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 PM

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

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 PM

Quote from: steads on September 13, 2025, 02:27:36 PM

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

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 AM

Quote from: badhabum on September 13, 2025, 07:43:22 PM

Quote from: steads on September 13, 2025, 02:27:36 PM

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

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 AM

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.

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.