Slitherine

I understand that your set will also address those of us who like to play competitions.
For this to work properly it is important to have best possible balance in the cost system.
In most systems cost of bases is calculated on front rank value, problem is that their support value (from 2nd or 3rd rank??¦) is sometimes not related at all to their front rank value.

Examples from DBM:
- second rank of legionaries although doubling the cost gives only marginal support
- supporting Byzantine cavalry archers give very marginal support at a relatively high price
- doubling Spartan hoplites gives good support but at a very high price
- while doubling low quality spearmen gives good support for a low price
- supporting skirmishers gives good support at a very low price

The consequence of this being that you end up with "best buy"/"worst buy" army lists.
I think this is one of the reasons why several high level historical armies have disappeared from competition tables.

A solution might be to have an "all included frontage" cost system : 4 ranks of pikemen cost xx points??¦ forbidding of course redeployment of the ranks during the game (which is not unrealistic)

Do you plan to address this ? How ?

Thanks

Thomas

Interesting question

From what I've seen so far cost is very much based on the assumption that troops will fight in their "usual/optimal" depth.

There do not appear to be any cases of marginal benefit from support - benefit is either significant or not, although I beleive that play tester views on supporting light foot archers is divided (but as these cannot be split off as they can in DBM there is no "freebie" issue).

Also as good troops are good and bad ones bad you appear to get what you pay for in terms of quality.

I should point out that my observations are not from playing but from giving Richard some assistance with lists and talking to beta testers - so my views come with a health warning

Thanks for your reply Nick, seems to me that I remember your wise opinions from DBMM mailing List

"selling" troops in their optimal/traditional depth, beside making armies set up easier and reducing rules exploitation, also gives game designers a better control on game balance.

Example:
Suppose poor pikemen cost 3 points per element and elite pikemen 5
4 ranks of poor pikemen cost 12 while 4 ranks of elite cost 20. But their relative "in game" value might not be nearly double but rather around 12 to +/-16.
If you "sell" them 4 ranks deep you can adjust cost more precisely to their real in game value.

Another case
I understand that armour is re-introduced in the set. (which is ok)
How will pikemen armoured only in their front rank be differenciate from 4 ranks of armoured pikemen ? If there is no in game difference, cost will be the same for both units, if little difference, little cost difference, etc...

IMHO separate elements to adjust the depth of units is a "relic" from the time units were composed of individual figures. In reality the vast majority of troops came with their traditional/optimal depth the same way as they came with their traditional/optimal frontage. The few exceptions should of course be left the choice??¦ But as a rule C-in-C should not bother with that !

tom wrote:Thanks for your reply Nick, seems to me that I remember your wise opinions from DBMM mailing List

"selling" troops in their optimal/traditional depth, beside making armies set up easier and reducing rules exploitation, also gives game designers a better control on game balance.

Example:
Suppose poor pikemen cost 3 points per element and elite pikemen 5
4 ranks of poor pikemen cost 12 while 4 ranks of elite cost 20. But their relative "in game" value might not be nearly double but rather around 12 to +/-16.
If you "sell" them 4 ranks deep you can adjust cost more precisely to their real in game value.

In AoW a file of 4 bases of average pike costs 24 points. Superiors would cost 32 and poor 16. The costs are still per base but the fact that pike need to be four ranks deep to have their full effect is factored into the cost.

Another case
I understand that armour is re-introduced in the set. (which is ok)
How will pikemen armoured only in their front rank be differenciate from 4 ranks of armoured pikemen ? If there is no in game difference, cost will be the same for both units, if little difference, little cost difference, etc...

There are no armoured pikemen in AoW, all pike are considered protected. Where a formation would normally have a couple of ranks of well armoured men at the front then lesser protected ones further back the overall formation is considered protected. It is a simplification but it seems to work perfectly well.

IMHO separate elements to adjust the depth of units is a "relic" from the time units were composed of individual figures. In reality the vast majority of troops came with their traditional/optimal depth the same way as they came with their traditional/optimal frontage. The few exceptions should of course be left the choice??¦ But as a rule C-in-C should not bother with that !

A good point but one advantage of individual bases is that the gradual degradation of a formation due to losses can be represented without resort to book keeping.

Hammy