Slitherine

madaxeman wrote:Those mounted cavalry armies certainly looked very (as in 'too') big on table this weekend - wall to wall mounted is not a good look, especially with everyone shooting as well.

Cavalry cost does seem to be a consistent theme - I'm not totally surprised since they are, on the whole, beneficiaries of a number of suggested points reductions; their base costs and some capabilities that are common to Cavalry.

Would help if people could suggest roughly what they think would be reasonable for various common Cavalry types so we have a feel of how people value them.

Personally I would not drop the base cost of cavalry, horse, light horse, I think the weapon cost reductions work on their own.

spedders wrote:Personally I would not drop the base cost of cavalry, horse, light horse, I think the weapon cost reductions work on their own.

If it must be drop... It is a lesser evil !

[quote="nikgaukroger]Cavalry cost does seem to be a consistent theme - I'm not totally surprised since they are, on the whole, beneficiaries of a number of suggested points reductions; their base costs and some capabilities that are common to Cavalry. [/quote]

Too bad nobody predicted that might happen.

Would help if people could suggest roughly what they think would be reasonable for various common Cavalry types so we have a feel of how people value them.

Well, when you're designing a point system you need a baseline for comparison. So let's go with the vanilla 4/2 average pike/musket 6-pack at 42 points (we'll assume they are costed correctly, because you have to assume that -something- is costed correctly).

So...

4 stands of Cavalry-Average-Unarmored-Bow-Sword cost 40 points under the old system, 28 points under the new system.

My experience in the old system was that they were garbage (and they stood out as such in a Polish army, which had a lot of troops that didn't work particularly well)... for around 40 points I'd be better off with another pike/shot unit in almost all circumstances... if I badly needed a second-line mounted unit, I'd be better off with Horse Average Pistol Pistol in almost every circumstance.

Under the new system, their value is a lot higher. Average is more viable, Unarmored is more viable, and the FOG2 style cavalry evasion gives them some decent flexibility as skirmishers.

All in all, they would still be a reasonable buy at 36 or 40 points.

The problem is... how to get them there?

Taken individually, most all of the point reductions for cavalry are pretty well justified. The original assumption that the benefit FOG1 evasion capability outweighed the drawback of the morale penalty vs firearms was clearly incorrect. Even with the new evasion ability it's probably a wash, or at best worth a point. Melee Sword is inferior to melee pistol. The only discount that might be too much is dropping the bow from 2 to 1... but once again, like with the carbine, missile capability is a lot more powerful on troops that can evade than those that can't (I believe I suggested before that the carbine was probably worth 1 point for horse, but 2 for cavalry).

Still, adding 1 to the base cost and 1 for the bow may be reasonable

4 Cavalry Unarmored Average Bow Sword = 36 (instead of 28)
4 Cavalry Armored Average Bow Sword = 44 (instead of 36)
4 Cavalry Armored Superior Bow Sword = 56 (Instead of 48)

Additional note: I'm not sure that light horse particularly need a point increase though...

Just a note the reduced points changes are having a quite an effect on the Italian Wars period. Looking at my Maximilian Imperial army for this years Southern League I find the points cost is reduced by over 100 points. Great for more Lansknechte who will now be average, unless the army points are reduced this year. I am finding the changes have slowed down how the games in this period are going, which is fine for club games, is anyone finding the same situation.

I think we've agreed that the Italian Wars Southern League round will be 800 points, as in previous years. So you will get more troops for your money.

I believe we will be deploying closer together though, as at Oxford.

Nothing has been decided yet about what we are going with for the Southampton round which includes the new rules and the points.

I was going to wait until July but I have been thinking of late about getting something out a bit earlier so players will know which way we are going.

Discussion seems to have died here... are we waiting for some event results?

Some input from the "Way of the Warriors" tourney I believe.

Overall from way of the warrior:

Really didn't find the warrior v reduction of bow short range caused any issues.

Really liked the armour interaction, gives a better balance and the more I play with it the less fiddly it becomes.

Finally really need to reduce naval unit points cost!

And/or make it easier to get the bloody things on the table!

The rules worked ok for me, too; I agree with the amended armour rules becoming less cumbersome the more we play them. I'd like to say I didn't have any issues with the reduced "close range" on bows, but hitting on evens with just 1 out of 16 dice (two 8-packs firing) and then doing the exact same thing the following turn as well, does allow superior heavy-armoured samurai with spears to get in and make a mess of your bow-and-bugger-all-else units*. But then that's pretty much how my dice work most games anyway, so no change at all there.

[ * In fact, taking off their loincloths and throwing them at the enemy might have had more effect....any chance of a rule for that? ]