Slitherine

MVP7 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 7:39 pm The results could also point to Medium Foot being a bit too strong in the open rather than cavalry being too weak. FoG2 Medium infantry is essentially just heavy infantry with free perks until they start losing.

I agree. IMO most medium infantry are excellent value, especially the ones with impact bonus or heavy weapons. Excellent mobility, initially hit hard like trucks even in open terrain, fight like beasts in rough terrain, cheap to purchase. What is there not to like?

Ooooof, the Kushan vs. Indo-Greek matchup is ROUGH. Just all out painful. Hoping to try it on a more open flat map at some point, but if there's any sort of terrain, the Indo-Greeks are completely safe. 2 Elephants, 2 pikes, and 2 thureos keep them completely safe from Kushan cataphracts. And horse archers are useless against that amount of massed archers. Just no hope unless you can ride around a flank, I think. So again, with any sort of obscuring terrain to restrict horse archer mobility, the Indo-Greeks seem heavily favored to win this matchup.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 7:17 am Experience does show that pure cavalry armies often don't do too well in the FOG2 Digital League, but balanced armies with a substantial proportion of cavalry do very well indeed. So one has to consider that any change to the balance to make pure cavalry armies more effective might make balanced armies with large amounts of cavalry too effective.

Absolutely convincing argument. There would seem to be one solution, though a radical one. Have you considered putting different costs on the same units in different armies?

(I am aware that making unit cost dependent on their army list = throwing out the unit cost formula all together in favour of a more intuitive/ trial-and-error approach. This would be a major change and I am not unreservedly advocating it, would just like to know your thoughts about it.)

sIg3b wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 6:12 pm Absolutely convincing argument. There would seem to be one solution, though a radical one. Have you considered putting different costs on the same units in different armies?

(I am aware that making unit cost dependent on their army list = throwing out the unit cost formula all together in favour of a more intuitive/ trial-and-error approach. This would be a major change and I am not unreservedly advocating it, would just like to know your thoughts about it.)

I think a more balanced way of doing that within the existing formula is adjusting the morale/armor values of cavalry units in the list. Or adding in weaker/cheaper cavalry units to the list in question.

For example, raw defensive spears in certain European lists were upgraded to 720 size to make them more expensive and prevent a spam of cheap spears. For certain lists, the cavalry could be downgraded to Some Armor from armored, or Above Average from Superior to make them cheaper.

sIg3b wrote: ↑Sun Apr 12, 2020 6:12 pm

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Sat Mar 28, 2020 7:17 am Experience does show that pure cavalry armies often don't do too well in the FOG2 Digital League, but balanced armies with a substantial proportion of cavalry do very well indeed. So one has to consider that any change to the balance to make pure cavalry armies more effective might make balanced armies with large amounts of cavalry too effective.

Absolutely convincing argument. There would seem to be one solution, though a radical one. Have you considered putting different costs on the same units in different armies?

(I am aware that making unit cost dependent on their army list = throwing out the unit cost formula all together in favour of a more intuitive/ trial-and-error approach. This would be a major change and I am not unreservedly advocating it, would just like to know your thoughts about it.)

It isn't an easy thing to do. We have so far tried to avoid that sort of thing because it would be so hard to balance.

How about buffing a bit the Impact Net PoA of Flank/Rear Attacks on unengaged Infantry by non-light Cavalry (and only in this case) ?

Right now, Net PoA = +50.
Net PoA = +200 when the flanked infantry had been engaged.

Between +50 and +200, there is a margin. (Not to mention the gap between P&S and FoG2.)

I wasn't in the tournament, but one thing that has always bugged me, especially for Cataphracts, is the following situation:
Cats are 3 away from archers, facing towards them. If the archer 3 spots straight ahead faced the cat, the cat can charge him. However, if the archer 3 spots straight ahead turns 45 degrees (or even 180 degrees, they could just turn their backs to the cats), and a neighbor faces the square directly in front, the cats go "naw, i won't charge those archers" but then they can't charge the covering archer either, so they end up unable to charge anyone and instead get shot up for a turn.

IDK how much of a problem it is in multiplayer or in this situation, but it doesn't make much sense that a unit of archers can become immune to being charged by turning their back to the enemy.

GamerMan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:20 am I wasn't in the tournament, but one thing that has always bugged me, especially for Cataphracts, is the following situation:
Cats are 3 away from archers, facing towards them. If the archer 3 spots straight ahead faced the cat, the cat can charge him. However, if the archer 3 spots straight ahead turns 45 degrees (or even 180 degrees, they could just turn their backs to the cats), and a neighbor faces the square directly in front, the cats go "naw, i won't charge those archers" but then they can't charge the covering archer either, so they end up unable to charge anyone and instead get shot up for a turn.

