MeG

If the points system is balanced, then "nerfing" troops will be neutral regarding overall army effectiveness. It just means a change in tactics might be needed.

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 14, 2023, 10:24:34 AMIf the points system is balanced, then "nerfing" troops will be neutral regarding overall army effectiveness. It just means a change in tactics might be needed.

Hello Lawrence,

That reads as something Games Workshop might have said when they went for the powercreep that accompanied its 5th and (especially) 6th Edition of WH 40K, including the infamous rework of the Grey Knights.

I disagree with you on this : points alone are not enough to balance armies; one needs to look at it as to where these points CAN be spent as well, or then I'd like someone to explain to me why Mesoamerican armies are so rarely fielded, even when flavorful (such as Aztecs or Incas). Could it be that they CANNOT field anything that has a semblance of resistance against European lancers ?

"You spent as much as me, therefore we are balanced" seems to me too easy and too weak an argument.  It is not only a matter of means, but also a matter of opportunities.

Best,
Antoine

I must admit I agree with Princeps.

Points may be a mitigating system, you may add up points but quality will remain quality. Finding a balance is an uneasy task.

In some senses you are both correct.  A points system can only go so far.  How effective an army might be can depend upon the context of the tournament.  For example, when we had the footsloggers tournament (infantry only armies) then several of the American armies appeared.  In an open tournament these armies can struggle.  However Mound Builder did well at Skullrollers.

I think many people focus far too much on characteristics and not on their own tactics and how they use an army.

In general, I think MeG does a pretty good job with the points system as evidenced by the wide range of armies that get used in tournaments.

Richard

Quote from: Princeps on November 14, 2023, 10:46:18 AM
I disagree with you on this : points alone are not enough to balance armies; one needs to look at it as to where these points CAN be spent as well, or then I'd like someone to explain to me why Mesoamerican armies are so rarely fielded, even when flavorful (such as Aztecs or Incas). Could it be that they CANNOT field anything that has a semblance of resistance against European lancers ?

I am on RJC's side here.

Of course the points aren't perfect for every possible match up. Devastating charging lancers vs pike for example. The mounted pay loads of points for something that is directly cancelled.

What the points do a very good job of is getting armies to have roughly equivalent power and even at the same points army A is significantly better than army B, army B will be significantly better than army C which could well be better than army A.

Compared to other games I play (for example Flames of War) the MeG points system is very good.

As for massively outmatched armies like meso americans, I think I managed to beat or at least very nearly beat Simon's Normans with my Libyans and that was back before the points made skirmishers a bit cheaper.

Quote from: Princeps on November 14, 2023, 10:46:18 AM

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 14, 2023, 10:24:34 AMIf the points system is balanced, then "nerfing" troops will be neutral regarding overall army effectiveness. It just means a change in tactics might be needed.

Hello Lawrence,

That reads as something Games Workshop might have said when they went for the powercreep that accompanied its 5th and (especially) 6th Edition of WH 40K, including the infamous rework of the Grey Knights.

I disagree with you on this : points alone are not enough to balance armies; one needs to look at it as to where these points CAN be spent as well, or then I'd like someone to explain to me why Mesoamerican armies are so rarely fielded, even when flavorful (such as Aztecs or Incas). Could it be that they CANNOT field anything that has a semblance of resistance against European lancers ?

"You spent as much as me, therefore we are balanced" seems to me too easy and too weak an argument.  It is not only a matter of means, but also a matter of opportunities.

Best,
Antoine

I think America armies are so rarely fielded because unlike most other lists they were not 'balanced' in design against their usual opponents, much is a hang over from 1970's decisions and never really studied hard since? few have an interest?  to mind there is an inherent perceived inability to handle Legions, cavalry, armoured sword and buckler men etc. which is true but shouldnt be relevant to their capabilities in the rules. It is no different to say that of a Middle Kingdom Egyptian Axeman V a Sword and Buckler man, yet they ARE comparable in MEG

For Example, Aztecs, no reason they should not be Formed flex or tribal flex. They seemed quite comfortable operating in any terrain, used ambushes, carried out standup fights in the open, Probably an argument that they 'shoved'  less disciplined enemies.  How about 2hcc? , some of those clubs were designed for massive blunt trauma. Are Atlatl really effective darts or more Impact weapon due to the very high velocity on impact and possible volley use rather than persistent skirmishing? Worth noting the few accounts where the Atlatl is mentioned in Spanish sources indicate it made a proper mess of the attacking troops, though one was city fighting so take that as you find it. Its also a weapon strongly associated with Gods and heroes in aztec pictorial sources. So important religiously or because it was seen as the back bone of their prowess?

