StarDestroyer.Net BBS

My problem with the historical fortifications is..."what historical fortifications?" except some forts and garrisons built during the Indian Wars there really arn't any.

As for actual point costs..going to take me a bit to figure it out.
I'm thinking something like:

Hq-100 Orcs=200 points
Druid Shapeshifters (Avian forms)/Reconaissance=50 for 100 points
Shaman: 160 at 15 points for 2,400

1 Orc Line Infantry=2 points
Fireteam=4 Highly Disciplined Orcs 8 points
Squad=3 Fireteam+leader- 26 points
Platoon=3 Squad+2 officers 80 points
Company=3 Platoons+2O 240 points
Battalion=3 Companies+2O 724 points
Regiment=3 Battalions+20 2,172 points
Division=3 Regiments+2O 6,520 points

1 Orc Hussar= 2 points Orc+ 2 points War Wolf
Fireteam of 4- 16 points
Squad- 52 points
Platoon- 160 points
Company- 480 points

Civil War Arty Organisation
Artillery
Gun=8 men + 4 to handle equipment+2 6 horse teams
Section= 2guns + Lieutenant
Battery=6 guns + Captain
Brigade= 5 Batteries + Colonel

Placing that because need help figuring out the point cost and the replacement of horses with wolves or buffalo.

Like most governments of this era, the Dragon Empire is a monarchy. At the top is the High King. He is merely the first among equals, however, with 5 other kings in the empire. The high king is elected every ten years, selected from the 5 kings that are not the high king. The electors come from the aristocracy, but not every member gets to vote, and not every member has the same number of votes. Higher ranked nobility get more votes. Kings get the most, with princes, dukes, marquesses and counts getting less. Minor nobility (barons and knights) don't get a vote.

Because the High Kingship rotates around so frequently, the national "capital" is just whichever major city the High King has his capital in. There are 6 major cities, 4 on the continent, and two on the islands. Each has a university, and those at the ocean are major ports. One of them is inland, located at the fall line of a major river.

The aristocracy is strongly divided from the commoners. It is uncommon for a commoner to rise into the ranks of the aristocracy, and even rarer for an aristocrat to fall. Aristocrats from long established families are known for appearing superhuman, with greater toughness, endurance, longevity, strength and healing than a normal human. It is also common for aristocrats to be mages. These advantages reinforce the aristocracy's natural right to rule.

It is uncommon for an aristocrat to not have bought a commission in the military. This includes the women. This is related to aforementioned superhuman traits. Even those who are not superhuman will have bought commissions, as raw fighting ability is usually less important for an officer than the ability to lead and command.

I did a spot of reading earlier and it transpires that thanks to my technomantic cannons, my two-deckers have a heavier broadside than a 100-gun first-rate,while two of my frigates match a first rate for weight of fire. Damn.

And to tihnk I was debating spending that 6000 points I had spare on a 100-gun first rate flagship. Seems kinda unneeded with that level of firepower and the higher rates of fire my crews can sustain thanks to the on-board Psychomancers.

Thoughts on the Orion order of battle:

I think your ships are overrated in point value, more on that later.

Eternal_Freedom wrote:Annnnnd I'm back. Mostly.

Here is a carefully-considered (that's a joke, I'm in the pub while writing this) structure and poitns cost for an Imperial Orion Army Regiment, a Heavy Frigate and a Battleship:

Imperial Orion Army Regiment – 5,350 men, 12,875 points

[snip]

Hm. Personally, I wasn't really counting anything other than line infantry and cavalry units in terms of points per man. Gun crews are effectively part of their guns from my point of view, since you can't have a gun without a crew or a crew without a gun. I was planning on 15 points per four-pounder field gun, but if a 36pdr is worth 18 points in your army, parity suggests I demote mine to, oh, 10 or 12. Which doesn't bother me, by the way.

That said, in Napoleonic armies, the typical ratio of artillery guns to infantry was between three and five guns per thousand men. The Ohioans are pretty close to four guns per thousand but they are very light guns. You are currently at about ten guns per thousand line infantry.

Also, given that you already have at least two types of support troops who are supposed to be worth 15-16 points per individual man attached at the platoon level, and since your individual platoons are (statistically) about 30-35 men in size...

Honestly, I would recommend thinning out the telepaths. Given that your combat tactics are still going to be Napoleonic or pre-Napoleonic, there just isn't much point in one telepath per platoon, because the platoon is not normally an independent maneuver element in that era. Also because the platoon routinely gets shot at with massed barrages of random fire, and OOC-wise your telepaths are no more bulletproof than anyone else. So they'd get killed a lot. Doctrinally you'd probably do better with one telepath per company, keeping a replacement pool with the regimental headquarters to ensure communication at the regimental level and replace inevitable losses, and have fewer overall telepaths per man in your army. The extras can be kept behind for civilian life, where they are valuable.

