Points costs, revised proposals

Moderators: terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

Post Reply
kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Points costs, revised proposals

Post by kevinj »

Following the comments received on the initial set I've created a revised proposal to take into account concerns raised.
It is my intention to use this for the Derby Team competition. I am open to comments/suggestions but will be looking to fix this (for Derby at least) before the end of August.
Here's the points table:

Image

The following table gives some comparative costs of common troop types using the current and proposed values

Image
Last edited by kevinj on Fri Aug 04, 2017 8:05 am, edited 2 times in total.
benjones1211
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 353
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: Points costs, revised proposals

Post by benjones1211 »

How can Tuareg Camels go from 13 to 13 and 10 to 11 at the same time. Is one Avg rather than Sup.
kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Points costs, revised proposals

Post by kevinj »

Thanks Ben, yes, you're right, the second one is Average, not Superior.
DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Points costs, revised proposals

Post by DavidT »

I assume that Elite Heavily Armoured foot should be 10, not 18.

What cost are foot Bw* and Mtd Bw*?

I see my Polish noble levy (Cv, Poor, Arm, Bw, Sw) originally 7 points and not worth it, which had been reduced to 6 (and might have enticed me to try using them) are now up to 8 points! I think the increase in points costs for poor mounted troops are unwarranted (a rare thing in most armies - they will now be even rarer).

I am still unsure about the commanded shot costs. 10 points to give an Average, Arm, Pi/Pi Hse BG commanded shot, which will give it one shooting dice and, in most cases, enable it to count as Superior for combat re-rolls. Alternatively, I can spend 8 points to upgrade the BG to Superior and it will count as Superior in all cases.

In general, however, the revised costs for Cavalry/LH (except Poor) now seem about right. I am not so sure on the Superior/Elite 2 dice horse costs, maybe 1 point too high? - but that will probably require some testing.
spedders
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:29 pm

Re: Points costs, revised proposals

Post by spedders »

I am inclined to agree on the points for 2 dice cavalry. 19pts for an armoured sup pi/pi det horse v 16pts for a heavily armoured sup cuirassier still I think favours the cuirassier too much. Evens at impact and in melee but the det horse losing its reroll. I think 18pts would be about right.

Others look better.
kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Points costs, revised proposals

Post by kevinj »

I've fixed the typos for Average Camels and Heavily Armoured Foot, thank you for spotting them.

Bow* are 0 points. In my opinion they're not as good as Crossbows which have always been 0 points, plus they are normally carried as a secondary item which makes those troops that use them seem overpriced.

Polish Noble Levy Cavalry have gained the ability to drop back and a better autobreak level and cost the same in this proposal as currently. I'm not sure they need to be cheaper.

Don't forget commanded shot will also negate the effects of better armour.

Regarding the DH/Cavaliers etc it's worth remembering that they have other advantages. They are Shock Troops and can operate in a single rank. In a straight up one-one fight with Cuirassiers their opponents get a better re-roll but the DH can look to create overlaps and don't suffer as badly from any base losses. Also their opponents can't break off if they start losing badly.
spedders
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2015 9:29 pm

Re: Points costs, revised proposals

Post by spedders »

Thanks Kevin. I agree that DH should be more expensive as they have advantages but I think 3pts a base is too much. It is margins but I think 18pts a base is about right.
kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: Points costs, revised proposals

Post by kevinj »

As you say it's marginal. Another consideration is that Unarmoured Superior DH Pi/Pi only cost 17 points a base with this proposal. They fight Cuirassiers just as well as armoured ones.
DavidT
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 270
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:10 pm
Location: Northern Ireland

Re: Points costs, revised proposals

Post by DavidT »

kevinj wrote: Bow* are 0 points.

Polish Noble Levy Cavalry have gained the ability to drop back and a better autobreak level and cost the same in this proposal as currently. I'm not sure they need to be cheaper.

Don't forget commanded shot will also negate the effects of better armour.
That's what I thought for Bw* but I just wanted to be sure.

Polish Noble Levy Cavalry are now 1 point dearer than under the original rules - and cr*p is still cr*p. However, if they were cheaper, they may get used more often, even if only for a bit of comedy value. The same is true of most poor mounted.

If commanded shot negated armour then they don't impart a morale upgrade for re-rolls. The points cost to upgrade my Arm Avg Hse to Hvy Arm Avg Hse, which also negates the heavier armour which they are most likely to face on the battlefield, is also only 8 points. Except it is permanent and doesn't slow the Hse.
Vespasian28
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 477
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 9:04 pm

Re: Points costs, revised proposals

Post by Vespasian28 »

Whilst still not a fan of the Averages and Superiors break on 50% + amendment this finally addresses the issue from a points perspective for the foot so thanks for that.
Post Reply

Return to “FOGR Update”