When downgrading troops, can downgrade troop quality or shooting skill but not both.
So "Average - Experienced Shooters" may be downgrade to "Poor - Experienced" or "Average - Unskilled", but NOT to "Poor - Unskilled".
No more cheap token TuG on the board edge :) ;)
Less cheap
Quote from: Kokor Hekkus on September 01, 2025, 08:56:15 AMNo more cheap token TuG on the board edge :) ;)
I agree in principal. But if in practice it just makes some armies pay near full price to take multiple worthless tugs then those armies just won't get played.
I usually try to avoid such filler units (although some allies requirements can make it attractive), so I considered this from what I think is a somewhat neutral point and it could be interesting.
On the other hand, I would like to point out that it also might impact on the other spectrum of quality. I have been known to consider, for example, some Mongol Conquest builds where I was very happy to downgrade some Flexible cavalry from Superior-Skilled to Average-Experienced (so still combat viable units ^^), because I wanted to have more than 7 TUGs.
Best,
Antoine
Don't agree with this change either. Nothing wrong with the cheap units at the back.
Quote from: Count_bohemond on September 13, 2025, 08:17:07 AMDon't agree with this change either. Nothing wrong with the cheap units at the back.
Plus 1
Quote from: steads on September 13, 2025, 02:27:36 PMQuote from: Count_bohemond on September 13, 2025, 08:17:07 AMDon't agree with this change either. Nothing wrong with the cheap units at the back.
Plus 1
Well I do agree . You may still downgrade the TUG but not "twice" You may have bad quality units but downgrading twice is a bit too much gamy
Quote from: badhabum on September 13, 2025, 07:43:22 PMWell I do agree . You may still downgrade the TUG but not "twice" You may have bad quality units but downgrading twice is a bit too much gamy
+1
Making it a rule you can't double downgrade feels like treating the symptom rather than the disease. Players aren't doing this to get an extra breakpoint (maybe 1 extra TuG to get you to an odd total, but taking 2 is just a waste of points). They're doing it because their army minimums force them to take worthless troops and paying as little as possible for them is just the lemonade you can make out of that situation.
If Bow/PBw/XBw are given enough of a boost to make the combat shy/unprotected versions worth using then I have no issue with this change. The 'S to wound' on charge feels like a big step in the right direction, though I'm not entirely sure.
But the simple fact is the reason you see those troop types downgraded to garbage and stuck at the back is that they aren't worth using. They're an active liability you may as well discount as much as you can.
Quote from: Manzikert on September 15, 2025, 02:35:32 AMPlayers aren't doing this to get an extra breakpoint (maybe 1 extra TuG to get you to an odd total, but taking 2 is just a waste of points).
I can assure that it certainly is done to get an extra breakpoint (and not just with missile units).
However, it is also true that it is done to minimise the cost out of the army points for units seen as somewhat rubbish.
Quote from: badhabum on September 13, 2025, 07:43:22 PMQuote from: steads on September 13, 2025, 02:27:36 PMQuote from: Count_bohemond on September 13, 2025, 08:17:07 AMDon't agree with this change either. Nothing wrong with the cheap units at the back.
Plus 1
Well I do agree . You may still downgrade the TUG but not "twice" You may have bad quality units but downgrading twice is a bit too much gamy
Not sure double downgrades was un historical, as Stalin was reputed to say "numbers have a quality of there own" and the rational of veterans being upgraded to superior or/and mellee in the list also applies to decimated, or levee recruits in a long campaign, or even the leavening out of competent bowmen into one unit and their incompetent followers being given a stick and some string to be stuck out on the flank to look important and threatening whilst not having the wit to hurt a fly
There is another difficult way to do it : if the list does not allow you to downgrade a specific TUG you may not do it . It simplifies things
Quote from: Roger on September 15, 2025, 10:07:53 AMQuote from: badhabum on September 13, 2025, 07:43:22 PMQuote from: steads on September 13, 2025, 02:27:36 PMQuote from: Count_bohemond on September 13, 2025, 08:17:07 AMDon't agree with this change either. Nothing wrong with the cheap units at the back.
