Cavalry and Battle Frontage Solution

[Geffalrus]

Add this to the list of potential solutions to some of the balance issues with the battle system in Empires. I'm putting it up here as something that I think would be a relatively elegant solution that uses existing mechanics without adding new complications. I also think it would help differentiate units and increase army variety.

The Problem:

Simply put, the major issue I see with Empires (battles) at the moment (other than some frontage priority bugs) is that players have every incentive to make extremely simple and boring armies. 12 of your best heavy infantry backed up by 12 light horse and you have something that can stand against many/most armies. The combination of the good heavy infantry stats (for most factions they can use other variants like legions and phalanxes) + support bonus + ranged damage from light horse + flanking/pursuit from light horse.......there's just not a lot of incentive other than resource paucity to use anything else. This isn't even a particularly elite army, though heavy infantry are decently expensive. Yes, certain region terrain types can cause problems, but mountains and forest aren't - that - common outside of Central Europe, and the best regions on the map tend to be either Plains or Hill. In particular, it completely removes the need for cavalry other than light horse. Cavalry units just don't have much of a purpose in the current iteration of the game. Flanking is countered by having full frontage, and in direct combat, cavalry lose to infantry units. Some heavy cavalry types do for certain factions, but in most cases.......cavalry is just not a good use of money unless you're role playing.

The Solution:

Add Flank Zones to most battle maps (some exceptions) and boost the base stats of cavalry units. Flank Zones are the key concept. Flank Zones are defined in the game as a set number of spaces on each side of the map you see during the view battle. Currently, all spaces function equally. However, the idea here is that Flank Zones on those maps have a profound impact on the units occupying them. Infantry units that occupy Flank Zone spaces take combat value penalties similar to what we see in Mountain/Forest/Assault regions for select Heavy Infantry units. As a result, when in a duel, infantry units that face cavalry in the flank zones should lose. However, when cavalry occupy non-flank zone spaces on the battlefield (what we'll call Core Zones), they in turn take a penalty to their combat values, making them likely to lose in that situation.

Infantry receive penalties when fighting in the flank zones because those zones are an approximation of the large amounts of space that would exist on open battlefields. Due to their speed, cavalry can take better advantage of this space, allowing them to surround and isolate infantry formations unsupported by cavalry. Hence, the infantry combat penalty. Conversely, the cavalry penalty represents the relative unwillingness of cavalry to frontally charge solid infantry formations. Historically, the only units that came close to effectively doing that were Cataphracts or Macedonian Heavy Cavalry (key word being relatively effective), so elite heavy cavalry units would have a smaller penalty when not in Flank Zones (or none at all). Similarly, Medium Infantry like Regular Foot would not be quite so penalized as Heavy Infantry due to their inherent mobility.

The end result of this is that the player now has some VERY good reasons for incorporating cavalry into their army. If the player knows they'll be fighting in regions with suitable terrain (more on that shortly), they can plan ahead and bring large cavalry forces............and actually benefit from doing so, unlike now.

Different Regions:

Flank Zones will also help further differentiate battles fought in different region types. Let's use Plains as our starting point. Currently they have Frontage 12. Under this new system, that Frontage would be 1 Core Zone of 6 spaces in the center, with 2 Flank Zones of 3 spaces each on either side. Balanced spaces for both cavalry and infantry. When you move to hills, the amount of Flank space decreases - you keep the 6 Core Spaces and instead have only 1 Flank Zone space on each side. Cavalry is less powerful now, but still has some utility. The most restricted terrain spaces like Forest, Marsh, Mountain, and Assault would have no Flank Zones, making cavalry appropriately useless in such situations.

Moving in the other direction would be Desert and Steppe. Steppe also has 12 Frontage, but in the new system, it would be 8 Flank Zone Spaces and only 4 Core Zone spaces. And finally with Desert, the trend would continue with 8 Flank Zone spaces and only 2 Core Zone spaces, making infantry focused armies a very risky proposition.

