Cavalry - a package of proposals

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:28 pm

Kevin has appealed to my better nature on the idea of allowing Cavalry to fall back up to 2MU as they can in FoG:AM.

So we'd add Cavalry move up to 2MU into the last line of the 180 degree turn and that it is Complex for Cavalry into the Others box.

However, as this then puts the spotlight on those cavalry who are just Light Lancers who cannot evade as they are Shock troops we think that should be tackled in some way as well as it seems reasonable that for most of them an evade is a reasonable historical option.

Our solution is that Cavalry with Light Lance do not count as Shock Troops - thus if 1 rank deep they could evade.

Of course there are some who really are "chargers" and this would not be appropriate and so we suggest that these would be reclassified as Horse and so remain as Shock Troops. This was done with some troops when the lists were drawn up.

We have had a look and these are the ones we think Horse would probably apply to. Our consideration has been those who are predominantly chargers and not so much into manoeuvre, and also that do not appear to be a bit vulnerable to firearms, are candidates. Looking through the books it is clear we were not consistent in thinking about this first time round - for example it is clear that for the African armies consideration was given as to whether their more charging mounted should be Cavalry or Horse, but we didn't in the Colonies & Conquest lists :?

Colonies and Conquest

Japanese samurai cavalry and Hatamoto guards.

Rajput cavalry in the Hindu Indian list and those in the Mughal list.


Cities of Gold

Tuareg camelry - bit of an issue as they are obviously chargers but camelry is defined as being the same as Cv. Obvious solution is to make them an exception and count them as Horse with the camelry effects and extra points cost. (I'd leave Tuareg cavalry as Cv though as it leaves the camels as the charging troops and gives the list a bit more variety).


Duty and Glory

Late Polish and Lithuanian Pancerni


So not many really :D

There are, of course, lots more Cv with Light Lance so here is the thinking for not classifying others as Horse and leaving them as Cavalry:

Hungarian Hussars & Szeklers in various lists who are Bow*, Lt Lance - having a shooting capability (even a lesser one) suggests they are not predominantly chargers.
Tatar and Lithuanian Petyhortsy for the same reason.
Cossack Lt lance Cv in various lists because mobility seems to have been their thing and leaving them as Cv will keep this (and be improved if they can drop back and evade).
Early Polish Noble Levy - they were nervous and a bit crap tending to run away.
Kalmar Union sergeants - looks like a deliberate choice so I'd leave it.
Scottish boarder horse for similar reasons to the Cossacks; likewise the same troops in the Boarder Reiver list.
Tyrone's cavalry in the Irish list have javelins so similar to Hungarians.
Bedouin cavalry and North African States cavalry similar to Cossacks and they are often depicted thrusting backwards.


There would, however, be a points cost for this. The addition of the drop back should be useful to help ensure an evade gets away, but needs a CT so isn't guaranteed. We think it needs a cost so we'd say 1 point. That would also mean that for Average/Poor Cv their base points do not change from the current lists but that Superior/Elite are still a point (or so) cheaper.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by DavidT » Fri Jan 27, 2017 7:34 pm

Seems like a good idea.
I know that my friend who has just painted up a Scottish Border Reavers army will be pleased as he was totally shocked when I told him his cavalry couldn't evade in a recent game because they were classed as shock troops.

benjones1211
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by benjones1211 » Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:11 pm

If you count camalry as Horse does that mean they lose the -1 ct for being shot at by shot.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Jan 28, 2017 7:25 am

benjones1211 wrote:If you count camalry as Horse does that mean they lose the -1 ct for being shot at by shot.
Yup as they are no longer Cavalry.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by DavidT » Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:58 pm

benjones1211 wrote:If you count camalry as Horse does that mean they lose the -1 ct for being shot at by shot.
I think he might mean Camelry

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by timmy1 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:28 pm

Nah, it is a new troop type Ben is proposing...

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by timmy1 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:30 pm

Don't agree with the proposal for Cavalry move back as it gets us back into the DBM 3.0 issues.

HOWEVER if the majority of people decided to abandon all reason and support this frankly insane and retrograde step, then the rest of the proposed changes also have to occur.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Jan 29, 2017 2:41 pm

timmy1 wrote:Don't agree with the proposal for Cavalry move back as it gets us back into the DBM 3.0 issues.
DBM 3.0 issues?
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by timmy1 » Sun Jan 29, 2017 3:21 pm

Mounted delaying foot forever if the foot don't shoot.

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by kevinj » Sun Jan 29, 2017 10:07 pm

Less of a problem in Fog R.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by ravenflight » Sun Jan 29, 2017 11:26 pm

timmy1 wrote:Mounted delaying foot forever if the foot don't shoot.
kevinj wrote:Less of a problem in Fog R.
Yes, this is true Kevin, but what Timmy says has some merit. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I can just imagine in eastern and American armies where there is a few 'non-shooty- types, and early armies with Pike Keils where there is more cavalry anyway it could become an issue.

Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by Vespasian28 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:02 pm

There are not huge numbers of cavalry in the early Pike period, a couple of BG at most excepting the Italian armies and if you want to slow down the infantry there are lots more LH who can already do this better and I don't see it that often.

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by timmy1 » Mon Jan 30, 2017 7:34 pm

Foot need to pass a CMT to charge Mounted Battle troops. If LH want to risk getting hit by a Keil good luck to them. A lot less interesting trying to charge a Cav BG that is moving back 2 MU a turn.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by ravenflight » Mon Jan 30, 2017 8:49 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:Colonies and Conquest

Japanese samurai cavalry and Hatamoto guards.
In this instance you're not talking about the bow armed Samurai cavalry, correct?

