MY PHILOSOPHY

Since its launch in 2016 I have had a clear philosophy of listening and adjusting.  This was always going to be the case for lists and rules. It is the only way to get them right as no amount of beta-testing is going to get there with such variety.  I saw this in FoG and DBM where both had major flaws at launch and were far from optimised. And their successors are still nowhere near optimised for those systems.  Only live player testing can deal with it. It is a lesson from my business career about adaptive product development. In addition we have put some tweaks into the rules.  Not that many actually if you look back, but it has created an image of beta-testing which is not at all true .....  but perception is reality.  So with the delight players have found in having a listening and responsive author, has come the downside of creating an image of much more change than is real and instability which is not there.

So my philosophy is as follows:
1. Points need to be kept adaptable as that is the only way to get the system balanced... takes 3 cycles to get them optimised
2. Army lists cannot be correct at launch as again players find the errors and a few armies will dominate ... takes 2 years to get a set settled down and accurate.
3. Rules should be ready and working at launch with nothing broken (that is the role of beta testing). Mortem et Gloriam was this at launch.
4. Rules can be optimised by listening and responding and as long as the changes are not material they can be done as amendments.  Again no beta testing process can catch all of it.

Maybe (4) is a mistake but it has been an amazing and engaging process and resulted in an incredibly well balanced and refined package. With Mortem et Gloriam we have optimised a war-game for the first time ever. The rules, points and army lists are so well balanced that over 500 armies are viable and we have the best army character ever in the history of ancient wargaming.

Mortem et Gloriam NEXT STEPS

2020 will see Mortem et Gloriam published in HB book form with a rigid set up thereafter and will then have a big marketing push put behind it. The optimisation phase is over and largely was 18 months ago.  I am intending investing quite a bit of money to change it from a break-even cottage industry" version into a full commercial version with widespread distribution and marketing, with the figures branded to match the rules.  All rules will then have a branded website, forum, rules and figure range.  The rules will feature at all shows with traders and have a lot of advertising backing.  The colour system sitting inside will be branded as CCC on all games.  My vision is to have create suite of rules, all using the CCC system, so that we can all switch between periods fairly easily.  WE have ReG close, and I already have WW2, WW2 skirmish, Sci-Fi Skirmish and Napoleonics working. This is a big move.

Mortem et Gloriam 2019 is already at 9+/10 as a game. We have some ideas to make it a 9.5+/10 and balance further before we lock down in print form for 5 years.  After this rule changes will be limited to CORRECTIONS of anything that is BROKEN (which I hope to be nothing). Lists also will lock down soon for the duration. Any remaining balancing will be through points tweaks and there Army Builder but even that I suspect is limited.

So I have a big decision to make. ...

We have 3 changes that we think move the 9 to 9.5: a) a new way of doing chariots, b) a PBS tweak to give more territory variety and c) making prompting through fire a bit more difficult.  Non of the current versions are broken.  Everything else is minor tidying up. So as players I have a question for you.  Which of these options would you prefer:

1. Make these final improvements now as if we don't they will not happen for many years.  In the full knowledge that they will not be any optimisation amendments post launch of the book.

2. Leave these aside and just do the tidy cup changes and points tweaks.  The 2020 rules will then be just 2019 integrating calories and the adjustments to more minor items, and fixing one bit of flank charge cheese.  There will then be no change at all to the meta of the game froth 2019 version.

My view  was that given we are going into major print now is the time to do any last optimisations.  VS2 as a book will be seen as a change anyway.  But perhaps the seek for 9.5 is not a good idea and it is better to stick at the 9/10 and consolidate that.  I am with the team in person next Sunday and want to debate it all through then.

NOTE TO DISPEL ANY THOUGHTS TO THE CONTRARY
despite some doubt this will be the last chance to tweak the rules.  Once the book is published I will only fix anything that is broken. See my philosophy above: the optimisation phase is over. I will be busy optimising other rule sets instead. So it is last chance to do (1) for 5 years minimum. Reasons for that will become even more evident in the coming months.

