Determined Horse points benchmark

[nikgaukroger]

Starting a new topic on this specific issue to keep it clear.

I'd appreciate some thoughts on something I floated a few years ago in relation to points. That was that Armoured, Superior, Determined Horse, Pistol, Pistol should be the same points cost as Heavily Armoured, Superior, Horse, Pistol, Pistol - and that could be used as a benchmark for mounted points cost.

Now the current proposal does not have that, however, I still think it is not unreasonable. So if people could express a view as to whether I am correct or if I am not - a bit of explanation why (either way) would be useful as a way of getting to a basis for this, IMO rather important, benchmark.

Cheers.

[ravenflight]

I think that Determined Horse are better that Horse, but not so much better as they are currently costed.

[DavidT]

I think DH should cost more than the equivalent Horse.
Currently DH are overpriced and hopefully the points revision will address that, however, not to the point of parity with Horse.
In a straight up fight, a BG of DH can get up to 6 dice compared to 4 dice for Horse.
If DH in 2 ranks fights Horse in 2 ranks, the DH still fights with 4 dice after 1 or 2 base losses, while the Horse will lose dice for each base loss.
If attacking a typical 6 base foot unit, after impact, the DH can get 7 dice v 6; the horse can only get 4 dice v 6.

[Jhykronos]

I'd appreciate some thoughts on something I floated a few years ago in relation to points. That was that Superior Determined Horse, Pistol, Pistol should be the same points cost as Superior Horse, Pistol, Pistol - and that could be used as a benchmark for mounted points cost.

You mean Horse Superior HEAVILY ARMORED Pistol/Pistol vs Determined Horse Superior ARMORED Pistol/Pistol, right?

Because that was the starting point for the points discussion back then.

[DavidT]

You mean Horse Superior HEAVILY ARMORED Pistol/Pistol vs Determined Horse Superior ARMORED Pistol/Pistol, right?

In that case my previous post isn't entirely correct as I was talking about armoured in both cases.
However, I still think that the armoured DH should be slightly more expensive than heavily armoured horse, due to the advantages they have v infantry, particularly with the proposed changes to armour.

[nikgaukroger]

I'd appreciate some thoughts on something I floated a few years ago in relation to points. That was that Superior Determined Horse, Pistol, Pistol should be the same points cost as Superior Horse, Pistol, Pistol - and that could be used as a benchmark for mounted points cost.

You mean Horse Superior HEAVILY ARMORED Pistol/Pistol vs Determined Horse Superior ARMORED Pistol/Pistol, right?

Because that was the starting point for the points discussion back then.

I did indeed - I went and missed out the rather important armour classification

Now amended in the original post.

Apologies to those who have commented so far - if you could have a look again it would be appreciated.

[timmy1]

I agree with David.

[DavidT]

Revising my original post for sup armoured DH v sup heavily armoured horse and assuming the current proposals for armour (if heavier armoured at a - POA, get a + POA; if evens or plus, get a re-roll):
At impact they are equivalent.
In a straight up fight, the BG of DH can get up to 6 dice at 4+, re-rolling 1s (avg 3.5 hits) compared to 4 dice at 4+ for the Horse, re-rolling 1s and 2s (avg 2.66 hits) - the DH are better off.
If DH in 2 ranks fights Horse in 2 ranks, the DH still fights with 4 dice after 1 or 2 base losses (averaging 2.33 hits), while the Horse will lose dice for each base loss (averaging 2.66 hits if 4 bases, 2 hits if 3 bases and 1.33 hits if 2 bases) - the horse are better off until they take a casualty, then the DH are better.
If attacking a typical 6 base foot unit, after impact, the DH can get 7 dice v 6; the horse can only get 4 dice v 5, although the horse will get a better re-roll with two dice as they will have better armour than the pike (who are normally armoured, however, if the pike are unarmoured, then the DH will get the better re-roll as well). So the DH are again better off.

Definitely a case for armoured DH being more costly than heavily armoured horse.

