Cavalry breaking off . . .

[SnuggleBunnies]

Can't you just have infantry have their AP reduced by 4 the turn after they've been charged by nonlight cavalry? That would give the cav space, at least against one infantry unit, without giving them 75% backward movement. Of course, they'd have to charge to get the breathing space, so it would be harder to pull off vs Late Legions etc..

[SimonLancaster]

I am not sure if I like the idea of penalising infantry because cavalry is already very strong in this game.

I guess my solution would be for cavalry to come straight back to the battlefield if pushed off the map by infantry. It is not an ideal situation for infantry to push cavalry off the map but it doesn’t happen a lot and a unit is being used up in doing this.

[Athos1660]

While a horse is certainly a fast animal, keeping a non-light squadron in order while/after breaking-off or falling-back might be complex, tricky and time-consuming, especially when an enemy infantry unit is threatening in front of it (or may even be fighting it). Does someone know clear books about cavalry manoeuvres and tactics, and this subject in particular (for the Antiquity and the Renaissance as well) ? This is a time for reading about subjects that interest us.

[Athos1660]

btw if fall back and break-off (including the reorganisation of the non-light squadron) were actually time-consuming manoeuvres, would it not be nice to have their in-game animations a little bit slown down, compared to the charge or move forward, in order to show it to the player ?
(besides the number of squares of moving back limited to 2)

[MVP7]

While a horse is certainly a fast animal, keeping a non-light squadron in order while/after breaking-off or falling-back might be complex, tricky and time-consuming, especially when an enemy infantry unit is threatening in front of it (or may even be fighting it). Does someone know clear books about cavalry manoeuvres and tactics, and this subject in particular (for the Antiquity and the Renaissance as well) ? This is a time for reading about subjects that interest us.

The in-game difference between the movement of light and non-light troops is rather artificial. I can't think of any specific descriptions of cavalry breaking away from approaching infantry but I certainly can't recall any events where unengaged cavalry would have been walked over or pinned down by infantry in the open. There are some occasions where cavalry pushes too far and/or deep and gets surrounded by infantry, or the cavalry is trapped due to larger encirclement or unfavorable terrain but that's about it.

When it comes to cavalry tactics, a lot of "Light spear" cavalry (and later Reiter style cavalry) historically fought by approaching the enemy, throwing their javelins and then falling back and regrouping (unless the enemy started breaking). Most cavalry would not be so tightly packed that they wouldn't be able to maneuver.

Regarding the first half of your post, I agree, falling back from close proximity of enemy infantry is not risk-free and could go wrong in many ways. That's why I'd suggest doing any extended fall-back and/or rotation with the existing fall-back mechanic that has built in cohesion test.

[Athos1660]

I guess my questioning today (that is only a question and certainly not an statement meant to counter any post or idea in this thread ) is about time (as FoG2 is a turn-based game, a game that seems to play all the animations of horses at the same speed while using the number of squares to show the distance that a unit can move during a certain period of time, and thus its speed) : what does a non-light cav have time to do while breaking off or falling back at the same time as an enemy infantry moves 2 squares forward ? What distance can it cover during 'one turn' while breaking off or falling back properly ?

[MVP7]

I guess my questioning today (that is only a question and certainly not an statement meant to counter any post or idea in this thread ) is about time (as FoG2 is a turn-based game, a game that seems to play all the animations of horses at the same speed while using the number of squares to show the distance that a unit can move during a certain period of time, and thus its speed) : what does a non-light cav have time to do while breaking off or falling back at the same time as an enemy infantry moves 2 squares forward ? What distance can it cover during 'one turn' while breaking off or falling back ?

For fall-back near enemy I imagine that would include a somewhat messy breaking-off as the individual horsemen of the formation turn around (or the formation veers around at slower pace) and move the distance back before the formation is regrouped facing the enemy (or veered around to face the enemy). I think it's the regrouping facing enemy part that would probably take most time which is especially silly and unnecessary if you are trying to get your cavalry away from the infantry.

Hence the suggestion of 3 square fall-back facing away from the enemy which on practical level would mean more time spent moving away and less time spent regrouping. If the player wanted to turn the cavalry around after 3 square fallback that would happen on the next turn.

