Slitherine

ethan wrote:

Three wrote:Gents,

I haven't played in a competition for 25 years, so I have no knowledge or experience concerning trends or phases with dominant army types. I would like someone with more relevant experience to possibly answer this one - is the perceived problem with LH/skirmisher type armies one that is confined to open competitions only, or do themed ones also "suffer" from the same problem?

TIA

I believe it does. The Romans (and Seleucids) had the Parthians, Huns, etc. Chinese had an seemingly endless array of Northern Barbarians, etc.

I agree themed competitions can suffer from the same problem. Of course it depends on the theme as to what LH armies are available and what counters the enemy might have.

Part of the issue might be that the response of more settled armies to very mobile ones was usually to rely of strategic defenses - river lines, fortifications etc. to stalemate the horsemen. Romans came to grief against Parthians when they advanced in the open without Armenian mounted allies. But they also had many dull games hugging the riverbank while they marched forward and then sacked the Parthian capital.

It's difficult to recreate this in a 3 hour game that gives a satisfactory conclusion.

grahambriggs wrote: Part of the issue might be that the response of more settled armies to very mobile ones was usually to rely of strategic defenses - river lines, fortifications etc. to stalemate the horsemen. Romans came to grief against Parthians when they advanced in the open without Armenian mounted allies. But they also had many dull games hugging the riverbank while they marched forward and then sacked the Parthian capital.

It's difficult to recreate this in a 3 hour game that gives a satisfactory conclusion.

True, but maybe there is more to this than we are giving it. Maybe what is needed is a model that better simulates the successes that civilized armies had against the LH armies. This might be something that makes it a bit easier to cover your flanks (the marching along the rive thing) and some realistic chance to push them off the table for a win (Presumably the Parthians don't want their capitol sacked) and somehow making it more tempting for the LH armies to actually fight (ala Ayn Jalut).

I wonder if it shouldn't be more tempting to make Cavalry a bit better? Much LH has an option to instead by unprotected or protected cavalry. Perhaps a bit of compensation for LH being made weaker (perhaps considerably) would be to make such cavalry a bit stronger. If it made more sense to take Mongols/etc as cavalry to fight the heavy foot armies, it would probably increase their vulnerability to mamluks as they would better be able to get to grips with them.

What if we had a package of rule changes:

- The wheel change, LH move 6 MU and you lose 2AP for anyone leavin the table
- Cavalry in a single deep line can make a 180 and move back a full move (as a simple advance) as a complex move (note: they can't turn around again as part of the same move).

ethan wrote:I wonder if it shouldn't be more tempting to make Cavalry a bit better? Much LH has an option to instead by unprotected or protected cavalry. Perhaps a bit of compensation for LH being made weaker (perhaps considerably) would be to make such cavalry a bit stronger. If it made more sense to take Mongols/etc as cavalry to fight the heavy foot armies, it would probably increase their vulnerability to mamluks as they would better be able to get to grips with them.

A reliable source was heard to say that a lot of the troops that are LH in the books should really be cavalry, especially the stuff with swords/any sort of melee capability. But to save too much re-basing they were defined as LH. Of course these could just be unsubstantiated rumours. We could ask Nik how true this is.

It would change the game dynamics massively, but I do like the idea of cav turning 180 and moving.

- Cavalry in a single deep line can make a 180 and move back a full move (as a simple advance) as a complex move (note: they can't turn around again as part of the same move).

And 6 month later, everyone whine about Ghilman too strong !

A reliable source was heard to say that a lot of the troops that are LH in the books should really be cavalry, especially the stuff with swords/any sort of melee capability. But to save too much re-basing they were defined as LH. Of course these could just be unsubstantiated rumours. We could ask Nik how true this is.

It would change the game dynamics massively, but I do like the idea of cav turning 180 and moving.

It does not necessarily require re-basing if we are a little bit more flexible with number of figures per base. I don't see any reason that cavalry could not have the option to have two figures per base.

And it would be nice if cavalry could be a little bit more manuevrable. I think the difference between LH an CV in the game is too great.

