Damn Light Horse again

[dave_r]

Then I admire your persistence in using Skythian all the time. It must be disheartening having your opponents continually running over the table and "battering" them

You aren't kidding. Long gone are the days of protected Heavy Foot wandering across the table getting shot to ribbons. I have to work bloody hard for a win now let me tell you!

As ever, the mental stimulation is enjoyable though, as others have pointed out, I go for the jugular when using the Skythians (or Bosporans as I now take) and will always take risks, meaning my opponent will always get a game rather than a skirmish.

[gozerius]

I'd be a bit wary of using players moving over to WW2 gaming as evidence that there is something badly wrong with FoG (which I've noticed a few people doing recently). Maybe some people find tanks and big explosions inherently more fun, and no amount of tinkering with rules or scoring systems will do much about that.

Or maybe, just maybe, it is possible to play two sets of rules, one covering ancients and the other covering WW II?

It's a crazy idea, but it just might work.

You mean like enjoying ancients AND WWII air games? Nah. That's a myth.

[AlanYork]

As I have previously stated you can't make people play a game and if they are going to try once and then give up I would suggest they aren't particularly commited in the first place. However, I am interested to know - what the hell where the opponents of the Light Horse using such that they could simply run over the table and batter them? Light Horse takes time and need many turns to soften up their enemy, you can't simply "ride over the table" and shoot somebody to death. It also takes a lot of risk if you want to win rather than get slight victories or defeats.

True, the problem is really a comp one. that LH armies are a heads I win, tails I draw Option. Suppose I pick a solid army, let us say Alex Mac.
In an open comp,. if I draw an army with knights, I have a chance: If I draw another combined arms army(e.g. LRR), I have a chance, because my cav and pike are good. If I draw a warband/heavy foot army (e.g. Viking or ancient brit) I have a good chance, although I'm outnumbered. If I draw a LH army, say Parthian. It is literally unbeatable. It throws the cats in (which some players won't, but say they do) - and I kill them, losing a unit in the process. Now I can't catch the LH, best option is something like a 12-8, even having killed the 2 or 3 of the enemies best units.
Please explain how you can get a better result against a competent opponent?

Have to agree with you there.

I played against a Parthian army with my Pontics (legionary version) in a 500 pts tourney using smaller tables a couple of weeks ago. More than half my army was useless as terrain went against me and we ended up playing in an open field pretty much. Even if my heavy cavalry had overwhelmed his cataphracts (which they didn't) there was just no way my line of legionaries and other foot could have caught his horse archers and even if they had, my understanding is that there is no way I can get him to evade off table and get any attrition points for it.

I don't mind playing in an open field, that's the way it goes sometimes. I don't mind playing against Parthians - light horse armies are a perfectly valid choice and one day I will get that Alan army I have always promised myself. I don't even mind losing because his army is better suited to the conditions than mine, I could have chosen any number of armies but I selected Pontic, that's not my opponents problem. But to have literally next to no chance of winning seems to make the game a little pointless and if I was a beginner I'd be put off by playing a game I had almost zero chance of winning.

Half the problem with DBM was that heavy infantry armies were useless, so much so that often pikes were reduced to being "flying columns" or baggage guards. It seems to me that the easy and obvious answer in FoG is to change nothing other than give APs for chasing light horse off the table. Banning light horse armies or putting restrictions on the number of their BGs seems artificial and to cause more problems than it solves and sticking to themed tournaments and games seems restrictive. After a while I'm going to get bored playing my Hellenistics against the same old Romans, Gauls and Persians, half the beauty of Ancients is the endless variety of opponents in "what if" games.

To alter the rules against LH armies seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut but to ignore the problem or deny it exists seems to be putting one's head in the sand. As I've said before with petrol being the ludicrous price it is here in the UK I'm not going to waste time and money going to tournaments to pointlessly chase LH around the board all day. I want a bit of fun with a fairly realistic rule set, which FoG pretty much is.

