army list policy on evening out

[marshalney2000]

This comment is more of a feeling but I get the idea that in pursuit of evening out armies a decision has been taken to not penalise an army by forcing them to take poor quality troops. For example,Hunter Hope let me see the draft of the Later Ach Persian list where the main cavalry arm can be superior, average or poor. Now most players unless struggling for points will go for the top end of the range. Equally no where else in the list is there any pull towards having any compulsory fiiler (ok crap) troops. At worst I would have expected the old dbm device of for example of making a certain proportion of different classes. I have had asimilar feel about other lists.
As I said I am not being critical but just wondered if this was a play fair device.
At least the Persians cannot have an IC
John

[rbodleyscott]

This comment is more of a feeling but I get the idea that in pursuit of evening out armies a decision has been taken to not penalise an army by forcing them to take poor quality troops. For example,Hunter Hope let me see the draft of the Later Ach Persian list where the main cavalry arm can be superior, average or poor. Now most players unless struggling for points will go for the top end of the range. Equally no where else in the list is there any pull towards having any compulsory fiiler (ok crap) troops. At worst I would have expected the old dbm device of for example of making a certain proportion of different classes. I have had asimilar feel about other lists.
As I said I am not being critical but just wondered if this was a play fair device.
At least the Persians cannot have an IC
John

The general list policy is to be somewhat more lenient than the DBM lists. We don't want to nobble any of the armies. The aim is for AoW to be fun. Nit-picking army lists are not on the agenda.

Also, the less permissive classifications in the DBM lists allowed for only one interpretation of the evidence. e.g. All Arab spearmen are bad - this is probably not historically sustainable. The DBM LAP list was a case in point - nobbled by 12 elements of compulsory Cv (I) for which the evidence is arguable at best. In fact, I only put the Poor option in for them recently so that those who hold to that (doubtful) interpretation of the history should be given the option. I never expected anyone except masochists to take it up!

If we get the points system right then skilled players should be able to get good mileage out of poor troops. I thought Bruce's Parthian army with 5 BGs of poor LF looked great. A certain type of player will always choose the super option even if the points system is properly balanced, but that is really only a problem if the points system isn't right.

We are in the process of revising the points system at the moment, and we have increased the differential between top of the range troops, PBI and cannon fodder.

The army lists are permissive both ways. So if you want to turn out something "more historical" for historical match-ups you can do so.

[nikgaukroger]

I believe you will only find crap troops as compulsory where we can be certain they were typical. To use your LAP example I don't see the DBM list's Cv(I) as representing anything typical at, say, Granikos or Issos but there were poor cavalry at Gaugamela.

So it isn't an artificial balancing - that is what the points system should do and make it a choice to field larger numbers of weak troops compared to a smaller number of strong troops but the armies should work out pretty much as usuable as each other.

Also it worth remembering not to believe everything you read in a DBM list

BTW the Persians can have an IC

[marshalney2000]

Gentlemen, as stated before I have no grouse with the approach taken and indeed welcome the concept that all armies should be playable and produce a good game. I do not hold dbm lists as being sacrosanct and indeed have been frustrated for years by Mr Barker's unwillingness to listen to any point of view that did not fit his own opinions regarding troop types and performance.
I was really just interested in knowing the thinking that had gone into what I suspected was your the approach and philosophy. I can now look at all the lists with that in mind.
John

[nikgaukroger]

John, any feedback on the ones you see is appreciated.