Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

[Schweetness101]

...I don't see there's any need to nerf the medium.

I do think they should be nerfed just a little bit. The advantage of heavy foot heavy with the +1 to cohesion that aid them in holding out better over the long term typically can't, in competitive multiplayer, compete with the medium foot advantages of being cheaper, more numerous, more maneuverable, and not being disordered by rough terrain. Especially in Classical Antiquity where there are a lot of decent medium foot armies. It seems like the current balance is geared more toward singelplayer campaigns where the AI and more novice players don't use the maneuverability and greater numbers of medium foot to maximum advantage, but in multiplayer I think they are OP.

If you look at the army statistics page, there is a win percentage table for I think seasons 1-4 or 1-5, and the top armies tend to be medium foot armies, ranging from having a very large number of medium foot (like Carthaginians or Romano-British), to being outright medium foot spam lists like Bretons, Jewish, Samnite, Spanish, Scots-Irish and Picts. Massed Archer armies are also up there but have since been nerfed (I can't comment on the Chinese lists because I don't know them well). Lebo44's statistics support the same conlusion:

viewtopic.php?f=501&t=98309

It should also be noted that armies which feature large number of cheap low quality undrilled heavy foot like Egyptians, Kingdom of Soissons, and Arab City 300 also do quite well, and I suspect it is to do with the general strategy of cheap infantry spam being a bit op. It's just that most infantry spam armies are with medium foot and not undrilled heavy foot.

A few Hellenistic armies also do pretty well (they're not in the top ten but they still do ok), but that could be because one or two of them are heavily favored by some of the best players, or because pike lists have very few pikes and supplement with pretty large amounts of medium infantry as well.

I don't think a big change would be in order, but perhaps something small like an extra -1 to ct for mediums against non light cav in the open, or an extra poa to cav in the same scenario, or a very slight (2-4 points perhaps) increase in cost to medium foot units might be appropriate. I would be willing to mod and test whatever in that regard.

[TheGrayMouser]

I have advocated for evading light foot (from Cavalry)to auto drop a cohesion level.

But light foot is happy to evade. That's skirmishing, isn't it ?

[/quote]

Would you jog naked into light javelin range ( ie 30 meters?) up to a battle line of hardened and armoured lancers? The auto cohesion loss I envision just from evading would signify the eventual dispersal of such troops ordered to do the unlikley...

In theory its seems ok but in practice what happens 1-2 light foot archers plus a lf javelin can easily disorder an armored superior cavalry in one turn ... and Its all down hill from there .. a human can vector his lights in a way that the javelin fot come at an angle so the mounted cannot charge and the longer range lights are just far enough back "the getting caught thing" just doesnt happen... and then they get pounded agin
—————
Argh, I botched up my response to Athos so it looks like I quoted myself, responded with a comment and then responded to said comment doh

[Athos1660]

Would you jog naked into light javelin range ( ie 30 meters?) up to a battle line of hardened and armoured lancers? The auto cohesion loss I envision just from evading would signify the eventual dispersal of such troops ordered to do the unlikley...

Evading means succeeding in evading. Your morale don't drop when you succeed in doing something you know happens in your job.
Right now, light foot not being able to evade and being caught up suffers a cohesion drop.
And light foot should also have a cohesion loss when they succeed in evading ?
Light troops disperse and cluster again. Skirmishing is about shooting and evading.

In theory its seems ok (...)

...and in my practice

In theory its seems ok but in practice what happens 1-2 light foot archers plus a lf javelin can easily disorder an armored superior cavalry in one turn ... and Its all down hill from there .. a human can vector his lights in a way that the javelin fot come at an angle so the mounted cannot charge and the longer range lights are just far enough back "the getting caught thing" just doesnt happen... and then they get pounded agin

2 LF archers and 1 LF javelin = 720 men
1 Armoured superior cavalry = 240 men
The result is logical, even more so as the horses can also be hit.
If you mobilise 720 LF vs 240 horsemen, you ought to win.

However, I get your point about competitive MP.
IMHO, unit diversity and historicity should not be altered (too much) for the sake of competition.
But it is a matter of taste...

(edit)
PS : I'd rather see fewer LF units on the battlefield than giving up on the current LF mechanism.

[TheGrayMouser]

Would you jog naked into light javelin range ( ie 30 meters?) up to a battle line of hardened and armoured lancers? The auto cohesion loss I envision just from evading would signify the eventual dispersal of such troops ordered to do the unlikley...

