gibby wrote:So, ok Later LXIV.
Again what armies did these tend to fight against. Dutch/Spanish/later German states.
In period lists as written in Duty and glory, the French mounted looks far superior taken as a whole compared to any of those lists.
The thing is we tend to play pointed games to equalise things. Therefore players go for relative value for the points cost which means most players in this period will minimize their Determined Horse contingents max out on infantry as generally Determined Horse are too costly and it's relatively easy to jam a battlefield up to negate cavalry superiority.
Not only that but this period was dominated by siege like battles were infantry and artillery were seen as important.
I think the point on the Louis XIV French example is that other determined horse in the era can be armored... if you give them the POA, then no other advantage the French cavalry might have is going to bridge that gap, rendering the historical interaction a-historical.
Also, keep in mind, this is ONE example, not the whole justification for the change.
One of the original statements way back in the day about Cavalry costing more than Horse was that the horse were replacing cavalry in the typical western armies of the day.
Who said that? I remember it being said that a lower cost for the cavalry types was considered, but rejected due to the performance of armies like the Ottomans in playtesting (performance that hasn't particularly been replicated in competitions since, BTW). My understanding was the premium cost for cavalry was due to their perceived (and overrated IMO) better maneuverability.
If that is true of Determined Horse then they should have been cheaper base point cost than horse to reflect this change and continue the logic through.
Please, no. That kind of thing kills the whole purpose of a points system.
Just because Lighter Horse followed Heavier horse does not mean that this was because they were better. The rise of foot and artillery and economic will have played a part in this.
Agreed. But the heavier armored horse in this game aren't just better, they are a LOT BETTER. The intent of the proposal isn't to change the fact that they have an advantage, it is to reduce the extent of that advantage, so that it is in line with other advantages (such as quality).
As I've said before we have subjective views on the relative merits of one reason over another.
True, but it isn't really productive to blanket everything as "subjective" like that kills the argument. We do have quite a bit of objective data about how these troops are perceived from an effectiveness standpoint, over quite a few years of competitions and battle reports. Just check the lists people use.
I would say that there are very few players around who have played as many games of FoGr games than myself.
I believe you, but keep in mind you are on a forum with quite a few people that have played, designed, and/or followed these rules for quite a while. I'd say the fact that anyone is still here and arguing about it is indicative that they probably have more than a passing experience with FOG-R.
In fact, I have met a number of people in my time who have been playing and enjoying the same games for years, glaring flaws with balance or simulation notwithstanding, just because they aren't particularly competitive or analytical. (disclaimer: I am not trying to imply anything about yourself or FOG-R here, this is just an observation about experience).
They are best played in period.
This is generally true. But most of the arguments, pro or con, on this subject have been about historical interactions, with a secondary emphasis on game/competition balance.
No rule set is perfect but for the pretty broad period of changing warfare styles these are in my opinion the best set around and sometimes going after that last 10/20% perfection can't be achieved or in achieving it you lose people on the way. That would be a sad thing indeed and as you well know many rulesets have died before or splintered into regional variations.
Honestly, the publishing situation (or lack thereof) is going to cause FOG-R to die more effectively than any grousing over rules changes.
Now I don't know what the overall objectives of this project are but if increasing or at least retaining current players isn't one of them then it should be.
Again, the probability of substantially increasing the player base is almost nil, given the current publishing plans for the rules and lists. But to flip your argument over: if the authors don't ever address issues in the system, they will also lose existing players.
I expect the main reason people haven't moved on from FOG-R to the "next big thing" already, is that Renaissance/Reformation/Early Enlightenment is not the most popular period to begin with. Well, aside from Samurai.