Thoughts on new materials

[martymagnificent]

Good to have a read. Better organised and clearer.

Would, however, seem like a bit of a disaster for many lower tech armies. Consider:

1) Loose is still no cheaper than C/L, etc but is now giving away a +3 in impact against mounted. It is also easier for the mounted to break off (so there will be lots of impacts). If you happen to be irregular as well the mounted get another +2. I'm not sure we need the cavalry getting 5 factors without weapons!

2) Bow (and other non-shot weapons) appear to be pretty ineffective and overpriced. They will shoot on whites the majority of the time (which in a 3 wound per base games means they will do very little). The only exception is against Unprotected, but given these have been changed to a .9 multiplier on the points chart even fewer of these will be turning up. In spite of this they are 25 points for foot. Only 5 points less than the vastly superior matchlock musket.

If these weapons/formations need to be this ineffective they at least need to be cheap to give the armies some reason to exist. Will give it a try when I get a chance.

Martin

[alasdair]

This is the bit I know continues to need work but we found cavalry was getting destroyed by the 9's what you might not have picked up yet is the -15 per base for being irregulars

[alasdair]

Martin as still on total lockdown plus not my area of armies could you play some games with TYW armies vs colonial armies and see how they go

we have removed ufa and extra driven back, made cheaper with irregular formations, once we get playing it will be the first area I will get playing more and all the competitions will be open as soon as we are allowed

cheers

Alasdair

[martymagnificent]

I was aware of the discount for irregular. Doesn't seem a net positive for those troops though given the range of penalties that result from it. The points bonus is also often eroded by the increased cost of unprotected.

The only 'colonial' army I have is Inca. I'll see if I can get a game sometime. The other one that really worries me is my Chinese. I can't help but compare the bow/polearm units to standard pike and shot and feel that the 10 point difference in cost is inadequate to capture how much better the P and S is.

Martin

[alasdair]

You might be right, I also have chinese so will get it out again against some more TYW armies, the aim if we get let out is to have 6 months of openish competitions so we can get rid of this issue, personally think the irregulars issue is sorted and the few games we have had vs TYW armies have been tight, will go back and look at bows and if it is an issue we'll change the points

[martymagnificent]

personally think the irregulars issue is sorted

I don't share that confidence. I wrote an Inca list and a unit of 9 Auqua costs over a hundred points more than a standard P and S unit! This is for an unprotected unit that has no impact or melee ability, shoots with a sling, is more vulnerable to shooting thanks to irregular status, is forced to operate in 3 ranks but gets no benefit from doing so and is a minimum of 8 factors worse against mounted at impact. 3 extra bases and slightly faster movement in no way makes up for this.

Unprotected needs to be a .8 modifier. This is not just for the low tech types, it is also important for the later pistol cavalry who often have to be unprotected, want to be in melee but are only saving about 10 points currently. In return they will often give opposing troops a melee POA and, less importantly, become more vulnerable to bows. Could be great for my Imperial Kurassiers from this era but a bit hard on the other armies.

Loose can not be the same cost as C/L, etc. This is clearly a case of getting something for nothing. The ability gap of these troop types is larger than in MeG so the points difference would also need to be larger. We all know what happens to army variety in games that have point systems that hand out huge advantages for free.

Martin

[alasdair]

Thank you all comments added to the master list, I agree with the Inca list but dont forget a 1/3rd larger but I think you are right, re unprotected maybe .9 to large but .8 made later foot armies very effective for their points, will again have a look at close loose points

[martymagnificent]

Yes, I can see the pricing of unprotected is a bit tricky. I'm not sure if the multiplier could be different for different types, or even how that would work anyway. Maybe just split the difference at .85 and call it a day. Wouldn't be ideal for unprotected units that want to be in combat though.

Martin

[alasdair]

Very much how my mind is going, 0.85 protected, 1 protected, 1.15 Armoured, 1.3 Heavily armoured, but need to see far more lists before that, at 0.8 it made later armies too cheap

[martymagnificent]

One, more complicated, possibility would be to go for .8 but not have the multiplier apply to the cost of shooting ability/missile weapons. That way if you have spent a whole lot of points on HFP Flintlock you wont save as much but if you are some naked American who still wants to be in combat for some reason you get the full benefit.

Martin

[craig.w]

Martin as still on total lockdown plus not my area of armies could you play some games with TYW armies vs colonial armies and see how they go

we have removed ufa and extra driven back, made cheaper with irregular formations, once we get playing it will be the first area I will get playing more and all the competitions will be open as soon as we are allowed

cheers

Alasdair

UFA is still on the QRS for extra +1 for driven back - should that be for irregular or not there at all?

Cheers,

Craig

[craig.w]

personally think the irregulars issue is sorted

I don't share that confidence. I wrote an Inca list and a unit of 9 Auqua costs over a hundred points more than a standard P and S unit! This is for an unprotected unit that has no impact or melee ability, shoots with a sling, is more vulnerable to shooting thanks to irregular status, is forced to operate in 3 ranks but gets no benefit from doing so and is a minimum of 8 factors worse against mounted at impact. 3 extra bases and slightly faster movement in no way makes up for this.

Unprotected needs to be a .8 modifier. This is not just for the low tech types, it is also important for the later pistol cavalry who often have to be unprotected, want to be in melee but are only saving about 10 points currently. In return they will often give opposing troops a melee POA and, less importantly, become more vulnerable to bows. Could be great for my Imperial Kurassiers from this era but a bit hard on the other armies.

Loose can not be the same cost as C/L, etc. This is clearly a case of getting something for nothing. The ability gap of these troop types is larger than in MeG so the points difference would also need to be larger. We all know what happens to army variety in games that have point systems that hand out huge advantages for free.

Martin

For the cost of 9 unarmoured average Tupi you can get 6 protected exceptional pike & shot. If I could get home I'd like to play some games to see if the numbers tell but on the face of it I think irregulars are going to be in trouble.

[alasdair]

Accepted the same for me as soon as allowed games will look at the irregular cost and non shot cost

take care

cheers

Alasdair