Warrior Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules
A Four Horsemen Enterprises Rules Set
 
  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups AlbumAlbum   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Mini - 1200 vs 1600

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Army Lists
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Fri Nov 15, 2019 6:44 pm    Post subject: Mini - 1200 vs 1600

As there should be a Mini at Cold Wars, I thought I'd ask what you all think about 1200 vs 1600 points.

What armies are better on 1200?

We mostly play 25mm, and in that scale an 8 foot wide table is roughly 40 elements of frontage.

For a mini, 1200 pts in 25mm, we have 6 foot of frontage which is roughly 30 elements of frontage. So...you lose 25% of your points, but nicely lose 25% of the frontage you'd have to cover...funny how that works out.

Anyway...Do you tend to buy more cheaper troops to try for efficiency? or...

Frank
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1211
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:02 pm    Post subject:

I really enjoy playing at 1200 points. Not that 1600 isn't fun BUT at 1200 points there are limitations that make armies more interesting IMO. Each army's weakness becomes more pronounced as there isn't enough space to "hide" it and the unit has to become part of the line - maybe where you don't want it to be.

I also think that there are less lights in 1200 points - making a "meatier" game overall. At 1600 points it is easy to use 100 points on scouting whereas you would probably rather have a combat or be required to have a combat unit at 1200 points regarding restrictions.

Wallachian is an excellent 1200 point list- you an still get 5 units of HK (some irreg A) and a decent amount of lights (and outstanding LC) allowing you to dictate the battle. Parthian is also like this at 1200 points. Fun army.

I have found that most Macedonian don't cover the frontage needed in 1200 points.

Inca/Tepanec and some of the Meso are excellent 1200 point lists. What they lack in space they make up in that every unit can fight AND shoot. I have been the most successful with them at this point value.

I think that there are more, not less, armies that can be played at 1200 points. Arab Conquest is a fun army at 1200 points IMO. I know Woyke loves E. Indian as you can get so many elephants. At 1600 you are already maxed out and your support troops are much weaker.

Knights of St. John is unplayable at 1200, ok at 1600 , and much better at 2000.

Just some early thoughts

Todd

_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:25 pm    Post subject:

I think Todd is largely correct, here...on 1200 I'm more likely to look for efficiencies, such as generals on an elephant or chariot who are irregular...definitely not a Reg SHC/SHK CinC!

And yes...there are some armies I don't think are playable on 1200, like Timurid, which is fine.

I also look for more D class troops...or shieldless back ranks...or no armor up front, etc.

You also think more about dropping down to just the CinC...particularly if you did stick yourself with Reg generals.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Mon Nov 18, 2019 9:32 pm    Post subject:

I'm a little put off by the idea that lights aren't "meaty". I've won more battles with LC over the years than I have with SHK. A good LC army -- Wallachians is probably an example here -- can certainly work on 1200 points.

On the other hand, in support of Todd's points, at 1200 you have to be a bit more focused. You're going to do one thing really well, and you're going to do it before your weaknesses hurt you, because you are going to have weaknesses. On 1200 points that's unavoidable.

Some armies get better on 1200 points (1st Crusade, Post Mongol Russian). Some armies get worse (ALL the Romans). But any style of army can work. You just have to find the right list.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Todd Kaeser
Centurion
Centurion


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1211
Location: Foxborough, Massachusetts

PostPosted: Tue Nov 19, 2019 2:12 pm    Post subject:

Quote:
I'm a little put off by the idea that lights aren't "meaty". I've won more battles with LC over the years than I have with SHK. A good LC army


Mark is certainly correct - good lights have often won battles. I guess to clarify my point is that we often build an army and after a quick add up of points we may find ourselves at 1300-1400 points and as we head to 1600 we may purchase a light unit or two to "hold" table space or occupy rough terrain.

At 1200 points (as to Mark's point) you have to be more focused in your use of points.

Todd

_________________
Nolite te Bastardes Carborundorum
"Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message [ Hidden ]
scott holder
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6032
Location: Bonnots Mill, MO

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 3:45 pm    Post subject:

Much prefer the Mini. If I felt I could get away with it, I'd make that the standard.

I've said from Day 1 that 1200pts brings more armies into the general mix than 1600pts. Few people have ever believed me. I still feel that's the case.

scott

_________________
These Rules Suck, Let's Paint!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   Visit poster's website
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Wed Nov 20, 2019 5:44 pm    Post subject:

scott holder wrote:
Much prefer the Mini. If I felt I could get away with it, I'd make that the standard.

I've said from Day 1 that 1200pts brings more armies into the general mix than 1600pts. Few people have ever believed me. I still feel that's the case.

scott


Would be interesting to see folks post lists of lists that they feel are better on 1200 or better on 1600...this does occur...there are certainly lists I don't want to run on 1200, and fewer in my case that I don't want to run on 1600 (or 2000 for that matter)...thus my personal sense is that fewer lists are available on 1200...but I'm uncertain as to whether there are more or fewer PLAYABLE lists on 1200 (as some lists may not work on 1600+, in comparison with other lists).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:50 pm    Post subject:

I would love to see us experiment a bit further with the 1200 point format, and I'll reiterate a favorite idea of mine:

* Play 1200 points on a table sized for 1600 points
* Add the following restriction: troops may move into, but not deploy in, flank sectors.

