Ancient cavalry, too powerful in FoG?

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Ancients & Medieval.

Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28288
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

pezhetairoi wrote:@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?
You are probably right that the currently rules give ancient cavalry slightly more chance vs foot than they should have historically, but charging spearmen with them definitely isn't a good idea. Allowing them some chance was a design decision to improve the game aspect. Also, if you are looking for historical simulation, you don't have to upgrade the cavalry to the maximum quality allowed by the list - many lists allow them to be rated as Average.

Part of the list design philosophy is to allow tournament players to upgrade their army to the best quality that is historically plausible - on the best day with the wind behind them - but also to allow simulation enthusiasts to downgrade them to a more typical composition. There isn't much point in the simulation enthusiasts complaining that the lists allow too high an upgrade - they are not forced to use the upgrades in their historical refights.
Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 »

rbodleyscott wrote:
Part of the list design philosophy is to allow tournament players to upgrade their army to the best quality that is historically plausible - on the best day with the wind behind them - but also to allow simulation enthusiasts to downgrade them to a more typical composition. There isn't much point in the simulation enthusiasts complaining that the lists allow too high an upgrade - they are not forced to use the upgrades in their historical refights.
The problem here is that it is not quite the case for many armies (at least in Books 1 and 3). In general Romans have average cavalry, Greeks have average/superior cavalry and Barbarians have only superior cavalry (with a few exceptions).

This bias towards cavalry gives some odd situations. It happens then, for example, if you are a Gallic general, that in game terms the best way to resist the charge of the legionaries is using your cavalry in the center line. The odds are slightly better than for your warriors. Early Achaemenid Persians try to break the infantry line with a cavalry charge, etc.

I don't know which units have been classified as cavalry in the AD period but I would rather reconsider those interactions (maybe upgrading to poor/average knighths) than overrating Ancient cavalry.
Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 »

pezhetairoi wrote:
Oh, I see. Well that makes a little more sense then. :oops:
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).
(Off-topic on)
I have always wondered why Hannibal's Spanish (both MF and LH) and Numidians (LH) never were superior after so many years of campaigning and the high reputation they had for his general. In my opinion some light horse should be given the option to upgrade to superior (Thessalians, Numidians, Tarentines) as they were known for being better than their counterparts. So I totally agree.
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3070
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs »

Strategos69 wrote:
rbodleyscott wrote:
Part of the list design philosophy is to allow tournament players to upgrade their army to the best quality that is historically plausible - on the best day with the wind behind them - but also to allow simulation enthusiasts to downgrade them to a more typical composition. There isn't much point in the simulation enthusiasts complaining that the lists allow too high an upgrade - they are not forced to use the upgrades in their historical refights.
The problem here is that it is not quite the case for many armies (at least in Books 1 and 3). In general Romans have average cavalry, Greeks have average/superior cavalry and Barbarians have only superior cavalry (with a few exceptions).

This bias towards cavalry gives some odd situations. It happens then, for example, if you are a Gallic general, that in game terms the best way to resist the charge of the legionaries is using your cavalry in the center line. The odds are slightly better than for your warriors. Early Achaemenid Persians try to break the infantry line with a cavalry charge, etc.

I don't know which units have been classified as cavalry in the AD period but I would rather reconsider those interactions (maybe upgrading to poor/average knighths) than overrating Ancient cavalry.

I agree that those are things that the Gallic or Persian tabletop generals could try. But I still don't think they are good ideas. The cavalry are still likely to lose to the Romans.

With Persians, I've found it better to fix the Roman centre with Medising Armoured Hoplites while working the flanks with Immortals and the quality cavalry.

I haven't used Gauls against Romans but I have used Merovingian Franks (protected IF/Sword Heavy foot and light spear armoured cavalry). Using the cavalry mounted against the legions would be a poor idea. Delaying the combat in the centre while working the flanks with cavalry seemed better to me. I still lost, as i mucked up the cavalry attack on the flank!
Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 »

The point with Persians is shooting and evading until you disrupt one unit (and if they are protected is not that hard; a good point here to keep all hoplites armoured), then you charge the hoplites touching as few bases as possible. It is - PoA at impact and +PoA at melee.

Gallic cavalry would be - PoA at impact and even at melee againts Marian legionaries. Warriors would be even and --PoA. The problem I have seen with the flank attacks is a matter of timing: maybe it is just that I am not experienced enough in FoG to make them count, but usually infantry combats are resolved before you can do anything with your victorius troops. You are right and I am not claiming those are very good tactics, but that they are far more succesful than they should, provided that they did not happen.
lawrenceg
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Former British Empire

Post by lawrenceg »

IMO even if the cavalry are better at fighting the enemy infantry front than your infantry, they are better by a larger margin at attacking the flanks. Why waste all those points spent on speed and manourability by a simple frontal charge?
Last edited by lawrenceg on Thu Dec 30, 2010 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lawrence Greaves
madaxeman
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3002
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by madaxeman »

Before H/A Knights arrive on the scene, Armoured Cavalry (Swordsmen) will be at evens or better POAs in melee against everything on table other than :

Steady Armoured Spears
4-deep / steady Pikes
Elephants
Cataphracts
Heavy Chariots (maybe?)

Being Superior with a General will make them essentially on evens or +1 against all 4 - unless of course they are also superior with General

Maybe there should be more of these chaps around too in lists to counteract the large numbers of superior Cav ?
Last edited by madaxeman on Thu Dec 30, 2010 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

madaxeman wrote:Before H/A Knights arrive on the scene, Armoured Cavalry (Swordsmen) will be at evens or better POAs in melee against everything on table other than :

Steady Armoured Spears
4-deep / steady Pikes
Elephants
Heavy Chariots (maybe?)

Being Superior with a General will make them essentially on evens or +1 against all 4 - unless of course they are also superior with General

Maybe there should be more of these chaps around too in lists to counteract the large numbers of superior Cav ?
And cataphracts but you have a valid point IMO.

Armoured superior cavalry swordsmen are not exactly the cheapest troops in the world though so they should be pretty good.

By the same argument armoured superior infantry swordsmen are hadrly shabby either ;)
madaxeman
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3002
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Post by madaxeman »

hammy wrote:
madaxeman wrote:Before H/A Knights arrive on the scene, Armoured Cavalry (Swordsmen) will be at evens or better POAs in melee against everything on table other than :

Steady Armoured Spears
4-deep / steady Pikes
Elephants
Heavy Chariots (maybe?)

Being Superior with a General will make them essentially on evens or +1 against all 4 - unless of course they are also superior with General
Maybe there should be more of these chaps around too in lists to counteract the large numbers of superior Cav ?
And cataphracts but you have a valid point IMO.
Armoured superior cavalry swordsmen are not exactly the cheapest troops in the world though so they should be pretty good.
By the same argument armoured superior infantry swordsmen are hardly shabby either ;)
Aaah - slip of the keyboard! But even if they are expensive, would the game be improved if these one or two (relatively common) troop types were not sufficiently good that they can be thrown headlong into almost anything else else in the game and have a better than decent chance of winning?
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

madaxeman wrote:Aaah - slip of the keyboard! But even if they are expensive, would the game be improved if these one or two (relatively common) troop types were not sufficiently good that they can be thrown headlong into almost anything else else in the game and have a better than decent chance of winning?
I suspect that almost any set of POAs you come up with will end up with one or more troop type that falls into the general purpose category.

The real issue for superior armoured cavalry is weight of numbers. A BG of 4 such cavalry is very likely to be fighting overlapped. If you have three such BGs in a solid line then the one in the middle will not be overlapped but you will have invested a huge number of points in a small space.

Remember that the breakoff forces these cavalry to have to go through another impact if they don't disrupt the infantry which may not be what they really want.
Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 »

lawrenceg wrote:IMO even if the cavalry are better at fighting the enemy infantry front than your infantry, they are better by a larger margin at attacking the flanks. Why waste all those points spent on speed and manourability by a simple frontal charge?
Because it is not easy to make that count in the battle. One unit of LH can make you waste your time for the whole battle. It is interesting this report regarding that.

viewtopic.php?t=19629

In fact, when his victorius cataphracts come back into the game it is only to charge in the rear to other cataphracts that had already defeated their own in the same flank! Victorius cavalry units crossing in a battle has happened to me although I have not heard of it in any battle.
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger »

Strategos69 wrote: In fact, when his victorius cataphracts come back into the game it is only to charge in the rear to other cataphracts that had already defeated their own in the same flank! Victorius cavalry units crossing in a battle has happened to me although I have not heard of it in any battle.

Just been reading al-Athir's chronicle covering the crusades period and there are quite a few cases where parts of each army defeat their opposite numbers, pursue and then come back and fight each other.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 »

hammy wrote:
I suspect that almost any set of POAs you come up with will end up with one or more troop type that falls into the general purpose category.
Not really if they are designed in a stone, paper, scissors way. Most videogames are designed that way to increase the fun. Madaxeman opened a thread about bringing more PoA's into the game.
hammy wrote: The real issue for superior armoured cavalry is weight of numbers. A BG of 4 such cavalry is very likely to be fighting overlapped. If you have three such BGs in a solid line then the one in the middle will not be overlapped but you will have invested a huge number of points in a small space.

Remember that the breakoff forces these cavalry to have to go through another impact if they don't disrupt the infantry which may not be what they really want.
Unless you are playing against an unexperienced player who is not interested in history at all (those coming from Warhammer deploy the cavalry in the center: the worse comes when you discover they were not that wrong), we romantic history enthusiasts tend to deploy the cavalry on the flanks. But it happens during a game that if you combine your infantry charge in one side with the cavalry you end up having a real advantage (an overlapp even) in one point, the rest being a lottery of 4's. I would just recall that for Ancient times those frontal charges did not happen and that is why I think that a PoA change should be the right way to deal with it.