If I want MORE fun, what is IMO MORE realism and less chance of a headache then I spend a day playing Piquet at my friend's place! That's a full day's job though, with all the set up etc and whilst FoG isn't perfect once this LH problem is sorted out I can't see any major issues with what for me has become a set of rules that are a lot better than I thought they were originally.

[grahambriggs]

Have to agree with you there.

I played against a Parthian army with my Pontics (legionary version) in a 500 pts tourney using smaller tables a couple of weeks ago. More than half my army was useless as terrain went against me and we ended up playing in an open field pretty much. Even if my heavy cavalry had overwhelmed his cataphracts (which they didn't) there was just no way my line of legionaries and other foot could have caught his horse archers and even if they had, my understanding is that there is no way I can get him to evade off table and get any attrition points for it.

I don't mind playing in an open field, that's the way it goes sometimes. I don't mind playing against Parthians - light horse armies are a perfectly valid choice and one day I will get that Alan army I have always promised myself. I don't even mind losing because his army is better suited to the conditions than mine, I could have chosen any number of armies but I selected Pontic, that's not my opponents problem. But to have literally next to no chance of winning seems to make the game a little pointless and if I was a beginner I'd be put off by playing a game I had almost zero chance of winning.

Half the problem with DBM was that heavy infantry armies were useless, so much so that often pikes were reduced to being "flying columns" or baggage guards. It seems to me that the easy and obvious answer in FoG is to change nothing other than give APs for chasing light horse off the table. Banning light horse armies or putting restrictions on the number of their BGs seems artificial and to cause more problems than it solves and sticking to themed tournaments and games seems restrictive. After a while I'm going to get bored playing my Hellenistics against the same old Romans, Gauls and Persians, half the beauty of Ancients is the endless variety of opponents in "what if" games.

To alter the rules against LH armies seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut but to ignore the problem or deny it exists seems to be putting one's head in the sand. As I've said before with petrol being the ludicrous price it is here in the UK I'm not going to waste time and money going to tournaments to pointlessly chase LH around the board all day. I want a bit of fun with a fairly realistic rule set, which FoG pretty much is.

If I want MORE fun, what is IMO MORE realism and less chance of a headache then I spend a day playing Piquet at my friend's place! That's a full day's job though, with all the set up etc and whilst FoG isn't perfect once this LH problem is sorted out I can't see any major issues with what for me has become a set of rules that are a lot better than I thought they were originally.

Erm, you get one attrition point for each enemy BG that evades off table. You did play that didn't you?

Heavy infantry armies were far from useless under much of DBM. Fanatic Berber (spear armed Heavy foot) won plently, as did hoplites. In period, my Akkadian pikes did just fine.

It will be interesting to see how much LH there is at the BHGS Challenge this weekend. Only a couple of out and out LH armies, but plenty that can have a fair number of LH and LF battlegroups. I was hoping for more to be honest. At least LH can't charge through my Aztecs frontally like knights can!

[AlanYork]

Have to agree with you there.

I played against a Parthian army with my Pontics (legionary version) in a 500 pts tourney using smaller tables a couple of weeks ago. More than half my army was useless as terrain went against me and we ended up playing in an open field pretty much. Even if my heavy cavalry had overwhelmed his cataphracts (which they didn't) there was just no way my line of legionaries and other foot could have caught his horse archers and even if they had, my understanding is that there is no way I can get him to evade off table and get any attrition points for it.

I don't mind playing in an open field, that's the way it goes sometimes. I don't mind playing against Parthians - light horse armies are a perfectly valid choice and one day I will get that Alan army I have always promised myself. I don't even mind losing because his army is better suited to the conditions than mine, I could have chosen any number of armies but I selected Pontic, that's not my opponents problem. But to have literally next to no chance of winning seems to make the game a little pointless and if I was a beginner I'd be put off by playing a game I had almost zero chance of winning.

Half the problem with DBM was that heavy infantry armies were useless, so much so that often pikes were reduced to being "flying columns" or baggage guards. It seems to me that the easy and obvious answer in FoG is to change nothing other than give APs for chasing light horse off the table. Banning light horse armies or putting restrictions on the number of their BGs seems artificial and to cause more problems than it solves and sticking to themed tournaments and games seems restrictive. After a while I'm going to get bored playing my Hellenistics against the same old Romans, Gauls and Persians, half the beauty of Ancients is the endless variety of opponents in "what if" games.