Plus 1
Well I do agree . You may still downgrade the TUG but not "twice" You may have bad quality units but downgrading twice is a bit too much gamy
not sure double downgrades was un historical, as stalin was reputed to say "numbers have a quality of there own" and the rational of veterans being upgraded to superior or/and mellee in the list also applies to decimated, or levee recruits in a long campaign, or even the leavening out of competent bowmen into one unit and their incompetent followers being given a stick and some string to be stuck out on the flank to look important and threatening whilst not having the with to hurt a fly
The the mobs should be available trough the lists
Quote from: nikgaukroger on September 15, 2025, 06:41:43 AMQuote from: Manzikert on September 15, 2025, 02:35:32 AMPlayers aren't doing this to get an extra breakpoint (maybe 1 extra TuG to get you to an odd total, but taking 2 is just a waste of points).
I can assure that it certainly is done to get an extra breakpoint (and not just with missile units).
However, it is also true that it is done to minimise the cost out of the army points for units seen as somewhat rubbish.
On first reading this response it seemed like it was ignoring the meat of my point to focus on the garnish. But on further reflection I wonder if I'd misinterpreted the problem this change is meant to address. My read was the intended problem was "people keep downgrading their archers rather than try to use them". However, maybe the actual intended problem is "armies with access to unprotected, optional combat-shy archers are able to buy an extra break point for 204-276 points (depending on discipline level) and we think that's too cheap".
If that's the case then I can see how increasing the cost to 300-408 is probably enough to address that problem. I'm not sure it has much historical precedent; bringing a mass of unenthusiastic conscripts to a fight to round out numbers seems like something that would have happened (though I can't site any specific sources). I guess I just don't see it as that big a problem. Partially because I've never considered it a balance issue when my opponent does it, but also because in my opinion being cheap bodies is all those troops are good for. Getting an extra breakpoint is what having access to them gets you, if you take that away they serve no purpose at all.
I'm also worried that the armies required to take those troops end up getting caught in the crossfire.
Downgrading twice units is done only in order to get the extra breakpoint. Mob, rabble will always be part of some armies, but not all of them . Hence I think that if they should be available, they should be included in the list and not by downgrading twice some units .If you take a highly professional army, you pay for it and you get less TUGs but more and more people want the good army with high TUG numbers
Quote from: badhabum on September 16, 2025, 02:57:43 PMDowngrading twice units is done only in order to get the extra breakpoint. Mob, rabble will always be part of some armies, but not all of them . Hence I think that if they should be available, they should be included in the list and not by downgrading twice some units .If you take a highly professional army, you pay for it and you get less TUGs but more and more people want the good army with high TUG numbers
In my experience the most frequent use of downgrading twice is to minimize the cost of mandatory archers. I certainly see People take a single cheap TuG to get over the hump of the next odd TuG total to get their break point up. But I don't often see people go out of their way to add 2 worthless TuGs for an extra break point, they usually have something better to do with 204-276 points. And I don't think I've ever seen someone take 4 such TuGs. Usually when I see that someone has 2 worthless archers hanging out out by the camp (whether mandatory or not) I don't see that as being a particularly useful (and certainly not imbalanced) option. So I've just never seen this be much of a problem.
In terms of availability of mobs, I see that as what these archers are for. Not every army has access to crap archers and the ones that do have the ability to take some cheap TuGs to bulk out their numbers. This rule change mitigates the one thing those troops are good for.
Double downgraded skirmishers can be a nice cost effective way of bumping up scouting and PBS card numbers - not to mention the very useful meat-shield use.
