Slitherine

hazelbark wrote:
So what? the odds are remote.

3% isn't that remote. assuming that it actually gets within charge reach, something like Later hoplite is going to make maybe 6 or 8 charges against LH in a game. So that's 24%

hazelbark wrote:
Lots of games have a lowest die roll is always a failure and highest is always a success.

That's not really an argument now is it. Any actual examples of HF catching LH are of course welcome - though I suspect the most likely scenario is a panic and a long evade (perhaps an evade rolling a 6 should also result in disruption?)

azrael86 wrote: though I suspect the most likely scenario is a panic and a long evade (perhaps an evade rolling a 6 should also result in disruption?)

I would be fine with that.

16% chance starts to really impact LH.

azrael86 wrote:

hazelbark wrote:
So what? the odds are remote.

3% isn't that remote. assuming that it actually gets within charge reach, something like Later hoplite is going to make maybe 6 or 8 charges against LH in a game. So that's 24%

Well, it's not so simple... percentage don't sum in this way. You should calculate the chance to get at least one success with eight attempts, having a chance of 3% of success. I don't remember in this moment the formula, but with "Calc" of Open Office you can get the result without too much calculation.

Anyway, IMO the problem is not HF cannot get LH, because this is historical. The problem is when I play with an infantry army I cannot do nothing versus an LH army. My thought is it could get a good result without modify movement rules in an unrealistic way. The system to judge a win is good as now it is for a match between two armies with a great part of line troops. If one army has a great percentage of skirmishers, this system is not as much good.

marioslaz wrote: Anyway, IMO the problem is not HF cannot get LH, because this is historical. The problem is when I play with an infantry army I cannot do nothing versus an LH army. My thought is it could get a good result without modify movement rules in an unrealistic way.

I think what is missing, as people have hinted at, is why these two armies would be fighting out on the steppes (or anywhere for that matter).

If we modeled it on the Romans marching on Ctesiphon maybe we would get somewhere. It seems like the historical record is something like:

• Romans get tired of Parthians, decide to nick Parthian treasure.
• Romans invade, clever Romans pick a parth through hills, along a river, etc. They tend not to wander out into the middle of nowhere.
• Parthians send out masses of skirmishers to harass and wear out the Romans along the way, but this is not enough to stop Romans
• Parthians could just ignore Romans, let them sack capitol but decide to make an effort to stop them and thus we have a battle.

It seems to me each of these is important and perhaps not well thought out in the rules. The rules are fine for two "heavy" armies clashing but the mobility allowed to lighter - especially skirmisher armies doesn't work as well.

I think two related changes would help a great deal.

The first and fourth point are important, they are the reason there is a battle. These are not just two a randome confrontation, they heave decided to have a battle. In particular, IMO we should agree that this represents the battle part of the campaign for the Parthians, not the days or weeks of harassing skirmishing. I think this has been discussed a good deal but some of the suggestions to cut down on the running away make a lot of sense. 2AP for lights fled off table (and easier to flee them off) and possible an increase in the value of camps (which might help with the Benny Hill end game, if camps counted as 1/3 of your attrition points instead of 2 they might be worth working a bit harder at to defend).

We probably need to give the Romans some greater chance than a +2 Initiative army rollin vs. a +4 and getting stuck in the steppe, competent Romans had no real reason to leave the hills or river valley they were marching through. IIRC Crassus was thought just to be stupid in the choice of route and even if we think Crassus is a +1 initiative army, it is still likely to happen to Caesar with a +3 or whatever. There is no reason the Romans HAD to be caught on a flat featureless plain...I also believe some Chinese armies had a habit of going out into the steppes, but then they took mostly moounted armies to do so...

Now, I actually like the FoG terrain system for the most part and I am good with leaving some greater value in winning the initiative roll, but the current Steppe terrain is too extreme IMO. So, what if we stick just a couple more terrain choices out in the steppes. This simulates the Romans having a plan to go through friendlier terrain, but perhaps getting caught at the edges of it, somewhere a bit friendlier for Parthians. I get somewhere on the order of 6 total available choices of RGo/DGo in the terrain list, which guarantees the Romans can try and get four pieces down. The Parthians will then try to get three opens down (along with the Romans compulsory open) to try and limit the total terrain, as opposed to taking the terrain themselves to try and minimize and get it in the corners.

