Slitherine

Posted: **Mon May 04, 2020 3:30 pm**

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 3:13 pm What if medium foot were slightly disordered in rough terrain, is there a way to figure out what the odds would be by crunching some numbers?

Anything that reduces the impact of this particular terrain type a bit would help, I think. I don't know what the mathematics are for these situations - i.e. what numbers are at play currently to give us the outcomes we have at the moment. That would be interesting to know. The random map generator is a bit mysterious to me at the moment.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 4:46 am**

now that there is a separate thread for discussing medium foot balance here:

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=98770&start=20

I would really like to get back on to the original topic of this thread.

There does seem to be something...unusual perhaps about the way lancers are implemented leading to their most effective use often being as a pinning force, which is almost like the opposite of what I thought their historical use was. They really aren't very good even at attacking average medium foot in the open, especially not for cost.

the ZoC locking effectiveness of cheap non light foot also really cripples their ability to get in around for flanks so...shameless plug for a cav mod I made here:
viewtopic.php?f=477&t=98647&p=849283#p849283

pinwolf wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:37 am
This is from Archer Jones' Art of War in the Western World:

...

So, main tactical purpose of lance cavalery is to fight light (bow/javelin) cavalry and light infantry. It is not intended to frontal charge heavy infantry.
I see them as 'tanks' for the skirmish battle that also have a moral breaking bonus over normal cavalery when making a flank/rear charge into ongoing melee fights.

if that's true then their representation in game doesn't really resemble that. They are way too expensive to be mostly devoted to chasing down 24 point light inf and light cav. Maybe archer jones was talking more about the in game (and historical) Prodromoi unit, while the Xystophoroi are the real life Thessalian and Companion Cavalry, whose role was more like...lemme wiki that real fast:

The wiki page on Alexander's army (sorry I'm not a scholar lol) says:

Although the Companion cavalry is largely regarded as the first real shock cavalry of Antiquity, it seems that Alexander was very wary of using it against well-formed infantry, as attested by Arrian in his account of the battle against the Malli, an Indian tribe he faced after Hydaspes. There, Alexander did not dare assault the dense infantry formation with his cavalry, but rather waited for his infantry to arrive, while he and his cavalry harassed their flanks.[20] It is a common mistake to portray the Companion cavalry as a force able to burst through compact infantry lines. Alexander usually launched the Companions at the enemy after a gap had opened up between their units or disorder had already disrupted their ranks. However, the ancient historian Arrian implies that the Companion cavalry were successful in an assault, along with heavy infantry, on the Greek mercenary hoplites serving Persia in the closing stages of the Battle of Granicus. Their success may have been largely due to the poor morale of the hoplites, who had just witnessed the rest of their army broken and put to flight

*and the given source for that paragraph is 'Sidnell, P. (2006) Warhorse: Cavalry in Ancient Warfare, Continuum, London' if that helps you

So, trying to translate into game terms here, ancient Macedonian lancers (perhaps discuss medieval lancers later? Perhaps that should be a distinct unit type? at least knights will be later of course) would/should not be used to charge "well-formed infantry" in the open (probably steady, medium and heavy infantry), although that appears to be based off of one example. Instead, they were effective when
a) charging through a 'gap', which presumably means getting through a hole in a line caused by evading, broken, following up or whatever enemy units, and then getting flanks in once behind the rest of their line. This is quite difficult in game due to the nature of the ZoC system (for better or for worse).
b) charging disordered units with disrupted ranks (disordered by terrain or disrupted by morale loss?), and
c) charging units with poor morale (disrupted/fragmented by morale loss)

So, in game terms, what I'm thinking based off of that description is that there should be some huge POA difference between Lancers charging steady medium or heavy foot (advantage to the foot) and between charging at all disrupted or disordered heavy or medium foot in the open (which really means just disrupted, because if disordered then not in the open), in which case the advantage is to the Lancers.

