Comparing historical and in-game lancer/light spear cavalry

[rbodleyscott]

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.

You have a point.

[Nosy_Rat]

To be fair, cohesion bonuses for heavy foot may seem as not as important when fighting an even battle (ie hoplites vs thureophoroi), but they make all the difference when facing a superior unit - you can count on citizen hoplites to stall legions for at least several turns, allowing for flanking or whatever your plan is, while thureophoroi will generally collapse in instant.

That said, I wouldn't mind making medium foot pay some extra for maneuverability (maybe not as much as heavy foot?) or becoming unmaneuverable at the current price.

After all, it is kinda strange that some irregular foot who are basically poorly armed tribal militia or whatever can move in organized way as well as properly trained Roman legionaries or mercenary hoplites.

[Schweetness101]

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.

That makes sense that you need to have a balance between single and multiplayer, and even top echelon multiplayer, for the unit balance, but just out of interest, if you were to make some kind of competitive multiplayer module just used by top players in tournaments, would you rebalance a few things? I'm curious about what just in terms of what to try out.

[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.

That makes sense that you need to have a balance between single and multiplayer, and even top echelon multiplayer, for the unit balance, but just out of interest, if you were to make some kind of competitive multiplayer module just used by top players in tournaments, would you rebalance a few things? I'm curious about what just in terms of what to try out.

Possibly, though we won't be doing it in the official game. But there is no reason someone could not organise a tournament using the mod if they were willing to do so.

[MVP7]

To be fair, cohesion bonuses for heavy foot may seem as not as important when fighting an even battle (ie hoplites vs thureophoroi), but they make all the difference when facing a superior unit - you can count on citizen hoplites to stall legions for at least several turns, allowing for flanking or whatever your plan is, while thureophoroi will generally collapse in instant.

In the open the hoplites will indeed lose a bit more slowly, but if you place those Thureophoroi in rough or forest, your only problem is executing your flanking maneuver before the Legionaries are broken

[pompeytheflatulent]

That makes sense that you need to have a balance between single and multiplayer, and even top echelon multiplayer, for the unit balance, but just out of interest, if you were to make some kind of competitive multiplayer module just used by top players in tournaments, would you rebalance a few things? I'm curious about what just in terms of what to try out.

I think RBS once mentioned something about adding a base cost to every unit. I think that could be interesting to test out. By increasing unit cost by 6 to 8 points across the board, it might solve the issue of historically crap armies like Kingdom of Soissons doing very well, and historically successful armies like the Romans during the late republic/early empire doing poorly in competition. And the cost re-balance could be justified historically by reasoning that a crappy soldier would require the about same amount of supply on campaign as a well-trained, well-equipped one.

[Schweetness101]

That makes sense that you need to have a balance between single and multiplayer, and even top echelon multiplayer, for the unit balance, but just out of interest, if you were to make some kind of competitive multiplayer module just used by top players in tournaments, would you rebalance a few things? I'm curious about what just in terms of what to try out.

I think RBS once mentioned something about adding a base cost to every unit. I think that could be interesting to test out. By increasing unit cost by 6 to 8 points across the board, it might solve the issue of historically crap armies like Kingdom of Soissons doing very well, and historically successful armies like the Romans during the late republic/early empire doing poorly in competition. And the cost re-balance could be justified historically by reasoning that a crappy soldier would require the about same amount of supply on campaign as a well-trained, well-equipped one.

this would be relatively simple to do, it's just an edit of the squads file, which is just a csv. Do you think 8 points across the board would be a good starting point? And does this come with increases to the number of points permitted in medium, large, very large etc...battle army size presets?

[MikeC_81]

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.

I would like to point out that there is no such thing as balancing for the top echelon. The game is either balanced within reason, or it is not. The fact that top players gravitate towards, and continue to do well with soft armies is a telling sign that there is an imbalance in the game within the context of where those stats are generated. If lower-skilled players struggle with soft armies so you need to artificially boost them then that just distorts the game. Most of these stats seem to be generated in the FoG2DL. Some of it may be outdated and the issue dealt with(Indians and Jewish Revolt for example).

