Proposals summary for playtesting

[LEmpereur]

Here Our Questions and Comments:

Battle Group Autobreak:
This game is nice to play because it is play in 2 and ½ hours… why this change that will make game longer?
And why this advantage given to cavalry? The first advantage of this list of modification!
Why the Light troops don’t follow the same rules as the Battle troops?
A 4 LH BG autobreak at 2 and a cav BG (except poor) at 3… We don’t understand this difference!

Troop Points Costs:
Why this change for cavalry cost? For example, a sup. arm. Dt horse cost was 18 and will be 14 pts ~25% off!

So more cavalry on the table add to average 4 cav BG that autobreak at 3… is it the death of infantry armies? Good bye Our Iroquois, benin, aztec,… armies!

Better Armour and Quality Re-rolls:
This modification will complicate the combat phases!

Why this new rules about armour ?

The 4 average armoured cavalry BG will appreciate against sup foot BG!

Commanded Shot:
Simpler and better look on table!

Dragoons:
We agree the tactical move reduce to 3MU, but not when they are within 6MU of light troops.
Cavalry will kill the dragoons easily !

And We really don’t like : “This includes evade, rout and pursue moves.“?
The dragoons guard their horses to escape faster in case of danger, don’t they?

Captured Artillery:
Simpler and coherent!

Artillery:
“Add Artillery to the - PoA when nearest rank of target is “Any mounted troops”. (i.e. will normally need 5+ to hit mounted)”
One more for cavalry!

Light Artillery:
Coherent

Shooting Ranges:

Why not, but Why ?

And the winner is.... Cavalry!

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Yes they can. If you have more than one piece of terrain that could hide dragoons, Plantation, Enclosed Fields, Woods, Village, Gully (May not be exclusive list) you could put ambush markers in up to three spots and mark down which one really has the dragoons.

The problem starts towards the end of the 17th Century, when dragoons become more "regimented" and start acting as battle troops, fighting in formation like commanded out shot.

[LEmpereur]

Yes they can. If you have more than one piece of terrain that could hide dragoons, Plantation, Enclosed Fields, Woods, Village, Gully (May not be exclusive list) you could put ambush markers in up to three spots and mark down which one really has the dragoons.

The problem starts towards the end of the 17th Century, when dragoons become more "regimented" and start acting as battle troops, fighting in formation like commanded out shot.

May be two type of dragoons must be created ?

[benjones1211]

Here Our Questions and Comments:

Better Armour and Quality Re-rolls:
This modification will complicate the combat phases!

Why this new rules about armour ?

The 4 average armoured cavalry BG will appreciate against sup foot BG!

And the winner is.... Cavalry!

Actually this one makes it worse for cavalry, as no longer will more heavily armored cavalry get a POA against less armoured Infantry, only 1/2 a POA, ie. better reroll. So will be slightly worse fighting them.

[madaxeman]

With respect to the madaxmans comments, Dragoons approached by nastier infantry need to use the ability to turn and move at an early point.

I think this is sort of a solution - as in, the old "change your style of play you muppet" approach does actually work most times rules change! However, in real gameplay this would mean that Dragoons would probably need to start thinking about retiring back into terrain when enemy are around 9" away - or 11" if they were to be "semi-pinned" by advancing cavalry.

Given deployment distances are 10" for foot, one move puts foot's 'dragoon-influencing' zone 22" across the table in turn 1 with one march move ... the point of dragoons is kinda to stop marching enemy, so that in reality means they need to think about dropping back in turn 2. Which is kinda pointless as by then your main battle lines are starting to stop the enemy marching again as well ...

[jonphilp]

Hi,

Madeaxeman hints at the main issue with the rule change for Dragoons. Unless we are going to look at getting a lot more of the right type of terrain on the table the rule changes makes the Dragoon battlegroup almost worthless. It certainly will not be able to reflect the way Dragoons appear to be used in the later part of the ECW when they were used almost in the same role as commanded out shot. For a rule change that appears to have been influenced by a very rare event, that of super sniper teams, this is having a major impact on a well-known troop type. Perhaps this can be looked at again.

[LEmpereur]

... Perhaps this can be looked at again.

And perhaps two type of dragoons must be created ?

[spedders]

I have now played two tournaments with the new amendments, 3 games of ecw and 5 of Indian.

My thoughts are:

1. I don't agree with the previous comments about dragoons. I think the new rules work and think dragoons are now used more carefully either to fight other dragoons or as supporting troops.

2. I totally agree with the drop in price for det horse, cavaliers, gendarmes, elephants. I think cavalry have dropped far too much. With the price reductions for most of the weapons they use (light lance, melee sword) they are stupidly cheap. When the first and second armies in a competition are Tibetan with 16 and 17 battlegroups of which 15 and 14 battlegroups of cavalry something has gone wrong. Personally given the other changes I would not drop their base cost.

3. Light lance cavalry not being shock. I don't think this works. This means that light lance troops will need a CMT to charge. Would it not be better to leave them as shock but say if they have a missile weapon they can evade?