Perhaps a special condition for lancers charging disrupted medium and heavy foot in the open that gives them an extra POA could be an interesting experiment. Currently, lancers initiating a charge against steady spearmen or pikes lose their POA, but they do not get an extra bonus against disrupted infantry (spears, pikes, medium, heavy, or otherwise). I think combining such a bonus with the ZoC changes in the cav mod that permit them to get past secondary zocs of a non light inf unit that has been charged by non light cav this turn would actually bring them into line with the historical description from the wikipedia article, ie still not able to charge steady foot head on, but more able to get through gaps in the enemy line, and better in the charge against disrupted foot.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 10:18 am**

@Schweetness101 : I agree with your general analysis but I see a couple of issues in your conclusions :

1) Lancers can be effective only in the open so they can’t successfully charge infantry when the latter is disordered by the terrain. Or maybe I did not understand what you mean (see below)

2) You want to give an ‘huge’ advantage to lancers vs 'disrupted or disordered’ infantry. But ancient/early middle age lancers can’t have a ‘huge’ one. They don’t have stirrup (even if some of them had effective saddles and charging techniques) and their use of the lance is mainly based on the strength of the arm (rather than on the shock as with the couched lance technique of the knights, which a Belgian Historian called the ’man-horse projectile') which is much less effective... against infantry :

I for one think lancers should rather have a chance to enter the non-steady infantry unit through the ‘gap’ you rightly mentioned (and that I see as being already well represented in the game by the cohesion states : disrupted and fragmented) and, thanks to their horses and the melee, move forward and scatter the infantrymen, which means a cohesion loss and rout.

But the question is : were those gaps most likely located between two nearby infantrymen of the same front rank (because of the terrain or bad morale) or between two ranks one behind the other (when the frightened rear ranks hesitated between staying and fleeing), ie when the cavalry charges head-on or when they flank ? I tend towards the latter, which is already in game.

I think combining such a bonus with the ZoC changes in the cav mod that permit them to get past secondary zocs of a non light inf unit that has been charged by non light cav this turn would actually bring them into line with the historical description from the wikipedia article, ie still not able to charge steady foot head on, but more able to get through gaps in the enemy line, and better in the charge against disrupted foot.

3) IMHO, you may be multiplying ‘huge’ advantages towards the non-light cavalry in your cav mod.

If I for one were to suggest a change in the Vanilla game about non-light cav or make a cav mod that would fit for my vision about it (which is not a MP one), I would first test one single change : making impact of cav vs cav more decisive during the cav fighting (while letting cav melee as Vanilla). So I'd give non-light cav a slight chance to get rid of the enemy cav quicker (than now) to be able to go and flank/rear charge the enemy infantry while leaving open the (sometimes more annoying but realistic) possibility that your cav get stuck in a long melee against the enemy cav.

I for one imagine the melee of Ancient/early middle age lancers as being longer than the knights' melee (because of the strength of the knights' impact). And I tend to think that non-light cavalry of the Antiquity and Middle age were not very strong against infantry ('medium and heavy' in game), especially in head on charges.

So, for a mod for non-light cav, the only change I would suggest, as a first (and maybe last) step, is :
1) extra -1 to ct for non light cav vs non light cav on impact only
2) between 0-40% more casualties in non light cav vs non light cav on impact only (I need more testing to tell about the %age)

... but would it be a mod tailored to the Ancient/early middle age times or... to later periods (from the time of the knights on) when impact mattered ? That's the question...

IMHO, Vanilla FoG2 accurately reproduces the fact that lancers could be often stuck in long melees.
______________

PS : I don’t really get this sentence : « disrupted or disordered heavy or medium foot in the open (which really means just disrupted, because if disordered then not in the open) » My bad English

______________

A few additional thoughts :

they were effective when
a) charging through a 'gap', which presumably means getting through a hole in a line caused by evading, broken, following up or whatever enemy units, and then getting flanks in once behind the rest of their line. This is quite difficult in game due to the nature of the ZoC system (for better or for worse).
b) charging disordered units with disrupted ranks (disordered by terrain or disrupted by morale loss?), and
c) charging units with poor morale (disrupted/fragmented by morale loss)

a) As I see it, the cohesion states are not just psychological states. The enemy don’t know your psychological state, so you should not be aware of it in game. As I see them, cohesion states are also a way to show how the soldiers inside an unit behave, ie ‘gaps’ that may appear within the ranks or, on the contrary, coordinated and solid soldiers inside a unit. So gaps are already represented in-game by the states of cohesion IMHO.
b) Infantry disrupted by morale loss but not disordered by terrain as non-light cavalry won’t be able to charge effectively on such terrain.
c) indeed, but IMHO a = b = c.

now that there is a separate thread for discussing medium foot balance here:

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=98770&start=20

I would really like to get back on to the original topic of this thread.

