New Kingdom Egyptian tips

[elysiumsolutions@fsmail.n]

Hammy said

If unprotected undrilled average MF bow were only 5 points they would IMO be pretty good value.

Unprotected undrilled average MF bow are 5 points.

Paul

[david53]

Hammy said

If unprotected undrilled average MF bow were only 5 points they would IMO be pretty good value.

Unprotected undrilled average MF bow are 5 points.

Paul

Maybe thats good value then compared to what?

[NickW]

The Egyptian archers are drilled and they're still rubbish at 6 pts.

[hammy]

Hammy said

If unprotected undrilled average MF bow were only 5 points they would IMO be pretty good value.

Unprotected undrilled average MF bow are 5 points.

Paul

Probably explains why they are OK then

They are, however only 1 point cheaper than superiors and I would pay that point in an instant if I could. To be honest I would pay the point for drilled in an instant as well......

Hmm, perhaps they should be 4 points a base then

[NickW]

The problem is the same issue as with DBM - the points system does not relate to the abilities of the troops.

[philqw78]

The problem is the same issue as with DBM - the points system does not relate to the abilities of the troops.

But they are better in a shooting match and melee than Bw LH. And Bw LH cost more.

[ShrubMiK]

The problem is the same issue as with DBM - the points system does not relate to the abilities of the troops.

Now who's talking complete and utter tosh?

Of course the points system relates to the abilities of the troops. Unless, perhaps, they just picked numbers out of a hat when drawing it up?

That's not to say that it's spot on in all cases...I would agree that unprotected MF bowmen are either not quite good enough, or slightly overcosted. But I haven't made extensive use of them, except for providing rear support, so I could be wrong.

[hammy]

The problem is the same issue as with DBM - the points system does not relate to the abilities of the troops.

Really?

The FoG points system is at least reasonably coherent and as far as I understand is capable of change if needed unlike the DBM one.

Unprotected bow are cheaper than protected bow. Undrilled are cheaper than drilled. Average are cheaper than superior. That all seems fair to me.

Now unprotected bow may not be good value when you consider their interraction with some other troops but if for example you compare undrilled uprotected MF bow and undrilled protected MF bow and how they interract with say almost anything on a horse with no missle weapon or any chariot with no missile weapon or any armoured or better foot with no missile weapon then the protected bow are absolutely no better than the unprotected.

Compare them to light foot bow ant perhaps the light foot are better value but IMO that should be fixed as a general downgrade of skirmisher missile fire. I still favour giving troops shot at entirely by skirmishers a +1 on their CT but the skirmisher lobby does not seem to like this one.

During development of the rules I was pushing to make medium foot bow a little more effective but after a lot of debate none of my suggestions were tank on board (and with hindsight I think that was the right option). The skirmisher downgrade had not occured to me at that point.

[NickW]

I think it is better than DBM, but just because adding one level of armour costs one point more means that it really relates to the abilities. What it means if you get more stuff you pay more - that's not really a direct enough link to the effects of that stuff.

Numerous comments about ineffective or underpriced troop types bears that out.

Most specifically on the unprotected v. protected MF, surely no one thinks the difference is worth just one point, when it has an enormous effect on shooting and a big effect on melee.

I think the points system generally doesn't fully reflect the benefit of what you're buying. For example, add a sword for bowmen is really quite useful as that POA makes a big difference in melee (a swing from 33% chance to hit to 50%). It only costs 1 pt, so for a BG of 8 you'd probably spend 8 pts nearly every time, especially given that you can't do much else with 8 pts. I hear similar comments about 'Superior' and 'Armoured', etc. When upgrades become obvious then the points system isn't properly reflective of the abilities IMO.

[hammy]

Numerous comments about ineffective or underpriced troop types bears that out.

Most specifically on the unprotected v. protected MF, surely no one thinks the difference is worth just one point, when it has an enormous effect on shooting and a big effect on melee.

I think the points system generally doesn't fully reflect the benefit of what you're buying. For example, add a sword for bowmen is really quite useful as that POA makes a big difference in melee (a swing from 33% chance to hit to 50%). It only costs 1 pt, so for a BG of 8 you'd probably spend 8 pts nearly every time, especially given that you can't do much else with 8 pts. I hear similar comments about 'Superior' and 'Armoured', etc. When upgrades become obvious then the points system isn't properly reflective of the abilities IMO.

