Slitherine

I would suggest the issue is Elites are too cheap - make the difference between Superior and Elite 4 or 5 and we are getting somewhere.

timmy1 wrote:I would suggest the issue is Elites are too cheap - make the difference between Superior and Elite 4 or 5 and we are getting somewhere.

You might be the first person I've ever seen assert that Elites were too cheap, in either Renaissance or Ancients. The usual statement on the value of elites tends to be: "If your plan requires elites, you need a new plan."

I happen to agree. Elites can't cover enough table space. Because quantity has a quality all of its own, especially in a limited units game, I happen to think that at the current price they might be too expensive - Superior are much better value but I was responding to someone who thought the rations were wrong and was proposing something I don't believe needs fixing and with a solution that seemed to me to be the wrong one. If Sup to Elite gap was too small make Elites punishingly expensive and hopefully the person with the view will take time to consider how we can fix what he thinks in wrong and maybe he will see it perhaps ain't.

timmy1 wrote:I happen to agree. Elites can't cover enough table space. Because quantity has a quality all of its own, especially in a limited units game, I happen to think that at the current price they might be too expensive - Superior are much better value but I was responding to someone who thought the rations were wrong and was proposing something I don't believe needs fixing and with a solution that seemed to me to be the wrong one. If Sup to Elite gap was too small make Elites punishingly expensive and hopefully the person with the view will take time to consider how we can fix what he thinks in wrong and maybe he will see it perhaps ain't.

Ah, OK.

While I don't necessarily agree that Elites aren't worth it in -all- cases (hey, I have a Spanish army), I think the general principal of an attritional game (and FOG-R is VERY attritional in most matchups) is that the marginal utility of each additional bonus you put on a unit will keep getting smaller and smaller. Or to take an example from another period, it doesn't make much sense to charge 10 times as much for Old Guard as the Line if the Old Guard catch cannon balls just as easily.

If Sup to Elite gap was too small make Elites punishingly expensive and hopefully the person with the view will take time to consider how we can fix what he thinks in wrong and maybe he will see it perhaps ain't.

The point I was trying to make is that due to the change in autobreak levels the only real difference between Superiors and Averages now is the reroll(unless you go to BG of 12 or greater). Yet the points(foot) remain the same. So why is that?

The point I was trying to make is that due to the change in autobreak levels the only real difference between Superiors and Averages now is the reroll(unless you go to BG of 12 or greater). Yet the points(foot) remain the same. So why is that?

I believe that the feeling is that currently the points cost of superiors is not enough compared to average - which is why many players nearly always take superiors instead of average when they get the option. This has seen a trend in tournaments to restrict the number of superior BGs.

The new proposal is to try and address this by increasing the survivability of average, making them better value and worth the points when compared to superior. Thus the foot points haven't changed. Mounted is still in flux in an attempt to sort the current issue with 2 dice/base horse.

From the play tests I have done so far, I know that, at 17 points for a Superior Armoured P/P DH and 14 points for an average one, I would take superior if possible.

I have a Swiss army so both the >=12 base BG difference matters, and the Superior/Elite difference. I also have a Later Tercio Army of the Spanish Roads so more Elite's than you can shake a stick at...

And I agree with DavidT - the ONE thing that needs fixing with FoGR is that the Average / Superior decision is ALWAYS a no brainer. The changes fix that. MAYBE we have gone too far but I won't know until i get a playtest in.

So apart from tweaking the mounted costs I take it from the silence here that people are broadly OK with the current points suggestion.

What is the consensus on Light Lance/Heavy Lance or Impact Pistol/Impact Mtd? I know that I prefer 1/2 /3 points.
Also, what is the view on CS costs?

nikgaukroger wrote:So apart from tweaking the mounted costs I take it from the silence here that people are broadly OK with the current points suggestion.

Mounted costs is the majority of the suggestion. Which tweaks are we still considering... the cavalry proposal?

Also, if the bow issue gets promoted to a proposal, it might reflect in the points.

The cavalry fall back one looks to have support so I think we can assume that'd be in.