There does seem to be something...unusual perhaps about the way lancers are implemented leading to their most effective use often being as a pinning force, which is almost like the opposite of what I thought their historical use was. They really aren't very good even at attacking average medium foot in the open, especially not for cost.

the ZoC locking effectiveness of cheap non light foot also really cripples their ability to get in around for flanks so...shameless plug for a cav mod I made here:
viewtopic.php?f=477&t=98647&p=849283#p849283

This is from Archer Jones' Art of War in the Western World:

...

So, main tactical purpose of lance cavalery is to fight light (bow/javelin) cavalry and light infantry. It is not intended to frontal charge heavy infantry.
I see them as 'tanks' for the skirmish battle that also have a moral breaking bonus over normal cavalery when making a flank/rear charge into ongoing melee fights.
if that's true then their representation in game doesn't really resemble that. They are way too expensive to be mostly devoted to chasing down 24 point light inf and light cav. Maybe archer jones was talking more about the in game (and historical) Prodromoi unit, while the Xystophoroi are the real life Thessalian and Companion Cavalry, whose role was more like...lemme wiki that real fast

When I wrote in this thread that the primary purpose of non-light cavalry was to fight enemy non-light cavalry, it was not a truism or a bit of humour, but, I think, a reality. It is certainly a reason why cavalry fights last 'so long' in game.

So, trying to translate into game terms here, ancient Macedonian lancers (perhaps discuss medieval lancers later? Perhaps that should be a distinct unit type? at least knights will be later of course)

I think lancers of the early middle age and Ancient ones can be dealt with the same way : about the same equipment and the same use of the lance.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 12:26 pm**

I'm not sure where the idea that lancers need some sort of combat performance buff comes from. All lancer units (well, maybe except byzantine ones, those are quite special) perform perfectly well for their price when properly supported.

Early lancers aren't supposed to be riding down steady infantry in the open, they are not knights.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 3:12 pm**

Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 12:26 pm I'm not sure where the idea that lancers need some sort of combat performance buff comes from. All lancer units (well, maybe except byzantine ones, those are quite special) perform perfectly well for their price when properly supported.

Early lancers aren't supposed to be riding down steady infantry in the open, they are not knights.

*cough* mediocre *cough* armored *cough* muslim *cough* lancers *cough* *cough* *cough* (croaks).

On a more serious note, lancers already experience a +100 PoA shift from getting their lance impact back when charging disrupted shieldwalls.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 3:19 pm**

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 3:12 pm
Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 12:26 pm I'm not sure where the idea that lancers need some sort of combat performance buff comes from. All lancer units (well, maybe except byzantine ones, those are quite special) perform perfectly well for their price when properly supported.

Early lancers aren't supposed to be riding down steady infantry in the open, they are not knights.
*cough* mediocre *cough* armored *cough* muslim *cough* lancers *cough* *cough* *cough* (croaks).

On a more serious note, lancers already experience a +100 PoA shift from getting their lance impact back when charging disrupted shieldwalls.

Agree. No need to make it even stronger against disrupted shieldwall.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 3:49 pm**

so I don't think Lancers as they are currently implemented are unbalanced, as contrasted with the issue with MF where I think they are a bit unbalanced. I think the issue instead is that they are not used best in an historical way, ie the historical simulation is I think harmed by the way they are currently implemented (this historical vs in game issue is actually the topic of the thread, but I think we kind of lost it at one point). As described above, in game they are a pinning force, which I don't think is really very close to historically correct.

If they were to receive some boost to charging disrupted non light infantry (just for example), or anything else to remedy the historical simulation, it should of course be counterbalanced by something else. I dunno what yet; this is one that needs some thinking about, and that would touch on the balance of a lot of other units.

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 3:12 pm On a more serious note, lancers already experience a +100 PoA shift from getting their lance impact back when charging disrupted shieldwalls.

It is a +100 shift for sure, but that is because they go from losing all of their poa charging steady shieldwall, to not losing it charging disrupted shieldwall, but all else being equal that puts them on equal footing. I'm suggesting trying out something that allows Lancers to successfully charge disrupted non light infantry, and not just bounce. At the very least, disrupted, average non-spear medium foot in the open should be extremely vulnerable to a Lancer charge?

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 3:50 pm**

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 3:12 pm
Nosy_Rat wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 12:26 pm I'm not sure where the idea that lancers need some sort of combat performance buff comes from. All lancer units (well, maybe except byzantine ones, those are quite special) perform perfectly well for their price when properly supported.

Early lancers aren't supposed to be riding down steady infantry in the open, they are not knights.
*cough* mediocre *cough* armored *cough* muslim *cough* lancers *cough* *cough* *cough* (croaks).

