Slitherine

Technically there are a few parts to that question:

1) Are hybrid units worth their points in an army when compared to dedicated individual melee or ranged units?

2) Is a group of hybrid units worth their points when compared to an equivalent point allocation towards melee and/or ranged units?

3) Are armies that focus on hybrid units disadvantaged vs. dedicated ranged or melee armies where both favor the same terrain (both armies like open or rough terrain in terms of unit types aka cavalry and heavy infantry in open or mediums in rough)?

4) Are hybrid armies more balanced in the context of the other armies in their era?

After a break from the game, I'm back playing a bit more regularly while also experimenting with Pike and Shot and Sengoku Jidai. The earlier games feature relatively large amounts of hybrid units, where hybrid units combine ranged and melee capabilities to some extent. The main examples are the eponymous Pike and Shot units, Green Standard Chinese Infantry, Assyrian style infantry, Persian Sparabara, and Byzantine Lancers. The Byzantines in particular rely on hybrid units for a large number of army lists over a long time frame, putting them in competition with a wide variety of enemies (if you filter matchups, that is). I've always struggled a bit with army composition and tactics for armies relying on hybrid units, but that conundrum also makes them so alluring. A puzzle to solve.

Anyway, curious to see what players see as their place within the current multiplayer meta.

I don't really see them as hybrid in a collective sense. I go by the particular army list. For example, for the Assyrians you may not have much choice but to use the bow/spearmen as a major part of your army. You then have to adapt to your opponent and map accordingly.

I do like the Lancers.

SLancaster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:15 am I don't really see them as hybrid in a collective sense. I go by the particular army list. For example, for the Assyrians you may not have much choice but to use the bow/spearmen as a major part of your army. You then have to adapt to your opponent and map accordingly.

I do like the Lancers.

Certainly, certainly. Let's look at that another way. Suppose the developers implement a system where you can create an army out of any combination of units with some limitations built in. And then let's suppose that you're choosing your infantry line and deciding between dedicated melee units like offensive spears or light spear/swords or using Sparabara/Skutatoi/Assyrian Foot.

Are there potential army matchups where you'd want a roster of hybrid infantry vs. a roster with a mixture of dedicated melee and ranged specialists? Are they largely interchangeable, or are they better in certain circumstances?

Geffalrus wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 7:08 pm

SLancaster wrote: ↑Mon Feb 01, 2021 11:15 am I don't really see them as hybrid in a collective sense. I go by the particular army list. For example, for the Assyrians you may not have much choice but to use the bow/spearmen as a major part of your army. You then have to adapt to your opponent and map accordingly.

I do like the Lancers.

Certainly, certainly. Let's look at that another way. Suppose the developers implement a system where you can create an army out of any combination of units with some limitations built in. And then let's suppose that you're choosing your infantry line and deciding between dedicated melee units like offensive spears or light spear/swords or using Sparabara/Skutatoi/Assyrian Foot.

Are there potential army matchups where you'd want a roster of hybrid infantry vs. a roster with a mixture of dedicated melee and ranged specialists? Are they largely interchangeable, or are they better in certain circumstances?

I don’t know. You seem to be dealing in hypotheticals for me. I have my Assyrian army and I may want lots of offensive spearmen but I can’t have them. I have to win in another way.

For me, you would be better going through the units of a particular list and highlighting strengths and weaknesses. Some armies have so-called hybrids and you could highlight and discuss them. There may be one or two ways to win with a particular list and you could give reasons for your choices. That is my opinion, anyway.

Geffalrus,
My answer is no; sadly, they are not better.
Prof: The Byzantine Infantry of the 10th century. In reality, these boys and their mixed formation was a big reason behind the success of the byzantine armies of Nikiforos Fokas, John Tzimisces, and Basil II.
In-game terms...I am sure you know... They have 50 POA against any infantry. Only 50 !!! I love this game, but I wish there would be a way to present some more realistic units: the mixed infantry formations and the horse archers, the two main problems IMHO.

Byzantine hybrid units sure do feel overpriced a bit, especially Skoutatoi and archers since they paying extra for being maneuverable.

Hybrid units can definitely be worth it, but they don't work in every matchup.

FoGII:

Assyrian style hybrid infantry is very effective against the cavalry of the day, which are Light Spear at best for Impact. They can also shred Massed Archer armies, even in terrain if you field the Medium variety en masse. Against Sparabara, it depends - you'll lose the shootout but be up 50POA in melee. However, hoplites in the open will steamroll these guys, as 50% Bow is ineffective at long range, and one close range volley generally isn't enough to cause Disruption, especially as the earlier hoplites tend to be Armored, not Protected.

Sparabara are again extremely effective against anything that is not hoplites in the open.

Skoutatoi & Archers struggle against Shieldwalls, but that's not really a big deal - use the Lancers to ZoC lock the enemy and mow them down. Being Defensive Spearmen, if Steady they'll halve enemy Swordsmen POA down to 50, which matches the 50POA for the Spears. Of course, if they Disrupt, it'll be over quick. The Raw Skoutatoi and Archers are a better buy - Protected, Raw, and Unmaneuverable, sure, but 27 points - cheaper than Irregular Foot or Light Archers for a unit that can fight respectably in support roles.

