Slitherine

pezhetairoi wrote: Just out of curiosity (and unrelated to this post), which city-state do you play? I have some hoplite mercs that I'm thinking of expanding into an army.

Syracusan army is great! It brings you the possibility of adding many mercenary units so that, without painting a single base more of spears, you can have some Italians, Gauls, Campanian cavalry, Spanish... My army started as an Athenian force and finally became the besiedged Syracusans. Maybe in the future they will be expanded into Athenians.

madaxeman wrote:
This doesn't strike me as specifically a "cavalry vs infantry combat mechanics" issue, it's part of a broader "the POA for armoured is too effective" issue, plus a "very few infantry are superior but most cavalry are" issue.

It is true that this broad issue affectes deeply this interaction. The problem I see making all cavalry the same, collapsing troop types into average and protected, is that we get less the historical interaction that happened if all troops in all armies end up being the same. It also makes me wonder why there are four types of quality troops and armour type. If the intention of troop quality and armour is merely related to their historical counterparts (we all agree that Middle Age steel and armour were far better than those from Ancient times), it strikes me that we end up making most troops average and protected when there are four categories that could be used.

In book 1 I have counted 5 troops with the heavy armour type and in the book 3 they are 2, all of them are cataphracts, a total of 7out of more than 200 different options. Then cataphracts PoA could have captured better the interaction than having an amour type that is not used. And that is similar for the elite grading. The opposite option to transform the cavalry is making all protected infantry line armoured and some picked armoured, heavily armoured. As it was said before, those changes are always bigger than altering the PoA's to make them fit a more logical situation.

As noted before, it has little sense for the cavalry to break off from a combat they are winning. Even if we take the situation of average protected cavalry it is:
- PoA at impact, independently of who charged
Even against protected swordsmen
- PoA as long as spearmen are steady, then even.

Their chances of winning are reduced but however it is hard to find the logic of the mounted evading when they are not that disadvantaged at melee.

Note: as described by pezhetairoi, during a game it is not that hard for the more mobile cavalry to be advantaged in critical combats where overlaps will help to disperse the HF dice.

Grading is a good way to ensure that troops who are equipped the same, but of a different quality gets the correct historical result.

I like the POA's as they stand. They are easy, simple and they work. Why would we change them?

Apart from Tim griping about armour, I think changes to Points values are more appropriate.

dave_r wrote: Apart from Tim griping about armour, I think changes to Points values are more appropriate.

As I would but I don't think they'll change the army lists soon.

david53 wrote:

dave_r wrote: Apart from Tim griping about armour, I think changes to Points values are more appropriate.

As I would but I don't think they'll change the army lists soon.

Well that manages to ignore the v2 lists thread.

nikgaukroger wrote:

david53 wrote:

dave_r wrote: Apart from Tim griping about armour, I think changes to Points values are more appropriate.

As I would but I don't think they'll change the army lists soon.

Well that manages to ignore the v2 lists thread.

The problum I have is not with a single list, put the majority of them. Why are there so many superior troops allowed, sure there are examples of Superior type troops but for the majority of say anyone who can ride a horse being classed as superior. I'll copy this on to the V2 list thread.

That's because horses cost money. All that armour costs money. That's why the people on the horses tended to be the nobles - i.e. rich and powerful. That means they have spare time on their hands to train and practice and such like. Hence they are better than the infantry and the fighting lark. If the infantry are Average then that would make the horsemen Superior.

I don't see why people have a problem with around 25% of every army being Superior.

dave_r wrote:That's because horses cost money. All that armour costs money. That's why the people on the horses tended to be the nobles - i.e. rich and powerful. That means they have spare time on their hands to train and practice and such like. Hence they are better than the infantry and the fighting lark. If the infantry are Average then that would make the horsemen Superior.

if you think "all" horsemen are by definition better fighters than infantry, surely it would be better to reflect this in the POA system by giving mounted troops a POA against foot?

There is a serious point here however - quite often the "difference" between infantry and foot in combat does come down to the mounted troops Superiority (and an added general) - which itogether equate to roughly a POA. Everything else tends to net out. This does seem to me to suggest something in this interaction is worth looking at again to see if it can be made more interesting/complex/granular.

dave_r wrote:That's because horses cost money. All that armour costs money. That's why the people on the horses tended to be the nobles - i.e. rich and powerful. That means they have spare time on their hands to train and practice and such like. Hence they are better than the infantry and the fighting lark. If the infantry are Average then that would make the horsemen Superior.