To alter the rules against LH armies seems to be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut but to ignore the problem or deny it exists seems to be putting one's head in the sand. As I've said before with petrol being the ludicrous price it is here in the UK I'm not going to waste time and money going to tournaments to pointlessly chase LH around the board all day. I want a bit of fun with a fairly realistic rule set, which FoG pretty much is.

If I want MORE fun, what is IMO MORE realism and less chance of a headache then I spend a day playing Piquet at my friend's place! That's a full day's job though, with all the set up etc and whilst FoG isn't perfect once this LH problem is sorted out I can't see any major issues with what for me has become a set of rules that are a lot better than I thought they were originally.

Erm, you get one attrition point for each enemy BG that evades off table. You did play that didn't you?

Heavy infantry armies were far from useless under much of DBM. Fanatic Berber (spear armed Heavy foot) won plently, as did hoplites. In period, my Akkadian pikes did just fine.

It will be interesting to see how much LH there is at the BHGS Challenge this weekend. Only a couple of out and out LH armies, but plenty that can have a fair number of LH and LF battlegroups. I was hoping for more to be honest. At least LH can't charge through my Aztecs frontally like knights can!

Never got close enough to his LH to find out Graham! Yes of course you are right it is 1 AP, I think 2 APs would give a much better game balance though.

DBM? Well that may have been your experience, it certainly wasn't mine though towards the end steps were taken to limit the powers of the "super skirmishers" (Or should that have been "steppes"????)

Best of luck with your Aztecs, a horrid religion IMO but a very pretty army.

[madmike111]

Best of luck with your Aztecs, a horrid religion

sounds a bit racist on your part, i think a report to the local Human Rights commission is in order!

[ShrubMiK]

You should have a decent shot at beating Parthians with something like Pontic...if you can put something against his cataphracts that hold him up for long enough before caving in, you can get something around their flank - which LH on their own are going to struggle to stop. Ideally of course you want to put your HF against the cats and try and flank with cav, other way round may take a bit longer I almost managed to pull this off against nasty evil Alans a week or two back, despite the roadbump I had matched up against all his lancers being only poor protected HF light spear, sword.

If you can kill a few BG of cats, maybe pick up the enemy camp which has nothing solid to defend it, and not stupidly get yourself shot to bits by remaining horse archers, you've won.

Of course, this puts us firmly back to the point made by several people already...if your personal definition of a "win" requires breaking the enemy army, and anything less you regard as a "draw", it's going to be hard to get that "win". And if the tournament scoring system requires you to break the enemy army every game in order to have a shot at winning the tournament and if that is important to your fun, then yes you'll be dischuffed.

[nikgaukroger]

You should have a decent shot at beating Parthians with something like Pontic...

An excellent army for fighting Parthians IMO, however, the 500 point game Alan was talking about probably is in favour of the Parthians as their LH are just 8 points a pop, unless the table was very small. I used a 650 point version at Hammy's first Birmingham bash on the 5x3 tables and very nearly pushed Ian Speed's Skythians off the table in a ding dong battle.

[ShrubMiK]

Ah - I missed the 500pts bit!

[kevinj]

I always struggle fitting everything I want into 800 points. I'm not sure how I'd cope with only 500. Did that include generals?

[Rekila]

Probably not the moment to ask such a question, but: How it goes a battle of a LH army against another? That idea of the Carthaginian invasion of Numidia is getting me. Thanks in advance

[AlanYork]

I always struggle fitting everything I want into 800 points. I'm not sure how I'd cope with only 500. Did that include generals?

Yes it did, I think everyone took two. The armies were Pontic, Parthian, Late Republican Roman, Principate Roman, Carthaginian and Hittite. Six of us played three games in a day on three tables with a cut down playing area, to be honest I forget what the actual size was, terrain was limited to the compulsory piece and 0 - 2 non compulsories per player so still the potential for a fair bit of it. Great fun.

