Page 2 of 4

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 11:18 am
by madaxeman
kevinj wrote: Arquebus/Musket*/Musket: Currently 2 points for the first two and 3 for musket. At long/effective range 4 bases armed with these will shoot with 0/4, 2/3 and 2/4 dice respectively. For me, the difference between Arquebus and Musket* is greater than that between Musket* and Musket. Increasing the cost of Musket* doesn’t seem right so I suggest reducing Arquebus to 1 point.
Is this only an issue when playing arquebus out of theme?

Arquebus are pretty decent against anything less than 4-deep pike, and disregarding the armour of enemy and sometimes being able to count as "protected" against mounted is pretty handy too, so I'm not sure I see them as being overpointed in early themed games. Its generally the fact that all-arquebus units are MF losing to HF, or losing to mounted that nails them, not the cost of arquebus per se.

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:48 pm
by alasdair2204
nikgaukroger wrote:The version below is using the current Horse basic costs as the benchmark for Cavalry/Camelry and Horse - no changes to LH in this model (as yet?). Must admit this is the one I'd choose if it were a straight choice as it'd tend to get a few more toys on the table than upping some points, which I generally view as a good thing (tm) :D

Armoured Determined Horse 16/13/9/5
Unarmoured Determined Horse 12/10/7/4
Fully- or heavily-Armoured Gendarmes 18/15/10/6
Armoured Cavaliers 15/12/8/4
Unarmoured Cavaliers 11/19/6/3
Heavily Armoured Cavalry/Camelry 16/13/9/5
Armoured Cavalry/Camelry 12/10/7/4
Unarmoured Cavalry/Camelry 10/8/5/3
Heavily Armoured Horse 16/13/9/5
Armoured Horse 12/10/7/4
Unarmoured Horse 10/8/5/3
Armoured Light Horse 12/10/7/4
Unarmoured Light Horse 10/8/5/3
This is what I would probably go with, but if you are interested in my view as a mounted player if Superior armoured determined horse was the same cost as heavily armoured horse I would go for the determined horse everytime, I would probably looking for cavalier armies even better, so maybe they need to be a little more expensive

just my thoughts, if you move horse to cavalry points you just make mounted unplayable, its hard enough against foot in the pike and shot period as it is

cheers

Alasdair

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:15 pm
by nikgaukroger
alasdair2204 wrote: but if you are interested in my view as a mounted player
Was rather hoping you'd comment :D


just my thoughts, if you move horse to cavalry points you just make mounted unplayable, its hard enough against foot in the pike and shot period as it is
I'd guesstimate you'd probably lose 1 mounted BG from an 800AP mainly mounted army (all depends on actual composition of course) if the higher values were used - would that result in unplayability ?

Must confess I am currently a bit taken with Kevin's suggestion that makes Average & Poor a bit cheaper relative to Superior & Elite.

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 3:28 pm
by vexillia
The original list/table still confuses me. So I tried a couple of alternative layouts:
Image
I think the second one shows the progression of the point values the best and if you strip out Cavaliers & Light Horse you see the progressions at its clearest:

Image

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 6:47 pm
by alasdair2204
nikgaukroger wrote:
alasdair2204 wrote: but if you are interested in my view as a mounted player
Was rather hoping you'd comment :D


just my thoughts, if you move horse to cavalry points you just make mounted unplayable, its hard enough against foot in the pike and shot period as it is
I'd guesstimate you'd probably lose 1 mounted BG from an 800AP mainly mounted army (all depends on actual composition of course) if the higher values were used - would that result in unplayability ?

Must confess I am currently a bit taken with Kevin's suggestion that makes Average & Poor a bit cheaper relative to Superior & Elite.
Would probably work, the point is that average cavalry don't really work whereas average foot do, the biggest difference is cavalry tended to be fielded in 4's so lose a base and 1 more you go plus the -1 for 25% means you are likely to fail tests, an interesting one would be whether you can get a 6 of average to match approximately the cost of 4 similar superior, but whatever people think its very hard to beat pike and shot armies with mounted, I think its just this year we have had far more themes and in them there is far more scope for mounted armies

cheers

Alasdair

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 8:31 am
by donm2
Nik,

I would like to see a major reduction in points for cavalry, yes they suffer to pike & shot armies as do other mounted, but they also take a -1 when shot at my firearms.

Against other mounted they cost similar points and don't stand any chance on average dice.

Heavily armoured superior horse, pistol, pistol 16 points
Armoured superior cavalry, bow and sword 16 points

Where the Turks really that bad?

Don

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 9:13 am
by nikgaukroger
donm2 wrote:Nik,

I would like to see a major reduction in points for cavalry, yes they suffer to pike & shot armies as do other mounted, but they also take a -1 when shot at my firearms.