Evading means succeeding in evading. Your morale don't drop when you succeed in doing something you know happens in your job.
Right now, light foot not being able to evade and being caught up suffers a cohesion drop.
And light foot should also have a cohesion loss when they succeed in evading ?
Light troops disperse and cluster again. Skirmishing is about shooting and evading.

In theory its seems ok (...)

...and in my practice

In theory its seems ok but in practice what happens 1-2 light foot archers plus a lf javelin can easily disorder an armored superior cavalry in one turn ... and Its all down hill from there .. a human can vector his lights in a way that the javelin fot come at an angle so the mounted cannot charge and the longer range lights are just far enough back "the getting caught thing" just doesnt happen... and then they get pounded agin

2 LF archers and 1 LF javelin = 720 men
1 Armoured superior cavalry = 240 men
The result is logical, even more so as the horses can also be hit.
If you mobilise 720 LF vs 240 horsemen, you ought to win.

However, I get your point about competitive MP.
IMHO, unit diversity and historicity should not be altered (too much) for the sake of competition.
But it is a matter of taste...

(edit)
PS : I'd rather see fewer LF units on the battlefield than giving up on the current LF mechanism.

Im not asking for making things a-historical. I just dont believe 750 dispersed skirmishers could actually in real life deluge a target with as much fire power as they do in 1 turn in game.... or approach to with 30-40 yards away from a cavalry formation ( ie 1 grid) nor "vector in their targeting with radios", nor concentrate fire power on one enemy ( like a WW2 antitank gun platoon concentrating fire power on one enemy tank until it burns, then to the next) .... Even English longbowmen with a much greater "density" of men needed stakes and pits to have a chance vs charging knights. I tend to think success in evading is simply not getting caught, but yet there should still be a price to pay for fleeing.
Anyhow, I like other options too... Ie a cap on HOW many shots can be fire vs any one target in one turn excluding artillery, for example

[Athos1660]

I tend to think success in evading is simply not getting caught, but yet there should still be a price to pay for fleeing.

There is currently a logical one : the evading LF has to turn if it wants to shoot at the attacking cavalry.
Hence, a movement modifier = -20%.
(not to mention the fact it can be caught again)

Anyhow, I like other options too... Ie a cap on HOW many shots can be fire vs any one target in one turn excluding artillery, for example

I'm sure it'll be considered.

[TheGrayMouser]

I tend to think success in evading is simply not getting caught, but yet there should still be a price to pay for fleeing.

There is currently a logical one : the evading LF has to turn if it wants to shoot at the attacking cavalry.
Hence, a movement modifier = -20%.
(not to mention the fact it can be caught again)

Anyhow, I like other options too... Ie a cap on HOW many shots can be fire vs any one target in one turn excluding artillery, for example

I'm sure it'll be considered.

I doubt it, but in theory here's another idea: skirmishers, once routed automatically evaperate ( when defeated by mounted) (or even better they automatically "evaperate" ie are overun, if caught in the rear haha period!! Shouldnt be hard to envision such a thing since MANY wargames allow heavy cavalry their just due in easily wiping out skirmishers that dare enter their charge zone, their bread and butter so to speak especially if your read Archer Jones)

Anyways, the point of this thread was sort of a comparison of lancers and light spear horse, IMHO both probably closer in capability in real-life than the game portrays them. Really no reason why lancers cant evade(not that I want them too), and one wonders how a greek "light spear" Rhomboid formation would evade anyway!! ( wouldnt mind trying a mod not allowing light spear to evade) Both units are usefull in game but many things in game go a long way to making them less than decisive than they should be be when used properly... Swarms of lights shooting them up, medium foot Ligurans taking lancer charges as if they were hoplites ( ie tying every combat , currently happening in MP game Saramations vs the Ligu's)!!, Infantry ZOC'ing cavalry with ease reducing their primary advantage of mobility, small dribbles of a stream completing neutering lancers ( didnt Alexander allegedly charge up an embankment to defeat the Persians at the Granicus?!)

I noticed in the big pike thread that some feel that the the infantry battles in the center are too quick so that the cavalry cant be decisive.... NO, its the opposite! Cavalry battles on the wings take too long because melee between cavalry lasts long as melee poas for cavalry are usually tied ( everyone is superior, armored and has a sword, which means a slow grind) Evan if you get your hands on light spear with lancer, the 50 POA is not overwhelmingly decisive ( at least not like the 100 POA advantage Impact foot gets vs almost everyone...)