The end result is that if you bring an army lacking cavalry into an open map, you will be punished by an army with a good proportion of cavalry. Conversely, if you bring cavalry to rough terrain regions, they won't help you that much. As such, you need to consider the region terrain you will be facing and plan accordingly. Unit choice and army composition need to be a crucial part of the battle system. Not just "spam one type of unit combination and stick it with a good general you were lucky to get"......

Unit Priority:

While I'm no expert on the game's frontage algorithm, my guess would be that the internal logic would need adjustment so that cavalry units (normal, heavy, light) would take heavy priority for flank zones up until no more of those unit types existed in the army, at which point skirmishers, then medium foot, and finally heavy infantry would fill in those areas. Conversely, heavy infantry and medium foot would take high priority for Core Zones until none of those units can be found in the army, at which point heavy cavalry would take the highest priority, followed by medium cavalry, and then lights, with foot skirmishers having the lowest frontage priority of any unit (except for the Support line). The goal of this would be to best replicate the battle formations we see throughout the Hellenistic and adjacent eras - cavalry on the flanks supported by light horse, then medium infantry, and then heavy infantry in the center. As it stands now, there's no incentive for the player to do anything but heavy infantry from one flank to the other with no cavalry involved. The Flank Zones would make things more authentic by benefiting the army that correctly tries to protect its flanks with cavalry.

Conclusion:

I think that this change to the battle system will do relatively little to rearrange the existing military system, while still boosting the level of military diversity that this game needs. Mechanically, I don't think it will be a massive change to how the game works, and I don't think that it will alter the AI habits. At least not in a way that the AI value mechanisms can't handle. I hope that this solution is giving proper consideration.

[Hendricus]

Great idea, to promote combined arms. Giving positive modifiers for troops at the right spot in the battleline and negative modifiers if they have to do things they are not good at. Thinking about using Speed, Flanking and Skirmishing as possible factors that decide if they get rewarded or punished for being at the spot they are in. Another factor can be that evading becomes harder if there are troops in the third row, so a tailor made army performs better as masses of troops that have no room to move or fall back.

[Geffalrus]

Great idea, to promote combined arms. Giving positive modifiers for troops at the right spot in the battleline and negative modifiers if they have to do things they are not good at. Thinking about using Speed, Flanking and Skirmishing as possible factors that decide if they get rewarded or punished for being at the spot they are in. Another factor can be that evading becomes harder if there are troops in the third row, so a tailor made army performs better as masses of troops that have no room to move or fall back.

Yes, I could see horse skirmishers having an evasion penalty in the center zone (unless they're a steppe faction since they're likely to have cavalry in the center and use different tactics/formations) or something similar since they're traditionally flank troops. Same for foot skirms in the flank zones.

My view is that there are ways we can use the existing mechanics to better represent the complexity of the battlefield without massively increasing the game's complexity. And certainly, anything that rewards players for seeking out unique unit combinations makes for better gameplay.

[Pocus]

Nice proposal indeed! We would like to improve the specifics of cavalry and this can be a way, we will have to think more about it though.

[Morbio]

I think a performance boost for cavalry on the flanks, or a malus for infantry, would really help make the cavalry worthwhile. At present I don't buy any because they are poor value for money.

Maybe having reserved spaces at the end of the line for cavalry (limited to certain terrains where cavalry are effective), so that either they face off against other cavalry or, if unopposed by cavalry, they add to the attack for the infantry in the penultimate space. This could give some realistic battles. I'm thinking of Cannae, where the Carthaginian cavalry fought the Roman cavalry, chased them from the field, then returned to help win the battle. In the game the cavalry fight, one side may lose theirs but achieve a draw and then on the next iteration of the battle the cavalry are free to help in the fight.

Adding to this... the space in front of cavalry could be used for LH skirmishers, which would perform a similar role as main skirmishers, perhaps their attacks could be limited to the cavalry row and perhaps the next row. After skirmishing they retreat behind the cavalry.

[Geffalrus]

Nice proposal indeed! We would like to improve the specifics of cavalry and this can be a way, we will have to think more about it though.

