Points Values

[ethan]

There is a lot of talk of points values changes, so I thought I would take a shot at proposing some changes. I am going to do this by troop type rather than the existing system of so much for sword, etc. This does mean I won't get every possible troop type, but I think it is better as a theoretical exercise. I am also assuming wholesale changes to the mangitudes of points is not possible (i.e. we can't say 1600 points is the new 800), however there is no reason not to have 1/2 point values if appropriate IMO.

In general I assume no rules changes - except as noted. Here is a first cut on the main mounted troops.

Knights - assumes that armoured knights gets a 5MU move.

Troop Type Armour Class Training Weapons Old AP Proposed AP
KN Heavily Armoured Superior Drilled Lancer Swordsmen 26 26
KN Heavily Armoured Superior Undrilled Lancer Swordsmen 23 23
KN Heavily Armoured Average Drilled Lancer Swordsmen 21 19
KN Heavily Armoured Average Undrilled Lancer Swordsmen 18 16
KN Armoured Superior Drilled Lancer Swordsmen 22 21
KN Armoured Superior Undrilled Lancer Swordsmen 20 19
KN Armoured Average Drilled Lancer Swordsmen 18 17
KN Armoured Average Undrilled Lancer Swordsmen 16 15

Troop Type Armour Class Training Weapons Old AP Proposed AP
CV Armoured Superior Drilled Bow/Sw 19 19
CV Armoured Superior Undrilled Bow/Sw 18 17.5
CV Armoured Average Drilled Bow/Sw 15 14.5
CV Armoured Average Undrilled Bow/Sw 14 13.5
CV Protected Superior Drilled Bow/Sw 15 14
CV Protected Superior Undrilled Bow/Sw 14 13
CV Protected Average Drilled Bow/Sw 12 11
CV Protected Average Undrilled Bow/Sw 11 10
CV Unprotect Superior Drilled Bow/Sw 13 12
CV Unprotect Superior Undrilled Bow/Sw 12 11
CV Unprotect Average Drilled Bow/Sw 11 10
CV Unprotect Average Undrilled Bow/Sw 10 9

Troop Type Armour Class Training Weapons Old AP Proposed AP
CV Armoured Superior Drilled Lancer Swordsmen 17 18
CV Armoured Superior Undrilled Lancer Swordsmen 16 17
CV Armoured Average Drilled Lancer Swordsmen 13 13
CV Armoured Average Undrilled Lancer Swordsmen 12 12
CV Protected Superior Drilled Lancer Swordsmen 13 12
CV Protected Superior Undrilled Lancer Swordsmen 12 11
CV Protected Average Drilled Lancer Swordsmen 10 9
CV Protected Average Undrilled Lancer Swordsmen 9 8
CV Unprotect Superior Drilled Lancer Swordsmen 11 10
CV Unprotect Superior Undrilled Lancer Swordsmen 10 9
CV Unprotect Average Drilled Lancer Swordsmen 9 8
CV Unprotect Average Undrilled Lancer Swordsmen 8 7
Would keep Lt Spear/Sw same as Lance/Sw as it is now.

[rbodleyscott]

Interesting, and I would not disagree with your analysis.

I would say, however, that I don't think we are in the market for 1/2 point costs, even if this means that the points system won't be "perfect".

[timmy1]

Richard

Agree no 1/2 points so why not just double everything so you can get it perfect?

[rbodleyscott]

Richard

Agree no 1/2 points so why not just double everything so you can get it perfect?

Because we are more interested in user-friendliness than perfection. I am sure that having doubled up points won't be seen as non-user-friendly by many, but I think it would to some newcomers.

[grahambriggs]

Good analysis ethan and I agree in general.

Re the half point troops I would suggest dup undrilled bow/sword cav be 17, average undrilled 13, and average drilled 15. The undrilled cavalry are quite clumsy compared to the drilled variety, with the inability to expand then move a significant issue.

One issue is that most of the suggestions are for point reductions, so armies would be larger. The size of a FOG 800 point army is already a significant barrier to taking up the game. And also, these changes would squeeze the poor mounted types and the weaker foot in time, So I'd suggest a better approach might be to increase the cost of the troops which are currently good value.

[ethan]

One issue is that most of the suggestions are for point reductions, so armies would be larger. The size of a FOG 800 point army is already a significant barrier to taking up the game. And also, these changes would squeeze the poor mounted types and the weaker foot in time, So I'd suggest a better approach might be to increase the cost of the troops which are currently good value.

I think the increase works better on the foot side (maybe I will try that later today) than on the mounted side. Increasing the cost of Ghilman - which often are the only mounted some armies get will make them quite difficult to field. If Ghilman of superior knights go up much I worry we drive them off the table...

On the foot side many more armies have a protected instead of armoured option so increasing the cost of armoured leaves them with some substitutes.

[GHGAustin]

Would keep Lt Spear/Sw same as Lance/Sw as it is now.

Why? Is the general belief that LtSpr CAv is as good as Lnc Cav?

That is certainly not the case in our group. For example, in a 275BC campaign, the Early Rep Romans were fighting lots of the Hellenistic armies. We stopped taking Cav since it is completely outmatched by the Hellenistic cavalry. Even the Carthagenian players feel this to be the case.

[rpayne]

Would keep Lt Spear/Sw same as Lance/Sw as it is now.

Why? Is the general belief that LtSpr CAv is as good as Lnc Cav?

That is certainly not the case in our group. For example, in a 275BC campaign, the Early Rep Romans were fighting lots of the Hellenistic armies. We stopped taking Cav since it is completely outmatched by the Hellenistic cavalry. Even the Carthagenian players feel this to be the case.

Sounds like you guys weren't dropping as much uneven ground as you could have.

[Fluffy]

Sounds like you guys weren't dropping as much uneven ground as you could have.

If you need terrain your troops are weaker.

[rpayne]

It is not weaker, it is just sensible.

In open ground lancer cav has a + vs. light spear cav.

In uneven ground light spear cav has a + vs. lancer cav.


I think the mounted lance is stronger POA wise than the mounted light spear, but it also makes them shock and removes the ability to evade. I think it's fine.

[Polkovnik]

Would keep Lt Spear/Sw same as Lance/Sw as it is now.

Why? Is the general belief that LtSpr CAv is as good as Lnc Cav?

That is certainly not the case in our group. For example, in a 275BC campaign, the Early Rep Romans were fighting lots of the Hellenistic armies. We stopped taking Cav since it is completely outmatched by the Hellenistic cavalry. Even the Carthagenian players feel this to be the case.

Facing any of the following I'd rather have Light spear Cavalry :
Knights
Cataphracts
Pikes
Spearmen

[GHGAustin]

Believe me, we put out as much uneven ground as we could. Only helps if the player with Lances is silly enough to send them in there.

Granted, what I think is probably a stronger argument is the shock for lancers (thus possibility to charge uncontrolled) and the ability of non-shock to evade.

[hammy]

Believe me, we put out as much uneven ground as we could. Only helps if the player with Lances is silly enough to send them in there.

Granted, what I think is probably a stronger argument is the shock for lancers (thus possibility to charge uncontrolled) and the ability of non-shock to evade.

If someone with light spear cavalry wants to fight lancers in a stand up fight then they are going to lose. If on the other hand you are looking for better general purpose cavalry then light spear cavalry have a lot to recommend them. IMO the biggest negative for light spear cavalry compared to lancers is the -1 on CT to defeated opponents at impact.

Being able to evade is a significant benefit.