Slitherine

I agree with Nosy_Rat. You don't see armies of this sort surviving in Classical. It is because of the lack of good affordable infantry options in Late Antiquity.

Pete and I's current game is likely to end in a draw, but as he says he is on two large hills that I can't feasibly assault. I suspect on a flat map my Romans would be able to roll over him.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 4:12 pm I agree with Nosy_Rat. You don't see armies of this sort surviving in Classical. It is because of the lack of good affordable infantry options in Late Antiquity.

Right, so it really is a metagame thing.

In which case some sort of specific tweak may be appropriate.

In my experience the overall balance of FoG2 is pretty good at the moment and changing the entire pricing system just to fix one list is very likely to break way more lists. The balance effects couldn't really be properly tested in just beta either.

On the other hand universal basic cost could shift the overall balance of the game slightly towards higher quality units from the current bias towards cheap unit. Basic cost would also makes sense since currently you don't really need to pay anything for the all important maneuvering unit itself, just its capabilities, so being an individual unit is basically free extra that you get with unit of any price. Basic cost could also open the door for greater variety in low-quality units like below-average cavalry and skirmishers that are currently considered too cheap to be included in the game.

For balance fix alone I don't think universal base cost would be worth the risk, but if it came with option for below-average Greek/Indian cavalry, low quality skirmishers and higher quality light units (that would actually be worth their cost compared to averages), it certainly sounds like a worthwhile experiment.

The record of the Kingdom of Soissons army in Season 7 was (WDL). . .

9-0-0 + 6-0-3 + 5-0-4 = 20 wins and 7 defeats (losing to Palmyrans, Franks, Romans (x2), Bosporan, Jewish and Germanic Horse Tribes).

and the Romano-British just had one player with 6 wins and 3 defeats (losing to Hunnic, Roman and Kingdom of Soissons).

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 4:19 pm

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Fri Apr 17, 2020 4:12 pm I agree with Nosy_Rat. You don't see armies of this sort surviving in Classical. It is because of the lack of good affordable infantry options in Late Antiquity.

Right, so it really is a metagame thing.

In which case some sort of specific tweak may be appropriate.

100% it is a metagame issue. It is one we have known about for a long time. Hence my PMs about specific bans on allies for some of those lists in Late Antiquity lists that were already uber strong. Not always a bad thing. Different flavours for different time periods. But given that each DLC covers a different time period, trying to apply a game wide point adjustment to hammer one specific army and time period seems questionable.

This is what I propose for the next beta:

Romano-British

I am not very keen on completely revamping the Romano-British list with new unit types, and certainly not with more Roman types.

How about this:

1) Sub-Roman Foot become 3-deep, which raises their cost to 41 points (from 30)

plus

2) Reduce available number of Brythonic Foot.

plus

3) Remove the Roman allies.

----------------------------------------------

Soissons

In Soissons list, Limitanei to be replaced by the new larger Sub-Roman Foot units.

----------------------------------------------

Of course, the change to the Sub-Roman Foot units will also affect the Frankish 496-599, Visigothic 419-621 and Breton 411-479 lists, but they are not compulsory in those lists.

With Richard's new ideas a Romano-British (1200pt) army might look like this . . .

1x Armoured Noble Cavalry - 64pts
4x Noble cavalry - 176pts
1x Light javelin Horse - 48pts
3x Warband - 174pts
6x Brythonic - 198pts
11x Sub-Roman - 451pts (instead of 330pts)
3x light archers - 90pts

Total - 29 units

So to me that looks fine and a big improvement on what we have now. Regarding not having new Romanised units in the list (in the way Kingdom of Soissons has) then that is OK as well, but I would not have the compulsory 3+ units for Brythonic foot and Sub-Roman foot. Given that the dates for the list are 407 AD to 599 AD, I think we could say that the 5thC lineup would likely have had a larger Sub-Roman element (in relation to the Brythonic element), but as time progressed then the Roman military traditions dwindled and by the 6thC the army composition would have been much more Brythonic. Removing the compulsory 3+ units allows players to pick both types of army from the list.

This looks like a good solution, similar to what was done successfully with Raw Shieldwalls. The Brythonic Foot remain, but both times I faced them in the last DL season as Byzantines I came out on top, so I don't know if I feel that they necessarily need to change. One thing at a time, I suppose.

In fact my only concern while testing will be, is 41 pts so expensive that now nobody will bother fielding them?

For the Kingdom of Soissons army, you could now pick . . .

1x Veteran Roman Cavalry - 60pts
4x Roman Cavalry - 160pts
2x Light Javelin Horse - 48pts
3x Warband - 174pts
4x Auxilia Palatina - 216pts
3x Legio Comitatensis -153pts
7x Sub-Roman Foot - 287pts (was Limitanei 168pts)
2x Slingers - 48 points
2x Light Javelins - 48 points

Total 28 units

Again, I think this looks much better and it brings the total number of units in the army down below 30 again (as the change does for the Romano-British).

I think these changes will make a big difference to both armies. Hopefully we can have them in time for June 1st when Season 8 begins.