[Athos1660]

Moving 3 squares backwards, instead of only 2, would be moving 1,5 as fast as usually/'normally'/currently, a 150% increase in speed.

[MVP7]

Moving 3 squares backwards, instead of only 2, would be moving 1,5 as fast as usually/'normally'/currently, a 150% increase in speed.

The suggestion is just for the cavalry, not infantry. For cavalry the current 2 square fallback includes two 180 degree rotations and and regrouping back to fully organized formation. If the 3 square fallback was added and it rotated the unit so that it faced away at the end, I think it would make sense in terms of movement distance.

[TheGrayMouser]

The "logic" or "realism" of wether cavalry can break off 2 3 or more spaces is kinda of moot when one considers what the game actually does....

Breaking it down ( and assuming only non diagonal moves here) A cavalry unit has 16 AP's and it costs 4 to enter a clear grid.
This means it can move 3 grids of space and then ENTERS the grid occupied by the target infantry. (There is no getting around the semantic of "entering", the cavalry must PAY 4 aps to attack ie enter, period...) So on an active players turn a cavalry can expend 16 aps to "enter 4 grids" If it doesnt do well in the impact though, just look at the additional APs is gets in the bounce ( ie same turn breakoff) Lets see, since in took 4 Ap to enter the grid to attack, should it not cost 4 ap's to exit and be adjacent? So plus 4, but it has to turn around ( a cavalry unit turning 180 degrees costs... 16 ap) then it moves 2 full grids away so another 8, then another 16 aps to do another 180..... WOW

So a cavalry that charges its max range and bounces basically expends a grand total of 60 AP's in one turn.... If a lone cavalry just wanted to move fwrd 4 hexes , turn around , move 2 and turn around it would take 4 turns and 56 ap's.....

A non voluntary maneuver, like an evade and assuming no VMD, you'd expend 32 PA's....

So, either the involuntary break off or the "retire" function of 3 or even 4 grids doesnt sound illogical to me . What is illogical relative to the above is a cavalry unit cant just do an about face and trot away...

Anyways, its really about the game play though. The math as expressed above is fine for the top down approach , and no-ones really complained about it anyhow... I personally would like cavalry to not be pinned so easily by infantry though ( I beleive the secondary ZOC is the culprite there)

[Athos1660]

(...)
( I beleive the secondary ZOC is the culprite there)

So you prefer the P&S Zoc/cavalry behaviour ?

(edit)
btw 2-square fall-back/break-off were already implemented in P&S.

[Mairtin]

I think this is more specifically about lancers, cavalry can evade. I don't think a lancer, even if hit in the rear evades.
I don't think the points come into it either. It could be a 64pt lancer vs a 42pt shieldwall, or it could be a 32pt lancer vs a 72pt huscarl.
The situation would normally be a one on one, but I think a single lancer may be able to pin more than one foot this way, although if it is pushed back then a foot unit not directly in front may be able to get away.
From what I've seen of the odds, a lancer has ~33% chance of winning if charging, the chances of the shieldwall winning any charge against the lancer is low or non-existent. The chances of the shieldwall being disrupted are therefore much higher, and if they aren't disrupted or worse then the lancer is likely to break-off. After disruption the shieldwall, from my experience, normally has little chance of surviving long.
The chances of a lancer unit being pushed off the edge then are fairly low, and drop the further it is to the edge when contact occurs. Ok it may remain pinned, but if the foot try to push they are more likely to be disrupted than if the lancer charges.
Even if it is pushed off it might return.

In the OP's situation, presuming it was the game he was playing against me, the outcome was that the shieldwall did manage to push the lancer to the edge. I believe it was because the lancer charged and fell back on a number of occasions, I don't remember the shieldwall charging because the odds weren't good, but I did move up. There weren't any voluntary fall backs. I was then able to bring up a cavalry unit which charged and pinned the lancer, the shieldwall then charged, still at bad odds for the charge, but a better chance if melee had continued. The result was the shieldwall got disrupted, and broke in the enemy turn, the cavalry fight continued for a number of turns, but my cavalry eventually broke too.

