Is it balanced a cavalry problem

[badhabum]

Some mounted CAV are formed, loose, average , protected ,SSP . The basic cost is 90 points.
Others mounted cAV are formed, loose, average, protected, SSP and unskilled javelin . The cost is 95 points

If you look at it, the difference in points is low.

But the duifference in capacity is huge

One cannot skirmish/run away and the other can do it

So oe cannot avoid charges, even by nellies, cataphracts, or avoid flank charges, while the other can and so function as a delaying unit with some efficiency and so is much more capable on terrain.

I can accept it but much prefer the 2016 situation when "unskilled javelin"was n ot that common . Howeverthe current situation allows many armies to use one or two TUGs as delayers while impossible for others for a mere 5 points more to pay .

So do you feel it balanced or unbalanced ?

My feeling is that the ability to skirmish makes it unbalanced

[lionheartrjc]

I agree that the Unskilled Javelin additional cost of 5 points is a significant benefit for the cost.  No points system is perfect.

Different armies have different strengths and weaknesses. It is about using an army effectively as a whole, not worrying over individual units.

[Princeps]

No points system is perfect.

I can remember quite many people who argued to me that points alone balanced the system, it is refreshing to see such a radical departure.


As for the army as a whole, I believe that having units able to skirmish/run away to slow down potentially multiples UGs at low cost is exactly the kind of force multiplier that can allow an army to function (e. g. attack with a schwerpunkt and still not be flanked to quickly, slow down the enemy schwerpunkt while my massive tribal army redeploys, etc. etc.).

Therefore, why would it be a "worry over an individual unit" ? It affects the way the army functions a whole, it is not an insignificant matter.

Best,
Antoine

[lionheartrjc]

No points system is perfect.

I can remember quite many people who argued to me that points alone balanced the system, it is refreshing to see such a radical departure.


As for the army as a whole, I believe that having units able to skirmish/run away to slow down potentially multiples UGs at low cost is exactly the kind of force multiplier that can allow an army to function (e. g. attack with a schwerpunkt and still not be flanked to quickly, slow down the enemy schwerpunkt while my massive tribal army redeploys, etc. etc.).

Therefore, why would it be a "worry over an individual unit" ? It affects the way the army functions a whole, it is not an insignificant matter.

Best,
Antoine

Most armies that have short spear only cavalry do not have that many.  A massive tribal army trying to re-deploy will probably take too long for the cavalry to hold up the enemy army.

We may have a solution for 2028 (and no, I'm not going to provide details at the moment).

Richard

[badhabum]

A massive tribal army trying to re-deploy will probably take too long for the cavalry to hold up the enemy army.

If I understand it I would disagree . I often managed to slow down opponents and tribal is the most easy with one skirmishing TUG . Last tournament I played I used some formed loose AV protected unskilled javelin combat shy, 4 bases . They helped a lot even vs DC and CL . A game might be 5-8 turns ...so slowing your oppoent for 3 turns is always a benefit .

So different point of view 

[Manzikert]

I agree with badhabum that there's a balance issue, but I think it's in the other direction. The Javelin armed cavalry is worth the cost, it's the melee cavalry that are a bit underpowered.

While the 'Jav-Cav' are pretty expensive relative to their combat claims; they make up for it with a whole bunch of battlefield utility which make them worth it. I wouldn't take a whole army of them, but in small numbers they're absolutely worth the price. The melee cavalry don't have any of that utility, it's just a somewhat overpriced unit with lackluster combat claims.

In fact I'd go so far as to say thats the case for all of what I'd loosely call 'medium cavalry' (basically any cavalry with no ranged weapon, 0-2 charge claims, and 0-1 melee claims). Too expensive for their combat potential and without some other utility to make up for it. Not that I want to oversell it, they aren't totally worthless, just low enough down on the power curve to be worth improving in some way.

[lionheartrjc]

I agree with badhabum that there's a balance issue, but I think it's in the other direction. The Javelin armed cavalry is worth the cost, it's the melee cavalry that are a bit underpowered.

