Points values for mixed BGs

[Polkovnik]

I think there is a problem with the points system when applied to BGs containing a mix of melee troops and missile troops. BGs with a rear rank of MF with Bow or Crossbow effectively get free shooting capability, as they typically cost the same points as the front rank troops with melee capabilities.
I'm talking about troops like Danish or Swedish militia - Front rank Armoured HF Hvy Wpn, Rear rank Armoured Crossbow (Swordsmen maybe also ?). And Assysrian infantry - front rank MF/HF Light Spear Swordsmen, rear rank Bow.

These troops are better in virtually every way than a BG of the straight melee troops, but cost the same points. It is a particular problem with the Assyrians, as it makes this army just about the only competitive army in the Swifter than Eagles book. Any other biblical army (mainly Protected MF Light Spear, Swordsmen or MF Bow) will lose to the assyrian infantry - they either get shot up before and at impact (the MF Light Spear, Swordsmen) or beaten in melee (the MF Bow armies).

The same issue applies to MF Bow with the front rank armed with Light Spear - this costs them no extra points and makes them significantly better than normal MF Bow.

Maybe there should be an extra points cost for troops armed with missile weapons if the BG also has any melee capabilities ?

[grahambriggs]

Mixed formations are usually good value until they lose a base and the bow moves forward into the front rank, at which point they become quite weak.

[Polkovnik]

Mixed formations are usually good value until they lose a base and the bow moves forward into the front rank, at which point they become quite weak.

Not if they're Danish or Swedish Armoured Crossbow Swordsmen. And even if they're Assyrian infantry, they are then no weaker than straight bow.

[spikemesq]

Mixed formations are usually good value until they lose a base and the bow moves forward into the front rank, at which point they become quite weak.

Not if they're Danish or Swedish Armoured Crossbow Swordsmen. And even if they're Assyrian infantry, they are then no weaker than straight bow.

Assyrian infantry do not typically include swords in the back rank. When the rear rank do have swords, the base price accounts for their continuing POA after base losses.

The shooting ability of mixed BGs is paid for in a sense because they do not get any extra shooting bases.

[Polkovnik]

When the rear rank do have swords, the base price accounts for their continuing POA after base losses.

Yes, they pay for swords in the rear rank. But they don't pay points for impact capabilities in the rear rank that are unlikely to be used. In contrast, most normal melee troops have to pay points for impact capabilities in both ranks, even though only the front rank troops are likely to ever use their impact capabilities.

The shooting ability of mixed BGs is paid for in a sense because they do not get any extra shooting bases.

But in a mixed BG all the bases that have paid points for missile weapons get to shoot at full effectiveness. In a normal missile BG, you pay points for every base to have missile weapons but the second rank only shoots with half dice.

I suppose this brings up the question - how can a mixed BG shoot with full dice from the second rank, but a bow only BG gets half dice for the second rank ? Surely the second rank shooters should be at similar effectiveness in both types of BG ?

Anyway, you only have to look at the tournament statistics to see how dominant the Assyrian Armies are in the Swifter than Eagles theme.
There are 24 armies in the book and in over 700 tournament games, the 3 armies with infantry mainly comprising Half Light Spear Swordsmen, Half Bow (the two Assyrian Armies and Urartian) account for 41% of games played and 44% of points scored. It means that in a Swifter than Eagles themed tournament , nearly every other game will be against an Assyrian army.

[philqw78]

Anyway, you only have to look at the tournament statistics to see how dominant the Assyrian Armies are in the Swifter than Eagles theme.
There are 24 armies in the book and in over 700 tournament games, the 3 armies with infantry mainly comprising Half Light Spear Swordsmen, Half Bow (the two Assyrian Armies and Urartian) account for 41% of games played and 44% of points scored. It means that in a Swifter than Eagles themed tournament , nearly every other game will be against an Assyrian army.

This is because the Assyrian army is a decent, not good, army out of theme. It also has good mounted. So it gets more games. The Uratian takes its strngth alomost entirely from its mounted. Its foot are pretty pooh IMO.

[waldo]

I think there is a problem with the points system when applied to BGs containing a mix of melee troops and missile troops. BGs with a rear rank of MF with Bow or Crossbow effectively get free shooting capability, as they typically cost the same points as the front rank troops with melee capabilities.
I'm talking about troops like Danish or Swedish militia - Front rank Armoured HF Hvy Wpn, Rear rank Armoured Crossbow (Swordsmen maybe also ?). And Assysrian infantry - front rank MF/HF Light Spear Swordsmen, rear rank Bow.

These troops are better in virtually every way than a BG of the straight melee troops, but cost the same points. It is a particular problem with the Assyrians, as it makes this army just about the only competitive army in the Swifter than Eagles book. Any other biblical army (mainly Protected MF Light Spear, Swordsmen or MF Bow) will lose to the assyrian infantry - they either get shot up before and at impact (the MF Light Spear, Swordsmen) or beaten in melee (the MF Bow armies).

The same issue applies to MF Bow with the front rank armed with Light Spear - this costs them no extra points and makes them significantly better than normal MF Bow.

Maybe there should be an extra points cost for troops armed with missile weapons if the BG also has any melee capabilities ?

I've never understood the free light spear for foot idea. Isn't cost supposed to somehow reflect effectiveness? Having the extra plus at impact can be the make or break of a unit of archers and it costs no more.

Walter

[hammy]

I've never understood the free light spear for foot idea. Isn't cost supposed to somehow reflect effectiveness? Having the extra plus at impact can be the make or break of a unit of archers and it costs no more.

