Slitherine

OK, a non-techie question for all you well-read people.

What defines a troop type as Heavy, Medium or Light?

I'm assuming it has something to do with speed, and I always assumed that more heavily armoured the unit the more likley it was to be classed as Heavy. But recently, I've been seeing Armoured MF and I've seen a lot of Protected HF, so now I'm not so sure

Finally, is there any difference combat-wise between Heavy vs Medium? I had, in principle tried to steer clear of MF in my armies, but if the troop type is 'cosmetic' then maybe I've been making a mistake!

All input gratefully received.

Morbio wrote:OK, a non-techie question for all you well-read people.

What defines a troop type as Heavy, Medium or Light?

I'm assuming it has something to do with speed, and I always assumed that more heavily armoured the unit the more likley it was to be classed as Heavy. But recently, I've been seeing Armoured MF and I've seen a lot of Protected HF, so now I'm not so sure

All input gratefully received.

The official FoG answer is that MF troops are troop types whose fighting style is less dependent on rigid maintenance of formation than troops classified as HF. They are thus less inconvenienced by terrain, can move faster because they don't have to dress their lines so carefully, but are less resistant to cavalry charges in open terrain.

It does not reflect armour and it does not reflect densiy of formation. (Both HF and MF are close order, but the MF are less dependant on exact maintenance of the order).

Light troops are dispersed to skirmish, though historically this often means in small clumps whizzing about rather than in an evenly spread open order.

Thaks for the answer.

I can see now that I've been less than optimal in my troops selection and use. I think I'll be selecting more MF and will worry less about MF attacking or being attacked by HF. The key thing I need to work about with MF is cavalry - I can work with that

Morbio wrote:Thaks for the answer.

I can see now that I've been less than optimal in my troops selection and use. I think I'll be selecting more MF and will worry less about MF attacking or being attacked by HF. The key thing I need to work about with MF is cavalry - I can work with that

You would have to check the cohesion test modifiers in the help file, but in FOG TT MF get a -1 CT modifier if they lose vs HF in the open, but this only affects them if they lose. If they have the same armour/weapon capaibilities they otherwise fight on equal terms against HF. (Ignore the relative numbers of men in each unit type, they appear to be only for flavour, have no effect on chances of winning a combat, and are not stated in the TT version).

Things are not so rosy against mounted troops, who get an impact POA for fighting MF in the open, and the MF get a -1 CT modifier if they lose against mounted troops in the open in impact and ongoing melee.

Just curious, I wouldnt dream of suggesting the following is needed or ideal , but wondering why Roman legions are heavy foot.
Just on a theoretical side I can see Romans classed as Mediums (except of course for triari) The reasoning would be that these are loose order swordsman w at least a yard of space between men (of course they could double up as needed)
A rebalance would be needed vs opposing Pike for example pikes (and all other "hoplity" troops) could be made undrilled to reflect a phalanx was a very linear formation and sub units really couldnt turn on a dime (if at all) to face different threats, it was either stand or move forward...

Basically it would be the powerful yet immobile (except fwrd) phalanx vs the more nimble legions
As an added "bonus" legion swordsman would be at a disadvantage vs heavy horse if they were medium, which seems historical, especially in later times (after all a pila with its soft shaft isnt too good for thrusting or bracing)

Again, this is just theoretical blather and was just curious in the design decision, I love the way the game is now and obviously I can use the scenario editor for some alternative line ups.
Cheers

TheGrayMouser wrote:Just curious, I wouldnt dream of suggesting the following is needed or ideal , but wondering why Roman legions are heavy foot.

Classifying them as MF did, of course, occur to us.

The main reason we didn't was so that they could stand up as well as they did historically vs cavalry.

Within a limited range of options we decided that overall they better fit the game effect of HF than MF.

However, they are less affected by terrain than pikes or spearmen (check out the factors), and would be well advised to fight those in terrain. (As historically).

TheGrayMouser wrote:As an added "bonus" legion swordsman would be at a disadvantage vs heavy horse if they were medium, which seems historical, especially in later times (after all a pila with its soft shaft isnt too good for thrusting or bracing)

They already are at a relative disadvantage against heavy horse compared with pikes or hoplites.

POA (points of advantage)Vs Lancers at impact

Legions are on a net 0
Hoplites are on a net + POA
Pikes are on a net ++ POA (If above 75% strength)

All provided that the foot are stationary.

If the foot attack the lancers the factors are

Legions on a net -
Hoplites on a net -
Pikes on a net 0 (If above 75% strength)

(Which is why it is not a good idea to charge lancers with foot)

As you can see there is a lot going on under the superficially simple surface of the game.