Quote from: Manzikert on September 16, 2025, 06:20:51 PMQuote from: badhabum on September 16, 2025, 02:57:43 PMDowngrading twice units is done only in order to get the extra breakpoint. Mob, rabble will always be part of some armies, but not all of them . Hence I think that if they should be available, they should be included in the list and not by downgrading twice some units .If you take a highly professional army, you pay for it and you get less TUGs but more and more people want the good army with high TUG numbers
In my experience the most frequent use of downgrading twice is to minimize the cost of mandatory archers. I certainly see People take a single cheap TuG to get over the hump of the next odd TuG total to get their break point up. But I don't often see people go out of their way to add 2 worthless TuGs for an extra break point, they usually have something better to do with 204-276 points. And I don't think I've ever seen someone take 4 such TuGs. Usually when I see that someone has 2 worthless archers hanging out out by the camp (whether mandatory or not) I don't see that as being a particularly useful (and certainly not imbalanced) option. So I've just never seen this be much of a problem.
In terms of availability of mobs, I see that as what these archers are for. Not every army has access to crap archers and the ones that do have the ability to take some cheap TuGs to bulk out their numbers. This rule change mitigates the one thing those troops are good for.
So I wanted to investigate my own claim here; and I can see grounds for concern. Just to pick a random example, the Tamil list (4702) has the potential to get 21 TuGs (1 4-pack of elephants, 10 6-packs of bladesmen, 8 6-packs of Double-downgrade archers, and +2 others). Now that does create one heck of an Achilles heel. One real unit getting into the back could take out that entire archer force. But I can see the potential for abuse.
I'm still not sold on the proposed solution. It might be easier to simply limit the number of such units in these lists. The Tamil have 90, but in a random assort of other lists I checked most didn't have more than 24, which has much less opportunity for abuse.
EDIT: So taking the time to do some more theory crafting I'm less convinced this is an issue. The Tamil army (which looks to be a sort of 'worst case scenario' here) does have the option to take 21 TuGs, 13 competent fighters and 8 worthless chaff for 11 break point. Or they can take 17 TuGs with 15 competent fighters and 2 worthless chaff for 9 break point, which frankly sounds way better.
Quote from: Manzikert on September 17, 2025, 03:36:56 AMThe Tamil army (which looks to be a sort of 'worst case scenario' here) does have the option to take 21 TuGs, 13 competent fighters and 8 worthless chaff for 11 break point. Or they can take 17 TuGs with 15 competent fighters and 2 worthless chaff for 9 break point, which frankly sounds way better.
15!?
What is your definition of "competent fighter"?
Quote from: badhabum on September 15, 2025, 10:09:46 AMQuote from: Roger on September 15, 2025, 10:07:53 AMQuote from: badhabum on September 13, 2025, 07:43:22 PMQuote from: steads on September 13, 2025, 02:27:36 PMQuote from: Count_bohemond on September 13, 2025, 08:17:07 AMDon't agree with this change either. Nothing wrong with the cheap units at the back.
Plus 1
Well I do agree . You may still downgrade the TUG but not "twice" You may have bad quality units but downgrading twice is a bit too much gamy
not sure double downgrades was un historical, as stalin was reputed to say "numbers have a quality of there own" and the rational of veterans being upgraded to superior or/and mellee in the list also applies to decimated, or levee recruits in a long campaign, or even the leavening out of competent bowmen into one unit and their incompetent followers being given a stick and some string to be stuck out on the flank to look important and threatening whilst not having the with to hurt a fly
The the mobs should be available trough the lists
I think it would be a legitimate command decision to strengthen one unit at the expense of an other whilst deciding where and how your army is deployed, which in effect what has and indeed does happen, the decision is made to reduce points on a unit to enhance another, that in my opinin would be a command decision not a recruitment or system requirement
Quote from: LawrenceG on September 17, 2025, 09:48:53 AMQuote from: Manzikert on September 17, 2025, 03:36:56 AMThe Tamil army (which looks to be a sort of 'worst case scenario' here) does have the option to take 21 TuGs, 13 competent fighters and 8 worthless chaff for 11 break point. Or they can take 17 TuGs with 15 competent fighters and 2 worthless chaff for 9 break point, which frankly sounds way better.
