Points System

[varangian]

Had nothing to do on Sunday, so I have been working on a points system for WAB, have started on the basic book, and Byzantine book, its looking good so far, so when completed i will put up a file that people can download. I will have to go through the other books, and also sort out for elephants, chariots, and artillery, and special attributes for others, but will sort out asap and show what I have done, then at least those of you with a Tibetan army, for example, will be able to use the points system to fight against opponents using the system and it will be fair, I hope.

The system is based on armour, weapons, training, movement, special attributes, dicipline and others, so I will finish within the next few days on the BGG book and rule book, and post to see what people think, then I will do all the other books, but most should only be extras, but i would like some feedback.

[Justin]

Indeed that will be good to see. Just a tip, remember that flat points additions will lot work. Examples; a pike in the hands of a S4 guy is a lot more useful than in the hands of a S3 guy, bow is a lot better if you have BS4 than if you have BS3.

[Guy]

Are you familiar with Jervis' points system? That's what all the points in WAB should be based on. I'd be slightly concerned on a points system based on BTBG but would be very interested to see what you come up with.

Guy

[Justin]

And you can find the Words of Jervis here (poor chap hoped that they would not be kept but they were)

http://www.lochagos.com/wab/woj.txt

[Goltron]

Just a tip, remember that flat points additions will lot work. Examples; a pike in the hands of a S4 guy is a lot more useful than in the hands of a S3 guy, bow is a lot better if you have BS4 than if you have BS3.

Add to this that the overall army abilities must be taken into account and you have two good reasons why a point system will hardly work in WAB. Even that from Jervis are only some basics that need to be altered for specific units.

[Guy]

Add to this that the overall army abilities must be taken into account and you have two good reasons why a point system will hardly work in WAB. Even that from Jervis are only some basics that need to be altered for specific units.

I'd be a little wary there. Points cost is an art, not a science. Also what Jervis himself says on the subject is very, very interesting and should be your main guide. You'd be surprised how many supplements do stick to his formula and the few armies which don't (making things artificially cheap) are known for being a bit 'over the top'.

Guy

[varangian]

Yes just had a cursory glance, mine very similar in places, but I have also given points for weapons, weapon, and ballistic skills, plus other points for the class of troops, or minus's if not a good morale, points for special abilities,ie; stubborn, vetrans, supperior cavalry and such like, and so on and so on.

I just worked out a rudementary cost for a Knight and a Timurid fully armoured cavalryman, in my list, the knight costs way less, than in the book, around 19 points and the Timurid 24, these are just rough figures for now, as I have not fully finalised the points system, what you see is, the knight is cheaper than the Timurid, as he has less special abilites than the Nomad Timurid.

I am working on a points system so that people can use other army list books, for a basic army, whilst the suppliments are being sorted, thats if any come out, yes I am also adding special abilities of armies to the points system, I believe that at the very start of WAB this should have been instigated, to give future suppliment writers a guide, I believe there are to many, magic swords and shields in some of the books, now thats not a bad thing, in itself, but when some books have been written without them, it makes for a playing imbalance between books.

Anyway I dont see a problem with a flat points based system, if all the other, army/troop special factors, are written into the point system to make the opponents armies balanced.

I have seen many times, a Byzantine army, with the stategem ability ,get to roll over a opponents army, just because of its special abilities and not because of generalship.

If you take the new FOG rules, and you can take them out and burn them in my opinion, all future suppliments are based on the same points system, it is only WAB, that has this crazy points differential, and I can only put that down due to bad planning on part of the GW historical.

When I have finalised them, I will organise a game at SELWG to see if they work, and will post up here.

[Justin]

And you get combos; so take Byzantine ability to choose to go first or second, allied cavalry who can do a 16 inch move during deployment and with a +2 rank bonus and you get a vicious charge on turn one.

[Guy]

Sounds like you have a very balanced approach Varangian.