The Parthians won hands down, no other army got close, literally and metaphorically.

[azrael86]

The Parthians won hands down, no other army got close, literally and metaphorically.

So did the Parthian actually beat the other armies, i.e. crush the legions and the phalanx, or did it wipe out skirmishers and 'win' games 14-6 or 13-7?

Perhaps the solution is to move from +5 to +7, but with a rider that a losing army inflicting more than 50% AP gets a bonus of +4. then a bloodthirsty draw is in both sides interest....

[AlanYork]

The Parthians won hands down, no other army got close, literally and metaphorically.

So did the Parthian actually beat the other armies, i.e. crush the legions and the phalanx, or did it wipe out skirmishers and 'win' games 14-6 or 13-7?

Perhaps the solution is to move from +5 to +7, but with a rider that a losing army inflicting more than 50% AP gets a bonus of +4. then a bloodthirsty draw is in both sides interest....

I don't know. We had one gaming table in the kitchen and two in the lounge. I played all my games including my first game ie the one against the Parthians in the kitchen of the host's house but the Parthians moved into the lounge for their second and third games so I didn't see them. I can only assume they danced away a lot as they only had 1 point scored against them all day.

[ShrubMiK]

I'm not sure that follows. A series of decisive wins requires them to kill lots of stuff. "Dancing away" lots makes that harder to achieve. And once you've killed lots of stuff there doesn't seem much need to "dance away".

Assuming that you were using the standard scoring system?

[madaxeman]

I don't know. We had one gaming table in the kitchen and two in the lounge. I played all my games including my first game ie the one against the Parthians in the kitchen of the host's house but the Parthians moved into the lounge for their second and third games so I didn't see them. I can only assume they danced away a lot as they only had 1 point scored against them all day.

How many APs do you get for a unit which actually moves into another room entirely ?

That does sound to me like evidence that LH have too much maneuverability* !!

tim

(* People from Manchester may disagree. However they are all poor northerners and generally only can afford houses with just one room, so are unlikely to have considered this issue)

[david53]

I don't know. We had one gaming table in the kitchen and two in the lounge. I played all my games including my first game ie the one against the Parthians in the kitchen of the host's house but the Parthians moved into the lounge for their second and third games so I didn't see them. I can only assume they danced away a lot as they only had 1 point scored against them all day.

How many APs do you get for a unit which actually moves into another room entirely ?

That does sound to me like evidence that LH have too much maneuverability* !!

tim

(* People from Manchester may disagree. However they are all poor northerners and generally only can afford houses with just one room, so are unlikely to have considered this issue)

Yes true but we do have big rooms up here!

[philqw78]

How many APs do you get for a unit which actually moves into another room entirely ?

That does sound to me like evidence that LH have too much maneuverability* !!

tim

(* People from Manchester may disagree. However they are all poor northerners and generally only can afford houses with just one room, so are unlikely to have considered this issue)

We have another room outside as well. At the bottom of the yard. The corporation come and empty it every week or so.

The corporation muck cart was filled up to the brim,
The corporation driver fell in and he could not swim,
He sank right to the bottom just like a little stone,
And then he started singing,
"Theres no place like Home"

Courtesy the Oldham Tinkers

[MatteoPasi]

I think the Italian idea of excluding Mongols from a Storm of Arrows/Oath of Fealty competition is therefore a very sensible response to the issue. (Though I hope not all Oath of Fealty tournaments will do this, because the Mongols and the Andalusians were armies that European armies did have to deal with).

We had learned from past errors, the previous tournement with Oath of Fealty was winned by a Mongol Conquest with 81 points in 4 game.
The theme of the tournement was "Crusedes" but there whene no crusaders at all (but lots of arabs and mameluks)

Matteo

[Mehrunes]

And why did you allow an army from EoD in an OoF themed tournament?

The last tournament on german soil came close with Mongol Conquest at 80.3 points in 4 games.
But is it actually a typical LH army? I think most of the work is done by the Cv.