I likely sound like a raving lunatic whom doesnt like this game, far from, I really enjoy it, and the single player game is astounding.. I could easily mod many of the simpler things per above but for the fact that I really like MP too and dont think I could handle multiple rules simultaniously ( I really get screwed up if I go from playing a few games of P&S/Sengoku to this game in MP)

All these thing are small things that add up and I think give player like the OP that lancers are best be used as "pinning" units

[Schweetness101]

...

Anyways, the point of this thread was sort of a comparison of lancers and light spear horse, IMHO both probably closer in capability in real-life than the game portrays them. Really no reason why lancers cant evade(not that I want them too), and one wonders how a greek "light spear" Rhomboid formation would evade anyway!! ( wouldnt mind trying a mod not allowing light spear to evade) Both units are usefull in game but many things in game go a long way to making them less than decisive than they should be be when used properly... Swarms of lights shooting them up, medium foot Ligurans taking lancer charges as if they were hoplites ( ie tying every combat , currently happening in MP game Saramations vs the Ligu's)!!, Infantry ZOC'ing cavalry with ease reducing their primary advantage of mobility, small dribbles of a stream completing neutering lancers ( didnt Alexander allegedly charge up an embankment to defeat the Persians at the Granicus?!)

...

I likely sound like a raving lunatic whom doesnt like this game, far from, I really enjoy it, and the single player game is astounding.. I could easily mod many of the simpler things per above but for the fact that I really like MP too and dont think I could handle multiple rules simultaniously ( I really get screwed up if I go from playing a few games of P&S/Sengoku to this game in MP)

All these thing are small things that add up and I think give player like the OP that lancers are best be used as "pinning" units

I made a cavalry mod here:

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=98647&p=847796#p847796

that addresses some of the issues you mentioned, specifically the ZoC trap of cheap non light infantry vs cavalry and the general ZoC locking of non light cavalry by non light infantry. Perhaps you would be interested in trying it out and providing some feedback? Additionally you suggested trying out:

-permitting lancers to evade, or conversely not permitting any non light cav to evade
-giving lancers and perhaps all non light cav a much greater POA vs medium foot in the open
-not removing lancer impact POA in non-open terrain vs light foot (or something like that)
-some kind of debuff to lights fleeing cavalry, perhaps an auto disruption from evading cav

I noticed in the big pike thread that some feel that the the infantry battles in the center are too quick so that the cavalry cant be decisive.... NO, its the opposite! Cavalry battles on the wings take too long because melee between cavalry lasts long as melee poas for cavalry are usually tied ( everyone is superior, armored and has a sword, which means a slow grind) Evan if you get your hands on light spear with lancer, the 50 POA is not overwhelmingly decisive ( at least not like the 100 POA advantage Impact foot gets vs almost everyone...)

well, either way, if the infantry combat takes longer, or if the cavalry combat takes less time, or both, the result will be that cavalry have more time to get around and flank?

would you suggest some further modification to alter the latter by perhaps adding a casualty increase factor in cav vs cav melee combat? similar to but int the opposite direction of the casualty mitigation I added to pikes in the pike mod? What specific things would you adjust that I could try out?

[TheGrayMouser]

Wow lots of food for thought. I do admit I disagree that slowing the infantry combat is equivalent to speeding up Cavalry combat but that’s a minor quibble.

So some ideas to play with(I’ve likely over the years posted these before)
*cavalry vs cavalry with the intent to speed up the melee, the historical observation is cavalry combat was volatile and wasn’t a grind:
1) any loss results in a larger mal cohesion test roll ie -1 or 2
2) this might need more thought but if two cavalry units are in melee for more than 2 melees without a loss of cohesion by either, they break off( allowing for more impact, possibly needing more volatile impact)
3) let’s start off with just light spears not evading;)
4) increase the the rate of mounted evaporating when routed and being pursued.
5) don’t allow cavalry pursuing routed cavalry to be shot at or charged by infantry

The following might be considered extreme by some but:
6) mounted can ignore a single infantry units secondary Zoc unless it is also in the secondary zoc of a second infantry unit. Needed so cavalry can move when “intercepted “ by an infantry unit but to prevent cavalry slipping thru a battle line on a diagonal ( of course if an infantry on a diagonal becomes engaged a cavalry could slip thru in adjacent friend on a diagonal, somewhat justified as why do we assume an infantry units frontage expands when its on a diagonal??? Hmmm
7) crazy idea but let armor count in impact ( for minted only to start...). There is some precedent for this already in game. Dart poa is an impact capability but varies per the enemies armor value....