I don't see why people have a problem with around 25% of every army being Superior.

There is a problem with the arbitrary classification of Superior and lack of consistency (other than nobles on horse = Superior). E.g. Early German - up to 12 bases of Superior cavalry (unless Tencteri who get zero), Early Saxon - up to 24 bases of Superior foot, Early Frank & Early Visigothic – up to 8 bases of Superior cavalry but no superior foot and Early Ostrogothic - up to 72 bases of Superior cavalry.

So either Franks & Visigoths had fewer nobles than Ostrogoths and Saxons or there are some missing nobles - and Tencteri had no nobles. Very democratic presumably.

Scots Isles and Highlands have no Superior yet when they fight for the Irish as Galloglaich they become Superior. What happened to the nobles? Early Medieval Irish can have up to 24 bases of Superior foot so it makes me wonder why they were so impressed by the 'Average' Islesmen in the first place.

Walter

@ Dave_r
The "rich men are better than poor men" argument seems a bit over-generalized for me. It may hold a little weight in medieval Europe, but in the ancient world????

My impression (perhaps incorrect) regarding grading, was that troops were graded according to others within their own class.
Thus superior cavalry are better than most other cavalry (who are considered average for cavalry), and are not compared to infantry grades in that regard. Superior cavalry are good at being cavalry and superior infantry are good at being infantry -- but otherwise they have very little in common.

If this is true, then "superior" has become the new "average" among the cavalry, since most players when given the choice, will pick superior (in the same way that I see a lot of superior mid republic legionaries). Heck, I would. So perhaps with player-help the cavalry grading has gotten out of control.

But I stick with my previous point, POAs by definition are about advantages, and who has them. In my opinion any cavalry who have failed to break-through at impact should be at a disadvantage to formed spearmen of any quality grade. Right now, they are not.

dave_r wrote:That's because horses cost money. All that armour costs money. That's why the people on the horses tended to be the nobles - i.e. rich and powerful. That means they have spare time on their hands to train and practice and such like. Hence they are better than the infantry and the fighting lark. If the infantry are Average then that would make the horsemen Superior.

I don't see why people have a problem with around 25% of every army being Superior.

There are a number of problems with your argument Dave. Firstly, your thinking would make the vast majority of Roman cavalry superior as they wore armour and rode on horses that often had a textile trapper. And of course Roman cavalry trained extensively on parade grounds designed specifically for cavalry, another indicator that they should be superior?

And I just dont buy into the argument that cavalry were better than infantry, have you bothered to read Rance at all?

ValentinianVictor wrote: And I just dont buy into the argument that cavalry were better than infantry, have you bothered to read Rance at all?

I have a few times, and you are rather generalising his findings if you think they can be applied over the whole chronological period and geographical area covered by FoG. At various times and in various places cavalry were clearly better than infantry - if we look at China, for example, at the time contemporary with the period Rance studies we see cavalry dominant in an area that has a perfectly good record of infantry warfare.

nikgaukroger wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote: And I just dont buy into the argument that cavalry were better than infantry, have you bothered to read Rance at all?

I have a few times, and you are rather generalising his findings if you think they can be applied over the whole chronological period and geographical area covered by FoG. At various times and in various places cavalry were clearly better than infantry - if we look at China, for example, at the time contemporary with the period Rance studies we see cavalry dominant in an area that has a perfectly good record of infantry warfare.

And thats always going to be an issue where a set of rules trys to cover every base, it too rather generalises in its approach.

...at various times and in various places cavalry were clearly better than infantry ...

My opinion is that many rules (and not just for Ancient) overestimate the performances of mounted attacks vs good moral/well drilled infantry.
To balance things without touching the lists nor adding more POA, how about anticipating the compulsory breakoff to just after the Impact result?
Rgds/Guglielmo

pezhetairoi wrote:My impression (perhaps incorrect) regarding grading, was that troops were graded according to others within their own class.

That is indeed incorrect.

