Page 3 of 4

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:45 pm
by DavidT
There is another option to make average troops more attractive without changing the break points.

Change the points cost of average troops to make them more attractive. :!:

In DBM, the authors continually tried to fit the troop capabilities to the points cost which always seemed like putting the cart before the horse to me.

I understood when Osprey controlled things in FOG it wasn't possible to change the points values of troops. However, now we can :D

So why not keep autobreak as it is at the moment and make average troops cheaper to the degree where it becomes a hard decision on whether to take average or superior?

Easier said than done however :(

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:55 pm
by timmy1
OK how much cheaper would HA Average Pistol Pistol Horse have to be before you would take them in preference to HA Superior Pistol Pistol Horse with the current autobreak rules?

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:20 pm
by kevinj
Tim is right. Lowering Superior break points was playrested for Fog AM v2 and was universally unpopular. Currently people only take Average mounted when compulsory or for rear support. Making them cheaper would not make them more attractive.

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:20 am
by DavidT
kevinj wrote:Making them cheaper would not make them more attractive.
That depends how cheap they were. If average Horse were half the price of superior Horse, I would take average every time - so that would be too cheap. Getting the balance right is the difficult bit, especially when having to consider all the factors in the game. Points values are probably one of the most difficult elements of any game to get right.

This may be my last post - I like being a Panzer II; I don't much fancy being a boring bit of artillery :D

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 5:53 am
by timmy1
David

Understand (and not that we would abuse your reluctance to reply) that you might take average if they cost half the superior but would you be prepared to risk six 4-pack Average BG of Horse and charge them in sooner than 3 BG of superior? I many player would not. It would make the game last longer as more BG to kill and players becoming more cautious. Also if you lost all 6 Average BG (not counting the supports) that is 12 AP gone.

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:22 pm
by DavidT
Coerced into becoming a boring piece of artillery :cry:
Ah well, it just means I'll have to post lots to become something better :)

I would quite happily go after 3 BGs of superior with 6 BGs of average. But then I'm an aggressive player.
I do understand that it could make players more cautious as the 3 BGs of superior will be much less likely to go out and attack and the player with the average horse is going to want to try and draw the superior out to make the most of his numbers.
Currently 3 BGs of 4 superior armoured pistol/pistol horse will cost 156 points. 4 average BGs will cost 160 points and one extra BG of average is not enough (and even that means spending more points). You can gang up with 2 v 1 superior but lose the other two 1 v 1 combats, leaving 2 superior v 2 average which the superior will win 99% of the time.
So the current points balance doesn't seem quite right.
60% of the points cost may be nearer the mark (this would give 5 BGs of average v 3 BGs of superior) but there are other things to consider e.g.
An average BG can support just as well as a superior BG (unless you habitually use elites).
An average BG provides 2 AP to the army break point the same as a superior (although this can be a 2 edged sword when you start losing them).

I believe that adjusting points is a better way to go, however, I realise that getting it right is very difficult due to so many different variables in a game. The proposed solution to adjust autobreak works as I have tried it in a number of playtests and is probably easier.

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 5:04 pm
by nikgaukroger
We have decided that we will go with the "Mitigation Proposal" version.


Image


You will note we have added Art to those who break on exactly 50% - will hardly ever be a factor but is right.

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2017 10:32 pm
by ravenflight
nikgaukroger wrote: You will note we have added Art to those who break on exactly 50% - will hardly ever be a factor but is right.
You're right that it's right. SOMEONE will take a BG of 4 guns, and then cry (rightly, unless you updated it as you have) that they keep fighting at 2 guns.

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:09 pm
by nigelemsen
urbanbunny1 wrote:You can do a few horror western armies, but mostly they are the eastern ones.

At Warfare 2016, we had I think a Hungarian Kuric Rebellion army with 19 battle groups and I've seen a few Scot Covenant armies at a similar head count (all at 800 points)
my infamous Britcon "Poor" Scots was 24 BGs :) ill have to add "elite" average BG's now....

