Slitherine

nikgaukroger wrote:When originally writing the lists I was convinced that when facing good cuirassiers (i.e. the Superior types) the Poles struggled quite badly and this was part of the reason why I went the way I did with their classification.

Umm... not that I have any real problem with the classification of Hussars, but when specifically did the Poles "struggle quite badly" against, or even face much in the way of quality "true" cuirassiers? Now I'm confused.

Points are in the rules and all the supplements. Publishers and authors have made it clear points are not changing so we have to look elsewhere. I might want to look like George Clooney - wanting it does not make it happen. Much as we may want to change points that is not an option so we have to think of other solutions. If it is not going to happen keep posting that it should will be as effective as me posting that I want to look like George Clooney.

timmy1 wrote:Points are in the rules and all the supplements. Publishers and authors have made it clear points are not changing so we have to look elsewhere. I might want to look like George Clooney - wanting it does not make it happen. Much as we may want to change points that is not an option so we have to think of other solutions. If it is not going to happen keep posting that it should will be as effective as me posting that I want to look like George Clooney.

What a frustrating irony, huh? Everybody pretty much including the authors acknowledges what the problem is, but instead we have to go flail about trying to find a solution that's more likely to have unintended consequences on other game interactions, and would still require more fundamental rule changes to be added to the errata sheet, thus making even more contradictions to the rules as written.

I ain't holding my breath that anything useful is going to come of it.

Richard / Nik - why can't you publish a 'recommendation' that points for DH etc be reduced for competition play?

And on reflection I will henceforth address Tim as 'George' or 'Mr Clooney'

The main reason we have points is because in one on one competition style games we like things to start equal ish.
Whenever I do a Historical battle, I never use points, I look at the sources for an order of battle and go from that.

Seems to me the points change only really effects those playing competition games.
Therefore instead of putting barriers in the way to points changes, the authors/publishers possibly the BHGS should maybe get in cohoots and do what is essentially the most logical way to resolve what seems to be a miscalculation on the cost worth of a troop type when compared to others.

Given the amount of spreadsheets that most of us use, it would seem a simple solution for the BHGS with the blessing of Slitherine/Authors adjust the cost/produce a spreadsheet which is adopted as the version to use and publish a 1 page amendment to the points chart which we could all print and put in our respective books.

Its a shame a lot more of this stuff is not in an electronic form for use with ipads/android devices etc such that when you buy the hardcopy maybe loose leaf instead of binded, you get a licence to access a soft copy and amendments etc are updated once a year.
Relevant pages made downloadable etc. If this was at a cost premium then fine. In the long run though for me the customer, I don't think I am going to be any more out of pocket than I already am.

cheers
Jim

petedalby wrote:Richard / Nik - why can't you publish a 'recommendation' that points for DH etc be reduced for competition play?

Well I would certainly recommend a reduction in DH, etc. points for competition games ...

Fine. Just say how much determined horse, cavaliers and gendarmes ought to cost, then! Competition organisers can apply your recommendation - problem solved. Doing just that worked with DBM.

Unofficial points sandpit to play in - viewtopic.php?f=70&t=45268

I have long posted that the points should be reduced, I am just explaining the reality.

Pete

Thanks, you are gent,

Regards
George

Jim

Points are also used for pickup games. That tends to be how we get new people interested at a club nite or something so they do matter. If they are different to whats in the rules it makes things more difficult.

Yep pick up games, I called it one on one games. But same thing.

I disagree on the novice bit. If there's a change then novices will find out from more experienced players in the loop.
If its 2 players not part of the competition scene, neither will be the wiser and can continue to play with current values at no detriment.

cheers
Jim

johngl wrote:I don't like the idea of changing break points - it would skew the whole game and make points changes even more necessary. Just change the points for determined horse and cavaliers instead of fiddling around with the rules.

I think the rules are there and don't want to break anything, I think if you reduced the costs of determined horse etc and dealt with artillery, everything would work

Once you start changing what units break on it gets very complicated though I sympathise with average mounted, although people think superiors are strong because they are in 4's once you take a casualty you always get a minus and if you haven't got a general and rear support you go down quickly

cheers

Alasdair

If there is a consensus that Sup troops are too good and Horse Avg 4's are too weak. What about giving BG of 4's the +1 of the death roll vs shot/art. Thay would increase their survivability against long range artillery sniping (perhaps making people less inclined to angle art toward the flanks). But make Sup Bg break on 50% (rather than >50%)

Avg horse would get a break as they take less shooting. Sup horse probably about the same. Sup foot would be a little bit more brittle.

