Consideration of number size when army pointing

[martin goddard]

This is about working out an army in accordance to a given points system.

Number adding and manipulation can be bit of a  challenge for gamers when under pressure to organise their army.

If points costs are in the region of 3 and 4 then working out an army is  pretty easy.
If points costs are in the 12 and 13 then the working out is more difficult but there is more ability for making small adjustments.


A case
Two types of soldier, one slightly better than the other.
If the points cost is 3 and 4, that is easy.
However, 10 and 12 would reflect the ability values better.

These are easy numbers in themselves,  but if a unit of 12 is needed we have 12x12 (tricky)  as opposed to 12x3 (easier).

The "goldilocks" values are probably at about 6?
Then a variance of 1 gives us 5,6,7= all quite close.

These numbers are more challenging for larger multiples such as 15 figures but probably OK?

A secondary, but psychological consideration is that players might like their super sword killer to cost 38 points compared to a normal swordsman at 25 points. It must be valuable if it costs 38 points?
WRG ancient armies used to be costed at 1000 points. Impressive.


Some number tables are easier for players to work with.
2x, 5x and 10x tables are easy.
3x, 7x and 9x tables are more difficult.
0.8x, 1.2x, 1.5x and 3.5 are very difficult and should be avoided.


martin

PS 7x 56?

[Leman (Andy)]

392 by my head.

[martin goddard]

You have done well master Andy.


martin

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

Something like Armies of Arcana was based on the different points for different attributes system beloved by DnDers which made for complicated maths but enabled fantasy players to cost their own models accurately based on what they were equipped with. You needed a spreadsheet with formulas to make the computations though.
I prefer the basic troop type cost with extra points for enhancements system myself. These are often applied to standardised unit sizes but for campaigns I prefer to use them for individual models to allow for levy troops and understrength units... I still get nostalgic about the old WRG 'Regular' and 'Irregular' command factors - remember them?
I use the 1pt for scum/arrow fodder, 2 basic infantry, double for cavalry, etc. with 'power-ups' for special weapons such as missile troops, pikes, and bonuses for armour or no, and training etc. It is clunky but you can show your working to justify the points and it does the job.

Neil

[Forst22]

I tend to build a spreadsheet, with pull down menus, I can then build and point an army easily and print it off for future reference.

But I was an analyst before retiring😁

[JohnWyatt]

I believe some editions of D&D (which I don't play) use a sort of sliding scale whereby weaker enemies get a points bonus if you field them in large quantities, thereby compensating for their ability to surround smaller forces. Interesting idea, but another complication.

At the other end of the scale is DBA where every army has the same number of units irrespective of quality.

On the whole I believe it's possible to get too hung up on points values, and the quest for "balance" can eliminate interesting possibilities and combinations. But then, I've never been very interested in the competitive aspect of gaming (probably just as well).

Points values do provide an interesting perspective on how the designer believes the game should work, since the values presumably reflect the perceived value of each troop type in the context of the rules. I read somewhere that designers often end up giving large points values to armoured horsemen because their rules reflect European tactical thinking.

[sukhe_bator (Neil)]

If you factor in lance, bow and shield with armour (it doesn't have to be plate to be effective) then most Asian cavalry from Samurai to Parthians would be roughly comparable to a European knights in terms of cumulative points costings.

Neil