Slitherine

MVP7 wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:58 pm How would commanded shot differ from current light infantry that already can perform the role of supporting cavalry and works great when used so too?

Current light infantry don't give charging lancers a 100 POA punch in the mouth when charged.

MVP7 wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:58 pm How would commanded shot differ from current light infantry that already can perform the role of supporting cavalry and works great when used so too?

It could be :
- an extra unit mixing LF and non-light horse (like in-game mounted Archer+Lancers), so you could make up your army with separated LF, separated cavalry and/or (LF+Cavalry)
- an Impact PoA capability (like late Roman infantry's Darts) that a cavalry unit could lose/recover during a test at the impact (see above)
- two distinct units as in P&S that protect each other
- any other suggestion from someone else...
- nothing but an interesting historical tactic I wanted to let you know of and that I thought was only used by modern armies. I should have think of an archaeology teacher who said once : "Any Homo Sapiens facing a given issue will find the same kind of solutions. Only the technologies at disposal will differ."

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:54 pm (...)
Anyway, would it be worth coding such a thing where the actaul effect are questionable and it wasnt something that became a standard?

You do have a very strange way of thinking (to say the least) :
- First post : as those soldiers died at the end of a given battle, you state that the tactic they used was always ineffective in every battle.
- Second post : you state this tactic was rare as this thread mentions only a few texts about it. How do you know, for example, that Gauls did not use it when fighting each others. You read a compilation of battle reports by Druids ?

...

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 8:51 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 6:54 pm (...)
Anyway, would it be worth coding such a thing where the actaul effect are questionable and it wasnt something that became a standard?

You do have a very strange way of thinking (to say the least) :
- First post : as those soldiers died at the end of a given battle, the tactic they used was always ineffective in every battle. Soldiers dying on the battlefield !?!
- Second post : you state this tactic was rare as this thread mentions only a few texts. How do you know, for example, that Gauls did not use it when fighting each others. You read a compilation of battle reports by Druids ?

...

Not sure what I said to justify such a rude and sarcastic reply.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 9:50 pm Not sure what I said to justify such a rude and sarcastic reply.

Sorry but I found your two arguments not very sincere nor objective in the first place and this sentence quite rude itself :

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Sun May 17, 2020 9:50 pm
Anyway, would it be worth coding such a thing where the actaul effect are questionable and it wasnt something that became a standard?

…especially, as the first objective of this thread was providing an historical information and making a nod to P&S for fun, as this smile suggests it :



Then someone suggested to mod ‘CS' in FoG2.
So I proposed mechanisms to mod not true CS but ancient LF supporting Cavalry, without excluding the possibility that it was a bad idea.

And when I say ‘Mod’, I do mean ‘Mod’, not disguised suggestion for the Vanilla game. Because I think that SP (if not MP?) players could enjoy additional modded units, especially if those units can be built and balanced thanks to an enriching discussion of an educated community.

Then someone used his bulldozer (and arguments I for one don’t find pertinent) to destroy this inoffensive little thing...

Ok, I’d didn’t mean to bulldoze your ideas, just commented on some historical tracts you provided... My question which you quoted stands as reasonable I think... I’ll put smily faces and unicorns all over the place next lest you take offense when none was meant.

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 10:53 am I’ll put smily faces and unicorns all over the place next lest you take offense when none was meant.

Very constructive !
btw you are the one who took offense when none was meant.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 11:04 am

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 10:53 am I’ll put smily faces and unicorns all over the place next lest you take offense when none was meant.

Very constructive !
btw you are the one who took offense when none was meant.

Perhaps I hadn’t yet had my morning coffee or had time to read my morning edition of Druidic Daily News, and I was testy. So if we both took offense and both meant none it sounds like a wash and we can move on? Cheers !

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 11:32 am Perhaps I hadn’t yet had my morning coffee or had time to read my morning edition of Druidic Daily News, and I was testy. So if we both took offense and both meant none it sounds like a wash and we can move on? Cheers !