FINALLY. ... A CALL TO ARMS
We need the support of all Mortem et Gloriam lovers to help to counter this "beta-testing" image that has occurred.  It has never been the case.  The rules have actually been rather stable since launch other than one mistake by me on break points.  We have optimised lists, added new troops types for eastern and adjusted the points every year to good effect. But the rules really aren't much different to vs1 in Aug 2016. Read the list of ADLG amendments that is 9 pages long, with a separate Q&A for calories. Or for DBMM.  Or even FoG 3 just a week or so after launch.. The willingness to listen and tweak has had some unfortunate side effects. But all of you who have appreciated that process need to work as ambassadors to sell why this has been a big plus and NOT beta- testing.  I will try to do my bit more publicly on it.  I am incredibly proud of the invention and what we have optimised together from it.  Truly it is a first in wargaming and sets is up for great 10+ years gaming ahead and the building of a large international playing community.

Please give me all your honest views to help me decide.  And to help me decide how to approach the next sets that come out.

Si

Even though I'm not a fan of the proposed chariot changes, I would make the changes you end up deciding are necessary as part of the next step.

I also feel you are entirely correct about keeping the points open to, occasional, revision.

I Look forward to seeing what is to come

Martin

     My point would be quite general. I would be cautious of last minute changes overall. From my own background (eg developing teaching materials) to what I've heard about software development and seen for other wargames rules there is a recurring pattern ... everything is carefully tested and then a few last minute apparently innocuous changes are made just before launch, without testing - and those are the ones that give you problems ever after.

So your phrase is actually "we are at a 9 and are making changes to get to 9.5, with a risk of dropping back to 7.5"

My recommendation would be to figure out which was the last change that was properly tested out in the community for a decent time - and freeze it there.

Apart from anything else if you are claiming that one of your USPs is that everything has been live tested and developed with the help of a community you don't want to bring in last minute changes that don't fit in with that.

Quote from: daveparish on August 31, 2019, 11:32:54 AM
     My point would be quite general. I would be cautious of last minute changes overall. From my own background (eg developing teaching materials) to what I've heard about software development and seen for other wargames rules there is a recurring pattern ... everything is carefully tested and then a few last minute apparently innocuous changes are made just before launch, without testing - and those are the ones that give you problems ever after.

So your phrase is actually "we are at a 9 and are making changes to get to 9.5, with a risk of dropping back to 7.5"

My recommendation would be to figure out which was the last change that was properly tested out in the community for a decent time - and freeze it there.

Apart from anything else if you are claiming that one of your USPs is that everything has been live tested and developed with the help of a community you don't want to bring in last minute changes that don't fit in with that.

I agree so +1

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 31, 2019, 08:25:56 AM
1. Make these final improvements now as if we don't they will not happen for many years.  In the full knowledge that they will not be any optimisation amendments post launch of the book.

Quote from: nikgaukroger on August 31, 2019, 06:41:45 PM

Quote from: Simon Meg-Meister on August 31, 2019, 08:25:56 AM
1. Make these final improvements now as if we don't they will not happen for many years.  In the full knowledge that they will not be any optimisation amendments post launch of the book.

If not tested, how do you know it's improvement ?

They are being tested.
We have a full two months minimum to decide.
So play it as altered and feedback.

Only chariots is material really.
I already tested the prompting through fire last year and sat on the fence.
Give it a try.

Si

I am solidly in favor of all changes proposed except the chariot ones. I am neutral on the chariot changes because I haven't tried 'em out yet. I plan to do so soon. I even like the PBS changes DESPITE having ruthlessly exploited the current rules t help my Burmese army (love defending in the jungle- all those swamps!)
I have discussed this with our group, and found widespread agreement, although I do not pretend to speak for anyone but myself.