Very much looking forward to what you come up with!

[Geffalrus]

I think a performance boost for cavalry on the flanks, or a malus for infantry, would really help make the cavalry worthwhile. At present I don't buy any because they are poor value for money.

Maybe having reserved spaces at the end of the line for cavalry (limited to certain terrains where cavalry are effective), so that either they face off against other cavalry or, if unopposed by cavalry, they add to the attack for the infantry in the penultimate space. This could give some realistic battles. I'm thinking of Cannae, where the Carthaginian cavalry fought the Roman cavalry, chased them from the field, then returned to help win the battle. In the game the cavalry fight, one side may lose theirs but achieve a draw and then on the next iteration of the battle the cavalry are free to help in the fight.

Exactly. The current frontage algorithm places cavalry mostly on the flank, but doesn't actually give you a benefit for doing so, or even a reason to have them there instead of more infantry. It's so close to being a really good battle approximation.

[MojoAmok]

I quite like the proposal - it's intuitive and representative of how FOG 2 battles play out, so we can build an army composition that has similar performance in both systems (ie. my FOG 2 cavalry can get clogged up in rough terrain and end up not doing much).

[Hendricus]

I think a performance boost for cavalry on the flanks, or a malus for infantry, would really help make the cavalry worthwhile. At present I don't buy any because they are poor value for money.

Maybe having reserved spaces at the end of the line for cavalry (limited to certain terrains where cavalry are effective), so that either they face off against other cavalry or, if unopposed by cavalry, they add to the attack for the infantry in the penultimate space. This could give some realistic battles. I'm thinking of Cannae, where the Carthaginian cavalry fought the Roman cavalry, chased them from the field, then returned to help win the battle. In the game the cavalry fight, one side may lose theirs but achieve a draw and then on the next iteration of the battle the cavalry are free to help in the fight.

Exactly. The current frontage algorithm places cavalry mostly on the flank, but doesn't actually give you a benefit for doing so, or even a reason to have them there instead of more infantry. It's so close to being a really good battle approximation.

Adding Flanking as a bonus for troops on the Wings, even if they are opposed would give normal cavalry +3. If clumsy or unmanouvrable troops get a malus of -2. Makes bringing some cavalry worth the effort. I think this makes most sense in open terrain.

[Geffalrus]

Adding Flanking as a bonus for troops on the Wings, even if they are opposed would give normal cavalry +3. If clumsy or unmanouvrable troops get a malus of -2. Makes bringing some cavalry worth the effort. I think this makes most sense in open terrain.

My main concern is that I want cavalry units to be less effective in Forest/Mountain/Assault/Marsh terrain than they currently are. Historically, cavalry were just as bad in these locations as heavy infantry - if not more so. The lack of Flank Zones in these regions would achieve that fairly elegantly while also boosting Cavalry in more open terrain.

The danger of tying cavalry stats - too - closely to terrain, however, is that you end up with the situation where a full line of cavalry is capable of fighting heavy infantry frontally. That's something that should only be sort of possible for select heavy cavalry units and/or Steppe factions.

So in the end, it's a balance between making sure cavalry have an advantage in open terrain and on the flanks that doesn't completely remove the advantages that heavy infantry have in those same spaces.

[Bullseye500]

A well presented idea, great post Geffairus!

[Gray Fox]

"Infantry receive penalties when fighting in the flank zones because those zones are an approximation of the large amounts of space that would exist on open battlefields. Due to their speed, cavalry can take better advantage of this space, allowing them to surround and isolate infantry formations unsupported by cavalry. Hence, the infantry combat penalty."

If my flank is anchored on a river with a ford, my troops don't guard the length of the river, they just guard the ford. By a similar reasoning, my flank troops don't have to spread out over miles of open plains, they can do that in a tight line on the plain next to my center. Flanking cavalry would still have to charge through the line of men with pointed sticks. Although heavy cavalry may be armored, most, even cataphracts, were armed with javelins or bows. Armored cavalry were just meant to take less damage from the return fire of foot archers. Medium cavalry were meant to chase off lightly armored cavalry armed with javelins and bows. With few exceptions, cavalry did not rule the battlefield until Adrianople, long after the game ends. The "solution" you pose didn't exist.

