Points cost for foot Light Spear

[rpayne]

It has eternally bothered me that light spear is free for foot.

While for 95% of unit types I feel their relative point values are fair, balanced and sensical, this singular issue creates a couple things that I think are problems. Namely bow-lightspear foot such as Early Persians, who seem to be way too cost efficient, and Swordsmen who do not have Light Spear but cost the same as troops who do, such as later Indian foot. These guys seem to just be terrible and unusable.

There's also the whole thing about Blood and Gold medium foot getting all those free Javelins, but I'm mixed on that one. I don't feel like units should be getting weapons for free, but on the other hand I think the free Javelins is what lets the Aztec armies remain competitive, since they are mostly terrain armies with no way to get high initiative. I also think this problem would be harder to fix. So I'm less concerned with this one.

I'm wondering if the points cost of these units is something other people see as a problem. I'm not sure I have a great solution for it, because it would be a tricky thing to fix.


However, since I feel like I should offer a suggestion, I have played around with the points values a little.

If you drop the base points cost of all foot stands by 1, and then increase the points cost of all foot Impact and Missile weapons by 1, excepting Bow* and Javelins which remain the same, you get the following results:

The vast majority of troop types remain the same cost.

Bow Lightspear cost 1 point more.

Swords & Skilled Swords with no impact or shooting POA cost 1 point less.

Mob costs 1 point less.


I think mob costing less would be a problem, because 1 point stands of mob would likely be too cost efficient as filler. So it's not a perfect fix, but tell me what you guys think.

[hammy]

I'm wondering if the points cost of these units is something other people see as a problem. I'm not sure I have a great solution for it, because it would be a tricky thing to fix.

Spot on, it is not easy to fix

Bow Lightspear cost 1 point more.
Swords & Skilled Swords with no impact or shooting POA cost 1 point less.
Mob costs 1 point less.
I think mob costing less would be a problem, because 1 point stands of mob would likely be too cost efficient as filler. So it's not a perfect fix, but tell me what you guys think.

So what you are saying is that bow light spear should cost the same as bow sword, swordsman with no impact POA should be free and mob should be 1 point a base??

Like you said, it is tricky

[ethan]

Easier fix is to give troops with Sword only some additional capability, possibly some sort of limited impact PoA. Something like:

Troops with sword only get

+ in impact vs. non-shock mounted or if not charging shock mounted (i.e. same as lt spear)

Possibly you could make the liable to charge without orders as well and give them something like:

-1 to CT for LF, MF, non-shock mounted (excepting Elephants) for losing to sword only in impact.

This makes them a kind of "impact foot light" which seems to me suits the majority of the troop type such as Indian Swordsmen. It would also make the various Chinese swordsmen only troops semi-worthwhile.

[dave_r]

Easier fix is to give troops with Sword only some additional capability, possibly some sort of limited impact PoA. Something like:

Troops with sword only get

+ in impact vs. non-shock mounted or if not charging shock mounted (i.e. same as lt spear)

Possibly you could make the liable to charge without orders as well and give them something like:

-1 to CT for LF, MF, non-shock mounted (excepting Elephants) for losing to sword only in impact.

This makes them a kind of "impact foot light" which seems to me suits the majority of the troop type such as Indian Swordsmen. It would also make the various Chinese swordsmen only troops semi-worthwhile.

I think that would make them too good against bowmen.

[hazelbark]

Well the indian civil war is an interesting interaction.

Swordsmen are very vulnerable to bowmen.
Both are usually unprotected.

The Bow get their shooting at + POA
Then in Impact the POAs are even and the 2nd rank of bow are even as well. It makes it very hard for the swordsmen to close sucessfully. I get the sense that the swordsmen were historically more dangerous than the current ratings suggest to their historical contemporaries.

[rpayne]

Personally I am a little confused as to why they are graded as unprotected.

I have been to the history museums in Delhi, Bombay and Jaipur where they have the old Rajput and Moghul equipment. Lot of armor in there. But I don't really know much about the area in that period.

I am more concerned with the points cost issue right now!

