Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
lapdog666
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:25 pm

Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by lapdog666 » Sun Sep 01, 2019 5:05 pm

This applies to both cataphracts and klibanophoroi.

Suggestion: When a cataphract wins against an enemy unit it should have a much, and i ll repeat, a much larger chance to cohesion drop them. Lets say if impact foot has +1 , cataphracts should have +7, in order to make it about 90% even against superior enemy battalion

Price increase should be CONSIDERED. (making cataphract category x% more expensive)

What is the rationalisation

1) Physics,History: Does not the historical sources say so. Cataphract was meant to break enemy on charge , provided charge was successful


2)Gameplay balance: currently, cataphracts have fairly low chance to win in combat on impact against remotely competent foes like average swords or spears and even when they do ( i can cofirm this with 1600 mp hours clocked) more often than not , they do not cohesion drop their enemy, even average troops . I d also say that they do not often enough cohesion drop bellow average troops

So the idea here is not to make them win the charge 90% of the time, the idea is to give them huge bonus to cohesion droping when they do win the charge. Now special rules can be applied perhaps, for specific units or situations.


What would be your counter argument
Last edited by lapdog666 on Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4660
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by TheGrayMouser » Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:07 pm

I am not sure your even serious here... +7 cohesion modifier? What would medieval knights get then?

lapdog666
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by lapdog666 » Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:12 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:
Sun Sep 01, 2019 7:07 pm
I am not sure your even serious here... +7 cohesion modifier? What would medieval knights get then?
they could be new category and they could have higher chance to win impact phase , as well as having same +X cohesion modifier as cataphracts. is it +7 or + 77 i dont care, as long as they have 90% chance to drop cohesion after impact phase victory

lapdog666
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by lapdog666 » Sun Sep 01, 2019 9:28 pm

currently cataphract in open terrain against irregular foot have about 20% to win impact and then they roll the dice to disrupt the enemy. as far as i saw, they disrupt them about 50% of the time if they are average, they are same as impact foot. So basically super heavy armoured charging trained beasts and warriors have same chance to disrupt someone after they win as any impact foot

20% to win against such inferior foe and then 50% to disrupt them is bad. its gambling that is not going to work 80% of the time , or even less


because they have such high armour ,they are bit better in melee (in melee armour is counted) but their role wasnt melee fighting it was charging ,its like their roles are reversed

i m not some cataphract lover, i dont mind them costing double the price, but currently they are melee infantry not cataphracts

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by MVP7 » Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:45 pm

From what I have read the Cataphracts usually didn't fall back after "impact" like most ancient cavalry did and would fight in melee with their long lances instead of switching to swords. Being among the best on impact and continuing with very strong melee seems like a good interpretation of that.

In any case the odds of Cataphracts winning against average light spear infantry on impact in the open is around 23% without general but with general the chance is around 50% (and you should really always have a general or two with them). Cataphracts were also buffed against spearmen with the last DLC so overall they serve well as shock cavalry. Greatly increasing the odds of them disrupting the enemy would not be necessary, good for gameplay or consistent with the rest of the game.

MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by MikeC_81 » Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:18 pm

This is bizarre. The Cats should have 50 PoA differential on the Irr Foot on Impact and that should translate to 28-30% win rate on impact. But empirically all mounted units with a +50 PoA advantage convert about 3-5% lower in win rate than they should.

This was tested by me on the 1.18 build this morning. At first, I thought the PoA tables broke but after checked the infantry, those have remained the same. This effect does not happen at +100 PoA as cavalry units on impact with a 100 PoA advantage will convert wins at the same rate as infantry with a +100 PoA advantage.

Crazy enough, this deficiency pops back up at 150 PoA!