I think we have to look back and give our generals a bit of credit, civilized armies incapable of managing didn't tend to wander out onto a flat featurless bit of terrain unless they were incompetent and steppe armies didn't offer them battle in any case without a reason. FoG is not IMO about weeks long harassment campaigns and so we shouldn't have bits in the rules to make up for that. If you feel that "well that isn't fair the steppe guys wouldn't fight an even points battle, they would skirmish the Romans down first..." Either rationalize it as "they already did, the Romans started out with 1200AP so this is looking pretty good now" or just get on with it as we have to rationalize every even points battle in some way...

Undoubtedly there are other changes possible, but I believe my initial four points are in the ballpark. Let's back up and ask why we might conceive of this battle happening and shape the terrain and outcomes appropriately.

IMHO considering Steppe to be the problem is missing the point. I usually do not even take an IC with LH/Cv armies (although it's always tempting, but for reasons other then the PBI). IME LH armies profit FAR more from moving first then from choosing the terrain, as such an IC is counterproductive.
Now let's assume the Romans won the Terrain selection what now? What kind of terrain is slowing LH more then HF? Sure you might be able to hole up between 2 or 3 pieces of terrain and become pretty unassailable ... but then armoured HF with an IC already is pretty LH proof. If you actually try to win the battle I'm afraid terrain is more of a hindrance. Sure IF the terrain (preferably difficult) happens to end up in a way that closes down a (short) side of the table pretty completely it will help. Usually it will be spread out over the table though, which is likely to impede the foot sloggers more then the LH.

Ghaznavid wrote:I'm afraid terrain is more of a hindrance. Sure IF the terrain (preferably difficult) happens to end up in a way that closes down a (short) side of the table pretty completely it will help. Usually it will be spread out over the table though, which is likely to impede the foot sloggers more then the LH.

I disagree. Having a few pieces out there is a help IMO. It can give you a flank to anchor on and cut down in the total amount of frontage you have to try and cover, RGo in particular makes MF pretty powerful (as they are normally a target for cataphracts and such) and DGo makes LF able to stand up to LH. Even pieces seemingly scattered about at random can make it harder for the LH army to just redeploy around a flank.

Yes, terrain can be a hindrance, but I would rather have some it than a completely open table. Now it isn't the whole solution, but it is a partial one. In any case, if you don't think it would help you can always choose gentle hills, but a number of other people seems to think terrain is an issue and it would help for them.

Hmmm, last time I play against a steppe army with my LRR, I was happy to fight in steppe and I choose Open in hope to have the most open table.
I finish with a winning draw, only 2 AP to broke the early horse nomad with and with one of the funniest game ( not so for the steppe player). Cross charge have funny result !

ethan wrote:

Ghaznavid wrote:I'm afraid terrain is more of a hindrance. Sure IF the terrain (preferably difficult) happens to end up in a way that closes down a (short) side of the table pretty completely it will help. Usually it will be spread out over the table though, which is likely to impede the foot sloggers more then the LH.

I disagree. Having a few pieces out there is a help IMO. It can give you a flank to anchor on and cut down in the total amount of frontage you have to try and cover, RGo in particular makes MF pretty powerful (as they are normally a target for cataphracts and such) and DGo makes LF able to stand up to LH. Even pieces seemingly scattered about at random can make it harder for the LH army to just redeploy around a flank.

Yes, terrain can be a hindrance, but I would rather have some it than a completely open table. Now it isn't the whole solution, but it is a partial one. In any case, if you don't think it would help you can always choose gentle hills, but a number of other people seems to think terrain is an issue and it would help for them.

I'm with Karsten on this one. Terrain is a major hindrance to most foot armies when fighting LH in competitions. Given the time limit on games, a lot of terrain pieces end up as refuges for hard pressed skirmishers to hide in or behind. Terrain is great for infantry armies wishing to defend and get a draw but it's largely a hindrance if you want a win.

I agree with the idea that the camp should be worth a lot more in terms of attrition points. If on top of that you can only deploy it in the central sector, it would encourage both sides to have a go.

Julian

Interesting the different views. I think the steppe terrain is unappealing visually.

I think rough going is a tremendous asset to MF versus shooty cav. But the shooty cav have more advantages than just steppe agreed.

hazelbark wrote:I think rough going is a tremendous asset to MF versus shooty cav. But the shooty cav have more advantages than just steppe agreed.