Plus, a few questions:

You describe your line infantry as "riflemen." Are they actually using pre-1800 era rifles? Or are they in fact using smoothbore muskets the same as the rest of us plebs?

Do you have a category of horse artillery distinct from field guns? Your 36pdrs-that-weigh-like-a-12pdr are viable field artillery, but historical armies of this era used considerably lighter guns than that for mobile artillery.

Navy:

Imperial Orion Navy – Battleship (2500 points)

1) Does your navy possess any ships lighter than a heavy frigate? If so you should probably spend points on them. If not, this is a handicap in coastal operations (which can require shallow draft) or on inland waterways (likewise), and makes it crippling to try and maintain a blockade (because you have a small number of individually big hulls).

2) I suggest that your ships be downscaled in point value considerably. Even if we naively regarded each ship as being co-equal in point value to an equivalent mass of land-based artillery, your ships of the line would be worth about 78*18 = 1400 points. Realistically, despite their high speed and performance, one ship of the line with seventy heavy guns will never be as decisive in war as the same seventy heavy guns would be in a land battle, for a variety of reasons. Therefore their point value should be discounted somewhat.

3) Compare your point values to other existing published orders of battle for more guidelines; your ships should not be worth ten times more points than Esquire's ships with comparable weight of broadside. Maybe Esquire's ships should be worth more than they are, but there should be some semblance of parity. Granted that you have magical enhancements to your ships, but so does he (his enhance armor, yours enhance speed and firepower).

4) "Swivel" guns are placed on a pivot mount and are designed to be not only 'mobile' in the sense of 'easy to aim' but also mobile in the sense of 'easy to pick up and move.' Granted that your cannons are much lighter than conventional artillery, but reducing the weight of a 18pdr by two thirds still leaves you with a cannon too heavy for a couple of men to lift, likely to break its mount, and (this is important) still with far more recoil than a lightly built swivel can withstand. Orion artillerymancy might let you get, oh, a three to six pounder gun on a heavily built swivel mount, I don't know, but historically swivel guns were one-pounders if that.

5) Given that your frigates have a little over half the weight of broadside as your ships of the line, I suspect they should have less than 80% of the point value. They're faster, but while speed is important it's not that important. I wouldn't bet on three of your frigates to defeat two of your liners.

Comment's on Zwinmar's order of battle:

Zwinmar wrote:...
1 Orc Line Infantry=2 points
Fireteam=4 Highly Disciplined Orcs 8 points
Squad=3 Fireteam+leader- 26 points
Platoon=3 Squad+2 officers 80 points
Company=3 Platoons+2O 240 points
Battalion=3 Companies+2O 724 points
Regiment=3 Battalions+20 2,172 points
Division=3 Regiments+2O 6,520 points

It was fairly common to use a broader span of command than trinary unit structures in Napoleonic and pre-Napoleonic times, just for the record. Also, larger formations typically need at least some staff, if only so that the regimental commander has couriers to communicate with his own formations.

Moreover, the weapons of this period fired and loaded slowly enough, and were inaccurate enough, that a four man team could not cover each other effectively in sustained close quarters combat, and lacked enough firepower to be a useful combat element in open field warfare.

For close quarters in this era it would be more typical to arm the combatant with multiple single-shot pistols, allowing multiple rounds in a short span of time should circumstances warrant it. However, flintlock pistols are so inaccurate that they are only useful in close quarters.

Conversely, in open battle the tactical unit was typically a section, and a large section at that, which was at most one unit down the chain of command from the platoon leader.

Placing that because need help figuring out the point cost and the replacement of horses with wolves or buffalo.

I'd rate buffalo as being worth 1.5 points IF they are adequately trained and don't suffer much from the weaknesses of herd animals (stampeding being the biggest one; horses stampede but are liekly to be easier to restrain). Wolves, if they're physically big enough to support an orc-sized rider, might well be two-point mounts, but would pose some real logistical problems because they're carnivorous.

I'll just say that, while I'm planning on re-doing my OOB to increase naval investment among other changes, I agree with Simon. It makes no sense for nominally-equivalent warships to be orders of magnitude different in point value... Mine can be more expensive, and yours can be more numerous and a bit cheaper, say?

Here's my current rough idea for the Syilx military along with a bt more on how they tend to fight and tentative points costs per unit.

Most units are ad-hoc arrangements of men, intelligent animals, and totems from a group of allied tribes. These units can contain anywhere from 12-5,000 warriors and animals. Smaller groups of soldiers are often combines or mixed into larger units as required. Due to the nature of the Syilx social order each soldier is brave, disciplined, and skilled, but the Syilx army lacks the unified command structure and thus the coordination that one would see in other militaries. This has lead the Syilx people towards extensive use of skirmishing tactics as a way to avoid fighting the enemy in a pitched battle where the Syilx weaknesses can be exploited.

