Slitherine

david53 wrote:

expendablecinc wrote:
There is and they have. Some combination of
- 2 ap for an evade off table
- Can evade off side edges as well
- CMT to turn 90 and move
- CT at the end of any evade move (running out of puff, ammunition, chutzpah)

As Dave says you'll punish those that use LH aggressively by doing the above!

You will?

I use light horse fairly agressively and I don't see anything in there that I would not be happy to play with.

hammy wrote:

david53 wrote:

expendablecinc wrote:
There is and they have. Some combination of
- 2 ap for an evade off table
- Can evade off side edges as well
- CMT to turn 90 and move
- CT at the end of any evade move (running out of puff, ammunition, chutzpah)

As Dave says you'll punish those that use LH aggressively by doing the above!

You will?

I use light horse fairly agressively and I don't see anything in there that I would not be happy to play with.

Whilst I wouldn't agree that all of that list are either necessary or desirable, I concur that they wouldn't change how I use LH which, I think, is reasonably aggressively.

expendablecinc wrote:

david53 wrote:

expendablecinc wrote:
There is and they have. Some combination of
- 2 ap for an evade off table
- Can evade off side edges as well
- CMT to turn 90 and move
- CT at the end of any evade move (running out of puff, ammunition, chutzpah)

As Dave says you'll punish those that use LH aggressively by doing the above!

I agree that the 4th suggestion punishes the aggressive LH play but the first three should only affect in the situations after multiple evades and would require determined pursuit on behalf of the opponent.

So it would - I have no particular problem with the first three suggestions, but the fourth would completely kill of LH armies.

dave_r wrote:
So it would - I have no particular problem with the first three suggestions, but the fourth would completely kill of LH armies.

Let's say that you check the CT with a +5. Would it kill them then?

I think that the idea is good, specially to counter light foot. In general I think that CMT should be transformed into CT but keeping the difference between drilled (7's) and undrilled (8's). You always do the movement at a certain cost. People will then have to think about doing complicated manouvers and the game will add an interesting point. Now you always try the complex move and if not succesful you do the simple one. There is no risk in trying. My bottom line is that if you order your troops to turn and move, they will do it but the problem is how the formation ends up. Fragmented troops would see in this case their movements very limited, which I think is in the spirit of a fragmented troop.

Regarding LH, to diferentiate it from LF, it can simply have a plus when checking for evading (+2 or +3).

Strategos69 wrote:

dave_r wrote:
So it would - I have no particular problem with the first three suggestions, but the fourth would completely kill of LH armies.

Let's say that you check the CT with a +5. Would it kill them then?

I think that the idea is good, specially to counter light foot. In general I think that CMT should be transformed into CT but keeping the difference between drilled (7's) and undrilled (8's). You always do the movement at a certain cost. People will then have to think about doing complicated manouvers and the game will add an interesting point. Now you always try the complex move and if not succesful you do the simple one. There is no risk in trying. My bottom line is that if you order your troops to turn and move, they will do it but the problem is how the formation ends up. Fragmented troops would see in this case their movements very limited, which I think is in the spirit of a fragmented troop.

Regarding LH, to diferentiate it from LF, it can simply have a plus when checking for evading (+2 or +3).

You are responding to the wrong point. I have no problem with a CMT to turn and move. I have a problem with the CT at the end of an evade.

dave_r wrote:
You are responding to the wrong point. I have no problem with a CMT to turn and move. I have a problem with the CT at the end of an evade.

No, I did not explain myself properly. I am referring to all CMT's turned into CT always not only in this specific case, (that way we would solve other problems like turning in front of the enemy, but that is another topic). And evading troops should check a CT when evading, all of them. Thus, the point here is about modifiers. If you put a +3 or whatever for LH evading when checking the CT, then it will not cut those armies down a lot, but a bit. I think there is a margin to find a balance. Losing a level of cohesion when rolling 3 or less is not a big issue.

Strategos69 wrote:

dave_r wrote:
You are responding to the wrong point. I have no problem with a CMT to turn and move. I have a problem with the CT at the end of an evade.

No, I did not explain myself properly. I am referring to all CMT's turned into CT always not only in this specific case, (that way we would solve other problems like turning in front of the enemy, but that is another topic). And evading troops should check a CT when evading, all of them. Thus, the point here is about modifiers. If you put a +3 or whatever for LH evading when checking the CT, then it will not cut those armies down a lot, but a bit. I think there is a margin to find a balance. Losing a level of cohesion when rolling 3 or less is not a big issue.

Do you want your games to last three and a half hours or three and a half minutes?

This is quite simply a ridiculous suggestion.

dave_r wrote:
Do you want your games to last three and a half hours or three and a half minutes?

This is quite simply a ridiculous suggestion.

3 1/2 minutes for middling players perhaps. Skilled players will finish in about 90 seconds. We could have 80 round tournaments though.

spikemesq wrote:

dave_r wrote:
Do you want your games to last three and a half hours or three and a half minutes?

This is quite simply a ridiculous suggestion.

3 1/2 minutes for middling players perhaps. Skilled players will finish in about 90 seconds. We could have 80 round tournaments though.

Tell you what, I've had a brilliant idea - we'll throw a dice at the beginning of the game and the one who scores highest wins. If you are all drilled then you get +1 on your dice.

That way we could get, say, 400 tournament rounds in one day! It's the future

hammy wrote:

david53 wrote:

expendablecinc wrote:
There is and they have. Some combination of
- 2 ap for an evade off table
- Can evade off side edges as well
- CMT to turn 90 and move
- CT at the end of any evade move (running out of puff, ammunition, chutzpah)

As Dave says you'll punish those that use LH aggressively by doing the above!