Protected is only of any use if your opponents shoot or if thy are less than armoured.

Swordsman for a bowman is great IF you are not fighting spears of superior swordsmen.

There are a lot of capabilities in FoG that you have to pay for yet only work some of the time depending on your opposition.
Look at protected impact foot swordsmen. A nice package of capabilities until you end up facing armoured impact foot skilled swordsmen. If there were such a thing as unprotected impact foot non swordsmen they would be just as effective against the armoured impact foot skilled swordsmen and cost 5 points rather than 7.

[dave_r]

The Egyptian archers are drilled and they're still rubbish at 6 pts.

They most certainly are not rubbish. They are very effective in the NKE. They are some of the best troops in the army.

[ethan]

The Egyptian archers are drilled and they're still rubbish at 6 pts.

They most certainly are not rubbish. They are very effective in the NKE. They are some of the best troops in the army.

The problem is what this statement means for the rest of the army...

[dave_r]

The Egyptian archers are drilled and they're still rubbish at 6 pts.

They most certainly are not rubbish. They are very effective in the NKE. They are some of the best troops in the army.

The problem is what this statement means for the rest of the army...

I have always found NKE to be competative.

[NickW]

Numerous comments about ineffective or underpriced troop types bears that out.

Most specifically on the unprotected v. protected MF, surely no one thinks the difference is worth just one point, when it has an enormous effect on shooting and a big effect on melee.

I think the points system generally doesn't fully reflect the benefit of what you're buying. For example, add a sword for bowmen is really quite useful as that POA makes a big difference in melee (a swing from 33% chance to hit to 50%). It only costs 1 pt, so for a BG of 8 you'd probably spend 8 pts nearly every time, especially given that you can't do much else with 8 pts. I hear similar comments about 'Superior' and 'Armoured', etc. When upgrades become obvious then the points system isn't properly reflective of the abilities IMO.

Protected is only of any use if your opponents shoot or if thy are less than armoured.

Swordsman for a bowman is great IF you are not fighting spears of superior swordsmen.

There are a lot of capabilities in FoG that you have to pay for yet only work some of the time depending on your opposition.
Look at protected impact foot swordsmen. A nice package of capabilities until you end up facing armoured impact foot skilled swordsmen. If there were such a thing as unprotected impact foot non swordsmen they would be just as effective against the armoured impact foot skilled swordsmen and cost 5 points rather than 7.

Yes, the idea of needing to compare right across the different troop types and matchups is certainly a fair comment. But, on the whole the extra 1 pt each for protection and sword are great value for archers, especially when consider the majority of stuff that should be on table.
Nevertheless, unprotected archers are vulnerable to most things and still pretty expensive. I can't think of too many things they will beat.

I can't think of too much that the NKE will be really good against. It's expensive and not particularly powerful.

[NickW]

But they are better in a shooting match and melee than Bw LH. And Bw LH cost more.

Yes, they will beat LH in a shooting match, but the LH are most likely not going to come up and fight them front on or at all, and of course LH are far more usable and far less vulnerable.

[ethan]

But they are better in a shooting match and melee than Bw LH. And Bw LH cost more.

Yes, they will beat LH in a shooting match, but the LH are most likely not going to come up and fight them front on or at all, and of course LH are far more usable and far less vulnerable.

I have found the MF unprotected Bows can be useful if used carefully, I find they are especially helpful in supporting your LH against enemy LH.

[dave_r]

But they are better in a shooting match and melee than Bw LH. And Bw LH cost more.

Yes, they will beat LH in a shooting match, but the LH are most likely not going to come up and fight them front on or at all, and of course LH are far more usable and far less vulnerable.

I have found the MF unprotected Bows can be useful if used carefully, I find they are especially helpful in supporting your LH against enemy LH.

Quite so. Any MF will butcher LH in combat (not given extreme dice) so your LH can charge with impunity knowing that if the enemy LH stand then they will get butchered from the MF, if they evade then you have a chance of catching them! What's not to like.

Unfortunately the NKE don't get any Light Horse, so I used them as either roaming rear support, or to exploit the flanks of enemy units busy fighting to their front. Being Drilled, you can use them as a swift reaction force.