Slitherine

As mentioned the separate proposal for the Duty & Glory book.


The minimum of mounted Battle Troops in the Core Troops section of the army list that must be fielded (if they don't already meet this) rises to 8 bases with the following exceptions:


Later Danish - may include the Horse Guards from Optional Troops in the 8
Later Spanish
Covenanting Rebels
Monmouth Rebellion
Scots Jacobite


Remove the bullet "At least half the battle groups of Dutch cavalry fielded must be Poor quality." from the Later Dutch list.

Allow 1 BG per 3 of Average mounted Battle Troops from the Core Troops to be upgraded to Superior if there are currently none in Core Troops.

I still think you're at risk of alienating people who already have an army and don't want to buy more figures. I also don't really understand why. I mean the list writers would have done their research in the first place, right? so the numbers wouldn't have changed, and no new research has come to light has it?

It is a correction of a systematic error in the mounted minima in the original lists. Simple as.

Is there a reason why the Later Spanish are excepted? As the moment the Flanders and Spain Army's has a minimum of 4 and the Army of Italy a minimum of 0.

Don

because, as I understand it, these armies were low in numbers of mounted compared to other armies.

nikgaukroger wrote:because, as I understand it, these armies were low in numbers of mounted compared to other armies.

And the armies still running 2 stands of pike in that period have enough problems...

Jhykronos wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:because, as I understand it, these armies were low in numbers of mounted compared to other armies.

And the armies still running 2 stands of pike in that period have enough problems...

So, worry less about history and worry more about making armies more playable?

Buccaneers with Superior Heavily Armoured Cuirassiers and Heavy for for the native American armies then?

Remind me who said in another topic:

Your sarcasm isn't appreciated

ravenflight wrote:

Jhykronos wrote: So, worry less about history and worry more about making armies more playable?

History says that the typical army in this period ran 20-40% horse. The first pass on the lists didn't get this right, so the proposal is to correct it(*). With exceptions that are also based on history.

But yes, in a warGAME, having as many feasible competitive armies is a justifiable goal.

(*) Actually, I'm not sure how much of this to blame on the list design, and how much to blame on the system that made the horse such a bad buy.

Jhykronos wrote:(*) Actually, I'm not sure how much of this to blame on the list design, and how much to blame on the system that made the horse such a bad buy.

From my perspective, a great deal on the latter.

Most of my resistance to the change is a strong desire to not alienate players.

I have a 1 BG of Horse Danish army. I'm highly unlikely to buy another BG just to run them. I've finished that army and I don't want to muck around with it any more. For myself, I don't really care. IF I play again, I'll build another army and be done with it. No big deal. But if there are other people in my boat who are going 'hmm, buy a Flames of War army or build another BG of mounted... I'll build the Flames of War army' well, we've lost a player probably to never see him return.

However, as you've said Jhykronos, the reason many people built strong foot armies of the Duty and Glory was because Determined Horse were crap with a capital K! IF we get it right and IF we maintain the player base, I feel that the attraction of building more balanced armies will be in the benefits you get for running more DH.

So, in essence, I suggest going more with carrot than with stick.

If we end up saying 'stuff you guys, bad luck, go whinge to someone who cares, you'll lose players (and FoG:R isn't being run at CanCon this year due to lack of players, so, I think we've got to be careful here IMHO).

If we end up saying 'you know what, if you build a bigger mounted force your army will be more capable, but, if you wanna stay shootie based then that's ok too, we're not going to hamstring your army' then those players who are dithering will still have a valid army and will be able to play with what they have.

ravenflight wrote:If we end up saying 'stuff you guys, bad luck, go whinge to someone who cares, you'll lose players (and FoG:R isn't being run at CanCon this year due to lack of players, so, I think we've got to be careful here IMHO).

Not a bad point, but I would suggest that there are two other factors that also drive away the player base:
1. Rules with glaring issues that go unaddressed due to lack of support from the author/publisher (DBx gets blasted in hindsight for its umpteen revisions, but as far as game systems go, it had a remarkably strong player base for a long time... largely IMO, because the authors -were- very active in refining and updating their product).
2. Competition scenes that get stale because the system mastery of the players devolves list design into one or two optimal templates that many consider unfun to play against or dubiously historical (Duty and Glory wall-to-wall foot shooters vs Mounted/Dragoon hordes with huge artillery parks, for example).

Jhykronos wrote:

ravenflight wrote:If we end up saying 'stuff you guys, bad luck, go whinge to someone who cares, you'll lose players (and FoG:R isn't being run at CanCon this year due to lack of players, so, I think we've got to be careful here IMHO).

Not a bad point, but I would suggest that there are two other factors that also drive away the player base:
1. Rules with glaring issues that go unaddressed due to lack of support from the author/publisher (DBx gets blasted in hindsight for its umpteen revisions, but as far as game systems go, it had a remarkably strong player base for a long time... largely IMO, because the authors -were- very active in refining and updating their product).
2. Competition scenes that get stale because the system mastery of the players devolves list design into one or two optimal templates that many consider unfun to play against or dubiously historical (Duty and Glory wall-to-wall foot shooters vs Mounted/Dragoon hordes with huge artillery parks, for example).

But wouldn't the rules changes inspire this? For instance, DH being more cost effective and genuinely being able to DO something... there may even be a requirement (practically, not rules wise) to buy more DH because you're not going to have a competative comp army any more if you don't.

After due consideration we have decided that - This proposal will be implemented

Other than the Dutch I am fine with that.