So what you are saying is that bow light spear should cost the same as bow sword, swordsman with no impact POA should be free and mob should be 1 point a base??

Like you said, it is tricky

No, I'm saying that bow light spear should cost the same as bow sword, and swordsmen with no impact POA should cost the same as light spear with no melee POA.

I agree that 1 point mob is an issue. It is in fact tricky.

I don't see why bow lightspear is not just as scary as bow sword though.

[nikgaukroger]

Personally I am a little confused as to why they are graded as unprotected.

I have been to the history museums in Delhi, Bombay and Jaipur where they have the old Rajput and Moghul equipment. Lot of armor in there. But I don't really know much about the area in that period.

Because the armour was not for the proles.

[philqw78]

I don't see why bow lightspear is not just as scary as bow sword though.

Because LT Spear only works in impact, sword works every round of melee. Run your Lt Sp - against - Sw calculations. The Lt spear need to be very very lucky in impact.

[rpayne]

Sure, lets do some simple math.

We have two units, one 8 Unprotected Bow LS MF, one 8 Unprotected SW MF. Equal points cost. Sword charges Bow, as otherwise the Bow would just stand there and shoot them to death.

Unit A has 12 dice needing 4's
Unit B has 8 dice needing 5's

Average here is 6 hits for the Bow, 2.66 for the swords.

The melee then favors the Swords, however, only by an average 1.33 if they survived impact unscathed, by .83 if they past their test but lost a stand, and only by .33 if they disrupted, and if they lost a stand and disrupted (most likely outcome), the battle then favors the bow (2.66 hits to 2.5 hits)

Here is the results of 20 simulations of the above combat:
Bow 10 wins. 8 steady, 2 disrupted. Combat 3 turns average.
Swords 10 wins. 7 steady, 3 disrupted. Combat 3.8 turns average.

From this simulation, while both units have the same chance of breaking the other, the Bow are on average winning in fewer turns and with fewer losses when they win. And remember, even this math is assuming our swords unit took no losses from shooting coming in. The reality is that, statistically, because the bow shoots at range it has even higher chances of winning this combat.


Then lets tack on some other notables, because everything can look skewed in a vacuum:

Our Bow LS unit shoots, its LS works vs. steady Spear, Pike, SSW and Elephants.

The only time our Sword is giving a bonus and Bow LS isn't is vs. LS armed Cavalry in the open, or if the Bow charge. Bow rarely want to charge, except against better Bow.

So as far as utility goes, and bonuses vs. different troop types, I'd argue pretty heavily our Bow LS is more flexible than our SW, because they shoot and maintain a bonus vs. more different troop types.


These two troop types cost the same number of points. To be fair, the higher the armor grade of both units, the more things will start to favor the Sword, but I hope you see why I think it's a problem.

[spikemesq]

How does Unit A get 12 dice needing 4s in the impact phase? It should be 8 dice needing 4s and 4 dice needing 5s for impact shooting, shouldn't it?

[rpayne]

Not vs. unprotected swords.

That's why I said if armor values are equal, it favors the swords more the higher the equal armor values are.

However, it is a difference of 2/3 of a hit per armor value. Even at protected, the Bow is still likely winning the combat by 2, just much less likely to cause 2 casualties on impact.

I used unprotected for the maths because I wanted to illustrate how absolute crap the later Hindu Indian foot is.

[hammy]

Protected bow sword MF are IMO significantly better than protected bow light spear MF. Perhaps in a direct one on one matchup the light spear ones have an advantage but that is only if the bow sword ones charge the light spear ones. The other way round the light spear is not a lot of help at all.

Remember that points costs need to be considered as a package across all possible opponents.

Heavy armour is actually no better than protected against unprotected melee troops. Swordsman is utterly useless against skilled swordsman etc.

While I agree that unprotected MF sword only are pants that is IMO because they are at one extreme of the troop type spectrum.

[spikemesq]

Not vs. unprotected swords.

That's why I said if armor values are equal, it favors the swords more the higher the equal armor values are.

However, it is a difference of 2/3 of a hit per armor value. Even at protected, the Bow is still likely winning the combat by 2, just much less likely to cause 2 casualties on impact.