You will?

I use light horse fairly agressively and I don't see anything in there that I would not be happy to play with.

A CT at every evade how long would the troops last need a seven to pass might as well do it for shooty cavalry as well, not including the chance of being disrupted from enemy action? at least the games would be fun.

Its going over the top this pick on skirmishers some people will not be happy till the tables covered in terrian and all the troops are heavy/medium armoured foot oh drilled as well and we line up 6inch in from the centre of the table.

dave_r wrote:
Do you want your games to last three and a half hours or three and a half minutes?

This is quite simply a ridiculous suggestion.

Another good show of politeness and open mind, dave_r...

Think carefully and you will see it is not that a big change but with gains in historicity. It will depend heavily on the modifiers to the CT. What does not have much sense is failing a CMT and then, suddenly, the officer decides that instead of wheeling we are advancing and so do the troops.

Regarding the topic, first, most of descriptions of Ancient battles do not include all the fancy turns we can do in FoG. It is so weird that a game in which we accept the idea of big groups as philosophy of the game we then turn to movement like in skirmishing games such as Warhammer. Second, look at the tables and you will see that most of the movements in a battle are simple. CT's should be when you are close to the enemy to speed up the game and you do complicated manouvers.

Anyone with some experience in military instruction will tell you than even advancing in formation is hard for drilled troops. Gaps appear, troops do not keep the line and some parts advance in an irregular way. And if you don't believe them, check the description of Polybius of Issos.

By the way, if we apply the +2 in the CT to light horse when evading the odds (I hope my Maths are right) are 1/6, which means that average troops without any general around might lose a level the 15% of times. It seems a good mechanism to me as some light horse might be caught or dispersed while evading.

Perhaps to sort this problem out it is time for a bigger change. New troop types in even.

Light Horse: Parthian, Sassanid skirmishers, Greek and Numidian types who rarely, if ever, entered melee, unless against other true lights. Numidians would be superior here.
Light cavalry: Skythian, Hun, szekeler, Mongol, and Serbian Hussar types who could move around in swarms then concentrate for a decent charge
Medium Cavalry: earlier Romans/Greeks, Sassanids cavalry, early (pre-lance) barbarian types, Non-shock types who could skirmish but more often charged to contact when the odds looked reasonable
Heavy/Shock cavalry: Lancer types

The light horse could move as easily as LF and LH now, but get the same dice as LF.
Light cavalry move 6 MU and otherwise as Cav now but turn 180 for free (no armoured) and exceptional to be superior.
Medium Cavalry as cav now.
Shock Cav as shock now.


Basing would have to change

This would split Mongol Guard, Ghilmen from normal Light cavalry. Why would the guard/ghilmen skirmish, they may, but unlikely unless against knights.
Light cavalry with lance would be more effective. They could evade and then charge after splitting the enemy formation
Greek, Roman cavalry, that we "know" more about would behave the same as now.
Shock lancers would remain the same.
This would need thought on when the 'new' troop type, Light Cavalry, could charge battle troops. And how many dice they should get. I would suggest, a CMT to charge steady battle troops, like bow front rank types and lose 1 dice per three against troops that are not fragmented.

david53 wrote:

hammy wrote:

david53 wrote: As Dave says you'll punish those that use LH aggressively by doing the above!

You will?

I use light horse fairly agressively and I don't see anything in there that I would not be happy to play with.

A CT at every evade how long would the troops last need a seven to pass might as well do it for shooty cavalry as well, not including the chance of being disrupted from enemy action? at least the games would be fun.

Its going over the top this pick on skirmishers some people will not be happy till the tables covered in terrian and all the troops are heavy/medium armoured foot oh drilled as well and we line up 6inch in from the centre of the table.

Just to reiterate i was summing up points already made that I believe have merit, but that I said "some combination of" the above.

Personally the top three are all thats needed for the original stated problem of unbalanced aggregate game results from skirmisher armies compared to HF armies.

I have not got any real problems with the LH their role was to make life difficult to the opponent, except that their 7 MU is 1 MU to much.
One thing LH must stay in contact with steady foot even if they loose melée, strange for me.

My main problem is with the LF that can do almost anything they want, and usualy outperform their historical role.
Seeing LF moving unsupported, LF move to the rear of ennemy mounted units so they cannot recoil from steady foot.
LF that stop ennemy troops who do not charge them is kind of strange to me.

Jilu wrote:One thing LH must stay in contact with steady foot even if they loose melée, strange for me.

All mounted except elephants break off from steady foot.

Strategos69 wrote: By the way, if we apply the +2 in the CT to light horse when evading the odds (I hope my Maths are right) are 1/6, which means that average troops without any general around might lose a level the 15% of times. It seems a good mechanism to me as some light horse might be caught or dispersed while evading.

In that case you could save a dice roll and simply say that any evader scoring a +2 VMD drops a cohesion level.

lawrenceg wrote:In that case you could save a dice roll and simply say that any evader scoring a +2 VMD drops a cohesion level.

Mr Ruddock would have liked this rule last weekend. It would have saved three of his BG of LH.

lawrenceg wrote:
In that case you could save a dice roll and simply say that any evader scoring a +2 VMD drops a cohesion level.

It can be, but the odds should be different for light foot. Your mechanism is simpler, but in the other hand it does not allow you to adjust for different troop types (like cavalry or light foot evading) more accutarely than in intervals of 15% chance. I was also thinking of this CT as widespread, replacing CMT's.

Strategos69 wrote:
Regarding the topic, first, most of descriptions of Ancient battles do not include all the fancy turns we can do in FoG..

LH are supposed to be small groups riding up shooting falling back and others taking their place the square bases do no represent the actual troops.