Mounted Points

[tamerlan]

With the current rules, I find cavalry far too expensive (armoured, superior, bow, sword the same cost as horse HA, pistol, pistol ...)

[Jhykronos]

With the current rules, I find cavalry far too expensive (armoured, superior, bow, sword the same cost as horse HA, pistol, pistol ...)

Cavalry gain limited evasion (except the poor schmucks with light lances) in exchange for a morale penalty when shot by firearms. Is the former worth more than the latter? I would generally say no, especially since we aren't talking about FOG-AM 2.0 cavalry evasion.

So I would tend to agree... cavalry should not be more expensive than horse of the same grading.

[ravenflight]

Just an idea, if we dropped the points score for cavalry by 1 or 2 points, and then put a line in the points like this:

"Cavalry able to evade: +1"

Then you're not charging for a weapon capability, but you are just not getting a discount if you're lance armed.

[martymagnificent]

Cavalry who can evade should cost the same as horse. Cavalry who cant evade should cost slightly less. For the sake of simplicity I would probably just have all cavalry and horse cost the same.

Martin

[timmy1]

Agreed.

[nikgaukroger]

I'm tending to the view that the evade isn't that useful in practice and that the -1 CT for being shot at by things that go bang means that Cavalry should be a point cheaper than the equivalent Horse.

What would people think about that?

[timmy1]

Nik

Disagree. Cavalry were replaced by horse for a good reason. If you have played Alistair when he is using a cav army you will see that at the same price as horse theyv are good value - that some players are not good enough to use the evade advantage is not a reason to reduce the points (else all my troops would have to be priced at 1 point each...)

Regards
Tim

[nikgaukroger]

Basing changes on how good players can leverage advantage is a poor approach, it needs to be on how us average and less than average types play - we're the majority

[Vespasian28]

Cavalry evade is useful but not that useful. At the end of the day if faced by cavalry with horse you close up to within 1mm then charge. Then it's down to the dice and half the time they get away and the other half they are caught and die in my experience. In FOGAM they can try a CMT to fall back and shoot again but they don't have that in FOGR so less shooting and more gambling on the evade.

[marshalney2000]

Raises another questions- should FOGR Cavalry have the same fall back opportunity as their FOGAM counterparts?
John

[nikgaukroger]

Raises another questions- should FOGR Cavalry have the same fall back opportunity as their FOGAM counterparts?
John

Another one for a new topic perhaps?

[donm2]

Cavalry should be no more costly than Horse of the same grade / armour. Don't agree cheaper, as the evade capability most cavalry have is a very valuable asset.

Others I have spoken to find it a bit marginal - but that may be theme related - and that the -ve CT modifier for being shot at by firearms outweighs it.

However, I think we are clear that people think that Cv should be no more expensive than Hse which is a start

That would certainly be a major step forward from where we are currently.

I am not sure evading is all it's cracked up to be.

Don

[urbanbunny1]

I disagree.

I think evading is pretty powerful, its just that for most FoGR players, we tend to play armies that want to fight, rather than spending two hours maneuvering.

We all know dragoons evading makes the little buggers almost impossible to kill off if you don't just blow them away in shooting.

I like the FoGAM change that when you evade, you don't go as far, so, there is a better chance of catching them.

[timmy1]

I would still like to see Evade requiring a CT (yes CT not CMT) once you complete the evade more - you might escape but if you are a bad place you are going down the ladder rather quickly. Stops some unhistorical tactics that I use rather a lot. However not directly points related so I will shut up.

[timmy1]

In another thread about increasing the minimum of mounted in a number of lists, it has been noted that some lists allow an ahistorically small number of mounted troops to be chosen.

I am willing to be corrected but I tend to see this in armies that can have wall to wall shot armed foot (often with Reg Guns or Impact Foot capability). I believe that in part this is due to the relative cost of foot to mounted being perhaps too low. While you could decrease the cost of mounted, in the armies that take the mimimum that would just allow them MORE foot. Another option is to increase the cost of the foot with shooting capability relative to the cost of mounted, especially now that we are changing how Commanded Shot works. If you made foot with shooting a little more expensive and 2 Dice Mounted a little cheaper and/or more effective, armies would struggle to put out the foot line that goes from table edge to table edge and shoot away their opponents. Mounted would be required to protect the flanks.

Can't be TOO big a change but if Musket/Bow were to cost an additional 1 point per base and 2 dice mounted 2 or 3 points less per base (especially if Reg Guns become a point or two more expensive) would that be enough to encourage people to take a historically appropriate number of mounted rather than the minimum?

Any unintended consequence?

[marshalney2000]

I think evading Cavalry is historical and should be there particularly when you move out of the main stream theatres thatvwe tend not to,play unless a themed competition. I also think allow them to back off three inches as per FOGAM with a cmt better reflects their capabilities.

[nikgaukroger]

I think evading Cavalry is historical and should be there particularly when you move out of the main stream theatres thatvwe tend not to,play unless a themed competition.

For the avoidance of doubt, there are no plans to remove evading from Cavalry.