IDK how much of a problem it is in multiplayer or in this situation, but it doesn't make much sense that a unit of archers can become immune to being charged by turning their back to the enemy.

Makes me wonder if it could be changed so that cavalry ignored that rule when facing infantry. Reflecting the speed of the cavalry, perhaps.

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 7:46 pm

GamerMan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:20 am I wasn't in the tournament, but one thing that has always bugged me, especially for Cataphracts, is the following situation:
Cats are 3 away from archers, facing towards them. If the archer 3 spots straight ahead faced the cat, the cat can charge him. However, if the archer 3 spots straight ahead turns 45 degrees (or even 180 degrees, they could just turn their backs to the cats), and a neighbor faces the square directly in front, the cats go "naw, i won't charge those archers" but then they can't charge the covering archer either, so they end up unable to charge anyone and instead get shot up for a turn.

IDK how much of a problem it is in multiplayer or in this situation, but it doesn't make much sense that a unit of archers can become immune to being charged by turning their back to the enemy.

Makes me wonder if it could be changed so that cavalry ignored that rule when facing infantry. Reflecting the speed of the cavalry, perhaps.

I may be wrong but I suppose that the non-light cavalry of the Antiquity/Middle Age was not much faster on the battlefield than the non-light cavalry of the Renaissance and the latter moved at a walk and usually charged at a trot except in the case of some elite troops (to maintain the cohesion, avoid tiring the horses, etc.).

Speeds of non-light cavalry were measured in the second half of the 18th century : 5,8-7,7 km/h at a walk, 7,8-14 km/h at a trot, 13,3-19 km/h at a gallop.

GamerMan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:20 am I wasn't in the tournament, but one thing that has always bugged me, especially for Cataphracts, is the following situation:
Cats are 3 away from archers, facing towards them. If the archer 3 spots straight ahead faced the cat, the cat can charge him. However, if the archer 3 spots straight ahead turns 45 degrees (or even 180 degrees, they could just turn their backs to the cats), and a neighbor faces the square directly in front, the cats go "naw, i won't charge those archers" but then they can't charge the covering archer either, so they end up unable to charge anyone and instead get shot up for a turn.

IDK how much of a problem it is in multiplayer or in this situation, but it doesn't make much sense that a unit of archers can become immune to being charged by turning their back to the enemy.

Yes you are correct. It is probably the last gamey move that cannot be justified in any way that remains in the game. If there is no other ZOC en-route preventing a charging unit moving forward until it enters the square directly in front of the unit it is charging, the archer in this case, then it should be allowed. Problem comes in when it reaches the square in front of the archer it is charging then it can be prevented by an adjacent unit, for example a spear, turning it's facing so that it's primary ZOC covers the front of the archer that has changed face. This has been discussed in length in other posts.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:45 pm

GamerMan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:20 am I wasn't in the tournament, but one thing that has always bugged me, especially for Cataphracts, is the following situation:
Cats are 3 away from archers, facing towards them. If the archer 3 spots straight ahead faced the cat, the cat can charge him. However, if the archer 3 spots straight ahead turns 45 degrees (or even 180 degrees, they could just turn their backs to the cats), and a neighbor faces the square directly in front, the cats go "naw, i won't charge those archers" but then they can't charge the covering archer either, so they end up unable to charge anyone and instead get shot up for a turn.

IDK how much of a problem it is in multiplayer or in this situation, but it doesn't make much sense that a unit of archers can become immune to being charged by turning their back to the enemy.

(...) It is probably the last gamey move that cannot be justified in any way that remains in the game. (...)

One way of looking at it : if you think it is logical that the cavalry can't go though this ZoC to go there...



... then you will think it logical not to be able to go there...



... but, in this case, you might think it is odd that the unit can go there to attack :



...unless you reckon that in this case, as the enemy unit is seen as charging too (which was not the case when the enemy unit turned its back to your unit), the fight does not take place here...



... but here :



btw the ZoC 1 of the enemy unit at the right hand side of the picture is "removed" when it is attacked, as it can't charge the left cavalry unit anymore :

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 4:15 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 10:45 pm

GamerMan wrote: ↑Sun Apr 19, 2020 6:20 am I wasn't in the tournament, but one thing that has always bugged me, especially for Cataphracts, is the following situation:
Cats are 3 away from archers, facing towards them. If the archer 3 spots straight ahead faced the cat, the cat can charge him. However, if the archer 3 spots straight ahead turns 45 degrees (or even 180 degrees, they could just turn their backs to the cats), and a neighbor faces the square directly in front, the cats go "naw, i won't charge those archers" but then they can't charge the covering archer either, so they end up unable to charge anyone and instead get shot up for a turn.