However, here is a RL solution to add significance to cavalry. Medium cavalry present in an army should be able to counter skirmishers, foot or cavalry, by decreasing their effect. Everything else stays the same for all terrain types, but medium cavalry get a chance to chase the skirmishers away before they can fire.

[Geffalrus]

If my flank is anchored on a river with a ford, my troops don't guard the length of the river, they just guard the ford. By a similar reasoning, my flank troops don't have to spread out over miles of open plains, they can do that in a tight line on the plain next to my center. Flanking cavalry would still have to charge through the line of men with pointed sticks. Although heavy cavalry may be armored, most, even cataphracts, were armed with javelins or bows. Armored cavalry were just meant to take less damage from the return fire of foot archers. Medium cavalry were meant to chase off lightly armored cavalry armed with javelins and bows. With few exceptions, cavalry did not rule the battlefield until Adrianople, long after the game ends. The "solution" you pose didn't exist.

However, here is a RL solution to add significance to cavalry. Medium cavalry present in an army should be able to counter skirmishers, foot or cavalry, by decreasing their effect. Everything else stays the same for all terrain types, but medium cavalry get a chance to chase the skirmishers away before they can fire.

This fixation on Adrianople as some magical change point for infantry warfare vs. cavalry warfare is bad history and overly simplified.

The cataphracts of Antiochus rolled over the left flank of the Roman line at Magnesia and drove it from the field. We are told that said flank was held by infantry. Hundreds of years before the stirrup and the Medieval Era. And that's just cavalry directly attacking infantry in the field; the danger of cavalry completely flanking the heavy infantry center is attested to in the historical record before Adrianople over and over and over and over again.

Battle of Thermopylae in 323 saw the Macedonian phalanx of Antipater defeated by the Athenian alliance under Leosthenes primarily because the Thessalians and their cavalry switched sides before the battle giving the Athenians overwhelming cavalry superiority. Despite having the vaunted Macedonian phalanx, Antipater still chose to retreat rather than face infantry combined with superior cavalry. Later, at the Battle of Crannon, when Antipater was reinforced by Craterus and his forces, the Thessalian horse attempted to win the battle by themselves by charging the Macedonian horse that was now in sufficient number to oppose them. Unable to do so, they withdrew, and the Athenian infantry surrendered to the more powerful Macedonian forces.

The Battle of Cannae hardly needs an introduction. Why oh why didn't the Romans use their copious infantry to counter the Carthaginian cavalry? Because that's not how it works. In reality, the superior Carthaginian horse dealt with the Roman cavalry and then surrounded the Roman infantry that had failed to break the Carthaginian foot. We all know how that ended.

Battle of the Hellespont between Craterus and Eumenes of Cardia saw Eumenes take a force weaker in infantry, but stronger in cavalry up against Craterus and his veteran phalanx. Eumenes led the Cappadochian cavalry charge himself and was able to decisively rout both enemy cavalry wings, leaving the veteran phalanx exposed and leaderless. Victory went to the army with the better cavalry contingent.

Battles of Paraitakene and Gabiene saw Antigonus the One Eyed lose both infantry fights handily, but survive and ultimately win solely because his cavalry got the better of Eumenes'. Had his infantry actually been able to hold of the vaunted Silver Shields, Antigonus would likely have won the battles outright, just like Eumenes had done a few years earlier in the previously mentioned battle. It was only because the Silver Shields had decisively routed the Antigonid phalanx that they were able to form squares and march safely off the field.

I can keep going with countless examples.

Cavalry. Was. Of. High. Importance. On the battle field. As a decisive battle winning portion of the army. In open terrain, the general best able to deliver a decisive cavalry assault (or resist one just long enough to be decisive elsewhere) would carry the day. But that's not what's happening currently in Empire battles. Cavalry serve next to no purpose because they don't have the tactical mobility and battlefield power to be decisive as they were historically. Cavalry did not need stirrups or lances to win battles. That's a tautology based on a simplistic understanding of Medieval cavalry warfare.