Hal

olivier wrote:

- Cavalry in a single deep line can make a 180 and move back a full move (as a simple advance) as a complex move (note: they can't turn around again as part of the same move).

And 6 month later, everyone whine about Ghilman too strong !

It wouldn't take that long!!! That would make Ghilman invincible.

olivier wrote:And 6 month later, everyone whine about Ghilman too strong !

There is only one answer then. Some want a game where there is always a chance of winning in 3 hours, there can be no corner sitting or slow play. Each player rolls 24 dice. Pair off the dice, highest to lowest and the number of dice you roll higher than your enemy is the score you get. Then go to the bar. The one that can drink the most wins.

- The wheel change, LH move 6 MU and you lose 2AP for anyone leavin the table

Be careful not to make any LH worse where mainly LH bow is the perceived problem.
I'm reading the thread with great interest but those wishes for rule changes always with my Numidians in mind.
They're merely crap now and would be nigh unplayable then.

So perhaps just raising the cost for bows on LH elements is sufficient? Would result in less of them and at the same time a lost BG would hurt more.

philqw78 wrote:

ethan wrote:I wonder if it shouldn't be more tempting to make Cavalry a bit better? Much LH has an option to instead by unprotected or protected cavalry. Perhaps a bit of compensation for LH being made weaker (perhaps considerably) would be to make such cavalry a bit stronger. If it made more sense to take Mongols/etc as cavalry to fight the heavy foot armies, it would probably increase their vulnerability to mamluks as they would better be able to get to grips with them.

A reliable source was heard to say that a lot of the troops that are LH in the books should really be cavalry, especially the stuff with swords/any sort of melee capability. But to save too much re-basing they were defined as LH. Of course these could just be unsubstantiated rumours. We could ask Nik how true this is.

Pretty much correct - I think Richard and I have both said this at various times.

It would change the game dynamics massively, but I do like the idea of cav turning 180 and moving.

It has crossed my mind that if we went hardline with removing the LH option from a lot of lists something along those lines would have to be considered. However, it is certainly something that could create a monster and would need careful testing. Maybe move 2 MU which would get back into shooting range most of the time. CMT may be needed for game balance.

One thing to bear in mind, of course, is that if they are not LH such shooty mounted "skirmishing" in 1 rank do not have the turn 90 degrees and scoot in the same formation that a 4 base LH BG can currently do.

nikgaukroger wrote:

It would change the game dynamics massively, but I do like the idea of cav turning 180 and moving.

It has crossed my mind that if we went hardline with removing the LH option from a lot of lists something along those lines would have to be considered. However, it is certainly something that could create a monster and would need careful testing. Maybe move 2 MU which would get back into shooting range most of the time. CMT may be needed for game balance.

One thing to bear in mind, of course, is that if they are not LH such shooty mounted "skirmishing" in 1 rank do not have the turn 90 degrees and scoot in the same formation that a 4 base LH BG can currently do.

It also removes most of the ability to concentrate fire, which also requires careful testing. We might overcompensate otherwise. If the "be 1 deep" requirement is kept I fear it could strengthen certain armies (mostly Mongols) that can be all drilled (ok, Mongols are good but not overly so currently, mainly because they lack enough cheap "filler" I guess), but it might trash armies that are all undrilled. The inability to expand without CMT (much less expend and advance) becomes a hefty disadvantage if your force is suddenly all Cv.

philqw78 wrote:

olivier wrote:And 6 month later, everyone whine about Ghilman too strong !

There is only one answer then. Some want a game where there is always a chance of winning in 3 hours, there can be no corner sitting or slow play. Each player rolls 24 dice. Pair off the dice, highest to lowest and the number of dice you roll higher than your enemy is the score you get. Then go to the bar. The one that can drink the most wins.

so where is the downside to getting to the bar earlier ?

I find it quite a mental adjustment to think of the mass of huns being treated as cav rather than LH, though. Maybe that's just old wargamer's prejudice kicking in again I don't really see the logic of doing that only for bow shooters and not javelin chuckers.

I've found myself wondering from time to time if LH bow shooting ranges shouldn't be reduced - or perhaps make 4MU extreme range and 2MU effective range.

