Offensive armoured spearmen vs Offensive spearmen

[gribol]

Armoured spearmen cost 42 points and Offensive armoured spearmen cost 51 points.
Defensive spearmen cost 36 points and Offensive spearmen cost 39 points.
In first case we pay 9 points and in second 3 points for offensive ability.

I think, that is just too big difference and maybe it should be rebalanced?

[rbodleyscott]

You are probably right, the extra cost for Armoured Offensive Spearmen was put in to balance Ancients and perhaps should be taken out for Medieval. Does anybody disagree?

[Jagger2002]

Or increase the cost of the offensive spearmen? Offensive capability is a big deal and at 3 points, I would take the offensive spearmen any day over the defensive spearmen. Very risky for a defensive spearmen to initiate any sort of attack except against other defensive spears and bows... while offensive spearmen can attack well vs almost any type of infantry/bows. Offensive spears are much more capable of influencing the battle. My two cents worth.

[rbodleyscott]

Or increase the cost of the offensive spearmen? Offensive capability is a big deal and at 3 points, I would take the offensive spearmen any day over the defensive spearmen.

In beta, the consensus was that Offensive Spearmen capability wasn't worth 6 points [for an 8 model unit] over Defensive, hence the cost was reduced to 3.

Bear in mind that Offensive Spearmen isn't an unadulterated advantage over Defensive. It also means the unit will follow up enemy when attacking, which can get it into trouble.

Neither type can safely attack Knights.

[Jagger2002]

Bear in mind that Offensive Spearmen isn't an unadulterated advantage over Defensive. It also means the unit will follow up enemy when attacking, which can get it into trouble.

Good point. Although for 3 points, I would still take the offensive capability if available. Maybe just fits my play style better.

[Horde]

Bear in mind that Offensive Spearmen isn't an unadulterated advantage over Defensive. It also means the unit will follow up enemy when attacking, which can get it into trouble.

That can be a good advantage though. One follow up doenst expose you to a flank charge, usually, and in a off spearmen vs def spearmen match, if the former follows up, the defensive spearmen in the reserve have -100 POA if they want to pile up; and many times the second line is raw spearmen or crossbowmen, that cant even the odds in melee. Every time you attack with defensive spearmen you are at a 100 POA disadvantage against nearly everything; sometimes you just survive the impact with you armoured spearmen, and when you finally win in the melee, the enemy disengage and you have to charge again. I will take offensive spearmen for 3 points any day; the ability to attack is much better than having 13 units instead of 12.

[vaalen]

You are probably right, the extra cost for Armoured Offensive Spearmen was put in to balance Ancients and perhaps should be taken out for Medieval. Does anybody disagree?

I agree. The change you propose makes sense.

[Jagger2002]

A couple days ago, a man in my league mentioned the Scots are really tough. So he is currently killing my Bohemian army w/Hungarian allies in a test MP game. Meanwhile I am testing various Bohemian army compositions against the AI to see how I might be able to hold my own against the Scots. Against the AI, I can win but I know the tactics I am using would not work against an experienced human. At the moment, I don't feel the Bohemians are a competitive army when put up against the Scots. Now I may be missing some sort of tactical combination that would even things out but my gut feeling is that the Scots are really tough because of those masses of cheap offensive spearmen. With more experience I may change my opinion but that is my current evaluation.

So here is another vote to increase the costs of offensive spearmen to make them closer to the cost of armored offensive spearmen.

[SnuggleBunnies]

The Scots are tough, but have weaknesses - namely a lack of cavalry and a terrible missile arm.

I would agree that 51pts is a bit steep for Armored Offensive Spearmen, but it's a bit early to say what exactly they should cost. I plan on paying close attention to the balance during this season of the League, and then write up my ideas on what changes to unit costs the balance could use. Areas I will be looking at:

Offensive Spearmen - armored too expensive?
Knights - actually worth 74pts?
Ribauds - maybe better off Lightly Protected and 27pts, to suck slightly less?
Crossbowmen - 39pts too cheap?
Welsh Longbowmen - 42pts too expensive?
Best Equipped Cavalry - Too cheap in comparison to Knights?