If allowed to skirmish the Syilx generally prefer to break down into units of no more than 30 warriors/animals. In these raiding parties they will attempt to infiltrate up to the enemy lines before capturing couriers, killing sentries, cutting horselines free, starting fires, and generally causing mayhem. Unlike normal raids these attacks do not carry back captives unless said captives were the raids main objective. Many intelligent animals are of vastly more use when conducting raids than they are in pitched battle.

When forced into a more formal line of battle the Syilx tend to form multiple thin lines rather than formations with true depth. A syilx army of 10,000 defending on the plains will likely form six open lines, men standing just under arms length apart, of three warriors deep. Two lines will be melee lines with spears and shields at the ready and slings and stones carried. The next two lines will be slingers with slings and shields and spears planted in the ground next to them. The final lines will be archers, with shields and spears set as a pavise formed up spear and shield. At the flanks will be those intelligent animals useful in a straight forward fight. Some of these animals will be dressed in armor of gleaming bronze, brightly colored leather, and fantastic warpaint while others remain unburdened and naturally colored. Behind the lines will be the totems, the dozen or so highest ranking tribal leaders, the intelligent animals not useful in a fight, and the supply train. In such a battle the Syilx prefer to hang back as the defender, sending totems crashing at enemy lines but generally not advancing until the totems have broken a section of enemy line.

These lines often fair poorly against a determined cavalry charge, disciplined units of men that don't allow the Syilx to turn a battle into a series of duals, and massed gun lines that fail to break under assaults by totems. The one saving grace is that routing warriors and intelligent animals are often difficult to chase down and many a battle turns into a series of standoffs, skirmishes, and fighting retreats designed to draw the enemy thin and allow the Syilx to use their strengths. However, this strategy must be well excuted or it risks the capture and/or destruction of totems and supplies greatly hurting the Syilx war efforts.

Syilx Point Values:

Syilx Warriors = 2.5 points
-Positives: Enhanced physical and mental traits, enchanted weapons and shields, good morale, field craft
-Negatives: Loose organization, no cavalry

Intelligent Bears = 8 points
-Positives: Strong, fast, good sense of smell, exceedingly tough, looks like a normal animal, often wears armor for battles
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, somewhat hot headed and undisciplined

Intelligent Wolves, Coyotes = 1.5 points
-Positives: Fast, good senses, good endurance, works well as part of a team, looks like a normal animal
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, not especially deadly compared to a man with a musket

Intelligent Big Cats = 1 point
-Positives: Fast, strong, stealthy, looks like a normal animal
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, cowardly, prefers to act alone, dislikes wearing armor

Intelligent Elk = 1.5 points
-Positives: Fast, strong, good endurance, looks like a normal animal
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, only effective in battle with a rack of antlers

Intelligent Moose = 2 points
-Positives: Fast, strong, good endurance, tough, looks like a normal animal
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, only effective in battle with a rack of antlers

Intelligent Badgers, Large Weasles, Wolverines = 0.5 points
-Positives: Small, fearless, strong, looks like a normal animal, often wears armor for battles
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, undisciplined, flies into rages, prefers to act alone

Intelligent Beavers = 1 point
-Positives: Small, good builders, looks like a normal animal
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, easily injured, doesn't wear armor, can't easily harm a human

Intelligent Otters = 1 point
-Positives: Aquatic, looks like a normal animal
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, easily injured, easily distracted, doesn't wear armor, can't easily harm a human

Intelligent Birds of Prey = 1 point
-Positives: Excellent vision, flight, looks like a normal animal
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, easily injured, prefers to act alone, doesn't wear armor

Intelligent Birds = 0.5 points
-Positives: Flight, looks like a normal animal
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, easily injured, doesn't wear armor, can't easily harm a human

Intelligence Squirrels, Chipmunks, etc. = 0.25 points
-Positives: Small, good climbers, looks like a normal animal
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, easily injured, can't easily harm a human

Intelligent Mice, Rats, Moles, Groundhogs, etc. = 0.25 points
-Positives: Small, burrowing, looks like a normal animal
-Negatives: No ranged attacks, easily injured, poor senses, can't easily harm a human

Large Totems = 250 points
-Often made up of 3 forms each carried by a large cart and assembled before battle
-Able to on many forms
-Can have ranged attacks
-Supernatural toughness and abilities

Medium Totems = 100 points
-The size of a large cart
-Able to on many forms
-Can have ranged attacks
-Supernatural toughness and abilities

Medium Totems = 50 points
-Fit 2 to a large cart
-Able to on many forms
-Can have ranged attacks
-Supernatural toughness and abilities

Minor Totems = 20 points
-Man sized
-Able to on many forms
-Can have ranged attacks
-Supernatural toughness and abilities

Note: Intelligent animals in armor are worth 1.5x the points due to the enchanted armor being able to shrug off some amount of musket fire. Animals listed as often wearing armor are 80% likely to own a set and wear it to battle, normal animals are 50% likely to wear armor, and those that dislike wearing armor are 20% likely to wear armor. These figures will be reflected once I lay down a proper order of battle.

