PDA

View Full Version : why is mass calvary and gun powder percieved as unsporty and infantry not?



kiron
28-08-2007, 14:39
like the title says:

why do people dislike gun powder (handgunners and cannons) and calvary say empire knights, silverhelms (leaving brets out, cause they're different) in the mass but don't mind playing infantry in the mass. I have seen a pure empire infantry list supported by gunpowder get 75-100% comp while a pure knight list supported by gunpowder get 0-75% comp on average. is there just a bias? like knights vs. infantry is supposed to be balanced, well they are for their point cost for empire. 25 swordsmen and say 3x3 free company det. with full comm costs 220 points. 6 knightly order inner circle with full command and war banner costs 228 with is roughly equal. knights charge, free comp counter charge. company gets 6 attacks, 3 hits, and 1.5 wounds and potential for kill. We assume no knights die, but counter this by forcing the flanking knight to only be able to attack the swordsmen for balance. 7 attacks, 3.5 hits, and 2.92 wounds killing roughly 3. Horse attacks, 6 attacks, 3 hits and 1.5 wounds followed for 0.75 kills. We assume 4 swords/militia die and no knights die. so knights have standard, warbanner, and 4 kills for 6 CR while swordsmen have 3 for ranks, standard, outnumber, and flank for also 6 which result in a tie. And we know that knights are dead next round. So why then is there such a huge bias against knights and we also know that a single kill or bad luck can result in significant reduction of effectiveness of calvary while infantry not so much since there are numbers to counter the slight variation in luck while knights are screwed if losing an extra 1 or 2 to bad dice rolling. So we know "theoritically" calvary and infantry are balanced then why are there huge bias for sportsmanship and composition against calvary, but not infantry?

theunwantedbeing
28-08-2007, 14:49
Well if your opponent sit backs,doesnt move and simply shoots you to bits as you advance forward its what the average gamer calls "not fun".
Seeing as they just get to move forward,get blown to bits and then lose.

All cavalry..well depends who you play.
Cavalry is fast hard hitting with high saves.
The downside is few if any ranks(well for everyone but brets)

Mass infantry on the other hand isnt fast,doesnt kill you at range and generally isnt particularly capable of killing much in combat.
They may get ranks and such but your opponent is free to use faster troops to outmanover you and negate most of that static bonus.

Infantry just isnt as scary.

happy_doctor
28-08-2007, 14:54
In my opinion, you're ignoring some basic facts in your analysis:

-Cavalry units have double the movement (or so) of an infantry uni, pursue and flee 3D6 and as such have the opportunity to choose their fights.

-Heavy cavalry have 2+ armour save in most cases, thus making them very hard to kill,and hard to rout as well (by making no kills, you are relying solely on static CR, which can be tricky)

-Not all infantry units have the detachment special rule..it is an empire specific rule, thus cannot be used to equate cavalry to infantry in general.

-Seeing as Warhammer is based on a medieval/pre renaissance setting, it would be logical to assume that the core of each army is comprised of infantry, and not heavy cavalry (whose equipment is difficult to buy and maintain in large quntities).

All in all, when you elect to play an all cavalry force, you are taking the easy way out: if you don't make any serious mistakes and the dice are average, your infantry-based opponent will struggle to win. (being a tournament player, I know from experience that every game against brettonnia was tough as hell, and I had to play in an almost perfect way and to exploit every mistake my opponent made in order to get a positive result)

Bear in mind, these are just thoughts...It's not that I wouldn't play your list or anything, but a 2 steam tank, 4 knight, 4 pistolier, 1 war altar list wouldn't get my best grade for composition.. that's all...

P.S:nor would the all cavalry-4 RBT - 4 mages High Elf list, for that matter....

Finnigan2004
28-08-2007, 15:04
I think that your analysis does skip some key points, first and foremost that the key stat in warhammer is movement most often. Generally, cavalry will have the advantage over infantry most of the time because they can pick their fights, and should get the charge. Most players find cavalry far easier to win with for these reasons, and their performance on the tabletop is far better than an equal points cost infanrtry. Likewise, massive amounts of shooting allow you to effectively destroy an enemy before combat can happen, and that can be no fun. In practice, an army that is heavy in these elements will have an advantage over an army that lacks them.

I think that soft scores are effected by selecting armies like these because they are generally easier to win with than infantry, and in the case of some armies excessive amounts of these things will give a big advantage over most balanced forces too. As a result, they breed some resentment.

Highborn
28-08-2007, 16:48
Cavalry and ranged fire can really min-max and focus their attacks due to either high movement or range. Infantry actually forces you to take risks with your army, because mistakes are more difficult to correct and will be punished.

