No, I don't. I'm fully on board with limiting facing changes for movement and literally suggested this first as a balance change.
I just think people are being way to dramatic about the impact of cavalry here to the point of overcorrecting regarding potential balance changes. That's literally it.
It's not a loose disorganized formation! It's *4000 infantrymen in a line!
Yes, but it demonstrates the problem: under the current rules 1 Unit of cavalry on an open field will always beat 1 Unit of infantry, even if the infantry is entrenched and braced. I don't think this is historical or as fun as it would be if infantry had clearer counter-play to cavalry.
Yes! And that is how it should be, rock-paper-scissors! Cavalry beats infantry in a line, infantry in a line beats infantry in a square, infantry in a square beats cavalry.
Honestly, I don't see it? How could cavalry get dragged into melee? There is no mechanic for preventing cavalry from disengaging currently. The only way for infantry to catch cavalry in melee right now is to charge the cavalry on their turn, which is not really an image that makes much sense. The turn-based system has made dragging cavalry into melee with infantry very difficult, since that would require the cavalry commander to knowingly leave their cavalry in a risky position.
So, redoing the calcs to account for that, it doesn't change must except for the 4th Elv Cuir. I also added the charge+attack to the 1st Elv Cuir, and looking at the casualty rolls for that it would be better to go for the rear charge and attack, to better take advantage of the morale check/advantage from cav charge and flanked. Anydice proof.
They are not braced, they didn't ready actions, they were occupied with a melee. Why should the fact 5 of them stand adjacent protect them from being charged in their back?
Eh, depends on where the infantry is put. An infantry in a forest is going to have a much better time than one standing in a open field. Additionally, there is always going to be more infantry than cavalry due to relative prices and availability. I do see your point about a square formation, that is a good if pretty situational addition. Also historical, so it would add to the immersion.
So, in our current situation the infantry could absolutely charge our cavalry into a bloody melee if we didn't have our line also charge, due to ending their turn in our area. Cavalry would also generally degrade faster once they start taking damage (lower size) and also be vulnerable to just being shot. There are always going to be more infantry than cavalry in an area, so that ends their turn close to them has a pretty bad time. it's a bit too late for me to entirely war game this, but there are play options to overwhelm cavalry with infantry in an open field.
See, the problem is that being braced does nothing to help here, since Bracing does not apply for attacks from the back. Infantry has a very limited toolkit to actually protect themselves from cavalry.
Good to hear this! This is exactly why I suggested a Square Formation, since it is npt a direct nerf to cavalry, but instead a historical and immersive addition that allows infantry to defend themselves better, but which has its drawbacks. Implementing this as an omnidirectional 2 AP Brace would in my opinion be a simple and effective change which works well with the new rules without being too difficult to track.
Question: What does this have to do with our cavalry balance discussion? Yes, the nymphs could do counterplay against this cavalry charge if they weren't also locally outnumbered 3:1 with -7 momentum. You could also use one unit of infantry to pin them and tell three other ones to sneak into their back. Even if you replaced the cavalry with bog standard infantry, 4 infantry rolling morale at a -7 would loose against 7 infantry with a +7, it would just take another turn or two.
Again, what does this have to do with our discussion on cavalry balance?
Cavalry should be good for reasons that are good, instead of being good for reasons that are bad?
Historical realism and balance are different discussions. Yes, some issues emerge from the simplicity of having a game. If we were to be totally accurate, we would resort to simultaneous movement and send orders that would arrive after 2 turns while most of our army could suddenly die of camp fever during march actions. This system would also be terrible for gameplay purposes nor achieve a gameplay balance, since real life isn't set up to give a napeolonic general a balanced challenge they can win. The game systems can model napoleonic warfare, but we can't model the exact behavior of an autonomous cavalry officer. due to being constrained Additionally, it is also not the case that no infantry unit ever lost against a cavalry charge in the napoleonic era. You are free to propose any ways to better simulate the pressures of napoleonic warfare, but good reforms for the gameplay are a whole different topic.
So, this is a charge on the 12th rather than 17th. You would also need to update the visualization for your movement order, as the image doesn't match your changed order. If you want to make a modified visual for the plan, I have an publicly available inkscape file here (though it is a bit of mess due to me neglecting maintenance a bit).