There is therefore an incentive to get a bit closer when shooting in order to have a reasonable chance of causing damage of some sort, which in turn means more chance of getting caught evading by mounted opponents. An additional effect would be to make javelin armed LH stack up better against bow LH, since for fully effective bow shooting you need to expose yoursefl to return fire.

Hmmm...now that I think about it again, 1 dice per 3 bases at extreme range might make the decision on whether to deploy LH in 4s or 6s a bit trickier. A BG of 6 would be a bit less manoeuvrable but would be more effective shooting at longer ranges, i.e. edging towards behaving a bit more like cav and less like the usual LH.

ShrubMiK wrote: Hmmm...now that I think about it again, 1 dice per 3 bases at extreme range might make the decision on whether to deploy LH in 4s or 6s a bit trickier. A BG of 6 would be a bit less manoeuvrable but would be more effective shooting at longer ranges, i.e. edging towards behaving a bit more like cav and less like the usual LH.

You could let LH shoot three ranks deep and do this as well. LH most likely "shoot" by sending small groups of riders up to "shoot and scoot" in anycase rather than standin there in a mass formation blazing away.

One thing to bear in mind, of course, is that if they are not LH such shooty mounted "skirmishing" in 1 rank do not have the turn 90 degrees and scoot in the same formation that a 4 base LH BG can currently do.

_________________
Nik Gaukroger

Base cav the same as chariots, on a square base. I find the problem with 90 degree turns for single rank cav the most frustrating of all.

You could also insitute a rule that a 6 and 1 on the VMD automatically mean a unit is caught and the evading unit is kept in contact with the pursuers actual move.

3% chance that even HF could catch LH would be a minor shift and not game changing.

That and/or raise the HPB to cause a test with LH to 1 per 4 makes it much harder for LH to force 6 stand units to test.

hazelbark wrote:You could also insitute a rule that a 6 and 1 on the VMD automatically mean a unit is caught and the evading unit is kept in contact with the pursuers actual move.

3% chance that even HF could catch LH would be a minor shift and not game changing.

.

I like that. Its fun and a bit silly - exactly what's missing !

david53 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:
How about 6MU move for LH? And indeed those other changes we put in FoG:R?

I agree with nick drop LH to 6MU
and medium foot to 3MU
Should make the game more tighter.

What have the MF done to deserve this? Apart from increasing the vulnerability of MF to HF, if LH move 6 and MF 3 then the LH are actually better than with 7 and 4! LH or Cv B then get to shoot from outside MF charge range, the LH can CMT to shuffle back 3MU and unless they fail the MF can NEVER charge them!

hazelbark wrote:You could also insitute a rule that a 6 and 1 on the VMD automatically mean a unit is caught and the evading unit is kept in contact with the pursuers actual move.

3% chance that even HF could catch LH would be a minor shift and not game changing.

Seems a bit extreme. Say the HF charge from 3 mu, with the 6,1 the LH go 5 as do the HF. So you are saying the LH only go 2?

It gets worse - what if two units are charging?

Imagine

LHLH
3
HF
1
Cv

so, the LH evade with a 1, the HF roll6, and the Cv, who are 4MU from the LH, roll a 5....

LH get caught by the foot. But the Cv only go 6MU, so wouldn't have caught them, EXCEPT your rule means they do.

the LH can CMT to shuffle back 3MU and unless they fail the MF can NEVER charge them!

And if they fail the CMT you could just turn, move and shoot backwards so they could never charge at all.

azrael86 wrote:

hazelbark wrote:You could also insitute a rule that a 6 and 1 on the VMD automatically mean a unit is caught and the evading unit is kept in contact with the pursuers actual move.

3% chance that even HF could catch LH would be a minor shift and not game changing.

Seems a bit extreme.
LH get caught by the foot. But the Cv only go 6MU, so wouldn't have caught them, EXCEPT your rule means they do.

So what? the odds are remote. Lots of games have a lowest die roll is always a failure and highest is always a success.

Occassionally the LH could get dispersed, this gives an outside chance.