Slitherine

Posted: **Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:01 pm**

Three years ago there was quite an extensive discussion on what updated points for mounted might look like - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 70&t=45268

Well now we have the opportunity to do this as part of the official update

Here are a few general points I think we should bear in mind:

1. In a wargame with so many different troops types and capabilities points values are relatively subjective and there can be no absolute right values; the best we can manage is a reasonable consensus.
2. Because of this there is no point in struggling for spurious “perfection/accuracy” in the points; it’s “close enough for government work” territory.
3. Stick with whole integer values, no half points – because of the above points. Similarly stick with the current framework, no doubling/etc. of values as all you end up doing is arguing over the said spurious accuracy for no real benefit.
4. Points values are for the whole game and not a sub-set of troops/capabilities. So you can’t just set the points for, say, Pike Vs. Horse whilst ignoring how they also relate to Pike Vs. Warriors. However, if there is a decision to be made it should aim to get the balance between historical match-ups right over ahistorical ones – e.g. if there is doubt over the exact points for Elephants the final choice should be the one that gets the match-ups for Asian warfare best balanced even if they are not quite right for match-ups against TYW armies.

Here is, I think, more or less what came out of the previous discussion and may provide a useful start point this time around. Note, however, that there are other potential changes that may affect this - such as BG break points and better armour.

The obvious biggest single issue is the cost of Determined Horse especially compared to Horse given their relative effectiveness on the table; however, there are a number of other changes that would also be useful such as the cost of Cavalry.

IMO the benchmark for working out what new values would be appropriate is probably that Superior, Heavily Armoured, Horse, Impact Pistol, Melee Pistol should cost the same as Superior, Armoured, determined Horse, Impact Pistol, Melee Pistol – it certainly seemed to have general (but not universal) support as a base when mentioned previously.

One suggested model to start from was:

Armoured Determined Horse 16/13/9/5
Unarmoured Determined Horse 12/10/7/4
Fully- or heavily-Armoured Gendarmes 18/15/10/6
Armoured Cavaliers 15/12/8/4
Unarmoured Cavaliers 11/19/6/3
Heavily Armoured Horse/Cavalry/Camelry 16/13/9/5
Armoured Horse/Cavalry/Camelry 12/10/7/4
Unarmoured Horse/Cavalry/Camelry 10/8/5/3
Armoured Light Horse 12/10/7/4
Unarmoured Light Horse 10/8/5/3

This works on the basis of lowering the cost of Determined Horse. This also assumes no changes are made in respect of Average and Poor mounted relative to other mounted troops and it is worth noting that Average are seen as overpriced (and there are next to no Poor so nobody comments on them) - as mentioned above other changes may affect this.

An alternative points model that takes into account the current issue with Average/Poor was suggested (by Kevin) as:

Armoured Determined Horse 18/15/9/5
Unarmoured Determined Horse 15/12/7/4
Fully- or heavily-Armoured Gendarmes 20/17/10/6
Armoured Cavaliers 17/14/8/4
Unarmoured Cavaliers 14/11/6/3
Heavily Armoured Horse/Cavalry/Camelry 18/15/9/5
Armoured Cavalry/Cavalry/Camelry 15/12/7/4
Unarmoured Horse/Cavalry/Camelry 11/9/5/3
Armoured Light Horse 12/10/7/4
Unarmoured Light Horse 10/8/5/3

Which raises the costs of Elite and Superior up to the current Determined Horse levels whilst keeping Average and Poor at lower levels.

Both of these models are assuming Horse and Cavalry should cost the same – this may not be the case; it is possible that Cavalry should be cheaper than Horse.

Fire away ...

Posted: **Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:35 pm**

I had a look at the two models above. I came across some differences within each model as well as between models that might point a way forward. It's about the points for armour between the different classes of mounted. By comparing the first model against the second it's clear the cost of armour is inconsistent in both models making certain armoured troops inherently better value:

Cost of armour for Poor, Average, Superior & Elite

Code: Select all

Model 1
Light Horse    1,2,2,2
Horse/Cv/Cm    1,2,2,2
D Horse        1,2,3,4
Cavaliers      1,2,3,4

Model 2
Light Horse    1,2,2,2
Horse/Cv/Cm    1,2,3,4
D Horse        1,2,3,3
Cavaliers      1,2,3,3

Likewise there are differences between the cost of heavy armour when compared to just armour:

Cost of armour for Poor, Average, Superior & Elite (Horse, Cavalry & Camels)

Code: Select all

Model 1
Armour         1,2,2,2
H Armour       2,4,5,6

Model 2
Armour         1,2,3,4
H Armour       2,4,6,7

Perhaps it might help to untangle the points debate? I'd split it in two and consider the base points for each type in isolation before moving on to add points for armour etc.

Posted: **Tue Nov 22, 2016 5:59 pm**

Here's a comparison of the points for unarmoured mounted bar Gendarmes for obvious reasons

Cost for Poor (Base) and extra for Average, Superior & Elite

Code: Select all

Model 1
Light Horse    3  2,3,7
Horse/Cv/Cm    3  2,5,7
Cavaliers      3  3,6,8
D Horse        6  3,6,8

Model 2
Light Horse    3  2,3,7
Horse/Cv/Cm    3  2,6,8
Cavaliers      3  3,8,11
D Horse        6  3,8,11

Viewed this way the differences between the models is much more obvious. Hope this helps.