You are the voice of reason. Let's move on !

I guess it is not the time for me to 'suggest' 'dragoons' as a modded unit in FoG2 ?
Too bad, I read in Polybius XI, 21, 4 that...
(it is a joke)

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 12:00 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 11:32 am Perhaps I hadn’t yet had my morning coffee or had time to read my morning edition of Druidic Daily News, and I was testy. So if we both took offense and both meant none it sounds like a wash and we can move on? Cheers !

You are the voice of reason. Let's move on !

I guess it is not the time for me to 'suggest' 'dragoons' as a modded unit in FoG2 ?
Too bad, I read in Polybius XI, 21, 4 that...
(it is a joke)

Athos are you sure it is isn't just a language barrier Please don't get angry I am really just joking

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:05 am Athos are you sure it is isn't just a language barrier Please don't get angry I am really just joking

That's what trolls say...

First I read scholars' papers in French.
Then I look at the original Latin and Greek authors translated in French to make up my own mind.
Then I make the effort to look for the exact extract translated in English to post it on these forums and share it to an English-spoken audience.
Then I get trolled by someone who keeps on saying "You don't understand English" post after post.

Coming from you... well, I won't be "rude" nor "sarcastic". It would be so easy...

Definitively I don't like what these forums turn into...

It confirms my idea of leaving them.

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:51 am

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 9:05 am Athos are you sure it is isn't just a language barrier Please don't get angry I am really just joking

That's what trolls say...

First I read scholars' papers in French.
Then I look at the original Latin and Greek authors translated in French to make up my own mind.
Then I make the effort to look for the exact extract translated in English to post it on these forums and share it to an English-spoken audience.
Then I get trolled by someone who keeps on saying "You don't understand English" post after post.

Coming from you... well, I won't be "rude" nor "sarcastic". It would be so easy...

Definitively I don't like what these forums turn into...

It confirms my idea of leaving them.

OK I didn't know that anyone besides me had said anything about any language barrier I just found it funny that you had a go at Graymouser about being rude when I didn't think he had been. My post was probably a poor attempt at humour but was in no way intended to offend you. In saying all that maybe you just need to chill. I apologise if I offended you

Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Tue May 19, 2020 10:05 am OK I didn't know that anyone besides me had said anything about any language barrier

You, Mr Cunningcairn, are the only one who says so in each of your replies to my posts, on and on. It is you I was talking about in my previous post.

Fun to see that, in his Gallic Wars, Caesar mentions Vercingetorix’ same tactic three times :

VII, 18 : "Vercingetorix had exhausted his forage and moved his camp nearer to Avaricum, and was gone forward in person, with horsemen and the light troops that were accustomed to do battle among the horse, to set an ambush."

VII, 36 : "And scarcely a day passed that he (Vercingetorix) did not put to the test, by an encounter of horsemen with archers placed among them, the spirit and the courage of each of his followers."

VII, 80 : "The Gauls had placed archers and light-armed skirmishers here and there among the horsemen to give immediate support to their comrades if driven back and to resist the charge of the cavalry. A number of men, wounded unexpectedly by these troops, began to withdraw from the fight."

I don't think this really calls for a different unit with integrated infantry. I'm a especially skeptical of defensive impact POA bonus being particularly accurate depiction of light foot's effect, compared to what you currently have if you just mix light infantry units with cavalry.

During the 16/early17th centuries, LF among cavalry (and more generally shooting on enemy cavalry) were intensively used to create confusion among the enemy horses and horsemen, just before the friendly charge, so the friendly cavalry could hope to take advantage of this stupor.

It is just quite interesting to note that Caesar observed this same confusion because of the Gallic archers and light-armed infantry among the cavalry :

"Several of our soldiers were unexpectedly wounded by these, and left the battle."
De Bello Gallico, VII, 80

As for comparing the impact (psychological and real) of ancient LF and modern commanded shot on enemy cavalry, I won't assure it was identical. But the goal seems identical.