Coerced into becoming a boring piece of artillery
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.