[Jhykronos]

In light of the proposed armor change, the difference between the base cost of heavily armored horse and armored determined horse in the current proposal (12 vs 14) is probably about right. My own proposal way back had them at 13 vs 15, influenced mainly by Mr Alisdair's opinion on the subject.

[geoff]

The points in the official proposal represent a significant reduction for DH. With all the advantages that DH have over Horse I fear this latest suggestion is a step too far.

[ravenflight]

The points in the official proposal represent a significant reduction for DH. With all the advantages that DH have over Horse I fear this latest suggestion is a step too far.

But, Geoff, you've always thought that the DH/Horse interaction was 'about right' which many don't agree with, and I think can be clarified in that the players opt to not take DH when given the opportunity. You may be right that 'it's a step too far' but I really do feel that the DH need to have a severe reduction in cost.

[geoff]

The points in the official proposal represent a significant reduction for DH. With all the advantages that DH have over Horse I fear this latest suggestion is a step too far.

But, Geoff, you've always thought that the DH/Horse interaction was 'about right' which many don't agree with, and I think can be clarified in that the players opt to not take DH when given the opportunity. You may be right that 'it's a step too far' but I really do feel that the DH need to have a severe reduction in cost.

Not quite correct. I would always have supported a 2 point drop for DH and a 1 point drop for cavaliers. The official proposal is not a lot different to that so I am comfortable with it.
I did always think that DH disadvantage was overplayed on the forums. Yes they are too expensive but not by up to 6 points as was touted in some cases. The voluntary break off advantage that DH have over horse is often lost in the discussion. Mostly though it's there advantage to expand against foot and still fight effectively that is superb.
Anyway, happy to go with the initial proposal but if armoured DH end up at the same points as ha horse it will see the tables covered in DH armies.

[RonanTheLibrarian]

Having just spent the weekend watching my Arm'd, Sup, --/Pi/Pi, DH (New Model Ironsides) being steam-rollered by HA, Sup, --/Pi/Pi, Horse (Later German Kuirassiere) that cost 20 points less per unit, and hit on 4s instead of 5s, I have to say I am totally sold on the idea of reducing the cost of DH.

It was not so much taking a knife to a gun-fight, as a bunch of flowers. Pansies.

[nikgaukroger]

Having just spent the weekend watching my Arm'd, Sup, --/Pi/Pi, DH (New Model Ironsides) being steam-rollered by HA, Sup, --/Pi/Pi, Horse (Later German Kuirassiere) that cost 20 points less per unit, and hit on 4s instead of 5s, I have to say I am totally sold on the idea of reducing the cost of DH.

It was not so much taking a knife to a gun-fight, as a bunch of flowers. Pansies.

So what would your relative points suggestion be?

[RonanTheLibrarian]

It feels wrong to equalise them, since the extra weight of the kurassiere should count for something, at least at impact, but 1-2 points/base less just doesn't seem enough; 4 less per base on Superiors (plus a similar relative amount on Averages) would have allowed us to field two more units of foot (we also had some unused points) that we could have interspersed with the mounted to give the enemy horse something else to worry about. As it was, we were the smallest army in the competition (just 13 BGs) even with no artillery or CS; ok, that was our - well, my - choice as we included a GC, but we did much better against our one non-German opponent (Swedes) in game four, as I thought we might before the competition, and I have regularly beaten Imperial Spanish at my club with the NMA, so maybe it was just bad luck that 44% of the 9 armies provided 75% of our opponents? Two of our three German opponents finished joint 2nd, so there's no suggestion we would have won, but the games were a lot closer than 21-4 and 25-0 suggest; the third pair apologised for their outrageously good dice and - rightly - predicted they'd get a hammering in their other games (take away their 25-0 win against us and we and they finished equal on points).

The vulnerability of our DH also affected our tactics - trying to bolster our flanks and protect the DH with our Superior foot forced us to keep them (the DH) within the central area of the table and thus in artillery range.