Compulsory Troops

[rbodleyscott]

We are currently trying to finalise the first 2 army list books. These are

Rise of Rome
Twilight of Chivalry:Western Europe in the Later Middle Ages

We need to decide roughly how many points of compulsory troops each list should have.

Looking at 25mm as the "worst case" and assuming that armies are 650 or 700 points. (A reasonable assumption?)

Allowing for each army to have the equivalent of 1 FC and 2 TCs at 120 points. (Not compulsory).

If the compulsory troops (excluding generals) cost about 250 points, that makes 370 points.

This would give 280 free choice points for 650 points and 330 for 700. Is that enough?

[markm]

Sounds reasonable at over 40% and it's a greater proportion than the compulsory.

[sagji]

The only concern is that in doubles you get alot more flexability at 1000 points.
This might be addressed by saying that at least 1/2 the points need to come from core troups.

Also currently allies are referenced in their own list - but given the number of army books it would be useful for each book to detail each contingent where it doesn't provide the full list.

[nikgaukroger]

The only concern is that in doubles you get alot more flexability at 1000 points.
This might be addressed by saying that at least 1/2 the points need to come from core troups.

I think you'll find that there are not going to be "core" troops. As for flexibility that depends on what the list maximums are - you may not actually have that many choices.

Also currently allies are referenced in their own list - but given the number of army books it would be useful for each book to detail each contingent where it doesn't provide the full list.

IMO would take up too much room - the lists would end up too big and the cost would become a real barrier.

[lawrenceg]

The only concern is that in doubles you get alot more flexability at 1000 points.
This might be addressed by saying that at least 1/2 the points need to come from core troups.

I think you'll find that there are not going to be "core" troops. As for flexibility that depends on what the list maximums are - you may not actually have that many choices.

I think for "core" we should read "troops of a type which are compulsory".

Also, as we have seen in DBM, there is the creeping effect of inflation on competition army sizes. When we started 25mm tournaments on 6x4 tables in the South West, initially the armies were 300 points. This gave a well balanced game. However, people complained that they did not have enough variety in their armies etc, and the points gradually crept up to 325 and then 350. Then the "Worlds" at Derby went to 400 points and that is how it stuck for several years. It was too many points and made it impossible to achieve anything with a cavalry army. 800 points AoW is more like 430 points DBM.

Looking at 25mm as the "worst case" and assuming that armies are 650 or 700 points. (A reasonable assumption?)

For 25 mm 800 AOW = 430 DBM. This favours infantry too much. 300 DBM gives a well balanced game, and equates to about 550 pts AOW. However, 550 points won't be popular:

The main reason people wouldn't want to play it at that size is that they would only get about 8 BGs to play with. There are several reasons why that would be undesirable, including the feeling of not enough maneouvre units for interest and an increased effect of luck as loss of each BG becomes more critical. ... I cannot see 25mm players being willing to stick a 532 points. If nothing else, it would mean that a substantial proportion of their figures would have to stay in the box.

Well, I suppose we could address the "figures in box" problem by running 2-list tournaments. On the other hand, smaller armies makes things cheaper for new entrants to the hobby.

The main problem seems to be that small armies are needed to allow cavalry a chance, but small armies don't work because of scaling issues in the army lists connected to BG size. The obvious solution to this would be to reduce the minimum BG size (possibly only for 25 mm, but would people want to use smaller BGs if they were available in 15 mm?) so 4 becomes 2 or 3, 6 becomes 4, 8 becomes 4 or 6. (i.e. aiming at 2/3 the bases so frontage in mm is maintained) It may be necessary to allow some odd numbers in this case, at least for types that fight in a single rank.

From the DBM experience above it seems that players are not satisfied unless they can spend half their points on optional troops.

If you do go down to 550 points, that means only 275 pts of compulsories, which is too low for a 15 mm 1000 pt doubles army. There would be a good case for imposing additional constraints such as sagji suggested.

It is also worth bearing in mind that there are at least three kinds of compulsory troops:

1. Those you would not take if they were not compulsory (e.g. legionaries in DBM 3.0)
2. Those you would take even if they were optional (e.g. legionaries in AOW)
3. Those which have options to be different things (e.g. Foederati in DBM Patrician list as warband, irregular knights, regular knights or regular auxilia)

and two kinds of optional troops:
1. New kinds of troops
2. Greater numbers of the compulsory troops

so a players acceptance of levels of compulsion will depend on the army they are using.

I think before asking the question "How many points on compulsory troops?" we need to know the answer to "What is the aim of making things compulsory?" When we know that, we can think more rationally about the mechanism for compulsion and only then worry about the details of points or proportions of troop types, which may not be the same for all armies.