-----

This is a draft so feel free to comment and make suggestions. I'd especially like to hear Simon and TRR's thoughts on points costs.

Jub:

The totems are fine and dandy, I approve wholeheartedly. They're your counter to batteries of my artillery, after all.

If it was me I'd tone down the point value of your individual human soldiers a bit. The point of their magical enhancements was more to give them parity with musket-armed human soldiers despite using Stone Age and Iron Age traditional weapons, wasn't it? Making them into physical supermen such that a hundred of them can reliably rout a hundred musketeers, and hold their own against two hundred musketeers, seems a tad excessive.

I'd say put them at about 1.5 points, which places them on par with:
-Orion's musketeers who are routinely bolstered with supernatural courage and preternatural speed.
-Ohio's musketeers and pikemen, who have the ability to make spells cast against them fizzle or cannonballs fired at them miss, just by praying hard enough.

There may be a handful of elite warriors of special societies and orders who have higher per capita point value. Certainly, many Native American societies had such groups in real life, and you're using the Native Americans as inspiration already.

And, hm.

An intelligent and magically enhanced wolverine would probably be worth one point, beavers and otters probably not. Birds of prey yes- being fliers gives them valuable advantages although a hundred eagles swooping down on a hundred musketeers really shouldn't go well for the eagles even if the eagles are sentient. A big part of their point value may be the advantages of reconaissance and communication they give to the overall fighting force.

Creatures like mice, voles, weasels, squirrels, and so on would probably not even be worth a quarter of a point each, although a coordinated pack of them might and large swarms of them probably would. Note that creatures much smaller than humans have another disadvantage compared to humans- they move slowly overland. A mouse has absolutely no chance of outrunning a human in a straight line because the human's legs are about 50-100 times longer. A mouse will also be unable to keep up with humans in a route march; it would have to ride on a larger creature (such as a human).
________________________

Esquire:

It is reasonable that a heavy warship should be worth an amount comparable to, oh, several hundred soldiers or a few dozen field artillery pieces. They represent formidable collections of combat power, and operating in large groups can have a decisive effect in any war between powers with a coastline.

Tentatively... something like a rivergoing galley with a few light cannons mounted aboard would probably only cost a few dozen points. Something heavier-built, with sails and a broadside of at least a few medium-sized cannons (the type that would be difficult to use on land owing to weight) could easily rate up towards a hundred points, perhaps more if we're talking a ship like this. Moving up into frigates I'd tentatively say a few hundred points would be appropriate; a ship of the line might cap out at around a thousand, especially with magical enhancements.

This would let someone replicate, roughly speaking, the historical Royal Navy of the late 18th century, but only if they were willing to sacrifice most of their points to do so, because the RN had over a hundred of the line plus numerous frigates and sloops.

This is not me telling people what to do, but this is me saying what I think makes sense.

Jub:
How many totems tend to come along with a regiment-sized formation? 250 points is a lot for a single unit, but only equivalent to 2-3 companies of regular troops. Are they meant to be supernatural-but-average artillery replacements, or genuinely impressive creations of might and magic whose appearance is a significant factor on the battlefield?

Simon:
We're on the same page here; my riverboats are 25 points ATM, my 24-gun galleys are 100, and my sail-powered warships are 200 and 300 for the lighter and heavier ones, respectively. I'm considering adjusting those numbers because I'd like to meet EF in the middle of the huge gap between our naval point values, and because the unit counts are awkward as it stands.

Ghetto edit: EFs navy is clearly meant to be his senior service, and can absolutely be better than mine. Overwhelmingly so, even. I have absolutely no problem with that; I just think internal consistency requires shrinking the unit-for-unit point gap a little. From both ends, possibly.

My current thoughts on the Assiniboian army

River-runner skirmishers: 1.25 points per man.

Raised and trained for service outside of the main field armies for service in the great Boreal forests. Armed with a musket and hand axe, preferring amubhs and skirmisher tactics for use in broken and heavily forested terrain rather than opperating as line infantry. Units have organically attached canoes and boats for rapid movement down the rivers and lakes which are frequently the only viable routes through the northern woods.


Assiniboian Dragoons/Mounted Infantry:1.5 points per man

An unhorsed man is considered all but useless for steppe warfare. As such Assiniboian line infantry take advantage of the ample horseflesh the plainsman have access to and opperate as dragoons, carrying muskets and dismounting to fire and reload. Each man is also equipt with a sword and can opperate as indifferently skilled cavalry for a straight line charge.