These are the examples I ran. Format is Unit 1 vs Unit - net PoA advantage for unit 1 - Win/Draw/Loss (approximate gained after trials with the combat predictor tool in-game)


Armoured Muslim Lancers (mediocre) vs Arab City Foot - 0 PoA - 14/72/14 (this is expected)

Byzantine Lancers vs Arab City Foot - 12 PoA - 14/75/11 (a percentage point low but very close to expected)

Armoured Muslim Lancers (superior) vs Hastati/Principes - 25 PoA - 21-72-7 (this is in line with infantry vs infantry tests)

****Armoured Muslim Lancers (superior) vs Arab City Foot - 50 PoA - 24 -71 -4 (this is well below the expected infantry vs infantry results who typically score a 29-69-2 result - something I retested just now)****

Byzantine Klipanophoroi vs Arab City Foot - 100 PoA - 49/50/1 (in line with infantry vs infantry tests)

****Byzantine Klipanophoroi vs Armoured Cavalry - 150 PoA - 65/35/0 (this is again below the infantry vs infantry results who score a 69/31/0 result)****



Either the combat predictor is not reporting results correctly or there is something in the combat code that is generating these disparities. Just to be sure they were Cav vs Infantry results that were skewed, I set up Cav vs Cav with the same PoA breakpoints and they produced the same "dips" at the 50 and 150 PoA. Something weird is going on here. I don't know whether this is new or was always in the game. I always assumed that PoA differentials on impact was the same across the board and until today, I had not noticed otherwise.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22416
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Sep 02, 2019 5:15 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 4:18 pm
This is bizarre. The Cats should have 50 PoA differential on the Irr Foot on Impact and that should translate to 28-30% win rate on impact. But empirically all mounted units with a +50 PoA advantage convert about 3-5% lower in win rate than they should.

This was tested by me on the 1.18 build this morning. At first, I thought the PoA tables broke but after checked the infantry, those have remained the same. This effect does not happen at +100 PoA as cavalry units on impact with a 100 PoA advantage will convert wins at the same rate as infantry with a +100 PoA advantage.

Crazy enough, this deficiency pops back up at 150 PoA!

These are the examples I ran. Format is Unit 1 vs Unit - net PoA advantage for unit 1 - Win/Draw/Loss (approximate gained after trials with the combat predictor tool in-game)


Armoured Muslim Lancers (mediocre) vs Arab City Foot - 0 PoA - 14/72/14 (this is expected)

Byzantine Lancers vs Arab City Foot - 12 PoA - 14/75/11 (a percentage point low but very close to expected)

Armoured Muslim Lancers (superior) vs Hastati/Principes - 25 PoA - 21-72-7 (this is in line with infantry vs infantry tests)

****Armoured Muslim Lancers (superior) vs Arab City Foot - 50 PoA - 24 -71 -4 (this is well below the expected infantry vs infantry results who typically score a 29-69-2 result - something I retested just now)****

Byzantine Klipanophoroi vs Arab City Foot - 100 PoA - 49/50/1 (in line with infantry vs infantry tests)

****Byzantine Klipanophoroi vs Armoured Cavalry - 150 PoA - 65/35/0 (this is again below the infantry vs infantry results who score a 69/31/0 result)****



Either the combat predictor is not reporting results correctly or there is something in the combat code that is generating these disparities. Just to be sure they were Cav vs Infantry results that were skewed, I set up Cav vs Cav with the same PoA breakpoints and they produced the same "dips" at the 50 and 150 PoA. Something weird is going on here. I don't know whether this is new or was always in the game. I always assumed that PoA differentials on impact was the same across the board and until today, I had not noticed otherwise.
Actually the explanation for this is probably fairly simple. You are not in fact comparing like with like. Combat results are derived from a combination of POAs and combat strength. Although combat strength is deemed equal at impact, that does not mean that it has no effect on the result - it just means that impact combats are fought with the strength of the smaller unit.

So, assuming that the units are at full strength, infantry vs infantry impact combats are fought with 600 "UnitSize" vs 600 "UnitSize" of combat strength, but cavalry vs cavalry and cavalry vs infantry combats are fought with 400 "UnitSize" vs 400 "UnitSize" worth of combat strength.