Yes, terrain could and would impede cavalry effectiveness. This is why I have the flank zones fluctuate so much between Plains, Hills, and Forests. To represent the ease with which one army could use rough terrain to anchor their flank against cavalry.

Simply put, my solution makes battles look and work more like they did historically. Your solution doesn't change the current state of affairs where players have no incentive but to make mass heavy infantry and skirmisher armies. Even if your medium cavalry limit the ranged damage of my skirmishers, the raw combat value of heavy infantry combined with the untouched support bonus will still flatten your cavalry line.

[Nijis]

This seems like a good proposal. It definitely seems to me that medium/heavy cavalry contributes relatively little to an army.

[Gray Fox]

Geffalrus, perhaps you should send your proof to all of the world's military academies, because they still teach the fact that prior to Adrianople was the Age of Infantry. I'm not saying that cavalry aren't important. I'm posting the commonly held knowledge that cavalry were not heavily armored tanks crashing through a line of poorly trained peasants in this era. This isn't a medieval game. Besides, at the battle of Magnesia, Antiochus lost horribly. The cavalry you are so proud of defeated a flank and then lost the battle to Roman infantry. Also, if a large part of an army is Light Cavalry, then Cavalry. are. of. High. Importance.

[pnoff]

Geffalrus, perhaps you should send your proof to all of the world's military academies, because they still teach the fact that prior to Adrianople was the Age of Infantry. I'm not saying that cavalry aren't important. I'm posting the commonly held knowledge that cavalry were not heavily armored tanks crashing through a line of poorly trained peasants in this era. This isn't a medieval game. Besides, at the battle of Magnesia, Antiochus lost horribly. The cavalry you are so proud of defeated a flank and then lost the battle to Roman infantry. Also, if a large part of an army is Light Cavalry, then Cavalry. are. of. High. Importance.

Here is Magnesia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS-PlwO9_3I (skip to 7:00 for battle itself. I know youtube sources are not the best, if you have better please show them)
and it describes exactly the kind of "far flank" action which people agitate for.

This is classical https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer_and_anvil tactic/pattern which is very common in this period.

edit. Just read Geffalruse's response above, fully support it. Another great case in point is Battle of Zama. Battle of Pharsalus is an interesting example where cavalry had a mishap vs infantry, but that was against certain 3-3 general who got very lucky with a trick.

[Geffalrus]

Geffalrus, perhaps you should send your proof to all of the world's military academies, because they still teach the fact that prior to Adrianople was the Age of Infantry. I'm not saying that cavalry aren't important. I'm posting the commonly held knowledge that cavalry were not heavily armored tanks crashing through a line of poorly trained peasants in this era. This isn't a medieval game. Besides, at the battle of Magnesia, Antiochus lost horribly. The cavalry you are so proud of defeated a flank and then lost the battle to Roman infantry. Also, if a large part of an army is Light Cavalry, then Cavalry. are. of. High. Importance.

No they don't. I've studied with and been taught by people who have gone through the American curriculum, and that is very much not the case.

Never said that cavalry crash through poorly trained peasants anywhere in any post I've made. But let's talk some more about Magnesia. The battle itself was a complete stalemate up until the skirmish troops of Rome's Pergamene allies were able to panic some of the war elephants sheltering within the Seleucid pike formations. The panicking of the elephants gave the Roman infantry the edge they needed to overcome the Seleucid center. Prior to that, however, the Legion could not breach the formation. This result is very interestingly a straight parallel to the Battle of Raphia where the Seleucid/Ptolemaic right wings won their fights, and the balance was tipped by the Ptolemaic pike phalanx (superior in numbers with the Machimoi) overcoming the Seleucid phalanx.

