Slitherine

IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Possibly massive rebasing projects as a result.......maybe I'll just make my cav two figs to a stand and light horse one. At least I won't need more figures.

Perhaps not a perfect solution, but how abot mixing BG's - 2 stands of 3 and 2 stands of 2. Any BG that has some 3 figure stands will be considered cavalry.

Delbruck wrote:

IanB3406 wrote:Hmmm, Possibly massive rebasing projects as a result.......maybe I'll just make my cav two figs to a stand and light horse one. At least I won't need more figures.

Perhaps not a perfect solution, but how abot mixing BG's - 2 stands of 3 and 2 stands of 2. Any BG that has some 3 figure stands will be considered cavalry.

That may work. I have done with my dbm Byzantines when moving to fog.


Ian

hazelbark wrote:I would say the answer is the changes will not be enough it matter. The only v2 advice that I think is warrented is don't invest in a pure LH and LF army. But an army with MF and Cv is going to be just fine.

I already have a Parthian/Kushan army and am planning on getting back into the game. When v2 comes out will my LH be heavily impacted by the above? What are the changes that have been agreed?

Still happy to play the army, just interested to see how badly they are getting effected!

Thanks

Gollum9 wrote:

hazelbark wrote:I would say the answer is the changes will not be enough it matter. The only v2 advice that I think is warrented is don't invest in a pure LH and LF army. But an army with MF and Cv is going to be just fine.

I already have a Parthian/Kushan army and am planning on getting back into the game. When v2 comes out will my LH be heavily impacted by the above? What are the changes that have been agreed?

Still happy to play the army, just interested to see how badly they are getting effected!

Thanks

Well LH will be a bit worse (deduct 2 MUs for 90 degree turns) and shooting range for bow armed LH (and single rank cavalry) reduced to 3 MUs.

So they won't be quite as good, but should still be very usable.

shooting range for bow armed LH (and single rank cavalry) reduced to 3 MUs.

So they won't be quite as good, but should still be very usable.

Where did that come from? I don't recall that in the Beta. Another reason V2 may be dead before its hatched.

Don't judge a whole set of rules by one change. It may be brilliant. The good doctor is obviously slowly leaking stuff out. Perhaps move distances have changed. Perhaps foot ranges have changed. Perhaps the effect of armour has changed. Too much guessing going on.

There were a number of proposals to reduce the ability of skirmishers to 'gang up'. e.g. in beta 34 and 40 they tested skirmisher effective range being reduced to 2MU with bow types having a long range of 4. That was thought too much by some. I imagine 3MU is the compromise. And the reduced movement rate for turn and move was widely touted.

There seemed to be a whole "pick and mix" of options to bring skirmishers back into balance in the various beta versions, so until we see the whole thing I don't see how you can judge whether it has achieved what the authors wanted or not.

To put it another way, people don't like the preponderance of skirmishers in v1, and they don't like the ability of some troop types to wriggle all over the place. Many have left FOGAM as a result. An author then mentions two changes to fix these issues. Is it helpful to interpret that as the sky falling?

I was a member of the beta test group and have followed the changes that were in the beta versions. So assuming that I am not aware of other proposed changes and their projected effects on the game would be in error. So far the changes seem to be attempting to curb player behavior.

berthier wrote:I was a member of the beta test group and have followed the changes that were in the beta versions. So assuming that I am not aware of other proposed changes and their projected effects on the game would be in error. So far the changes seem to be attempting to curb player behavior.

But you weren't aware of this change and so doomed V2 to failure.

Also whatever changes they make won't change my behaviour.

philqw78 wrote:
Also whatever changes they make won't change my behaviour.

I believe we all are aware of that.

philqw78 wrote:Don't judge a whole set of rules by one change. It may be brilliant. The good doctor is obviously slowly leaking stuff out. Perhaps move distances have changed. Perhaps foot ranges have changed. Perhaps the effect of armour has changed. Too much guessing going on.

"It may be brilliant"!!!!!!

Hey, who are you and what have you done with the real Phil?

philqw78 wrote:Also whatever changes they make won't change my behaviour.

Oh there you are, Phil! Phew! The day is saved.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Gollum9 wrote:

hazelbark wrote:I would say the answer is the changes will not be enough it matter. The only v2 advice that I think is warrented is don't invest in a pure LH and LF army. But an army with MF and Cv is going to be just fine.

I already have a Parthian/Kushan army and am planning on getting back into the game. When v2 comes out will my LH be heavily impacted by the above? What are the changes that have been agreed?

Still happy to play the army, just interested to see how badly they are getting effected!

Thanks

Well LH will be a bit worse (deduct 2 MUs for 90 degree turns) and shooting range for bow armed LH (and single rank cavalry) reduced to 3 MUs.

So they won't be quite as good, but should still be very usable.

hmmm why the range reducing? are LH troopers less able to shoot? are their bows of lesser quality? are troops that have LH or Cv options not the same and so able to shoot ate- same distances?

Light Horse AND Cavalry in one rank get the same treatment it seems. I suppose skirmisher shooting is deemed too effective at the moment (v1) so is being curbed.

Oh look, the first bottom-up "but all troops carry the same bows so should be able to shoot exactly the same!!" line of argument

Which is rather pointless, considering LH and Cv *already* shoot with less range than foot bowmen. It did always seem a bit odd to me that they lose the ability to take long range shots, but are still assumed to be precisely as effective at shooting at "effective" range.

My personal suggestion was 2" effective and 4" maximum for LH - glad to hear I wasn't alone - i.e. when shooting at enemy mounted they can choose to stay relatively safe but accept they are likely to be more of a nuisance than something that is likely to cause real damage...or get closer and hope to cause real damage, but accept a much greater risk of getting caught. 3" maximum is simpler but perhaps less tactically rich (fewer significant choices to make)...will be interesting to see how it plays out.

Historically, I don't believe LH archers shot co-ordinated volleys at medium-to-long range anyway. Cv is a bit trickier - some may have skirmished, some may have shot in formed bodies. So I guess that making this change apply to *single rank* Cv sounds like a good attempt to manage that distinction - good idea, gets my thumbs up.

This 3mu shooting range is for all cavalry IIRC ie two ranks one rank ect mind i might have got it wrong again.

david53 wrote:This 3mu shooting range is for all cavalry IIRC ie two ranks one rank ect mind i might have got it wrong again.

Cv entirely 1 rank deep and LH = 3 MU (skirmishing)

Cv not entirely 1 rank deep = 4 MU (shower shooting)

That should be good for drilled cavalry like the mongols who can shoot happily from 4 MU at HF content in the knowledge that they don't have to pass a test to expand.

Rob

but its worse than it was

Jilu wrote:hmmm why the range reducing? are LH troopers less able to shoot? are their bows of lesser quality? are troops that have LH or Cv options not the same and so able to shoot ate- same distances?

Well, there are a couple of reasons I can see, althought I'm not a writer so can't comment on their decisions.

1 - it's harder (much harder) to draw a bow from a saddle than standing on the ground; and,
2 - it's more accurate to be closer, so why would you shoot from a long way away when you can get close and be 'almost' as safe? It's one of the things I DO agree with dBm/dBa about.