Leeds issues,shooty cav armies

[rbodleyscott]

Would you think that the armoured Greek idea is a better test ? Would Principate Roman be more like it? Should I try against a Dominate Roman?

Any of these would probably be a better test. Of course, cataphracts would be quite handy too.

[hammy]

Would you think that the armoured Greek idea is a better test ? Would Principate Roman be more like it? Should I try against a Dominate Roman?

Any of these would probably be a better test. Of course, cataphracts would be quite handy too.

Not sure about the cataphracts. The Lorainer knights didn't do that well (see the rout thread)

Hammy

[rbodleyscott]

So balance for 15 mm @800 pts on 6x4 should work for 25 mm @ 532 pts.

Indeed, but I cannot see players wanting to play with such small armies, even in singles tournaments. Even if the 25mm game size is reduced to 700 points (I cannot see players wanting to play much less than that), the infantry/cavalry balance will still be significantly different for 25mm and 15mm.

And yes 1000 points is probably the right size for 15mm pairs tournaments, but singles will probably be 800.

[rbodleyscott]

Not sure about the cataphracts. The Lorainer knights didn't do that well (see the rout thread)

They will be better for attacking with than defending with.

[lawrenceg]

So balance for 15 mm @800 pts on 6x4 should work for 25 mm @ 532 pts.

Indeed, but I cannot see players wanting to play with such small armies, even in singles tournaments. Even if the 25mm game size is reduced to 700 points (I cannot see players wanting to play much less than that), the infantry/cavalry balance will still be significantly different for 25mm and 15mm.

And yes 1000 points is probably the right size for 15mm pairs tournaments, but singles will probably be 800.

If 25 mm at 532 pts gives a similar game to 15 mm at 800 pts, why would people not want to use armies of that size?

I was not advocating 1000 pts in 15 mm as a standard singles game. I was suggesting that it should be "the point of ideal balance". Then 800 pts at 15 mm or 25 mm would both be not too far from the point of ideal balance and hopefully well within the "good game envelope".

If you anticipate 700 pts on 6x4 as the standard for 25 mm singles, this equates to 1050 pts in 15 mm so your ideal balance point would be the average of 1050 pts and 800 pts in 15 mm i.e.

925 pts in 15 mm.

Lawrence Greaves

[rbodleyscott]

If 25 mm at 532 pts gives a similar game to 15 mm at 800 pts, why would people not want to use armies of that size?

It wouldn't give a similar game, it would only give a similar infantry/cavalry balance.

The main reason people wouldn't want to play it at that size is that they would only get about 8 BGs to play with. There are several reasons why that would be undesirable, including the feeling of not enough maneouvre units for interest and an increased effect of luck as loss of each BG becomes more critical.

Also, as we have seen in DBM, there is the creeping effect of inflation on competition army sizes. When we started 25mm tournaments on 6x4 tables in the South West, initially the armies were 300 points. This gave a well balanced game. However, people complained that they did not have enough variety in their armies etc, and the points gradually crept up to 325 and then 350. Then the "Worlds" at Derby went to 400 points and that is how it stuck for several years. It was too many points and made it impossible to achieve anything with a cavalry army. 800 points AoW is more like 430 points DBM.

I cannot see 25mm players being willing to stick a 532 points. If nothing else, it would mean that a substantial proportion of their figures would have to stay in the box.