Oh boy no time for more or to explain, phone is right about to die!!

[Mairtin]

I don't know if it's ideal, but allowing lancers (cataphracts and/or heavy chariots as well?) to flee from non-light foot (and elephants?) would stop them being pinned in most cases; as their main use historically seems to be fighting other cavalry, hitting flanks, or against already unsteady foot. Most of the problems seem to be caused by the pinning of them currently, evading away would allow for them to move off in their next turn if they decided to. Would mounted who don't have an advantage stick rather than use their extra mobility to move off.
I think any well ordered foot who are sticking close together should be able to stand against a frontal assault, unless they waver, which medium foot have a greater chance of doing. At which point under the current rules, they are likely to lose unless they can quickly bring some friends to help.

I believe the fight at Hastings took 9 hours, with the cavalry using feigned flight (I think this would be best represented by evade rather than a fall back) to try and tempt the Saxons into a rash pursuit. Ok, the Saxons in this case are heavy foot but I think it shows that lancer cavalry should be able to evade. The length of time it took also shows that lancers should not be able to easily defeat steady foot, and that it should be a slow grind.

[Schweetness101]

Wow lots of food for thought. I do admit I disagree that slowing the infantry combat is equivalent to speeding up Cavalry combat but that’s a minor quibble.

So some ideas to play with(I’ve likely over the years posted these before)
*cavalry vs cavalry with the intent to speed up the melee, the historical observation is cavalry combat was volatile and wasn’t a grind:
1) any loss results in a larger mal cohesion test roll ie -1 or 2
2) this might need more thought but if two cavalry units are in melee for more than 2 melees without a loss of cohesion by either, they break off( allowing for more impact, possibly needing more volatile impact)
3) let’s start off with just light spears not evading;)
4) increase the the rate of mounted evaporating when routed and being pursued.
5) don’t allow cavalry pursuing routed cavalry to be shot at or charged by infantry

The following might be considered extreme by some but:
6) mounted can ignore a single infantry units secondary Zoc unless it is also in the secondary zoc of a second infantry unit. Needed so cavalry can move when “intercepted “ by an infantry unit but to prevent cavalry slipping thru a battle line on a diagonal ( of course if an infantry on a diagonal becomes engaged a cavalry could slip thru in adjacent friend on a diagonal, somewhat justified as why do we assume an infantry units frontage expands when its on a diagonal??? Hmmm
7) crazy idea but let armor count in impact ( for minted only to start...). There is some precedent for this already in game. Dart poa is an impact capability but varies per the enemies armor value....

Oh boy no time for more or to explain, phone is right about to die!!

1) in cav vs cav only add an extra -1 or -2 ct modifier? to both sides? and melee only or also on impact?
2) increase odds of fallback in cav vs cav melee beyond 2 turns? or even mandate that it always happens beyond 2 turns? at least for non cataphracts? I'm trying to remember if fallbacks have an 'odds' or dice roll or if they just always happen under the right conditions (ie one side losing badly and fallback not being blocked or zoced)
2b) increase casualties on impact?
3) light spear cav not evade like lancer cav, but non light horse archers etc...still do
4) perhaps decrease the number of turns evading beyond which a unit auto disperses if the unit is cav being pursued. Or if any broken cav regardless of being pursued?
5) all cav? only non light? and not allow them to be shot at at all, or perhaps only preventing light foot shooting? Should bowmen and/or mounted archers be able to shoot at pursuing cavalry? And this is only if the cav is pursuing other cav?

6) what do you think of the cav mod implementation where non light infantry charged by non light cav lose their secondary zoc for this turn only? and also lose 6 ap so they cannot zoc trap either. What are the merits of that vs requiring 2 secondary zocs to zoc cavalry?
7) what is the goal with this one? equally armored units would not change on net, so it would just me more armored cav having a bit higher impact poa vs less armored cav on impact? or also for cav against infantry? i'm just wondering if there is a more direct way to get at the same end with this one.