I used unprotected for the maths because I wanted to illustrate how absolute crap the later Hindu Indian foot is.

Do shooting POAs "net out"? Bows are + vs. unprotected foot, but - if shooting in impact. I thought the impact shooting POA was the only one to apply.

[rpayne]

The impact shooting POA is the shooting POA with an additional -.

So the impact shooting hit roll is 4 vs unprotected, 5 vs protected, 6 vs armored, etc.


Hammy, I disagree. I think the BW/SW may be a little bit better than the BW/LS, but not significantly. In a direct confrontation the swords are likely better, although in a direct bow vs. bow confrontation with the same armor value the winner is likely whoever disrupts the other first in shooting.

However, vs spear, pike, elephants or SSW, the BW/LS guys are better than BW/SW in my eyes. I see a lot more spear, pike, elephants and SSW on the table than I do BW/SW.

In any case, it's not really a question of is lightspear as good as swords. It's more a point that BW/LS is significantly better than just having bow, and them costing the same points presents a problem. By the same token, just having swords is significantly worse than LS/SW.

[philqw78]

. By the same token, just having swords is significantly worse than LS/SW.

And just having Lt Sp is far far worse then just having sword. Ask anyone who uses LH. Would they take LH Jav, Lt Sp or LH Sw (even tho I don't think they exist). I would rather have the ones with sword even without the Jav shooting.

[rpayne]

You cannot compare mounted Lightspear to foot Lightspear, because the mounted Lightspear is worse. Also costs more.

You also cannot compare mounted Swords to foot Swords, because the mounted Swords is better. Also costs more.

[philqw78]

OK then foot with Lt Sp or foot with sword. Even though foot with light spear are cheaper I would still take foot with sword.

How is a mounted sword better than a foot sword. For one it costs more, as much as skilled sword, and then it does not cancel Hvy Wpn nor other swords.

[spikemesq]

OK then foot with Lt Sp or foot with sword. Even though foot with light spear are cheaper I would still take foot with sword.

How is a mounted sword better than a foot sword. For one it costs more, as much as skilled sword, and then it does not cancel Hvy Wpn nor other swords.

SSw do not get a + against a mounted Sw.

[rpayne]

I would take foot with only LS over foot with only SW any day, because the LS foot cost less.

Both units are likely to be used primarily as rear support, because both of them are going to be crap against any kind of serious opponents. However, the LS cost less.

Plus, if push comes to shove, LS only foot are just as good against say, Elephants, as IF/SW or IF/SSW or LS/SW. There are certain troop types I wouldn't mind fighting with the LS only foot in an emergency.

The SW only guys I wouldn't want to send into anything, except maybe the LS only guys.

[ShrubMiK]

The Sw only guys are, on average, across a broad variety of possible matchups, less crap against serious opponents than the LS only guys. As long as they participate in at least 2 rounds of melee, they'll get more POA benefit than the LS did in the one impact phase, and even if they lost the impact phase and were disrupted the extra melee POA still often comes out as a net benefit. (e.g. 3 dice at 4/5/6 is 1.5 mean hits, 4 dice at 5/6 is 1.33 mean hits).

Agree both sorts are likely to be best suited to rear support of better troops, assuming you have them, but it's also possible if you are so minded to find more aggressive uses for them. Ok they are quite likely to die, but they are cheap both in points spent to buy them, and perhaps in attrition points (although the BG counts for the same number of AP, the fact you spent fewer points to buy it means you have more points to spend elsewhere, which in turn may mean your army has more BG so the loss of your unit of crap contributes less towards breaking the army). And while the enemy is mopping up the crap with his serious troops, you are hopefully achieving something elsewhere with your serious troops.

edit - just realised I have not engaged with the original point of the thread!

I too think that LS should not be free. (Nor should any other weapon POAs). How that is achieved is another matter. The fact that it is "tricky" doesn't excuse not making the effort to do so - I'm sure balancing all the other weapon capabilities was tricky and no one would claim that it was perfectly achieved either! But it's mostly near enough for practical purposes...whereas a free, generally useful POA is about as obviously unbalanced as it gets.