Damn Light Horse again

pyruse · Post by **pyruse** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:47 pm

Allegedly.
We don't actually know what might have happened had the Mongols pressed on.
Maybe they would have found the non-steppe terrain not so suited to their army.
Maybe they would have had logistical difficulties.
Even a minor defeat would have caused them severe problems at the end of a long supply line.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:49 pm

pyruse wrote:Allegedly.
We don't actually know what might have happened had the Mongols pressed on.
Maybe they would have found the non-steppe terrain not so suited to their army.
Maybe they would have had logistical difficulties.
Even a minor defeat would have caused them severe problems at the end of a long supply line.

All true, but none of it has much bearing on the outcome of field battles, which is what FOG represents.

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 4:52 pm

dave_r wrote:When the Mongols ventured into Western Europe in the 13th Century, it was only the fact that the Great Khan died that saved all of Europe from a nasty ravage...

Maybe, but then they never came back either. I have read other military historians that make the point that having seen (and presumably heard scouting reports) of a relatively forested, heavily fortified europe it might not have seemed a very appetizing place to try and conquer. If there is one castle for few square miles (of cold and damp ground) filled with guys with crossbows you might well say, "let's give this one a pass."

madaxeman · Post by **madaxeman** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 6:38 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:But more importantly, after the 13th century Western Europe was heavily fortified, so winning battles with a steppe army would not win the war anyway.

Maybe this what we need then (following this logic) is a new terrain type, "castle", which som,e Western European infantry-based armies can select - they can then sit inside impervious to mounted nomads, and claim the result as a draw.

I'd also bet that once they'd faced a couple of "castle-bound" armies all these "Ghengiz Daves from Mangoliachester" would soon start bleating about how dull these games are and how tedious it is to spend 3 hours maneuvering round the walls of an enemy castle, being unable to get to grips with something your force isn't able to beat no matter how well you play

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:06 pm

That's exactly what I said - they couldn't be bothered.

If they had desperately wanted to have Europe they would have done it in the 13th Century.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:30 pm

I'd also bet that once they'd faced a couple of "castle-bound" armies all these "Ghengiz Daves from Mangoliachester" would soon start bleating about how dull these games are and how tedious it is to spend 3 hours maneuvering round the walls of an enemy castle, being unable to get to grips with something your force isn't able to beat no matter how well you play

That's the thing Tim - it is largely only you who can't beat Light Horse.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:31 pm

dave_r wrote:That's the thing Tim - it is largely only you who can't beat Light Horse.

Or swarms, so I'm in favour of both

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Thu Mar 25, 2010 7:43 pm

The Naked Fanatic has spoken.

Ware the Manchester Mafioso.

Kemmler · Post by **Kemmler** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 1:31 pm

madaxeman wrote: Maybe this what we need then (following this logic) is a new terrain type, "castle", which som,e Western European infantry-based armies can select - they can then sit inside impervious to mounted nomads, and claim the result as a draw.

The matter is to convince the LH-nomads to play into such a terrain since they r supposed to win the initiative roll

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:10 pm

As a Light Horse player I want to lose the initiative roll.

I also quite like fighting in Rough going.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 2:14 pm

dave_r wrote:I also quite like fighting in Rough going.

Dave likes a bit of Rough!

azrael86 · Post by **azrael86** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:09 pm

philqw78 wrote:
dave_r wrote:I also quite like fighting in Rough going.
Dave likes a bit of Rough!

He's not alone in that. I have it on good authority that longbowmen, Catalans and Dailami are also quite partial to rough...

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Mar 26, 2010 9:25 pm

azrael86 wrote:He's not alone in that. I have it on good authority that longbowmen, Catalans and Dailami are also quite partial to rough...

I saw a few Catalans at the Euro Champs in Rome last year so I'd concur, swarthy chaps

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:26 am

dave_r wrote:As a Light Horse player I want to lose the initiative roll.

I also quite like fighting in Rough going.

I prefer uneven. People forget that it has virtually no effect on LH. If on steppes or hilly I always take as much "broken" as I can get. In agricultural or developed I grab the open fields. It's a good place for non lancer cav to taunt lancers from as well. Especially if you are Lsp armed. My Thracians love the stuff.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 3:31 am

gozerius wrote:. My Thracians love the stuff.

Lt Sp LH. Dead men walking

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:38 pm

dave_r wrote:Perhaps that is just inexperience.

I had a agame with Bosporan against Medieval Castilian a couple of days ago - I had 12 BG's of skirmishers and 5 BG's of Cav Lancers. The Castilian had three BG's of Knights and some MF and HF as well as about 5 BG's of skirmishers. We had a cracking game which ended 18-7 to the Bosporan.

Although I won I still took around 70% casualties, so it is possible to break armies with skirmishers, you just need to take a few risks to do it. If you aren't prepared to take those risks then you aren't going to win. But that is the case for all armies and is a problem for players.

I already said I have limited experience with FOG, but... I didn't start this thread. This thread has been started by Peter Johnston, who I never meet (I hope to meet him in our convention) but for what I know he has a solid experience with FOG. I only said I had a game with a good friend, a non tournament match and anyway he didn't play in an inconvenient way, simply he played a Mongol army in the way he should do, and we had a boring evening. Many other players here told similar experiences, but I don't know their grade of experience with FOG.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:47 pm

Many other players here told similar experiences, but I don't know their grade of experience with FOG

Actually, that isn't the case. Apart from Peter, Tim Porter, Ethan and yourself then I haven't heard anybody else moaning. Perhaps four counts as many?

marioslaz · Post by **marioslaz** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:14 pm

dave_r wrote:
Many other players here told similar experiences, but I don't know their grade of experience with FOG
Actually, that isn't the case. Apart from Peter, Tim Porter, Ethan and yourself then I haven't heard anybody else moaning. Perhaps four counts as many?

Are you sure? I don't think you make a right calculation. Since I follow this post I got impression another 3-4 players were not satisfied with actual system. If you think a while, this means near half of people who attend to this thread (this of course doesn't mean half of people who play to FOG is not satisfied). What should alarm you is the fact that a French and a Spanish player said players in their nations are leaving FOG for other games, and in Italy players are limiting LH bases in armies, an attitude which, if confirmed, would drive soon to disaffection to FOG. I think if you love a game you should listen to the problems of other players in your community, because you have much more to lose than me. I'm a convention organizer and if FOG languish I can substitute it with another game (I don't like DBx series, but if I can get 20-30 players what matter). Can you say the same?

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:32 pm

Well, looking at the armies I might be facing this weekend I may have a different opinion on Monday but at present I still think that the way light horse work in FoG and the counters to them are faaaar better than they are in any other ruleset I have played.

I don't see how you will 'improve' things with a different scoring system. If players want to not lose they will find ways to do it with any ruleset. DBM was full of super negative play and in part that is what finally terminated my love affair with the game. So far I have not experienced anything like that level of negative play in FoG. Time will tell.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:33 pm

The Spanish have never travelled anyway and have never had particularly large numbers. Italy is largely split down the middle between FoG and DBMM.

Numbers aren't a problem in the UK with the FoG tournament scene growing steadily - why change what isn't broken?

Since, as you yourself admit, you don't have enough experience to evaluate fully the interaction why are you so intent on immediate changes?

If the players in Spain or Italy don't want to play FoG that is fine - you can't make them, but I suspect the LH thing is just an excuse.