Steppe Cv

[nikgaukroger]

Something that nags me from time to time.

The way FoG is designed steppe type horse archers should be represented by Unprotected or Protected Cv - operating in a single rank when skirmishing - or at least the Cv option should be at least as attractive as LH. However, for a number of reasons it is preferable to have these horse archers mainly as LH.

I wonder what changes would be suitable to make taking the Cv option at least, or preferably slightly preferable, option for these troops? I have sometimes pondered about such Cv in a single rank having a 6MU move and some sort of turn 180 and move a bit option to allow them to do a bit more after they have evaded. Hammy's old idea of a + CY modifier if shot at (wholly or mainly?) by skirmishers may have benefit as well.

[hammy]

Personally I find single rank cavalry to be particularly effective against light horse but only if the cavalry are superior.

Giving battle troops a +1 to a CT if shot entirely by skirmishers would make both this type of cavalry and MF bow more attractive and also reduce the power of massed skirmisher armies bith of which are IMO good things.

[philqw78]

Also Cav in single rank shoot to rear (at the same minus as others) if no target to front.

[grahambriggs]

It's curious that we have two different ways of representing the same troops. And only for horse archers - e.g. Numidians don't get the option to be cavalry.

I wonder if a better approach would be "can deploy as either" in the way that Hypastpists can deploy as HF or MF? Of course that gives a freebie to a troop type that already does well.

Or we could have a mechanism to have them change in the battle. For example (many better ways to reflect that of course) say that these troops must deploy and move as cavalry initially but as soon as they interact with they enemy (shoot, shot at, charge, are charged, etc) they become LH. You could put the bases in a chequerboard pattern to reflect this

[peterrjohnston]

Personally I find single rank cavalry to be particularly effective against light horse but only if the cavalry are superior.

I think Hammy has tangentially pointed out the problem. Superior unprotected/protected bow cavalry are fine. But who in their right minds would take a BG of 4 average unprotected cavalry? 2 BGs of average LH are just so much better.

[grahambriggs]

Personally I find single rank cavalry to be particularly effective against light horse but only if the cavalry are superior.

I think Hammy has tangentially pointed out the problem. Superior unprotected/protected bow cavalry are fine. But who in their right minds would take a BG of 4 average unprotected cavalry? 2 BGs of average LH are just so much better.

I did in my EAP at warfare: 4 undrilled unprotected bow sword average cavalry. Much better than the LH equivalent for the job I wanted them to do (give rear support and protection from LH to average LF bow). Worked a treat. And they do put out twice as manyu arrows as the LH version

[philqw78]

I think Hammy has tangentially pointed out the problem. Superior unprotected/protected bow cavalry are fine. But who in their right minds would take a BG of 4 average unprotected cavalry? 2 BGs of average LH are just so much better.

But cost twice as much. But even a single BG of average LH is better than a single BG of UnP cav in most circumstances

[peterrjohnston]

But cost twice as much. But even a single BG of average LH is better than a single BG of UnP cav in most circumstances

Yes, obviously the cost is twice. But LH can move to concentrate fire, with cavalry it's much harder, and when things go wrong, they can't retire easily and be bolstered - all of which you know

[peterrjohnston]

I did in my EAP at warfare: 4 undrilled unprotected bow sword average cavalry. Much better than the LH equivalent for the job I wanted them to do (give rear support and protection from LH to average LF bow). Worked a treat. And they do put out twice as manyu arrows as the LH version

Well, that's as a support role. Not sure I'd want them as front line troops - perhaps we're underestimating them? Although I did try massed unprotected average camelry bow (no sword) in Early Nomad. They're crap, believe me. Fun, but...

[DavidT]

I believe that non-shock cavalry deployed in a single rank should be allowed to turn 180 degrees and move just like LH and, passing a CT, to be able to fall back up to 3 MU facing the ememy. They are, after all, basically acting like light horse in this role so should be able to move like LH. (Neither should be able to turn 90 degrees and move as I don't believe that any troops should be able to do that, but that is another issue).

[nikgaukroger]

It's curious that we have two different ways of representing the same troops. And only for horse archers - e.g. Numidians don't get the option to be cavalry.

Not curious at all IMO - those who only skirmish, like Numidians, just get LH, whilst those who would skirmish and were reasonably inclined to fight close combat get the Cv option as well. I guess the description of the Turks in the Strategikon is a good example of the latter types.