These are, to be clear, things I am unsure about at the moment, not that I necessarily think *need* changes.

[SimonLancaster]

Maybe Armoured Offensive Spearmen could cost around 48 instead of 51. They seem a little overpriced.

The other spearmen costs I don't think need changing right now.

[SimonLancaster]

My current views as things stand:

Offensive Spearmen - armored too expensive?

Yes, as above. The ordinary Offensive Spearmen that are protected at 39 are fine at that price.

Knights - actually worth 74pts?

Yes, I think they are worth it for their performance on the field.

Ribauds - maybe better off Lightly Protected and 27pts, to suck slightly less?

I think they are fine at 30 pts as not much medium inf in battles and they can do a good job in woods and holding certain areas of the field.

Crossbowmen - 39pts too cheap?

Not sure yet.

Welsh Longbowmen - 42pts too expensive?

Maybe to 39 the same as Crossbowmen.

Best Equipped Cavalry - Too cheap in comparison to Knights?

I don't know yet.

[gribol]

Maybe Armoured Offensive Spearmen could cost around 48 instead of 51. They seem a little overpriced.

The other spearmen costs I don't think need changing right now.

My oppinion is mostly based on comparition between all of spearmen units in the game.
I think, that cost around 48 points for this unit will be reasonable.

[Jagger2002]

Bear in mind, my last comment was based on the Scottish army lightly protected off spears. Important for me to remember that they are large formation off spears with their bonus vs knights and size protection vs bows. I would guess the standard formation off spears are just as vulnerable to knights and bows as the standard formation def spears unlike the large formation Scots. Still for 3 points I sure like that offensive capability.

And the Scots are tough. Although I finally ended up with a tactical approach that might give a decent shot vs human. Still it is not going to be easy at all.

[Geffalrus]

Ribauds - I think the main issue with them is that there's no list that masses them beyond 3 at 1200, unlike Irregular Foot. Both units are pretty weak unless facing dedicate archers or heavy units in bad terrain. If they try to hold rough ground against most other medium foot, they will be smacked down by either the impact foot or offensive spear variants. At least some lists can field large amounts of Irregular Foot, so you can theoretically swarm stronger medium foot or even heavies. Most army lists are better off holding random bits of rough ground with mass archers or xbows. Ribauds just don't serve much of a purpose.

Armored Off Spears - definitely too expensive. Drop them a few points.

Mongolian Lancers - an absolute troll of a unit. 66 points for Bow, Lancer, Sword, Armor, highly superior, AND can evade????? Get the fork out of here. Byzantine Veteran Lancers and Tagmatic Cavalry are only Superior Bow Lancers who can't evade and they're 72 stinking points. I get that this is about balancing for knightly charge, but it's a bit extreme.

Knights and Crossbows - these two units need to be balanced together. Knights are pretty powerful, but Xbows tear them apart at range. A lot of the meta seems to be who can shoot up the enemy knights while protecting their own.

[Paul59]

Mongolian Lancers - an absolute troll of a unit. 66 points for Bow, Lancer, Sword, Armor, highly superior, AND can evade????? Get the fork out of here. Byzantine Veteran Lancers and Tagmatic Cavalry are only Superior Bow Lancers who can't evade and they're 72 stinking points. I get that this is about balancing for knightly charge, but it's a bit extreme.

The Byzantine cavalry costs that you quote are from FOG2 Ancients. Remember that FOG2 Medieval is a seperate game partly because units can be re-costed for the new period, without worrying about it effecting the balance in the Ancient periods. So expect the cost of the Byzantine cavalry to be a lot less in Medieval.

[melm]

The armoured offensive spearmen in FOG2A is 54 pts. The same unit in FOG2M is 51. We already have 3 pts cut. The defensive spearmen in both games are 36 pts. Skoutatoi, defensive spearmen with some armour is 44, and defensive armoured spearmen in FOG2M is 42. I am surprised that we still have space to cut for the armour.