Mounted infantry formations generally have horse drawn light artillery attached (on a typical ratio of 3 guns per 1000 infantry). Assiniboia focuses its artillery on light, horse portable 3-pounder guns for close support of infantry and softening up targets for cavalry charges. I'm not certain what these should be worth on a points basis


Steppe Cavalry: 2.5 points per man

The herdsman of Assiniboia's semi-arid southern plains still keep with the ancient traditions of steppe warfare, riding hardy, high endurance horses. Although they have access to cavalry carbines, the plainsmen have kept up their skills with mounted archery, practiced since childhood during their intermiable lives watching over their herds. As such they are typically armed with composite bows, favouring their superior rate of fire and accuracy over smooth-bore firearms, considering it to be the superior weapon for cavalry battles on the open prairie. Each man is also armoured with a breastplate and helmet and carries a sabre for melee work.

If new cavalry formations need to be rapidly raised, they can be drawn from the general populace, but lacking the life long archery and horsemanship training they will opperate as more standard medium cavalry with a carbine instead of a bow (2 points).


Lancers: 4 points per man

The core of the Assiniboian armies, always maintained on a permanent professional basis. They are heavy cavalry expertly trained to opperate as a unit on the charge, making them premier shock cavalry. Lancer wear plate armour and armed with lances, either ~5 meter hollowed out lances if expecting opposing heavy infantry or more normal ~3 meter lances for opperating against cavalry and light infantry. They also carry a 1.5 meter estoc as a secondary weapon and a brace of pistols if firepower is necessary.

(Basically these are Polish winged hussars, although I've simplified their secondary weaponry)


Field armies are typically assembled on the ratio of 60% mounted infantry, 20% steppe cavalry, 20% lancer for an average point value of 2.2 per man before adding in the value of attached artillery and sorcerous support. Obviously, the priciple focus of Commonwealth armies is strategic and tactical mobility over raw numbers and fire power, for the better opperation on the Great Plains.


Magic:

While Commonwealth society holds no particular taboo against the use of magic and praticioners of all types are welcome, native magic-use is principly based on local traditions of air magic, focused on control of the wind and manipulation of the weather. Tactical use range from simple blasts of air and manipulating the wind, up to move epic feats like building thunderstorms or blizzards and on rare occassions under the right conditions, sending tornadoes into the enemy's ranks. State patronage of the Stormweavers guild ensures access to a core of professional, militarily trained weather mages for the Commonwealth's campaigns.


I'm going to wait until we sort out the naval points before getting into what I have there, but I intend to have a small to decent-sized brown-water force controlling Lake Superior.

Simon_Jester wrote:Jub:

<snip>

Thanks for the constructive comments. I'll more than likely use them for my OOB which will likely go up sometime in the next couple of days.

Esquire wrote:Jub:

How many totems tend to come along with a regiment-sized formation? 250 points is a lot for a single unit, but only equivalent to 2-3 companies of regular troops. Are they meant to be supernatural-but-average artillery replacements, or genuinely impressive creations of might and magic whose appearance is a significant factor on the battlefield?

I was thinking that in general terms my military would be, by point values, 60% human warriors, 15% intelligent animals, and 25% totems.

So a 10,000 point army would be something like:

4,000 warriors
990 combat capable animals
1,000+ noncombat animals
4 large totems
8 medium totems
10 small totems
10 minor totems

We're likely heavier on totems than a normal army would be on cannons, but each totem, while tough, fast, and strong, can be brought down by massed fire with some artillery support, though not before hitting the enemy lines. Something that I included in an earlier draft by forgot to mention in more recent posts is that totems have a recharge time when 'killed' usually on the order of an hour for minor totems, six hours for small totems, a day for medium totems, and three days for large totems. This should allow them to be genuinely impressive creations of might and magic, possibly as much as double their points cost in effectiveness while they're up but allow for a great deal of weakness when they're down.

-------

That last bit about totem strengths probably bears repeating.

How would people feel about my totems being stronger than their listed points costs in terms of strength in exchange for having a cooldown period when taken off the field? I was thinking that these cool downs would be on the order of an hour for minor totems, six hours for small totems, a day for medium totems, and three days for large totems. The bonus strength could be +20% for minor totems up to +100% for large totems.

These numbers are entirely subject to change.

Delete me.

Coop D'etat wrote:My current thoughts on the Assiniboian army

River-runner skirmishers: 1.25 points per man.

Raised and trained for service outside of the main field armies for service in the great Boreal forests. Armed with a musket and hand axe, preferring amubhs and skirmisher tactics for use in broken and heavily forested terrain rather than opperating as line infantry. Units have organically attached canoes and boats for rapid movement down the rivers and lakes which are frequently the only viable routes through the northern woods.

I am beginning to wonder if anyone is going to bite the bullet and take a 1 point per man army. It seems like almost no one is doing that. I'm doing it because my troops objectively do have a significant advantage over any historical army with comparable equipment. And so are some others. But I'm not so sure about, for instance, you. Or Orion (where the musketeers of the line infantry units have support that is better than historical... but whose point costs are already being counted separately anyway).

