|
Post by Netherby on Dec 10, 2018 0:56:16 GMT
Wasn't cavalry mostly invalidated during the 30 years war? It was the mixed arms Pike+Musket bloc invented by the king of Sweeden that made his army so good?
Cavalry was basically relegated to chasing down fleeing troops and butchering them after a battle was over...
|
|
|
Post by borderprince on Dec 10, 2018 9:29:59 GMT
Wasn't cavalry mostly invalidated during the 30 years war? It was the mixed arms Pike+Musket bloc invented by the king of Sweeden that made his army so good? Cavalry was basically relegated to chasing down fleeing troops and butchering them after a battle was over... Traditional heavily armoured cavalry had its role much reduced well before the 30 Years War. But cavalry still had valuable roles in flanking (spinning a pike/musket block around, even the smaller Swedish ones, would hardly have been easy, and pikemen facing the wrong way aren't much good against cavalry); getting involved when pikes were already engaged so couldn't resist a cavalry charge so well; and dealing with other cavalry.
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Human on Dec 10, 2018 10:49:15 GMT
My Karchev list kinda likes the change to the Steelhead cavalry, you get a bit more damage out of them now. Granted you loose some flexibility without assault but that was rearly any good anyway. I've also always wanted to play a Swedish 30 year war army, with Hakkapeliittas (steelhead cavalry), this theme is like spot on. So was the Swedish army also led by a hundred something battle wizard trapped inside a robot? If so, huge respects!
Of course! Don't you know history at all!? Sarcasm aside, you do know we are talking about small resin/metal models we move around a gaming table, and that we are posting on a forum dedicated to this? And I didn't know the Steelhead theme could drop hundreds of battle wizards trapped inside a robot (and a single one at that!). Just saying this comes close in the WMH universe.
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Human on Dec 10, 2018 10:51:54 GMT
Wasn't cavalry mostly invalidated during the 30 years war? It was the mixed arms Pike+Musket bloc invented by the king of Sweeden that made his army so good? Cavalry was basically relegated to chasing down fleeing troops and butchering them after a battle was over... Traditional heavily armoured cavalry had its role much reduced well before the 30 Years War. But cavalry still had valuable roles in flanking (spinning a pike/musket block around, even the smaller Swedish ones, would hardly have been easy, and pikemen facing the wrong way aren't much good against cavalry); getting involved when pikes were already engaged so couldn't resist a cavalry charge so well; and dealing with other cavalry.
Indeed they weren't heavy cavalry, and I don't see them being it in the WMH universe either. Edit:the Steelhead theme seems to be close to a combined arms late medieval army, you got your rows of infantry, some artillery and some cavalry as shock troopers (the cavalry is kinda absent in many combined arms lists). Oh, and about the cavalry, no they where very much a big part, i.e at the battle of Leipzig the Protestant army was like 12k infantry and 6k cavalry and just under 100 artillery pieces.
|
|
sorokin
Junior Strategist
Posts: 775
|
Post by sorokin on Dec 10, 2018 11:31:45 GMT
So was the Swedish army also led by a hundred something battle wizard trapped inside a robot? If so, huge respects!
Of course! Don't you know history at all!? Sarcasm aside, you do know we are talking about small resin/metal models we move around a gaming table, and that we are posting on a forum dedicated to this? And I didn't know the Steelhead theme could drop hundreds of battle wizards trapped inside a robot (and a single one at that!). Just saying this comes close in the WMH universe. Of course I know. I was just poking fun at the fact you said you're glad you can field Steelhead Heavy Cav with Karchev (a battle wizard who's over a hundred years old trapped inside a robot), so you can emulate the Swedish army. The Swedish army having an equivalent of Karchev sounds amazing to me.
|
|
|
Post by Mr.Human on Dec 10, 2018 12:19:07 GMT
Of course! Don't you know history at all!? Sarcasm aside, you do know we are talking about small resin/metal models we move around a gaming table, and that we are posting on a forum dedicated to this? And I didn't know the Steelhead theme could drop hundreds of battle wizards trapped inside a robot (and a single one at that!). Just saying this comes close in the WMH universe. Of course I know. I was just poking fun at the fact you said you're glad you can field Steelhead Heavy Cav with Karchev (a battle wizard who's over a hundred years old trapped inside a robot), so you can emulate the Swedish army. The Swedish army having an equivalent of Karchev sounds amazing to me. Different subject different paragraph (the Steelhead theme, not my Karchev list).
|
|
sorokin
Junior Strategist
Posts: 775
|
Post by sorokin on Dec 10, 2018 18:45:55 GMT
Wasn't cavalry mostly invalidated during the 30 years war? It was the mixed arms Pike+Musket bloc invented by the king of Sweeden that made his army so good? Cavalry was basically relegated to chasing down fleeing troops and butchering them after a battle was over... Cavary was actually employed as late as WWII. Germany for example had six cavalry brigardes, while others had less for the most part, due to mechanisation and easier access to Oil reserves.