The win:draw:loss "predictor" simply runs the combat 1000 times and reports the results. Although it isn't 100% accurate - because of variations caused by the RNG - it also isn't possible for it to be consistently significantly wrong. It doesn't use its own code, it uses the actual combat code, and just runs the RNG part 1000 times.

Presumably fighting the combat with less combat strength on each side is what is altering the profile of the results, in which case this is a feature and not a bug. The assumption that identical POA differences should produce identical win:draw:loss profiles for all combinations of troop-types is entirely your own.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

lapdog666
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by lapdog666 » Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:49 pm

MVP7 wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 12:45 pm
From what I have read the Cataphracts usually didn't fall back after "impact" like most ancient cavalry did and would fight in melee with their long lances instead of switching to swords. Being among the best on impact and continuing with very strong melee seems like a good interpretation of that.

In any case the odds of Cataphracts winning against average light spear infantry on impact in the open is around 23% without general but with general the chance is around 50% (and you should really always have a general or two with them). Cataphracts were also buffed against spearmen with the last DLC so overall they serve well as shock cavalry. Greatly increasing the odds of them disrupting the enemy would not be necessary, good for gameplay or consistent with the rest of the game.

if you put a general on your cat , i m gonna put a general on my offensive spearmen. And thats IF

Also I can have much higher chances to win impact phase with impact foot vs spearmen , than with professional shock cav called cataphracts. They suck in impact and they are not bad in melee.

You mentioned that you ve read that they often did not pull out after charging (in fog2 they often fall back) . lets assume thats true. Does that mean we should make an assumption that it means that they were not tailored for breaking enemy on contact (impact phase) and that they are melee cavalry as they are in fog2? Just because they can fight in melee doesnt mean their primary role should be basically castrated and downgraded to low chance gambling (23% is irresponsible gambling )and 7% if enemy has general and u dont if i remember correctly. Also we are talking about average Enemies, i m afraid to talk about superior ones)

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by MVP7 » Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:00 am

lapdog666 wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:49 pm
if you put a general on your cat , i m gonna put a general on my offensive spearmen. And thats IF

Also I can have much higher chances to win impact phase with impact foot vs spearmen , than with professional shock cav called cataphracts. They suck in impact and they are not bad in melee.

You mentioned that you ve read that they often did not pull out after charging (in fog2 they often fall back) . lets assume thats true. Does that mean we should make an assumption that it means that they were not tailored for breaking enemy on contact (impact phase) and that they are melee cavalry as they are in fog2? Just because they can fight in melee doesnt mean their primary role should be basically castrated and downgraded to low chance gambling (23% is irresponsible gambling )and 7% if enemy has general and u dont if i remember correctly. Also we are talking about average Enemies, i m afraid to talk about superior ones)
Disciplined heavy infantry has always been the bane of heavy cavalry and Cataphracts were no exception even if they were the best of their time. Both Greeks and Romans managed against Cataphracts even if they were a tough opponent. I see no reason why superior Cataphracts should be effortlessly destroying average or superior spearmen. Cataphracts are not bad at impact, they are among the best there is in the game before knights.

I would not directly equate the FoG2 concept of 'impact' to real world "charge" or "contact". In my understanding the FoG2 impact mainly covers the trowing of spears and (where applicable) the contact followed by the initial few seconds of melee. For light spear cavalry or Hellenistic lancers that would be most there is to the "charge" against an opponent who's not starting to break, but Cataphracts (like infantry) might keep pressing and attacking even after that into what would be considered "melee" in FoG2.

If you take historical accounts of "unstoppable charges" literally in wargame sense, most historical battles would have been over in minutes or seconds. Although there are such examples, units rarely just immediately disintegrated on frontal contact with superior "shock troop" opponents.

lapdog666
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by lapdog666 » Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:57 am

MVP7 wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 6:00 am
lapdog666 wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 8:49 pm
if you put a general on your cat , i m gonna put a general on my offensive spearmen. And thats IF

Also I can have much higher chances to win impact phase with impact foot vs spearmen , than with professional shock cav called cataphracts. They suck in impact and they are not bad in melee.