Mounted infantry formations generally have horse drawn light artillery attached (on a typical ratio of 3 guns per 1000 infantry). Assiniboia focuses its artillery on light, horse portable 3-pounder guns for close support of infantry and softening up targets for cavalry charges. I'm not certain what these should be worth on a points basis.

Personally I'm figuring the benchmark for light artillery should be 10-12 points per gun, benchmarking that to 18-point heavy guns for Orion artillery. Arguably Orion guns should be worth more than 18 points per, but arguably he should have fewer per infantry regiment since he's currently got three times as many guns per man as Napoleon did. In which case the relative commitment of points would cancel out.

Lancers: 4 points per man

The core of the Assiniboian armies, always maintained on a permanent professional basis. They are heavy cavalry expertly trained to opperate as a unit on the charge, making them premier shock cavalry. Lancer wear plate armour and armed with lances, either ~5 meter hollowed out lances if expecting opposing heavy infantry or more normal ~3 meter lances for opperating against cavalry and light infantry. They also carry a 1.5 meter estoc as a secondary weapon and a brace of pistols if firepower is necessary.

(Basically these are Polish winged hussars, although I've simplified their secondary weaponry)

Not sure this carries them all the way to four points per man. I'd say three, personally. Realistically, could 1000 lancers shatter a coordinated defense by four thousand normal men armed with a mix of pikes and muskets, or with bayonet-tipped muskets?

Jub wrote:How would people feel about my totems being stronger than their listed points costs in terms of strength in exchange for having a cooldown period when taken off the field? I was thinking that these cool downs would be on the order of an hour for minor totems, six hours for small totems, a day for medium totems, and three days for large totems. The bonus strength could be +20% for minor totems up to +100% for large totems.

These numbers are entirely subject to change.

Point systems aren't supposed to be that... fine-resolution. Points are there to arbitrate in broad terms what happens when your army clashes with my army; the details of how it happens are up to our skills of creative writing and our knowledge of military strategy. So saying "this force gets +20% under those conditions" is making things too detailed. Plus, forces that are worth points will always have some kind of way that they can theoretically be attacked when they're "down." Warships need to anchor and take on supplies. Soldiers need to sleep. Horses and other cavalry mounts need rest and feeding and care.

So I say it would be inadvisable to complicate things in this way.

Plus, when most people "lose" a 200-point military asset, that asset is GONE, those soldiers are dead, that artillery battery is destroyed or captured by the enemy, that ship is sunk.

In general, I wouldn't count the totems as even having been taken out of play unless they are somehow neutralized permanently so that you would have to reconstruct them from scratch. Just being forced to 'push reset' on your totem and having it back within three days is no different than having my soldiers get scared and run away and having to rally them. Tactically it has consequences, but strategically I haven't lost any troops and the point value of my army is undiminished.

Simon_Jester wrote:

Coop D'etat wrote:My current thoughts on the Assiniboian army

River-runner skirmishers: 1.25 points per man.

Raised and trained for service outside of the main field armies for service in the great Boreal forests. Armed with a musket and hand axe, preferring amubhs and skirmisher tactics for use in broken and heavily forested terrain rather than opperating as line infantry. Units have organically attached canoes and boats for rapid movement down the rivers and lakes which are frequently the only viable routes through the northern woods.

I am beginning to wonder if anyone is going to bite the bullet and take a 1 point per man army. It seems like almost no one is doing that. I'm doing it because my troops objectively do have a significant advantage over any historical army with comparable equipment. And so are some others. But I'm not so sure about, for instance, you. Or Orion (where the musketeers of the line infantry units have support that is better than historical... but whose point costs are already being counted separately anyway).

Some of that might be the particular wording of the rules, calling for a militia man of standard equiptment. My interpretation of that is that was you'd have to pay something extra for any unusual skills or training or equiptment, which seems to be how other people are interpreting the system as well. I'd quite happily pay only a point for these guys.

Simon_Jester wrote:

Mounted infantry formations generally have horse drawn light artillery attached (on a typical ratio of 3 guns per 1000 infantry). Assiniboia focuses its artillery on light, horse portable 3-pounder guns for close support of infantry and softening up targets for cavalry charges. I'm not certain what these should be worth on a points basis.

Personally I'm figuring the benchmark for light artillery should be 10-12 points per gun, benchmarking that to 18-point heavy guns for Orion artillery. Arguably Orion guns should be worth more than 18 points per, but arguably he should have fewer per infantry regiment since he's currently got three times as many guns per man as Napoleon did. In which case the relative commitment of points would cancel out.

Lancers: 4 points per man

The core of the Assiniboian armies, always maintained on a permanent professional basis. They are heavy cavalry expertly trained to opperate as a unit on the charge, making them premier shock cavalry. Lancer wear plate armour and armed with lances, either ~5 meter hollowed out lances if expecting opposing heavy infantry or more normal ~3 meter lances for opperating against cavalry and light infantry. They also carry a 1.5 meter estoc as a secondary weapon and a brace of pistols if firepower is necessary.