So what is it that you wish to compel?


Lawrence Greaves

[nikgaukroger]

IMO the aim of compulsory troops is to ensure that the army on table bears some resemblance to its historical prototype (hum that sounds familiar) whilst not being so high a proportion of the army that the player does not feel that they have enough choices of how to decide the composition - players like to play around and it is part of the game enjoyment.

BTW I don't think we should be looking to have differences between 15mm lists and 25/28mm ones - gets messy. So the minimums should work for both scales - obviously this will mean some sort of compromise.

If we are to assume that games will be 650 points or more I'd go with about 250 points as compulsory excluding generals.

[rbodleyscott]

I think before asking the question "How many points on compulsory troops?" we need to know the answer to "What is the aim of making things compulsory?" When we know that, we can think more rationally about the mechanism for compulsion and only then worry about the details of points or proportions of troop types, which may not be the same for all armies.

So what is it that you wish to compel?

Essentially the purpose of minima is to ensure that armies bear at least a token resemblance to their historical prototype.

[gerryb]

I'd probably say use a percentage as compulsory so that 15mm and 25mm have the same % core troops, probably 40-50% in my book

[lawrenceg]

Essentially the purpose of minima is to ensure that armies bear at least a token resemblance to their historical prototype.

Well, I think that is the overall purpose of the army list. But what constitutes "a token resemblance to their historical prototype" ?

Is that best achieved by absolute minimum numbers of bases?
By constraints on fractions of different troop types (e.g. 1 Y per 1-2 X)?
By special constraints in list notes (e.g."half the BG must be poor or average")?

Does the same answer (or combination of answers) apply to all armies?

Straight minima make it easier for players and list checkers, but suffer from scaling issues if armies are going from 650 to 1000 pts.

If you were starting with a blank sheet of paper, would you choose minima as the mechanism to use?

[nikgaukroger]

Straight minima make it easier for players

Therefore, should be used. Lists must be user friendly.

Please assume the minima will be points based.

Can we just have some ideas please on how many points the minima should be

[plewis66]

Personally, I think Richards suggested figures sound good. 280 from 650 is a fair percentage, and that's in the worst possible case. As the armies get bigger, the choice gets broader, which at first I thought might run counter to the effort of keeping the army looking like its historical analog, but when you get up to 1000pts, where the choice (and potential problem) problem would be largest, at 630pts , the mexima come into effect. This means that the army is constrined to retaining its shape from both ends of the points spectrum.

This means the largest range of possible choice (assuming maxima given in the other thread) will be at about 800 pts, where the 'free choice' points would be 430, and there would be roughly 700pts left on the list where these points could be spent.

[sagji]

Also currently allies are referenced in their own list - but given the number of army books it would be useful for each book to detail each contingent where it doesn't provide the full list.

IMO would take up too much room - the lists would end up too big and the cost would become a real barrier.

The lists would be the same size - the books would be slightly bigger - or contain slightly less armies.
There is also a cost issue in not doing it as then a peripheral army may need 2, 3, or even 4 extra books.

It doesn't even need to give the full options of the ally - just a competition legal subset.

[nikgaukroger]

Alan, it isn't going to happen - I've had this discussion with Richard already.

Now what about some numbers on the minima?

[sagji]

For 1000 points then a maximum amount of choice should be 500 points, taking 100 for generals, gives the compulsory at least 400 points.
The minimum amount of choice should be 200, adding 100 for generals and the 400 compulsory gives 700 as the minimum viable point.

I suspect that 25mm would then work better at 600 points but 1/2 maxima and minima.

[andy816]

Alan, it isn't going to happen - I've had this discussion with Richard already.

Now what about some numbers on the minima?

I would like to see minima used but in terms of number of battle groups not elements. Minimum and maximum number of elements to chose from within a list is fine but regarding the compulsory section if we express it as x number of battle groups then the army points value and percentage this takes up is more in the hands of the individual.

So for a Late Republican Roman we could express this as 2 generals, 4 BG of legionaries and 1 BG of LF. The size of these BGs will still have to conform to the minimum/maximum BG size for their type as declared in the army list.

Cheers

Andy Robinson

[hammy]

For 1000 points then a maximum amount of choice should be 500 points, taking 100 for generals, gives the compulsory at least 400 points.
The minimum amount of choice should be 200, adding 100 for generals and the 400 compulsory gives 700 as the minimum viable point.

I suspect that 25mm would then work better at 600 points but 1/2 maxima and minima.

I don't think that with 280 or so points of compulsaries and a normal maximum of 1100 or so you will have that much choice at 1000 points. You will essentially be limited byt what you don't take rather than what you do. A normal 800 point game is more the other way around, you choose what you want to take rather than what you don't.