petedalby wrote:
So no points reduction for this change?
No, we consider the advantages to justify the points cost.
Moderators: terrys, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

petedalby wrote:
So no points reduction for this change?
Pretty obvious I would have thought. Without the special rule for Swedish Brigades you could not get benefits 1 and 2 without rendering the BG more vulnerable to artillery fire. Hardly a trivial matter, and the main reason we feel the extra surcharge for Swedish brigades (which we are not at liberty to change anyway) is still justifiable. And it is only 4 AP. The cost of the extra pike base pays for benefits 1 and 3.petedalby wrote:.Swedish brigades still have the following advantages:
1) 3 hits are required to cause a Cohesion Test when the BG is at full strength.
2) Swedish brigades can have a 3 base deep central file without being an easier target for artillery.
3) Swedish brigades lose 2 pike bases before losing any shot bases, thus maintaining their firepower longer than other BGs
not too sure what the benefit of your 2nd point is? .
The CS change is very neat; but I am not sure about the removal of the armour. It might stop ahistorical use by some tournament players, but it strikes me as the tail wagging the dog, a strong response to an non-existent problem.rbodleyscott wrote:
Anyway, as I say, this change is the result of long consideration, we feel it improves historicity and game balance.
It is a problem, even if only in tournaments, but if you really don't like the amendment don't use it. End of problem...Three wrote:The CS change is very neat; but I am not sure about the removal of the armour. It might stop ahistorical use by some tournament players, but it strikes me as the tail wagging the dog, a strong response to an non-existent problem.
Brilliant, why didn't I think of that...daveallen wrote:It is a problem, even if only in tournaments, but if you really don't like the amendment don't use it. End of problem...Three wrote:The CS change is very neat; but I am not sure about the removal of the armour. It might stop ahistorical use by some tournament players, but it strikes me as the tail wagging the dog, a strong response to an non-existent problem.
Dave