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Dec 10, 2018 19:29:29 GMT
I don't think they're the ones not thinking it through. Let's look at it then, this once. I'm not going to follow this up, because lets face it. You spend more time in troll country than anywhere else... So you have a model that most people aren't interested in running under its current rules. But you only accept play test data to determine if a model should be changed. You're now saying to your community that to take any notice they HAVE to play with this model that actually they don't want to use. So what play test data are you going to get back on that? There are only a few possibilities. Some people simply wont test it. Of the ones that DO post reports using it the options are: -It's fake, because they know this is the only way to submit feed back but don't actually have the time or energy to play with models they don't like. -It's real. But even people doing actual sincere tests on models they don't like will usually be starting off with a negative opinion towards the list. Playing a list you already don't like is generally not a positive experience. People are going to burn out and not be bothered with CID if the games aren't any fun. Maybe if you have enough churn, you don't care that you're burning out your testing community. But it seems pretty unlikely that is a sustainable position for CID. Playing a CID game AND writing a detailed enough report is a pretty big time commitment. Asking that you also not enjoy the game just for the sake of convincing them the design needs changes is honestly abuse. At that point you're just burning good will and burning out the already small number of people that were prepared to donate their time in order to save your main profit source from the scrap heap. There are many other similar games, many of which have better rule systems and are probably more deserving of support than WMH. In this latest CID they have literally said: "Your theory that 9 of this model in your list isn't as good as 10 needs to be proven by play testing." Like, really? I don’t agree with you that playing suboptimal models ruins someones night and makes them hate PP. If Im asked to test Scytheans, which are “obviously crap”, I probably drop my carniveans and get some points. Talking about what that change did to my army, both in terms of why the carnivean is “obviously better” as well as what I did with my points, is valuable test data and a fun night of warmachine. Some nights, playing long, relaxed games without a clock can be more fun that playing two deathclock games and sweating it out. If you “have” to drop your Toros and try Nomads and that destroys your sense of fun and makes you say “Firetruck PP” thats on you.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Dec 10, 2018 20:26:54 GMT
Just going to offer this.
The problem with the CID process as currently constructed is that since time is limited and people want to "play the game" most CID reports (in no particular order of sinning)
1) Do not rewind or use a method to limit the number of swinging dice variants to an "acceptable" level
Here the idea is that you simply can not keep playing or find useful data if key roles are very swinging. PP needs to provide guidance here. Making 4 out of 4 tough rolls is a 1% chance. It _WILL_ happen but it is unlikely to happen very often. One ASSUMES they have an internal mechanism - and if they do not they really should. It is a dice game but we need to test it in law of large numbers (For example, the fact that YOU win at craps does NOT mean that the game can be beaten. Vegas was built on the law of large numbers). SInce we are not going to Play test the same model 1000s of times in a CID the work around is a way of reducing tails of the distribution curve.
2) Don't Rewind/point out Scholar's Mate
Too many reports don't do this. Data after rookie mistakes is meaningless. I don't CARE if your opponent didn't know how to use the lord of the feast. I want PP to know that he can easily end the game bottom of 1 in the hands of a skilled user. They should be happy that this is the case. IF they are not then they need to rethink. THAT is the data that should be coming out of CID.
3) Don't Look to break things.
WAY too many CIDs are about balance lists or what you like to play that is balanced. What they SHOULD be doing is taking the CID list and MUTUALLY do-jo'ing up the most ridiculous list (see other thread I will make in a bit) to the extreme. BREAK THE RULES and work together to figure out how to do it. Then your opponent should play the best of 2 list SR list against it (but only after the first list is built). THAT should be what is reported on. Too many CIDs are not this.
Fundamentally, and I am going to be rude here, I think it reflects some bad stuff going on in PP. Some folks are leaving. Others are staying. Too much "well that isn't fluff consistent" for reasons or other interesting "thinking" that makes limited sense. It is very clear power creep is real (see next post) and, to be blunt, I for one may be stepping away for a while (and know I am going to limit purchases). I enjoyed WM/H for a while. I am not sure I enjoy it as much as I have.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 11, 2018 1:41:04 GMT
Fundamentally, and I am going to be rude here, I think it reflects some bad stuff going on in PP. Some folks are leaving. Others are staying. Too much "well that isn't fluff consistent" for reasons or other interesting "thinking" that makes limited sense. It is very clear power creep is real (see next post) and, to be blunt, I for one may be stepping away for a while (and know I am going to limit purchases). I enjoyed WM/H for a while. I am not sure I enjoy it as much as I have. Power creep is very real, even if it's unintentional (which I'm not sure is the case). None of their other games seem particularly good or successful. WMHs main success seems to have come from occupying a niche as being highly competitive. It's touted to have this 'tight' rule set, but that's not actually true. Entry and re-entry into the game has gotten a lot more expensive. Themes as they are, are just a more expensive format to own. Any way, I just don't think the way they are running things now is sustainable or healthy for the game.
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 11, 2018 1:53:19 GMT
I don’t agree with you that playing suboptimal models ruins someones night and makes them hate PP. If Im asked to test Scytheans, which are “obviously crap”, I probably drop my carniveans and get some points. Talking about what that change did to my army, both in terms of why the carnivean is “obviously better” as well as what I did with my points, is valuable test data and a fun night of warmachine. Some nights, playing long, relaxed games without a clock can be more fun that playing two deathclock games and sweating it out. If you “have” to drop your Toros and try Nomads and that destroys your sense of fun and makes you say “Firetruck PP” thats on you. There is a big difference between 'suboptimal' and 'uninspired trash' (not that I think the current CID has any major offenders, but past ones have). And they have literally been saying to people: 'Provide play tests showing 12 point Nomads aren't as good as 11 point Nomads.' It's ridiculous. They just shouldn't be saying that kind of thing. Any discussion on anything eventually boils down to them saying to prove it with play tests. Now I'm not saying play testing isn't good or actually mostly the point of CID. But some things are obvious and falling back to 'well prove it' is just obnoxious.
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Dec 11, 2018 3:51:43 GMT
Only the worst players in the game devolve to "well its obvious" over a 1 point differential.
|
|
|
Post by sand20go on Dec 11, 2018 4:15:48 GMT
Only the worst players in the game devolve to "well its obvious" over a 1 point differential. +1. Those kinds of changes make absolutely NO sense to do in a CID. Maybe their response (bad for a consumer brand) is pure snark. Consider. Lets say (I don't know why but lets say) you were running some list with 3 juggers and a min unit of mechanics. Now post point increase you lose the mechanics. PERHAPS over the course of 30 or 40 games you start to see whether (or not) it makes a difference. But not in the course of one CID. Might be time to step away - this CID stuff makes me very cynical about my hobby.....
|
|
|
Post by Netherby on Dec 12, 2018 1:55:44 GMT
Only the worst players in the game devolve to "well its obvious" over a 1 point differential. Umm, it IS obvious that any increase in points with no other change will make a model worse. Just like any point decrease will make it better. But a 1 point change isn't going to make an apparent difference in your CID test games. It's absurd to tell people to play test it. I don't know if it IS snark, but it certainly borders on it... I actually have a conspiracy theory that these sorts of changes are put into CID simply to garner a reaction. If most people are on board with it (like the Juggernaut change) then they will go ahead. If there is a big back lash then they will do something to placate them (like adding some really weak extra rule).
|
|
|
Post by josephkerr on Dec 12, 2018 3:21:57 GMT
Only the worst players in the game devolve to "well its obvious" over a 1 point differential. Umm, it IS obvious that any increase in points with no other change will make a model worse. Just like any point decrease will make it better. But a 1 point change isn't going to make an apparent difference in your CID test games. It's absurd to tell people to play test it. I don't know if it IS snark, but it certainly borders on it... I actually have a conspiracy theory that these sorts of changes are put into CID simply to garner a reaction. If most people are on board with it (like the Juggernaut change) then they will go ahead. If there is a big back lash then they will do something to placate them (like adding some really weak extra rule). What would be better? I feel like the only other option is that PP releases point increases without CID and dumps them in a Dynamic Update.
|
|