Prolly too much for a bug fix!

nikgaukroger wrote:

petedalby wrote:Richard / Nik - why can't you publish a 'recommendation' that points for DH etc be reduced for competition play?

Well I would certainly recommend a reduction in DH, etc. points for competition games ...

Thanks, Nik.

As a non-competition player who typically plays historical opponents I don't like the idea of breaking what works in order to make an "over/underpriced" troop type competitive. If the problem is points change the points. If the problem is the historical interaction fix that, but don't fix tournament competition problems by breaking historical interactions that already work. Ruins it for non-competition, historical-opponents players.

Hi Nik et al

As a non-competition player who typically plays historical opponents I don't like the idea of breaking what works in order to make an "over/underpriced" troop type competitive. If the problem is points change the points. If the problem is the historical interaction fix that, but don't fix tournament competition problems by breaking historical interactions that already work. Ruins it for non-competition, historical-opponents players.

Could not have said it better myself, and having suffered at hands of 2 dice in melee DH this very day using HA Cuirassier I do think the interaction is ok overall.

Would rather see points amended than the rules, if change is indeed required.
An increase in cost of HA Pistoleer type might be better/easier than reduction of several others ?
I do however understand (ie I have suffered enough 'gurning' about it) how those fielding DH or Polish Lancers feel they are too costly vis HA Cuirrassier types. A change of 1-2 points per base is not a game changer anyhow.

If it really has to be a rule change (as points written in stone) then giving the DH 2 dice in Overlap vs Mounted is my preferred option (if only for ease of implementation.

I dislike the options of changing Breakpoint of Avg vs Superior

Cheers for a great set of rules
Gary

SgtRolfSteiner wrote: Could not have said it better myself, and having suffered at hands of 2 dice in melee DH this very day using HA Cuirassier I do think the interaction is ok overall.

Yeah, I don't think we did too badly with the interactions on the whole. Points are trickier though

Would rather see points amended than the rules, if change is indeed required.
An increase in cost of HA Pistoleer type might be better/easier than reduction of several others ?
I do however understand (ie I have suffered enough 'gurning' about it) how those fielding DH or Polish Lancers feel they are too costly vis HA Cuirrassier types. A change of 1-2 points per base is not a game changer anyhow.

Have a look at the unofficial points topic and feel free to chip in there

list_lurker wrote:If there is a consensus that Sup troops are too good and Horse Avg 4's are too weak. What about giving BG of 4's the +1 of the death roll vs shot/art. Thay would increase their survivability against long range artillery sniping (perhaps making people less inclined to angle art toward the flanks). But make Sup Bg break on 50% (rather than >50%)

Avg horse would get a break as they take less shooting. Sup horse probably about the same. Sup foot would be a little bit more brittle.

Prolly too much for a bug fix!

Effectively a +1 death test for horse vs artillery, for the purposes of this discussion.

It sounds pretty minor, but surely in practice that would mean there was almost no point in shooting at any horse with just 2 artillery, as you'd need to do 2 hits to cause either a test or a casualty. Which is probably not what we want either...

but surely in practice that would mean there was almost no point in shooting at any horse with just 2 artillery, as you'd need to do 2 hits to cause either a test or a casualty

well , 2 guns firing would have a 25% chance of causing a test on mounted, with a 18% of getting a casualty (which given the half of the suggestion sup breaking on >=50% then would be bad, should it happen..). Compared to shooting at foot with an 18% chance of getting 2 hits , with a 33% death roll...

Its just a niggle for me , but the illustrations I see of renaissance warfare the guns are central pointing ahead...pointing at infantry. In Fog R its de jour to see the guns deploy last and try a cheeky shot in the first bound to try and kill a 22pt gendarme



i think the interraction between cavalry and artillery only happened by accident , rather than by design

Interesting. Where are the mounted?

With that number of guns I too would concentrate my fire on the foot - at least they can't run away.

Dave