15!?
What is your definition of "competent fighter"?
The 15 are: 1 4-pack of elephants, 11 6-packs of melee expert infantry (one of which is superior), 3 6-packs of Devastating Charge infantry. All of it tribal, the melee experts are flexible. The army also has 13 command, so I didn't have to skimp on that.
My definition of 'competent fighter' would be anything with a +1 melee claim. The DC infantry aren't bad but they obviously don't meet that criteria. But in this context there's so much other stuff around that they should be free to for whatever job I need them to do. Push on a protected table edge, hold some terrain, exploit a flank, hold in reserve, etc. So I'm counting them in this context. Also worth noting I didn't spend a lot of time optimizing the list, just trying to maximize break point.
Quote from: Manzikert on September 16, 2025, 06:20:51 PMIn terms of availability of mobs, I see that as what these archers are for. Not every army has access to crap archers and the ones that do have the ability to take some cheap TuGs to bulk out their numbers. This rule change mitigates the one thing those troops are good for.
"Mobs" are usually TuGs of 10 or more. Archers can be in 6's. That is why downgrading twice is creating an unintended effect. Any lists with "mobs" of archers generally already allow them to be Poor. As Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on August 31, 2025, 09:06:52 PMWhen downgrading troops, can downgrade troop quality or shooting skill but not both.
So "Average - Experienced Shooters" may be downgrade to "Poor - Experienced" or "Average - Unskilled", but NOT to "Poor - Unskilled".
I see this change as fundamentally wrongheaded, TBH.
If the problem is that you want people to actually use unprotected archers (the primary TUG type being used here), then make them worth using and that should nip the problem in the bud.
If the problem is that people are using unprotected archers to buy up one more break point for 215-300 points (depending on the archer's level of drill), I really don't see that as a problem.
Having seen armies run three units of ultra-downgraded potato-peelers (they needed 18 bases of unprotected bowmen to meet army minima), pretty much everyone involved has agreed that the 325-ish points would have been better spent on almost literally anything else.
I find it telling that I've rarely seen people
voluntarily buy more than one unit of turbo-downgraded "KP" TUGs, and when they have, those players have dropped them like a hot rock in favor of an extra command card or other tools that make their actual fighting potential stronger.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 17, 2025, 05:07:41 PMAs Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.
Can you add more detail to this? What army? When? Is the list on Nik's website?
Adrian came 4th from 16 at Helvetica (open comp) with Nubian.
(https://i.postimg.cc/XvXrnJt1/1T3En0m.png) (https://postimg.cc/sBdjcVj5)
Lists not on my blog I'm afraid.
Quote from: LawrenceG on September 18, 2025, 09:59:10 AMQuote from: lionheartrjc on September 17, 2025, 05:07:41 PMAs Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.
Can you add more detail to this? What army? When? Is the list on Nik's website?
Helvetica Maximus 1st edition, June 2025.
As for the army, if you look at the Nubian 1110 list, there is not much to wrack one's brain about: the real tool is the Skilled shooters (TUGs and SUGs), and after them you take whatever you can/need to put around.
Antoine
Nubian like armies do have so many skilled archers, so many skirmishers and are big armies that they win by numbers and the quality of their shooting. Hammy did the same.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 17, 2025, 05:07:41 PMQuote from: Manzikert on September 16, 2025, 06:20:51 PMIn terms of availability of mobs, I see that as what these archers are for. Not every army has access to crap archers and the ones that do have the ability to take some cheap TuGs to bulk out their numbers. This rule change mitigates the one thing those troops are good for.
"Mobs" are usually TuGs of 10 or more. Archers can be in 6's. That is why downgrading twice is creating an unintended effect. Any lists with "mobs" of archers generally already allow them to be Poor. As Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.
I didn't realize 'mob' was already in the jargon. I was just using it to mean 'TuG that provides bodies but doesn't contribute to the fight'.