It must be said though that the Roman British and Soissons lists in Late Antiquity have been known to be a powerhouse for many tournaments now. And most players back up their choices with multiple MF armies like the Bretons. Other time periods like Classical Antiquity see medium foot armies checked in the past and present because Heavy Infantry that was brutally strong like Pikes and Impact Foot exist to police them when Potluck forces terrain that is not suitable for MF to hide. The MF lists in Classical also aren't as good or flexible as the ones in Late Antiquity and vice versa, the Heavy Foot lists in Late Antiquity are garbage compared to the ones in Classical. It is disturbing that we are seeing the Samnites "out Rome-ing" the Romans though.

At the end of the day, a large part of is this is that Heavy Foot are inexplicably crippled by rough terrain to the extent that they are unusable vs MF in the rough. The +1 CT Heavy Foot get is a fair trade-off most of the time over the free "drilled" status MF get. The fact that they are unusable in the rough is not compensated for at all. So a large part of the balance going forward will remain with the terrain rolls and whether or not future DLC armies will continue to grant Heavy Foot units with the superior unit capabilities like in the Classical age, or make the majority of them super cheap like with Defensive Spears so that point for point they are competitive with MF infantry spam. But if future DLC will see Heavy Foot units like Legio Comentetatis with its plethora of bad and expensive unit PoAs, then MF spam armies will rear their ugly heads once again.

[76mm]

At the end of the day, a large part of is this is that Heavy Foot are inexplicably crippled by rough terrain to the extent that they are unusable vs MF in the rough...So a large part of the balance going forward will remain with the terrain rolls...

I agree with MikeC on this point; I'm not playing much these days and I think that is one of the reasons...I generally only play Classical period, and in my experience, the map you get plays too large a part in determining the winner in a heavy foot army vs medium foot army match up. And while I'm not sure that these outcomes are "unrealistic" on the given battlefields, I have to wonder if the commander of a medium foot army would accept battle under those conditions?

[stockwellpete]

At the end of the day, a large part of is this is that Heavy Foot are inexplicably crippled by rough terrain to the extent that they are unusable vs MF in the rough...So a large part of the balance going forward will remain with the terrain rolls...

I agree with MikeC on this point; I'm not playing much these days and I think that is one of the reasons...I generally only play Classical period, and in my experience, the map you get plays too large a part in determining the winner in a heavy foot army vs medium foot army match up. And while I'm not sure that these outcomes are "unrealistic" on the given battlefields, I have to wonder if the commander of a medium foot army would accept battle under those conditions?

I am also finding myself agreeing with MikeC_81 here. Is it a Covid symptom, do you think? Should I self-isolate?

I was looking at the effect of rough terrain on the % odds on my "Training Ground" the other day. I will go back and do it again and post the accurate numbers later today. But what I was thinking was that maybe the rough ground has too much effect on heavy foot compared to having no effect on medium foot. Particularly rough ground would actually disable medium foot as well to a certain extent, leaving skirmishers as the troop type least affected at all. So then I thought that there might be 2 types of rough ground - light and heavy - or maybe that the POA numbers just need to be adjusted a bit for HF so that they can still fight reasonably well in rough terrain (a better plan, I think).

[stockwellpete]

So I set up shieldwall (HF, offensive spears) attacking Brythonic foot (MF, light spear/swords) in the main various terrain types and the % values were as follows (Win-Draw-Lose) . . .

1) Open terrain, tracks and streams (both units are steady)
Impact 15-72-14
Melee 32-64-4

So level on impact, with the expectation that the shield wall will eventually defeat the Brythonic foot, although it could be a protracted struggle.

