Points Values - the whole damn lot

[nikgaukroger]

As we are moving on apace with various proposals it seems time to get looking at points values in a serious manner.

As I have posted before here are a few general points I think we should bear in mind:

1. In a wargame with so many different troops types and capabilities points values are relatively subjective and there can be no absolute right values; the best we can manage is a reasonable consensus.
2. Because of this there is no point in struggling for spurious “perfection/accuracy” in the points; it’s “close enough for government work” territory.
3. Stick with whole integer values, no half points – because of the above points. Similarly stick with the current framework, no doubling/etc. of values as all you end up doing is arguing over the said spurious accuracy for no real benefit.
4. Points values are for the whole game and not a sub-set of troops/capabilities. So you can’t just set the points for, say, Pike Vs. Horse whilst ignoring how they also relate to Pike Vs. Warriors. However, if there is a decision to be made it should aim to get the balance between historical match-ups right over ahistorical ones – e.g. if there is doubt over the exact points for Elephants the final choice should be the one that gets the match-ups for Asian warfare best balanced even if they are not quite right for match-ups against TYW armies.


So here is a first stab at a wide ranging update:




And for convenience a list of the changes made:

Troop Costs

Armoured DH from 22/18/12/8 to 16/14/11/7
Unarmoured DH from 18/15/9/6 to 13/11/8/5

Gendarmes from 22/18/12/8 to 18/16/12/8
Armoured Cavaliers from 19/16/11/7 to 15/13/10/6
Unarmoured Cavaliers from 16/13/8/5 to 12/10/7/4

Heavily Armoured Horse & LH from 16/13/9/5 to 14/12/9/5
Armoured Horse & LH from 12/10/7/4 to 12/10/7/4 (i.e. no change)
Unarmoured Horse & LH from 10/8/5/3 to 10/8/5/3 (i.e. no change)

Heavily Armoured Cv & Cm from 18/15/10/6 to 14/12/9/5
Armoured Cv & Cm from 15/12/8/5 to 12/10/7/4
Unarmoured Cv & Cm from 11/9/6/4 to 10/8/5/3

Elephants from 25 to 20


Capabilities

Foot

Arquebus from 2 to 1
Bow* from 1 to 0

Mounted

Impact Mounted from 3 to 2
Melee Sword from 2 to 1
Pistol/Carbine (shooting) from 2 to 1
Bow from 2 to 1
Bow* from 1 to 0


I'm sure people will have comments on all that We look forward to them.


Note

Currently the table has:

Impact Mounted 2
Heavy Lance, Light Lance, Pistol 1

But there are 2 alternatives we have considered which are:

Impact Mounted 3
Heavy Lance, Pistol 2
Light Lance 1

and

Impact Mounted 2
Heavy Lance, Pistol 1
Light Lance 0

Views on these schemes would be appreciated.

[timmy1]

Nik

Fine with Capabilities.

On the Note - stick with what you have got - the other changes are enough for Mounted.

On the troops fine with all that, only one I have a concern over is Cm. I think that they are now a point or two too cheap across the board.

Regards
Tim

[DavidT]

With regard to the note, I prefer

Impact Mounted 3
Heavy Lance, Pistol 2
Light Lance 1

Heavy lancers have an impact advantage over light lancers and are frequent opponents so this should be recognised.
Light lance needs a cost as it makes certain LH very potent v other shooty LH so this needs to be costed (which is why I prefer this option over the last one).

With regards to the general points changes for troops they seem about right to me. The only thing I would like to see is a points difference for Fully Armoured Gendarmes over Heavily Armoured Gendarmes. The latter should be a point cheaper.

[Jhykronos]

Views on these schemes would be appreciated.

Umm... wow, you went even further than I did on many of these.

OK, when I was playing with the numbers myself, one thing I found was the need to make sure the low end cavalry didn't get ridiculously cheap. You have discounted cavalry, you have discounted bows, and you have discounted swords... all for justifiable reasons, but check this out:

Cavalry Average, Unarmored, Bow, Sword @ 7 points.

A 4 stand unit costs 28 points. Is this right? I don't know for certain, but I do know that 20 of those units would run 560 points, leaving an army enough room for generals plus about 100 points to grab something nice.

Again, it may not be a problem at all, but it was something I was trying to be cautious about.

[Jhykronos]

With regards to the general points changes for troops they seem about right to me. The only thing I would like to see is a points difference for Fully Armoured Gendarmes over Heavily Armoured Gendarmes. The latter should be a point cheaper.

Heavily armored move faster, Fully armored get the higher armor rating. Under the new armor system this is probably close to a wash... under the old armor system I'll take the POA every time.

[Vespasian28]

I am guessing that no need to bring Superiors, Average and Poor troops closer together in points value was identified considering the latter are now more potent with the increase in the autobreak levels? Paying quite a lot now just for re-rolls I think.

