Ancient cavalry, too powerful in FoG?

[hammy]

In fact, I have played the starter armies because I thought they were intended to be well balanced armies and represented a good way to fix myself objectives of painting. At least the second part is right.

Ahh, that may explain quite a lot

If you have read other threads about the starter armies you can be safe in the knowledge that they are "all my fault" Actually the starter armies were generally created by the list writers to be reasonable armies but they were not specifically tailored to be ballanced against all their historical opponents.

[shadowdragon]

I don't think I ever said that superior and armoured and lots of cavalry is more fun (I prefer infantry armies). To me the fun is in being able to have a plan and put it into practice and therefore I am experiencing with two envelops, one envelop (the one that seems more succesful) and things alike. I have tried several rulesets and FoG is the one getting closer, but with some fixes.

My mistake. I misinterpreted something you wrote earlier.

I am sorry if I bothered other people in the forum. I took this 2.0 as an opportunity to share my views in Ancient warfare and wargaming, especially in what I saw in FoG as historically troublesome. If FoG evolves more into a history game, it could be the game I stay with for a long time and I am even teaching it to kids and their parents in my home city (with time I might introduce my own additions). It was also an opportunity to learn more about a period of the history I really enjoy. I never intended to be unpolite although I have been provoked and maybe I lost my nerve sometimes (the problems of non face to face communication you pointed). I have been open to other interpetrations of history and I am now more inclined to less extreme views I had before. Anyway, in this thread I would have liked to see more counterexamples and less qualifications of the propositions and the people proposing them. I think that my point is clear and I should stop it here.

It's been no bother. If it had I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of playing several variants of spearmen versus cavalry. You were never impolite. However, as it is sometimes said, "we've been around the buoy several times" (i.e., the arguments are starting to be repetitive). My view is that the interaction is out by "half a POA" - the authors have "rounded down" and you'd prefer to "round up".

Besides, as we all now know, it's really hammy's fault. Thanks for confessing, hammy. We'll add it to your long list of crimes.

[rbodleyscott]

In fact, I have played the starter armies because I thought they were intended to be well balanced armies and represented a good way to fix myself objectives of painting. At least the second part is right.

Ahh, that may explain quite a lot

If you have read other threads about the starter armies you can be safe in the knowledge that they are "all my fault" Actually the starter armies were generally created by the list writers to be reasonable armies but they were not specifically tailored to be ballanced against all their historical opponents.

Actually they err on the side of effectiveness, so as to avoid afflicting beginners with a "dog".

[shadowdragon]

I'd worked out that many players would use later Assyrian armies - lots of good quality armoured cavalry and Chariots. The plan being to crowd the horseboys until they had to launch desperate frontal charges, or that the rash ones might charge anyway. This worked a treat. I'm up at impact, equal in melee, I have rear support and generals just in case of bad rolls. If the worst happens I lose a BG and it's rear support.

This is pretty much how it worked in the Spartan versus Persian solo game I played last year and posted in the AAR folder. The overall game outcome ended up being determined by the programmed options that led to the main Persian attack (the centre) on a prepared hoplite position. However, on one flank the Persian cavalry intended to skirmish until disrupting the hoplite line but ended up being crowded back into disordering terrain. Finally, in desperation, seeing that the Persian centre would collapse, the cavalry attacked twice with the end result of 2 BG fragmented, 1 BG routed and only 1 BG in good order. I was really impressed by the ability of a group of mutually supporting hoplite BG to control ground.

[kdonovan]

What if you made it a requirement to take 1 hit per 4 bases in order to have to take a cohesion test in melee? (Keep the death check for any loser though to allow attrition to wear them down.)

This would mean 1 hit on a 2-4 base unit would cause a check but against 6 or 8 would need 2 hits to cause a check and against 10-12 base units 3 hits. It would stop the one base at impact doing 1 hit to 0 and putting a CT on the loser.

[irondog068]

When it comes to cavalry I keep coming back to the quote a Federal calvary men wrote in a letter home during the amreican Civil War. It was something like "There is nothing on earth that can force a horse to throw itself into a bunch of bayonets". I know that that is 1864, but a bayonet is a 6 foot spear. And you read about how amazed the British at Waterloo that the French heavies kept reforming and charging.
I think almost any formed infantry who do not panic and start to break stand a pretty good chance of holding there own against a calvary charge. I think the question comes at the point when it comes to "Nut up or Shut up". I feel most times when infantry get creamed they are breaking before contact, If they stand well the horsies get bounced.

My thought is a morale check before impact for the infantry. If the infantry blow there test and become disordered (or worse)[ bad things for the infantry. If they stand with no effect the horse should have some minus in the impact and bounce. My thought is if the cavalry is unable to effect a adverse morale check before combat there should be almost no casualties on either side.

[ShrubMiK]

I think you could argue that that "initial morale check and cavalry bounce if the infantry don't lose cohesion" thing is sort of there already - it's the cavalry break off after melee. It's a mechanic that works quite well, IMO.

>My view is that the interaction is out by "half a POA" - the authors have "rounded down" and you'd prefer to "round up".

That is an interesting POV to me. My feeling is that in general (shock cavalry less so, non-shock more so) cavalry are a little too effective against foot in head-on combat between steady troops. Considering that the "typical" cavalry tend to be superior in game terms, whereas "typical" foot are merely average, bingo!, there's a half POA or thereabouts.

[madaxeman]

I think you could argue that that "initial morale check and cavalry bounce if the infantry don't lose cohesion" thing is sort of there already - it's the cavalry break off after melee. It's a mechanic that works quite well, IMO.

>My view is that the interaction is out by "half a POA" - the authors have "rounded down" and you'd prefer to "round up".

That is an interesting POV to me. My feeling is that in general (shock cavalry less so, non-shock more so) cavalry are a little too effective against foot in head-on combat between steady troops. Considering that the "typical" cavalry tend to be superior in game terms, whereas "typical" foot are merely average, bingo!, there's a half POA or thereabouts.

On that basis, if steady close formation foot always got an extra POA against mounted, but mounted always got one against unsteady HF, that would spice life up a bit.... and why not throw in a similar factor for MF with spears too for good measure

[expendablecinc]

Finally, in desperation, seeing that the Persian centre would collapse, the cavalry attacked twice with the end result of 2 BG fragmented, 1 BG routed and only 1 BG in good order. I was really impressed by the ability of a group of mutually supporting hoplite BG to control ground.

Hoplites rock! Particularly compared to inferior pants-wearing persians

Anthony