I'm really not sure this needs a solution. Cavalry will likely evade at some point, lancers have a very good chance of beating the foot in a one on one, even frontally, the infantry little chance.
Maybe someone could run the numbers, I only have anecdotal evidence to go on.

In my opinion, giving mounted even more chance to run rings around foot wouldn't help and could unbalance the game, or at the very least need to make cavalry cost more.

[Cunningcairn]

I think this is more specifically about lancers, cavalry can evade. I don't think a lancer, even if hit in the rear evades.
I don't think the points come into it either. It could be a 64pt lancer vs a 42pt shieldwall, or it could be a 32pt lancer vs a 72pt huscarl.
The situation would normally be a one on one, but I think a single lancer may be able to pin more than one foot this way, although if it is pushed back then a foot unit not directly in front may be able to get away.
From what I've seen of the odds, a lancer has ~33% chance of winning if charging, the chances of the shieldwall winning any charge against the lancer is low or non-existent. The chances of the shieldwall being disrupted are therefore much higher, and if they aren't disrupted or worse then the lancer is likely to break-off. After disruption the shieldwall, from my experience, normally has little chance of surviving long.
The chances of a lancer unit being pushed off the edge then are fairly low, and drop the further it is to the edge when contact occurs. Ok it may remain pinned, but if the foot try to push they are more likely to be disrupted than if the lancer charges.
Even if it is pushed off it might return.

In the OP's situation, presuming it was the game he was playing against me, the outcome was that the shieldwall did manage to push the lancer to the edge. I believe it was because the lancer charged and fell back on a number of occasions, I don't remember the shieldwall charging because the odds weren't good, but I did move up. There weren't any voluntary fall backs. I was then able to bring up a cavalry unit which charged and pinned the lancer, the shieldwall then charged, still at bad odds for the charge, but a better chance if melee had continued. The result was the shieldwall got disrupted, and broke in the enemy turn, the cavalry fight continued for a number of turns, but my cavalry eventually broke too.

I'm really not sure this needs a solution. Cavalry will likely evade at some point, lancers have a very good chance of beating the foot in a one on one, even frontally, the infantry little chance.
Maybe someone could run the numbers, I only have anecdotal evidence to go on.

In my opinion, giving mounted even more chance to run rings around foot wouldn't help and could unbalance the game, or at the very least need to make cavalry cost more.

But how does a 60 point superior armoured cav get away from a 24 point raw defensive spearman once the infantry pins him front on? It promotes unrealistic use of cheap heavy foot to counter good cavalry armies.

[Mairtin]

...
But how does a 60 point superior armoured cav get away from a 24 point raw defensive spearman once the infantry pins him front on? It promotes unrealistic use of cheap heavy foot to counter good cavalry armies.

By using different tactics to avoid the situation? By being a bit more aggressive and destroying the infantry that's isolated itself? By trying to outflank with a few more troops, so you don't get the the one on ones?
I don't know what the solution is and wasn't trying to argue from that point of view. I'm not opposed to a solution where the cavalry can get away more often, but it shouldn't be a given and lead to a different imbalance (if that's what this is).
I don't think any rule on interaction between troops should be based on their relative points cost. Should a 24pt javelinman be able to harass a 60pt elephant to death; yes, because it's a tactic, nothing to do with their points cost. Will it always work, no because the elephant is capable of running them down, as are the cavalry to the spearmen.

Unbalancing in favour of cavalry and potentially creating a new problem is not really a solution either. Would you be willing to pay more for cavalry than you currently do? Would you be willing to be automatically disrupted for the extra movement to get away? Light horse can already get away, but it seems likely the cavalry would have to break formation to achieve the same.

I remember the 7th ed. of a set of popular rules (not sure what the policy is on mentioning other companies here), where the "competitive" players used Hunnic type armies almost exclusively, simply because they were extremely hard to lose with. Even cavalry had trouble forcing them to fight. I know it's not the same situation, but it's an example of a game where some troops were made more mobile than perhaps they should have been, and led to an imbalance and a less than enjoyable game for most people.

At the end of the day it's a game and not a simulation. It's nice not to have too many historical inconsistencies, but at times some things need to be compromised to various degrees to make it playable, and I think more importantly enjoyable.

[Cunningcairn]

...
But how does a 60 point superior armoured cav get away from a 24 point raw defensive spearman once the infantry pins him front on? It promotes unrealistic use of cheap heavy foot to counter good cavalry armies.

By using different tactics to avoid the situation? By being a bit more aggressive and destroying the infantry that's isolated itself? By trying to outflank with a few more troops, so you don't get the the one on ones?
I don't know what the solution is and wasn't trying to argue from that point of view. I'm not opposed to a solution where the cavalry can get away more often, but it shouldn't be a given and lead to a different imbalance (if that's what this is).
I don't think any rule on interaction between troops should be based on their relative points cost. Should a 24pt javelinman be able to harass a 60pt elephant to death; yes, because it's a tactic, nothing to do with their points cost. Will it always work, no because the elephant is capable of running them down, as are the cavalry to the spearmen.

Unbalancing in favour of cavalry and potentially creating a new problem is not really a solution either. Would you be willing to pay more for cavalry than you currently do? Would you be willing to be automatically disrupted for the extra movement to get away? Light horse can already get away, but it seems likely the cavalry would have to break formation to achieve the same.

I remember the 7th ed. of a set of popular rules (not sure what the policy is on mentioning other companies here), where the "competitive" players used Hunnic type armies almost exclusively, simply because they were extremely hard to lose with. Even cavalry had trouble forcing them to fight. I know it's not the same situation, but it's an example of a game where some troops were made more mobile than perhaps they should have been, and led to an imbalance and a less than enjoyable game for most people.

At the end of the day it's a game and not a simulation. It's nice not to have too many historical inconsistencies, but at times some things need to be compromised to various degrees to make it playable, and I think more importantly enjoyable.

I don't disagree with a lot of what you are saying and yes obviously there are tactics to avoid anything. That is the actual problem. I did not make my point clear. Points do matter a lot in the game and this is why. By having rules that allow a cheap troop type to nullify the ability of a more expensive troop type to function as it did historically will result in armies being chosen that historically couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. These armies become dominant because you can use tactics that were never used during the period being modeled. I do not believe that is the intention behind any ancient rule set. Due to previous discussions like this there have been a number of very positive changes that in my opinion have improved the game and made it more enjoyable. And on that matter, I doubt you will find anyone here that doesn't want the game to be enjoyable. I don't see how changes that make the game more historical and "realistic" can make the game less enjoyable. I might be getting this wrong so please forgive me if this is so but there appears to be an opinion that cavalry is currently too dominant creating an imbalance. If this is correct then why are infantry armies currently more effective than cavalry armies and are chosen far more often than cavalry armies in the digital league? I started playing ancients at the end of the 7th edition era and was told something by an experienced gamer that still governs the way I play. He told me not to worry too much about the rules but rather play the game as history shows it was fought. Simplistically that means I won't charge a LF hiding in a wood with my pike because a good rule set would ensure that I lost that combat as pikes do not do well when not in good going. No-one has given a single historical example of cavalry behaving like rabbits caught in a headlight.

[Athos1660]

(…) but there appears to be an opinion that cavalry is currently too dominant creating an imbalance.

I for one do not think that cavalry is currently too dominant.

If I understand this correctly, the game balance between non-light cavalry and infantry turns on two main ideas :

• cavalry being devastating when rear/flank charging a unit in melee

• cavalry rather powerless against an unit not already in combat

I must admit I like this binary system that seems to me balanced, making the use of cavalry at the same time risky and powerful, especially as, given its agility, non-light cavalry can be used for other purposes : keeping an enemy infantry unit busy, attacking artillery, pushing away enemy light troops, attacking enemy in rout… while staying away from infantry.

No-one has given a single historical example of cavalry behaving like rabbits caught in a headlight.

Cavalry actually doesn’t behave that way as they can fall back or charge and break off. And if they are attacked, they turn 180° and flee.

btw "no one has given a single historical example of cavalry" not "behaving like" in game

However, Pike & shot and FoG 2 share this old and venerable rule of « 2-square fall-back/break-off », so I guess it is also (or above all ?) a matter of balance and gameplay.

(That does not mean I am against any change )

[Cunningcairn]

(…) but there appears to be an opinion that cavalry is currently too dominant creating an imbalance.

I for one do not think that cavalry is currently too dominant.

If I understand this correctly, the game balance between non-light cavalry and infantry turns on two main ideas :

• cavalry being devastating when rear/flank charging a unit in melee

• cavalry rather powerless against an unit not already in combat

I must admit I like this binary system that seems to me balanced, making the use of cavalry at the same time risky and powerful, especially as, given its agility, non-light cavalry can be used for other purposes : keeping an enemy infantry unit busy, attacking artillery, pushing away enemy light troops, attacking enemy in rout… while staying away from infantry.

No-one has given a single historical example of cavalry behaving like rabbits caught in a headlight.

Cavalry actually doesn’t behave that way as they can fall back or charge and break off. And if they are attacked, they turn 180° and flee.

btw "no one has given a single historical example of cavalry" not "behaving like" in game

However, Pike & shot and FoG 2 share this old and venerable rule of « 2-square fall-back/break-off », so I guess it is also (or above all ?) a matter of balance and gameplay.

(That does not mean I am against any change )

Read Pete's post that started this thread. The cavalry can never get away unless the infantry general decides to let it.

[Athos1660]

Read Pete's post that started this thread. The cavalry can never get away unless the infantry general decides to let it.

Those who read my previous posts in this thread might have come to think that I have actually read and understand Pete's OP.

[MVP7]

Cavalry actually doesn’t behave that way as they can fall back or charge and break off. And if they are attacked, they turn 180° and flee.

Lancer's don't evade and Light Spear cavalry rarely evades infantry on frontal attack. That means they don't automatically turn and they can't be ordered to turn if the enemy keeps closing in after fall-back or break-off. It doesn't really have major impact if several units are involved and covered by each others ZoCs but it means a single isolated infantry unit can trap an isolated cavalry unit in a manner that is certainly unrealistic.

Regarding the cavalry's supposed dominance: If cavalry rotated away from the enemy after 3 (or 2) square fall-back that would be basically a short range evasion with a cohesion test, so it hardly sounds like a game breaking buff.

I don't know if or how dominant the cavalry currently is in multiplayer, I personally haven't noticed cavalry being too dominant in single player. In any case the defining characteristic of any cavalry is mobility and the rotating (and possibly extended) fall-back would increase that characteristic mobility in an area where it's currently most lacking. If the use of light cavalry for preparing flank charges is prevented as discussed in RBS's 'Blocked Break Offs' thread, then that will in practice reduce the flanking potential of all non-light cavalry as well.

Improved fall-back would allow the cavalry a risky way to detach from infantry in relatively rare situations that are currently very gamey and unrealistic. It would also make cavalry 2 or 3 squares faster at returning to action after evades and pursuits. The latter could actually be more significant for overall cavalry balance but I don't think it's at all unrealistic and I don't think it would buff the cavalry unreasonably either. It would mainly make Horse Archers better at fighting retreat, which is something they currently kind of struggle at.

[Athos1660]

Cavalry actually doesn’t behave that way as they can fall back or charge and break off. And if they are attacked, they turn 180° and flee.

Lancer's don't evade and Light Spear cavalry rarely evades infantry on frontal attack. That means they don't automatically turn and they can't be ordered to turn if the enemy keeps closing in after fall-back or break-off.

It sounds to me realistic that when attacked, a cavalry unit that has a great chance of winning at the impact (sometimes to the point of having the enemy drop a cohesion level) doesn’t evade but tries its luck during the impact, breaking off only after it or remaining in melee, while a cavalry unit with less chance tries to evade.

Then it sounds to me fair (gameplay wise) and logical that the former faces its enemy after the impact (to be able to charge again) while the latter turns 180° (to flee).

btw I like that my units behave according to their own nature and not to what I wish them to do. I like not having a full control over them. I am not them. Lancers live for the Impact.

My two euro cents