There is one other battle, however, that indicates what might have happened at Magnesia had the Seleucid cavalry behaved a bit differently. Prior to Magnesia, the Ptolemies and Seleucids actually fought one more time......at Panium. This was after Antiochus's big march in Persia where he came back with a bunch of Median Cataphracts. These cataphracts completely overwhelmed the Ptolemaic horse on both flanks, before wheeling to charge the engaged Ptolemaci phalanx in the rear. Victory went to Antiochus........and his son Antiochus the Younger. Antiochus Jr was the one in charge of the cavalry in this battle......and suddenly they performed much better than they had at Raphia. Not just in terms of defeating the Ptolemaic cavalry, but also in how much control they demonstrated in not chasing the routers. I have a strong, strong hunch that Antiochus the Younger, the one history records as commanding the prestigious right wing cavalry division, was a better battlefield cavalry commander than his father. As it happens, Antiochus the Younger died in 193BC. The Battle of Magnesia happened in 190BC. Entirely possible that had he been alive and there, that the victorious Seleucid right wing could have flanked the engaged Roman infantry and won the battle. We'll never know for sure.

Anyway, long story short - Antiochus lost for some very specific reasons that had nothing to do with the relationship between Infantry and Cavalry.

There was no Age of Infantry. There was no Age of Cavalry. Military technology and doctrine are always constantly in flux so that one army that wins through certain tactics ultimately spurs the development of counter-tactics in other armies (provided they have the resources). Whether a society focused more on cavalry or infantry had much more to do with internal socioeconomic factors. Horses are expensive and equestrian skill takes years to learn. If you don't have a population dedicated to that art, you're never gonna have it in your army unless you find another population that does (auxilia, allies, mercenaries, etc).

Thank you all for attending my military history TED talk.

[Gray Fox]

I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. However, people who study military history in depth didn't make the video or the Wikipedia entry. They teach at military academies, and they teach that this was the Age of Infantry. Great states with professional, well equipped infantry armies ruled the battlefields. I'm sure that someone will mod Empires so that a Combined Arms Cavalry Panzer Korps will finally appease those who want to have a "solution". At Magnesia, Antiochus' cavalry raided the Roman camp, they didn't turn and crush the Roman Heavy infantry, because they would have been slaughtered. The Roman cavalry that surrounded the phalanges didn't charge into their rear either. The line of phalanges were retreating until the Legions destroyed them. Archers weren't machine gunners, cavalry weren't tanks and combined arms wasn't a thing in this era.

[pnoff]

I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. However, people who study military history in depth didn't make the video or the Wikipedia entry. They teach at military academies, and they teach that this was the Age of Infantry. Great states with professional, well equipped infantry armies ruled the battlefields. I'm sure that someone will mod Empires so that a Combined Arms Cavalry Panzer Korps will finally appease those who want to have a "solution". At Magnesia, Antiochus' cavalry raided the Roman camp, they didn't turn and crush the Roman Heavy infantry, because they would have been slaughtered. The Roman cavalry that surrounded the phalanges didn't charge into their rear either. The line of phalanges were retreating until the Legions destroyed them. Archers weren't machine gunners, cavalry weren't tanks and combined arms wasn't a thing in this era.

I'm sure these people also write papers and books and give popular lectures. I only see appeal to authority so far, without authority even being named. I promise I would read whatever you cite.

Never said or implied this "archers-machineguns, cavalry-tanks" stuff, not sure how this is relevant.

[Gray Fox]

G, I was a soldier for 21 years. Military History starts as the Age of Infantry. The Battle of Adrianople is recognized as the start of a Millennia of Cavalry rule, ending in the Age of Gunpowder. These are real milestones in military history.

Pnoff, I don't know how fast you can read but here's a source, Men in Arms by:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/00303 ... bl_vppi_i0

Alex Roland is Professor of History Emeritus at Duke University, where he taught Military History and the History of Technology.

He further breaks this period into the Age of the Phalanx and the Age of the Legion, with no mention of how highly important cavalry were.

The Bibliography has many other good sources. Oh, and this was course material I took from an actual Professor of Military Science.