Please refer to my previous email:
I have no idea where you're getting this realism vs balance dichotomy from. People have been talking about balance this whole time! "Leaving a one-tile gap between your army and the ocean shouldn't be a death sentence" is a comment about balance! "Armies should be able to fight in open fields without dying instantly" is a comment about balance! "1 unit of cavalry will always beat 1 unit of infantry because it can always flank" is a comment about balance! Am I actually going insane right now?
I am getting this "realism versus balance" dichotomy from your comment. I was actually responding to the comment I was quoting.
If you don't see those statements about utilizing realism for your argument, I don't know how I can talk to you. In terms of game balance you attack widely different systems unrelated to cavalry (turn-based nature, enemy knowledge, unit autonomy in executing moves). This is not about unit moves, this about how a unit would realistically behaves. Maybe for you realism and good game balance are identical, but I think this a bad approach when trying to change game design.
I'd rather not separate the two, rather I use historical accuracy and realism to determine how the game balance should look. If the game mechanics and tactics we use don't make any sense, that hurts my immersion and thus my enjoyment.
I mean; you are kind of missing the point. Having cavalry hit the rear of a line formation should be devastating. That is absolutely fine. But the problem right now is that getting said cavalry to hit the rear of the line is too easy. You mention screening, but it is a bit too hard to screen cavalry with infantry right now, since the cavalry can freely move through even a small gap. It's also a bit too easy for cavalry to charge in, do damage and retreat to safety on the same turn, leaving the enemy no chance to retaliate. And it's also too easy for cavalry to beat infantry 1v1.
On this we agree. Honestly we might not be too different in our viewpoints here: riskier/weaker charges and better infantry counterplay (eg. squares) would help a lot of these issues. The changes don't necessarily have to be huge.
Looking at the map, a few thoughts:
With a +20 to their rolls, they'd only need a 40+ to Ruin the Woods in a single shot (and they get 2 tries if we hold off on closing to melee), which IIRC would also deny the Nymphs the Advantage from being in the Woods. Either they stick in the Woods and get shelled, or they move out at which point they lose their Advantage and we can mob them next turn.
It isn't. It really isn't. Ready Action (Move into gap/cavalry path, brace, melee). Something I also did to protect the Siege Artillery in the second turn. Such a play would add 6-9 movement cost, enough to halt most charges. I have brought this up repeatedly, with this simple counterplay option being ignored in discussion that don't make an effirt to prove the difficulty of screening mechanically. What the system allows is kind of important when we are discussing game balance.
So the major problem I see with radically changing cavalry is that we are dropped into a battle after this. Cavalry interactions are especially dependent on the viability of attacking and withdrawing during most of the game, so forcing a significant change like dropping hit and run would force us to drop gained knowledge again and reconsider this in a high stakes situation. A lot of pressure on the plan makers there and I would be fairly frustrated if we lost due to misjudging untested mechanical changes.
I think that's a fair point, but if we're are doing that I also think we should use the siege artillery on the 1st, becuase if we rout the rest of the infantry, then at that point the enemy would probably just retreat instead of continuing to fight a losing battle. I do have a concern with leaving open room for the Wolf Guard to charge, and if they might decide to charge and attack the Nymphs instead because they think it's more honorable to fight a stronger opponent or something.
While this might work before the infantry lines engage, doing this becomes very difficult once the infantry is busy. The movement range of cavalry is so high that you have to cover multiple approaches, so doing this with infantry becomes really, really difficult. You would need 3-4 units of infantry in reserve per 1 unit of enemy cavalry to ensure there are no gaps the cavalry can explot.
To clarify, I am quite ok with how this battle turned out. We moved our entire army to the east to make use of a gap, we charged in a concerted manner with infantry and cavalry and used combined arms to win. That is fine, a earned victory.
Given the above, I really think hit and run has to be limited in some way in order to feel fair in a turn-based system. However, my proposed change to Charging would not eliminate hit and run: you could do Move-Attack-Move to get one single attack in and then retreat to safety. This would allow you to trigger flanking Morale checks and hurt squishy units, but would do much less damage than a full Charge.
You are not wrong about the pressure, but I do feel like that is always there. In a sense, I would have less pressure with a new system since we are all still in the process of learning. I also trust @Photomajig to not purposefully screw us over with a new system. And finally, I would not mind losing every once in a while. A loss makes for good story opportunities and character development for Raka. Even Napoleon did not win every battle.
