Slitherine

Veteran Armoured Cavalry v the Roman Legionaries is a pretty poor match-up. Something like 5% chance to win/70% to draw/25% to lose on impact. Once in melee it is even worse. I just wondered if this is backed up by historical accounts. Did cavalry really not have much success v the Roman infantry? I understand that they aren't lancers but it seems quite poor odds for good quality cavalry.

SLancaster wrote: ↑Sat Aug 21, 2021 1:46 am Veteran Armoured Cavalry v the Roman Legionaries is a pretty poor match-up. Something like 5% chance to win/70% to draw/25% to lose on impact. Once in melee it is even worse. I just wondered if this is backed up by historical accounts. Did cavalry really not have much success v the Roman infantry? I understand that they aren't lancers but it seems quite poor odds for good quality cavalry.

These men are throwing javelins before contact and advancing into melee if it the odds suited them. Such cavalry generally did not attempt to attack Steady formed well trained infantry from the front, it did not end well. Cavalry would typically be deployed on the flanks to defeat the enemy's cavalry, and then if successful wrap around the enemy's rear for a devastating flank attack. That, or just pursue the enemy's fleeing cavalry or get distracted plundering the camp.

Snugglebunnies said it all and summed up very well what was probably the only worthwhile tactics available for the ‘Armoured cavalry’ of the time. This is indeed due to their low power at impact that was caused in large part by their lack of suitable ‘technology’ : no stirrups, poorly-enveloping saddles, probably fast but not very powerful horses, not to mention no long lance, no technique of the couched lance nor proper formation.

But they were also adapted/good at what they were supposed to do (scouting, harassing, charging cavalry, pursuing, flanking...). And they can be effective in game likewise imho.

My biggest peeve about FOG II is the ability to peel off a unit of heavy infantry from the battleline to shut down cavalry on the flanks. The veteran armored cavalry that should be flanking the enemy are shut down by miraculously mobile infantry commandos who, in reality, would be unable to break off from the main group. It makes sweeping flanking maneuvers ahistorically difficult. Even the famed flexibility of Roman infantry couldn't achieve this. The culprit is the command rules which are too loose. The old GBoH games were better in that leaders could issue a line command enabling many units to move together or a few individual orders leaving everyone else stationary.

Deeter

I for one find flanking by Cavalry balanced as it is. I like it that it is not that easy. I don't think it is ahistorical. On the contrary. In FoG2, attacks by infantry and cavalry must coordinate with each other to work properly (to flank attack the enemy unit when it is engaged), which is a good thing imo.

How is it historical that one can peel off a hoplite unit from the phalanx to go off on its own to chase cavalry when just forming a phalanx was an achievement?

Deeter

Happens when you separate cavalry unit(s) from the rest of your army (too much/too quickly). Has nothing to do with History but with your tactics imho. Hold your horses and attack the enemy unit with infantry first before it chases, ie keep you cavalry away from his infantry and make your infantry approach his infantry first.

I think it is not historical to make this sort of cavalry approach not-busy infantry, ie to prepare a charge of Armoured cavalry against not-busy infantry.

Being free from any other threat, the enemy infantry ‘chases’ a unit that should know it is way too weak to dare to approach.

In other words, in-game Cavalry are horses in the process of charging while in-game light horses are the same horses shown skirmishing. Logically only the latter (those skirmishing) should approach not-busy infantry. If you see a not-busy enemy infantry in front of you, you don't charge, you throw your javelins (skirmish) or flee waiting for the support of friendly infantry.

You are correct - on game terms - but I can't find anything to support that in history. So I play the game in game terms if I want to win.

Deeter

You didn't understand what I meant.
So keep on doing unhistorical and illogical things with your cav, your enemy will keep on reacting logically, and you'll keep on complaining that he doesn't behave historically...
Have fun.

I shall, thanks.

Deeter