Slitherine

hello
Yesterday in your weekly battle, this time Kushan vs Kommenan, a group of latinikon fight against protected bowmen with 3 bases and Cataphract wiyh only one base. At the end of the first turn, the bowmen were trashed but stay steady (they lose two base but pass each CT with a 11! ). At the JAP we don't knew if the Latikon breack off as the majority of the adversary are steady foot, or continue to fight because the cataphract . As the rule writed we understand that the latinikon breack off but we are a bit surprised....

olivier wrote:hello
Yesterday in your weekly battle, this time Kushan vs Kommenan, a group of latinikon fight against protected bowmen with 3 bases and Cataphract wiyh only one base. At the end of the first turn, the bowmen were trashed but stay steady (they lose two base but pass each CT with a 11! ). At the JAP we don't knew if the Latikon breack off as the majority of the adversary are steady foot, or continue to fight because the cataphract . As the rule writed we understand that the latinikon breack off but we are a bit surprised....

They break off.

As we have said before, our interpretation of history is that if mounted failed to break the formation of enemy foot they would break off for another charge. This is the behaviour the rules enforce. We could alternatively allow them to stay but drop a cohesion level (or two!) as a disincentive, but chose not to do it that way.

The factors that would apply if they stayed are irrelevant because the rules do not allow them to stay. If the rules did allow them to stay we would have to give them an extra disadvantage to compensate and to discourage them from staying. It would all get rather complicated so we have chosen instead to enforce historical behaviour directly, rather than by POA or Cohesion incentives.

We don't have any problems with the breack off with archer, but this one induce a breack off with the cataphract (and an obligation in the next turn for the cataphract to charge alone in the latinikon).
recoil from ennemy mounted was always dangerous but in this situation, the latinikon can pick out of the line the cataphract, trashed them and pursue in the defensless archer . A subtle tactic for sure but a bit cheesy !

olivier wrote:We don't have any problems with the breack off with archer, but this one induce a breack off with the cataphract (and an obligation in the next turn for the cataphract to charge alone in the latinikon).
recoil from ennemy mounted was always dangerous but in this situation, the latinikon can pick out of the line the cataphract, trashed them and pursue in the defensless archer . A subtle tactic for sure but a bit cheesy !

True. Something to think about.

We don't have any problems with the breack off with archer, but this one induce a breack off with the cataphract (and an obligation in the next turn for the cataphract to charge alone in the latinikon).
recoil from ennemy mounted was always dangerous but in this situation, the latinikon can pick out of the line the cataphract, trashed them and pursue in the defensless archer . A subtle tactic for sure but a bit cheesy !

I don't mind that too much. The cataphracts are out to protect the bowmen and liable to go get the enemy as a result. Alas they aren't strong enough to do so alone. Subtle tactic is a bit generous as you have to rely on an 11 on the dice for the bowmen to be stady - without this the whiole thing would have been over a bound or two before.

Si

Subtle tactic is a bit generous as you have to rely on an 11 on the dice for the bowmen to be stady - without this the whiole thing would have been over a bound or two before.

Simon,
in this example, archers need a 9 to pass succefully a test. With rear support and IC they only need a 7. So you have between 30 and 60 % to breack off. But what I see is tis situation is a win-win for the knight. In one side they disrupt the archer and this one are out in a quick time and on other side they breack off, pull up the cataphract, kill them when they are alone and pursuer in the archer.
The cataphract have no interest in getting in the melee alongside of the archer ( or any other medium, protected foot)

olivier wrote:But what I see is tis situation is a win-win for the knight. In one side they disrupt the archer and this one are out in a quick time and on other side they breack off, pull up the cataphract, kill them when they are alone and pursuer in the archer.
The cataphract have no interest in getting in the melee alongside of the archer ( or any other medium, protected foot)

The real problem here is that cataphracts are outclassed by knights and shouldn't be going anywhere near them.

If we play historical themes they will never meet. If we play open tournaments they will.

In their own time frame, cataphracts are tough shock troops. If they must play medieval armies, they are still treated as shock troops but are not really fit for purpose.

