Unit Costing Anomalies

[SnuggleBunnies]

I agree that they would still be a solid buy at 45.

[MVP7]

Speaking of bow prices, I have been testing the new prices for mounted archers and they seem pretty good to me. Both average armoured and superior armoured bow cavalry seems well worth the new price.

One area where the bow cavalry pricing still feels slightly off to me is the cost of swordsmen ability to light bow cavalry. The plain bow light horse costs 32 points and swordsmen raises the cost to 40 points (= 25% increase). For comparison the price of Nomad Horse Archers with protected armour level has the price of 44 points (= 10% increase to light nomad). Compared to cost of light archers (30) and to massed archers (36 = 20% increase) the price difference between light bow cavalry with swords and massed horse archers seems too small:

Massed foot archers don't use their bow at full efficiency (most of the time) and lose the vital evade when compared to light foot archers and have other penalties from having no melee weapons. Bow cavalry still has the evade that will usually at least keep it away from combat with infantry and it doubles as a decent flanking shock cavalry. The swordsmen ability is not that important for light cavalry, definitely nowhere near as important as it is for massed bow cavalry.

To me it would seem reasonable if the cost of 'swordsmen' for light bow cavalry was reduced a bit to make larger difference to the cost of massed bow cavalry. This would also take a few points off the cost of Byzantine Flankers that remain quite expensive for what they do (48 points at the moment). The prices could be something like 37 points for Nomad Light Horse, (unchanged) 44 for Nomad Horse Archers and 45 for Byzantine flankers.

[Paul59]

I try to replicate the process to get the original price 42 from my understanding and to make sure my understanding is correct.

Now I understand 50%bow is not shooting like 67% but comparatively 67% effective in short range if comparing with pure bow unit, which I think due to massed archer nerf.

Your method of working out the points costs was correct.

However, I do not think the Full Bows shooting with 75% of men at short range has anything to do with the massed archer nerf. We were comparing the Sparabara to the Assyrian Mixed Bows, and the Sparabara are not affected by the massed archer nerf, as they have a close combat capability (50% Swordsmen).

[MikeC_81]

I agree that they would still be a solid buy at 45.

I still remember the terror that was Sabir Foot. Impact foot with 50% bows.....lol what?

Are there a lot more mixed units coming up in the future? If not, I see no reason to muck with the points right now. I don't have the RoP DLC, but during testing, the factions in it all seemed to have a ton of shooting so it cancels each other out. The primary danger of a mixed CC unit with bows is the ability to dominate infantry without bows since they can shower them with arrows without fear of retaliation and set up positions where it is nigh impossible to get at them.

[SnuggleBunnies]

1) I highly recommend RoP, it's great fun
2) The mixed units are arguably a lot more cost effective than is perhaps right given that they can successfully charge and slaughter massed archers, can repel cavalry (though not heavy chariot) charges with ease in open terrain, and can often outshoot cavalry thanks to their numbers, even with only 50% bows. They can also cut down Sparabara and Irregular Foot, at least in close combat. Their downside is their extremely poor long range shooting capability, leaving them vulnerable in situations like cross-river face offs versus Massed Archers, and of course they also get stomped by hoplites, like other swordsmen.

Given that Massed Archers are 36 pts, having them 9 more points than that in exchange for their close combat capability, strong close range shooting power, and ability to maneuver in the face of enemy cavalry seems still well worth it.

As for the Sparabara, it's hard to say. The balance versus hoplites is good as is. Versus Massed Archers, perhaps Sparabara are more cost effective. That being said, many armies with Massed Archers have other force multipliers available, whereas the Sparabara armies don't so much - the Persians have Immortals (expensive, and still vulnerable versus hoplites) and their cavalry (terrain dependant). The Medes get cavalry (terrain again) and either other Massed Archers, or standard crappy Light Spear, Swordsmen. So the Sparabara are often the only real infantry choice available to the factions that field them. I think the Persians vs Indian matchup is now either even or slightly favoring the Persians, whereas in the past the Indians utterly dominated.

In short: I think the mixed Assyrian medium foot could use a slight point increase, Sparabara, I'm not as sure.

[melm]

I agree that they would still be a solid buy at 45.

I still remember the terror that was Sabir Foot. Impact foot with 50% bows.....lol what?

Are there a lot more mixed units coming up in the future? If not, I see no reason to muck with the points right now. I don't have the RoP DLC, but during testing, the factions in it all seemed to have a ton of shooting so it cancels each other out. The primary danger of a mixed CC unit with bows is the ability to dominate infantry without bows since they can shower them with arrows without fear of retaliation and set up positions where it is nigh impossible to get at them.

Is Sabir Foot still in the game? Which army list are they in?