The usual objection is that this greatly favors mounted armies, and in particular armies with a lot of light cav. But if we combined it with Scott's current approach of densifying terrain, I think we'd actually end up with reasonable balance. And consider the virtues:
* Greatly diminishes the value of flank marches, which often introduce gimmicky and hard to manage aspects into the game.
* Greatly diminishes using the table edge as a de facto terrain feature against which to anchor an army (which is why people respond by resorting to flank marches).
* Probably speeds up the game overall by diminishing the fussing about with flank marches and table edges.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 3:55 pm    Post subject:

Mark Stone wrote:
I would love to see us experiment a bit further with the 1200 point format, and I'll reiterate a favorite idea of mine:

* Play 1200 points on a table sized for 1600 points
* Add the following restriction: troops may move into, but not deploy in, flank sectors.

The usual objection is that this greatly favors mounted armies, and in particular armies with a lot of light cav. But if we combined it with Scott's current approach of densifying terrain, I think we'd actually end up with reasonable balance. And consider the virtues:
* Greatly diminishes the value of flank marches, which often introduce gimmicky and hard to manage aspects into the game.
* Greatly diminishes using the table edge as a de facto terrain feature against which to anchor an army (which is why people respond by resorting to flank marches).
* Probably speeds up the game overall by diminishing the fussing about with flank marches and table edges.


Wouldn't we just have LC and/or LI ready to march into the flanks from behind the main body of our troops, quickly taking ground?

Thus, wouldn't all players have to have a reserve of lights ready to so march?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Mark Stone
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 2102
Location: Buckley, WA

PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2019 10:06 pm    Post subject:

Frank Gilson wrote:
Wouldn't we just have LC and/or LI ready to march into the flanks from behind the main body of our troops, quickly taking ground?

Thus, wouldn't all players have to have a reserve of lights ready to so march?


No.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message   MSN Messenger
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 6:05 am    Post subject:

Mark Stone wrote:
Frank Gilson wrote:
Wouldn't we just have LC and/or LI ready to march into the flanks from behind the main body of our troops, quickly taking ground?

Thus, wouldn't all players have to have a reserve of lights ready to so march?


No.


Well, I'd certainly have an "on table" flank march like this...every game.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
theblackprince
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Nov 2018
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 8:42 pm    Post subject:

Not specifically related to this mini thread, but I'm in favor of cutting the points down to 1200/1500/1800 on the same table sizes. Makes the games go a little faster, and makes things less congested. There has been a trend of less and less LC and LI for some time now, which this would help to balance by freeing up a bit of space. The old books I/II/III had more minimums in general back when, but that's generally not a factor now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Fri Nov 22, 2019 9:29 pm    Post subject:

theblackprince wrote:
Not specifically related to this mini thread, but I'm in favor of cutting the points down to 1200/1500/1800 on the same table sizes. Makes the games go a little faster, and makes things less congested. There has been a trend of less and less LC and LI for some time now, which this would help to balance by freeing up a bit of space. The old books I/II/III had more minimums in general back when, but that's generally not a factor now.


Keeping a 'larger' table size but cutting points down results in what we have seen...and see in other rules systems that have similar fewer points on larger tables...folks tend to run more LI/LC, to fill space, and we get back to pin and punch with wide frontages of lights and skirmishers and a small reserve of hard hitting units...OR...folks tend to angle out of a corner bracing against terrain features and temporary fortifications and 'wait and see'.

Nobody wants to have hanging flanks on an overly open table.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
theblackprince
Recruit
Recruit


Joined: 21 Nov 2018
Posts: 20

PostPosted: Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:40 pm    Post subject:

Coming out of the corner is not ideal, as your line almost by definition has a hinge someplace where you will be at a disadvantage. Making people think more about how they are going to hold space is to be encouraged.

There are other ways of holding space besides clouds of LI/LC- such as large but inexpensive foot units, artillery, and careful deployment using terrain but still having a mostly straight battleline. I'm not saying we go back to the wide open spaces of 1500 pts in 15mm on a 6x4 table, but IMHO it is overly congested now. The "force to space ratio" is too high (esp. w/2000 pts) and the "lights game" is no longer relevant enough.

I'm tired of just slugging- how about some maneuver?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Frank Gilson
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: Orange County California

PostPosted: Sat Nov 30, 2019 9:39 pm    Post subject:

theblackprince wrote:
Coming out of the corner is not ideal, as your line almost by definition has a hinge someplace where you will be at a disadvantage. Making people think more about how they are going to hold space is to be encouraged.

There are other ways of holding space besides clouds of LI/LC- such as large but inexpensive foot units, artillery, and careful deployment using terrain but still having a mostly straight battleline. I'm not saying we go back to the wide open spaces of 1500 pts in 15mm on a 6x4 table, but IMHO it is overly congested now. The "force to space ratio" is too high (esp. w/2000 pts) and the "lights game" is no longer relevant enough.

I'm tired of just slugging- how about some maneuver?


The 'heavy terrain on Saturday NCT' weighs in here...and that exists as a counter to 'LC armies', who have an inherent advantage under the deployment system we use...or at least that's my understanding of Scott's intentions.

Of course, the deployment system itself could change if LC is truly a huge problem.

Or, perhaps it a desire that a wider range of armies be playable...but...cluttering tables with terrain actually just shifts what armies are playable, and arguably may make more unplayable than before.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules Forum Index -> Army Lists All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group