IDK how much of a problem it is in multiplayer or in this situation, but it doesn't make much sense that a unit of archers can become immune to being charged by turning their back to the enemy.

(...) It is probably the last gamey move that cannot be justified in any way that remains in the game. (...)

One way of looking at it : if you think it is logical that the cavalry can't go though this ZoC to go there...



... then you will think it logical not to be able to go there...



... but, in this case, you might think it is odd that the unit can go there to attack :



...unless you reckon that in this case, as the enemy unit is seen as charging too (which was not the case when the enemy unit turned its back to your unit), the fight does not take place here...



... but here :



btw the ZoC 1 is "removed" when the enemy unit is attacked, as it can't charge the left cavalry unit anymore :

Yes! In your first picture the intended target (the one not in the picture but directly to the lancer's front) is far away and the lancer is met with a more immediate and present danger represented in the game by a ZOC to which it would respond. The "decision" will change once all threats are in close proximity i.e. one square away in this game. In your other pictures the lancer once it moves to the square with its intended target directly in front of it, without contravening current ZOC rules to get to that point, should not be prevented from charging that unit irrespective of the facing of that unit or the ZOC's of any other adjacent unit. The complex decision making by the lancers to not do exactly that is gamey, unrealistic and promotes chess like moves which I believe are not part of the design philosophy. There are multitudes of examples of turning face that could be shown with pictures but I think everyone already understands the issue and the solution.

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 5:29 am Yes! In your first picture the intended target (the one not in the picture but directly to the lancer's front) is far away and the lancer is met with a more immediate and present danger represented in the game by a ZOC to which it would respond. The "decision" will change once all threats are in close proximity i.e. one square away in this game. In your other pictures the lancer once it moves to the square with its intended target directly in front of it, without contravening current ZOC rules to get to that point, should not be prevented from charging that unit irrespective of the facing of that unit or the ZOC's of any other adjacent unit.

maybe it is more a matter of interception than of "more immediate and present danger", non-light cavalry being likely not that fast.

(edit)
btw even if it is mainly a matter of immediate danger (because of the shooting), the picture #2 also shows the right-hand-side enemy as a much greater threat and the other pictures as an equal one.

Well, to stick with my more narrow example. in your picture, replace the lancer with a Cat, and move it one back. Now, the Cat can run forwards 2 squares, it can't charge the archer with its back turned (not priority), and it can't charge the unit laying down a blocking ZoC (half a square too far away). So instead the Cat can't charge anything.

and if we look at the two possible explanations....
A: The "blocking" unit is just scary enough to demand priority. Except, in this case, that would be the Cats deciding that getting shot with archers from close range is less scary than getting charged by a bunch of archers with clubs from the front. That is nonsense and the Cats should just be able to charge the archers with their backs turned.

B: The "blocking" unit is actively intervening by threatening to charge. Except, in this case, that means the unit is moving close to the border, and the Cats should be able to then divert their charge to the blocking unit. Therefore, charging the blocking archer.

In either case, at least one of those 2 units should be able to be charged.

GamerMan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:58 pm Well, to stick with my more narrow example. in your picture, replace the lancer with a Cat (...)

In my pics, the cavalry is actually cataphracts. Cataphracts are lancers with full armour, thus with reduced APs (12 instead of 16 for the other lancers).

GamerMan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:58 pm (...) and move it one back. Now, the Cat can run forwards 2 squares, it can't charge the archer with its back turned (not priority) (...)

Ok. With AP s= 12, the Cataphract could theoretically move 3 squares forward (3x 4 = 12). This case corresponds to the pic #2 of my previous post. They can't actually go through the ZOC1 of the right-hand side Archers to charge the archers with their back turned forward.

GamerMan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:58 pm (...) and it can't charge the unit laying down a blocking ZoC (half a square too far away). So instead the Cat can't charge anything.

Indeed as the Cataphracts have only 12 APs (being fully-armoured) and would need 6+4+4 = 14 APs to charge the right-hand side archers (while plain lancers could do it with their 16 APs).

GamerMan wrote: ↑Mon Apr 20, 2020 1:58 pm and if we look at the two possible explanations....
A: The "blocking" unit is just scary enough to demand priority. Except, in this case, that would be the Cats deciding that getting shot with archers from close range is less scary than getting charged by a bunch of archers with clubs from the front. That is nonsense and the Cats should just be able to charge the archers with their backs turned.