[melm]

I don't think a big change would be in order, but perhaps something small like an extra -1 to ct for mediums against non light cav in the open, or an extra poa to cav in the same scenario, or a very slight (2-4 points perhaps) increase in cost to medium foot units might be appropriate. I would be willing to mod and test whatever in that regard.

At least I feel the medium army is very prone to chain-break. Extra -1 CT Modifier will make the battle more situational. Personally, I don't like to see lucky roll dominates the battlefield.

[Schweetness101]

I don't think a big change would be in order, but perhaps something small like an extra -1 to ct for mediums against non light cav in the open, or an extra poa to cav in the same scenario, or a very slight (2-4 points perhaps) increase in cost to medium foot units might be appropriate. I would be willing to mod and test whatever in that regard.

At least I feel the medium army is very prone to chain-break. Extra -1 CT Modifier will make the battle more situational. Personally, I don't like to see lucky roll dominates the battlefield.

the -1 to ct would just be against cavalry in the open, not other foot. But, even so, what about:

-slightly increase medium foot cost

-increase non light cavalry melee and/or impact poa vs mediums in the open

?

[Athos1660]

I noticed in the big pike thread that some feel that the the infantry battles in the center are too quick so that the cavalry cant be decisive.... NO, its the opposite! Cavalry battles on the wings take too long because melee between cavalry lasts long as melee poas for cavalry are usually tied ( everyone is superior, armored and has a sword, which means a slow grind) Evan if you get your hands on light spear with lancer, the 50 POA is not overwhelmingly decisive ( at least not like the 100 POA advantage Impact foot gets vs almost everyone...)

I too have the same feeling that sometimes cavalry battles on the wings take too long.

It seems to me that it is because the effects of the charge and the impact between two non-light cavalry units was softened in the game, compared to those of the melee ; that the melee that follows happens too often and for too long ; that one unit, even when on a par with the enemy unit, should sometimes refuse the impact ; and, above all, that the charge and the impact could/should have a greater role in a cavalry vs cavalry fight.

But maybe it is a matter of timeframe and of cavalry's equipment and tactics during the Antiquity and the early middle age ?

well, either way, if the infantry combat takes longer, or if the cavalry combat takes less time, or both, the result will be that cavalry have more time to get around and flank?

The final result might be the same but the feeling in battle is completely different.

would you suggest some further modification to alter the latter by perhaps adding a casualty increase factor in cav vs cav melee combat? similar to but int the opposite direction of the casualty mitigation I added to pikes in the pike mod? What specific things would you adjust that I could try out?

I for one would seek to make charge and impact between two non-light cavalry units more effective, instead of trying to reduce the melee times.

(but I feel like I crash the party )

(edit)

That said, I am against any (major) buff of the non-light cavalry against the infantry.

[melm]

the -1 to ct would just be against cavalry in the open, not other foot. But, even so, what about:

-slightly increase medium foot cost

-increase non light cavalry melee and/or impact poa vs mediums in the open

?

Making medium foot much worse than heavy foot to frontally counter the cavalry is contradicted with my understanding of the creation of medium foot type in tabletop wargame. As I said several posts above, medium can fight as heavy. And in current version, medium is already worse than heavy to suffer -1 CT modifier when lose to heavy and cavalry.

If checking the list of Arab(city), you'll find Bedouin foot(medium) has the same price as Pre-Islamic Arab City Foot(heavy). Should the medium be dearer to heavy? I doubt. Medium can fight on rough, but they enjoy their -1 CT modifier. This may even out their advantage and disadvantage.

Is medium foot army list OP in FOGII? My current understanding is that it depends on whom they are fighting against. Also the terrain.

[rbodleyscott]

the -1 to ct would just be against cavalry in the open, not other foot. But, even so, what about:

-slightly increase medium foot cost

-increase non light cavalry melee and/or impact poa vs mediums in the open

?

Making medium foot much worse than heavy foot to frontally counter the cavalry is contradicted with my understanding of the creation of medium foot type in tabletop wargame. As I said several posts above, medium can fight as heavy. And in current version, medium is already worse than heavy to suffer -1 CT modifier when lose to heavy and cavalry.

Actually the Medium Foot are 2 CT modifiers worse off than Heavy Foot vs mounted troops in the open, because the Heavy Foot get +1, and the Medium Foot get -1. They are equally worse off when fighting Heavy Foot in the open.

