Victory & Defeat

[petedalby]

If I read P68 correctly, each BG is effectively worth 1 point, irrespective of its size or quality.

So for Victory & Defeat, the loss of say 6 Helots, worth 12 points, has the same effect as losing 8 Elite Spartan Hoplites, worth 96 points. The loss of either counts as 2 Attrition Points.

Is that representative?

In game terms a large number of cheap units to bulk up the army looks a good option - again I'm not sure that is right.

As an alternative why not just count up the points of the losses you've inflicted. Full points for any enemy troops broken, routed off table or destroyed. Half points for those that left the table for any other reason, straggling or fragmented. Plus 50 points for sacking the camp? Plus the value of generals killed?

In a competition this would encourage players to get stuck in. An ineffective skirmish would not be beneficial for either player. Knocking great lumps out each other would be rewarded. It also ensures that the loss of your best troops is more costly than the loss of the dross.

Pete

[shall]

That's an issue we would invite plenty of comment on. Certainly it seems odd at first glance but almost all units are useful in AOW. We have tried to start simple on the grounds that we can always make it more complicated if need be. Examples of where it has been good or bad very welcome as are other general views.

Si

[bddbrown]

Scoring systems are hard. Whichever way you come down on this there is always a way to exploit a scoring system. For example if you use points then there is a temptation to attack with waves of cheap scrot and bulk out the army with expensive troops that dare not fight. The reverse Saba if you like.

At least with the current system it encourages you to use your most expensive troops and keep the scrot out of the way. And it encourages your opponent to look for the soft targets.

[nikgaukroger]

If the game can be played in such a time that if an army is constructed on the well known DBM premise of killer + filler it can be defeated then the situation may be OK.

One thing DBM did that is good is make taking the crud meaningful - nearly all previous rule sets meant players avoided trash troops even if they were relatively common to the army.

[petedalby]

All valid points.

But looking at some of the sample lists there are opportunities to field units of 4 Poor LF - so a BG at a cost of just 8 points? And probably not too hard to hide away out of harm's reach. I struggle to see what value they could add, other than as filler.

The nobility would watch those guys being slaughtered all day and not be too worried. But the reverse certainly wasn't true.

Pete

[bddbrown]

Hmm, good point. We don't want Saba style filler armies. However, I reckon they might be harder to hide away than you think. You just need to make sure your army has the right tools to winkle them out. Best way to find out is for someone to try it in game!

This was probably the opposite feeling Stephen and I had in our Fourth game where 3 of the routed BGs were Lh and 1 was of infantry. The other fighting troops - a BG of infantry and two knight BGs were untouched - especially galling as one of the Knight BGs were Elite Royal Banderium.

However, I would say that even if the game didn't feel like it the army should rout at that point - giving us the feeling that the game had ended early - the battle was essentially over (very little chance the Kn and infantry would be surrounded and mobbed) and it was not an unreasonable place to stop the game.

[nikgaukroger]

All valid points.

But looking at some of the sample lists there are opportunities to field units of 4 Poor LF - so a BG at a cost of just 8 points? And probably not too hard to hide away out of harm's reach. I struggle to see what value they could add, other than as filler.

Pete

I don't think there are any armies that can have too many of these, however, something for the list team to keep an eye on methinks - we can always bulk up the BG size if needs be.

[shall]

Just to say this are is very much open territory. We'll be looking at solving such things through the scoring system and how it interacts with the lists. As nick says the lists are being created quite carefully to try to avoid filler armies which we are keen to eliminate.

At present the scoring system does make you treat you skimrishers as valuable assets and avoids the opportunity to throw them away willy nilly. This is partly because the rules have - by design - made skirmish fire used well of some value. If they were 1 pount if lost we were concerned get too much dominance from mass skirmish armies for instance. E.g. how about an army of all LH with 12 BGs? Solutions for this while staying simple? So that was our thinking for better or worse.... start it simple and we can always compexify it if needed.........go for it with all ideas/comments even if it starts with "Its Rubbish".

I think this is one of those where we would like to poll you all with several options once a lot of people have some games under their belt. Bit like the points system from that point of view.

By all means chuck as many ideas at us as you have.

Si