[rbodleyscott]

I agree that they would still be a solid buy at 45.

I still remember the terror that was Sabir Foot. Impact foot with 50% bows.....lol what?

Are there a lot more mixed units coming up in the future? If not, I see no reason to muck with the points right now. I don't have the RoP DLC, but during testing, the factions in it all seemed to have a ton of shooting so it cancels each other out. The primary danger of a mixed CC unit with bows is the ability to dominate infantry without bows since they can shower them with arrows without fear of retaliation and set up positions where it is nigh impossible to get at them.

Is Sabir Foot still in the game? Which army list are they in?

No they are not - at least not in that form. Sabir cavalry can dismount as bow/swordsmen.

[rbodleyscott]

I agree that they would still be a solid buy at 45.

I still remember the terror that was Sabir Foot. Impact foot with 50% bows.....lol what?

Are there a lot more mixed units coming up in the future?

Yes

However, their balance might be adversely affected by a change to the cost of 50:50 units, so it may be better to see how they play out after their release before doing anything. My impression is that the new units are not necessarily underpriced under the current points system.

The primary danger of a mixed CC unit with bows is the ability to dominate infantry without bows since they can shower them with arrows without fear of retaliation and set up positions where it is nigh impossible to get at them.

Precisely, and not all ROP armies have large numbers of bows. It is those armies that seem to be hard done by vs the Assyrian-style mixed foot, as they don't seem to have enough cheaper unmixed troops to compensate. The only reason I have not done anything about it previously is that it seemed reasonable that Assyrian armies should dominate in their heyday, and they seem to be fairly evenly-matched against Persians.

That doesn't work so well in the FOG2DL where only 1 person in a division gets to use Assyrians, 1 Urartian and 1 Persian.

[rbodleyscott]

In short: I think the mixed Assyrian medium foot could use a slight point increase, Sparabara, I'm not as sure.

One thing to consider is that with Persians already being in a good place, they will be getting a drop in their cavalry costs to 66 points from 72 points (this is already in the beta, and has been well received so far, so will almost certainly go live), which could allow the Sparabara troops to be slightly more expensive without altering the overall balance significantly.

What we could look at is a differential tweak to the cost of infantry bows for

a) Units with a full melee capability (e.g. Assyrian Mixed Foot)
b) Units with a 50% melee capability (e.g. Persian Sparabara/Immortals, and the mixed units in the forthcoming DLC)

a) would pay more extra than b), who might or might not pay anything extra at all.

If the cost of "Bow*" (the points chart code for 50% bows) was increased to 1.5 per 100 UnitSize for foot units with a full melee capability, the Assyrian Mixed medium foot would go up to 45 points.

For troops with a 50% melee capability, the cost of Bow and Bow* could also go up, but somewhat less, or be left as they currently are.

[MikeC_81]

Is Sabir Foot still in the game? Which army list are they in?

They were removed quite promptly after I pointed out how insane they were vs a wide swath of units in FoG2. Part of me regrets doing that since it precluded me from quietly getting the army in an FoG2DL season and wrecking the place with it

However, their balance might be adversely affected by a change to the cost of 50:50 units, so it may be better to see how they play out after their release before doing anything. My impression is that the new units are not necessarily underpriced under the current points system.

So in discussions before, you said your design goal was to get geographic and contemporary opponents to perform similarly against each other and that anachronistic or ahistorical match ups were not your primary concern. If that is the case then why worry about anything? When I discuss unit costing anomalies, it is almost always with contemporary armies in mind. Roman Auxilia suck right now at their price point for example. Jewish Zealots are rampaging through contemporaries and I know first hand trying to put a revolt army down with a contemporary Roman list with inefficient units vs super efficient ones is ridiculously hard, though it was doable in my case. It would also be really nice to have playable Byzantine armies that are a reasonably competitive. The Late Antiquity section is just so boring right now tons of chaff LS/S foot spamming armies.

It will also largely depend on whether these mixed units are supporting cast members or the primary rank and file of the armies. If they are the primary units like in RoP, then the supporting cast that they are given will play a large part. It would be inappropriate to try and judge these new units in a vacuum.

I don't have enough time to really go through a through beta rigorously at the moment but if the current DLC beta is what you are referring to, I can sign up for the current one and look over the new units to see if any obvious offenders stand out like our old Sabir Foot friends.

[Paul59]

I don't have enough time to really go through a through beta rigorously at the moment but if the current DLC beta is what you are referring to, I can sign up for the current one and look over the new units to see if any obvious offenders stand out like our old Sabir Foot friends.

Hi Mike,

I was really looking forward to those double armed Sabir Foot, I have still not forgiven you for that!