If someone is making effective use of massed tribal, Unprotect/combat shy, experienced bow I'd love to see how they did it! On paper they look terrible and my attempts at it have only confirmed that impression.
But I see that as a separate issue from 'is the ability to double downgrade a problem". I don't think that it is generally speaking. Though hypothetically I could see it being an issue in lists intended to be small elite armies. If for example Imperial Rome had access to 36+ bases of crap archers it would give the list the ability to trade a single legionary TuG for 5-6 TuGs of double downgrade archers and take an army from 5-6 break point to 8 which might be an issue. But even then it seems like it would be offset by having fewer fighting TuGs in an already small army and creating a massive 'points pituita' that has to be protected.
Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 17, 2025, 05:07:41 PMAs Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.
OK, so they can be effective if they include 24 loose and 27 skirmish skilled bow, and 18 melee expert infantry.
Quote from: Manzikert on September 18, 2025, 06:04:12 PMQuote from: lionheartrjc on September 17, 2025, 05:07:41 PMQuote from: Manzikert on September 16, 2025, 06:20:51 PMIn terms of availability of mobs, I see that as what these archers are for. Not every army has access to crap archers and the ones that do have the ability to take some cheap TuGs to bulk out their numbers. This rule change mitigates the one thing those troops are good for.
"Mobs" are usually TuGs of 10 or more. Archers can be in 6's. That is why downgrading twice is creating an unintended effect. Any lists with "mobs" of archers generally already allow them to be Poor. As Adrian proved, armies with massed tribal bow can be effective.
I didn't realize 'mob' was already in the jargon. I was just using it to mean 'TuG that provides bodies but doesn't contribute to the fight'.
If someone is making effective use of massed tribal, Unprotect/combat shy, experienced bow I'd love to see how they did it! On paper they look terrible and my attempts at it have only confirmed that impression.
But I see that as a separate issue from 'is the ability to double downgrade a problem". I don't think that it is generally speaking. Though hypothetically I could see it being an issue in lists intended to be small elite armies. If for example Imperial Rome had access to 36+ bases of crap archers it would give the list the ability to trade a single legionary TuG for 5-6 TuGs of double downgrade archers and take an army from 5-6 break point to 8 which might be an issue. But even then it seems like it would be offset by having fewer fighting TuGs in an already small army and creating a massive 'points pituita' that has to be protected.
+1 We are seeing far too many changes proposed only because some people dislike the way other people play. If you dislike creativity and clever play so much may I suggest Hail Caesar or Tactica?
Quote+1 We are seeing far too many changes proposed only because some people dislike the way other people play. If you dislike creativity and clever play so much may I suggest Hail Caesar or Tactica?
It's being done do not worry about it
I do not call it creativity and clever play but cheesy use of the rules . So sorry to disagree .
My opinion is that a good player should not have to downgrade units if the lists does not allow it specifically . But the rules allow it so be it, but cheesy to me .
Quote from: badhabum on October 07, 2025, 08:27:24 PMMy opinion is that a good player should not have to downgrade units if the lists does not allow it specifically . But the rules allow it so be it, but cheesy to me .
To each his own, I do not find it cheesy when I have to take a mandatory archer TUG in an Komnenan ally I take for the cavalry ... I will always downgrade it completely, and no shame about it.
Now this could be considered the peculiar case of an ally, but it stands nevertheless.
Antoine
Quote from: badhabum on October 07, 2025, 08:27:24 PMQuote+1 We are seeing far too many changes proposed only because some people dislike the way other people play. If you dislike creativity and clever play so much may I suggest Hail Caesar or Tactica?
It's being done do not worry about it
I do not call it creativity and clever play but cheesy use of the rules . So sorry to disagree .
My opinion is that a good player should not have to downgrade units if the lists does not allow it specifically . But the rules allow it so be it, but cheesy to me .
This is a really poor attitude to take on the topic.
NGL, this proposed change feels like it's being made for the wrong reasons.