I agree with Dave Parish.
The 3 major changes have not been play-tested (nor will be) sufficiently to reach the same level of certainty as the rest of the rules.
The PBS tweaks look fun but may have much greater consequences than it first seems: I fear that the balance between Professional and Instinctive generals will swing heavily towards the Professional.
The changes to 2BW for pushing through fire made for difficult decisions: I worry that pushing the card colour up and completely losing the ability to get infantry to move full again will strangely reduce decision making because the cards are just not going to be there. In skilled hands Horse Archer armies can take down even the massed foot armies everyone is complaining about (RJC Vs Hunter at Britcon for instance), so improving them makes little sense to me.
The chariot changes are a complete rethink and there is not enough time and players to test them and the myriad of potential opponents in 2-3 months. The current rules seem to allow at least some players to succeed with them but it takes a skilled hand to do it well, or so I am told.
My counsel therefore is to go forward without these changes and take option 2.

Mr Steads, could you explain you 'loss of balance between generals' idea?  After re-reading the section I don't see it. Knowing you, I know you must be on to something. What is it?

I respectfully disagree about the pushing-throug-fire changes, maybe because my skills are so poor that my horse archers never seem to stop foot from driving them back, A good general picks a group to drive forward, and uses cards and upgrades to push a whole line forward. The drop from 4BW to 2BW has not made a lot of difference for players with enough on the ball to know where the main effort is to be.  SLowing is easy if the foot go only 2 wide; but I'd go 3 wide against horse archers anyway to boost frontage, and halting a 3-wide foot unit is not so easy on white or even green dice. I like the change, maybe because I like horse archers.

On the Prompting through Fire I tested it this way last year and liked it but wanted to tighten in in two stags rather than risk overshooting so am pretty sure this is a winner in terms of balance.
Also interested in anything Mr Stead can illuminate further.  Chariots is the only material change I want to check out a lot to make sure it works well.

Si

Are large foot armies a winner, or only those that have some kind of gimmick/tweak? I haven't noticed too many large foot armies at the top of the table. How much of the playtesting was using large barbarian foot armies or was it mainly to see how the balance between knights and horse archers?

Dark age foot armies already seem a tough slog, I can't see this helping them

To correct an error in an earlier post - I did beat Hunter's largely foot army with my Seljuk Turk horse archer army, but it was mostly due to my Elephants being charged by his knights and does not prove that large foot armies cannot beat horse archer armies.

In fact, the Eastern Seljuk Turk army was incredibly easy to beat.  Two or three units of experienced protected shooters could probably have done it (most of my army was Skilled Unprotected horse archers in 4's).  My success was mostly down to my opponents not knowing how to face my army.

Richard

Quote from: craig.w on September 02, 2019, 07:54:24 AM
Are large foot armies a winner, or only those that have some kind of gimmick/tweak? I haven't noticed too many large foot armies at the top of the table. How much of the playtesting was using large barbarian foot armies or was it mainly to see how the balance between knights and horse archers?

Dark age foot armies already seem a tough slog, I can't see this helping them

My understanding is that it is specific types although I'm sure the UK players can enlighten us further. My understanding is it tends to be close order with weapons like longspear (often backed up by cheapish cavalry). Not actual barbarian types with dev charger and/or loose order.

Martin

Quote from: lionheartrjc on September 02, 2019, 08:04:14 AM
To correct an error in an earlier post - I did beat Hunter's largely foot army with my Seljuk Turk horse archer army, but it was mostly due to my Elephants being charged by his knights and does not prove that large foot armies cannot beat horse archer armies.

In fact, the Eastern Seljuk Turk army was incredibly easy to beat.  Two or three units of experienced protected shooters could probably have done it (most of my army was Skilled Unprotected horse archers in 4's).  My success was mostly down to my opponents not knowing how to face my army.

Richard

At Britcon my largely foot army beat both a Sultunate of Rum and a Timurid with very few stand
losses. My units were two stands wide and by careful husbanding of cards managed to push through shooting on every occasion without loss of movement.