The tabletop version of FOG2 did give cavalry an Impact POA modifier vs Medium Foot in open terrain, and the result was that nobody ever used Medium Foot armies in tournaments. (Apart from Dailami and Catalan Company, both of which were allowed to have all of their Medium Foot as Superior).

And it wasn't justified by the history, because there was no such thing as "Loose Order" foot in Ancient times, at least in regular armies. Troops classed as Medium Foot fought in Close Order like the other battle line troops, except when they were assigned to skirmishing duties (for the whole battle).

In fact I would go so far as to say that "Loose Order" foot in Ancient Wargaming was purely an invention of Phil Barker in the original WRG rules, to fill a perceived role that seemed logical, but was not in fact recognised by Ancient Authors; and it has been carried on as "received wisdom" without much thought by subsequent rules authors.

We nearly removed the Impact POA for cavalry vs Medium Foot in the 2nd edition of the tabletop FOG rules, but unfortunately were unable to get the unanimous agreement of the rules authors. (2 for, 1 against).

[MVP7]

the -1 to ct would just be against cavalry in the open, not other foot. But, even so, what about:

-slightly increase medium foot cost

-increase non light cavalry melee and/or impact poa vs mediums in the open

?

Making medium foot much worse than heavy foot to frontally counter the cavalry is contradicted with my understanding of the creation of medium foot type in tabletop wargame. As I said several posts above, medium can fight as heavy. And in current version, medium is already worse than heavy to suffer -1 CT modifier when lose to heavy and cavalry.

Actually the Medium Foot are 2 CT modifiers worse off than Heavy Foot vs mounted troops in the open, because the Heavy Foot get +1, and the Medium Foot get -1. They are equally worse off when fighting Heavy Foot in the open.

The tabletop version of FOG2 did give cavalry an Impact POA modifier vs Medium Foot in open terrain, and the result was that nobody ever used Medium Foot armies in tournaments. (Apart from Dailami and Catalan Company, both of which were allowed to have all of their Medium Foot as Superior).

And it wasn't justified by the history, because there was no such thing as "Loose Order" foot in Ancient times, at least in regular armies. Troops classed as Medium Foot fought in Close Order like the other battle line troops, except when they were assigned to skirmishing duties (for the whole battle).

In fact I would go so far as to say that "Loose Order" foot in Ancient Wargaming was purely an invention of Phil Barker in the original WRG rules, to fill a perceived role that seemed logical, but was not in fact recognised by Ancient Authors; and it has been carried on as "received wisdom" without much thought by subsequent rules authors.

We nearly removed the Impact POA for cavalry vs Medium Foot in the 2nd edition of the tabletop FOG rules, but unfortunately were unable to get the unanimous agreement of the rules authors. (2 for, 1 against).

But if the difference between heavy and medium is that insignificant in the open then why do mediums get a huge POA advantage in the rough terrain? Although Hoplites/Pikes would be greatly disrupted by bad terrain I'd imagine legionaries (already fighting in a fairly flexible formation) wouldn't be affected much for example. Does it really even make sense to bundle the all-terrain performance together with the CT bonuses and penalties or should those just be independent modifiers to a single heavy infantry troop type?

I haven't played the tabletop but wasn't the POA penalty for medium vs cavalry pretty large? If the penalty was something like 25 to 50 POA I can't see medium foot becoming unused but I might actually start picking heavy infantry units more often despite their highly specialized nature. If medium infantry really is supposed to be as all-terrain capable as it is then shouldn't that be reflected in the unit pricing?

[rbodleyscott]

I haven't played the tabletop but wasn't the POA penalty for medium vs cavalry pretty large?

Yes, it was 100 POA.

If the penalty was something like 25 to 50 POA I can't see medium foot becoming unused but I might actually start picking heavy infantry units more often despite their highly specialized nature.

Possibly.

If medium infantry really is supposed to be as all-terrain capable as it is then shouldn't that be reflected in the unit pricing?

It is. We currently deem the CT disadvantages to balance the terrain capabilities overall.

The balance may not be exactly right, but don't pretend they get the terrain capability for free. The Heavy Foot are also getting their superiority in open terrain for free. Or more accurately, they both have penalties, which hopefully balance out. (Perhaps not completely, but that certainly isn't clear cut).