Light spear is not considered to be good enough as a capability to justify costing a point. Obviously it should be more expensive than no capability but it is also not as good as other capabilities that only cost 1 point.

If FoG used half points for things then light spear for infantry would be a good candidate.

[Polkovnik]

Anyway, you only have to look at the tournament statistics to see how dominant the Assyrian Armies are in the Swifter than Eagles theme.
There are 24 armies in the book and in over 700 tournament games, the 3 armies with infantry mainly comprising Half Light Spear Swordsmen, Half Bow (the two Assyrian Armies and Urartian) account for 41% of games played and 44% of points scored. It means that in a Swifter than Eagles themed tournament , nearly every other game will be against an Assyrian army.

This is because the Assyrian army is a decent, not good, army out of theme.

No, 26 out of the 41 times this has been used in tournaments have been at themed events.

Here's an example : Warfare 2009 Biblical, out of 18 entrants the top three were :
1st Neo-Assyrian Empire
2nd Urartian
3rd Neo-Assyrian Empire

Here's another : Campaign 2010. 9 out of 14 armies in this biblical themed tournament are Assyrian or Urartian. 1st and 2nd place are Neo-Assyrian and Urartian.

[philqw78]

No, 26 out of the 41 times this has been used in tournaments have been at themed events.

Here's an example : Warfare 2009 Biblical, out of 18 entrants the top three were :
1st Neo-Assyrian Empire
2nd Urartian
3rd Neo-Assyrian Empire

I know, I was there. But that means 15 times have been out of theme. How often have other StE armies been used out of theme. The Urartian is a dog out of theme. I know I've used it.

[Polkovnik]

But that means 15 times have been out of theme. .

And achieved some of its worst results, for example :
23rd out of 24
28th out of 34
9th out of 14
28th out of 28
12th out of 12

It is not very good in an open tournament. In theme, it dominates, and I think that is largely due to the mixed foot BGs.

[philqw78]

Its more likely because it can have armoured drilled foot and good cavalry. Many in the book have mixed BG. Few have armoured foot.

[Polkovnik]

Many in the book have mixed BG.

Which other armies have mixed BGs ? I thought it was only the three I've mentioned that have front rank melee troops with rear rank bow forming the bulk of their infantry.

[nikgaukroger]

Many in the book have mixed BG.

Which other armies have mixed BGs ? I thought it was only the three I've mentioned that have front rank melee troops with rear rank bow forming the bulk of their infantry.

Nikeforian, Later Crusader if you take the Richard I option and early Tang all spring to mind.

[grahambriggs]

But that means 15 times have been out of theme. .

And achieved some of its worst results, for example :
23rd out of 24
28th out of 34
9th out of 14
28th out of 28
12th out of 12

It is not very good in an open tournament. In theme, it dominates, and I think that is largely due to the mixed foot BGs.

In theme it can dominate some of the earlier armies as it has similar troops but better. There are armies that are good against it though - e.g. Akkadian

[Polkovnik]

Many in the book have mixed BG.

Which other armies have mixed BGs ? I thought it was only the three I've mentioned that have front rank melee troops with rear rank bow forming the bulk of their infantry.

Nikeforian, Later Crusader if you take the Richard I option and early Tang all spring to mind.

Nik, "the book" we were referring to is Swifter Than Eagles.

[Polkovnik]

In theme it can dominate some of the earlier armies as it has similar troops but better.

Yes, better but costing the same points

[DavidT]

I think there is a problem with the points system when applied to BGs containing a mix of melee troops and missile troops. BGs with a rear rank of MF with Bow or Crossbow effectively get free shooting capability, as they typically cost the same points as the front rank troops with melee capabilities.
I'm talking about troops like Danish or Swedish militia - Front rank Armoured HF Hvy Wpn, Rear rank Armoured Crossbow (Swordsmen maybe also ?). And Assysrian infantry - front rank MF/HF Light Spear Swordsmen, rear rank Bow.

These troops are better in virtually every way than a BG of the straight melee troops, but cost the same points. It is a particular problem with the Assyrians, as it makes this army just about the only competitive army in the Swifter than Eagles book. Any other biblical army (mainly Protected MF Light Spear, Swordsmen or MF Bow) will lose to the assyrian infantry - they either get shot up before and at impact (the MF Light Spear, Swordsmen) or beaten in melee (the MF Bow armies).

The same issue applies to MF Bow with the front rank armed with Light Spear - this costs them no extra points and makes them significantly better than normal MF Bow.

Maybe there should be an extra points cost for troops armed with missile weapons if the BG also has any melee capabilities ?

This is not true of all mixed BGs. Many later armies have mixed Def Sp/Bw (or XBw) BGs and these are not as good. Because spear need to fight in two ranks to benefit from a POA, the one rank of spear mixed BG is a poorer option - it doesn't fight as well as an equivalent all spear formation and it doesn't shoot as well as an all Bw formation - in fact an all Bw BG (with the same armour) will usually chew it up. It either stands and shoots with only 2/3 of the firepower or charges in and has to take the impact shooting. Similarly an all spear BG will kill it as its shooting isn't effective enough to stop the all spear BG.

[Polkovnik]

This is not true of all mixed BGs. Many later armies have mixed Def Sp/Bw (or XBw) BGs and these are not as good. .

I agree, these are crap. Maybe they should be changed to Light Spear. Why would such a formation have been used if there weren't enough spearmen to be useful (i.e. gain a POA) ?

[hazelbark]

Raising the cost of Light spear in foot would serve to reduce foot and increase mounted relatively at this point.

The light spear is important I agree. But I am not sure this is helpful.