Slitherine

"How would he know, he doesn't play FoG."

Not helped by the fact that no one down this neck of the woods does either!!!

I've studied the rulebook, got a couple of the army list books and played a few solo games to get a hang of the rules and how they work. I think thats about all one can do when no one within 50 miles plays the ruleset.

ValentinianVictor wrote:"What is important is that the writers know how the game plays."

And that's the most important thing of all, it does not really matter a damn what I or anyone else thinks, its down to the authors themselves how they think the rules reflect the reality of warfare.

I've not actually said anything about changing rules, all I have given is examples of ancient warfare that appear to run contrary to the accepted thinking i.e. cavalry routinely frontally charged infantry and when they did they ran them down.

Most ancient rulesets upto fairly recent times were affected by this mentality, influenced by 19th and early 20th century historians who used one battle in particular as evidence that cavalry were superior to infantry, the battle in question being Adrianopolis 378AD. Thankfully modern historians have challenged that viewpoint and things are not quite so clear cut as they initially seemed.

If you actually read what Nik wrote he said "the writers know how the game plays". Unlike other rules writers, they have made a balanced view of what works for history and what works in the game.

If you don't want any changes why are you posting in the v2.0 thread? You could quite easily have had a discussion on an other sub-forum, but since you are writing in here then it appears that you want infantry to gain an advantage. They don't need it, it is already better than 50/50 for solid infantry facing a Cavalry or Knightly charge.

As I posted before, I have no problem with shock type mounted troops hurtling into infantry, I just feel that 'normal' cavalry would not do it as the norm, only if the situation was desparate or the infantry were demoralised and on the verge of breaking.

If we see the situation where cavalry on the table top are routinely charging into infantry such as steady Pikes, Spears or legionaries and expecting to win then there is something not quite right with the interaction.

ValentinianVictor wrote:As I posted before, I have no problem with shock type mounted troops hurtling into infantry, I just feel that 'normal' cavalry would not do it as the norm, only if the situation was desparate or the infantry were demoralised and on the verge of breaking.

If we see the situation where cavalry on the table top are routinely charging into infantry such as steady Pikes, Spears or legionaries and expecting to win then there is something not quite right with the interaction.

But we don't. So there isn't.

ValentinianVictor wrote:such as steady Pikes...

Not seen this done on the table top? well not in any games I have played...

"Its a real pity when those "historians" who have a bee in their bonnet attempt to influence a game that they have never played or play very infrequently. Other rulesets have suffered massive problems because of this issue."

Spoken as one who should know!!!

Actually, since the changes made to the other ruleset based on reasoned arguments by those such as myself, there has now been a healthy influx of a wide range of armies on the table that prior to the changes never saw the light of day on the table top. This has had a very positive effect as that particular game is now no longer dominated by those monotype cavalry superior armies.

ValentinianVictor wrote: Actually, since the changes made to the other ruleset based on reasoned arguments by those such as myself, there has now been a healthy influx of a wide range of armies on the table that prior to the changes never saw the light of day on the table top. This has had a very positive effect as that particular game is now no longer dominated by those monotype cavalry superior armies.

If Phil wasn't such a complete gibbon as a player he would have avoided many issues first time around - absolute proof that you need a writer who actually understands what happens on the table.

ValentinianVictor wrote:"Its a real pity when those "historians" who have a bee in their bonnet attempt to influence a game that they have never played or play very infrequently. Other rulesets have suffered massive problems because of this issue."

Spoken as one who should know!!!

Actually, since the changes made to the other ruleset based on reasoned arguments by those such as myself, there has now been a healthy influx of a wide range of armies on the table that prior to the changes never saw the light of day on the table top. This has had a very positive effect as that particular game is now no longer dominated by those monotype cavalry superior armies.

The problem is that the main players who play that particular other rulesets have less or similar ability to a mollusc then the fact is, you could probably drive a coach and horses through the holes in the rules that haven't been discovered yet.