On a more serious note, lancers already experience a +100 PoA shift from getting their lance impact back when charging disrupted shieldwalls.

Ok, you got me there, I forgot those even exist. Tbf, even mediocre armored lancers aren't bad, there's just always better options available.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 4:01 pm**

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 3:49 pm It is a +100 shift for sure, but that is because they go from losing all of their poa charging steady shieldwall, to not losing it charging disrupted shieldwall, but all else being equal that puts them on equal footing. I'm suggesting trying out something that allows Lancers to successfully charge disrupted non light infantry, and not just bounce. At the very least, disrupted, average non-spear medium foot in the open should be extremely vulnerable to a Lancer charge?

But disrupted, average non-spear (or even spear, that doesn't really matter) medium foot in the open are already extremely vulnerable to lancer charges, even cheapest bedouin lancers have something like 50% win chance in this situation.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 4:09 pm**

Lancers get 50 points when attacking steady spears, not 0, making them equal to light spear cavalry.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 4:11 pm**

Gaznak wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 4:09 pm Lancers get 50 points when attacking steady spears, not 0, making them equal to light spear cavalry.

I stand corrected.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 4:25 pm**

pompeytheflatulent wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 4:11 pm
Gaznak wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 4:09 pm Lancers get 50 points when attacking steady spears, not 0, making them equal to light spear cavalry.
I stand corrected.

oh yeah, that was evidently a 1.5.8 addition. Below is for if lancers initiate charge against spearmen/pikes

EDIT: so you understand, PercentNotSteady() returns 100 if at all disrupted or disordered, and 0 otherwise. Then against steady spears the increment is set to the greater value, 50 or whatever percent not steady was. IE if PercentNotSteady() returns 0 (the spears are steady) then increment is zero, but then boosted to 50. If PercentNotSteady() returns 100 (spears are not steady), then lancer poa is 100 (because 100 is the max of 100 and 50). A little bit confusing at first...

Then the poa is set to increment later.

Code: Select all

if ((GetAttrib(enemy, "Pike") > 0) || (GetAttrib(enemy, "Offensive_Spearmen") > 0) || (GetAttrib(enemy, "Defensive_Spearmen") > 0) || (InProtectiveTerrain(enemy, me, enemy_charging) == 1))
	{
		increment = PercentNotSteady(enemy, me, enemy_charging); // Only get POA against non-steady - which may be partial
									
		// v1.5.8 addition.
		increment = Max(increment, 50); // 50 POA vs steady non-charging spearmen etc.
		// End v1.5.8 addition
	}

*This is for "Light_Lancers" in the code, but that includes most Lancer units, just not cataphracts, as far as I can tell.

So it looks like it was deemed necessary for balance that Lancers be made less bad against steady spears. I'm interested though in experimenting with getting rid of that +50 POA minimum for Lancers against steady spears (aka making them utterly terrible charging steady spears), but in turn adding a bonus against disrupted non light infantry (spear or not). That way kind of exaggerating their strengths and weaknesses a bit more.

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 4:53 pm**

Athos1660 wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 10:18 am
1) Lancers can be effective only in the open so they can’t successfully charge infantry when the latter is disordered by the terrain. Or maybe I did not understand what you mean (see below)

2) You want to give an ‘huge’ advantage to lancers vs 'disrupted or disordered’ infantry. But ancient/early middle age lancers can’t have a ‘huge’ one. They don’t have stirrup (even if some of them had effective saddles and charging techniques) and their use of the lance is mainly based on the strength of the arm (rather than on the shock as with the couched lance technique of the knights, which a Belgian Historian called the ’man-horse projectile') which is much less effective... against infantry :

I for one think lancers should rather have a chance to enter the non-steady infantry unit through the ‘gap’ you rightly mentioned (and that I see as being already well represented in the game by the cohesion states : disrupted and fragmented) and, thanks to their horses and the melee, move forward and scatter the infantrymen, which means a cohesion loss and rout.

But the question is : were those gaps most likely located between two nearby infantrymen of the same front rank (because of the terrain or bad morale) or between two ranks one behind the other (when the frightened rear ranks hesitated between staying and fleeing), ie when the cavalry charges head-on or when they flank ? I tend towards the latter, which is already in game.

I think combining such a bonus with the ZoC changes in the cav mod that permit them to get past secondary zocs of a non light inf unit that has been charged by non light cav this turn would actually bring them into line with the historical description from the wikipedia article, ie still not able to charge steady foot head on, but more able to get through gaps in the enemy line, and better in the charge against disrupted foot.
3) IMHO, you may be multiplying ‘huge’ advantages towards the non-light cavalry in your cav mod.