[Geffalrus]

The Byzantine cavalry costs that you quote are from FOG2 Ancients. Remember that FOG2 Medieval is a seperate game partly because units can be re-costed for the new period, without worrying about it effecting the balance in the Ancient periods. So expect the cost of the Byzantine cavalry to be a lot less in Medieval.

Oh I know. But look at it again. 64 point lancers, expert horse archers, and Cataphracts all are within 2-4 points of each other. Tagma cavalry, a combo of lancer, superior, armor, and bow......are around 4-8 points - more - expensive than those units, despite not necessarily fighting or shooting better than any one of those units.

Expert armored horse archers are only 2 points cheaper than cataphracts since they have higher movement and a ranged attack, but no impact poa and lower armor. And while Mongolian lancers would have much less poa on impact (and slightly less in melee), that would - only - apply to impact vs. knights. Against all other units, Mongolian lancers still have that juicy lancer impact. And extra impact and melee POA due to Highly Superior. That's why I think the Mongolian lancers should be a little closer to knights in cost. Compare them to early knights who have lower morale and equal armor. Yes, early knights could win the impact, but if the Mongols don't disrupt, they now have a slight edge in melee combat despite costing 6 points less and having the option of shooting the knights first. They have all the benefits of super expert armored horse archers combined with a powerful charge against anything not a knight. They're an incredible unit.

[tyronec]

9 points extra for Offensive armored spears is too much.
6 points extra is also a little too much.
3 points extra is not really enough.
I would go for the 3 points extra because it makes the Offensive armored spears a good value unit and is a small push towards more dynamic battles, but 6 points extra would be fine too.

Would concur that Mongol costs should go up.

[rbodleyscott]

The Byzantine cavalry costs that you quote are from FOG2 Ancients. Remember that FOG2 Medieval is a seperate game partly because units can be re-costed for the new period, without worrying about it effecting the balance in the Ancient periods. So expect the cost of the Byzantine cavalry to be a lot less in Medieval.

Oh I know. But look at it again. 64 point lancers, expert horse archers, and Cataphracts all are within 2-4 points of each other. Tagma cavalry, a combo of lancer, superior, armor, and bow......are around 4-8 points - more - expensive than those units, despite not necessarily fighting or shooting better than any one of those units.

Expert armored horse archers are only 2 points cheaper than cataphracts since they have higher movement and a ranged attack, but no impact poa and lower armor. And while Mongolian lancers would have much less poa on impact (and slightly less in melee), that would - only - apply to impact vs. knights. Against all other units, Mongolian lancers still have that juicy lancer impact. And extra impact and melee POA due to Highly Superior. That's why I think the Mongolian lancers should be a little closer to knights in cost. Compare them to early knights who have lower morale and equal armor. Yes, early knights could win the impact, but if the Mongols don't disrupt, they now have a slight edge in melee combat despite costing 6 points less and having the option of shooting the knights first. They have all the benefits of super expert armored horse archers combined with a powerful charge against anything not a knight. They're an incredible unit.

Bear in mind that "Highly Superior" is just a text description covering a range of values.

In fact the Best-Equipped Cavalry has an Experience/Elan rating of 225, only 25 higher than Superiors who pretty much all have ratings of 200.

Yes, early knights could win the impact, but if the Mongols don't disrupt, they now have a slight edge in melee combat

No, they don't, because the knights get 150 POA for swordsmen vs mounted enemies, whereas the best-equipped cavalry only get 100.

So with the best-equipped getting net +12 POA for higher quality, they are still down 38 POA in melee.

[Geffalrus]

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I still think they should be worth a couple more points at least since when compared to how expert armored horse archers were balanced vs. cataphracts in FoG2 Ancients, Mongol lancers have a powerful impact ability even if it doesn't work vs. a select group of units.