You've given a good example of why the two are equal in combat, but take two infantry units and two cavalry units, put them on a table, and its not difficult for the cavalry to orchestrate a flank charge on the infantry, negating ranks while ignoring the other unit of swordsmen until afterwards. If one player takes all cavalry while the other takes infantry, the ability to focus attacks while generally ignoring small arms fire (high armour save) will mean the all cavalry army will win without much risk or strategy.

Baindread
28-08-2007, 17:00
W
Seeing as they just get to move forward,get blown to bits and then lose.


I agree on the whole "just move forward" bit but not about the "loosing" bit. Shooting isn't as good as some are trying to make it sound like, same with magic. Sure, itīs boring to play against/with because of nothing but dice rolling but good? Nah.

kiron
28-08-2007, 23:54
Cavalry and ranged fire can really min-max and focus their attacks due to either high movement or range. Infantry actually forces you to take risks with your army, because mistakes are more difficult to correct and will be punished.

You've given a good example of why the two are equal in combat, but take two infantry units and two cavalry units, put them on a table, and its not difficult for the cavalry to orchestrate a flank charge on the infantry, negating ranks while ignoring the other unit of swordsmen until afterwards. If one player takes all cavalry while the other takes infantry, the ability to focus attacks while generally ignoring small arms fire (high armour save) will mean the all cavalry army will win without much risk or strategy.

infantry wall while hugging terrain for flank protection? with infantry vs. calvary with equal support from range i said infantry win 90% of the time if both players are both extremely good players. why? since warhammer is a game of probability, average dice rolls does not occur in small samples like taking death vs. efficiency of knight units compared to death vs. efficiency of infantry. Since the infantry has a larger sample size it has a higher chance of average luck while with knights it tends to be more extreme so infantry would be the safest. small arms tend to kill knights more than infantry (well empire anyways) 10 handgunners shoots about 3.33 hits, about 2.22 wounds, kills about 0.74 knights or it can kill 2.22 swordsmen. well point efficiency 74% of a 23 points knight is about 17 points which is significantly short of 3 swordsmen for kills. Also must take into account of potential loses for knights which is max 10 for both sides. Losing 10 swordsmen is much different from losing 10 knights. Because of the lower sample size of knights a slight change in variation of luck can change efficiency of calvary unit significantly while not as significantly for infantry. And already proven for empire, a knight cannot take infantry of same points head on so it would become a stand-off until a knight unit can pull a flank charge which should be enough time for range support to nullify the flankers and empire has detachment for extra protection. (i guess this is mainly concerning empire since i don't know much about other races). But the main significance that infantry has over knights is that infantry can wait it out and grind it down while knights can't because the player with infantry just has to wait long enough until range can take down the knights. The main is the POTENTIAL for slight variation in luck has a higher significant effect on knights than on infantry. Hence saying that calvary is much safer and more risk free is inaccurate and should be other way around. Calvary are much more risky since a bad dice roll of AS can screw calvary very bad but infantry not as much.

DeathlessDraich
29-08-2007, 22:36
1) Perfectly alright and just as much fun. All 3 aspects are part of the fantasy game - magic, shooting and combat. Some players may have a preference for combat and some may feel (wrongly) that more tactics are involved in combat but the fact is combining all 3 is needed in most armies and a good general knows how to do so and how to respond to heavy magic or shooting.

2) Some armies have to be nearly all cavalry - Brets. Again perfectly acceptable.

3) Confining or insisting on a mainly infantry army curtails the variety in Fantasy.

4) Most good players would be willing to face any army and deal with them accordingly. I don't think I'm wrong in saying that quite a few players who feel heavy magic/shooting armies lack sportsmanship tend to be those who focus too much on winning (on their own terms).

Vishok
30-08-2007, 17:14
Just don't be afraid. It doesn't matter what the guy on the other side of the table has as long as you meet it with steel.

That said, if you lose all the time to these armies maybe you should rethink your own composition. Knowing what your own army can do and how well it does it is often more important than worrying about the other guy's army.

RipFlag
30-08-2007, 18:15
I think that people do not like all calvary, gun line, chariot, magic, etc, armies because they are one trick armies.

If the cavalry do not get the charge, well they are pretty much pouched, while in the gun line has not really to shoot, or does not kill any thing, than its done for. These armies are not well balanced, they usually either win by a massacre or get massacred themselves, so you can see why they are not an enjoyable army to play, they are not well balanced.

As you pointed out for some reason having masses of infantry is not cheesy... like nothing is wrong with have 200 nights goblins in 2k, maybe infantry are condoned as none cheesy because of their fluff value, and their enjoyment of playing with and against.