If I for one were to suggest a change in the Vanilla game about non-light cav or make a cav mod that would fit for my vision about it (which is not a MP one), I would first test one single change : making impact of cav vs cav more decisive during the cav fighting (while letting cav melee as Vanilla). So I'd give non-light cav a slight chance to get rid of the enemy cav quicker (than now) to be able to go and flank/rear charge the enemy infantry while leaving open the (sometimes more annoying but realistic) possibility that your cav get stuck in a long melee against the enemy cav.

I for one imagine the melee of Ancient/early middle age lancers as being longer than the knights' melee (because of the strength of the knights' impact). And I tend to think that non-light cavalry of the Antiquity and Middle age were not very strong against infantry ('medium and heavy' in game), especially in head on charges.

So, for a mod for non-light cav, the only change I would suggest, as a first (and maybe last) step, is :
1) extra -1 to ct for non light cav vs non light cav on impact only
2) between 0-40% more casualties in non light cav vs non light cav on impact only (I need more testing to tell about the %age)

... but would it be a mod tailored to the Ancient/early middle age times or... to later periods (from the time of the knights on) when impact mattered ? That's the question...

IMHO, Vanilla FoG2 accurately reproduces the fact that lancers could be often stuck in long melees.
______________

PS : I don’t really get this sentence : « disrupted or disordered heavy or medium foot in the open (which really means just disrupted, because if disordered then not in the open) » My bad English

The sentence you didn't understand addresses #1 in the same way as you, that is if a unit is disordered by terrain it is not in the open, and thus lancers would not get their impact poa against it anyway. Sorry, my explanation was inelegant.

I had been thinking of gaps as being between different units, ie an empty grid in game, and the disorder/disrupted state as representing a poorly ordered formation or one with low morale that won't/can't stand to a cavalry charge, but it could be that disordered is supposed to represent gaps as you say, but i don't think so. It seems, if you take for example the battle of Gaugamela, the part described in this video from around 9:25 to around 10:00 minutes in:

https://youtu.be/vY3z3yh7a24?t=561

or from around 15:10 to 17:30 in this video (alexander's unit) at Chaeronea:

https://youtu.be/GhWqkWSoCGc?t=910

is what is meant by gaps, ie physical space to move through between units.

I was kind of focused on classical antiquity with the mod but it doesn't have to be that only

For 3) have you had any luck testing different values for casualty/ct changes in impact and/or melee between non light cav?

Posted: **Tue May 05, 2020 6:08 pm**

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 4:53 pm The sentence you didn't understand addresses #1 in the same way as you, that is if a unit is disordered by terrain it is not in the open, and thus lancers would not get their impact poa against it anyway. Sorry, my explanation was inelegant.

Ok. A complex sentence about a complex subject and I am lost in translation

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 4:53 pm I had been thinking of gaps as being between different units, ie an empty grid in game, and the disorder/disrupted state as representing a poorly ordered formation or one with low morale that won't/can't stand to a cavalry charge, but it could be that disordered is supposed to represent gaps as you say, but i don't think so. It seems, if you take for example the battle of Gaugamela, the part described in this video from around 9:25 to around 10:00 minutes in:

https://youtu.be/vY3z3yh7a24?t=561

or from around 15:10 to 17:30 in this video (alexander's unit) at Chaeronea:

https://youtu.be/GhWqkWSoCGc?t=910

is what is meant by gaps, ie physical space to move through between units.

I was kind of focused on classical antiquity with the mod but it doesn't have to be that only

I am not convinced by your argument about 'gaps'. In both videos, cav don't move through a gap between 2 units but just wait until some enemy units leave to charge the rest of the (then weakened) army, head-on in vid. 1, by the flank and the rear in vid. 2. And this is not incompatible with my way of seeing 'gaps' (no innuendo btw), ie inside a unit.

My understanding of the 'gaps' in the Wiki text you mentioned comes from my reading of academic articles/books, which of course does not mean that I am right and you are wrong.

Schweetness101 wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 4:53 pm For 3) have you had any luck testing different values for casualty/ct changes in impact and/or melee between non light cav?

I am at the beginning of this testing. So no final opinion.