The Byzantine Lancer types are really useful when you're facing a big wall of spears - they can ZoC lock, protect your infantry, and lend their firepower to forcing Disruptions before the charge. But if you're facing an enemy with lots of Lancers of their own, it tends to be a waste of points. Your 72pt Tagmatic Lancers *might* get one volley in before contact, and an even melee with, 64pt Armored Lancers.

FoGIIM:

So far we just have Highlanders - Average, Protected, Warriors. 50% Bow, Impact Foot, Swordsmen. A great unit, but they struggle against high quality heavy infantry, get ridden down by Knights in the open with zero effort, and mowed down by archers. Still, they are fantastic Rough Ground units, able to defend themselves against skirmishers or goad enemy Medium Foot into unwise assaults. I assume that with a crusades DLC we'll see Byzantine mixed infantry, and maybe Crusader infantry of the sort deployed at Arsouf - 50% Defensive Spearmen, 50% Crossbowmen.

Sengoku Jidai:

Korean troops have 50% HW 50% missile. HW gets 0 Impact POA vs cavalry in Sengoku, so they need to either hide in terrain or rely on their own cavalry support. Otherwise they do well in melee. Note that the 50% Matchlock units ignore all enemy armor, while the 50% Bow units only ignore half, as Matchlocks ignore armor even in melee, even if they lack their own melee POA. A notable mention to the warrior monks, Bow, Impact Foot, Swordsmen Warriors. Ridiculously good, but not numerous.

Chinese mixed troops aren't so much hybrid as 84% missile troops with defensive Light Spear Impact. So their shooting is slightly worse, but they have some ability to survive Impact. Their lack of armor or melee capabilities is tough, though.

Pike and Shot:
This game really has too many different mixed units to list them all, but suffice it to say that the army lists lacking in such units are heavily dependent on defensible terrain to survive. Other than the earlier, hard hitting pike keils of the Renaissance, the most common unit is, well… Pike and Shot. The thing about this unit type is that its effectiveness depends on its Steadiness. For 42pts, you get a unit that,

If Steady:
Cancels out enemy Swordsmen, Pistol (Melee), Heavy Weapon (including Impact for HW)
+100POA vs Cavalry
Ignores 2/3 of enemy armor (being 66% Musketeers)

Its capabilities degrade as it drops to Disrupted/Moderately Disordered, and even more if Fragmented/Severely Disordered. Still, because such units don’t have to fear cavalry charges if Steady, and Muskets inflict severe casualties on infantry, if you could drop a Pike and Shot army into FoGII it would be brutally effective.

Excellent summary and analysis Snuggles!

Personally, I feel that Fog2 is really where the question gets interesting. In Pike and Shot, most units are mixed and both PS and SJ don't have the massive amount of light skirmish infantry that you can see in some FoG2 lists (Classical Spanish, Steppe, Jewish, etc). In FoG2, there is a more clear and common dichotomy between armies that rely almost entirely on melee units (Gauls for example) and those who rely on dedicated ranged units (Nabatea for example).

A few seasons ago, I tried out the Byzantines in Late Antiquity, and struggled to make proper use of their hybrid cavalry. As Snuggles stated, they pay extra for their flexibility, and suffer a bit when confronted by cost effective specialists. Which led me to the question of, is it better to have 2 dedicated specialists, 1 melee, 1 ranged......or 2 hybrids that can do a bit of both. Of course, in the way that army lists work, you're more likely to be comparing a mass of melee units supported by a few skirmish units against a mass of hybrid infantry.

Anyway, playing P&S more made me start to appreciate the advantages of hybrid units in various situations and overcome my previous feeling that they were not the best use of points.

I personally like the Byzantine lancers & archers quite a bit. The Byzantine 551 list is the one I've had the most success with in LA (that said, while they do have the mixed cavalry, it's before the skoutatoi and archers units come into play - they still have legio comitatensis (sp?) as their main infantry line). They've definitely helped out, when the option to stop and pepper an enemy with arrows before charging in was helpful, or when a unit getting into position could take a bow shot and cause a few more casualties because why not. That said, I'm not sure they are worth the points, as 50% bow means they've got limited capability to actually force morale checks.

I've been on the other side of a match against the Byzantine skoutatoi and archers, with my Vikings in EMA. The Byzantines got absolutely steamrolled in that one. The archers didn't really help much on the approach and the Vikings crushed their infantry line.

rs2excelsior wrote: ↑Sat Feb 06, 2021 3:27 am I've been on the other side of a match against the Byzantine skoutatoi and archers, with my Vikings in EMA. The Byzantines got absolutely steamrolled in that one. The archers didn't really help much on the approach and the Vikings crushed their infantry line.

That matchup can go either way. In this match:

https://youtu.be/YI4lInBs9Gg

I used the Lancer/Archers to lock down the Huscarls while shooting arrows with the Skoutatoi & Archers for a win. If anything, I think the matchup is somewhat in favor of the Byzantines, as the Vikings utterly lack Lancers with which to break up the Byzantine cavalry.