The main difference with FoG is that the authors actually play the game and understand the issues rather than just blather on because they don't understand the problem. The game is still very unbalanced.

Don't misquote my earlier "data" or I'll send the boys around! Laughing It's 50-50 provided the cavalry have the advantage of both quality and armour and the spearmen don't have any terrain advantage. That should not be reduced to "4 bases of cavalry can charge 6 bases of STEADY protected spearmen with an approx 50/50 chance of success". Those caveats are important.

Yes, good point. I was being lazy. People jumping in at page 10 might be mislead.

My feeling is that I want the cavalry to take a bigger chance at impact. If they charge with success, the foot lose their nerve, and thus disrupt, and the cavalry breakthrough. If they charge with failure the foot hold the line take the chance to punish the cavalry before the cavalry realize its time to leave, and break-off.
I've gotten away with charges I feel I should never have declared, and so have my opponents.
A -POA could be somewhat offset with bigger failure penalty to the CT at impact, but I didn't want to get in to that here.

By the way, even if we had the POA you described there still be cases where some type of cavalry would have a 50-50 or better chance

Yeah, it won't save the poor troops, but it does help a little. In comparison they are so juicy right now.... I consider them a suitable target at this point. Right up there with Average Light-Spear MF.
It would also boost the armoured spears and the superiors ... and maybe they don't need it.

To understand the distortion of text only communication, rumour has it that in "real life" dave_r is a loveable, diplomatic sort.

He he, I'll keep that in mind.

pezhetairoi wrote: Right up there with Average Light-Spear MF.

In fact, any MF. Even the ones impact foot swordsmen are - Poa in both phases against cavalry. There are entire armies in books 1 and 3 mostly composed by MF that will have little to do against cavalry when their historical enemies used the infantry to beat them. At impact the number of dice is equal. If you disrupt the enemy, the numerical advantage in dice disappears inmediately and it becomes an even dice row. To me, that sounds a bigger advantage than it should and if that was the case in those times, we would have seen more charges of the cavalry on the sources, instead of reading over and over that they deployed on the wings and faced other cavalry.

Maybe in other periods the idea of 50/50 can work for the interaction cavalry vs line infantry, but not certainly in Ancient times. Those examples are hard to find and usually refer to already disorganized bodies (I found an example for the battle of Platea with the Boiotian cavalry), thus the limitation of the new PoA's to non FRG HF and MF. For sure it is up to the authors to decide what they want to do with their game and here we only provide our interpretation of how we think what we read should transfer into the tabletop, creating a set of incentives to make the games to rassemble historical battles. And with this interaction in this period of time (most of the one the game covers) it seems that at least there is a problem it is worth taking a look at.

Strategos69 wrote:

pezhetairoi wrote: Right up there with Average Light-Spear MF.

In fact, any MF. Even the ones impact foot swordsmen are - Poa in both phases against cavalry. There are entire armies in books 1 and 3 mostly composed by MF that will have little to do against cavalry when their historical enemies used the infantry to beat them. At impact the number of dice is equal. If you disrupt the enemy, the numerical advantage in dice disappears inmediately and it becomes an even dice row. To me, that sounds a bigger advantage than it should and if that was the case in those times, we would have seen more charges of the cavalry on the sources, instead of reading over and over that they deployed on the wings and faced other cavalry.

Maybe in other periods the idea of 50/50 can work for the interaction cavalry vs line infantry, but not certainly in Ancient times. Those examples are hard to find and usually refer to already disorganized bodies (I found an example for the battle of Platea with the Boiotian cavalry), thus the limitation of the new PoA's to non FRG HF and MF. For sure it is up to the authors to decide what they want to do with their game and here we only provide our interpretation of how we think what we read should transfer into the tabletop, creating a set of incentives to make the games to rassemble historical battles. And with this interaction in this period of time (most of the one the game covers) it seems that at least there is a problem it is worth taking a look at.

