Author Topic: Cavalry discussion (Read 14070 times)

Lex · « **Reply #15 on:** February 11, 2014, 02:40:53 PM »

Random though

we could consider instead om making the brigades smaller, to make the units larger.........
Cost would go up, units would need to stay in line- in contact

Considerations ?

Dave · « **Reply #16 on:** February 11, 2014, 03:20:51 PM »

Dave, is the maneuverability of Cav the issue? Because they can hit a flank easier?

How are you playing flank charges (and this remind me, we should also nail down flank charges in general)?

Rulebook - If the closest point of the unit to be charged is a corner, find the shortest distance to the charger and if more of their frontage weight falls to the flank they charge the flank, otherwise they charge the front.

Ancients - The frontage of the charger has to be fully in the side 90 degree arc

Other - Something else

----

Some other things that helped from the Playtest Weekend:

- Infantry got a round of pursuit if they hit cav in the flank/rear.
- Infantry got to pursue cav in dense terrain (we allowed cav to enter forests and build up areas)
- Count support before casualties

David Wasilewski · « **Reply #17 on:** February 11, 2014, 06:51:27 PM »

Maneuverability of cavalry is more of a issue in that it can concentrate more quickly and decisively at the 'schwerepunkt' than infantry because of its increased move. This is particularly the case when playing against High Elves. The number of times I've had a brigade of Silver Helms and a brigade of chariots completely smash one of my flanks....... I mean the strategic flank of my army, rather than individual unit's flanks. We are playing original warmaster rules for the flanking rules.

There's also the old "switcharoo" strategy where you spend a couple of turns ordering a two to three cavalry brigade cavalry horde to concentrate with your general and then smash up a slowly developing infantry attack. The game seems to often degenerate into a repeat of the battle of Waterloo. I launch my cavalry (Scots Greys) and annihilate your attack. Then you launch your cavalry (Duth and Polish lancers). Whoever has the last 'fresh' brigade of cavalry i.e. the most cavalry tends to win...

Now if only the infantry could form square.....

Dave

David Wasilewski · « **Reply #18 on:** February 11, 2014, 06:55:20 PM »

Maybe we could invent a rule that infantry can 'dig in' if it is still for an entire round and in open ground. This might negate enemy charge bonuses?

Dave

Dave · « **Reply #19 on:** February 11, 2014, 09:23:41 PM »

Would a subsequent order be a good abstraction for that? You order your brigade up with one order, on the next, you order them to dig in. They can't move, but count as defended?

Maybe limit this to basic infantry without a shooting attack? Representing spearmen/halberdiers setting their weapons?

David Wasilewski · « **Reply #20 on:** February 12, 2014, 06:14:03 PM »

I think it's worth a try!

Dave

honestmistake · « **Reply #21 on:** February 12, 2014, 10:49:03 PM »

I wanted to trial Infantry being allowed a single round of pursuit against cavalry/chariots that it flanks.... might try again after our current campaign.

I do like the idea of appropriate infantry (spearmen, halbardiers and other 'pole weapon' users) being able to claim a defended position against frontal assault by cavalry/chariots.

empireaddict · « **Reply #22 on:** March 02, 2014, 08:55:29 AM »

At yesterday's tournament (see events threads), I gave further thought to this issue. On further reflection, I think smaller cavalry brigades would slow the game. And one of the joys of WMF is that it's fast play.

So, based on observation of my behvaiour and that of my opponents, I reached the conclusion that one of the core advantages that cavalry have is the fact that they can 'strike' from 30cm distance and therefore avoid the command penalty for enemy within 20cm. Therefore I wish to amend my suggestion made earlier in this thread. My 'simple solution' to the 'cavalry problem' is:

To count support before removing casualties.
And make 20cm the charge range for cavalry and chariots.