I have not realized until I did the check after reading madaxeman post that all (!!!) Barbarians have their cavalry classified as superior, without any option for average.
Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 »

nikgaukroger wrote:
Just been reading al-Athir's chronicle covering the crusades period and there are quite a few cases where parts of each army defeat their opposite numbers, pursue and then come back and fight each other.
I have read something similar but usually the description comes like the right wing, the left wing, the center. Is in that chronicles that perspective or just a "unit" perspective? That is what I have not found, units crossing when victorius, not big parts of the army.

(Maybe Ancient sources did not describe that and it really happened because they were doing an overall account of the battle)
nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger »

Strategos69 wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:
Just been reading al-Athir's chronicle covering the crusades period and there are quite a few cases where parts of each army defeat their opposite numbers, pursue and then come back and fight each other.
I have read something similar but usually the description comes like the right wing, the left wing, the center. Is in that chronicles that perspective or just a "unit" perspective? That is what I have not found, units crossing when victorius, not big parts of the army.

(Maybe Ancient sources did not describe that and it really happened because they were doing an overall account of the battle)

The latter I think - we don't have the detail to say whether it happened or not so we probably have to make a judgement as to whether it is reasonable/plausible.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk
grahambriggs
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3070
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am

Post by grahambriggs »

Strategos69 wrote:
lawrenceg wrote:IMO even if the cavalry are better at fighting the enemy infantry front than your infantry, they are better by a larger margin at attacking the flanks. Why waste all those points spent on speed and manourability by a simple frontal charge?
Because it is not easy to make that count in the battle. One unit of LH can make you waste your time for the whole battle. It is interesting this report regarding that.

viewtopic.php?t=19629

In fact, when his victorius cataphracts come back into the game it is only to charge in the rear to other cataphracts that had already defeated their own in the same flank! Victorius cavalry units crossing in a battle has happened to me although I have not heard of it in any battle.
It's not easy to make a superior flank count but it is possible. In the game you reference, the Seleukid general had 3 units of cataphract (with no other troops to support them) against 1 unit of cats, 1 of cavalry and some skirmishers. Instead of concentrating his power troops and busting through, he decided to fritter that power away by using most of them to chase shadows.

Poor tactics aside, I'm not sure that game is the example you are seeking. Cataphracts did take on legions frontally so it would have been historically appropriate if they had done so.
hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy »

Strategos69 wrote:
hammy wrote:
I suspect that almost any set of POAs you come up with will end up with one or more troop type that falls into the general purpose category.
Not really if they are designed in a stone, paper, scissors way. Most videogames are designed that way to increase the fun. Madaxeman opened a thread about bringing more PoA's into the game.
Just because other games say that a Tholian cruiser beats a Cylon raider which beats a Kzinti carrier which beats the Tholian cruiser it does not mean that in the real world some troops were actually pretty good all round. Essentially the armoured superior swordsman is a good melee all rounder. What would you suggest should be better in POA terms? What should be worse?

It is all well and good saying that armoured cavalry should be on different POAs but against what?
Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 »

hammy wrote:
Just because other games say that a Tholian cruiser beats a Cylon raider which beats a Kzinti carrier which beats the Tholian cruiser it does not mean that in the real world some troops were actually pretty good all round. Essentially the armoured superior swordsman is a good melee all rounder. What would you suggest should be better in POA terms? What should be worse?
I was saying that it is possible in game design to achieve that. If armoured superior swordsman is what ONLY counts, then you just give up with other troops and there is less fun. If you emphasize only one unit type, the game is less interesting. An example of stone, paper, scissors. Elephants -> Swordsmen-> Light Foot -> Elephants. The more you have of this, the more interesting a game becomes.

hammy wrote:
It is all well and good saying that armoured cavalry should be on different POAs but against what?
I said that in the first pages:
strategos wrote:
So, my fix would be:
- PoA cavalry charging to the front of non FRG heavy or medium foot
+ PoA medium or heavy infantry figthing at melee against cavalry
(and/or cavalry can't apply their armour PoA when fighting medium or heavy infantry)
Besides that, it can be tested that Impact foot and spearmen can't get their + for charging cavalry.
rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 28288
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Post by rbodleyscott »

Strategos69 wrote:One unit of LH can make you waste your time for the whole battle.
Only if you let it. How exactly can LH force you to go after them if your cavalry are the non-shock type that this thread is about?
Strategos69
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1375
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 10:53 pm
Location: Alcalá de Henares, Spain

Post by Strategos69 »

rbodleyscott wrote:

Only if you let it. How exactly can LH force you to go after them if your cavalry are the non-shock type that this thread is about?
Well, even in the case you decide to ignore it (and you'd have been receving some shooting for a couple of tunrs and maybe throwing CT) and turn to charge in the main line, the LH can charge into your flank or rear and, if they lose, you have to pursue (at least once). Given that the average infantry combat lasts 4 rounds (2 turns) that last manouver would have put you out of charge for 3 or 4 turns.
Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Ancient & Medieval Era 3000 BC-1500 AD : General Discussion”