B: The "blocking" unit is actively intervening by threatening to charge. Except, in this case, that means the unit is moving close to the border, and the Cats should be able to then divert their charge to the blocking unit. Therefore, charging the blocking archer.

In either case, at least one of those 2 units should be able to be charged.

The Cataphracts can't move as fast (far) as plain lancers do because of their full armour ; and can't go through a ZoC1 to charge a unit in front of them that turns its back to them.

Thank you for putting the picture together, that should make my post easier to read.

Obviously the rules are clear, but it is hard to justify conceptually. What is the screening archer doing that is stopping the cats from progressing without putting themselves in any danger? How are they intimidating the cats enough to get them to slow down and take additional volleys of arrows, while also staying far enough back to not put themselves at risk? It produces a very gamey result that doesn't make much sense, and it may have partially contributed to the lopsided results here.

GamerMan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 3:37 pm Thank you for putting the picture together, that should make my post easier to read.

At least it had some use...

GamerMan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 3:37 pm Obviously the rules are clear, but it is hard to justify conceptually. What is the screening archer doing that is stopping the cats from progressing without putting themselves in any danger? How are they intimidating the cats enough to get them to slow down and take additional volleys of arrows, while also staying far enough back to not put themselves at risk?

'Conceptually' speaking, I am far from being sure that you can make 250 horses and horsemen, even armoured, move at a walk or a trot, in proper order, under a rain of arrows, go past 500 yelling and threatening enemies on their side, able to attack/unhorse them ; without (some of) the horses refusing and panicing, to end up with 500 enemies at their back.

GamerMan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 3:37 pm It produces a very gamey result that doesn't make much sense, and it may have partially contributed to the lopsided results here.

4-16 casualties at short range, 'lopsided results' ?



Cataphracts are slow but/because very well protected.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 6:48 pm

GamerMan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 3:37 pm Thank you for putting the picture together, that should make my post easier to read.

At least it had some use...

GamerMan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 3:37 pm Obviously the rules are clear, but it is hard to justify conceptually. What is the screening archer doing that is stopping the cats from progressing without putting themselves in any danger? How are they intimidating the cats enough to get them to slow down and take additional volleys of arrows, while also staying far enough back to not put themselves at risk?

'Conceptually' speaking, I am far from being sure that you can make 250 horses, even armoured, move at a walk or a trot, in proper order, under a rain of arrows, go past 500 yelling and threatening enemies on their side, able to attack them ; without (some of) the horses refusing and panicing, to end up with 500 enemies at their back.

GamerMan wrote: ↑Tue Apr 21, 2020 3:37 pm It produces a very gamey result that doesn't make much sense, and it may have partially contributed to the lopsided results here.

4-16 casualties at short range, 'lopsided results' ?



Cataphracts are slow but/because very well protected.

Dear Athos
I am not being rude but I really don't think you understand the issue. It doesn't matter what armour they have or how many AP's they have. A ZOC has been defined as a psychological barrier. The discussions are about this psychological barrier preventing certain action. The point has been made that a lancer or any element for that matter should be allowed to charge the unit directly to its front i.e. in the square in front of it, irrespective of the facing, troop type or whatever. The reason for allowing this is that it is logical behaviour and will stop gamey moves that cannot be justified. You don't have to agree with that, many don't, and if you have a logical reason why they would not do so then please say what it is. In this instance the drawings are not needed as it is a discussion on a behaviour that is influenced by psychological barriers. Why wouldn't they charge directly forward?

Having said the above, I am done with this specific debate about Lancers vs Archers/Infantry's ZoC.

One difficulty to allowing the cataphracts to ignore the ZoC of the Bowmen to their right is flank covering. If the Bowmen with their rear facing towards the catas were already engaged in melee, a rear charge would be automatic cohesion drop. This would also be the case for a flank charge; a common way to cover flanks of friendly units is to move another friendly unit up behind, turned at a 45 degree angle to cover the flank of the unit in front. Allowing charging troops to ignore such ZoCs would change all sorts of balance pretty drastically.

How would you overcome this? Let's say you don't want Bowmen to exert ZoC against cavalry, because they would hesitate to charge into melee against such troops. What about Irregular Foot? It's almost as bad an idea for them to charge cataphracts as Bowmen. Should they not exert ZoC either? Should the ability to ignore primary ZoCs if there is another target in front be an ability limited to non light cavalry and elephants? How would that work out in balance terms?

Look, I can see the difficulty you're having with this, but changing these ZoC rules would be anything but simple, and could well lead to less desirable outcomes than we have now.

My suggestion - make a quick mod allowing what you ask, and run some test games. That's what Schweetness is doing with the Pike balance. Start a thread, generate some data, come back with something solid for Richard & co to look at.