Cavalry and Battle Frontage Solution

[edb1815]

Geffalrus originally brought up the Battle of Magnesia, stating that the heavy cavalry beat Roman infantry on that flank by charging into them. In point of fact, they routed light infantry and cavalry, which then rallied and repelled the elite heavy cavalry. That's why I keep mentioning it.

As for generalizations, a phalanx was not an immobile bunch of drones that was at the mercy of flanking cavalry.

https://www.historynet.com/battle-of-ma ... rsians.htm

The Greek hoplites ran into the Persians, denying them the use of their archers and cavalry. The armored infantry ran over the distance to the Persians, reformed the phalanx and then attacked. That's what a professional infantry force can do.

Real tactics aren't rock-paper-scissors. I posted a book written by a Professor Emeritus citing the period as the Age of the Phalanx and the Age of the Legion, i.e., the Age of Infantry.
Cavalry attacking the rear of a Legion are actually facing a unit of Triarii, the most experienced of the Roman infantry. They fight as a unit, so they most certainly can do an about face. One thousand Roman heavy infantry have three thousand javelins (pila). In addition, each man carried many caltrops, small iron devices that look like large jacks. So charge your cavalry hooves over several thousands of those.

The game has a mission for light cavalry already. What I proposed is a mission for medium or even heavy cavalry.
Someone will eventually mod the game to your liking or the devs will patch it because they want to keep players happy.
Peace, out.

I agree with you that for the period represented in FOG:E heavy infantry was the dominant arm, first the hoplite then the phalangite and finally the legoniare. The pike phalanx could maneuver certainly. I am reading a book about that now called "An Invincible Beast" by Christopher Matthew (https://www.amazon.com/Invincible-Beast ... 121&sr=8-1). He also wrote about hoplite warfare ("A Storm of Spears"). The question is what could they do when engaged to the front?
Infantry formations were vulnerable to missiles and cavalry. Just look at any number of set piece battles - cavalry on the wings and infantry in the center screened by missile armed skirmishers. The winning cavalry wing would then turn and attack the infantry on the flank. As you have pointed out on some occasions the infantry could react in time or the cavalry would pursue away from the battle (a problem that continued into the Napoleonic era). However the point was to pin the infantry formation to the front, then hit it in the flank. Ask yourself why Alexander's decisive offense arm was his companion cavalry?

A couple of specific points:
Triarii did not carry pilum. They were also the least numerous group in the Republican legion. After the Marian reforms all Roman infantry carried pilum until the late empire. There was an example in the civil wars when Caesar, using duplex axis formation, turned his second line of cohorts to face a threat in the rear or Pharsalus when he stopped Pompey's cavalry wing by hiding infantry behind his cavalry.
Marathon is atypical because as someone pointed out the Persian cavalry was not present. In fact they had choosen not to disemark the cavalry first and it was still on their ships. The Greeks did run to minimize the effects of the Perisan bow fire because at that time most of the Perisan infantry was bow armed, ie; not just skirmishers. Had the Perisans deployed cavalry it may have forced different tactics.
Also one point about Adrianople - The Roman infantry was already tired from the approach march and was engaged in attacking the Gothic wagon lager when hit from a different direction by fresh cavalry after the defeat of their own cavalry. A result that was as much from poor desicions by the commander than anything else but also one that was reminiscant of earlier Roman defeats.

Curious are you infantry? I don't think anyone wants to degrade the role of the heavy infantry, just to reflect the role of all the arms on the ancient battlefield. Frankly I am confident in the development team since they have authors like RBS who are very well read on ancient warfare. They won't patch something lightly.

[Geffalrus]

I am reading a book about that now called "An Invincible Beast" by Christopher Matthew (https://www.amazon.com/Invincible-Beast ... 121&sr=8-1). He also wrote about hoplite warfare ("A Storm of Spears"). The question is what could they do when engaged to the front?

That's a fantastic book and one of my favorites.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned, I don't think, is that flanking troops don't even need to charge home to be effective. The simple presence of an enemy force cutting off or threatening your line of retreat could cause entire armies to surrender or break.

[LDiCesare]

What do you think of a battle like Carrhae ? Would it be modelled correctly by a stalemate of legions vs cataphracts + loss of roman cavary vs parthian cavalry on the flanks? Or something different?

[Geffalrus]

What do you think of a battle like Carrhae ? Would it be modelled correctly by a stalemate of legions vs cataphracts + loss of roman cavary vs parthian cavalry on the flanks? Or something different?

Good question. Top of my head, I'd view it as a series of draws culminating in a Parthian win and total pursuit wipe of the Roman force.

The Romans would have a combination of tough legions, some skirmisher support, and weaker cavalry support on the flanks. The Parthians would have Cataphracts, "regular" cavalry units, and a host of horse skirmishers. The initial rounds of combat would see the Parthians win on the flanks, but not enough to completely wipe the Roman flanking cavalry/forces (Romans take some Exertion and HP hits). In the center, it would be a combination of slight victories for individual Roman legions and Parthian Cataphracts, and maybe the occasional stalemate (-1 HP/Exertion here and their). Due to the size of the armies, these would not be enough to trigger a victory. The net result of the early combat rounds and shooting is that the Parthian skirmishers and cavalry evasions would steadily deplete the Exertion of the Roman units. After a few rounds of this, the Roman units would be exhausted while the Parthian units would still have positive Exertion values. As such, the Romans would suddenly find themselves with no support bonus (exhausted support units don't contribute) and the exhaustion penalty to their combat values. This would bring even the higher XP Roman legions to a low enough combat value for them to fall prey to the Cataphracts directly. And then the Parthians win and overrun the Romans.

