Superior only mounted

[nikgaukroger]

Just following up from a throwaway comment on the update forum from a bit back.

Suggest allowing up to 50% of those Mounted troops which are only allowed to be Superior in the lists to be optionally fielded as Average (at the appropriate cost)?

A lot of the time when drawing up the lists we probably erred upwards for quality and in reality there could be more variability. If, as we hope, Average are now more attractive as an option players may feel that if their troops only have Superior as an option they are not being treated fairly (especially as other lists do allow it).

[timmy1]

I would support this.

[Vespasian28]

A lot of the time when drawing up the lists we probably erred upwards for quality

If you erred up in quality why are the D&G lists being given the option of 1 in 3 Superiors? If Average was erring up why Superiors at all and are they needed if your Average proposals go through?

Just being Devils Advocate here as I do not have any D&G armies and know nothing about the history but when I saw that it jarred.

[nikgaukroger]

Duty & Glory was the exception where, if anything, we went the other way

When I mention the list books, always assume it is the exception

It has been a pain from inception - 1648 was a better cut off

[timmy1]

Nah - 1721 was the correct cut-off... as I said (repeatedly) at the time...

[RonanTheLibrarian]

As the owner of a D&G Bavarian army, I'm glad of the option to go up to Superior (although not so much on forcing me to take carbine/---/pistol instead of---/pistol/pistol).

That said, I have a better competition record with no Superior horse than I do with them....