Other Points Changes

[IanP]

I've always felt that the points for the regimental guns are about right.
Whilst they give a boost to the combat capability of a unit (though no benefit in melee), they don't make the unit more resilient. Therefore I always question whether I would be better spending the points to put more actual troops on the table.

[nikgaukroger]

Whist they are good value, worth bearing in mind that they also give a bit of a USP to those armies that can have them.... which is probably a good thing in a gaming period with relatively few USP's. And as another poster says, have too many and their points do add up quite quickly to be the equivalent of another full unit, or more - at which point the choice gets a bit trickier...

Their points already add up to a BG or so in an army with half a dozen BGs with them - and I'd suggest that realistically any change would be in the order of a couple of points so we'd not be in the realm of the change being the equivalent of another BG by some way.

The question is about Regimental Guns possibly being too much of an automatic choice and that a points change could make it more of an actual choice which, I suggest, would be better - but what I'm trying to judge at the moment is whether the automatic choice premise is right.

[kevinj]

They're very much an automatic choice for me. For armies ive used reasonably often:

Anglo-Dutch - I always buy them for the Guards and British Line. If I could have them with the Danes as well I would.
Later Swedish - I always buy them for the Guards and any line unit that isn't going to have the shot detached.
Qing - every Average archer BG always gets a gun.
TYW French - again every P&S unit gets a gun and that's the option most people seem to go with. I've only seen 2 people use the later option that gets decent horse instead of regimental guns.

[timmy1]

My Swedes get them when ever they can, indeed I went out bought more models just to do so. Can't remember more than one opponent chooing to take none when they had the option. When someone like Pete Dalby came to the rules, the first thing he did was mock up as many RG as he could - Pete is usually able to spot a good thing.

[madaxeman]

The "core" book, WoR, has 22 lists in it. Only 3 have Reggie guns, 2 of which are Swedish - and guns are their "thing" - and none of those three really dominate competitions, and certainly not because of the reggie guns
D&G has 20 lists. 9 have Reggie guns, including one Swede, which is basically all of the solid decent mainland European ones. Many of the others have "impact foot" or something else cool and distinctive. Some of the others also are a bit pants anyway (Monmouth Rebellion anyone..?). So, half the armies have them in D&G, and these are the better armies anyway in that theme.
Qing is a solid choice for those books, but by no means a no-brainer. Not many others have guns

I would still contend, from this, that the gun option is what makes some of the armies "different" in what can be an otherwise fairly vanilla rules/lists period, and thats why people take these armies.

If they were underpriced you'd see the armies with Reggie guns winning all the time, but that's not happening. What is happening is that people are picking armies that otherwise are almost exactly the same as any other army apart from the option to have Reggie guns .... and then they take a lot of Reggie guns in that army.

Finally, we also have a separate thread questioning whether the Swedes are overpriced ...

[nikgaukroger]

They're very much an automatic choice for me. For armies ive used reasonably often:

Anglo-Dutch - I always buy them for the Guards and British Line. If I could have them with the Danes as well I would.
Later Swedish - I always buy them for the Guards and any line unit that isn't going to have the shot detached.
Qing - every Average archer BG always gets a gun.
TYW French - again every P&S unit gets a gun and that's the option most people seem to go with. I've only seen 2 people use the later option that gets decent horse instead of regimental guns.

To be fair I think with the TYW French from 1643 the value for money is DH is a major issue.

To the armies already names I'd add that for Warfare I considered the Regimental Guns a no brainer for my Austrians.

If they were underpriced you'd see the armies with Reggie guns winning all the time, but that's not happening.

A fallacious argument Tim, and this query about the points is nothing to do with which armies are winning comps.

Oh, and I think its 4 armies with RG in WoR not 3

[madaxeman]

If they were underpriced you'd see the armies with Reggie guns winning all the time, but that's not happening.

A fallacious argument Tim, and this query about the points is nothing to do with which armies are winning comps.
Oh, and I think its 4 armies with RG in WoR not 3

Maybe I'm not expressing myself clearly

Reggie guns are what make a very small number of TYW armies "interesting", in the same way that having the option for "impact foot musket*" makes TYW French "interesting", the unit of Tillys Veterans makes ETYW German "interesting", or the unt of McCollas Highlanders makes Scots Royalist "interesting".

Most people would always, or nearly always take these options in those lists, as otherwise we may as well all use ECW Parliamentarian all of the time.

My point was that this doesn't mean that any of these "interesting" options in other lists are necessarily wrongly costed, its just that if you choose to take a particular army, you are very likely to choose to take as many as you can of what makes that army unique. And in this particular period, thats probably A Good Thing, as the base troops are pretty samey. So, if anything there should be a points benefit to encourage diversity, not to make it a trickier choice

[nikgaukroger]

Ah, OK - I think I understand better where you are coming from now.