While the 'Jav-Cav' are pretty expensive relative to their combat claims; they make up for it with a whole bunch of battlefield utility which make them worth it. I wouldn't take a whole army of them, but in small numbers they're absolutely worth the price. The melee cavalry don't have any of that utility, it's just a somewhat overpriced unit with lackluster combat claims.

In fact I'd go so far as to say thats the case for all of what I'd loosely call 'medium cavalry' (basically any cavalry with no ranged weapon, 0-2 charge claims, and 0-1 melee claims). Too expensive for their combat potential and without some other utility to make up for it. Not that I want to oversell it, they aren't totally worthless, just low enough down on the power curve to be worth improving in some way.

I agree it is that way round.

[badhabum]

The most funny part is that I never wrote that the skirmishing ability was correct cost and the other a bit underpowered 

I wrote there is a balance problem .

No more, no less

[Manzikert]

Fair enough Badhabum, my mistake, I misinterpreted your position.

But since we seem to have a consensus that there is an issue, what do you guys think of this as a fix:

Give all cavalry, camelry and chariots a native +1 charge claim against infantry in the open. But devastating charge on cavalry no longer gives a bonus when charging infantry, though it still grants shatter. This would give a bit of a boost to most 'medium cavalry' without also boosting cavalry that already have 3+ charge claims.

I do see a couple of issues. It doesn't give any net benefit to SSp, DC cavalry but it does improve ranged cavalry who don't need it.

For the ranged cavalry we could say this claim is lost if the cavalry takes a skirmish/run away action (ranged cavalry get's the bonus but doesn't get to benefit from it and from shooting) or alternatively cavalry with a ranged weapon (not including charge-only) doesn't get the bonus; though that's a bit complicated to add to the rules.

[lionheartrjc]

But since we seem to have a consensus that there is an issue, what do you guys think of this as a fix:

Give all cavalry, camelry and chariots a native +1 charge claim against infantry in the open. But devastating charge on cavalry no longer gives a bonus when charging infantry, though it still grants shatter. This would give a bit of a boost to most 'medium cavalry' without also boosting cavalry that already have 3+ charge claims.

I do see a couple of issues. It doesn't give any net benefit to SSp, DC cavalry but it does improve ranged cavalry who don't need it.

For the ranged cavalry we could say this claim is lost if the cavalry takes a skirmish/run away action (ranged cavalry get's the bonus but doesn't get to benefit from it and from shooting) or alternatively cavalry with a ranged weapon (not including charge-only) doesn't get the bonus; though that's a bit complicated to add to the rules.

I am not sure what you think the issue is.  To me it is that cavalry who cannot skirmish/run away but don't have CL, LSp or SSp+DC are too expensive in points compared to cavalry who can.  I see this as a points issue, not a rules issue.

[Manzikert]

I am not sure what you think the issue is.  To me it is that cavalry who cannot skirmish/run away but don't have CL, LSp or SSp+DC are too expensive in points compared to cavalry who can.  I see this as a points issue, not a rules issue.

I think where we disagree is I think CL, SSP+DC, and to a lesser extent LSp cav are also too expensive. Adding melee expert might possibly push them over the edge but IMO it doesn't quite do it. Better cavalry however, knights for example, is IMO worth the cost. So I'm looking for a simple easy to implement fix that makes the 'medium cavalry' better without also improving the higher tier cavalry which doesn't need the boost.

Just to back up my claim on medium cavalry briefly. If we consider CL, ME cavalry as an example; compared to an infantry with comparable charge and melee claims (close, DC, ME) the medium lancer is 41% more expensive (128 pts versus 91 pts, 37 pts difference). Against close infantry their claims are essentially identical, assuming that infantry doesn't have some kind of anti-cavalry ability.

Cavalry clearly have other advantages over infantry; faster, more maneuverable, the ability to break off from melee, +1 charge claim against loose foot to name a few. But, and this is probably going to be very controversial, I think those advantages are a wash when you consider the drawbacks for cavalry. Mostly the disadvantages they have against pike, long spear, spear, polearm, shield wall, 2-handed C&C, etc.