SnuggleBunnies wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:19 am This looks like a good solution, similar to what was done successfully with Raw Shieldwalls. The Brythonic Foot remain, but both times I faced them in the last DL season as Byzantines I came out on top, so I don't know if I feel that they necessarily need to change. One thing at a time, I suppose.

In fact my only concern while testing will be, is 41 pts so expensive that now nobody will bother fielding them?

Perhaps, but nobody is forced to pick the armies that use them, and without them, the army become very similar to some other armies that are currently less popular.

41 points is what they should cost under the current points system. Only testing can determine if that is about right.

I am inclined to leave in the current minima to force them to be used.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:20 amI think these changes will make a big difference to both armies. Hopefully we can have them in time for June 1st when Season 8 begins.

A bit tight for that, I fear, as there will be other changes in the update that require proper beta testing.

It is, however, likely to be released part-way through season 8.

You could always ban those 2 armies for season 8 to avoid the issue.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:49 am

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:20 amI think these changes will make a big difference to both armies. Hopefully we can have them in time for June 1st when Season 8 begins.

A bit tight for that, I fear, as there will be other changes in the update that require proper beta testing.

It is, however, likely to be released part-way through season 8.

You could always ban those 2 armies for season 8 to avoid the issue.

OK then. There is a precedent for banning armies for a short period. We did that with the Indian and Indo-Greek In Season 2, I think it was.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:46 am I am inclined to leave in the current minima to force them to be used.

I would keep the minima for Kingdom of Soissons army, but would consider removing it for the Romano-British as that army spans nearly 200 years and would likely be very different at the end of that period to what it was at the start.

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:58 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:46 am I am inclined to leave in the current minima to force them to be used.

I would keep the minima for Kingdom of Soissons army, but would consider removing it for the Romano-British as that army spans nearly 200 years and would likely be very different at the end of that period to what it was at the start.

Agreed, but the reason for retaining the minima would be to limit free choice for tournament balancing purposes.

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 12:05 pm

stockwellpete wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:58 am

rbodleyscott wrote: ↑Mon May 04, 2020 11:46 am I am inclined to leave in the current minima to force them to be used.

I would keep the minima for Kingdom of Soissons army, but would consider removing it for the Romano-British as that army spans nearly 200 years and would likely be very different at the end of that period to what it was at the start.

Agreed, but the reason for retaining the minima would be to limit free choice for tournament balancing purposes.

You have Brythonics at 3+0/15 at the moment. What were you thinking of reducing them to? If you reduced them to 3+0/9 or 0/12, it would mean a player maxing out on Brythonic foot (and all the other troop types too) to create a "later" Romano-British army would still need to pick 3x Sub-Roman foot units, whether they were compulsory or not, to use up all their points allocation. And that would give you an army of 31 units, which I think is still just about OK.

On the other hand, a player wanting to pick an "earlier" Romano-British HF army could (if the Sub-Roman foot were either 3+0/9 or 0/12) max out on Sub-Roman foot (and all the other troop types too) would still need to pick at least 1 Brythonic foot unit (if they were 0/12). This would give an army of 29 units (and the player would have 27pts still to use).

Here is what I have at the moment:

Yes, I think that is OK. You can pick an "early" Romano-British army from it without any Brythonics, which is good. For a "later" army you do have to pick 4 HF units, but I would assume that by the 6thC that the Romano-British (to the extent that they were still seeing themselves as such) were adopting more Germanic military tenets anyway, so the HF is not too much of a problem here.

Wow, I am fried digesting this in one read. Just an FYI. As you may be aware from the thread on Medium infantry, I said I would look at segmenting the data by skill level. I am through season 4 so far (Don't ask me for a synthesis yet) but I will finish compiling Late Antiquity only through season 7 to see what may be seen with respect to the impact of skill. Too much for me to do all results at once. Plus I want input to see if there are insights and not just data before I would continue.

nyczar wrote: ↑Tue May 12, 2020 8:09 pm Wow, I am fried digesting this in one read. Just an FYI. As you may be aware from the thread on Medium infantry, I said I would look at segmenting the data by skill level. I am through season 4 so far (Don't ask me for a synthesis yet) but I will finish compiling Late Antiquity only through season 7 to see what may be seen with respect to the impact of skill. Too much for me to do all results at once. Plus I want input to see if there are insights and not just data before I would continue.

That would be interesting.

Hard to resist a chance to share some data and maybe spark some insight.

My hypothesis (from a different thread) was that the "dominance" of lists made up of of less trained and less well armored troops (cheaper) fades as the skill level of the enemy general increases

To explore this, I researched data on all medal winners in the Late Antiquity division. I choose LA because it is one of two Ages with 7 seasons and the one that seems to have much debate, including the nerfing talked about here.

I tabulated who placed first, second, or third, in each division. I got the medal counts, the exact lists that won, the players, the win, draw, and loss records. I then segmented into two groups: Group one is Division A and B players (high skill and experience) and group two is all others(C,D,E -growing skill and experience). What are the win percentages by skill/experience?

The raw data is interesting and here it is:

(The first win percentage is all divisions)

On my next post which I may finish tonight but probably not, I will share a subset of data made up only the lists played by both groups. That is where I think the most insights will be found.