Slitherine

Hi, i,m new to FOG (but played ancients since WRG 5th edition) and have a question concerning cavalry.

It seems that cavalry cannot turn 180 degrees and make a simple move, what is the rational for this?

We(our club) have played two games of FOG and on both occasions a cavalry BG was fragmented and unable to retire out of range of oncoming HF. As it seemed pointless to turn away from the HF and be charged in the rear , on both occasions the cavalry elected to stand and fight...and lost.

Are we playing this right?



Thanks ...Zellak

You played it correct.

The rationale is, I believe, that troops able to manoeuvre enough to turn 180 and move in the same move are best represented by LH.

I thought that cavalry and LH could do this if they were only 1 base deep?

did I missunderstand?

Loki223 wrote:I thought that cavalry and LH could do this if they were only 1 base deep?

did I missunderstand?

Non-lancer cavalry can evade if one base deep. LH can evade in any formation. But only LH (and LF) can both turn 180 and move in the same movement phase.

As a practical matter of game mechanics, if this were not the case then it would be too easy for cav to avoid unpleasant encounters with the enemy.

Marc

so if the Non-lancer Cav are charged they can evade away and get the same effect?

turning 180 and then moving with a VMD?

Yes, as long as only 1 deep as per above.

I dimly recall reading that any fragmented troops can retire away from enemy. Does that mean any fragmented BG can turn 180 and move?

rtaylor wrote:I dimly recall reading that any fragmented troops can retire away from enemy. Does that mean any fragmented BG can turn 180 and move?

The only move that a fragmented BG can make without a CMT is a simple move that is away from the enemy. Being fragmented does not grant any new maneuvers so the only fragmented troops that can withdraw without a CMT are skimishers.

If you have a BG of cavalry and you are in trouble getting into single rank gives you the evade option, then once in single rank turning round means that if you are not charged you will be able to move away in the next move.

FoG cavalry are quite maneuverable but nowhere near as maneuverable as skirmishers.

hammy wrote:

rtaylor wrote:I dimly recall reading that any fragmented troops can retire away from enemy. Does that mean any fragmented BG can turn 180 and move?

If you have a BG of cavalry and you are in trouble getting into single rank gives you the evade option, then once in single rank turning round means that if you are not charged you will be able to move away in the next move.

(Emphasis mine.) Thanks, hammy. So non-skirmishers are vulnerable to being charged while fragmented (and having to take a CT) because it takes a bound to turn around and a bound to move away, while skirmishers can always move away during their next bound. Makes sense.

If a cavalry BG is FRG and breaks off during the JAP.

The range between them and their HF opponent is 5 MU.

Must they turn to face the HF or do they have the option to face away from the HF?

If not , in the HF's next turn they will advance to within 2 MU.
The following turn the cavalry can turn away , but not move,exposing their rear to a charge.
And then the HF charge on their next turn.

The cavalry seem to have no options , and have lost their ability to manoever.

....zellak

zellak wrote:If a cavalry BG is FRG and breaks off during the JAP.

The range between them and their HF opponent is 5 MU.

Must they turn to face the HF or do they have the option to face away from the HF?

If not , in the HF's next turn they will advance to within 2 MU.
The following turn the cavalry can turn away , but not move,exposing their rear to a charge.
And then the HF charge on their next turn.

The cavalry seem to have no options , and have lost their ability to manoever.

....zellak

A break off move ends facing the enemy, so the Cv are indeed in deep doodoo. Lesson: never go fragmented.

Marc

babyshark wrote: A break off move ends facing the enemy, so the Cv are indeed in deep doodoo. Lesson: never go fragmented.

Marc

It's one I've taken to heart. Now if only my troops would listen

Dale

The cavalry may be able to escape by turning 90 and moving, it will need a CMT but as long as they end their move infront of and further away from the infantry it's OK and they might be able to extend the distance to more than 3 MU.

Thanks for the prompt reply.

I will pass the info on to my club members.

Although i'm pretty sure we will bring in a house rule to allow breaking off cavalry the option of their facing . There was some pretty strong "debating " during our two previous games.