(Basically these are Polish winged hussars, although I've simplified their secondary weaponry)

Not sure this carries them all the way to four points per man. I'd say three, personally. Realistically, could 1000 lancers shatter a coordinated defense by four thousand normal men armed with a mix of pikes and muskets, or with bayonet-tipped muskets?

Well, to read the internet winged hussar fanboys, they might while suffering almost no casulties.

This is based largely on how other people seem to be valuing their units, with 1 point being a militiaman and an actually good infantryman being more like 1.5 to 2, so they are intended to charge and defeat front line quality infantry at more of a 2 to 1 numerical disadvantage.

I based my cost based on what the Not-Ottoman empire is playing for their top heavy cavalry (He's costing his Janissary Heavy Cav at 4 points, with other Siphai lancers costing 3 points) as well as to be on par with the orc heavies who don't appear to be lancers (I would figure orcs on wolves being much stronger than lancers at melee fighting, but slower and less capable on the charge). Essentially I'm costing my lancers as the being the local pinnacle of shock cavalry, which I figure should be the same cost as the other local heavyweight cavalry and about 2.5 times what a good quality infantry man is in the local context.

When I was intially costing along the lines of what the Ohioan military was doing I figured skirmisher 1 point, dragoon 1.25, steppe cavalry 2, lancer 3 points.

Coop D'etat wrote:Some of that might be the particular wording of the rules, calling for a militia man of standard equiptment. My interpretation of that is that was you'd have to pay something extra for any unusual skills or training or equiptment, which seems to be how other people are interpreting the system as well. I'd quite happily pay only a point for these guys.

My take on it is that it's a matter of equivalency. Soldiers with different equipment but who are, statistically speaking, about equally valuable to the same army would have roughly equal point value. Your river-runners are trained differently than my musket formations, but that doesn't mean they're better as fighting men, on average over a diverse array of different battlefield conditions.

[Yes, my musket formations are worth 1.25 points per man, but that's because of their supernatural resistances, not because they would outshoot and outfight one-point-per-man troops in the absence of those resistances]

Well, to read the internet winged hussar fanboys, they might while suffering almost no casulties.

This is based largely on how other people seem to be valuing their units, with 1 point being a militiaman and an actually good infantryman being more like 1.5 to 2, so they are intended to charge and defeat front line quality infantry at more of a 2 to 1 numerical disadvantage.

That's a fair point. We're getting a degree of inflation out of this process, and you aren't responsible for that.

When I was intially costing along the lines of what the Ohioan military was doing I figured skirmisher 1 point, dragoon 1.25, steppe cavalry 2, lancer 3 points.

If my troops didn't have the ability to (in essence) deflect cannonballs by praying that they'd miss, that's pretty much what I'd be doing. The only units in my army that don't have that capability are my Cossacks Illinois plainsmen, and I originally costed them at 1.5 points per... then bumped to two when I saw what everyone else was doing with their unit costs.

Simon_Jester wrote:Point systems aren't supposed to be that... fine-resolution. Points are there to arbitrate in broad terms what happens when your army clashes with my army; the details of how it happens are up to our skills of creative writing and our knowledge of military strategy. So saying "this force gets +20% under those conditions" is making things too detailed. Plus, forces that are worth points will always have some kind of way that they can theoretically be attacked when they're "down." Warships need to anchor and take on supplies. Soldiers need to sleep. Horses and other cavalry mounts need rest and feeding and care.

So I say it would be inadvisable to complicate things in this way.

Plus, when most people "lose" a 200-point military asset, that asset is GONE, those soldiers are dead, that artillery battery is destroyed or captured by the enemy, that ship is sunk.

In general, I wouldn't count the totems as even having been taken out of play unless they are somehow neutralized permanently so that you would have to reconstruct them from scratch. Just being forced to 'push reset' on your totem and having it back within three days is no different than having my soldiers get scared and run away and having to rally them. Tactically it has consequences, but strategically I haven't lost any troops and the point value of my army is undiminished.

Point taken. I'll just play them as artillery with slightly frontloaded damage because unlike cannons my beasts only really fire once, they hi the enemy lines, make a hole, and then they most likely get focused on and taken down.

Right. Essentially, they are 'fired' at the enemy once per round of engagement. But then, artillery generally does something similar; it takes sustained or concentrated fire from heavy guns to break an infantry formation during this period, and the guns can only be fired so many times before they overheat or the immediately available powder and shot are exhausted.

And this is a highly relevant detail that impacts how we write the battle- just doesn't have much to do, in and of itself, with who loses how many points of combat units.

That all makes sense to me.

