Also worth mentioning the Catalan army I fought was also rather big with good quality units and lots of filler who sat at the back to increase number of units.

Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 24, 2019, 12:41:52 PM
The Germans were so popular they were on your list twice!!

It's the result of the tournament

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 24, 2019, 10:28:10 AM
They won't outscout you in future due to having more TuGs.
Big armies are a challenge.

There is perhaps an argument to limit army break points to 6.
Extra volume beyond 11 TuGs is then to give you more to fight with.

Welcome thoughts.

S

I quite like this suggestion as it makes more costly armies more effective. Will it kill of armies like Slave Revolt though?

So the "Meta" is any 13+ TuG army with filler, regardless of composition of army.  Not really a Meta.

I'm very disappointed in all of you, the correct answer is:
"Nothing is the meta, what's the meta with you!"

I have been thinking more about my games against large armies.
I think the change to outscouting will make a big big difference.
At present they get a clear benefit most of the time.
Which is a challenge as in practice you mainly want to pick on part of it.

Not sure it will need anything else - just correction of that will be enough I suspect.

S

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 24, 2019, 07:55:48 PM
I have been thinking more about my games against large armies.
I think the change to outscouting will make a big big difference.
At present they get a clear benefit most of the time.
Which is a challenge as in practice you mainly want to pick on part of it.

Not sure it will need anything else - just correction of that will be enough I suspect.

S

Willing to bow to your superior knowledge but while scouting is a factor I am not sure it is the issue. I think that at Britcon I was scouted 100 % in one game but set up in such a way that I could still deploy my masses effectively for whatever came their way. To me the issue is that cheap but not ineffective troops can be deployed in eights or nines and grind down through natural attrition much more expensive and allegedly more effective troops. This is especially prevalent if they go deep and shoulder to shoulder several units each 4 ranks deep. On the flanks you then have cheap but effective cavalry especially average long spear cavalry in sixes. When your infantry has pinned the expensive enemy units frontally then the cavalry work the flanks. Think of Hunter's army at Skulls.
I think this is also the point Will is making but leave him to confirm this.

So you have defined what you see as a problem, but what do you see as potential solutions?

To be honest, I am really supporting the arguments made by Will after Skulls. In doing so I am probably shooting myself in the foot as my Feudal German army reflects in its composition many of the concerns he has. Hunter's Arab army at Skulls also has these benefits. Honest soul that I am I am confirming his concerns about the effectiveness of large average ability units compared with small expensive troops. My concerns about the low cost of average long spear cavalry in comparison with the many benefits they receive have been posted on many forum topics. Strangely, I do not have the same concern about more expensive long spear cavalry which already pay a points premium.
Some ways to combat this might be increasing points of cheaper troops or limiting the maximum size of units to a level less than they can have at present. Limiting the maximum number of TUGs that count towards an army breaking as suggested by Simon also has merit but also has consequences.

Playing with points system? Could slightly boost the base cost of everything to make weapons/abilities relatively cheaper. Could up the cost of foot and mounted longspear a little?

Martin

Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 24, 2019, 08:37:05 PM
To me the issue is that cheap but not ineffective troops can be deployed in eights or nines and grind down through natural attrition much more expensive and allegedly more effective troops. This is especially prevalent if they go deep and shoulder to shoulder several units each 4 ranks deep.

If this is an issue there could be list changes to relevant lists (whatever they are) to make the unit sized 6 or 9 instead of allowing 8's - effectively means 3 deep (until losses happen) instead of 4 being possible. Or it could be a rule change about formation depth - only Pike can be over 3 deep.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 25, 2019, 09:23:43 AM

Quote from: marshalney2000 on August 24, 2019, 08:37:05 PM
To me the issue is that cheap but not ineffective troops can be deployed in eights or nines and grind down through natural attrition much more expensive and allegedly more effective troops. This is especially prevalent if they go deep and shoulder to shoulder several units each 4 ranks deep.

If this is an issue there could be list changes to relevant lists (whatever they are) to make the unit sized 6 or 9 instead of allowing 8's - effectively means 3 deep (until losses happen) instead of 4 being possible. Or it could be a rule change about formation depth - only Pike can be over 3 deep.

I would agree that nine base units are less effective than eight base ones. At least you are fighting three base frontages.

My preference would be to limit depth.  The reason they do so well so easily is they can go 4 deep.  As the game is attritional per frontage it is this that makes the most different.

That said I played Hunters army. It and a very close run thing even though my Huns are definitely not good in that match up - a string of 6 skulls out of 7 rolls finally did for me. 

Being 100% outscored is only a downside if the opposition has the sense to make full use of it.  I watched several games where people were outscored but generally found the opponent had not done anything dramatic enough to take advantage.

Points is the other options we could adjust.  If we take all bases up 10 its then in relative terms it shrink the mass crap more than the small super troops.  A good test is to try to this with some armies from opposite ends of the spectrum.

I will have a play next week.  I am not so concerned by the big armies once their scouting benefit vanishes.  People need to learn how to gang up on half their army when they have the chance.  But it may be 4 deep doesn't give enough time to do so.

A fine topic to ponder and play with while we finalise things.

Si

Si

Could four ranks deep be restricted to pike units only?

This was always my backup plan if volume started to dominate.
How would players feel about that?
I am wary of having two camps of players
a) minimum changes please and non if you can
b) lets fix a few things while we can

Same thing on chariots.

Si