If we wanted to make the rules more complicated the cataphracts would lose their shock status when facing anachronistic opponents that outclass them. However we don't want to complicate the rules.

Personally I would probably avoid using cataphracts except in theme tournaments.

Ok, I agree with your argumentation
Neverless this don't resolve the fact that a mounted can breack off from another mounted!

Personally I would probably avoid using cataphracts except in theme tournaments.

Hmmm. That is partially discouraging. Not that your former rules haven't seen similar, but knowningly driving out an important class of troops and armies. Hopefully that means more themes, but this coudl also dry up army variety.

hazelbark wrote:

Personally I would probably avoid using cataphracts except in theme tournaments.

Hmmm. That is partially discouraging. Not that your former rules haven't seen similar, but knowningly driving out an important class of troops and armies. Hopefully that means more themes, but this coudl also dry up army variety.

It is always difficult to draw a balance between representing likely historical outcomes and keeping all armies equal in all situations, however anachronistic.

Ancient/Medieval tournament wargaming comes in for much criticism for "encouraging" (or allowing) anachronistic match-ups. The usual answer to such criticism is that it does not have to be that way - tournaments do not have to mean anachronistic matchups.

The FOG army list books have been carefully designed by themes to facilitate historically feasible matchups while still allowing a substantial variety of armies to be used in each theme. (Each book lists additional armies from other books that fit in with the theme).

It seems inevitable that in a set of rules which attempts to be less abstract and more realistic, there will be some troop types that stand up less well than others to the rigours of anachronistic competition. There is really nothing wrong with cataphracts except their vulnerability against heavily armoured medieval knights - so they are OK up until 1150 AD (500 years after they became obsolete historically), and then have a mounted type they need to avoid - is this unreasonable?

Personally I hope to see at least half of all FoG tournaments themed. This can hardly be a bad thing, and may attract new players who have hitherto been put off by the "fantasy" reputation of the Ancient/Medieval period.

I am not so down on Cataprhracts as Ricahrd. I find my Pathians do rather nicely thank you.

Going back to the specific - agree on your numbers. I didn't do them myself and misread your 1 1 as what was needed. The 30-60% though ..... on average as the Bowmen have to survive 2 tests - Impact and Melee - in normal circumstances. Assuming they olose both badly they have -2 for this and -1 for lancers at impact. So with +1 for a general as a typical situation.... they need a 9 to pass the first one and an 8 for the second. That's about 18% chance of passing the first and 27% the second so 5% overall. Your IC and rear support of course move this a lot but os they should as choices and good play to support and area expecting a crisis.

The problem thereafter isn't really that the cataphracts are "outclassed". How many were there? What you will find is that Cataphracts are fine, but not in small quantities vs kinghts. You need to have enough of them to wittle the Knight bases down to reduce their dice. E.g. if you have 8 vs 4 then what works in favour of the cataphracts is time - they lose bases reaonable equally and each time a caataphract is lost you lose 1 dice but each time a Kn drops you lose 2 dice and area at 25% immediately. This is a delibreate dynamic that makes mediveal knights seriously punchy but not long lasting if they meet strong enough resistance.

The problem in your scenario above is that in such a battle cataphracts do not provide enough cover for bowmen in the open or vice versa. The Cataphracts need something stronger next to them an the bowmen are very vulnerable inthe open vs a mounted chrage from anything the cataphracts cannot stop. This is pretty realistic IMO.

So instead facing knight - using my Parthians - lots of LH to chip away at the knights force charges into isolated positions and pick of a base. Kep all MF bowmen in terrain. Charge of the cataphratcs - well timed - in BGs of 6. Managed all 18 together once and a mighty fine sight it was too!

Si

Instead of charging the bows, it could well be more sensible for the knights to stay where they are, and wait for the cataphracts to fail their CMT to not charge. (which they'd have to do after a break-off anyway).

There is a solution to this problem however....But I'm not going to tell you what it is...You'll learn!

But the bottom line is.: If you don't want your shock troops to charge the enemy on their own, don't put them in the front line alongside defensive foot. It may work in DBM, but......

