Duty and Glory

[nikgaukroger]

Some post 1636 percentages of mounted in French armies which I dug out a few years ago when we were discussing typical armies:

1637 – 34%
1638 – 24%, 23%, 25%, 22%
1640 – 27%, 35%, 25%
1641 – 19%, 25%, 31%, 29%
1642 – 30%
1643 – 30%

[nikgaukroger]

There may well be others as Simon suggested and I'd be interested in hearing suggestions.

Later TYW German (1635 on) appears to be another from a quick look.

[ravenflight]

I've been trying to work out WHAT. it is that I don't like about this (changing the minima etc) proposal, and I think I finally have.

I don't like it because it will affect an army that I run, and am happy with the design. Now this in itself is not enough to stop a change. I'm not saying this for a Oh, poor little ravenflight form of sympathy, but because of what it is indicative of. I have designed and built a Danish army with only 1 BG of mounted. Now, if the proposal goes ahead, I would need to buy another 2 BG's of mounted, and completely redesign my list.

Now, I want to stress, I'm not saying this for me, but for everyone else.

This is a DANGER.

Let's say an alternate universe Ravenflight who is JUST holding on to playing the game. He's made his army and is happy with it. Suddenly he has to buy more figures if he wants to continue playing... or he could join Team Yankee, coz if I'm gonna have to shell out for figures anyway...

My point being I DO genuinely feel that if you're going to make changes that dramatically change the way a persons army is designed, then you're at risk of losing them. FoG:R in Australia is 'just holding on'. I don't know how it is in other places, but I don't want v1.1 to be a death knell. It is likely that IF you bring in the changes, I will not run the Danes again. I couldn't be bothered redesigning the list or building 2 more BGs of mounted. (for me) that's ok. I'll build something else anyway, but for others l, you may push them away. I really think you've got to take that into account.

[timmy1]

Nik, I don't feel this needs changing. If you did change it then Dragoons should be included in the mounted minimum. However if you make mounted a lot more (relatively) cost effective either by increasing the absolute cost of foot (decreasing the cost of mounted may not have the same effect but is worth a punt) then people would probably take more mounted.

[nikgaukroger]

Get making a case in the points thread then

[timmy1]

Done in the Mounted Points thread - feel free to move it to the Other Points thread if you think that more appropriate.

[madaxeman]

I've been trying to work out WHAT. it is that I don't like about this (changing the minima etc) proposal, and I think I finally have.

I don't like it because it will affect an army that I run, and am happy with the design. Now this in itself is not enough to stop a change. I'm not saying this for a Oh, poor little ravenflight form of sympathy, but because of what it is indicative of. I have designed and built a Danish army with only 1 BG of mounted. Now, if the proposal goes ahead, I would need to buy another 2 BG's of mounted, and completely redesign my list.

Now, I want to stress, I'm not saying this for me, but for everyone else.

This is a DANGER.

Let's say an alternate universe Ravenflight who is JUST holding on to playing the game. He's made his army and is happy with it. Suddenly he has to buy more figures if he wants to continue playing... or he could join Team Yankee, coz if I'm gonna have to shell out for figures anyway...

My point being I DO genuinely feel that if you're going to make changes that dramatically change the way a persons army is designed, then you're at risk of losing them. FoG:R in Australia is 'just holding on'. I don't know how it is in other places, but I don't want v1.1 to be a death knell. It is likely that IF you bring in the changes, I will not run the Danes again. I couldn't be bothered redesigning the list or building 2 more BGs of mounted. (for me) that's ok. I'll build something else anyway, but for others l, you may push them away. I really think you've got to take that into account.

Seconded. As I've posted elsewhere on another proposal, this may be a change too far

The way to deal with Duty & Glory is through tight theming in competitions, and just living with the fact the vanilla D&G games are a pedestrian shooting fest...because that's what they were.

It may even be that our wish to start adding some spurious mounted to each and every list is really about making the D&G' army's infantry line "not quite fill the table" so the game becomes "more interesting" - so play D&G at 700 points instead and the problem goes away

[nikgaukroger]

The way to deal with Duty & Glory is through tight theming in competitions, and just living with the fact the vanilla D&G games are a pedestrian shooting fest...because that's what they were.

As I always though we should have had the end of the TYW as the cut off date for FoG:R I have some sympathy with this However, players want the period included and I really don't think just saying its going to be dull is a good idea - and as you're one of the people who always say rules should include things to ensure games are interesting I'm rather surprised you suggest this

I do think in this case that we cocked up with the mounted minimums in the original lists, and that this is a distinct factor in players concerns about the D&G armies*, that we have a responsibility to make a correction. I think it is a case of something will be done, but exactly what is very much up for discussion - I'm of the view that doing nothing isn't a good option here. (and on points that is for comp organisers really, so from a rules point of view we need to be looking at other things)

[nikgaukroger]

Also, just to keep things a bit joined up, I'd mention that one of the floated points changes schemes in the mounted points topic suggests reducing the cost of DH (the sort of mounted we have in D&G in the main) so if this sort of approach were adopted it would partly mitigate the effect of an increase in mounted minimums.

The suggestion I am on about would change the base cost of Armoured DH from 22/18/12/8 to 16/13/9/5 and Unarmoured from 18/15/9/6 to 12/10/7/4 - obviously still just a suggestion not anything agreed.

[ravenflight]

Perhaps reducing cost (of DH) is all that is needed. I mean, if you (for extreme example, not suggesting it) made Average Armoured DH 3 points each base, then I'm almost certain that people would get more than the minimum required.

My point (pardon the pun) being, that if you fix the points the choice will be there. At the moment the choice is 'DH are CRAP' so why pay points for them. Perhaps you did cock up the minimums (I'm not sure you did) but the biggest reason (IMHO) people build 'crap load of foot' armies isn't because they want to exploit a loophole, it's because DH are shit. Pure and simple. My first FoG:R army, I manned 3 BG's of mounted (and it was a D&G army). I quickly learned that DH was crap and the rest is history.

[madaxeman]

Also, just to keep things a bit joined up, I'd mention that one of the floated points changes schemes in the mounted points topic suggests reducing the cost of DH (the sort of mounted we have in D&G in the main) so if this sort of approach were adopted it would partly mitigate the effect of an increase in mounted minimums.

The suggestion I am on about would change the base cost of Armoured DH from 22/18/12/8 to 16/13/9/5 and Unarmoured from 18/15/9/6 to 12/10/7/4 - obviously still just a suggestion not anything agreed.

That would go a huge way to sorting out the preponderance of foot in army lists IMO

[nikgaukroger]

Also, just to keep things a bit joined up, I'd mention that one of the floated points changes schemes in the mounted points topic suggests reducing the cost of DH (the sort of mounted we have in D&G in the main) so if this sort of approach were adopted it would partly mitigate the effect of an increase in mounted minimums.

The suggestion I am on about would change the base cost of Armoured DH from 22/18/12/8 to 16/13/9/5 and Unarmoured from 18/15/9/6 to 12/10/7/4 - obviously still just a suggestion not anything agreed.

That would go a huge way to sorting out the preponderance of foot in army lists IMO

Indeed, however, in terms of D&G I think that something else is also needed.

On reflection I think 8 bases of mounted as a minimum (in general) would be the way to go as it is in line with (most) WoR armies.