Well now we have the opportunity to do this as part of the official update
Here are a few general points I think we should bear in mind:
1. In a wargame with so many different troops types and capabilities points values are relatively subjective and there can be no absolute right values; the best we can manage is a reasonable consensus.
2. Because of this there is no point in struggling for spurious “perfection/accuracy” in the points; it’s “close enough for government work” territory.
3. Stick with whole integer values, no half points – because of the above points. Similarly stick with the current framework, no doubling/etc. of values as all you end up doing is arguing over the said spurious accuracy for no real benefit.
4. Points values are for the whole game and not a sub-set of troops/capabilities. So you can’t just set the points for, say, Pike Vs. Horse whilst ignoring how they also relate to Pike Vs. Warriors. However, if there is a decision to be made it should aim to get the balance between historical match-ups right over ahistorical ones – e.g. if there is doubt over the exact points for Elephants the final choice should be the one that gets the match-ups for Asian warfare best balanced even if they are not quite right for match-ups against TYW armies.
Here is, I think, more or less what came out of the previous discussion and may provide a useful start point this time around. Note, however, that there are other potential changes that may affect this - such as BG break points and better armour.
The obvious biggest single issue is the cost of Determined Horse especially compared to Horse given their relative effectiveness on the table; however, there are a number of other changes that would also be useful such as the cost of Cavalry.
IMO the benchmark for working out what new values would be appropriate is probably that Superior, Heavily Armoured, Horse, Impact Pistol, Melee Pistol should cost the same as Superior, Armoured, determined Horse, Impact Pistol, Melee Pistol – it certainly seemed to have general (but not universal) support as a base when mentioned previously.
One suggested model to start from was:
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 Horse/Cavalry/Camelry 16/13/9/5
Armoured Horse/Cavalry/Camelry 12/10/7/4
Unarmoured Horse/Cavalry/Camelry 10/8/5/3
Armoured Light Horse 12/10/7/4
Unarmoured Light Horse 10/8/5/3
This works on the basis of lowering the cost of Determined Horse. This also assumes no changes are made in respect of Average and Poor mounted relative to other mounted troops and it is worth noting that Average are seen as overpriced (and there are next to no Poor so nobody comments on them) - as mentioned above other changes may affect this.
An alternative points model that takes into account the current issue with Average/Poor was suggested (by Kevin) as:
Armoured Determined Horse 18/15/9/5
Unarmoured Determined Horse 15/12/7/4
Fully- or heavily-Armoured Gendarmes 20/17/10/6
Armoured Cavaliers 17/14/8/4
Unarmoured Cavaliers 14/11/6/3
Heavily Armoured Horse/Cavalry/Camelry 18/15/9/5
Armoured Cavalry/Cavalry/Camelry 15/12/7/4
Unarmoured Horse/Cavalry/Camelry 11/9/5/3
Armoured Light Horse 12/10/7/4
Unarmoured Light Horse 10/8/5/3
Which raises the costs of Elite and Superior up to the current Determined Horse levels whilst keeping Average and Poor at lower levels.
Both of these models are assuming Horse and Cavalry should cost the same – this may not be the case; it is possible that Cavalry should be cheaper than Horse.
Fire away ...