Yes, the idea of (let us pull a number out of the air), say, nine BG's of 4 x MF, Armoured, Drilled, Average, Lt Spear Swordsmen wouldn't cause Cavalry any problems at all would they?

Another well thought out post.

ValentinianVictor wrote:I've not actually said anything about changing rules, all I have given is examples of ancient warfare that appear to run contrary to the accepted thinking i.e. cavalry routinely frontally charged infantry and when they did they ran them down.

Except that that isn't the accepted thinking in FOG.....

ValentinianVictor wrote:As I posted before, I have no problem with shock type mounted troops hurtling into infantry, I just feel that 'normal' cavalry would not do it as the norm, only if the situation was desparate or the infantry were demoralised and on the verge of breaking.

They don't in FOG. Only foolish or desperate players do it.

If we see the situation where cavalry on the table top are routinely charging into infantry such as steady Pikes, Spears or legionaries and expecting to win then there is something not quite right with the interaction.

If we did, then that would be true. But we don't.

You really are creating a straw man.

dave_r wrote:
Yes, the idea of (let us pull a number out of the air), say, nine BG's of 4 x MF, Armoured, Drilled, Average, Lt Spear Swordsmen wouldn't cause Cavalry any problems at all would they?
Another well thought out post.

Please, check the Ancient Spanish and Illyrians. At a lesser extent Thracians, Numidians and Lydians. In other medium foot armies the option for heavy foot can be the way to counterbalance that. Another well thought out post...

ValentinianVictor wrote:As I posted before, I have no problem with shock type mounted troops hurtling into infantry, I just feel that 'normal' cavalry would not do it as the norm, only if the situation was desparate or the infantry were demoralised and on the verge of breaking.

rbodleyscott wrote: They don't in FOG. Only foolish or desperate players do it.

It depends on your pool of players. If that is tournament players, obviously you wouldn't see that, basicaly because, as I could read here, it seems that HF armies are not specially popular. Average protected are not precisely the kind of troops people would like to have with them if they want to win a tournament.

And if they are players who like history, they would likely think that this is not a good idea as they haven't read succesful frontal cavalry chargaes against steady enemies in any Ancient battle.

If we see the situation where cavalry on the table top are routinely charging into infantry such as steady Pikes, Spears or legionaries and expecting to win then there is something not quite right with the interaction.

rbodleyscott wrote: If we did, then that would be true. But we don't.

You really are creating a straw man.

If you like history, it is likely that you would make a historical deployment, and if you oponent does too, then it is more likely again that you will see historical match ups. But when you play with someone not coming from that background, then you realize that those frontal cavalry charges in focused points are not foolish and take less time than turning around your enemy and looking for flanks (in fact, because those manouvers take a lot of time you don't have in your main line). And as HF, once they win or lose the combat do not have much time to participate anymore in the battle, some troops that move faster and are drilled become better for the task.

Strategos69 wrote:... they would likely think that this is not a good idea as they haven't read succesful frontal cavalry chargaes against steady enemies in any Ancient battle...

A good historical example of the interaction of mounted vs HFt are the battles of Rome against Palmira. In all the main clashes Catafracts were deployed facing the Roman cavalry and Light Horse, leaving the archers to face the Legions. I think this decision was based on the assumption that this was their best use.
In many wargames instead the best tactic would be the opposite: Catafracts in the center against the Legionaries, where the former have an edge due to better armour and the possibility of a breakoff, and Bowmen to protect their wings.
Rgds/GM

GuglielmoMarlia wrote:A good historical example of the interaction of mounted vs HFt are the battles of Rome against Palmira. In all the main clashes Catafracts were deployed facing the Roman cavalry and Light Horse, leaving the archers to face the Legions. I think this decision was based on the assumption that this was their best use.
In many wargames instead the best tactic would be the opposite: Catafracts in the center against the Legionaries, where the former have an edge due to better armour and the possibility of a breakoff, and Bowmen to protect their wings.
Rgds/GM

Perhaps this speaks more about the ability of cavalry and light horse to evaporate in front of better opposition when playing FoG. Because, if they could catch them, the Cats would be up in impact and melee against the Roman cavalry and LH. They are only up in melee against the legions, but are sure to catch them in the game instead of spending fruitless hours chasing cavalry and LH around Benny Hill style.

