Determined Horse over-priced ...

[petedalby]

On reflection, I think a better balance might be achieved by reducing the break point of all Superiors rather than increasing the break point of average troops?

And I like the suggestion of DH, Cavaliers & Gendarmes getting 2 dice per base in overlap - gives the incentive to use them in shallow formations.

Alternatively allow these troop types to have any overlaps at ++? That would give them an advantage of HA horse.

[kevinj]

I was thinking about 4 base LH units reduced to 2 bases and being nearly impossible to catch.

Fair point!

[nikgaukroger]

On reflection, I think a better balance might be achieved by reducing the break point of all Superiors rather than increasing the break point of average troops?

IIRC this was suggested as one way of balancing Average and Superior when FoG:AM v2 was in development and was rejected because it would increase the incentive to avoid combat and ensure more "Benny Hill" moments. With the higher lethality of (gunpowder) shooting in FoG:R I would have though this would be an even bigger issue.

However, the views of players more used to FoG:R than I currently am are going to be more relevant - so thoughts please ...

[madaxeman]

....nor, IMO, is there the need or demand for such as there was with FoG:AM.

"was" ...? surely "still is" would be more appropriate

[madaxeman]

I was thinking about 4 base LH units reduced to 2 bases and being nearly impossible to catch.

Fair point!

Yeah, that would be a problem that might exceed the one it was intended to solve. But Average Horse are still almost unusable.... its a combination of break point, vulnerability to artillery and relative lack of staying power against Superiors, all of which multiply together to make them pants.

How about a list amendment allowing all average mounted units to be fielded in 6's ... ? At least a 6 is a little more resilient than a 4.....?

We might even manage to conjure up a post-hoc rationalisation about less tactically flexible formations adopted by poorer quality troops...

[kevinj]

How about a list amendment allowing all average mounted units to be fielded in 6's ... ? At least a 6 is a little more resilient than a 4.....?

I think most can be in 6s, but unless you get 6 for the price of 4 all you end up with is a BG that's nearly as bad but costs 50% more. I'm more inclined to buy the minimum and hide them than buy more and try to use them.

[madaxeman]

How about a list amendment allowing all average mounted units to be fielded in 6's ... ? At least a 6 is a little more resilient than a 4.....?

I think most can be in 6s, but unless you get 6 for the price of 4 all you end up with is a BG that's nearly as bad but costs 50% more. I'm more inclined to buy the minimum and hide them than buy more and try to use them.

I've been experimenting with them in 6's recently, and found them almost useable - they last longer, and more bases benefit if you add in a general to make them defacto superior in combat etc. Shoot/melee Pistol HA Reiters in an early period being actually quite handy (to the point in a recent event I found myself wishing that I'd taken 2 units of them instead of one, and would have sacrificed a unit of Gendarmes to get them) and likewise with average Gendarmes. They also really bully LH a lot more effectively.. - all in all they are not really good, but compared to average horse in 4's they are materially better

However I did find that there were surprisingly few lists which are allowed to take Av Hse in 6's.

[kevinj]

Actually, you're right. A lot of the Gendarme, Cavalry, LH and Reiter types have 4-6 as an option but most Pistol/Pistol Horse are constrained to 4s.

[gibby]

That could be a more elegant solution.
I like to think of my bases as squadrons
So in that terms it does not seem unrealistic that a wing might have more squadrons of average troops than the superior types and if you want them in 4's go for it and accept the risks.

And whilst they might still lose to thos sup arm types. They have the potential on the balance of probabilty to last 2 turns whereas at the moment can easily lose a base on impact and then the melee phase and whoosh off they go.

cheers
Jim

[madaxeman]

...can easily lose a base on impact and then the melee phase and whoosh off they go.

Or lose a base to artillery before you get to move, lose a second in your first turn and whoosh...

[timmy1]

It was to encourage the use of Poles specifically that I added my suggestion. Any rules covering this period where players stop using Poles is broke in my opinion. If we don't want to change the impact dice, how about adding 1 to the death roll for DH, GdA, (and Cavaliers if Nik really insists) during the impact phase if they are 1 deep?