2) Slope, open terrain, 50 foot contour (both units are steady)
Impact 8-72-21
Melee 24-69-7

Reasonable chance of success for attacker provided unit remains steady at impact. Again a long melee is a distinct possibility.

3) Rough ground and large stream (shield wall moderately disordered, Brythonics steady)
Impact 2-63-36 or worse
Melee 2-63-35 or worse

Absolutely prohibitive. In the small 5 combat sample I used for rough ground there were 2 double-drops for the shieldwall units. No player with any experience would attack here unless there was some other urgent localised tactical reason for doing so.

4) all other terrain types including woods, difficult slope and deep stream (shield wall severely disordered, Brythonics moderately disordered)
Impact 0-31-69 or worse
Melee 0-35-65 or worse

Again, absolutely prohibitive.


One idea I have is that rough ground might be re-designated as "light rough" (or light terrain) and the penalty for heavy foot fighting there be reduced. All the other terrain types would be considered "heavy rough" (or heavy terrain). If you look at the numbers for the 2) slope category then they pose quite a nice dilemma for the player with the HF units. The impact could be damaging, but once in contact they should eventually win, although it may take quite a while. Might that not depict combat in slightly awkward light terrain quite well? And would it alter players' perceptions of which armies they needed to pick to get through a 9 match league season in future? And the balance between HF and MF units in those selections?

Just an aside, regarding large streams, wouldn't the Brythonics also be moderately disordered by it? Maybe the numbers for this type of contact should be closer to the 50 foot contour for slopes?

[SnuggleBunnies]

Part of that win % difference though is the additional 50POA the Brythonic foot get as Swordsmen once the spears are disordered though, to be fair. Hoplites vs Thureophoroi would be a more informative measure.

[rbodleyscott]

If any of these suggested changes are considered, it certainly won't be for the next update. And in any case, we would prefer not to solve perceived problems by blurring the differences between the troop types. We do not want to take that route to balancing, as has been done by so many other games, to the detriment of flavour.

Anyway, the issue of the Romano-British and Kingdom of Soissons lists needs to be considered without any rules changes.

See: viewtopic.php?f=599&t=98310&start=20

(Pete has already responded there).

I would also note that the later discussions in this thread are off topic and ought to go in their own thread.

[stockwellpete]

I would also note that the later discussions in this thread are off topic and ought to go in their own thread.

Are you able to move them? My "powers" only work in the tournament forums.

[rbodleyscott]

I would also note that the later discussions in this thread are off topic and ought to go in their own thread.

Are you able to move them? My "powers" only work in the tournament forums.

I am, when time permits.

[stockwellpete]

Part of that win % difference though is the additional 50POA the Brythonic foot get as Swordsmen once the spears are disordered though, to be fair. Hoplites vs Thureophoroi would be a more informative measure.

It actually doesn't make a lot of difference in the "heavier" terrain categories, it does a bit though in more benign terrain (first 2 categories). But the main point is the contrast between these two unit types fighting in open terrain and then fighting in rough ground. I have just run the same test with hoplites attacking thureophoroi . . .

1) Open terrain, tracks and streams (both units are steady)
Impact 14-69-17
Melee 15-73-13

So level on impact and melee. Could go either way with the cohesion test modifier favouring the HF unit.

2) Slope, open terrain, 50 foot contour (both units are steady)
Impact 7-73-20
Melee 10-71-20

Not particularly good odds for the attacker but a long melee is still a distinct possibility and the cohesion test modifier could win the day.

For the other more severe terrain types then the odds are exactly the same . . .

3) Rough ground and large stream (hoplites moderately disordered, thureophoroi steady)
Impact 2-63-36 or worse
Melee 2-63-35 or worse

Absolutely prohibitive. No player with any experience would attack here unless there was some other urgent localised tactical reason for doing so.

4) all other terrain types including woods, difficult slope and deep stream (hoplites severely disordered, thureophoroi moderately disordered)
Impact 0-31-69 or worse
Melee 0-35-65 or worse

Again, absolutely prohibitive.