-------

I'd view Cannae as a good example of the Romans losing decisively on both flanks, having a giant mass of infantry stacked in reserve in the center, and only winning slightly vs. the Carthaginian infantry in the center. The Carthaginian infantry would take some serious hits (-2XP/Exertion for example), but not enough to wipe them. Meanwhile, the Roman cavalry would be completely overwhelmed by the cavalry numbers and quality, giving Hannibal a wide victory margin - and - enough flanking values to deal serious damage to the Roman infantry remaining.

Alternatively, I could see a situation where the first round is a draw that wipes the Roman cavalry and some Carthaginian infantry. The Romans have no cavalry reserves and suddenly try to have infantry/skirmishers face the victorious cavalry on the flanks, while Hannibal still has some reserve infantry to fill in. Combine with some amazing rolls, the center holds just enough while the Roman flanks get obliterated and then victory + flanking deals lots of damage to the remaining Romans.

[edb1815]

What do you think of a battle like Carrhae ? Would it be modelled correctly by a stalemate of legions vs cataphracts + loss of roman cavary vs parthian cavalry on the flanks? Or something different?

Close. I just read up on Carrhae in Peter Connelly's Greece and Rome at War. Crassus ignored advice to set up in a thinned line (simplex acis) with cavalry on the wings and went with a giant square formation. The Parthians screened their cataphracts with the horse archers and harassed the Roman formation causing mounting casualties(for some reason they did not form testudo at that point). Anytime they sent skirmishers out they were shot up by the horse archers. What the Romans did not know was the Parthians had wagons filled with arrows for constant resupply, so eventually Crassus sent his son out with the Roman cavalry which was a substantial force - 7k. The Romans actually outnumbered the Parthians in total (40k v 10k roughly About 1k cataphracts and the rest horse archers). Then the Roman cavalry got drawn away from the army, shot up and charged by the cataphracts. The Roman's then began retreating but it was still a stalemate between the cataphracts and the infantry but the Roman's were getting the worse of it and could not force melee as the cavalry just withdrew. Once the legions formation lost cohesion it was all over, especially after the death of Crassus. So in game terms you'd have horse archers surrounding the Roman units and shooting them to disorder and fragmentation, then they would be charged by the cataphracts.

[Geffalrus]

Close. I just read up on Carrhae in Peter Connelly's Greece and Rome at War. Crassus ignored advice to set up in a thinned line (simplex acis) with cavalry on the wings and went with a giant square formation. The Parthians screened their cataphracts with the horse archers and harassed the Roman formation causing mounting casualties(for some reason they did not form testudo at that point). Anytime they sent skirmishers out they were shot up by the horse archers. What the Romans did not know was the Parthians had wagons filled with arrows for constant resupply, so eventually Crassus sent his son out with the Roman cavalry which was a substantial force - 7k. The Romans actually outnumbered the Parthians in total (40k v 10k roughly About 1k cataphracts and the rest horse archers). Then the Roman cavalry got drawn away from the army, shot up and charged by the cataphracts. The Roman's then began retreating but it was still a stalemate between the cataphracts and the infantry but the Roman's were getting the worse of it and could not force melee as the cavalry just withdrew. Once the legions formation lost cohesion it was all over, especially after the death of Crassus. So in game terms you'd have horse archers surrounding the Roman units and shooting them to disorder and fragmentation, then they would be charged by the cataphracts.

So a smaller amount Cataphracts in the center than the total Roman infantry, and then the flanks held by Roman cavalry facing Parthian cavalry composed of masses of horse archer light horse? Parthian horse archers have Superior Skirmisher trait and good ranged, so even though the Roman cavalry has better HP and stats, once they are exhausted by the ranged shooting of the horse archers, the exhaustion penalty makes them vulnerable to defeat. And then things snowball since the infantry and the cataphracts remain too closely matched. The Roman high HP allows them to survive the occasional Cataphract win, while the Evasion mechanic for heavy cavalry allows them to survive small margin Roman victories.

There's no way to have cavalry avoid combat for that long in Empires, so we have to stick with having the legions and Cats actually fight. Additionally, infantry units represent larger amounts of men than cavalry, so the 40k vs. 7k match-up doesn't necessarily mean a huge - unit - disparity in numbers.

[Soar]

The Parthians screened their cataphracts with the horse archers and harassed the Roman formation causing mounting casualties(for some reason they did not form testudo at that point).

The testudo is not conductive to throwing javelins or engaging in close quarters combat, so forming it might've rendered the Roman infantry an easy target for the enemy lancers. Roman historian Cassius Dio from the 3rd century AD attributes this as a reason for Roman failure to usefully employ the testudo in the battle (p439 22-2).

[edb1815]

The Parthians screened their cataphracts with the horse archers and harassed the Roman formation causing mounting casualties(for some reason they did not form testudo at that point).

The testudo is not conductive to throwing javelins or engaging in close quarters combat, so forming it might've rendered the Roman infantry an easy target for the enemy lancers. Roman historian Cassius Dio from the 3rd century AD attributes this as a reason for Roman failure to usefully employ the testudo in the battle (p439 22-2).

Yes but I think in this case the inference is it would have protected them from the horse archers the question is whether they would have been able to reform in time for an attack by the cataphracts. Later in the battle a testudo was successfully used by a cohort to rescue a group that included Crassus, that had been cut off from the main formation.

[Dricky]

Back to the game paradox, mind the gap!
1. FOG2 Cavalry extremely valuable in context, don't charge formed HI head on though.
2. FOGE Cavalry almost pointless.

Claiming zero military history expertise but I have played more than my share of ancient wargames, going back to WRG and playing against a certain McNeil family and RBS. Think all games played adopted model 1 as a design basis.

Love the suggested improvement on flanks as a solution to the gap.

The alternative would be to go with 2, and nerf cav out of existence in FOG2.... Good luck with that!!!!!

[Pocus]

Something will be done yes!