Posted: **Wed Nov 23, 2016 9:57 pm**

I certainly think cavalry should be less than horse. Turk and Indian armies are currently not viable in open competitions.

There is no reason why they should not be, after all it was not unheard of them to beat European armies.

Don

Posted: **Thu Nov 24, 2016 6:27 am**

donm2 wrote:I certainly think cavalry should be less than horse. Turk and Indian armies are currently not viable in open competitions.

There is no reason why they should not be, after all it was not unheard of them to beat European armies.

Don

You may well be right. I'd be interested to hear others views on this.

Posted: **Thu Nov 24, 2016 1:15 pm**

I was firmly in the "make them cheaper" camp, but I'm now not quite so sure. I'm not convinced that the perceived problem extends past DH, and I think that there are ways of making DH more cost effective against other mounted without changing the points system. My experience is that HA Cuirassiers beat DH because it's relatively easy to pass the CT for losing impact (superior/general/rear support) and so end up on a + or ++ in the melee. Changing the combat interaction seems easier as changing the points values won't effect how easy it is to pass the CT.

Posted: **Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:18 pm**

Cavalry should be no more costly than Horse of the same grade / armour. Don't agree cheaper, as the evade capability most cavalry have is a very valuable asset.

Posted: **Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:21 pm**

timmy1 wrote:Cavalry should be no more costly than Horse of the same grade / armour. Don't agree cheaper, as the evade capability most cavalry have is a very valuable asset.

Others I have spoken to find it a bit marginal - but that may be theme related - and that the -ve CT modifier for being shot at by firearms outweighs it.

However, I think we are clear that people think that Cv should be no more expensive than Hse which is a start

Posted: **Thu Nov 24, 2016 3:26 pm**

Nik

You have agreement on SOMETHING - time to start the Beta...

Posted: **Thu Nov 24, 2016 7:36 pm**

timmy1 wrote:Cavalry should be no more costly than Horse of the same grade / armour. Don't agree cheaper, as the evade capability most cavalry have is a very valuable asset.

Unless lance armed, in which case they are even worse. -ve for being shot at AND can't evade, and cost more than horse for the benefit.

Posted: **Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:33 am**

Whilst we can't really look at costs until the other changes are nailed down, I think it's generally agreed that the premium paid by cavalry is not justified by the benefits that some of them get.

Posted: **Sat Nov 26, 2016 9:06 pm**

It' s been mentioned before but a way to increase the effectiveness of DH and Gendarmes is th give them 2 dice at overlaps, same as if fighting frontally, which ties in nicely with their one rank ethos.

Posted: **Sun Nov 27, 2016 6:26 am**

Vespasian28 wrote:It' s been mentioned before but a way to increase the effectiveness of DH and Gendarmes is th give them 2 dice at overlaps, same as if fighting frontally, which ties in nicely with their one rank ethos.

That would be a different discussion point - and for another thread please, lets keep this one as points

I would also add that to change the way DH work would need to be justified by showing that the current interactions are wrong. If it is a value for money issue there is no need to mess around with the interactions as we are changing the points.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:30 am**

Quick question for you all.

Last time we had a discussion about mounted points I suggested that the following was a reasonable benchmark to start from:

IMO the benchmark for working out what new values would be appropriate is probably that Superior, Heavily Armoured, Horse, Impact Pistol, Melee Pistol should cost the same as Superior, Armoured, Determined Horse, Impact Pistol, Melee Pistol.

So, as the rules currently stand is this assumption reasonable?

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:54 am**

As things stand I think that the DH should be slightly more due to their having 2 dice per base and Shock. Perhaps about half the current difference would be more appropriate.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:31 am**

Looking at mtd points, why are Carbine Pistol more expensive than Pistol Pistol, I would have them at the same points.

The difference seems to be Pistol impact is less because it only affected at impact which may be 3-4 times max in a game, and Carbine can shoot although only 3mu every shooting phase. If Carbine troops shoot more than 3-4 times in a game they are doing very well and they only hit on a 5-6 so that actual damage rate is very low.

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2016 8:39 am**

Already mentioned - http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtop ... 50#p630950

Posted: **Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:53 pm**

Nik

I agree with your proposal from 07:30 29th.

Posted: **Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:07 pm**

nikgaukroger wrote:Quick question for you all.

Last time we had a discussion about mounted points I suggested that the following was a reasonable benchmark to start from:

IMO the benchmark for working out what new values would be appropriate is probably that Superior, Heavily Armoured, Horse, Impact Pistol, Melee Pistol should cost the same as Superior, Armoured, Determined Horse, Impact Pistol, Melee Pistol.
So, as the rules currently stand is this assumption reasonable?

As the rules currently stand, yes, but naturally we'd have to re-evaluate that if the armour advantage at two levels etc were to be implemented.

Posted: **Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:00 am**

kevinj wrote:As things stand I think that the DH should be slightly more due to their having 2 dice per base and Shock. Perhaps about half the current difference would be more appropriate.

I would suggest that those 2 factors are why the DH should be more expensive than Horse with the same Armour and for the comparison with Heavily Armoured Horse with Armoured DH the better armour would mitigate those advantages (to some degree).

Slitherine

Mounted Points

Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points

Re: Mounted Points