[Mass Combat] Statting a fantasy army

[Rabiddave]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'm not sure.

I'm not inclined to allow multirole units to outperform their specialist counterparts. And this would allow Heavy Infantry with F at max (+40%) that costs 56k/11.2k and is TS 4 for both melee and missile. By contrast, a dedicated archer unit (Good/Good, perhaps) that achieved TS 4 would cost around 100k/13.6k.

Increase the cost per level from +10% to +100%. that would probably be better for modeling the extensive training/dedication/time necessary to train multi-role troops. Make it really expensive and it would be justified. Elite bowmen who cost +200% would out-perform any level of infantry trained in F for +200% cost.

elite bows: TS 4; F(4)

multi-role infantry: TS 4; F (2)

This is assuming of course, that the addition of F in levels only applies to units who originally were not trained for F.

EDIT: whoops, the bows would actually be TS 6; F (6) for +200% (elite and fine equip)

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Rabiddave

Increase the cost per level from +10% to +100%. that would probably be better for modeling the extensive training/dedication/time necessary to train multi-role troops. Make it really expensive and it would be justified. Elite bowmen who cost +200% would out-perform any level of infantry trained in F for +200% cost.

elite bows: TS 4; F(4)

multi-role infantry: TS 4; F (2)

This is assuming of course, that the addition of F in levels only applies to units who originally were not trained for F.

EDIT: whoops, the bows would actually be TS 6; F (6) for +200% (elite and fine equip)

As mentioned before, while I think such training would be expensive, I don't think it would be more expensive than training a whole new unit. The trade-off, of course, is that the two units are more effective in a battle than one, no matter how versatile.

Look at the Medium Cavalry. That's essentially a cavalry unit fitted with missile weapons. Yet it doesn't cost twice or three times what the Light Cavalry costs (let alone the x4 that your suggestion would charge them!).

[Rabiddave]

Originally Posted by Icelander

As mentioned before, while I think such training would be expensive, I don't think it would be more expensive than training a whole new unit. The trade-off, of course, is that the two units are more effective in a battle than one, no matter how versatile.

Look at the Medium Cavalry. That's essentially a cavalry unit fitted with missile weapons. Yet it doesn't cost twice or three times what the Light Cavalry costs (let alone the x4 that your suggestion would charge them!).

Medium cavalry starts with F though, infantry units don't. most infantry is there for a stand-up fight, whereas bowmen are trained to shoot and avoid heavy contact. If you're worried about heavy cost, you're right, it is more cost-effective to buy 2 elements. You should buy 2 elements instead of cross training one (bows+infantry separate) similar to realistic TL3 armies. Otherwise, you should just make Elite archers with great equipment, like at agincourt, and get the best of both worlds.

Light or medium cavalry has traditionally been trained to be versatile because they don't necessarily perform all that well in a straight up fight. Prior to the stirrup (TL3) they would be butchered by infantry, and after the stirrup they can't stand up to heavy infantry.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Rabiddave

Medium cavalry starts with F though, infantry units don't. most infantry is there for a stand-up fight, whereas bowmen are trained to shoot and avoid heavy contact. If you're worried about heavy cost, you're right, it is more cost-effective to buy 2 elements. You should buy 2 elements instead of cross training one (bows+infantry separate) similar to realistic TL3 armies. Otherwise, you should just make Elite archers with great equipment, like at agincourt, and get the best of both worlds.

Medium Cavalry starts with F because the troop type is mentioned as being 'expensively trained' to use missile weapons as well as tradition cavalry weapons.

The men that make up that unit start as untrained recruit, same as any other. It doesn't make sense that just because Medium Cavalry appears in the list and a similar unit for infantry does not, that we should infer from that that training infantry similarly would cost much more.

Originally Posted by Rabiddave

Light or medium cavalry has traditionally been trained to be versatile because they don't necessarily perform all that well in a straight up fight. Prior to the stirrup (TL3) they would be butchered by infantry, and after the stirrup they can't stand up to heavy infantry.

Actually, I find it very odd that Medium Cavalry has F listed. I'd expect there to be type of cavalry which is lighter than Heavy, heavier than Light, but not trained to fire in volleys.

What does one call early Republican Roman equites? They're hardly Heavy Cavalry, not having access to the kind of horses that real Heavy Cavalry uses to get TS 5, but neither were they Light Cavalry. Nor did they fight with volley fire or even have a lot a missile capability.

[Rabiddave]

Originally Posted by Icelander

Medium Cavalry starts with F because the troop type is mentioned as being 'expensively trained' to use missile weapons as well as tradition cavalry weapons.

The men that make up that unit start as untrained recruit, same as any other. It doesn't make sense that just because Medium Cavalry appears in the list and a similar unit for infantry does not, that we should infer from that that training infantry similarly would cost much more.