Bows don't fight mounted on 4 in FOG in the open ..... nor did they in reality .....

Si

Whoah !!! All the author answer in this topic !!
I thank you about all this answer and understand all your comment BUT this answers don't solve my problem!

In fact, it's surement my poor english and you don't understand what I mean or I don't understand whay you say !

The question, outside the example is : Why a mounted can breack off when more than half of his front is against steady foot and some of the rest of his front against mounted and can't breack off when only some of his front is against mounted?

I think is more logic that if some part of the mounted is in contact with mounted, it can't brezack off.

Olivier

PS : Oh by the way I played the Knights in the example and destroyed the cataphract and the archer in the next charge...

olivier wrote:I think is more logic that if some part of the mounted is in contact with mounted, it can't brezack off

You may have a point.

But the rule is to force them to break off from foot, not to allow them to do so. The effect against (minority) cavalry is only a side effect.

When cavalry combats were discussed in Slingshot years ago, one school of thought was that they were swirling affairs and both sides may have passed through each other and back again. So there would not necessarily be anything preventing breaking off.

To turn your argument around: I challenge you to find a historical example of mounted being forced to stay in contact with steady foot because they were also fighting some mounted troops.

I think in practice it is the better of the two options to have it as we have at present. As Richard says its to reflect a propr break off and recharge against foot troops. At a practical level if the mounted troops broken off from want to continue the fight they can charge those who broke off so it is in the main giving an option to the mounted supporting the foot to havea separation. I find this logic quite reasonable as it is the solid foot block in a way assisting them.

En practique on a deux choix et je crois que nous avons choisi le plus bien. Si les mounted qui sont avec l-infantry veut conitnuer le combat, il peut charger les mounted qui avez fait le break off. Si en practique on a crier une option pour les mounted qui a les infatry en support. Ca parait sensible a mois quand on consider l'effect globale..

Hope that made some sense.

Si

I think in practice it is the better of the two options to have it as we have at present. As Richard says its to reflect a propr break off and recharge against foot troops

Ok for this explanation.
We may think an another option; At the JAP all mounted fighting against a steady opponent must breack off.
In this way, iwe solve one problem about Breack off forgotten many time by numerous players and put a cavalry combat more swirling in case of stand off. More in relation with numerous text in the medieval time where "lance"clash and fall back are routinely made until opponent breack.

rbodleyscott wrote:The FOG army list books have been carefully designed by themes to facilitate historically feasible matchups while still allowing a substantial variety of armies to be used in each theme. (Each book lists additional armies from other books that fit in with the theme).

Personally I hope to see at least half of all FoG tournaments themed. This can hardly be a bad thing, and may attract new players who have hitherto been put off by the "fantasy" reputation of the Ancient/Medieval period.

This is all very good annd encouraging in my view. More incentives for themes also is break from a past reputation like you say. Hear. hear.

hazelbark wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote:The FOG army list books have been carefully designed by themes to facilitate historically feasible matchups while still allowing a substantial variety of armies to be used in each theme. (Each book lists additional armies from other books that fit in with the theme).

Personally I hope to see at least half of all FoG tournaments themed. This can hardly be a bad thing, and may attract new players who have hitherto been put off by the "fantasy" reputation of the Ancient/Medieval period.

This is all very good annd encouraging in my view. More incentives for themes also is break from a past reputation like you say. Hear. hear.

Historical pairs as used in POW works even better than themed tournaments but it's a start.

Regards,

Julian

jlopez wrote:
Historical pairs as used in POW works even better than themed tournaments but it's a start.

I really like the idea of historical pairs BUT and it is a rather big but I already have about 25 armies and realisticaly hardly any of them are opponents of any of the others. This is the way that the collections of a lot of Ancients players have grown so I suspect I am not allone. I really don't want to have to paint or buy painted another 20 or so armies

Another problem is that while I am happy to loan out some of my armies I do have others that I would really rather not have someone else use simply because they are a bit on the fragile side and if anyone is going to break them I would rather it was me.

For my WWII armies I will be making historical pairs but then in WWII there are a lot less to choose from

Hammy