CK games x2

[martin goddard]

Game 1 = Germans v successors
Game 2= same again please.

Scenery = 3 gentle hills, 1 wood, 1 village, 1 rough hill
Germans had 12 warbands plus some cavalry and skirmishers.
Successors had 6 pike units, 2 auxiliaries, 3 armoured cavalry, elephants and skirmishers.

Game 2. Germans took the whole of their right flank. Successors took most of their right flank. Loads of dead  folk. Small win to the successors from the zones.

Game 1. Can't remember much about it.


martin

[Moggy]

Game 1 - Germans capture their right flank leaving it empty of successor troops while holding their own on the left.

Game 2 - Germans pushed the successors of the right flank again but only just managed to stay on the table on the left.

Differences between the set-ups between the games.  Sucessor army fielded more pike units at the cost of the armour in the second game. Made them slightly more open to damage but those extra units helped them significantly.  Struggled to do anything meaningful in either game on the left due to the pike bonus.

Overall impression of both games.

Both fun games that were really close at the final score. (biggest difference in points was .  I felt the -2 dice benefit of pike was just unbalanced especially when given a re-roll.  Maybe it should change to either a 6 with a reroll possible or a 5 or 6 with NO re-roll. As occupancy is now restricted to 3 units the most you would likely have is 16 dice ( 3 x cl/ord, 1 sk, r/support, cl combined, General)(possibly more with elephants). To lose 25% of this is just too number is significant.

Now shock units only gain a +1 in attack I feel that the pike effect should drop down to only 1 dice (same as elephant with Cavalry) and the re-roll should not be applied. By all means reduce the cost to 2 points but it is just too unbalanced as only 2 armies can field these troops. Otherwise severely restrict this troop unit numbers maybe a max of 3 or 4 units.

I feel their use in the game is beneficial but currently too strong. Still enjoyed it even though having to face those very long pointy things.


Derek

[John Watson]

I'm assuming that in the final version of CK there will be many more army lists available, which would mean plenty of pike armies. You also have to remember that they were revolutionary and devastating when first introduced. They are very limiting tactically and I would not bother with them again. I don't think they are worth the points. I also found the elephants a bit disappointing but at least they were cheap.
The games were enjoyable and over fairly quickly. Next time I shall use Normans or Nikephorian Byzantines (I will have to devise my own list).
John

[martin goddard]

I don't think there will ever be enough army lists for ancient players.
Some rulesets have many hundreds.  A WRG innovation.   

The troop classifications in CK are general enough to allow most of not all armies to be represented(?).
i.e fewer types = greater coverage.

If players make their own lists it might degenerate into "here is the winning formula" so that is what my army and battle tactics are.


If players really need to design their own list that is fine but their army can only be pointed at 275 points. At that point I expect they can choose one of those listed?


martin

[John Watson]

That is fine Martin, but there are many nations and ancient periods that have no representation at all. I would say that an opponent always has the right to refuse to fight a non rules army, but at 300 points I would challenge anyone to come up with a super army, especially if you said that every army must have a minimum of, say, 15 units. Having the scope for more lists will add colour and attract more players. Having fewer lists will drive players away.
John

[martin goddard]

You are quite right John.

Can I do another 100 lists?
Probably not.

What is needed is for a list to be compiled of what can use what "coat".

i.e for each army presently in the CK lists,  an accompanying  list of what armies can also use that list.
This is the way.
This would be better than 100 pages of similar lists?

martin

[John Watson]

I wasn't suggesting that you should compile the lists but that others can do their own within certain preset parameters. For example Byzantine armies between 650 and 1452 must be CO cavalry min 10% max 30% of points, CO infantry up to 30%, Foot skirmishers up to 10%, levy 10% to 20% and so on.
John

[martin goddard]

Send me a list John and I will pop it in.


martin

[John Watson]

You are on, Martin
John

[Moggy]

I wouldn't go too mad on generating more lists until the rules are finalised. The more permutations there are the more complex things can get. Anyway, doesn't matter what Army John fields he still needs a new set of dice!



Derek