Strategos69 wrote:It depends on your pool of players. If that is tournament players, obviously you wouldn't see that, basically because, as I could read here, it seems that HF armies are not specially popular. Average protected are not precisely the kind of troops people would like to have with them if they want to win a tournament.

If you check the FOG army rankings by "popularity" you will see that many HF armies are popular, just not with dave_r.

Strategos69 wrote:If you like history, it is likely that you would make a historical deployment, and if you opponent does too, then it is more likely again that you will see historical match ups. But when you play with someone not coming from that background, then you realize that those frontal cavalry charges in focused points are not foolish and take less time than turning around your enemy and looking for flanks (in fact, because those manoeuvres take a lot of time you don't have in your main line). And as HF, once they win or lose the combat do not have much time to participate anymore in the battle, some troops that move faster and are drilled become better for the task.

Since you're other posts show that you play Syracuse versus Carthage, I'll confine my comments to those armies. I will assume that you're using the Late Carthaginian list as the early Carthaginians are only allowed, at best, average armoured cavalry, which will lose to spears (even average protected).

In case of the Syracusan list you can have 3 BG of 4 bases of average armoured or superior armoured of Greek or Campanian cavalry. The Late Carthaginians have 1 to 3 BG of 4 bases of Spanish / Gallic cavalry that are superior protected but one BG could be upgraded to superior armoured. They can also have an additional BG of 4 bases of superior armoured Libyphoenician cavalry. Your battle after action reports indicate that you tend to pick the best quality option for your cavalry as this is "more fun" and "more historical" in your view. That's, of course, a subjective view. However, you've indicated problems because (1) cavalry battles take to long (superior versus superior cavalry) and (2) the cavalry are relatively too good compared to the typical average protected HF / MF. It would seem to me that you could solve most of your issues by taking, for example, 12 bases of superior protected cavalry for the Carthaginians and 12 bases of average armoured cavalry for the Syracusans. This is still a roughly equal cavalry battle, but would (1) last not as long and (2) the cavalry would find even average protected spears a tough proposition. In my personal view this would make for more interesting cavalry battles. If you wanted a single BG of superior armoured could be added to the mix. That's enough to tip the cavalry battle in one side's favour if the other side choses to have have their superior armoured BG go after average protected hoplites.

But you are not inclined to do this and the authors aren't inclined to make a change for a problem they don't believe exists. So, respectfully, Dave has a point, it's time to move on ....to options like (1) making changes to the composition of your armies according to the lists, (2) making your own "in-house" changes to the lists / rules or (3) using a set of rules that you gives you the interactions you strongly believe are the way it was.

Strategos69 wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote:As I posted before, I have no problem with shock type mounted troops hurtling into infantry, I just feel that 'normal' cavalry would not do it as the norm, only if the situation was desparate or the infantry were demoralised and on the verge of breaking.

rbodleyscott wrote: They don't in FOG. Only foolish or desperate players do it.

It depends on your pool of players. If that is tournament players, obviously you wouldn't see that, basicaly because, as I could read here, it seems that HF armies are not specially popular. Average protected are not precisely the kind of troops people would like to have with them if they want to win a tournament.

I think you have been a little led astray by people's recollection of tounaments, Strategos. I won a recent tournament (which was limited to a 'biblical' theme) using an Akkadian army. The main line of that being four 10 base BGs of HF protected spear, and 8 superiot HF heavy weapons.

I'd worked our that many players would use later Assyrian armies - lots of good quality armoured cavalry and Chariots. The plan being to crowd the horseboys until they had to launch desperate frontal charges, or that the rash ones might charge anyway. This worked a treat. I'm up at impact, equal in melee, I have rear support and generals just in case of bad rolls. If the worst happens I lose a BG and it's rear support.