Actually, I find it very odd that Medium Cavalry has F listed. I'd expect there to be type of cavalry which is lighter than Heavy, heavier than Light, but not trained to fire in volleys.

What does one call early Republican Roman equites? They're hardly Heavy Cavalry, not having access to the kind of horses that real Heavy Cavalry uses to get TS 5, but neither were they Light Cavalry. Nor did they fight with volley fire or even have a lot a missile capability.

For the Roman period, I agree with you. I don't even think heavy cavalry existed then, although some, like the parthians, had heavy armor.

I was assuming m. cav in TL3 where this element does simulate certain armies of the period well, such as Egyptian or Syrian cavalry. In this case they wouldn't fire volleys but would use hit and run tactics, fire and run away with superior speed, trying to entice the enemy to pursue into a trap. This type of cavalry wouldn't cost more to train because they generally fight without engaging, similar to bowmen. Heavy cavalry do the charges and the shock tactics.

EDIT: just about the only thing light infantry is good for would be Recon, chasing down routed enemy, or quick raids against lightly armored/inexperienced elements likely to break from the fear of incoming horses.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Rabiddave

For the Roman period, I agree with you. I don't even think heavy cavalry existed then, although some, like the parthians, had heavy armor.

Cataphrachts on Medean horses are certainly Heavy Cavalry at TL2.

Originally Posted by Rabiddave

I was assuming m. cav in TL3 where this element does simulate certain armies of the period well, such as Egyptian or Syrian cavalry. In this case they wouldn't fire volleys but would use hit and run tactics, fire and run away with superior speed, trying to entice the enemy to pursue into a trap. This type of cavalry wouldn't cost more to train because they generally fight without engaging, similar to bowmen. Heavy cavalry do the charges and the shock tactics.

The description of the Medium Cavalry makes it clear that they are trained for both roles.

Originally Posted by Mass Combat

Cavalry that are (expensively!)
trained and equipped for both shock and missile action – usually
on somewhat lighter horses than Heavy Cavalry, and in
looser order. They’re typically armed with both a bow and a
sword, and sometimes with a light lance and a shield, too.

And since they don't cost several times more than cavalry trained just for one role, I doubt that your extra cost is realistic or fair.

Originally Posted by Rabiddave

EDIT: just about the only thing light infantry is good for would be Recon, chasing down routed enemy, or quick raids against lightly armored/inexperienced elements likely to break from the fear of incoming horses.

You mean Light Cavalry, don't you?

[Ulzgoroth]

I'd have identified equites as light cavalry, but that's based on Rome: Total War, not any historical reading.

Originally Posted by Icelander

And since they don't cost several times more than cavalry trained just for one role, I doubt that your extra cost is realistic or fair.

Do note, again, that there's a big overhead price on cavalry that should be essentially the same between light cavalry and horse archers, though almost certainly higher for heavy cavalry and possibly for medium. But it's difficult to make clean comparisons in any case, since the only cavalry types distinguished by only one feature are the light and archer classes.

The closest infantry analogue to the horse archer/medium cav. conversion is light infantry/medium infantry. But there, the medium infantry is enormously cheaper rather than only slightly more cost effective.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Do note, again, that there's a big overhead price on cavalry that should be essentially the same between light cavalry and horse archers, though almost certainly higher for heavy cavalry and possibly for medium. But it's difficult to make clean comparisons in any case, since the only cavalry types distinguished by only one feature are the light and archer classes.

The closest infantry analogue to the horse archer/medium cav. conversion is light infantry/medium infantry. But there, the medium infantry is enormously cheaper rather than only slightly more cost effective.

I'm not sure if Light Cavalry and Horse Archers have the same overhead costs. Light Cavalry doesn't need horses that are specially trained to keep formation while shooting.

[Rabiddave]

Icelander: Phew, well you've definately got me convinced there are some problems, at least with some of the descriptions.

I do think that the overall system seems very usable though, just with modifications to taste.

It seems to me for instance, that cataphracts at TL2 and TL3 should be different because of innovations made (most notably stirrups) that allowed them to fight much more effectively from horseback. Thats why I suggested that I wouldn't use heavy cavalry to model them, just beefed up m. cav. (out of game, yes, they were certainly heavy cav. but there should be a distinction between these TLs for game terms).

*oh yeah...I meant cav. earlier...for running down routed elements.

Wish I had the PDF available now, I'd try to look for some real ways to modify the rules...

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I'm not sure if Light Cavalry and Horse Archers have the same overhead costs. Light Cavalry doesn't need horses that are specially trained to keep formation while shooting.

Light Cavalry includes cavalry primarily armed with thrown weapons. Would that require less training for the horse? Horse archers also don't seem dependent on formations, unless "loose swarm" is a deceptive term.