Slitherine

The current plan is to grade the whole BG as Bow*, Lancers, Swordsmen and reduce the cost of mounted Bow* to 1 point.

zocco wrote:
Just to clarify - so Early Byzantine Bucellari (currently 1/2 Lancers 1/2 Bow) will become all Lancers/Bw* then?

nikgaukroger wrote:
In their case it might be Light Spear, Bow*, Swordsmen.

Do people take light spear cavalry very often (unless required)? I rarely see them. Perhaps lances themselves should cost more?

It appears some armies may be significantly changed. Would these be combined into a new book?

That seems to the right way to do them. I'm in complete concurrence with that approach. It also ties in with Syvanne's description of cavalry in action and their weaponry in "Age of the Hippotoxatoi".

Paul G

rbodleyscott wrote:

footslogger wrote:I don't see anything like this on the list and don't know whether it's been discussed. If it has, I'm sorry to bring it up again.

I'm wondering whether it would make sense to reduce the cost of 2nd rank bow cav in formations that are lance cav in front, bow cav in back. They lose one of their really great advantages when in a group like this, that is, the ability to evade. It seems like they should not be charged the points value of that ability if they can't use it.

Of course, I don't know how much you'd have to reduce the points value to see armies with that formation on the table much.

ShrubMik wrote:The way I prefer to look at the mixed lance/bow formations is not as emasculated bowmen with a bit of extra close combat cpability, but as a lancer unit with added shooting capability and no detriment to their fighting ability

We agree. That is essentially how the Strategikon sees them.

The current plan is to grade the whole BG as Bow*, Lancers, Swordsmen and reduce the cost of mounted Bow* to 1 point.

The revised lists will also allow a propotion to be fielded separately as Koursores with the option of being LH or Cavalry Bow, Swordsmen.

Not sure if this how they should be characterized given their tactical usage. Syvanne's "Age of the Hippotoxotai" does indicate that the cavalry spear/lance could be used in a variety of ways (thrown, thrust) in the main text and notes on p. 173 but given the nature of his descriptions on their tactics there and elsewhere in the book such as p. 43 where the description indicates using lances of the Avar variety with leather thongs in the middle, lance, Bow*, swordsmen seems most appropriate. He does indicate that the full equipment complement would include 2 or 3 javelins, but there is nothing to indicate that given the lance fighting style description in the rules, that Early Byzantines would not be lancers, rather than light spear armed.

Paul G.

nikgaukroger wrote:

zocco wrote:
Just to clarify - so Early Byzantine Bucellari (currently 1/2 Lancers 1/2 Bow) will become all Lancers/Bw* then?

In their case it might be Light Spear, Bow*, Swordsmen.

Not that Robert Graves is necessarily to be treated as an unimpeachable source...

I seem to recall battle accounts of Belisarian Bucellarii shooting up Gothic lancers, and then skirmishing away, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. Which doesn't sound much like lancer capability, regardless of the precise length of the pointy stick with which they were equipped.

What does the actual primary source material have to say on the subject?

I seem to recall Prokopios being the basis of the Graves bit.

Could we then say that the FoG authors risk making a Grave(s) error...?

Well Syvanne is not exactly Robert Graves. Anyway what it sounds like is making the best use of the weapons you have against the enemy you are facing. If you have lances and bows and are facing Goths who have no bows, shoot them. Why would you charge them and face them on their terms. Doesn't mean you're not lancer capable, just that you're too smart to play to the enemies strength. Same thing when facing Sassanids. If they prefer to use bows, hit them the lance and deprive them of their primary strength. The military manuals are quite specific on this. Trying to confine the Byzantines to a one dimensional ability is not the best way to simulate them.

Paul G.

ShrubMiK wrote:Not that Robert Graves is necessarily to be treated as an unimpeachable source...

I seem to recall battle accounts of Belisarian Bucellarii shooting up Gothic lancers, and then skirmishing away, rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. Which doesn't sound much like lancer capability, regardless of the precise length of the pointy stick with which they were equipped.

What does the actual primary source material have to say on the subject?

Yes, having read Count Belisarius after reading Procopios, I was somewhat disappointed at the lack of any original point of view in Grave's novel. It was like why read the fiction book when I've already read the source.

Paul G.

nikgaukroger wrote:I seem to recall Prokopios being the basis of the Graves bit.

rbodleyscott wrote:
We agree. That is essentially how the Strategikon sees them.

The current plan is to grade the whole BG as Bow*, Lancers, Swordsmen and reduce the cost of mounted Bow* to 1 point.

The revised lists will also allow a propotion to be fielded separately as Koursores with the option of being LH or Cavalry Bow, Swordsmen.

Excellent!

Then My thematic/Byzantine Cav made of a mix of lancers and shooters with all troops having at least a slung bowcase. dont need to be rebased with 100% archers at teh rear and now there will be a use for the 10 or so byzantine Light horse LH(S) from DBx land.

Same goes for my later assyrians I presume.

expendablecinc wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:
We agree. That is essentially how the Strategikon sees them.

The current plan is to grade the whole BG as Bow*, Lancers, Swordsmen and reduce the cost of mounted Bow* to 1 point.

The revised lists will also allow a propotion to be fielded separately as Koursores with the option of being LH or Cavalry Bow, Swordsmen.