4. Didn't see any concerns re bow 3" range. Will come back on this after way of the warrior.

5. Better armour reroll. I like this although will get easier as I play with it more. Makes unarmoured mounted viable.

6. Really don't mind the auto break levels. Means you have to focus on breaking them on morale!

7. Artillery. Like all of these changes and ncluding marching with light guns.

Keith

[benjones1211]

Came up with a couple of interesting scenarios over the weekend, both dealing with Artillery.

Cavalry charge into troops supporting artillery during the impact, rout them, and the cavalry stop on the guns having taken them and routed their supporters

1) Can the cavalry be shot at by other troops, during shooting (remember the rout happened during impact), we ruled they couldn't as they where considered to be pursuing the guns even though there was no actual movement, as the guns are not removed until the end of the JAP. Part of that was if there had been no guns there then the cavalry would have been pursuing the infantry and if they had kept up would also not be a legal target.

2) The cavalry had a general with them fighting in the front rank, could he move in the JAP phase, again we ruled he couldn't as they where considered to be still pursuing the guns, basically if 1) is correct then by extension 2) is also correct.

Comments??

[benjones1211]

I have now played two tournaments with the new amendments, 3 games of ecw and 5 of Indian.

My thoughts are:

2. I totally agree with the drop in price for det horse, cavaliers, gendarmes, elephants. I think cavalry have dropped far too much. With the price reductions for most of the weapons they use (light lance, melee sword) they are stupidly cheap. When the first and second armies in a competition are Tibetan with 16 and 17 battlegroups of which 15 and 14 battlegroups of cavalry something has gone wrong. Personally given the other changes I would not drop their base cost.

3. Light lance cavalry not being shock. I don't think this works. This means that light lance troops will need a CMT to charge. Would it not be better to leave them as shock but say if they have a missile weapon they can evade?

Keith

I also agree with 2 not to mention Bw* for free, which is only slightly worse than Bw for mtd, ie 2 per 4 rather than 3 per four, this will also mean with camelry there doesn't need to be any points addition to make them less of a killer troop type.

And I agree with 3, Lt Lance should still be shock troops.

[nikgaukroger]

3. Light lance cavalry not being shock. I don't think this works. This means that light lance troops will need a CMT to charge. Would it not be better to leave them as shock but say if they have a missile weapon they can evade?

Would be useful if you could expand on why you don't think it works.

I'd also note that the CMT is only required if not steady.

On the last point no as some of the troops it is aimed at do not have a missile weapon.

4. Didn't see any concerns re bow 3" range. Will come back on this after way of the warrior.

Just to note that we may well be well on the way to finalisation before that - I'm not minded to let this process carry on much longer.

[spedders]

Sorry I didn't make clear that it was only if unsteady they need a CMT to charge. However I think this is unduly penal to troop types, for example tibetan cavalry who are bow* but light lance, they need a 9 to charge if unsteady. The issue is that unless you go through all the lists on a case by case basis it is going to get very messy. My view is that while you have identified a few who are chargers and propose a change to horse, there are some hybrids who are penalised the other way (i.e. the Tibetans, I don't have the lists in front of me so don't know if there are others).

While it delays approval I think it would be foolish to wrap this up without testing bow v warrior which will be done on the second weekend in June, as this was a concern that was specifically raised with reducing bow to 3".

Not sure I quite agree with Ben re bow* re points as the extra 1 shooting makes a big difference as to whether you cause a test. 2 firing against a 2 frontage 2 deep will only cause a test 50% of the time, 3 shooting will cause a test more frequently.

[benjones1211]

I wasn't actually suggesting that Bw* should have a price, just showing it as an example of how Cavalry have got a lot cheaper as they now also don't have to pay for it. Sorry if my language implied any different.

[LEmpereur]

I wasn't actually suggesting that Bw* should have a price, just showing it as an example of how Cavalry have got a lot cheaper as they now also don't have to pay for it. Sorry if my language implied any different.

IMIO, bw* is non an enjeu, but the low price cavalry yes !

[nikgaukroger]

While it delays approval I think it would be foolish to wrap this up without testing bow v warrior which will be done on the second weekend in June, as this was a concern that was specifically raised with reducing bow to 3".

Ah, for some reason I thought it was July. It'll probably be able to inform then

[madaxeman]

Those mounted cavalry armies certainly looked very (as in 'too') big on table this weekend - wall to wall mounted is not a good look, especially with everyone shooting as well.

[viking123]

Campaign reinforced my view that rather than shorten the range for bow at short range from 4 to 3, we should increase the range of Arquebusiers from 3 to 4. Why would a nation spend a fortune to equipping its foot with arquebuses when the enemy can charge them before they can get a round off.

This would mean increasing the short range of muskets from 3 to 4 as well but by the end of our period (1700) muskets would have improved.

[spedders]

I don't have a problem with that. It would also get rid of the query on warrior v bow.

[nikgaukroger]

Sorry the potential implications of that are too significant for it to be considered at the stage we are at with the update.

[Vespasian28]

Sorry the potential implications of that are too significant for it to be considered at the stage we are at with the update.

Bit suprised at this. I thought the whole point of testing the amendments at competitions was to get more feedback especially from such seasoned players as Bob.
I know this suggestion is new but that is the point is it not, unless we are just using the competitions to confirm some of the rules changes and ignore the more contentious ones, merely swapping one perceived issue with bows for another one.