That was how DBM worked, but not how FOG works.

In FOG the quality gradings are rated against to overall totality of troops, not against the "standard quality" of their own type.

That is why so many cavalry are rated as Superior - because in many armies they were rated more highly than the average infantrymen. And (except in times of long-term peace) such ratings are usually valid - if only because all those involved believe them to be so, and behave accordingly.

YMMV but that is the reasoning behind the present army lists - they didn't get lots of Superior cavalry by accident.

rbodleyscott wrote:

pezhetairoi wrote:My impression (perhaps incorrect) regarding grading, was that troops were graded according to others within their own class.

That is indeed incorrect.

That was how DBM worked, but not how FOG works.

In FOG the quality gradings are rated against to overall totality of troops, not against the "standard quality" of their own type.

That is why so many cavalry are rated as Superior - because in many armies they were rated more highly than the average infantrymen. And (except in times of long-term peace) such ratings are usually valid - if only because all those involved believe them to be so, and behave accordingly.

YMMV but that is the reasoning behind the present army lists - they didn't get lots of Superior cavalry by accident.

How does this work in the context if your side believes your cavalry are a superior troop type, but your enemy believes they are inferior? Surely its not what your side believes that counts, its how your enemy views your troops thats important?

ValentinianVictor wrote:How does this work in the context if your side believes your cavalry are a superior troop type, but your enemy believes they are inferior? Surely its not what your side believes that counts, its how your enemy views your troops thats important?

Not entirely. Expectations of one's own behaviour do very significantly affect that behaviour. Of course, our judgement for list purposes is mainly based on our (and their enemies') estimate of actual battlefield performance as well, when that information is available. When it isn't, however, we fall back on general principles and comparisons with similar states.

However, that is beside the point. As I said, YMMV. We are not all going to agree on everything (anything?).

I was just explaining the design principles involved in FOG and its accompanying lists, so that discussion would not be based on false premises.

Discussion of possible changes to those basic design principles may be entertaining to some, but it isn't really within the scope of FOG 2.0.

rbodleyscott wrote:

ValentinianVictor wrote:How does this work in the context if your side believes your cavalry are a superior troop type, but your enemy believes they are inferior? Surely its not what your side believes that counts, its how your enemy views your troops thats important?

Not entirely. Expectations of one's own behaviour do very significantly affect that behaviour. Of course, our judgement for list purposes is mainly based on our (and their enemies') estimate of actual battlefield performance as well, when that information is available. When it isn't, however, we fall back on general principles and comparisons with similar states.

However, that is beside the point. As I said, YMMV. We are not all going to agree on everything (anything?).

I was just explaining the design principles involved in FOG and its accompanying lists, so that discussion would not be based on false premises.

Discussion of possible changes to those basic design principles may be entertaining to some, but it isn't really within the scope of FOG 2.0.

I suppose we all view ourselves as 'superior' to our enemies, the Romans certainly viewed everyone they encountered as inferiors until proved otherwise, and even then they would not admit it!

Coming back to the discussion, if we take out of it a change in the grading system, then the easiest way to deal with the problem with cavalry seems to me altering the PoA's. In general, in real game situations Ancient cavalry outperform what is described in the sources by choosing the combats where they are not only armoured and superior, but usually they have their flanks covered. It gets to the point where it is even better for some Barbarians to face the legions with cavalry than with heavy foot.

As it was pointed out by madaxeman in other thread, in my opinion there could be more PoA's to cover various situations that right now are just covered by the number of dice or not covered at all. Charging or receiving a charge from mounted changes things. If those are changed as proposed, we could see the cavalry in some defensive roles, as historically they did, and mainly trying to attack other mounted to look for the exposed flanks.

That is indeed incorrect.
That was how DBM worked, but not how FOG works.
In FOG the quality gradings are rated against to overall totality of troops, not against the "standard quality" of their own type.

Oh, I see. Well that makes a little more sense then.
That changes my opinion of quality grading. I had a good look at the Immortal Fire lists today, and now I wonder if more Light Horse should be rated as superior... (sorry! off topic).

Back on track --

@rbodleyscott, Do you see the the same issue with ancient cavalry within your games? I can't comment post 500AD, I just don't play those periods. If so, are there any remedies in mind?