If so, I think this would be great. You have the divide line where Ashigaru start being counted as MF instead of Warrior and also the mounted as well. I can see this as a good thing.

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by nikgaukroger » Mon Jan 30, 2017 9:06 pm

ravenflight wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Colonies and Conquest

Japanese samurai cavalry and Hatamoto guards.
In this instance you're not talking about the bow armed Samurai cavalry, correct?
Just those which are Light Lancers. Bow types remain as Cavalry.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by Jhykronos » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:17 pm

ravenflight wrote: Yes, this is true Kevin, but what Timmy says has some merit. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I can just imagine in eastern and American armies where there is a few 'non-shooty- types, and early armies with Pike Keils where there is more cavalry anyway it could become an issue.
Hmmm... as far as this goes, at least this proposal has had substantial playtesting. Was this that much of an issue when the change was made in FOG-AM?(*)

(*) - In my experience it made some formerly utterly craptastic unarmored cavalry actually worth using, but then my Kushans usually fought Sassanids, so shooting back was not an issue for either force.

Jhykronos
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 10:52 pm

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by Jhykronos » Tue Jan 31, 2017 11:43 pm

nikgaukroger wrote: <SNIP>
Our solution is that Cavalry with Light Lance do not count as Shock Troops - thus if 1 rank deep they could evade.
So lance armed cavalry in 1 rank would work similar to lance armed light horse (analogous to cavalry horse archers in 1 rank and light horse horse archers)?
Of course there are some who really are "chargers" and this would not be appropriate and so we suggest that these would be reclassified as Horse and so remain as Shock Troops. This was done with some troops when the lists were drawn up.
I don't have an initial aversion to this, but this proposal is begging for a long look at unintended consequences. The first of these obviously being that cavalry formerly (and perhaps justifiably) vulnerable to shot are now less so.

<Snip>

Candidates:
Japanese samurai cavalry and Hatamoto guards.
Shrug. I've said my piece on the whole idea of Samurai "Cavalry Units" in general. Maybe the Hatamotos should be Determined Horse to go with the Determined Foot.
Rajput cavalry in the Hindu Indian list and those in the Mughal list.
Rightly shock troops by reputation.
Tuareg camelry - bit of an issue as they are obviously chargers but camelry is defined as being the same as Cv. Obvious solution is to make them an exception and count them as Horse with the camelry effects and extra points cost. (I'd leave Tuareg cavalry as Cv though as it leaves the camels as the charging troops and gives the list a bit more variety).
Don't know a lot about Tuareg armies... Does the evidence say their horse lancers were less fierce than their camel lancers? Variety for the sake of variety can lead to some rubbish history (not accusing, just asking).
Late Polish and Lithuanian Pancerni
I could see arguments for cavalry, horse, or determined horse for these guys, honestly.
There would, however, be a points cost for this. The addition of the drop back should be useful to help ensure an evade gets away, but needs a CT so isn't guaranteed. We think it needs a cost so we'd say 1 point. That would also mean that for Average/Poor Cv their base points do not change from the current lists but that Superior/Elite are still a point (or so) cheaper.
Sounds logical, I guess. Most cavalry are getting at least as much of a discount for being armed with bows and swords as they are getting for their base costs, anyway. And the extra point does mitigate the potential "28-point average horse-archer monstrosities" I raised as a potential concern (now the'd be 32 point monstrosities... doesn't sound like much, but the 20 unit horde can now only afford 17.5 units for the same price).

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by nikgaukroger » Wed Feb 01, 2017 9:01 am

Jhykronos wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote: <SNIP>
Our solution is that Cavalry with Light Lance do not count as Shock Troops - thus if 1 rank deep they could evade.
So lance armed cavalry in 1 rank would work similar to lance armed light horse (analogous to cavalry horse archers in 1 rank and light horse horse archers)?
That is the intention. It is creating something similar to the Light Spear capability of FoG:AM.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

quackstheking
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
Posts: 844
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 2:41 pm
Location: Hertfordshire, England

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by quackstheking » Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:37 am

So cavalry with bow are now sufficiently mobile to turn 180degrees move back 2" and then turn back again but not sufficiently mobile to turn 180 degrees and move and then keep going? (Which of course their lighter bretheran can) Hahaha

Not only do I not agree with the turn and turn back again but this is starting to make a mockery of the game!

I also see in the update that the range for bows, sling and crossbow is reduced but no mention of mounted bows having their range reduced (it is a separate entry on the QRS)?!!!!

So if mtd bow is 4" then mounted cavalry one rank deep become awesome. However if mtd bow also come down to 3", they will be shot to pieces and have their morale shredded by P&S units! The only reason then to turn and fall back would be to get out of shot short range but in doing so they then could not shoot themselves?!

This was never "a broken" bit of FoGR so I am at a loss to understand why we are introducing something now just because it was introduced into FoGAM in response to very different tactical situations.

Ho hum

Don :roll:

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Cavalry - a package of proposals

Post by kevinj » Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:30 am

This was included as a proposal following discussion. You can see most of that here: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 50&t=75538.

Remember that it's only Cavalry in one rank. It probably isn't much benefit if you're strung out in one rank in front of a P&S BG, but then under the current rules that isn't an ideal situation either. The principal use would be to back off from more aggressive cavalry, such as Light Lancers. As such it's probably more likely to feature in games between Eastern Armies.

The intention is that all Bow ranges will have a 3 mu short range so that probably needs to be made clear in the update.

Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”