I do at times. Share the zen wisdom with me please... I'm tired of being annoyed by this!

[SnuggleBunnies]

I think it depends on the matchup of both players and factions. I tend to play rather defensively against people who usually beat me; not that it saved me against Nosy_Rat or Ludendorf or pantherboy! But I think I did better than I would have with an offensive strategy. I even went so far as to camp and refuse to move from a strong position against Nosy_Rat in Early Medieval, for a 0-0 draw. Yet considering how he and I each did in the rest of the matchups (him very well, me 2 wins 3 draws 4 losses) I think camping for the draw was the right call. There were also some matches where I attacked and frankly I should have invited a draw rather than play to my opponent's strategy.

It's true that you have to attack to have a chance of scoring against a defensive opponent. But I think against opponents who camp 'unreasonably' you have to choices - just call them on it and draw, or try to find a way to attack. Both are valid.

Still, there's no sense getting that irritated about it. If you win all your matches except those in which your opponent camped too hard and went, say, 6 wins and 3 draws - you're very likely to promote a division. A player who always camps will not do so well, and is unlikely to promote. Even if they do promote, it's behavior that works better against less experienced players who aren't as versed in strategies like weighted flanks etc. as in higher divisions.

[DanZanzibar]

I even went so far as to camp and refuse to move from a strong position against Nosy_Rat in Early Medieval, for a 0-0 draw. Yet considering how he and I each did in the rest of the matchups (him very well, me 2 wins 3 draws 4 losses) I think camping for the draw was the right call. There were also some matches where I attacked and frankly I should have invited a draw rather than play to my opponent's strategy.

This I find interesting... are you suggesting that simply denying points to your opponent was your best strategy, even though you gained none? Or that the odds of winning without camping were so low as to be negligible?

[klayeckles]

I think it depends on the matchup of both players and factions. I tend to play rather defensively against people who usually beat me; not that it saved me against Nosy_Rat or Ludendorf or pantherboy! But I think I did better than I would have with an offensive strategy. I even went so far as to camp and refuse to move from a strong position against Nosy_Rat in Early Medieval, for a 0-0 draw. Yet considering how he and I each did in the rest of the matchups (him very well, me 2 wins 3 draws 4 losses) I think camping for the draw was the right call. There were also some matches where I attacked and frankly I should have invited a draw rather than play to my opponent's strategy.

It's true that you have to attack to have a chance of scoring against a defensive opponent. But I think against opponents who camp 'unreasonably' you have to choices - just call them on it and draw, or try to find a way to attack. Both are valid.

Still, there's no sense getting that irritated about it. If you win all your matches except those in which your opponent camped too hard and went, say, 6 wins and 3 draws - you're very likely to promote a division. A player who always camps will not do so well, and is unlikely to promote. Even if they do promote, it's behavior that works better against less experienced players who aren't as versed in strategies like weighted flanks etc. as in higher divisions.

i have to say snuggles hits it on the head...camping is perfectly legit. why would someone get frustrated by that? if i'm a general leading an army of 50,000 troops and i find myself with a battlefield that greatly favors the enemy if i move...wouldn't i be foolish to move? endangering the lives of all my soldiers? live to fight another day is one of the oldest adages of combat. some armies are just plain not cut out to fight certain armies on certain map types.

and horse armies are perfectly legit. I can't say i like playing them, and i don't particularly like fighting them...but adapting to the enemy's army build of all horse or all inf. or all skirmishers etc... is what makes being a general in this game such a challenge. if we start cutting out some army types we reduce the range of challenges, and what make this game so great. to avoid these types of encounters choose the appropriate era or special and also an army that can adapt to differnt army types (ALWAYS a good idea).

[devoncop]

+1 Klayeckles.

Put across much better than I managed.

[rs2excelsior]

There are definitely times where digging in and letting the enemy come to you is the right call... I play pretty aggressively, but that's more due to my impatience than it being the better choice tactically Sometimes attacking is just suicidal, or at the very least extremely risky... those cases are where a well-fought defensive battle are definitely the right pick. This season in Late Antiquity, my Byzantines went up against General Sharpur's Picts. The map was flat and open, minus one steep hill covered in rough ground on the flank... the Picts bee-lined for the hill and dug in on top. Which was definitely a good choice with a medium foot horde army up against a ton of Byzantine lancers on that map. The game was a draw, but not for any lack of aggressiveness on my opponent's part... he let me get spread out and took the opportunity to counterattack, which very nearly got him the win. My cav managed to avoid being caught and crushed just long enough to survive.

And there are tactics which can be used, depending on the map and the armies. You see a good defensive hill on your opponent's side of the map with an army which is likely to hole up there? Bring enough firepower to make him choose between coming down or being shot to death. I've been forced out of defensive positions by hordes of archers harassing my troops. Or maneuver, attack him elsewhere, if the terrain allows. And sometimes there is a match where there's very little you can do... I felt that way in my match in CA with my Ptolemaic army vs Baldrick's Indo-Parthains. But those matches don't make me want to ban or restrict playstyles or types of army lists - just tells me I need to make more versatile army picks (or ones that can make up the points in other matches)!

[DanZanzibar]

i have to say snuggles hits it on the head...camping is perfectly legit. why would someone get frustrated by that? if i'm a general leading an army of 50,000 troops and i find myself with a battlefield that greatly favors the enemy if i move...wouldn't i be foolish to move? endangering the lives of all my soldiers? live to fight another day is one of the oldest adages of combat. some armies are just plain not cut out to fight certain armies on certain map types.

I can understand not going charging into disadvantageous terrain... but parking your self on a hill when otherwise you wouldn't be at a disadvantage? It kind of feels like poor sportsmanship to me.

I'll give what you said some more thought, maybe it's a better way of looking at it.