I appreciate the concern that ancient cavalry can turn over protected spear. On paper it looks feasible. In practice it is a losing game for the cavalry - a losing game with more expensive troops. That gave me spare points elsewhere to break the Assyrian army.

I like the way this interaction works in FoG; the cavalry have just enough chance to tempt them to do something daft. Perhaps historical generals realised this and decided to use the cavalry to work the flanks instead - something they are much better at.

One area that we have gone away from is the armoured Liby Phoenician cavalry vs Protected Hastati interaction. The Melee POA for the cavalry might make a big difference

shadowdragon wrote:
Since you're other posts show that you play Syracuse versus Carthage, I'll confine my comments to those armies. I will assume that you're using the Late Carthaginian list as the early Carthaginians are only allowed, at best, average armoured cavalry, which will lose to spears (even average protected).

In case of the Syracusan list you can have 3 BG of 4 bases of average armoured or superior armoured of Greek or Campanian cavalry. The Late Carthaginians have 1 to 3 BG of 4 bases of Spanish / Gallic cavalry that are superior protected but one BG could be upgraded to superior armoured. They can also have an additional BG of 4 bases of superior armoured Libyphoenician cavalry. Your battle after action reports indicate that you tend to pick the best quality option for your cavalry as this is "more fun" and "more historical" in your view. That's, of course, a subjective view.

In fact, I have played the starter armies because I thought they were intended to be well balanced armies and represented a good way to fix myself objectives of painting. At least the second part is right. So I have all that superior armoured because of that (something that I might change though) and that is how I got to the conclusion of the cavalry being overrated. I don't think I ever said that superior and armoured and lots of cavalry is more fun (I prefer infantry armies). To me the fun is in being able to have a plan and put it into practice and therefore I am experiencing with two envelops, one envelop (the one that seems more succesful) and things alike. I have tried several rulesets and FoG is the one getting closer, but with some fixes.

shadowdragon wrote:
However, you've indicated problems because (1) cavalry battles take to long (superior versus superior cavalry) and (2) the cavalry are relatively too good compared to the typical average protected HF / MF. It would seem to me that you could solve most of your issues by taking, for example, 12 bases of superior protected cavalry for the Carthaginians and 12 bases of average armoured cavalry for the Syracusans. This is still a roughly equal cavalry battle, but would (1) last not as long and (2) the cavalry would find even average protected spears a tough proposition. In my personal view this would make for more interesting cavalry battles. If you wanted a single BG of superior armoured could be added to the mix. That's enough to tip the cavalry battle in one side's favour if the other side choses to have have their superior armoured BG go after average protected hoplites.

I might try as you say. In fact I wanted first to be aware of all the limitations of FoG and, if the game does not provide what I feel as right, try to modify it.

shadowdragon wrote:
But you are not inclined to do this and the authors aren't inclined to make a change for a problem they don't believe exists. So, respectfully, Dave has a point, it's time to move on ....to options like (1) making changes to the composition of your armies according to the lists, (2) making your own "in-house" changes to the lists / rules or (3) using a set of rules that you gives you the interactions you strongly believe are the way it was.

I am sorry if I bothered other people in the forum. I took this 2.0 as an opportunity to share my views in Ancient warfare and wargaming, especially in what I saw in FoG as historically troublesome. If FoG evolves more into a history game, it could be the game I stay with for a long time and I am even teaching it to kids and their parents in my home city (with time I might introduce my own additions). It was also an opportunity to learn more about a period of the history I really enjoy. I never intended to be unpolite although I have been provoked and maybe I lost my nerve sometimes (the problems of non face to face communication you pointed). I have been open to other interpetrations of history and I am now more inclined to less extreme views I had before. Anyway, in this thread I would have liked to see more counterexamples and less qualifications of the propositions and the people proposing them. I think that my point is clear and I should stop it here.