Aldhick · « **Reply #23 on:** March 02, 2014, 01:45:32 PM »

Sounds really interesting to me

Jurisch · « **Reply #24 on:** March 08, 2014, 04:50:23 PM »

We played now several times with the change of support. And that works perfect.

wmchaos2000 · « **Reply #25 on:** March 29, 2014, 11:52:40 PM »

An idea just struck.

What happens if an inf stand that is defending(=not charging) and supporting isnÂ´t supporting in the way of the WM rulebook, but instead supports in the way of the WFB rulebook?
Meaning: a supporting stand will strike in the ensuing combat phase just as if it was in base-to-base contact with the enemy.
So if the supported stand is btb, the supporting stand will get to use all its attacks aswell.

This (may) mean:
No existing rules (but inf support) have to be changed.
No "they get to support before they realise they are dead".
No "digging in". (but I like this idea).
No "inf actually CAN run down retreating riders".

But a big YES to supporting the rules.
Meaning: almost all existing rules regarding charge, flank, pursue, so on, adds/deducts attacks to the ensuing combat phase, all but support.
With "support" meaning "extra attacks", it will add to the rule set:s intention.

This just came up while wearing my sofa down on this saturday evening, so there is no playtesting done or discussion held with fellow warmasters.

edgar1st@aol.com · « **Reply #26 on:** March 30, 2014, 11:34:58 AM »

Is it not the case chariots and cavalry are always dangerous to infantry (the very reason musket weilding troops did form square)

The real problem from my point of view battlefields were never billiard tables, We place a tree and a farm a couple of hills and think we have created something to what troops dealt with on the field. we need to add a whole lot more terrain for the troops to fight in, take cover in. If chariot/Cavalry brigade are ruling the roost in a game then our tables must be close to portraying the Battle of Kadesh beautiful open flat land perfect for their operations

add trees walls, ridges, impenatrable hedges, gulleys and this will make the Caalry think more and give the Infantry more options

Edgar

jchaos79 · « **Reply #27 on:** March 30, 2014, 11:47:33 AM »

Just a thought, the problem could be not also in the lack of terrain (I agree with edgar1st), but in way of choosing an army. If more of 50% of the points of your army goes for heavy cavalty... well maybe that is the start of the unbalanced cavalry problem.

Even the mongols or nomadic armies that are based in cavarly do not reach 50% of heavy cavalry.

Just a thought, do not know how the people who see a problem in the cavalry made their list or... if they see a problem in the cavalry or the problem is only in the heavy cavalry (knights, orcs boar, cold ones, etc...)

Aldhick · « **Reply #28 on:** March 31, 2014, 08:33:15 AM »

The problem on the top of the pyramid is the fact, that heavy cavalry (using the official rules) is cheaper than infantry in comparison of efficiency. That obviously makes people to take as many cavalry as they can, which heads towards second problem - some armies don't have cap for heavy cav. Most of previously mentioned solutions are only sub-problem solutions, trying to make it up for infantry but not to mess with the main problems as they are ment untouchable. In fact there are only two ways of solution - either change the lists (which seems no one dares to do) or change the rules (which on the other hand no one has problem to do - e.g. support rules - funny :-) ). But the way of trying to play a balanced game by swarming the table with terrain is only admitting, that the mechanics are really "broken".

forbes · « **Reply #29 on:** April 03, 2014, 08:04:28 PM »

I agree with Aldhick

Heavy cavalry have all the benefits, good attacks, good defence and good move. And their points cost does not reflect this. In WMA shock cavalry is 125-135 pts, and that is with WMA infantry getting the support rules benefits, and just 2 rounds of fighting.

At the minute the choice tends to be 2 infantry units or 1 knight unit. If it was 3 infantry or a knight, then I might consider more infantry.

Getting points exactly right is hard - but when a choice is automatic it is an indication that the points are wrong. Erring on the side of too expensive for heavy cavalry would be fine, as it would help address jchaos' point that the proportion of heavy cavalry was generally quite low, as it was resource expensive.