does tribal/form flex, short spear with darts create a power army, probably not, does it make Cavalry armies less happy, probably yes. Would it break the synergy for fighting similarly categorized historical enemies, also probably not. Now flex impact weapon woudl make the Aztecs and their neighbors the Imperial Roman of the Americas, which might not be an unfair comparison or too far away from their capabilities.

if you haven't guessed its something I've been thinking about and researching on and off for years  :D

Regards
Matt

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 14, 2023, 10:57:28 AM
I think many people focus far too much on characteristics and not on their own tactics and how they use an army.

This. So very much this.

Also, a basic grasp of probability helps a lot.

Part of what most of some of you do miss is the fact that outside UK , people do not get the opportunity to play that often .

Hence a good balancing system is what is asked for and it is a difficult task

No NIK people do not play as often as some players in UK manage. UK is a wargamer's paradise

I think Richard's advice is good advice regardless of how often you get to play - although obviously you should get better at doing it the more you play  :)

Likewise a basic grasp of probability is useful in any game with dice regardless of how often you play.

I'd also add that once you've got your head around the game it can be useful to try out different styles of army if you have the opportunity, even if only occasionally. Does depend on having time and available opponents of course, but if you can manage it I think it is better than just sticking to one or similar armies. YMMV.

Quote from: badhabum on November 14, 2023, 02:51:45 PM
Part of what most of some of you do miss is the fact that outside UK , people do not get the opportunity to play that often .

Hence a good balancing system is what is asked for and it is a difficult task

No NIK people do not play as often as some players in UK manage. UK is a wargamer's paradise

I find it odd that you think we are not well aware that most MeG players probably do not play that often and only a small fraction play in tournaments.

I would argue that the points system in MeG is much better balanced than any similar ruleset. The list changes actually generally improve the balance by getting rid of gimmicks such as multiple UGs of Cretan archers.  I think it is unreasonable to expect the armies to be balanced for all levels of skill across 630 different armies (and across Magna and Pacto as well!).

Also French players come over to UK tournaments and place in the top 5 (at Britcon and Warfare), so it is possible to be a very good player without living in the UK.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 14, 2023, 03:10:03 PM

I find it odd that you think we are not well aware that most MeG players probably do not play that often and only a small fraction play in tournaments.

I would argue that the points system in MeG is much better balanced than any similar ruleset. The list changes actually generally improve the balance by getting rid of gimmicks such as multiple UGs of Cretan archers.  I think it is unreasonable to expect the armies to be balanced for all levels of skill across 630 different armies (and across Magna and Pacto as well!).

Also French players come over to UK tournaments and place in the top 5 (at Britcon and Warfare), so it is possible to be a very good player without living in the UK.

Richard is too modest to say but he does a lot for Meg by putting on demo games at shows for new and non-competition players (in fact he was doing that at Warfare rather than competing). With that experience he probably knows more than most of us how non-competition players handle the rules!

Besides if you aren't able to get so many games I would have thought you would welcome some of these changes, particularly the one to Cretan archers. I fought the same Cretan heavy army that Nik dealt with  and it shot me to pieces (entirely due to the difference in skill between Nik and me, I would say). Extreme armies like that (sounds better than gimmick armies!) are more of a threat if you haven't seen them before and therefore more of a threat if you don't get many games. Surely that makes the change a benefit to you?

QuoteAlso French players come over to UK tournaments and place in the top 5 (at Britcon and Warfare), so it is possible to be a very good player without living in the UK.

A minority but yes we do have some talented players and I count myself in ( I should use more winning armies ) . But minority does not make a blooming hobby !

Quote from: badhabum on November 14, 2023, 04:22:07 PM

QuoteAlso French players come over to UK tournaments and place in the top 5 (at Britcon and Warfare), so it is possible to be a very good player without living in the UK.

A minority but yes we do have some talented players and I count myself in ( I should use more winning armies ) . But minority does not make a blooming hobby !

The majority of UK players don't make it into the top 5 at tournaments. At the most, only 5 do at each tournament.

Quote from: lionheartrjc on November 14, 2023, 03:10:03 PM

Quote from: badhabum on November 14, 2023, 02:51:45 PM
Part of what most of some of you do miss is the fact that outside UK , people do not get the opportunity to play that often .