The arguments being made in its favor aren't about game balance or historical accuracy, but because some players don't like how other people play.
Franky, I find this a very poor reason to take choices away from players.
Quote from: Doomsmile on October 11, 2025, 06:44:25 AMNGL, this proposed change feels like it's being made for the wrong reasons.
The arguments being made in its favor aren't about game balance or historical accuracy, but because some players don't like how other people play.
Franky, I find this a very poor reason to take choices away from players.
Plus 1
If a troop type is regarded as worthless enough that everyone downgrades them to save points, then that troop type needs to be cheaper.
Given that bows are supposedly more effective with the amendments, I suggest continuing to allow the double downgrades to see if people no longer choose to take them. If people continue to double downgrade, then you'll know you still need to cut the cost of the undowngraded troops.
Quote from: LawrenceG on October 11, 2025, 10:43:22 AMIf a troop type is regarded as worthless enough that everyone downgrades them to save points, then that troop type needs to be cheaper.
Given that bows are supposedly more effective with the amendments, I suggest continuing to allow the double downgrades to see if people no longer choose to take them. If people continue to double downgrade, then you'll know you still need to cut the cost of the undowngraded troops.
this of course predisposes that the downgraded troops are there for the purposes of fighting/participating in the battle/game. My max downgraded tugs are there to provide an extra break point and are deployed as far away from any reasonable expectation of being involved as possible.
my sugs are max downgraded, esp foot skirmishers with javelins to provide meat shields for expensive troops, some scouting points and at minimal cost, so participation only in the sense of taking one for the team.
the rules allow me to do this currently , so I do so and imho I do it rather well. It is gamey and I'd happy see it become one or the other.
as to not liking how other people play, what the player does in the privacy of his own list design is his choice and I don't judge. Now take an hour deploy your troops then I'm gonna get judgy.... -edit, a generic whinge not aimed at the quoted poster.
To me it is ALL about game balance and historical accuracy . Sorry to disagree . IMO it is cheesy but if we may use it, we use it . Donwgrading why not, they have a bad day but no downgrading 2 characteristics
Quote from: badhabum on October 11, 2025, 04:15:38 PMTo me it is ALL about game balance and historical accuracy . Sorry to disagree . IMO it is cheesy but if we may use it, we use it . Donwgrading why not, they have a bad day but no downgrading 2 characteristics
I do not understand this post. Would you consider explaining the connection between limiting downgrades and historicity ? I am sure I am unusually dense.
I feel the need to contribute.
The essence behind this proposal is that the game system allows a player to lose all his leaders, nobles, aristocracy and elite fighting units whilst all the levies, horde, conscripts and peasants sit back and fight on denying worthy opponent the laurels of victory, which they deserve.
Now, not all players do this, indeed very few do, but those who do exploit the simplicity of the scoring system to their advantage and to the detriment of the game.
That is why this has been suggested.
Lance.
Quote from: Lanceflint on October 11, 2025, 08:10:46 PMI feel the need to contribute.
The essence behind this proposal is that the game system allows a player to lose all his leaders, nobles, aristocracy and elite fighting units whilst all the levies, horde, conscripts and peasants sit back and fight on denying worthy opponent the laurels of victory, which they deserve.
Now, not all players do this, indeed very few do, but those who do exploit the simplicity of the scoring system to their advantage and to the detriment of the game.
That is why this has been suggested.
Lance.
This proposal doesn't actually address that issue though. A player can still take downgraded filler TuGs to bulk up numbers, they just cost 150 points rather than 102. So someone could still get 4 extra TuGs for 600 points rather than 6 for 612. With a bit of theory crafting I'm able to put together an 11 TuG army from the Serbian Empire (5303) taking 6 TuGs of knights (2 of them superior) and 5 TuGs of Single-downgrade archers.
