Better armour PoA

[philqw78]

While it would be good I am not convinced it would be in any way reasonable.

I remember medium cavalry being shot to pieces in pretty much every set of wargame rules I have ever played. At least in FoG they can go one rank deep and not get the penalty.

But wargames rules are not reality. They are what people thought could represent it at the time they wrote them. Did "Protected" cavalry generally get shot to shit by skirmishing archers. If they did it seems strange that nobles in early Skythia would form in closer order then.

[philqw78]

Also most shots fall on the horse which is generally unprotected in the case of armoured, protected and unprotected cavalry

[nikgaukroger]

While it would be good I am not convinced it would be in any way reasonable.

I remember medium cavalry being shot to pieces in pretty much every set of wargame rules I have ever played. At least in FoG they can go one rank deep and not get the penalty.

But wargames rules are not reality. They are what people thought could represent it at the time they wrote them. Did "Protected" cavalry generally get shot to shit by skirmishing archers. If they did it seems strange that nobles in early Skythia would form in closer order then.

Phil is, of course, correct that previous wargames rules are not necessarily a good benchmark. However, IMO the extra vulnerability of Protected Cv to shooting does get the right effect in, say, games between Xiongnu and Han and allows the former to, correctly, become more able to stand up to Han shooting over time as armour gets better.

[madaxeman]

While it would be good I am not convinced it would be in any way reasonable.

I remember medium cavalry being shot to pieces in pretty much every set of wargame rules I have ever played. At least in FoG they can go one rank deep and not get the penalty.

But wargames rules are not reality. They are what people thought could represent it at the time they wrote them. Did "Protected" cavalry generally get shot to shit by skirmishing archers. If they did it seems strange that nobles in early Skythia would form in closer order then.

Phil is, of course, correct that previous wargames rules are not necessarily a good benchmark. However, IMO the extra vulnerability of Protected Cv to shooting does get the right effect in, say, games between Xiongnu and Han and allows the former to, correctly, become more able to stand up to Han shooting over time as armour gets better.

Hmm - sort of. But I'd propose that what it seems to get wrong (from a game balance POV at present) is the balance between "denser formation = more shooting per frontage but a more vulnerable target" vs "looser formation = less shooting per frontage but harder to hit" is a no-brainer for option 2.

At present the combined effect of manoeuvrability, ability to evade, number of shooting dice per frontage, vulnerability to enemy shooting AND (less so) combat capability is so heavily weighted towards LH that choosing the Protected Cv option is always, decisively worse on pretty much all counts*

tim

* I fully expect that some smart alec Mancunian will come back with a quip that in one game they played once down the club that Protected Cv beat up LH spectacularly, but frankly we all know that's utter t--ss in the real world 99.95% of the time

[philqw78]

* I fully expect that some smart alec Mancunian*2 will come back with a quip that in one game they played once down the club that Protected Cv beat up LH spectacularly, but frankly we all know that's utter t--ss in the real workd 99.95% of the time

*2 Hammy

[madaxeman]

* I fully expect that some smart alec Mancunian*2 will come back with a quip that in one game they played once down the club that Protected Cv beat up LH spectacularly, but frankly we all know that's utter t--ss in the real workd 99.95% of the time

*2 Hammy

I WANT to be able to do subscript!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[hammy]

At present the combined effect of manoeuvrability, ability to evade, number of shooting dice per frontage, vulnerability to enemy shooting AND (less so) combat capability is so heavily weighted towards LH that choosing the Protected Cv option is always, decisively worse on pretty much all counts*

tim

* I fully expect that some smart alec Mancunian will come back with a quip that in one game they played once down the club that Protected Cv beat up LH spectacularly, but frankly we all know that's utter t--ss in the real world 99.95% of the time

Well as requested I will dissagree I have found superior protected bow sword cavalry with some of my own light horse in support to be a very good way to bully enemy light horse. I don't think that average protected will do the job but superiors are plenty good enough to beat up light horse.

[philqw78]

I WANT to be able to do subscript!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO YOU DON'T

[lawrenceg]

At present the combined effect of manoeuvrability, ability to evade, number of shooting dice per frontage, vulnerability to enemy shooting AND (less so) combat capability is so heavily weighted towards LH that choosing the Protected Cv option is always, decisively worse on pretty much all counts*

tim

* I fully expect that some smart alec Mancunian will come back with a quip that in one game they played once down the club that Protected Cv beat up LH spectacularly, but frankly we all know that's utter t--ss in the real world 99.95% of the time

Well as requested I will dissagree I have found superior protected bow sword cavalry with some of my own light horse in support to be a very good way to bully enemy light horse. I don't think that average protected will do the job but superiors are plenty good enough to beat up light horse.

Just to be clear, are you saying that :

Average LH plus superior protected cavalry beats Average LH plus Average LH
Average LH plus average protected cavalry loses to Average LH plus Average LH
2 x average protected cavalry loses to Average LH plus Average LH
2x superior protected cavalry are unlikely to beat Average LH plus Average LH
and
Average protected cavalry plus superior protected cavalry lose to Average LH plus Average LH
?

[hammy]

Just to be clear, are you saying that :

Average LH plus superior protected cavalry beats Average LH plus Average LH
Average LH plus average protected cavalry loses to Average LH plus Average LH
2 x average protected cavalry loses to Average LH plus Average LH
2x superior protected cavalry are unlikely to beat Average LH plus Average LH
and
Average protected cavalry plus superior protected cavalry lose to Average LH plus Average LH
?