Against other mounted they cost similar points and don't stand any chance on average dice.

Heavily armoured superior horse, pistol, pistol 16 points
Armoured superior cavalry, bow and sword 16 points

Where the Turks really that bad?

Don
We'll under the schemes that Kevin and I posted above the basic cost of Armoured cavalry would be 3 points cheaper than the Heavily Armoured Horse of the same quality.

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 10:57 am
by donm2
Nik,

Just on another point, are you proposing to do anything about the points cost of Dragoons?

Seem exceptional value for the ability to match for three moves and fall back in front of the enemy.

Don

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:39 pm
by nikgaukroger
What do you think they are worth? Do others think they are incorrectly costed - always felt about OK to me.

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 2:44 pm
by timmy1
Dragoons seem right to me

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sat Oct 12, 2013 6:05 pm
by list_lurker
Dragoons are too good in my opinion too. Their shooting if unopposed is too powerful.

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:55 am
by scuzi
nikgaukroger wrote:
kevinj wrote:A different option, apply the higher values for Superior/Elite and the lower ones for Average/Poor. Makes the lesser troops more attractive while reducing the chance of being swamped by even more superior types:

Cunning 8)
This idea has a lot of Merritt and has my vote

On the impact mounted idea does even 2 points for impact mounted justify their effect?
Up 1 against pistols,= against light lance and down one against heavy lance for impact only
While impact pistol are up 1 against light and heavy lance, down 1 against impact mounted and only cost 1 point

Also is 2 points for a mounted sword good value?

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 4:18 am
by marty
You could probably drop the price of elephants in FOGR to about 15 points.

The ability of anything with a firearm to pretty much auto-death-ray them and the fact they cant deploy to face the only thing they are likely to want to face makes them a very unattractive option.

Martin

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 8:15 am
by nikgaukroger
marty wrote:You could probably drop the price of elephants in FOGR to about 15 points.

The ability of anything with a firearm to pretty much auto-death-ray them and the fact they cant deploy to face the only thing they are likely to want to face makes them a very unattractive option.

Martin
I was wondering when nellies would be mentioned :lol:

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 9:35 am
by gibby
Actually, I don't want the price of Cav to come down, I would rather horse increased to that base. As for dragoons, they can be brittle as well.
I think its more of a list problem with unit/points proportionality.
As for Elephants leave as.

cheers
Jim

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 11:51 am
by marty
As for Elephants leave as
.

Do you feel their current cost reflects their usefulness or do you prefer the game with them not been used very much?

Martin

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 12:01 pm
by Maniakes
I do think you have to be careful about introducing changes to what is currently a very enjoyable set of rules. The main problem is that if they are not in the book then you make the rules more inaccessible to new players. I've already experienced trying to introduce a new player to the rules who was very miffed that important changes to the rules for the Swedish army were hidden away on a website rather than being in the rulebook (he almost suspected that I was trying to put one over on him...). If these changes only make a 20-30 point difference for an army I would suggest they are just not worth the downside of added complication. From what I remember of DBM one of the things (amongst others!) that killed it was the problem of the latest version only being available as a download.

Dave P

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Sun Oct 13, 2013 1:15 pm
by gibby
marty wrote:
As for Elephants leave as
.

Do you feel their current cost reflects their usefulness or do you prefer the game with them not been used very much?

Martin
A bit of both, whilst I agree that they can be vulnerable to massed shooting. They are no slouches in combat. Plus we need the rarity factor. So I have no problems with their current costing..

On reflection, of all the suggestions being put forward, the only one I would like to see is changing the Average Horse unit size to 4 or 6's. So if allowed 12 horse you can choose 3 x 4's or 2 x 6's.

cheers
Jim

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:41 am
by marty
can be vulnerable to massed shooting.
Doesn't have to be all that massed. A 2 element unit that is often getting hit on a 3+ is in danger every time someone chucks 2 or more dice at it!
They are no slouches in combat
True, they are usually POA+ but they are always average and can never really get to ++. hardly 25 points a base territory even if they didn't have their other disadvantages.
Plus we need the rarity factor
Always saw this as more a function of the lists than the points sytem, ie I dont think we should be overcharging for troops to make them rare.

Martin

Re: The wholly unofficial points revision sticky …

Posted: Mon Oct 14, 2013 7:11 am
by marshalney2000
I managed to use Elephants reasonably effectively at Derby but this was a themed competition and I did seem to spent most of the game keeping them hidden away until I could line them up for an interception charges on mounted and such. Over the piece I felt they were priced a bit on the high side and 20 points might have been a better balance.
I would not have picked Khmer and the elephants for an open competition at 25 points for an elephant.
John