But is this a problem, either from a game balance or historical representation perspective? From my theory crafting for a swarm army with the Tamil I don't think there's much advantage in taking a bunch of chaff to maximize breakpoint when you could be taking actually competent units. There are armies with higher range units like Palmyra (2816) who can potentially trade one Legionary to bulk their breakpoint by 3 (or 2 with this change). But I just don't think being down a fighting TuG is worth the extra breakpoint. The one case I can see it potentially being a balance issue is when it gives a small army of elites the staying power of a larger army of competent troops. But even then I'm skeptical, tiny armies aren't very good generally because they're so easy to envelope. But also, this change doesn't actually prevent that considering the Serbian army described above.
If this is an issue the best solution would probably be to just reduce the maximum for these units to 18-24 in armies where it's a potential issue.
Edit: I also wanted to mention that while I appreciate it's simplicity I agree that the MeG scoring system leaves something to be desired. But discussing that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Well, it does go a long way to reduce the effects of this problem without wiping out those lovely, but rubbish units, from the game?
You are quite right to say that certain armies will not use this `tactic`, either because of the nature of the army, or that of the player.
We are trying to do simple and more streamlined where possible, without any detriment to the game system.
Lance.
Perhaps the thing to do is increase the cost of the double downgraded troops, then.
Quote from: Lanceflint on October 12, 2025, 09:53:35 AMWell, it does go a long way to reduce the effects of this problem without wiping out those lovely, but rubbish units, from the game?
You are quite right to say that certain armies will not use this `tactic`, either because of the nature of the army, or that of the player.
We are trying to do simple and more streamlined where possible, without any detriment to the game system.
Lance.
I'm not convinced this is a problem. Break point padding doesn't work for swarm armies, it's of dubious use in mid-range armies, and 7 TuG armies of super elites don't work and I don't see increasing their break point from 4 to 6 is going to change that when it also creates a massive points piñata their opponent can exploit.
But to the extent it is a problem this solution is ineffective anyway as the Serbian example shows. More than that I don't think it can succeed, I was able to reproduce the 11 TuG Serbian army above taking no downgrades at all. 6 TuGs of Knights (2 superior) and 5 TuGs of archers which had combat shy but no other downgrades. I only had to compromise command down from 12 to 11.
Quote from: LawrenceG on October 12, 2025, 12:52:08 PMPerhaps the thing to do is increase the cost of the double downgraded troops, then.
This change effectively already does that.
Again, I'm not convinced this is a problem that needs to be fixed but even if it is this approach just feels like 3 lefts to make a right. Better to solve the problem directly by decreasing the max number of these TuGs available.
Quote from: AntiokosIII on October 11, 2025, 07:02:50 PMQuote from: badhabum on October 11, 2025, 04:15:38 PMTo me it is ALL about game balance and historical accuracy . Sorry to disagree . IMO it is cheesy but if we may use it, we use it . Donwgrading why not, they have a bad day but no downgrading 2 characteristics
I do not understand this post. Would you consider explaining the connection between limiting downgrades and historicity ? I am sure I am unusually dense.
No you are not dense . ALL is about most of the posts . Siome time people tell us it is about game balance and about other posts suddenly it is historicity . I was expressing frustration on that cheesy way to discuss things .
Now about downgrading it should be for a specific scenario or using the table that's included in the rules. Army lists should be FIXED and it will make armies much more interesting as downgrading some units , even once, is a gamy way of pushing some of the elite units "forward". It would be interesting to have a tournament without any downgrading and see with what players come . If the list is historical, then it's historicity . If you may downgrade for the fun then it's game fun .
Downgrading was introduced as a mechanism to make writing the lists easier and avoid the need for too many options.
The idea that the lists would be fixed is nonsense. A lot of lists would need options if no downgrades were permitted.
Downgrading both quality and shooting skill to create cheap UGs was an unintended consequence.
Richard
That was what I thought. REG lists chose not to use that mechanism and are consequently much longer with many lines that differ by only a morale or shooting grade. Imagine that over the 600+ MEG lists!
The same people are just repeating the same argument. This topic is being locked.