[MVP7]

If medium infantry really is supposed to be as all-terrain capable as it is then shouldn't that be reflected in the unit pricing?

It is. We currently deem the CT disadvantages to balance the terrain capabilities overall.

The balance may not be exactly right, but don't pretend they get the terrain capability for free. The Heavy Foot are also getting their superiority in open terrain for free. Or more accurately, they both have penalties, which hopefully balance out. (Perhaps not completely, but that certainly isn't clear cut).

I'm not saying heavy infantry doesn't have an advantage in the open but that advantage doesn't match what medium gets in all other terrains.

If you have an army of Thureophoroi (42p) and an army of Citizen Hoplites (42p) fight out in the open, the battle will most likely shift in favor of the hoplites as it progresses. However, you can't send a single Citizen Hoplite unit fight a single Thureophoroi in the open with the expectation that Citizen Hoplite will win. It's bit more likely outcome but far from certain.

You can however put a Thureophoroi unit in rough or forest and you know that it won't be dislodged by any equally priced heavy infantry unit. In bad terrain 78 point Legionaries will most likely lose against the thureophoroi and 96 point Veteran Legionaries will be on the equal footing if the thureophoroi are not disrupted on impact.

And that's just the combat side of things. Medium foot has big mobility and initiative advantage. They can move in rough and forest at full speed. They can deadlock heavy infantry at rough but still retain the option to attack the heavy infantry in the open with full efficiency. Heavy infantry can't do anything about medium infantry in non-open terrain but medium army can still realistically fight heavy army in the open.

Medium foot is the undisputed king of the non-open terrain where it can beat units almost twice its price while heavy foot is somewhat more likely to benefit on the secondary dice rolls in the open but will still probably get whipped by more expensive medium unit.

But let's say passing open terrain cohesion tests is so important that the prior points balance each other out on the most common Agricultural maps (medium will still have a clear advantage on other map types excluding Steppe and maybe Desert). Even then medium foot is still cheaper: The heavy foot equivalent of the 42 point Thureophoroi is Mercenary Hoplite. It costs 48 points because not being unmaneuverable costs extra for heavy infantry. The clear implication here is that Medium Infantry is considered worse unit type than Heavy infantry so they get the maneuverability for free. That's just doesn't seem right.

If the combat performance of the medium foot is set in stone, one simple change could be making it so that medium foot has to pay for maneuverability just like the heavy infantry. Then the two unit types would at least be considered equal in terms of pricing rather than medium foot being considered worth less. (And personally I still think Medium Foot is better of the two unit types from the get go.)

[Schweetness101]

If medium infantry really is supposed to be as all-terrain capable as it is then shouldn't that be reflected in the unit pricing?

It is. We currently deem the CT disadvantages to balance the terrain capabilities overall.

The balance may not be exactly right, but don't pretend they get the terrain capability for free. The Heavy Foot are also getting their superiority in open terrain for free. Or more accurately, they both have penalties, which hopefully balance out. (Perhaps not completely, but that certainly isn't clear cut).

Are they deemed balanced for multiplayer and singleplayer, or just one or the other? I speculated before that they seemed to be balanced more for singleplayer, but not so much for multiplayer, where they seem OP due to the ability of experienced players to make much more use of the greater maneuverability, numbers, and lower cost and use of rough terrain. Just pointing again to Lebo44's army statistics, it looks like the top competitive multiplayer ranks are disproportionately dominated by historically pretty weak medium infantry factions:



It would make sense that the game is balanced for singleplayer, given that the great majority of players are singleplayer players. But, if you were to rebalance them just for multiplayer, would you change them at all?

[rbodleyscott]

It would make sense that the game is balanced for singleplayer, given that the great majority of players are singleplayer players. But, if you were to rebalance them just for multiplayer, would you change them at all?

The problem is that you would not even be balancing them for all of MP, but only for the top echelon of players.

The most skilled players will always do better with "soft" armies (manoeuvrable armies lacking individually high powered units) than less skilled players will, and this probably accounts for a significant proportion of the advantage that the table suggests.

I don't think we should really be balancing the game specifically for the top echelon of MP players.

And in any case, we don't propose to have different points costs for MP and SP, nor for players and AI - because the AI is worse at using some troop types than others - so we have to draw a balance somewhere in between that covers all bases, but covers none of them perfectly.

And half the fun of the DL is trying to out-army-list your opponents.