So the change in the % odds in melee (not impact) goes from (hoplites first) 15-13 in open terrain to 2-36 in rough terrain. At 36-2 down you are almost certain to eventually lose the melee - and then possibly disrupt adjacent troops when you rout. Large patches of rough ground are effectively no-go areas for HF armies at the moment. This can lead to quite turgid battles where HF units stay in open terrain and MF units stay in rough and other terrain. I understand Richard's point about not wanting to blur differences between units, but we are only talking about one particular terrain type being toned down a bit here. I am not sure what the stats from the random map generator (RMG) say about the proportion of "rough ground" squares on the different types of map. That would be interesting to see (if they are available).

Another way to look at this might be to say that any square on the battlefield (apart from those at the edge) has 8 other squares adjacent to it and that any square with rough terrain in it can only have a maximum of 3 or 4 adjacent squares that also have rough terrain in them. This would avoid having great big blocks of rough ground in the middle of a map effectively blocking off some types of armies from each other. This is not that uncommon. What you could have instead are rough ground squares interspersed with open ground squares that would provide challenging areas of terrain for both HF and MF armies to exploit. Could the RMG be adjusted in this way at all? If it could then you would not have to amend the units at all to get a better outcome.

[76mm]

This would avoid having great big blocks of rough ground in the middle of a map effectively blocking off some types of armies from each other. This is not that uncommon. What you could have instead are rough ground squares interspersed with open ground squares that would provide challenging areas of terrain for both HF and MF armies to exploit. Could the RMG be adjusted in this way at all? If it could then you would not have to amend the units at all to get a better outcome.

Honestly not sure this would be the best solution; first, I don't think it would be especially realistic, as IMHO terrain tends to be fairly "chunky", and the current 5-7 tile rough chunks see about right to me. Moreover, tactically it would result in kind of a mess, with medium foot parking themselves in the odd rough tile and heavy foot channeling through the gaps.

[pompeytheflatulent]

this would be relatively simple to do, it's just an edit of the squads file, which is just a csv. Do you think 8 points across the board would be a good starting point? And does this come with increases to the number of points permitted in medium, large, very large etc...battle army size presets?

I don't know, haven't thought ahead that far. Didn't even consider the point size presets.

[pompeytheflatulent]

So the change in the % odds in melee (not impact) goes from (hoplites first) 15-13 in open terrain to 2-36 in rough terrain. At 36-2 down you are almost certain to eventually lose the melee - and then possibly disrupt adjacent troops when you rout. Large patches of rough ground are effectively no-go areas for HF armies at the moment. This can lead to quite turgid battles where HF units stay in open terrain and MF units stay in rough and other terrain. I understand Richard's point about not wanting to blur differences between units, but we are only talking about one particular terrain type being toned down a bit here. I am not sure what the stats from the random map generator (RMG) say about the proportion of "rough ground" squares on the different types of map. That would be interesting to see (if they are available).

What if medium foot were slightly disordered in rough terrain, is there a way to figure out what the odds would be by crunching some numbers?

[stockwellpete]

Honestly not sure this would be the best solution; first, I don't think it would be especially realistic, as IMHO terrain tends to be fairly "chunky", and the current 5-7 tile rough chunks see about right to me. Moreover, tactically it would result in kind of a mess, with medium foot parking themselves in the odd rough tile and heavy foot channeling through the gaps.

When I design scenarios I sometimes break up the terrain in this way. Units may start off trying to park themselves on favourable terrain, but with trying to get 2v1's, flank attacks, pushbacks and follow-ups etc that can quickly break down. If you think of "rough ground" as light rough and "marshes", "woods", "rough streams" and "difficult slopes" as heavier rough then I think it works OK - medium foot are still getting big advantages there. Anything that breaks up stalemates must be a good thing as far as playability is concerned.