[grahambriggs]

It's curious that we have two different ways of representing the same troops. And only for horse archers - e.g. Numidians don't get the option to be cavalry.

Not curious at all IMO - those who only skirmish, like Numidians, just get LH, whilst those who would skirmish and were reasonably inclined to fight close combat get the Cv option as well. I guess the description of the Turks in the Strategikon is a good example of the latter types.

But cav can skirmish, so it would have been an option to call them all cavalry for example

[Polkovnik]

I think the 6MU move for unprotected cavalry would be a good idea. Aftr all, why should the same cavalry move faster when considered to be LH compared to Cavalry ?

[peterrjohnston]

Not curious at all IMO - those who only skirmish, like Numidians, just get LH, whilst those who would skirmish and were reasonably inclined to fight close combat get the Cv option as well. I guess the description of the Turks in the Strategikon is a good example of the latter types.

So those Early Nomad camels should really have a LH option? He said, hopefully... which is a good example...

[lawrenceg]

I think the issue is that "Steppe cavalry", as far as we can tell, moved like LH and fought like cavalry.

Currently they are modelled by a choice between one or the other, when really you need something with the properties of both.

However, if you make all single ranked cavalry move like LH, then you will find Romans etc doing it, when historically they didn't (or did they?).

As I see it a key disadvantage of unprotected bow cavalry is:

If you are in 1 rank, you fight the same as 2 ranks of LH, BUT if opposed by 2 ranks of LH on the same frontage (i.e. 2 BGs) you are suffering 4 shots a turn of which only 2 need to hit to cause a test (69% chance) , whereas the LH each suffer 2 shots and both must hit to cause a test (25% each BG).

If you are in 2 ranks, you are shot at with 2 shots at ++ (70% chance of a test) and only shoot back with three shots at evens (50% chance of a test).

Another key disadvantage is the shorter evade move compared to LH, so more chance of being caught.

I think if these two vulnerability issues are dealt with, that might be sufficient.

[nikgaukroger]

However, if you make all single ranked cavalry move like LH, then you will find Romans etc doing it, when historically they didn't (or did they?).

Well Arrian probably answers that for you for Romans

[philqw78]

Well Arrian probably answers that for you for Romans

And Nik can't be arsed

[LambertSimnel]

It's curious that we have two different ways of representing the same troops. And only for horse archers - e.g. Numidians don't get the option to be cavalry.

I wonder if a better approach would be "can deploy as either" in the way that Hypastpists can deploy as HF or MF? Of course that gives a freebie to a troop type that already does well.

Or we could have a mechanism to have them change in the battle. For example (many better ways to reflect that of course) say that these troops must deploy and move as cavalry initially but as soon as they interact with they enemy (shoot, shot at, charge, are charged, etc) they become LH. You could put the bases in a chequerboard pattern to reflect this

My OCD wants mounted-troops-who-could-skirmish-but-generally-preferred-not-to (ie non-shock cavalry) and mounted-troops-who-could-skirmish-and-generally-preferred-to-do-so (ie Light Horse) to work more like each other when skirmishing. It would prefer LH to (like cavalry) be in skirmish order if 1-deep and massed if deeper, but to be in some sense better than equivalently graded cavalry when operating in skirmish order and in some sense worse when operating massed.

[hazelbark]

I think the issue is that "Steppe cavalry", as far as we can tell, moved like LH and fought like cavalry.

To a degree that is an operational difference not a battlefield difference.

Another option would be to make LH only add 1 AP to army break but still cost normal for being destoryed, routed and frag'd.

Also the discussed LH must take a CT for evading.

[spikemesq]

I think the issue is that "Steppe cavalry", as far as we can tell, moved like LH and fought like cavalry.

To a degree that is an operational difference not a battlefield difference.

Another option would be to make LH only add 1 AP to army break but still cost normal for being destoryed, routed and frag'd.

Also the discussed LH must take a CT for evading.

How would this work?

Currently, a BG of LH is worth 1 AP in my hands and 2AP in yours (i.e., broken, dead).

Are you suggesting that LH BGs not count toward the army BG total or that they only count half?

If a current 14 BG army of 10 LH and 4 Cv breaks on 14 AP, then it would now break on 9 (5 for the LH and 4 for the Cv), but LH losses carry full weight (e.g., lose 5 BGs of LH = 10 AP, winner winner chicken dinner)?

What if there is an odd number of LH in the army?

Spike