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:16 pm
by benjones1211
The only problem I have is with those few Light Troops that are also Superior, before they where expensive, now if they break as Average at 50% they become even more expensive in effect. At least previously they took longer to die, now for the same points they die quicker.

So LF Musket in some armies just before the TYW, and the (in)famous Japanese Superior Dragoons, Arquebus and Sword

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 7:53 am
by kevinj
I'd need to check, but I think most LF and LH that can be superior also have an average option, so it would be the player's decision whether the extra cost was justified.

The Japanese Dragoons aren't affected as you can only have 2 or 3 of them.

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 10:56 am
by viking123
But is does mess up the three musketeers in the Early 17th Century French. I have just had painted a 28mm version of them. Now it is unlikely they will ever go on the table.

Bob

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 1:39 pm
by benjones1211
Caroline Imperialist Detached Spanish Musketeers LF Superior 0-4 , no Average option
Ming Chinese Gansidui LF Superior 0-4 no Average Option
Indonesian Noble Cavaley LH 0-12 Can be Cavalry but no Average LH Option
Early TYW German Shutzenkompanien LF 0-4 no average option

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2017 4:15 pm
by nikgaukroger
Meh.

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 8:34 pm
by Vespasian28
A lost cause I know but I have been pondering how to depict the Swiss under the new regime. My own view of the Swiss was set very early on by Mr Gush in "Renaissance Armies", which may of course be an outdated view, but to quote at length:

" The Swiss troops of this period were remarkable both because of the terror they inspired in their opponents, and for their own extraordinary qualities. First of these was sheer courage- no Swiss force of this period ever seems to have broken or to have run or surrendered; several literally fought to the last man, and the only concession they would make to defeat was a bitter and grudging retreat in good order, defending themselves against all attacks (for example Marignano 1515 where their losses were over 50 per cent!) Perhaps their habit of hanging the first man to panic had something to do with this!"

So, with the new autobreak levels the only way to depict Swiss is with all Elite as averages can now take the remarkable 50% losses as well. Tried out an army list and for 800 points you get 3 full kiels of Elite Swiss, 3 BG of 6 LF, a BG of 4 LH and three troop commanders which is pretty historical and it will be interesting to see how it fares in a game against far more numerous opponents. Superior Swiss in the lists are no longer Swiss in my opinion.

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 10:26 am
by RonanTheLibrarian
Just lend them to me, Paul - a few failed "DR1"s here, some ropey CTs there, and they'll be routing like Poor Covenanters who've heard there's free whisky back at camp.....

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:41 am
by jonphilp
Well perhaps now the Swiss will be allowed back in competitions. As we know from last year, the Scots were almost unbeatable even before the new auto break rules, perhaps they will be the army which can not be taken to competitions or perhaps the next Southern League competition will just become a Scottish civil war.

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 12:43 pm
by quackstheking
Hmmm - I'd love to know how the Scots are considered such a good army. I would like to think I'm quite a capable player, yet I've run Scots twice in competitions and never managed a win with them(my two worst competition results) and on the reverse have played Scots twice and cleaned them up twice!

I'd love to know the list and how they were so good!!!

Don

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 6:52 pm
by RonanTheLibrarian
In fairness, they came 2nd (Paddy Bray*) and joint 3rd (Dene Green) in the Southern League round at Southampton last September. Given that an average pike block now needs to lose 8 bases to autobreak instead of just 7 (>40% = 6.4), it will be interesting to see whether a 2.5 hour game is long enough to defeat one keil...let alone 3 or 4.

[ * I can't speak for his other opponents, but I played Paddy in game 1 and I seem to recall that 4 of the 5 units of my army that he routed were picked off by his pair of heavy guns! ]

Re: BG Autobreak - proposal

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 8:03 pm
by timmy1
Would that be Paddy 'Napoleon' Bray perchance...?