[nikgaukroger]

I am guessing that no need to bring Superiors, Average and Poor troops closer together in points value was identified considering the latter are now more potent with the increase in the autobreak levels? Paying quite a lot now just for re-rolls I think.

There have been quite a few changes made.

For example the difference between Arm DH Av and Sup was 6 points in the suggestion it is 3, same change for Unarm DH. Gendarmes was 6 now 4. HA horse was 4 now 3.

[Jhykronos]

One thing that is still a pretty terrible buy, IMO, is the Schutzen option on the TYW German lists. Light Foot Suprior Musket at 10 points per stand... that's 20 points per shooting die.

[Jhykronos]

OK, I got a chance to test build some lists for the army I own that is most affected by the new points (Poles 1620-1650). I wrote a program a while back to randomly generate armies based on weighted options. Anyway, after 10 tries and at 800 points, I got the following results:

Using the Early Commonwealth List under the old points system: Average 11.8 units, 56.2 stands.
Using the Early Commonwealth List under the new points system: Average 13.5 units, 65.8 stands.
Using the Later Polish List under the old points system: Average 11.9 units, 55.6 stands.
Using the Later Polish List under the new points system: Average 14.1 units, 65.8 stands.

[DavidT]

One thing that is still a pretty terrible buy, IMO, is the Schutzen option on the TYW German lists. Light Foot Suprior Musket at 10 points per stand... that's 20 points per shooting die.

They are even worse now as, being light troops, they will break on 50% losses

[Jhykronos]

A bit off topic for the scope of this release, but with muskets costing +3 and arquebuses costing +1, it leaves a nice, convenient spot for a "Caliver" classification that I always thought that Rennaissance rules could really use.

[davids]

So Sup, Arm, Bow, Sw, Cav go from 16 to 12 points, Avg, Unarm, Bow, Sw, Cav go from 10 to 7 and Avg, Unarm, Bow, Sw, LH go from 9 to 7.

Lucky I play Russians.

[nikgaukroger]

Cavalry are seen as over-priced currently so they were always going to get cheaper.

What we need to know is whether you think the suggested new values are OK, or too low?

[Jhykronos]

Cavalry are seen as over-priced currently so they were always going to get cheaper.

What we need to know is whether you think the suggested new values are OK, or too low?

I think they might be OK, but only if my apprehension about swarms of 28-point unarmored horse archer units turns out to be unfounded. (Which it might very well be... my experience with similar units in the Polish army says they aren't bad to have around for support, but you really don't want to depend on them for anything important).

BTW, you reduced the cost of cavalry bows... are you also reducing their range (at least for mounted) as an official proposal, or do you think they were overpriced as-is?

[Vespasian28]

Vespasian28 wrote:
I am guessing that no need to bring Superiors, Average and Poor troops closer together in points value was identified considering the latter are now more potent with the increase in the autobreak levels? Paying quite a lot now just for re-rolls I think.

There have been quite a few changes made.

For example the difference between Arm DH Av and Sup was 6 points in the suggestion it is 3, same change for Unarm DH. Gendarmes was 6 now 4. HA horse was 4 now 3.

I was thinking more along the lines of the differences in points between Superiors and Averages in general, for example foot.
The difference between Elite and Superiors is two points for which Elites get re-rolls and better autobreak.
The difference between Superiors and Average is three points for which you get re-rolls only.
The difference between Average and Poor is also two points for which the Poor have worse Autobreak and re-roll sixes.

That's what I meant about paying a lot for just re-rolls.

[nikgaukroger]

BTW, you reduced the cost of cavalry bows... are you also reducing their range (at least for mounted) as an official proposal, or do you think they were overpriced as-is?

Currently we have not posted a proposal for Bow range - still under consideration - so the change to cost was based on the rules as they currently are. So yes, we feel they are over-priced at 2 points given that we are suggesting Carbine is reduced to 1 point - our view is that these should be the same cost.

[nikgaukroger]

A bit off topic for the scope of this release, but with muskets costing +3 and arquebuses costing +1, it leaves a nice, convenient spot for a "Caliver" classification that I always thought that Rennaissance rules could really use.

I do wonder whether Bow should fill that spot - longer short range than Arquebus, plus the extra for long range may well outweigh the death roll difference in value for points.

Thoughts?

[nikgaukroger]

One to think about in relation to the options on mounted capabilities in the proposal post.

Superior Tuareg camelry would drop from 13 points tom 11 as the proposal stands, however, if Light Lancers was dropped to 0 they would fall to 10 points.

How does that feel?

[timmy1]

That would make them cheaper than Armoured Average DH with no capabilities and Unarmoured Average DH with IM/Sword. It would make them the same price as Unarmoured Superior Cv Bow/Sword. If the rest of the Tuareg options were not so rubbish I would consider building the army at that price. Again I believe Cm should be treated like a capability and cost at least one extra point.

[nikgaukroger]

Again I believe Cm should be treated like a capability and cost at least one extra point.

It is - it's the last but one line in mounted capabilities.