Guy

[varangian]

I do not want to replace the existing points system, as this exercise is meant for people who have, say, Tibetans, Kev Dallimore at SELWG has a beautifully painted Tibetan army, which he can't use as there is no list available yet, and as he is in the same mind frame, that we all like to see a thoroughly reserched list, this is one way to compensate for the lack of suppliments.

I myself want to use Islamic Persians, my 3rd favourite list, after Byzantines, and Timurids.or even Moghuls, if I succed, mabey we might be able to see a few more other lists being used, than is the case, to bridge the gap.

There are a lot of good army lists out there that can be used as a basis for an army, the Newbury lists, for example are excellent, lots of research gone into them, and are just sitting there waiting to be used as a basis for a WAB army, the Newbury rules were far to complicated for my liking but the lists are perfect.

I also hope to sort out an old bugbear of mine, the Centurian, not the tank, although thats my favourite tank of all time, you pay an extra 5 points for a Centurion in a Roman unit, and the unit goes up one moral class, whereas in other armies, I think the minimum for an officer of the same morale is 55 points.

Bloody Romans, what did they ever do for us.

[Leondegrande]

Points cost is an art, not a science.

That's it for me and very simple.

It doesn't make sense to balance armies, IMHO.

The most important thing is to make them work on their own, with an unique spirit and compared to enemies of that period.
They don't have to be "equal", look at the Chariot War lists: The lists are still a masterpiece of simplicity and archtypes of six completely different armies by very little changes (often simply how a chariot works for that army).

Hope future supplements or collections of army lists will not loose that spirit and art.
That's for me what WAB make work and very special.

Cheers
Olaf

[Goltron]

Sorry Olaf, but i totally disagree with this. You can not absolutly balance all armies out but some kind of a general balance level between armies (especially in-period) is imho simply necessary for any game. Also, balance and spirit are not contradictory. I´d say it is sometimes even the other way round: A army list with spirit has to be balanced to some degree with the other lists, as a "monster" list on the other hand can be put together anyhow, it is interchangeable.

Points cost is an art, not a science.

I have also to disagree with this. You can make some kind of overall point system which is able to create a balanced lists of any kind, but obviously this would be extremly complex. Even so that it is easier to search for some guys who are able to do this themself through their instinct and experience . Also, such a system destroys the spirit olaf has described a bit as lists are less unique. Here we are back at Jervis statement that it is sometimes better to sacrifice some balance for spirit, but thats the fine line a list writter has to walk on i think .

[Justin]

Kev Dallimore at SELWG has a beautifully painted Tibetan army, which he can't use as there is no list available yet

My advice to him would be to use the Nomad Horde list. Possibly a tweak would be to ignore the requirement to have 3 times as much light cavalry as heavy cavalry. It even includes the option for artillery.

I am also in the camp of science over art but then thats just what I have found most effective in wargaming. I find it so strange that exactly the same troop type can be different points in different lists within the same supplement or that you can pay one point to gain a +2 bonus to an armour save and two points to get a +1 bonus to armour. More maths and less art for me.

[Goltron]

I find it so strange that exactly the same troop type can be different points in different lists within the same supplement

Depends in the lists, but thats imho necessitiy. The same troops type can have different values depending on the other troops the army has available, see the olf, beardy "dwarfs with cavalry" example.

or that you can pay one point to gain a +2 bonus to an armour save and two points to get a +1 bonus to armour. More maths and less art for me.

Here i totally agree. Sometimes that makes sense for example when you pay +1 pts for upgrade a shield to large shield and then +2 pts for light armour as armour saves get overpropotional better the better they are. But sometimes you find point values hardly to understand. Who don´t buys heavy armour for his cavalry for +1 pts?

[varangian]

I think you can stil have the flavour of an army written into the rules/list, but it has to be costed along with all the other factors, and as this is only an excercise, to allow a more fair system between armies of differing suppliments, this can only be a good thing in the long run.

With ref to stand in armies, most people that I know, hate using stand in armies, they prefer a well worked out list, with all the flovour of that army included.

[Justin]

Indeed we can have preferences but the option exists to run various 'unlisted' armies with current lists. So it is worthwhile mentioning.