Hence a good balancing system is what is asked for and it is a difficult task

No NIK people do not play as often as some players in UK manage. UK is a wargamer's paradise

I find it odd that you think we are not well aware that most MeG players probably do not play that often and only a small fraction play in tournaments.

I would argue that the points system in MeG is much better balanced than any similar ruleset. The list changes actually generally improve the balance by getting rid of gimmicks such as multiple UGs of Cretan archers.  I think it is unreasonable to expect the armies to be balanced for all levels of skill across 630 different armies (and across Magna and Pacto as well!).

Also French players come over to UK tournaments and place in the top 5 (at Britcon and Warfare), so it is possible to be a very good player without living in the UK.

Hi,

totally agree with Richard and I thank him for the work he does on the lists ( and the rules also  ;) )

Best regards.

Punch

My feeling is the way MeG works, if you can stack enough plusses on a 15 base frontage so that you are pretty much guaranteed to beat whatever is in front of it in any terrain, you are pretty much guaranteed to win all your games.

Hence Romans seem overpowered.

Has anyone ever taken a Roman army without maxing out on Exceptional and Superior, Impact weapon, Melee Expert if it's available and shield cover to neutralise shooty cavalry?  If not, then those troops are too cheap. It should not be a no-brainer to buy all the upgrades.

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 14, 2023, 06:02:31 PM
Has anyone ever taken a Roman army without maxing out on Exceptional and Superior, Impact weapon, Melee Expert if it's available and shield cover to neutralise shooty cavalry?  If not, then those troops are too cheap. It should not be a no-brainer to buy all the upgrades.

You mean like Lance's Warfare winning list which had no ME? Also did not take the max allowed upgraded (quality) infantry.

Shield Cover is not optional so you can't include that in maxing out really  ;D

Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 14, 2023, 06:08:02 PM

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 14, 2023, 06:02:31 PM
Has anyone ever taken a Roman army without maxing out on Exceptional and Superior, Impact weapon, Melee Expert if it's available and shield cover to neutralise shooty cavalry?  If not, then those troops are too cheap. It should not be a no-brainer to buy all the upgrades.

You mean like Lance's Warfare winning list which had no ME? Also did not take the max allowed upgraded (quality) infantry.

Shield Cover is not optional so you can't include that in maxing out really  ;D

Fair enough, although arguably he had a "cunning plan" in the form of 2 TUGs of cataphracts to mitigate the lack of ME.

Well he certainly had a cunning plan or two  8)

Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 14, 2023, 06:20:48 PM
Well he certainly had a cunning plan or two  8)

Still, it's prima facie evidence that Romans will be fine if the superiors and exceptionals can't have melee expert.

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 14, 2023, 06:02:31 PM
My feeling is the way MeG works, if you can stack enough plusses on a 15 base frontage so that you are pretty much guaranteed to beat whatever is in front of it in any terrain, you are pretty much guaranteed to win all your games.

Hence Romans seem overpowered.

My first game at Skulls was against a Roman with exceptional and superior legions. Etruscans can't match that although the Samnite linen legion are equal in melee to superior legions. In the whole game I was able to limit the exceptionals to one combat that they entered late in the game and they did not break the TuG they hit.

Romans are good but the superior and exceptional legions are expensive which seems fair as they are actually rather good.

Quote from: Hammy on November 15, 2023, 11:33:14 AM

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 14, 2023, 06:02:31 PM
My feeling is the way MeG works, if you can stack enough plusses on a 15 base frontage so that you are pretty much guaranteed to beat whatever is in front of it in any terrain, you are pretty much guaranteed to win all your games.

Hence Romans seem overpowered.

My first game at Skulls was against a Roman with exceptional and superior legions. Etruscans can't match that although the Samnite linen legion are equal in melee to superior legions. In the whole game I was able to limit the exceptionals to one combat that they entered late in the game and they did not break the TuG they hit.

Romans are good but the superior and exceptional legions are expensive which seems fair as they are actually rather good.

"Pretty much" not "Absolutely".  The point is, nearly all your units had a +1 in charge and melee, but it was still you that needed the cunning plan. Fortunately, you are cunning enough.

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 14, 2023, 04:49:55 PM

Quote from: badhabum on November 14, 2023, 04:22:07 PM

QuoteAlso French players come over to UK tournaments and place in the top 5 (at Britcon and Warfare), so it is possible to be a very good player without living in the UK.