Honestly though, the evidence for them was very scanty. It makes much more sense that the fierce charging foot mentioned in the sources were subject Germanic Warbands, that are now in the Sabir army list, rather than actual Hunnic Foot.

[Geffalrus]

inefficient units vs super efficient ones is ridiculously hard

No kidding.

Has anyone considered altering the efficiency of Zealots and the Jewish army list by adding a zealot mob unit similar to warbands? Instead of having......what, 11 possible zealot units, you could instead have a small number of current Zealot units - and - a small number of large size (720 men for example) zealot units. These units would be more expensive, still medium, still mobile, and pack a bit larger punch. But - the total number of zealot units would decrease, which seems like the big problem with the army list. The ability of the Jewish army to have superior impact foot in many places and to hit in one long line of destruction would be decreased. Sure, they would be better able to break units 1v1, but that doesn't necessarily seem like the major problem with them.

[rbodleyscott]

So in discussions before, you said your design goal was to get geographic and contemporary opponents to perform similarly against each other and that anachronistic or ahistorical match ups were not your primary concern.

That is true. With regard to the mixed foot I am concerned re their possible over-cost-effectiveness vs contemporary opponents.

I don't have enough time to really go through a through beta rigorously at the moment but if the current DLC beta is what you are referring to, I can sign up for the current one and look over the new units to see if any obvious offenders stand out like our old Sabir Foot friends.

That would be very helpful. Please sign up here:

http://slitherine.com/beta/cnda.asp?gid=796

Let me know when you are signed up and I will ask Tamas to add you to the beta.

[rbodleyscott]

inefficient units vs super efficient ones is ridiculously hard

No kidding.

Has anyone considered altering the efficiency of Zealots and the Jewish army list by adding a zealot mob unit similar to warbands? Instead of having......what, 11 possible zealot units, you could instead have a small number of current Zealot units - and - a small number of large size (720 men for example) zealot units. These units would be more expensive, still medium, still mobile, and pack a bit larger punch. But - the total number of zealot units would decrease, which seems like the big problem with the army list. The ability of the Jewish army to have superior impact foot in many places and to hit in one long line of destruction would be decreased. Sure, they would be better able to break units 1v1, but that doesn't necessarily seem like the major problem with them.

The points cost of zealots has been increased to 57 for the next update.

We did of course consider making them warbands, but representing them as warbands did not seem to fit the guerrilla nature of the army.

[melm]

I agree that they would still be a solid buy at 45.

I still remember the terror that was Sabir Foot. Impact foot with 50% bows.....lol what?

Are there a lot more mixed units coming up in the future?

Yes

However, their balance might be adversely affected by a change to the cost of 50:50 units, so it may be better to see how they play out after their release before doing anything. My impression is that the new units are not necessarily underpriced under the current points system.

The primary danger of a mixed CC unit with bows is the ability to dominate infantry without bows since they can shower them with arrows without fear of retaliation and set up positions where it is nigh impossible to get at them.

Precisely, and not all ROP armies have large numbers of bows. It is those armies that seem to be hard done by vs the Assyrian-style mixed foot, as they don't seem to have enough cheaper unmixed troops to compensate. The only reason I have not done anything about it previously is that it seemed reasonable that Assyrian armies should dominate in their heyday, and they seem to be fairly evenly-matched against Persians.

That doesn't work so well in the FOG2DL where only 1 person in a division gets to use Assyrians, 1 Urartian and 1 Persian.

With a few matches agaisnt various armies using Assyrian, I feel Assyrian is not good against the army who can field many offensive spearmen, like Phonecian, Kyrenean(I am wondering why no one uses Kyrenean in FOGIIDL tournament). Or against Hebrew who can afford certain mount of superior forces(This can be questionable). They are good against Persian style army or Egyptian, or Nomadic. I'm afraid that increasing the mixed foot price will make it even weaker against hoplites style army.

[rbodleyscott]

With a few matches agaisnt various armies using Assyrian, I feel Assyrian is not good against the army who can field many offensive spearmen, like Phonecian, Kyrenean(I am wondering why no one uses Kyrenean in FOGIIDL tournament). Or against Hebrew who can afford certain mount of superior forces(This can be questionable). They are good against Persian style army or Egyptian, or Nomadic. I'm afraid that increasing the mixed foot price will make it even weaker against hoplites style army.

This is a good point.

However, I have not found my Cypriot hoplites especially effective against them, and armies with larger numbers of hoplites should not really be taking part in a so-called "Biblical" tournament era. (As Pete has said, this is only temporary until the earlier Biblical DLC gets released).

We should not really be balancing the cost effectiveness of Assyrian infantry on the basis of their interaction with hoplites - which they barely met historically.