Given my current unit costs I think my OOB will be as follows:

8,000 Elite Warriors - 2.5 points each (20,000 points)
-Armed with a Spear, Shield, Sling, & Bow
-Enchanted equipment, highly enhanced physical and mental traits

100,000 Warriors - 1.5 points each (150,00 points)
-Armed with a Spear, Shield, Sling, & Bow
-Enchanted equipment, enhanced physical and mental traits

45,000 Points worth of Intelligent Animals
-1,500 Armored Bears - 12 points each (18,000)
-300 Bears - 8 points each (2,400)
-100 Armored Big Cats - 2 points each (200)
-500 Big Cats - 1 point each (500)
-1,500 Armored Wolves/Coyotes - 3 points each (4,500 points)
-2,000 Wolves/Coyotes - 1.5 points each (3,000 points)
-1,000 Armored Elk - 3 points each (3,000 points)
-1,000 Elk - 1.5 points each (1,500 points)
-500 Armored Moose - 4 points each (2,000 points)
-500 Moose - 2 points each (1,000 points)
-1,000 Armored Badgers/Wolverines - 2 points each (2,000 points)
-200 Badgers/Wolverines - 1 point each (200 points)
-500 Armored Beavers - 0.50 points each (250 points)
-1,000 Beavers - 0.25 points each (250 points)
-1,000 Otters - 0.25 points (250 points)
-3,000 Birds of Prey - 1 point each (3,000 points)
-4,000 Birds - 0.5 points each (2,000 points)
-20,000 Tiny Animals (Mice, Voles, Squirrels, Groundhogs, etc.) - 0.05 points each (1,000 points)

85,000 Points of Totems
-136 Greatest Totems - 250 points each (34,000 points)
-200 Greater Totems - 100 points each (20,000 points)
-400 Lesser Totems - 50 points each (20,000 points)
-550 Least Totems - 20 points each (11,000 points)

Some armored animals get a larger percentage point bump than others, this is due to how much the armor changes their combat values. An already tough bear for example gains less value from armor than a wolf who would otherwise be downed by a single musket shot. The armored beavers are mainly to be cute, but they're also the combat engineers of the intelligent animals braving fire to construct bridges or chew through the walls of wooden forts.

Simon_Jester wrote:I am beginning to wonder if anyone is going to bite the bullet and take a 1 point per man army. It seems like almost no one is doing that. I'm doing it because my troops objectively do have a significant advantage over any historical army with comparable equipment. And so are some others. But I'm not so sure about, for instance, you. Or Orion (where the musketeers of the line infantry units have support that is better than historical... but whose point costs are already being counted separately anyway).

I was going to take one man/goblin for a point for my infantry. On the generous assumption that a goblin made repeating crossbow is equal to a musket.

If I stat out my police force that'd described as their only standing military. I think I'll be assigning them a value of 0.8. As they're not as capable as a soldier. Though I'm wondering if I should stat out my police forces?

Do they form a significant fraction of the forces that would actually fight, should your nation go to war?

Not offensively. But they'd continue to patrol and garrison their towns and cities.

Crazedwraith wrote:Not offensively. But they'd continue to patrol and garrison their towns and cities.

I wouldn't pay points for them then. They're basically a part of your fortifications in the same way that my guardian totems are part of mine.

Eh, debateable. The real question is, are they theoretically mobile?

Walls and entrenchments and fixed artillery emplacements and guardian totems the size of buildings are not really mobile equipment. Not only are they only employed fighting on the defensive, they aren't even something you can shuttle around to defend a different place.

This is the main reason, gamewise, not to make players pay for them: because if I think of a way to walk past your fort without fighting it, you don't have the choice of uprooting the fort and replanting it somewhere I will fight you. This gives me the opportunity to ignore a force you spent points on, which is bad gameplay. It also compels you to spend huge numbers of points fortifying every place I might go, which in turn requires exhaustive detailing and surveying of the terrain of your nation, and so on. In real life, working out a satisfactory scheme of fortification for a whole country can take years by highly trained experts, and too much of that work is not dispensable when you're doing it in a game like this.

So basically, you don't pay points for fortifications because they can't move to react to changing circumstances.

But actual soldiers can always, in theory, get up and walk somewhere else to assist in the defense of another location, unless they are somehow magically bound to a specific place. Sure, it may be an inconvenience, it may have political costs, but that won't stop people in times of national emergency.

So personally, I think it best if any force recognizable as 'soldiers' is treated as a mobile force, capable of being redeployed as necessary even if (for now) the owner is likely to restrict them to specific places inside their own country.

Just updating everyone as to where we're at.

I'm a little behind schedule on the new rules (was busy yesterday with family Christmas stuff), but should definitely have them up tonight.

OOB and story thread will therefore probably go up tomorrow rather than tonight (i.e., on the 22nd.).

Apologies for the slight delay. I hope this timeline will be acceptable for everyone.