I tested :
1) extra -1 to ct for non light cav vs non light cav on impact and melee. 33% more casualties in non light cav vs non light cav on impact and melee.
2) extra -1 to ct on impact and melee. 25% more casualties on impact and melee.
3) extra -1 to ct on impact and melee. 50% more casualties on impact and melee.
4) extra -1 to ct on impact and melee. 33% more casualties on impact only.
5) extra 0 to ct on impact and melee. 33% more casualties on impact only.
6) extra 0 to ct on impact and melee. 50% more casualties on impact only.
7) extra -1 to ct on impact only. 33% more casualties on impact.
8 ) extra -1 to ct on impact. 25% more casualties on impact.
9) extra -1 to ct on impact. 0% more casualties on impact.
10) extra -1 to ct on impact. 10% more casualties on impact.

As you see it, the more I test it, the more I nerf it

I must admit that, for now, what I like best is #10 for Ancient/early middle Age non-light cavalry : impact matters a lot (as I like it and think it might be realistic) but, if there's no cohesion drop, the melee will last (two men on horseback fighting...). (btw I would certainly increase the %age of casualties for later periods.)

However, as I said, I need much more testing and I might change my mind.

Posted: **Wed May 06, 2020 8:49 am**

The subject of this thread, like others recently discussed, is about the effect of non-light cavalry on non-light infantry.

Some would like to have non-light cavalry stronger, able to charge head-on at least some of the non-light infantry in some cases (terrain…), able to be more effective against infantry, etc.

The trouble with this is that, historically and generally speaking, it seems that it was not the case (most of the time).

Apart from rear/flank charges and charges vs non-steady infantry (which is quite something!), pursuing routers and some exceptions, it seems that non-light cavalry had little direct effect on non-light infantry, its main role being to fight enemy non-light cavalry.

But non-light cavalry might have had an indirect effect on enemy infantry, a psychological one. I read historical reports of battles of the 16th century (is it transposable to FoG2?) where the infantry lost heart when it understood that their friendly cavalry had just been defeated by the enemy cavalry and that now it was alone against infantry and cavalry.

So I would like to test a mod (in FoG2 or P&S) using the FoG2 mechanism of the killed/wounded general (« if a general is killed or wounded, all friendly units within x squares (…) must take a Cohesion Test. ») applied to non-light cavalry : « when a non-light cavalry is fully defeated (ie when its last cav unit is routed/leaves the battlefield), the friendly infantry must take a cohesion test. »

It would certainly need some tweaking :
- would the cohesion test affect the whole infantry or only the nearest units ?
- would the cohesion test happen only when a sufficient number of enemy non-light cav units are able to approach the infantry after their victory over enemy cavalry ?
- Etc.

It might also be an absurd mechanism in the cases of great imbalance in non-light cavalry strengths.

However it might simulate an interesting historical effect of non-light cavalry on non-light infantry. It would also give meaning and additional weight to cavalry fights. And thus it might make some ppl no longer wish to shorten too much the duration of cavalry fights which might feel like it is unhistorical and/or unbalanced to others.

btw I’m still in favour of making impact a bit more decisive in non-light cavalry fights.

(edit)
for clarification

Posted: **Sat May 16, 2020 2:04 am**

I do think lancers shouldn't be charging and breaking units frontally, but I wonder if there is a good idea that can set them apart from light spear equivalents. They aren't terrible units, but I don't need them to flank the enemy. It doesn't make a difference if you just want 1 cohesion drop. As mentioned before I only look for lancers when I want to pin the enemy line. They are economy of force units (at least the way I use them and understand the mechanics).

One (not really well thought out, I admit) idea would be to remove automatic cohesion loss for light spear/bow cavalry doing flank charges. Give them a better POA/ -1 CT modifier so you can't ignore them like light cavalry, but don't guarantee the cohesion loss. This would turn them into a defensive harassing unit that can still hunt down light foot, and with high quality troops against disrupted enemies you can still cause damage with flank charges. But it makes lancers the only (cavalry) game in town to get a guaranteed drop to disrupted.

It would really set apart the two troop types... and probably mess up the balance considerably, so don't take it as a real suggestion. It's also a bit historically suspect I think, in Hannibal's battles he got very good effects of flanking cavalry despite them being classified light spear in game, as did a lot of other cavalry counted as "light spear" in games. Though if you take lancer as more of a role than a specific piece of equipment (e.g. how light spear foot isn't equipped that differently than impact foot, but the latter are expected to charge) this might be resolved with reclassifying various cavalry of both types until the desired effect for each unit is had.

I'll see if I can mod this in myself, and see the effect.

Slitherine

Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

Re: Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry