Should we try to play certain points more often?

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

S! all,

As a follow up to another post, I wanted to get this out there:

Basically, what points do you like the most? Personally I love the low point games; it make moral a much bigger factor, and makes you really have to think about your unit purchases. In fact, this seems to be a trend recently; that people are playing lower points games. As a frequent host, I would be curious to know what players like the most.

S!

Ash

[HG|barryjacko]

The best games I have played have been with [glow=red,2,300]zero[/glow] valour and [glow=red,2,300]zero[/glow] weapons upgrades. It's then down to the skill of the player and his/her tactical ability. But that is just my opinion of course and I look forward to a debate on this

HG|Jacko

Edit by Ashram: I changed the word TEXT to the word zero, as I think you stated in your next post. If there are any problems with this, please let me know.

[HG|barryjacko]

That should read as 0 valour and 0 weapons

HG|Jacko

[[GG]Lord von Döbeln]

One problem with 0 valour units is that because this is a Medieval game there is a big factor called "fear of firearms". This was of course true in Napoleonic times too, but not to the same extent. This in fact has lead to my line infantry barely being hit by 1 volley before they broke (surrounded by friends, all in good order). They took about 12-15 losses (unit size small so they were only 100 to begin with but still) and then they ran. I am no fan of the kamikaze battles we too often see where units won't break until only 5-10 men are left, but IMO valour 1 units are usually fairly balanced in that sense.

[GG]vD

[[GG]Buxford]

I prefer medium points. To low valour, and your units will run at the drop of a hat (very unrealistic). To high, and they will never run (also very unrealistic).

2 valour sounds good to me.

[flippyxtrem]

1-2 valour games are great to me...

Cheers

[[GG]Salis De Silver]

Yeah agree with Buxford & Flippy there.... just gets rather boring and pointless fighting to the last man.

S!

[flippyxtrem]

last nights game was very interesting...

Ashrams cav...a company of maybe 48 men...tried charging into the enemy cannister...but the enemy infantry fired one volley and ashrams company dropped to 37-39? and it routed....I thought that to be realistic...if ashrams lancers were valour 3 or 4 they would have keep charging despite losing alot more men...which would have been sucicde so I am liking these low valour games....

[[GG]AndrewKent]

Thanks, Ash, for starting this thread.

I LOVE low or medium florin/franc games! They are more realistic and more challenging. And when one side really gets the upper hand, the opposing army routs and is gone...just as often happened.

I also like the idea of limiting the number of elite units (guard, highlander and such). With more realistic valour and unit mix, you have to really think about what you're doing, you can't just go slinging your units madly about.

Now, if we can just fix the counter-battery thing...

AK

[[GG]ThinRedLine]

I voted for the middle valour for many of the reasons stated here.

It is more realistic to have most of your army as 0-1 valour and have few elites or special units as 2-3.

As seen in many accounts of battles and battle fields all over the world and through out history it would still be totally realistic to have an army like this and say one very special unit of 3-4 valour. Just not half or the majority. I like 20-25k games a lot and I think if we just control how many elites one gets etc it can still be very challenging and a lot of fun.

I also like the 10k games a great deal too. ;D

S!

TRL

[flippyxtrem]

I love how the voting is going thus far....

as it looks

we should have different games of 10k-25k

they are both great

Cheers