Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: Re: Points Systems  (Read 3628 times)

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #30 on: November 21, 2023, 08:27:00 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.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

Princeps

  • Auxilia
  • *
  • Posts: 82
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #31 on: November 21, 2023, 09:21:39 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

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #32 on: November 21, 2023, 09:34:23 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2023, 09:39:26 PM by nikgaukroger »
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

SteveO

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 145
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #33 on: November 21, 2023, 09:43:42 PM »
Guys - Iím 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 donít 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.

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #34 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.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

LawrenceG

  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
    • Travel Terrain shop
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2023, 06:28:57 AM »
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.  >:(

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2023, 06:36:39 AM »
I seem to hit 10002 frequently for some reason  :o
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

lionheartrjc

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 2299
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2023, 06:38:29 AM »
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).....


ShrubMiK

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #38 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!

paulstovell

  • Psiloi
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #39 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.

LawrenceG

  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
    • Travel Terrain shop
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #40 on: November 23, 2023, 06:14:35 AM »
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.

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #41 on: November 23, 2023, 06:18:09 AM »
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.
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

LawrenceG

  • Centurion
  • *
  • Posts: 432
    • View Profile
    • Travel Terrain shop
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #42 on: November 23, 2023, 06:25:30 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.

nikgaukroger

  • TWZ Team
  • Imperator
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #43 on: November 23, 2023, 06:39:15 AM »
It is quite amazing what players can forget about their troops in the heat of a game  ;D
"The Roman Empire was not murdered and nor did it die a natural death; it accidentally committed suicide."

ShrubMiK

  • Legionary
  • *
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: Points Systems
« Reply #44 on: November 23, 2023, 11:38:56 AM »
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?