You mentioned that you ve read that they often did not pull out after charging (in fog2 they often fall back) . lets assume thats true. Does that mean we should make an assumption that it means that they were not tailored for breaking enemy on contact (impact phase) and that they are melee cavalry as they are in fog2? Just because they can fight in melee doesnt mean their primary role should be basically castrated and downgraded to low chance gambling (23% is irresponsible gambling )and 7% if enemy has general and u dont if i remember correctly. Also we are talking about average Enemies, i m afraid to talk about superior ones)
Disciplined heavy infantry has always been the bane of heavy cavalry and Cataphracts were no exception even if they were the best of their time. Both Greeks and Romans managed against Cataphracts even if they were a tough opponent. I see no reason why superior Cataphracts should be effortlessly destroying average or superior spearmen. Cataphracts are not bad at impact, they are among the best there is in the game before knights.

I would not directly equate the FoG2 concept of 'impact' to real world "charge" or "contact". In my understanding the FoG2 impact mainly covers the trowing of spears and (where applicable) the contact followed by the initial few seconds of melee. For light spear cavalry or Hellenistic lancers that would be most there is to the "charge" against an opponent who's not starting to break, but Cataphracts (like infantry) might keep pressing and attacking even after that into what would be considered "melee" in FoG2.

If you take historical accounts of "unstoppable charges" literally in wargame sense, most historical battles would have been over in minutes or seconds. Although there are such examples, units rarely just immediately disintegrated on frontal contact with superior "shock troop" opponents.
you said that units rarely disintegrated on frontal contact with superior shock troops. well thats not what i am advocating. im saying that if the cataphracts do win the frontal charge in open terrain and if the unit defending loses like 40-60 men in a charge that it should be disrupted at the very least by cataphracts* , since they are scarier and physically more dangerous on impact than heavy infantry. i believe 1 katafraktoi and his horse weight about 600 to 900 kilograms + lance


i dont see the point in using catafrakts , because when* they do win at 23% (provided enemy has no general,is open terrain and enemy is Average non def/off spearmen/phalanx) , then and only then they 50% or more of the time do nothing , they do not disrupt enemy

jomni
Sengoku Jidai
Sengoku Jidai
Posts: 1385
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:20 am

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by jomni » Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:25 am

My problem with these guys is they stick around for the melee. The get easily flanked or fighting effectiveness wears down in the melee.

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by MVP7 » Fri Sep 06, 2019 1:29 pm

jomni wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 5:25 am
My problem with these guys is they stick around for the melee. The get easily flanked or fighting effectiveness wears down in the melee.
Getting swamped in prolonged melee if not sufficiently supported is a rather authentic weakness for them. Personally I would rather not have the Cataphracts bouncier unless it happens as a part of wider overhaul of cavalry behavior.

MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 755
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by MikeC_81 » Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:38 pm

Shock cavalry against medium foot does seem underwhelming regardless though. I mean irregular foot losing only 1 in 5 times on impact seems a bit low
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by 76mm » Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:06 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:38 pm
Shock cavalry against medium foot does seem underwhelming regardless though. I mean irregular foot losing only 1 in 5 times on impact seems a bit low
Agreed. Disciplined heavy foot is one thing, but irregular foot is something else. If cats can't be counted on to smash irregular foot pretty regularly, what can they do?

jomni
Sengoku Jidai
Sengoku Jidai
Posts: 1385
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:20 am

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by jomni » Sat Sep 07, 2019 3:35 am

76mm wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:06 pm
MikeC_81 wrote:
Fri Sep 06, 2019 6:38 pm
Shock cavalry against medium foot does seem underwhelming regardless though. I mean irregular foot losing only 1 in 5 times on impact seems a bit low
Agreed. Disciplined heavy foot is one thing, but irregular foot is something else. If cats can't be counted on to smash irregular foot pretty regularly, what can they do?
Lead parades in their shiny armour.

