Slitherine

TheGrayMouser wrote:If this needs be tweeked ( and I’m not sure it does) I’d rather make it so infantry can only “charge “ formed Cavalry 1 grid away. ( so move adjacent 1 turn, charge next turn if the Cavalry sit tight).

Edit: actually I think a better way of expressing the concept as a rule would be it cost all an infantry ap’s to enter the zoc of a non fragged formed Cavalry.

Why would that better than letting infantry charge when they want to and then the horses choose whether to evade?

GiveWarAchance wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:If this needs be tweeked ( and I’m not sure it does) I’d rather make it so infantry can only “charge “ formed Cavalry 1 grid away. ( so move adjacent 1 turn, charge next turn if the Cavalry sit tight).

Edit: actually I think a better way of expressing the concept as a rule would be it cost all an infantry ap’s to enter the zoc of a non fragged formed Cavalry.

Why would that better than letting infantry charge when they want to and then the horses choose whether to evade?

Not sure I understand the question. Better than now or better than some of the proposed changes? Personal preference? I dunno, but I do feel infantry has too much leeway w Cavalry. The above thinking aloud suggestion would a) allow 2 shots vs advancing infantry b) highlight the difficulty of infantry dealing w cavalry. Of course I think evades now are a good compromise, I certainly don’t want it reverted to how it was several patches ago.
I also don’t feel individual evade settings are a good thing. Perhaps if we could have evade stances at a command level

broadening the issue...some of the horse shooter armies are probably the best armies in the game now (setting aside the indian issue). namely kushans and hephtalites. (i don't think folks know it yet, but it should become evident soon)... huge numbers of shooters, outnumber the opponent due to low cost units, and high mobility--a recipe for victory if played with a modicum of aptitude. the question might come down to the lethality of shooting and/or cost of certain troops...as we've seen indians are likely getting tweaked...they have a similar skill set (hvy shooter, low cost, high mobility)
now, that said, the goal of the game isn't to have an equal chance at victory regardless of the armies involved; some armies just don't stack up well against a particular opponent. i think the goal should be to make certain that the pt system for purchasing armies as well as the combat engine ensures there is no "master play", meaning if a player uses this army and buy these features he/she'll win 75% of the time regardless of the opposing army. in the ideal situation, every army should do well agains certain opponents and struggle against others... I do see the challeng here, when we are representing a multitude of armies over a vast history, with dozens of combinations of characteristics we should expect that any system that allows players free reign to not only choose an army, but also shop for the best combo of troops is likely to be "gamed". So as long as we play games this will be an issue...unless we want to play checkers. I do think there is some room for some designer tweaks though when it comes to shooters, and we should watch the issue of numeral superiority too. in FOG 1 it was harder to flank attack...so quantity was not quite as adept at getting an edge over quality. of course if some of these issues can't be addressed thru programing and pt systems, it can be addressed easily enough in the tournament rules and exclusions, as we have done in the knockout.

TheGrayMouser wrote:

GiveWarAchance wrote:

TheGrayMouser wrote:If this needs be tweeked ( and I’m not sure it does) I’d rather make it so infantry can only “charge “ formed Cavalry 1 grid away. ( so move adjacent 1 turn, charge next turn if the Cavalry sit tight).

Edit: actually I think a better way of expressing the concept as a rule would be it cost all an infantry ap’s to enter the zoc of a non fragged formed Cavalry.

Why would that better than letting infantry charge when they want to and then the horses choose whether to evade?

Not sure I understand the question. Better than now or better than some of the proposed changes? Personal preference? I dunno, but I do feel infantry has too much leeway w Cavalry. The above thinking aloud suggestion would a) allow 2 shots vs advancing infantry b) highlight the difficulty of infantry dealing w cavalry. Of course I think evades now are a good compromise, I certainly don’t want it reverted to how it was several patches ago.
I also don’t feel individual evade settings are a good thing. Perhaps if we could have evade stances at a command level

I like the evasion the way it works now which is evade strong enemies and stay & fight when the odds are good. I don't want command level evasion decisions because the player would have to keep responding to evade pop-ups all throughout opponent turns which adds too much unwanted micromanagement. I like to see opponent turns play out smoothly on their own accord like it is now. Of course these are just my preferences and maybe people will prefer your ideas.

I was not clear about “command evades”. It would be the player could set an evasion stance for a leader( and all the units under his command) to be always, never or “default “ evade. (With some % of defiance per unit if bad odds) Lights wouldn’t be allowed this. Fog1 allowed for individual unit settings which allowed for some creative tactics, yet was very “gamey”. What you thought I meant would indeed be tedious in a computer game, but great in TT or board game, gmt’s great battles comes to mind.

TheGrayMouser wrote:I was not clear about “command evades”. It would be the player could set an evasion stance for a leader( and all the units under his command) to be always, never or “default “ evade. (With some % of defiance per unit if bad odds) Lights wouldn’t be allowed this. Fog1 allowed for individual unit settings which allowed for some creative tactics, yet was very “gamey”. What you thought I meant would indeed be tedious in a computer game, but great in TT or board game, gmt’s great battles comes to mind.

Oh very good idea now that I get it. I would like that setting for generals. There are most probably other settings that would be nice to add to command groups.

Thanks to Nosy_Rat, I now have a much better idea how to play Huns against an infantry-strong opponent. AAR here: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 93&t=85164

Interesting AAR there. In the tournament battles I played the Huns won both times. But my opponent employed a cavalry heavy strategy as the Romans and tried to close to melee rapidly. I barely won by focusing on lighter Roman units on the flanks and delaying two Auxilia units with some of the Hunnic Lancers. A combination of shooting and then having enough mobile cavalry to flank and stack against already engaged Roman cavalry in the center seemed work. In the other battle the Huns broke my Roman line before I could get a left wing of cavalry around a wooded patch to get behind the horse archers. I attempted to use terrain to protect the Roman Infantry but couldn’t hold one of the flanks similar to that AAR.

Kabill wrote:Thanks to Nosy_Rat, I now have a much better idea how to play Huns against an infantry-strong opponent. AAR here: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 93&t=85164

Good report and very instructive. I was Kabil's opponent in the recent tournament. I had hoped that my Hunnic cavalry could screen the infantry while I worked around the right flank with a mix of light horse and other cavalry. The left flank was closed by a waterway. When my flanking move failed, I found it impossible to do any significant damage frontally to the Romans with the horse archer cavalry. Although I squeezed out 28% Roman casualties (which sadly probably cost Kabil a place in the top four of the tournament), it was a convincing Roman victory.

Terrain is key. In another game a piece of rough and wooded ground close to the centre allowed me to use a Roman infantry force to good effect againat Hunnic cavalry and beat them, with the help of a lucky charge by my lancers in support.