Perhaps but what has that got to do with light horse?

I am in the terrain gets in the way of infantry trying to shove light horse off the table camp. I would far rather fight a light horse army in the steppe but move first than fight in any other terrain and move second.

But not every army can play the "shove the LH off the table" game. For example armies that simply can't deploy this wide or which fear the occasional lancer BG that accompanies the LH army.
For these situations some terrain on the flanks should prove useful.

Mehrunes wrote:But not every army can play the "shove the LH off the table" game. For example armies that simply can't deploy this wide or which fear the occasional lancer BG that accompanies the LH army.
For these situations some terrain on the flanks should prove useful.

I am not convinced.

If for example you have a large steep hill on each flank then you still have to move past it to get at the light horse and when you do you won't be wide enough. Armies that can't do the shove off the table trick have to try to gain a local superiority and catch the odd BG of skirmishers with their own light horse. If you have an army that can't go wide, doesn't have many mounted and has no significant missile capability then I am afraid you are very much the rock to the light horse paper.

If you have an army that can't go wide, doesn't have many mounted and has no significant missile capability then I am afraid you are very much the rock to the light horse paper.

And for these rocks some terrain is useful. At least it delays to get wrapped. It depends - like so often - on the situation.

hammy wrote:If you have an army that can't go wide, doesn't have many mounted and has no significant missile capability then I am afraid you are very much the rock to the light horse paper.

Which is, of course entirely historically realistic.

It simply isn't possible (despite points systems) to have a realistic set of rules that gives an even chance to an army in a situation in which that army would historically have been flummoxed.

A bit like if in Flames of War you take an army made up of 8 Panther tanks in mid war.

If I bring my Russian tanks army you will most likely slaughter me. If I instead 'cheat' and bring a massive mob of Russian infantry you simply won;t have the firepower to deal with me before you are swamped.

Partly I see the problem as the Light Horse paper beats the army that can't go wide etc. which is fine. The scissor army that is equally capable of destroying the LH paper isn't as obvious and those that tend to be very good at it are less good against other things. In particular, the LH army can often successfully run away and get a draw from the counter army.

Personally I'd go for Difficult terrain against a LH army. The best place for it to land IMO is on the LH's base edge so that you increase the chances of catching them in an evade if they're slowed or can't enter.

In particular, the LH army can often successfully run away and get a draw from the counter army

Not against a cavalry army (cf mamluk and Ilkhanid)

Personally I'd go for Difficult terrain against a LH army

Difficult to find any in the steppe !

rbodleyscott wrote:

hammy wrote:If you have an army that can't go wide, doesn't have many mounted and has no significant missile capability then I am afraid you are very much the rock to the light horse paper.

Which is, of course entirely historically realistic.

It simply isn't possible (despite points systems) to have a realistic set of rules that gives an even chance to an army in a situation in which that army would historically have been flummoxed.

So, if a player in an open tournament finds himself coupled to an opponent with an army which historically flummoxed his own, what should he do? Give up and going to the bar?
Rules must be historically accurate and cannot change a predictable outcome, so you cannot catch an LH army with an army of HI, but you cannot judge the outcome of a such play with the same system you use to decide a clash between two HI armies. It would be, if you let me this paragon, you want to judge the skill of a dancer and you ask him to sing. I thing this discussion could open to one of the greatest opportunity for wargame tournament system, but there must be the will to dare.

marioslaz wrote:So, if a player in an open tournament finds himself coupled to an opponent with an army which historically flummoxed his own, what should he do? Give up and going to the bar?
Rules must be historically accurate and cannot change a predictable outcome, so you cannot catch an LH army with an army of HI, but you cannot judge the outcome of a such play with the same system you use to decide a clash between two HI armies. It would be, if you let me this paragon, you want to judge the skill of a dancer and you ask him to sing. I thing this discussion could open to one of the greatest opportunity for wargame tournament system, but there must be the will to dare.

So you are saying different armies should be given different victory conditions, as well as the troops costing different numbers of points? So a crusader army must just get most of its troops across table to win. A mongol army the same. Both can then win and everyone can be happy.

Or we should hamstring the troops that one doesn't like, or have the skill to catch or use oneself. We can all then just line up our armies of HF across the table from each other, with a few BG of knights for excitement, plod forwards and roll dice. Very little skill, but there will be a result.