MVP7
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 764
Joined: Sun Aug 02, 2015 3:40 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by MVP7 » Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:30 am

I think the Irregular foot itself is a bit of an outlier unit as it is. Originally it was (among other roles) the stand-in for various Greek and Thracian peltast who were a bit tougher fighters than your average massed skirmishers. Their main weakness of 50% swordsmen doesn't play any role during impact and being medium has no effect before cohesion check so they probably do better against charges than they realistically should. Personally I think the irregular foot could very well be downgraded to below average quality.

Rather than buffing cataphracts specifically, I wouldn't mind a small universal POA penalty for medium foot vs cavalry (and maybe even vs heavy infantry) in the open. Currently the only difference between stat-clone heavy and medium foot units in the open is the cohesion check modifier, which is a raw deal for heavy compared to the significant POA advantage the medium foot get in all non-open terrain.

Cunningcairn
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by Cunningcairn » Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:44 am

MVP7 wrote:
Sat Sep 07, 2019 10:30 am
I think the Irregular foot itself is a bit of an outlier unit as it is. Originally it was (among other roles) the stand-in for various Greek and Thracian peltast who were a bit tougher fighters than your average massed skirmishers. Their main weakness of 50% swordsmen doesn't play any role during impact and being medium has no effect before cohesion check so they probably do better against charges than they realistically should. Personally I think the irregular foot could very well be downgraded to below average quality.

Rather than buffing cataphracts specifically, I wouldn't mind a small universal POA penalty for medium foot vs cavalry (and maybe even vs heavy infantry) in the open. Currently the only difference between stat-clone heavy and medium foot units in the open is the cohesion check modifier, which is a raw deal for heavy compared to the significant POA advantage the medium foot get in all non-open terrain.
Yup agree there needs to be some POA penalty for MF in open against mounted. I also think that raw and maybe also below average HF should not get a plus 1 when taking a cohesion test. Not having these penalties is the reasom the Sub Roman British, Kingdom of Soissons and Breton lists are far too powerful which is historically inaccurate. These changes will help improve cataphract performance but they probably will require some further assistance as well.

lapdog666
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 319
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2016 1:25 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by lapdog666 » Sun Sep 08, 2019 9:59 am

Medium infantry should definitely be less capable against any lancer cav, especially cataphracts and soon coming knights

i d argue for a little bit more than "tiny" decrease in their capabilities
dont know exact number but oneestimate would be : instead of 100 poa, give them 50 poa in impact (provided they are not charging ofcourse)
on top of that (note: not talking about offensive/def spearmen medium inf) i d make them have additional penalty when rolling for cohesion against lancers or when rolling against catas and lancers in impact phase

Paul59
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1954
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:26 pm

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by Paul59 » Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:40 am

Is there any actual historical evidence for ancient Cataphracts destroying infantry? Can anyone quote the name of a battle or two?
Scenario Designer - Age of Belisarius, Rise of Persia, and Wolves at the Gate.

TT Mod Creator

Cunningcairn
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 991
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Cataphracts : Rework Needed ?

Post by Cunningcairn » Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:57 am

Paul59 wrote:
Sun Sep 08, 2019 10:40 am
Is there any actual historical evidence for ancient Cataphracts destroying infantry? Can anyone quote the name of a battle or two?
Weren't cataphracts the only cavalry type to break Roman legionaries in a frontal charge? I think it was Magnesia. If you take Gaugamela didn't Alexander's Companions charge right through the Persian and Greek mercenary foot when attacking Darius at the end of the battle? I think the fact that lancer armed cavalry survived from Biblical times right into the 20 century speaks for itself. Yes they evolved their armour and weaponry but essentially they remained lancers. That's because they were very effective.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”