It is not quite as simple as one BG against one or two against two. It is more a case of the whole army working well together.

OK, an example the Early Hungarian list I took to Campaign (2 Kn, 3 Sup Prot Cv, 3 LH Bow Swd, 4 LH Bow, 2 LF Bow) came up against several armies with 2-3 BG of armoured cavalry plus a mass of LH either average or superior. The protected cavalry combined with my own light horse mean I can dominate the skirmish battle as my opponents light horse cannot really take many risks and whenever I charge they are pretty much forced to evade. This means I grab space, pen the enemy into areas where I can concentrate shooting and generally be very mean to them.

[grahambriggs]

Just to be clear, are you saying that :

Average LH plus superior protected cavalry beats Average LH plus Average LH
Average LH plus average protected cavalry loses to Average LH plus Average LH
2 x average protected cavalry loses to Average LH plus Average LH
2x superior protected cavalry are unlikely to beat Average LH plus Average LH
and
Average protected cavalry plus superior protected cavalry lose to Average LH plus Average LH
?

It is not quite as simple as one BG against one or two against two. It is more a case of the whole army working well together.

OK, an example the Early Hungarian list I took to Campaign (2 Kn, 3 Sup Prot Cv, 3 LH Bow Swd, 4 LH Bow, 2 LF Bow) came up against several armies with 2-3 BG of armoured cavalry plus a mass of LH either average or superior. The protected cavalry combined with my own light horse mean I can dominate the skirmish battle as my opponents light horse cannot really take many risks and whenever I charge they are pretty much forced to evade. This means I grab space, pen the enemy into areas where I can concentrate shooting and generally be very mean to them.

While true Hammy this is predicated on the protected cavalry/LH combo coming up against enough LH armies to allow them onto the front foot, so to speak. In a steppe type theme this could well work. However, in an open competition the protected cavalry are likey to be less valuable I suspect.

I'd quite like a rule that allows cavalry with bow to transform into LH on the battleground (perhaps a similar mechnism to infantry placing PO?) and back if the army list gives the option. If only LH with bow weren't very good already!

[hammy]

While true Hammy this is predicated on the protected cavalry/LH combo coming up against enough LH armies to allow them onto the front foot, so to speak. In a steppe type theme this could well work. However, in an open competition the protected cavalry are likey to be less valuable I suspect.

I'd quite like a rule that allows cavalry with bow to transform into LH on the battleground (perhaps a similar mechnism to infantry placing PO?) and back if the army list gives the option. If only LH with bow weren't very good already!

The army worked pretty well in an open comp as well. Most opponents have some skirmishers and once you clear them out of the way and probably any weak mounted arm the remains is easy meat.

The only time the protected cavalry let me down was when I charged 2 BGs of LH in an open field with one BG of portected cavalry and they stood. To be honest even then the combat odds were in my favour so my cavalry getting beaten was a bit of a shock. The impact was 6 dice to 4 with me being superior and the melee was 3 agains 4 with me having a POA and superior. Not bad when you consider that the cavalry are 25% cheaper than bow sword light horse.

Cavalry that could deploy as light horse like the pike in an Alexandrian army can deploy as medium foot would be very nice but I suspect that I would almost always take the cavalry as cavalry anyway.

[madaxeman]

So, I think that all means that Hammy thinks that Cv need to be Superior to be as useful as Average LH armed with similar equipment.

[hammy]

So, I think that all means that Hammy thinks that Cv need to be Superior to be as useful as Average LH armed with similar equipment.

I am indeed not keen on average protected bow sword cavalry. That said for one BG of cavalry against 1 BG of light horse I would be happy with average cavalry.

[Cerberias]

I use two BG's of unprotected crossbow sword cav, average, in my han army to great success. The enemy cant ignore them and they sit on a flank - if the enemy moves something out there that can take them out then they turn tail and retreat and usually the enemy has wasted more points than they are worth to try to catch them, and if they dont deal with them then i have an easy swinging flank. If the enemy moves out with a whole lot of light horse I just pull them behind my armored medium foot wall as a flank guard.

Last game I used them in they drew two units of light horse and a unit of protected superior bow/sw cav into a shooting death trap when my medium foot closed the noose faster than anticipated and shot them to pieces/intercept charged them, and the game before that they held up and eventually caught two units of bow/sw light horse and then flank interecepted a unit of arm/sup/lancer/sw cav and broke that also.

[gozerius]

What if we ditched the LH and gave cav +1 MU if in a single rank?

[hammy]

What if we ditched the LH and gave cav +1 MU if in a single rank?

The advantages of light horse over cavalry is not really their move distance, it is their far better manuverability.

If you give cavalry in one rank an extra MU of movement then heavy foot would only ve able to catch evading cavalry on a 6-1 split in the VMD

[MatthewP]

I do think poor light foor are too cheap. Perhaps they should be 1 point less than average rather than 2.

[hammy]

I do think poor light foor are too cheap. Perhaps they should be 1 point less than average rather than 2.

That might be a better solution but only for light foot, not medium foot.

Even so it will only make a difference of perhaps 20 points in armies where there are 4 BGs of poor LF.

[MatthewP]

Even so it will only make a difference of perhaps 20 points in armies where there are 4 BGs of poor LF.

That is true, but 20 points is still two and a half bgs worth of poor lf (in 4s).