[nikgaukroger]

....nor, IMO, is there the need or demand for such as there was with FoG:AM.

"was" ...? surely "still is" would be more appropriate

Like their politicians the players got the AM v2 they deserved

[nikgaukroger]

The more I think about Determined Horse, etc. the more convinced I am that it is wholly a points thing and that we're pretty much going to have to live with it at present. The issue isn't killing FoF:R that's for sure

However, I think there may still be merit in looking at a simple way to improve the lot of Average troops as a whole that is not a points based solution. I've mentioned having them break on the same losses that Superior currently do (perhaps excluding Light Troops though) whilst Pete suggested Superior breaking as Average now do. Any other possibilities? I'd only ask that it apply to all Battle Troops at the least. Equally say if you think the current position is fine.

[daveallen]

What if we gave DH, Cavaliers & Gendarmes full dice for overlaps? Possibly only against mounted.

It would give them the advantage against equal numbers of Curassiers, but still leave them in trouble when outnumbered. The restriction to mounted being because doubling the overlap v foot would weaken the foot too much.

As to the problem with Poles. Why can't they have the option of Melee Pistol? In almost every depiction I have seen they are equipped with pistol.

Dave

[petedalby]

What if we gave DH, Cavaliers & Gendarmes full dice for overlaps? Possibly only against mounted.

That's at least 3 people who like this suggestion.

The Avg vs Sup issue didn't find favour in A&M because of the number of both foot and mounted BGs in 4's. In R, virtually all foot are in at least 6's whereas most mounted are in 4's. Many posters seem to agree that Superior troops are under priced vs average. Reducing the break point for Superiors would be a big leveler in my view and we might see a lot more mounted in 6's as a result.

But if you did that, I also think you'd need to reduce the Art factor vs mounted to 5.

[johngl]

Why is it impossible to reduce the points costs? That really does seem the obvious answer, and a single amendment sheet for each army list book would surely not be a problem. Points cost adjustments have done wonders for balance in DBM.

[hood_mick]

Yes just change the points for 2 dice mounted. Your not going to change the books, so what. Put a sticky on the Forum somewhere clear and add it to the amenments. Word will spread.

[nikgaukroger]

What if we gave DH, Cavaliers & Gendarmes full dice for overlaps? Possibly only against mounted.

It would give them the advantage against equal numbers of Curassiers, but still leave them in trouble when outnumbered. The restriction to mounted being because doubling the overlap v foot would weaken the foot too much.

Has merit IMO, and is nice and simple to implement - agree it would have to be just against mounted. I guess the other option for overlaps (as has been suggested before) is ++ as per foot swordsmen, etc. but I guess may still need the against mounted only exception.

As to the problem with Poles. Why can't they have the option of Melee Pistol? In almost every depiction I have seen they are equipped with pistol.

When doing the lists I was pretty convinced that Melee swordsmen was correct both in the style of fighting (carried pistols but weren't actually that keen on using them and favoured their swords) and, importantly, getting the right effect against historical opponents. Tell you what, have a stab at convincing me that it isn't correct and I'll also go back and look at the classification whilst you do that. Deal?

[nikgaukroger]

Why is it impossible to reduce the points costs? That really does seem the obvious answer, and a single amendment sheet for each army list book would surely not be a problem. Points cost adjustments have done wonders for balance in DBM.

Its an issue with the publishers - Richard will know the details better than I.

I could point out that in the meantime a competition organiser could do something at a competition they organised ... (which would have the beneficial effect of getting some play testing in ahead of any future time when official points changes can happen)

[kevinj]

As to the problem with Poles

I think the main issue with the Poles is in the interaction with HA Cuirassiers. Since these habitually turn up as Superior it's very hard for the Poles to Disrupt them at Impact, leading to a -- Melee. Perhaps some balance could be restored by adopting the AM change relating to armour. This is that the POA for better armour does not apply if there is only one level of armour advantage and it would bring the overall net POA above +. This would leave the Poles at only - if they fail to disrupt the Cuirassiers and in combination with the suggestions on overlaps, would give them a sporting chance in a one on one fight.