A minority but yes we do have some talented players and I count myself in ( I should use more winning armies ) . But minority does not make a blooming hobby !

The majority of UK players don't make it into the top 5 at tournaments. At the most, only 5 do at each tournament.

As we do not see any UK players in continental Europe well yes one  ...except next week two do goe to Athens

I can think of 3 including myself

Quote from: badhabum on November 15, 2023, 07:27:33 PM

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 14, 2023, 04:49:55 PM

The majority of UK players don't make it into the top 5 at tournaments. At the most, only 5 do at each tournament.

As we do not see any UK players in continental Europe well yes one  ...except next week two do goe to Athens

I meant the majority of UK players don't make it into the top 5 at UK tournaments.

Quote from: steads on November 16, 2023, 08:21:02 AM
I can think of 3 including myself

I counted you in , will happily see you back at IWC and the Pitfield factory is not counted as full UK  ;D

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 14, 2023, 04:49:55 PM

Quote from: badhabum on November 14, 2023, 04:22:07 PM

QuoteAlso French players come over to UK tournaments and place in the top 5 (at Britcon and Warfare), so it is possible to be a very good player without living in the UK.

A minority but yes we do have some talented players and I count myself in ( I should use more winning armies ) . But minority does not make a blooming hobby !

The majority of UK players don't make it into the top 5 at tournaments. At the most, only 5 do at each tournament.

If you attend Stockport in December I might explain what I mean as it is difficult to explain by forum . the eternal problem of forums

Quote from: badhabum on November 16, 2023, 04:13:59 PM
If you attend Stockport in December I might explain what I mean

Are you trying to put Lawrence off going?  ;)

I do wonder if there is a case for increasing the cost of certain combination of attributes.

I'm SURE the fierce Galatians SSp DC with ME are significantly better than their cost.
I suspect that Cataphracts with LS, Fully arm are somewhat better superiors a little more so.
Similarly with Superior ME legionaries.

It maybe that having +3 or more as a possibility in charge combat or +2 or more in melee combat needs a bit of a surcharge?

CL are less susceptible as long spear and pike are somewhat hard counters.
You could argue that shooty cavalry lists and Hammy like avoidance of very good infantry might be a counter too but I'm still inclined to feel a small points alteration is in order.

Somewhat as a reverse of this I must point out the most broken points currently is   James IV Scots with all the pike downgraded to poor.

I challenge anyone to come up with a TuG that can take that on point for point (Fierce galatians excepted :)) )

Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 16, 2023, 05:36:40 PM

Quote from: badhabum on November 16, 2023, 04:13:59 PM
If you attend Stockport in December I might explain what I mean

Are you trying to put Lawrence off going?  ;)

It all depends if he dares face me in an open discussion or not  8)

Quote from: paulstovell on November 21, 2023, 03:18:28 PM
It maybe that having +3 or more as a possibility in charge combat or +2 or more in melee combat needs a bit of a surcharge?

Average Protected SSp can get + 3 vs Poor Combat Shy in the charge and +2 in melee  ;D

I fear you'd be getting into quite difficult territory trying to work out how to implement surcharges for various combinations. Implementing a formula in the army builder could be even more tricky, but I am no Excel expert - you could give it a go using an unprotected version of the existing builder to see how it goes though.

An easier approach, should it be deemed a useful idea, might be to say that if troops are already Combat Shy they can only be downgraded one quality level but at the same time cease to be Combat Shy.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 21, 2023, 08:27:00 PM
An easier approach, should it be deemed a useful idea, might be to say that if troops are already Combat Shy they can only be downgraded one quality level but at the same time cease to be Combat Shy.

It sure would limit things points-wise, but this would not feel right to me :

• Combat Shy reflects troops not confident in their capabilities in close combat
• Downgrade on the other hand reflects (and I quote Army books) "[...] less strong, tired, or understrength troops [...]"

I do not see those two as incompatible.

Best,
Antoine

They are not and I am not suggesting that they are but there is some overlap. I was suggesting a fairly simple approach to Paul's issue - if indeed it is an issue.

Guys - I'm starting to become a bit worried about where this discussion is leading. We seem to be getting wound up about not very much. A few changes to the cost of some attributes, such as exceptional and shoot-and-charge, appear reasonable but I don't think we need a major overhaul.

I still maintain that if the point system was broken, we would be seeing certain armies winning all the time. We do not.