Appreciate the additional post - and it may well have been me being a bit dense anyway

[madaxeman]

Ah, OK - I think I understand better where you are coming from now.

Appreciate the additional post - and it may well have been me being a bit dense anyway

Also - which I forgot to mention before - increasing the cost of Reggie guns would also have the effect of making the Swedish Salvo lists even more challenging... so it might need changes elsewhere

[timmy1]

Salvo Swedes need to be cheaper...

[kevinj]

Out of interest I've done a comparison between Regimental Guns and Light Artillery. Since everyone seemed happy that all that was needed for Light Artillery is the ability to make Divisional moves it's interesting to see how they compare:



For me, the Regimental gun is at least as good as a Light Artillery piece which I regard as an indication that they are too cheap.

As a thought, how expensive would they have to be to be too much? If an Average Reg Gun was 12 points, would you still buy them?

As for the Swedes, I'm of the opinion that the 4 point premium for Swedish Brigades is probably unnecessary, which would provide an offset for them.

[nikgaukroger]

As for the Swedes, I'm of the opinion that the 4 point premium for Swedish Brigades is probably unnecessary, which would provide an offset for them.

As noted before Richard and I discussed this before this update started and agreed that we felt it is justified and should not be changed.

I'd also note that if RG costs go up and the brigade cost is removed it is likely that there will be no real change in the cost of a Swedish brigade.

[hazelbark]

For me, the Regimental gun is at least as good as a Light Artillery piece

Agreed.

Or light artillery need a change.

[Jhykronos]

As noted before Richard and I discussed this before this update started and agreed that we felt it is justified and should not be changed.

You two would probably be the only ones who think this:) But, that being the case, there ain't much point in carrying on the argument here.

I'd also note that if RG costs go up and the brigade cost is removed it is likely that there will be no real change in the cost of a Swedish brigade.

I have less problems with this way, though, because I can agree with the logic behind it, and it would apply to all other units with Regimental Guns.

[nikgaukroger]

Out of interest I've done a comparison between Regimental Guns and Light Artillery. Since everyone seemed happy that all that was needed for Light Artillery is the ability to make Divisional moves it's interesting to see how they compare:



For me, the Regimental gun is at least as good as a Light Artillery piece which I regard as an indication that they are too cheap.

As a thought, how expensive would they have to be to be too much? If an Average Reg Gun was 12 points, would you still buy them?

Would be useful if we could have some more feedback on this please.

[timmy1]

The not adding to army size is a big one for me so RegGuns being 1 point less than the equivalent LArt bases would seem right to me.

[DavidT]

The other way of looking at it is that LArt are too expensive.
Allowing LArt to be part of a division and costing them at 10 points each would seem about right.
This would mean that a Reg Gun is 1 point cheaper
Increasing the cost of the Reg Gun would make Swedish brigades (at least half of which must have Reg Guns) even more expensive.

At 12 points an Average Swedish brigade with Reg Gun is 66 points, the same as an Average Later Tercio.
The LT has multiple benefits over the Swedish Brigade:
It is less prone to threatened flank
It usually counts as automatically supported
Flank charges don't affect it
It has to lose 3 bases before it's firepower is affected; when the Swedish Brigade loses 3 bases it Autobreaks
It has to lose three bases before it takes a cohesion test for receiving 2 hits, the Swedish brigade only has to lose 1
Unless disrupted/fragmented, it always fights with 6 combat dice; the Swedish brigade starts losing combat dice after 2 casualties
It has 4 shooting dice at short range compared to 3 (although only 2 at long range compared to 3)

And what does the Swedish brigade get? ++ at impact which, if it doesn't disrupt the LT means that it is going to lose.

So if the cost of a Reg Gun increases, I'll be looking for another army.

[Vespasian28]

LT though is a better artillery target. Swedish brigade and Colunela both have a single file three deep but only the latter is more vulnerable to artillery.

[ravenflight]

LT though is a better artillery target. Swedish brigade and Colunela both have a single file three deep but only the latter is more vulnerable to artillery.

Is that right? I thought ANYTHING 3 deep EXCEPT Swedish Brigade got the target put on them?

[DavidT]

Granted, LT are more vulnerable to artillery, however, this is not significant enough to outweigh the numerous advantages over a Swedish brigade. Another call for removing the +4 points for a Swedish brigade anyone? Oh I forgot, this has already been ruled out for no justifiable reason

In fact, I feel like an Early 30YW Catholic or 30YW Spanish army coming on