Suggested amendments - Determined Horse

[nikgaukroger]

I would suggest that it is probably Determined Horse (and therefore probably also Cavaliers) in general that are slightly overpriced, not Polish hussars in particular.

Anyway, we are not in a position to review points values at present, so that is something that will have to wait for some (undetermined) time in the future. And even then it would not be introduced without play-testing.

In conversation it was suggested that if Det Hse, Superior, Armoured, Pistol, Pistol cost the same points as Hse, Superior, Heavily Armoured, Pistol, Pistol it might be about right.

And there are other ways of dealing with the issue anyway - which really only arises because there are no Heavily Armoured Determined Horse.

So looking at the way that armour advantage works would be another way of dealing with the issue in the long term. (Which might be more acceptable to the publishers as it would not require any change to points values or army list books).

Better armour PoA only counts if the enemy is Unsteady is one I quite like regardless of the Det Hse issue

[madaxeman]

Better armour PoA only counts if the enemy is Unsteady is one I quite like regardless of the Det Hse issue

"Better Armour" is the defining characteristic of Cuirassiers, so it would seem rather harsh to take it away.. and I don't really see the logic for it being an "if the enemy is unsteady" factor either. My preference would still be for something to make overlaps easier/more useful for Determined Horse - then if they catch Cuirassiers in isolated units they will do well, but if the Cuirassiers stay in an unwieldy block its harder.

Extra dice or factors for D-H overlap bases, allowing them to expand by 2 bases per turn or allowing them to expand into an overlap in an opponents turn, or something like that all make them a "different" troop type...

[nikgaukroger]

"Better Armour" is the defining characteristic of Cuirassiers, so it would seem rather harsh to take it away.. and I don't really see the logic for it being an "if the enemy is unsteady" factor either.

It's all a bit "Face of Battle" - whilst formations hold cohesion you don't get a lot of killing as everything is mutually supporting and fighting is relatively tentative, but when that breaks down you get to kill people more easily and so armour becomes more important.

Nothing special about cuirassiers in this regard as it applies universally.

Additionally as over the period armour is less and less important it seems reasonable that the rules go this way as well.

Mind you in terms of Det Hse, etc. the real solution is points based - anything else is dicking around with fudges and all starts to get a bit DBMM What would people see as a suitable points level?

[timmy1]

2 or 3 less than now. Poss 1 less for Cavs.

[quackstheking]

Better armour PoA only counts if the enemy is Unsteady is one I quite like regardless of the Det Hse issue

And of course this would sound the death knell for Heavily armed foot (and possibly armoured foot in an "open game") and fully armed gendarmes.

Be careful what you wish for!!!

I am increasingly worried that suggestions to fix one problem will cause issues elsewhere - unless of course we make the rules so complicated that no-one understands them (and we could of course have them on Ipad!!! Cheap shot!).

I don't think the rules are broken at all - they have some quirks true, but nothing that makes them unplayable and all the suggestions I've heard (with the exception of those relating to Swedish Commanded Shot BG's - and Swedes are NOT a winning army), do not IMHO improve the overall gaming experience.

That's one Grumpy Old Man's view anyway!

Don

[timmy1]

Don

I wish you were correct but DH do seem to suffer from being less effective due to the impact rules. Have you seen even Alisdair taking Poles to a comp since the end of the Beta (all that many mounted and A can still resist)? No, nor have I. If they are not making it to the table I susggest that something does need doing.

I would not change Swedes with RG because they are attested that way but I don't think salvo works as per the historical model. I am not convinced that DH are currently worth the points and are not functioning as their historical counterparts did.

Even Grumpier Old Man's view.
Tim

[quackstheking]

Sorry Tim,

But I think I am right on the issue of removing the better armoured POA if the enemy is unsteady. I haven't commented on the issue of determined horse!!

Have you seen Alasdair taking infantry (except for Warfare when he used mainly his horse) or horse to a competition?! He is very adept at using cavalry, armoured, bow, sword, with artillery and supporting other shot to pick off the end of your lines. Once disrupted he goes for it - he plays the odds better than other players, he has the balls to go for it, and he will re-inforce success and back off from failure - he will merrily break off and move away if he thinks he is losing. We should learn from him. He is the best player for a reason!

Determined horse isn't the issue!!

Don

[nikgaukroger]

I haven't commented on the issue of determined horse!!

Would appreciate your input on it though.

[kevinj]

I agree with Don, the game is fundamentally sound and we don't want to break things that currently work well in an effort to fix the small parts that may not be currently optimum.

For Determined Horse specifically I think the issues is that they are not particularly cost effective, but experience shows that points changes are very hard to achieve, even if they are clearly the best way to redress an imbalance. This may be resolved by rule sets going electronic with scheduled updates distributed automatically, but that isn't going to happen any time soon either.

On the armour POA subject, I suggest that the first thing to consider would be the same change as has been made for FOG AM v2, essentially preventing a single better class of armour gaining a ++POA. For a specific example of what this would mean:

Cuirassiers (Horse, HA, Pi/Pi) v Polish Hussars (DH, Arm, IM/Sw)

The Hussars are + at impact. Currently, if they fail to disrupt the Cuirassiers they will be -- in melee. With the change the Cuirassiers would still be + (for Steady Pistol) but the contest would not be so one-sided and the Hussars may be able to even things up with extra dice. There's no change if the Hussars disrupt the Cuirassiers, the POAs balance out.

I think this would be a reasonable change, it retains some of the benefits of armour while reducing some of the more extreme situations.

[nikgaukroger]

I think this would be a reasonable change, it retains some of the benefits of armour while reducing some of the more extreme situations.