I worry that too much fiddling around will put people off and risk the MeG player base fragmenting as people become frustrated with unnecessary changes. We have all seen that happen before with other rule sets.

I'd not get worried. Despite the idle chatter here I don't believe Richard has any plans for further points tweaking other than those already announced. I'd suggest that unless he does so you're safe.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 21, 2023, 08:27:00 PM
An easier approach, should it be deemed a useful idea, might be to say that if troops are already Combat Shy they can only be downgraded one quality level but at the same time cease to be Combat Shy.

That wouldn't be much of a downgrade. But I suppose it might be useful if your army is only a few points over the allowance.  I put together a list the other day that came out at 10001 points.  >:(

I seem to hit 10002 frequently for some reason  :o

Quote from: nikgaukroger on November 21, 2023, 09:57:34 PM
I'd not get worried. Despite the idle chatter here I don't believe Richard has any plans for further points tweaking other than those already announced. I'd suggest that unless he does so you're safe.

I am planning to redesign the points system so that everything can be a multiplier.  All points will be worked out to four decimal places and army size will become 9975.3469! 
(Evil laugh).....

 :o

(or  8) if you prefer  ;) )

Seriously though, I do wonder if a player should be allowed one understrength UG. To keep things simple and avoid need for additional memory/record keeping, it would be counted as the "proper" UG size when determining break point etc.

e.g. list says my cataphracts can be fielded as 4s or 6s. If I select a UG of size 3, it will break after 3 wounds. If I select a UG of size 5, it will break after 5 wounds.

I suppose it is quite likely this has been discussed before!

Nik,

I think your idea to limit a downgrade on combat shy troops so they just become poor and lose combat shy would deal with the admittedly  rare abuse of poor and combat shy.

I concede it would be purely on the grounds of game balance and not be a reflection on the two attributes.

Others

On the general point of updating/fiddling with lists I'm someone who enjoys that and plays a goodly amount. I concede too much of this could alienate some players.

Quote from: paulstovell on November 22, 2023, 01:27:59 PM
Nik,

I think your idea to limit a downgrade on combat shy troops so they just become poor and lose combat shy would deal with the admittedly  rare abuse of poor and combat shy.

I concede it would be purely on the grounds of game balance and not be a reflection on the two attributes.

Others

On the general point of updating/fiddling with lists I'm someone who enjoys that and plays a goodly amount. I concede too much of this could alienate some players.

Not sure why poor combat shy is an abuse. It provides a target for all those average combat shy or normal poor troops.

Quote from: LawrenceG on November 23, 2023, 06:14:35 AM

Quote from: paulstovell on November 22, 2023, 01:27:59 PM
Nik,

I think your idea to limit a downgrade on combat shy troops so they just become poor and lose combat shy would deal with the admittedly  rare abuse of poor and combat shy.

I concede it would be purely on the grounds of game balance and not be a reflection on the two attributes.

Others

On the general point of updating/fiddling with lists I'm someone who enjoys that and plays a goodly amount. I concede too much of this could alienate some players.

Not sure why poor combat shy is an abuse. It provides a target for all those average combat shy or normal poor troops.

You are forgetting the context of Paul's comments - downgraded James IV pikemen - which he feels specifically abuses the downgrade ability, hence his "... admittedly rare abuse ..." comment.

Quote from: ShrubMiK on November 22, 2023, 09:17:58 AM
:o

(or  8) if you prefer  ;) )

Seriously though, I do wonder if a player should be allowed one understrength UG. To keep things simple and avoid need for additional memory/record keeping, it would be counted as the "proper" UG size when determining break point etc.

e.g. list says my cataphracts can be fielded as 4s or 6s. If I select a UG of size 3, it will break after 3 wounds. If I select a UG of size 5, it will break after 5 wounds.

I suppose it is quite likely this has been discussed before!

Going below the specified minimum is a more significant step than allowing intermediate values.
Allegedly the reason for permitting only certain sizes e.g. (4,6 but not 5) is players forget what the original UG size was (though apparently this is not a problem for (6,8,9) or Roman 5-base units with integrated triarii ). I haven't play tested it but I would have thought it can't be any harder than remembering which UGs you gave "orb" or "Melee expert" to.

It is quite amazing what players can forget about their troops in the heat of a game  ;D

Oh I know - twice as hard for me as I have only been playing solo lately!

But hence my suggestion to count the under strength UG as originally the next permitted size up. No harder than remembering the original sizes of your UGs if fielded at full strength, surely?