Bow range not sure but at present it is not a formal proposal so best to look at points on the basis of the current situation.

Guys, I'm about to play my first game with the amendments, and am trying to work out my list.

From what I can see, in my Danes which has:

Dragoons, Pike&Shot, Shot, Regimental Guns, Determined Horse and Medium Artillery, the only cost change is -1 point for average DH. Is that correct?

That's correct

Having seen the results of Badcon thought I would look at the top three armies, all had Superior Camelry Unarmoured Lt Lance, Sword, currently 13pts, if the changes go through they become 11pts

Unarmored Camelry 8
Lt Lance 1
Sword 1
Camel 1

Saving 8pts for each unit of 4 so for every 4 units of Camels, which is the minimum any one would take, they can now buy 1 unit of 6 bowmen

Making the West Sudanese even more powerful

Not only that but some of the proposal would make them equivalent to horse being Lance armed, and therefore no longer having the -1 for being shot by shot.

Who would take any other army to an open competition???

Suggestions?

Its the combination of mass bows, outshooting P&S, and Camelry outfighting the horse.

Thats one of the reasons I have advocated making Bow 2pts, or at least making their short range 3", or making them all first rank plus half back rank shooting.

On the other side being able to disorder all horse/cavalry is very potent, it negates any Pistol melee automatically and gives in effect an extra dice to the Camels automatically so maybe should be 2pts. (A unit of 4 would be 8pts, equivalent to the suggested CS price)

Not that I am saying its a killer army, it is very hard to beat, I have fought it 3 times at competition and twice the Taureg, just wouldn't want to make it tougher.

TYW French w Wiemarian Allies v West Sudanese at Britcon, winning draw. down to Terrain lost of forest and a big steep hill, and one unit of P&S holding a gap and seeing of four units of Camels, 2 x 2, killed three + the ally general, didn't get the last one as it make a Fragged CMT w/o a general in front of my P&S to get away. Regimental guns helped as they made long distance shooting evens, as did the steep hill as the bowmen on it where disordered reducing their shooting. And the Forests made sure thye couldn't just have a big line of shooting.

17th Century French v West Sudanese at Campaign, two wins, one army had no Camels (thanks Nigel) and the other was operated not very well, got my infantry in, GC + rear support, lots of bow losing to impact foot.

17 Century French v Tuareg at Campaign, win, Blocked the camels with P&S and destroyed the infantry, as we where both impact foot, but I shot first. (yes and that is 3 African armies in the same competition, that army was nicknamed the French Foreign Legion.)

TYW French v Taureg, winning draw, never saw so many camels make CMT's, a massive amount of dancing camels would have been at home on the BBC on a Saturday night. Another two turns and he would have run out of space and been Camel Kebabs.

I think Camel should be extra points for the ability to disorder. I think the current points value is about right for them. On bows I think the range should be 3" as I said on the other thread, I think the points should stay the same. If superior unarmoured camels with light lance stayed at 13 points then the advantage of the points reduction for western style cavalry means they should have more. I would therefore reverse engineer it to get to 13 points.

Suggestions?

Seems to me that open competitions are the problem not the rules. Tighten up the themes but I suspect I am an old fossil who just does historical match ups.

nikgaukroger wrote:Suggestions?

I'd say the biggest problem with the bowmen is that there is no "winning tactic" for the Pike and Shot in this matchup. In a shootout the latter get outshot, and their advantage in impact/melee is pretty miniscule; I would expect a formation including a body of decent quality pikemen to cut through "light infantry" (in the colloquial sense, not the FOG-R troop type) archers like a chainsaw through butter, but there are no POAs to be seen.

As far as the camels go, I don't know enough about the North African armies of this period to say how accurately they are portrayed here... though I do have to wonder how these armies suddenly get large forces of highly effective camelry when earlier period Arab armies with an abundance of camels would consistently choose to fight on foot or horseback instead, even when facing other cavalry.

In any event, the value of being a camel right now is at least equivalent to a POA against all horse-riding mounted, both in impact and melee. Would that at least be about the same as impact pistol + melee pistol (3 points total)?