And has the advantage of being the same as the current FoG:AM rules and we always tried to avoid unnecessary differences where possible.

[nikgaukroger]

For Determined Horse specifically I think the issues is that they are not particularly cost effective,

Any suggestions?

Also, allowing for the obvious caveats on points changes, I am interested in seeing what people think would be about the right points for them as things stand.

[Sarmaticus]

Cuirassiers (Horse, HA, Pi/Pi) v Polish Hussars (DH, Arm, IM/Sw)

The Hussars are + at impact. Currently, if they fail to disrupt the Cuirassiers they will be -- in melee. With the change the Cuirassiers would still be + (for Steady Pistol) but the contest would not be so one-sided and the Hussars may be able to even things up with extra dice. There's no change if the Hussars disrupt the Cuirassiers, the POAs balance out.

I think this would be a reasonable change, it retains some of the benefits of armour while reducing some of the more extreme situations.

Speaking from near zero experience here but couldn't Hussars be Pi in melee? Most comrades had pistols and the valets behind them would normally carry firearms.
That said, Hungaro-Polish-style heavy Hussars were not a type adopted anywhere else to any considerable degree, so they probably shouldn't be brilliant outside of their niche.

[alasdair2204]

Just be careful not to break what is undoubtedly the best set of rules on the market

I tend to use horse as I get more troops but have on several occasions have lost 2 cuirassiers to one determined horse so be careful how much you reduce the cost, that said they are not used as often as horse so probably needs to be looked at, but as I said be really careful not to break what is working

cheers

Alasdair

[nikgaukroger]

Just be careful not to break what is undoubtedly the best set of rules on the market

I tend to use horse as I get more troops but have on several occasions have lost 2 cuirassiers to one determined horse so be careful how much you reduce the cost, that said they are not used as often as horse so probably needs to be looked at, but as I said be really careful not to break what is working

cheers

Alasdair

If I may repeat what Richard said when he originally posted:

And even then it would not be introduced without play-testing.


However, without some ideas to run with there cannot be play testing

[viperofmilan]

As a player who routinely fields fully armored, average gendarmes (an actual 15th Century "Renaissance" troop type) I find it very difficult to muster much sympathy for anyone complaining about determined horse being poor value for the points.

On the whole though, I have to agree with the other "old guard" types who don't really think we should be tinkering with these rules. Whatever faults, and there are some, FoG-R is the best set of miniatures rules I have played in many a year.

Kevin

[madaxeman]

I think this would be a reasonable change, it retains some of the benefits of armour while reducing some of the more extreme situations.

And has the advantage of being the same as the current FoG:AM rules and we always tried to avoid unnecessary differences where possible.

Those being the rules that have only just been released in e-form and not yet tested in a competition...?

Maybe best wait a bit before going down this route..

[kevinj]

I agree it may not end up being the perfect solution, but if there's a desire to look at armour benefits in interactions I think it's worth considering.

[madaxeman]

I agree it may not end up being the perfect solution, but if there's a desire to look at armour benefits in interactions I think it's worth considering.

I'm not sure this is an "armour" issue though. To my mind the nub of the issue is that a couple of categories of horse who are supposed to fight in shallower formations are not currently cost-effective when doing so, although admittedly the issue becomes most acute when fighting melee combat against normal Horse with better armour. I'd therefore still be incliuned to look first at the specifics of the Horse/DH interaction rather than a blanket regrade of the effects of armour.

Tinkering with the way overlaps work in horse/DH combat would seem likely to reward use of wide, shallow formations by DH, and likewise tinkering with the post-impact-combat CT modifiers in the Impact DH/Horse interaction would also allow a very targeted solution with minimal effect on other interactions.

[nikgaukroger]

To my mind the nub of the issue is that a couple of categories of horse who are supposed to fight in shallower formations are not currently cost-effective when doing so, although admittedly the issue becomes most acute when fighting melee combat against normal Horse with better armour. I'd therefore still be incliuned to look first at the specifics of the Horse/DH interaction rather than a blanket regrade of the effects of armour.

A useful starting point would be to decide if the interaction is basically correct or not to begin with - this may help focus where any potential adjustment would be best focused.

I suspect that the interaction of the Swedish (& German) horse under Gustavus when fighting the Imperials/Catholic League is the "iconic" test of this - plus the results of the Poles vs. Swedes in the earlier part of Gustaus' reign.

How do the rules as they stand do on this?

[kevinj]

I suspect that the interaction of the Swedish (& German) horse under Gustavus when fighting the Imperials/Catholic League is the "iconic" test of this - plus the results of the Poles vs. Swedes in the earlier part of Gustaus' reign.

It's possible worth reiterating what a number of people have said here, most of us agree that the rules are generally excellent and we're really just looking at some ittle niggles here rather than a fundamental problem. I think the interactions you've mentioned work well:

Gustavus' horse is likely to be Armoured Pistol/Pistol vs German Heavy Armoured Pistol/Pistol, even at Impact, -POA in Melee which can be mitigated by attaching Commanded Shot. The Armoured Reiter have an additional -POA at Impact, but again this could be mitigated using Commanded Shot.

For Poles v Swedes, it's again fairly even, Poles are +POA at Impact, if the Swedes become disrupted the Poles are + in melee, if they don't then the Poles are at -POA, but may be able to get more dice. This all seems reasonable.

I think where the problems occur is when the conditional POAs for Sword/Pistol combine to produce a ++/-- effect. This is the case with Poles vs Cuirassiers. If they fail to disrupt the Cuirassiers they are effectively finished, if they succeed they are on only on evens.