Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

[erize655]

Hi

I'm of the opinion that unit/upgrades cost in lists provided by FHE in most cases are very balanced and well motivated. That being said, IMO there is no such thing as a perfect system.
Having read the sticky posts by the designers I got the feeling that balance feedback post not are welcome on these forums. If this is correct then please feel free to delete this post.

Ok, to the issue.
I was playing (and losing) a game the other day where I was facing the Mongols.
In that game, there was a situation where my Irr C MC L, Sh got charged by Mongol guards.
Needless to say this was one of those situations where my unit is going to break and run if it doesn't evade.
But the problem was, it didn't have a bow so it couldn’t skirmish = it couldn’t get away.
Now, this made me wonder, does putting a bow in a previously bow deprived mans hands suddenly give him the ability to be able to flee from his opponent?
Of course one could reason that this is an artefact of the special training that one would have to go through to be able to handle a bow horseback.
I buy that, what I do not buy is the fact that one element of Irr C MC L, Sh costs MORE points than an element of Irr C MC L, Bow.

Now, that just doesn't add up in my book. If one argues that the point cost are an reflection to how unusual or "expensive" the Element was in real life then how come that: Training a man to use advanced fighting techniques as horseback bow fighting AND give him and bow and arrows would cost LESS then giving him a shield and showing him how to use it???

On the other hand, if one argues that the points cost is an representation on how well the unit performs on the battle field.
Then how come that an element with bow cost Less then an element with shield and can do Ranged damage, have BETTER protection against bow fire (in skirmish),
can escape it's charging opponents (in skirmish) and doing MORE damage on the charge due to back rank shooting?
I mean, due to the lance, the unit will never count as shield less in HTH anyway unless the player is misusing it.
Now the unit with the shield really only has two advantages one being
when it drops out of skirmish to charge, but in reality this advantage is dwarfed by bonus of the rear rank support shooting the Bow armed unit gets when it charges. And one is being the very rare situations where Irr Cavalry experiences a second round of HTH.

If we aren't doing something wrong then it just feels like such a no brainer? I would never choose the shield over the bow.
In fact, I would rather pay for the shield and not have it if the unit got the ability to skirmish in return. Even if the bow was dubble the points cost over the shield I would still choose the bow every time.

Note: This post is only about cavalry bow/shield, IMO the problem is not as big for Infantry.

/E

[Adrian Williams]

What army were you using?

I think your problem is that you were using MC!

[scott holder]

First, we welcome *balanced* commentary and feedback. Hey, I'm just glad you read the stickies. However, your post starts out with the usual "you guys do good work but boy are you dunderheads on >insert favorite subject here<. After years of hearing that type of posting, you'll excuse me if I don't take it well.

I'd urge you to first search the archives for relevant postings since there's a decent chance the issue in question has been discussed, often at great length. What bugs me more than anything else is a topic that's been dealt with (even to the point of us saying "it's a non-issue, if you don't like how we (non) handle it, tough") and then brought up again. And not because the poster has some larger agenda but we do have forum members who do and it's usually an excuse for them to pop up and pop off.

Your question relates to the point system of purchasing stuff. Heh heh, again, search the archives, lord knows I spent a lot of time porting the yahoo groups stuff over here AND making it searchable. In the archives, you'll find a good number of posts about the point system and its problems, perceived and otherwise.

I can't argue with your commentary, yes, not all 4 pt figures (for example) are created equal as it were--we are *painfully* aware of that and have been for some time. But this subject always comes back to the salient point that *nobody* has *ever* come up with a comprehensive, alternative system of pointing things that we could playtest AND FHE has had more important things to do than delay things in order to maybe come up with the perfect point system.

Just before the move from yahoo, Mark Stone posted some very good philisophical underpinnings about the point system. Please find them and read thru them.

I'm currently working on, kinda, two alternative point systems. They might not ever see the light of day but they are the first attempt by FHE to see if the issue neccesitates a solution. It might not, I mean we might have to live with the perceived glitch here and there and determine the overall system works the way we want it. In fact, it does for the most part but again, I'll be the first to admit that I'd like to at least explore a couple of alternatives so see if they significantly improve the system.

Or as Adrian said about using MC.

scott

[Terry Dix]

Greetings Scott,
Could a point system have variable cost for things like shields or morale upgrades. A shields value is greater to MI than LI the relative cost is the same.

The other side of the coin is morale. The value is constant but the relative cost is variable. LI pay a hefty premium to go from C to B on a percentage basis, as compared to SHK or El.

Would FHE consider a cost for specific weapons and combinations. How would you want such a proposal? Could it be put up on the forum for comment and outside playtesting?

The work involved is huge so I understand that no change would happen for some time, but nothing ventured nothing gained.

Terry Dix

[scott holder]

Please send stuff to me via email. I won't be commenting/debating point system changes here unless I have something formal to toss out for consideration.

scott

[chrisbump]

I got the impression that E's post was more of a querry as to why L armed troops are less able to evade a charging enemy than the same troop armed with L, B

I don't recall this topic being bantered about in the past at all.

It does go to the issue of game design and why you "dunderheads" don't allow all mounted to evade as opposed to only mounted armed with missles.

Chris

[Macbeth]

Personally I'd rather live with the current system than see what happened at an early WRG7th tournament in Sydney. In two games my Scots were confronted by skirmishing Spanish Scutarii and skirmishing Norman Knights.

(this was before you had to be missile armed to skirmish - missile armed and in range was an even later clarification)

I have started to assemble the data to analyse the points system, but I have to admit it looks like a more daunting task than I first thought. The varying factors of Formation, Morale, Armour/Sheilds, Weapons and Movement distance all interact. Then for missiles you'd have to consider range as well. The issue of list rules further complicates matters.

If I ever get anywhere with it - then I will happily share it around.

Maybe we are best off sticking with what we have. It may not be perfect but we all know it and are used to it.

Cheers

[scott holder]

If you come up with a comprehensive point system, by all means please share it. As you indicate, it ain't easy. Every time I've sat down to work on both of my alternatives, I quickly get stuck.

scott

[Frank Gilson]

I once did a back of the envelope estimate of man power and what that costs, from my business analogs, to do a new point system for Warrior.

9 months
3 people
around $250,000
...and it would be a complicated system with percentages and ratios that would result in many more mistakes made when buying lists...although it would at some standard be much better

If you'd like to volunteer $250,000...I can get a small team together to do this .

[Terry Dix]

I dont think that Scott would want a percentages for upgrades system, no matter how much more balanced it would be. I would be happy to see less blips like MC not being worth anywhere close to what it costs, but not at the cost of spending an hour checking my math