Great job on the rules, its got us playing ancients again...Thanks

...Zellak

Your proposed house rule would make cavalry rather too good. If they charge and drop a level in impact then one in melee and break off fragmented, your rule will allow them to get away. Unless they are very unlucky and drop two levels in melee they are unlikely to break. If you leave the rules as they are, it will encourage players to have reserves or supporting troops to pin the enemy foot in place to allow the cavalry to retire. Make the cavalry commanders play better or take some risks!

rogerg wrote:Your proposed house rule would make cavalry rather too good. If they charge and drop a level in impact then one in melee and break off fragmented, your rule will allow them to get away. Unless they are very unlucky and drop two levels in melee they are unlikely to break. If you leave the rules as they are, it will encourage players to have reserves or supporting troops to pin the enemy foot in place to allow the cavalry to retire. Make the cavalry commanders play better or take some risks!

Roger is correct. The rules are carefully balanced as they presently stand. House rules such as this risk destroying the balance. Feel free to try it, but don't blame FoG if cavalry armies then seem too good.

It may be well game-balanced as is , but does not seem historically accurate to us.

Did cavalry always turn and regroup within bow range historically?

If we try the house rule , we will not be able to judge the true effect on the current rules as we have only played 3 games up to now.
So obviously don't have enough experience to balance it.

What would you suggest as a points increase for cavalry with our house rule in effect.

Try a different interpretation. The cavalry break off to extreme bow range. Going any further would be a general retirement not a regrouping. If the cavalry break off fragmented, then what is happening is that the survivors of a disasterous charge are attempting to gather together. If there are supporting troops nearby who can tackle the enemy infantry while a commander sorts the mess out (bolsters the cavalry) they have a chance. If there are no friends nearby, the victorious infantry will advance and sweep them from the field.

Your house rule will give unsupported cavalry, who have been badly mauled in a catastrophic charge, the ability to walk away unscathed. The rules as they stand makes it risky for cavalry to charge without having friends to fall back on if the charge goes wrong.

After a few games with your house rule you are likely to have infantry commanders complaining that cavalry are nearly invincible.

I have played FoG for over eighteen months now as a beta tester, club and competition player. After these several dozen games I have not found a major rule I would want to change. I did suggest some changes over the beta test period. However, after a lot more games, I happily concede that those changes would not have improved the game. My suggestion is that you would be advised to play a lot more before tinkering with the rules. FoG works really well as it is.

I find your interpretation interesting.

What we would expect the rules to allow is indeed what you mention, a "general retirement" possibly falling back to behind the supporting troops in order to regroup and attack again later in the day.
Its just not possible.

i can fully understand the amount of time and effort to playtest a ruleset online, i have done so myself, i know how difficult it can be. FOG is a fine piece of work and the fact that us bunch of old guys only disagreed with one small part of it speaks for itself.
(No set of wargames rules survives first contact with a wargamer)

The points values for troop strengths must be pretty tight, i can appreciate that.

however if i was to suggest , off the top of my head , 2 points per base for a "rally back" ability, where the cavalry need not turn back towards the enemy at the end of a break off. Would that throw the whole system out of line ?

What Beta options were rejected, sometimes you can work on something for months and a new guy shows up online with an idea , and everyone says " hey why didn't we think of that" but the mechanic already in use is firmly bedded in so the new idea is "overlooked".

zellak

zellak wrote:however if i was to suggest , off the top of my head , 2 points per base for a "rally back" ability, where the cavalry need not turn back towards the enemy at the end of a break off. Would that throw the whole system out of line ?

It is impossible to say without extensive play-testing. This is why we suggest not making such house rules, as the resulting imbalance may then put you off the rules as a whole.

The current rules on this are not an oversight. They get the effect we intend and want.

We were very much aware that games usually have to be completed within a finite length of time. Hence quite a few aspects of battle are telescoped within the rules. Hence, for example, we don't allow LF to break off from close combat because it would merely delay the game (and make them too effective) - if they fail to stay out of combat in the first place, they have missed their chance, and can "break off" by routing.

Yes, we could have a rule such as you suggest, but as well as making cavalry too effective by making them almost impossible for foot to ever break, it would delay the outcome of the game excessively.

You can always add more "realism" to a game (if you can decide what constitutes "realism") but if this is done at the cost of making the game unplayable (within finite time contraints) it isn't (in our view) worth it.