Excellent!

Then My thematic/Byzantine Cav made of a mix of lancers and shooters with all troops having at least a slung bowcase. dont need to be rebased with 100% archers at teh rear and now there will be a use for the 10 or so byzantine Light horse LH(S) from DBx land.

Same goes for my later assyrians I presume.

What about Bactrian Greek lancers then?

expendablecinc wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:
We agree. That is essentially how the Strategikon sees them.

The current plan is to grade the whole BG as Bow*, Lancers, Swordsmen and reduce the cost of mounted Bow* to 1 point.

The revised lists will also allow a propotion to be fielded separately as Koursores with the option of being LH or Cavalry Bow, Swordsmen.

Excellent!

Then My thematic/Byzantine Cav made of a mix of lancers and shooters with all troops having at least a slung bowcase. dont need to be rebased with 100% archers at teh rear and now there will be a use for the 10 or so byzantine Light horse LH(S) from DBx land.

Same goes for my later assyrians I presume.

IIRC the late Assyrians already have the Bow* option, as do Urartians, etc.

nikgaukroger wrote:

expendablecinc wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:
We agree. That is essentially how the Strategikon sees them.

The current plan is to grade the whole BG as Bow*, Lancers, Swordsmen and reduce the cost of mounted Bow* to 1 point.

The revised lists will also allow a propotion to be fielded separately as Koursores with the option of being LH or Cavalry Bow, Swordsmen.

Excellent!

Then My thematic/Byzantine Cav made of a mix of lancers and shooters with all troops having at least a slung bowcase. dont need to be rebased with 100% archers at teh rear and now there will be a use for the 10 or so byzantine Light horse LH(S) from DBx land.

Same goes for my later assyrians I presume.

IIRC the late Assyrians already have the Bow* option, as do Urartians, etc.

I think you RIC. the bulk of th eassyrian cava have 2 types of troop. Its the guard that are Bw* already.

Checking I see that the Neo-Assyrian cavalry can be either 1/2 Lt Sp 1/2 Bw or all Lt SP, Bow*, Guard indeed only have the Lt Sp, Bow* option.

>What about Bactrian Greek lancers then?

What about them? Unless anybody is proposing any changes that I haven't heard about (always a possibility ), Graeco-Bactrian cavalry are still lancers pure and simple, no bow involved. Are you thinking of the Graeco-*Indian* cavalryman depicted with bow?

And is someone willing to discuss the nice varangian guard "historical upgrade" . They are , in my opinion and with all the texts I did sent , drilled and armured much more earlier than 1042 . At least from 1000 . Perhaps superior due to fanatical servcie to the emperor even if some tried to kill one nobody's perfect ...if need be I can repost all wer have ( it is on the forum + on this post somewhere with the right link )

Units loosing melees have to fall backward "pushed" by the enemy: for every hit 1" back, just think about Annibal's Gallic troup at Canne

MatteoPasi wrote:Units loosing melees have to fall backward "pushed" by the enemy: for every hit 1" back, just think about Annibal's Gallic troup at Canne

It would make heavy foot move faster in melee than when outside 6 MU of enemy. I like it. My varangians would move hell for leather against mounted.
And there'd be no stopping knights.

peterrjohnston wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: 11. The player winning the pre-battle initiative roll can choose whether to keep the initiative or pass it over to his opponent. (Thus getting to move first).

No surprises except this, which I think is a disaster for infantry armies, unless how PBI is calculated is changed as well.

Hmm,

I'm not so sure why?

You're a steppe army who wins initiative and you give it to my Swiss... I turn the Steppe into Mountains.

Or am I missing something?

philqw78 wrote:

MatteoPasi wrote:Units loosing melees have to fall backward "pushed" by the enemy: for every hit 1" back, just think about Annibal's Gallic troup at Canne

It would make heavy foot move faster in melee than when outside 6 MU of enemy. I like it. My varangians would move hell for leather against mounted.
And there'd be no stopping knights.

You could have an optional "fall back" mechanism though based on losing margin.

If you lose a melee by 2 hits, you can choose to fall back by the same number of base depths as the losing margin.
- if you choose to do so, you "earn" a +1 on the CT taken when losing
- enemy units in contact can choose to follow up immediately, by moving or by having bases step forward. If they don't follow up, they might then be able to charge in again in the next turn
- the fallback isn't an option if there isn't room to do it.

- you could choose to restrict this option to disrupted or fragmented troops maybe (so it's not used to allow troops to break off in an enemy turn and then charge in again in their own turn - or instead prevent troops who fall back from charging in their next turn)

It would put another choice into the game, and more movement, and slightly shift the balance between breaking from death rolls vs from failing CTs. And allow some historical refights to be better simulated

It would be messy in multi-unit combats, but arguably any unit falling back leaves its colleagues exposed to overlaps, so maybe it all nets out?

madaxeman wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

MatteoPasi wrote:Units loosing melees have to fall backward "pushed" by the enemy: for every hit 1" back, just think about Annibal's Gallic troup at Canne

It would make heavy foot move faster in melee than when outside 6 MU of enemy. I like it. My varangians would move hell for leather against mounted.
And there'd be no stopping knights.

You could have an optional "fall back" mechanism though based on losing margin.

I'd like compulsory fall back/following for undrilled an optional for drilled