forum.wgcwar.com

BC24 is a peculiar Battlecard in that it essentially overwrites the existing troop type and turns into an enhanced form of Bad Horse. Wouldn't it make more sense to have Sword-Fighting Cavalry as a troop type rather than a battlecard?

Not enough armies qualify for this troop type to make it a troop type, similar to camels. It simplifies the troop type chart.

RogerCooper wrote: ↑

Mon Sep 02, 2024 12:32 pm

BC24 is a peculiar Battlecard in that it essentially overwrites the existing troop type and turns into an enhanced form of Bad Horse. Wouldn't it make more sense to have Sword-Fighting Cavalry as a troop type rather than a battlecard?

As Rod says.

There are a dozen or more rare "troop types" that are instead included as battle cards. Sword-fighting Cavalry is one of the more common ones. Light camels (bad horse with "Light Camel" battle card) is another common one. Plaustrella is another one. Then there are the uncommon ones -- Charging Camels (Camel Knights) in the Tuaregs. Cataphract Camels in one or two Arabo-Aramaean lists. Chained Together cavalry in the Murong Kingdoms of the Xianbei. Some others. The rare ones appear in 1-2 total army lists; the common ones in 10-15 or so. The least common actual troop type (actual in the rulebook) is at least twice as common as Sword-fighting Cavalry.

Whichever dividing line we chose, between actual troop types and troop types created by battle cards, someone might ask the same question you did -- "why that line?" Not criticizing -- just pointing out that there had to be a line somewhere, and that's the one we chose.

This sort of discussion is going to get more enthusiastic when Jack and I get the chance to update Meshwesh with the newest thing -- a middle class of shooting infantry between Archer and Bow Levy. Put simply, some army lists (quite a few of them, actually -- maybe 1/3 of the armies with Bow Levy, at a guess) are going to get the option of taking the Ranged Attack battle card on their Bow Levy. That makes them into a 3-pt shooty stand, shooting better than Bow Levy, and worse than Archers. That could, indeed, have been a separate troop type -- and will have the numbers to be common enough to have appeared as a basic troop type.

Hoping to have the chance to update Meshwesh in the next few weeks -- I've had lots of medical things going on, so there's been a bit of delay.

David Kuijt wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 5:28 pm

As Rod says.

There are a dozen or more rare "troop types" that are instead included as battle cards. Sword-fighting Cavalry is one of the more common ones. Light camels (bad horse with "Light Camel" battle card) is another common one. Plaustrella is another one. Then there are the uncommon ones -- Charging Camels (Camel Knights) in the Tuaregs. Cataphract Camels in one or two Arabo-Aramaean lists. Chained Together cavalry in the Murong Kingdoms of the Xianbei. Some others. The rare ones appear in 1-2 total army lists; the common ones in 10-15 or so. The least common actual troop type (actual in the rulebook) is at least twice as common as Sword-fighting Cavalry.

This sort of discussion is going to get more enthusiastic when Jack and I get the chance to update Meshwesh with the newest thing -- a middle class of shooting infantry between Archer and Bow Levy. Put simply, some army lists (quite a few of them, actually -- maybe 1/3 of the armies with Bow Levy, at a guess) are going to get the option of taking the Ranged Attack battle card on their Bow Levy. That makes them into a 3-pt shooty stand, shooting better than Bow Levy, and worse than Archers. That could, indeed, have been a separate troop type -- and will have the numbers to be common enough to have appeared as a basic troop type.

I don't think middle-class archers need a separate troop type, as adding the ranged-fire battlecard works well as a simple modification.

The problem with sword-fighting cavalry is that it replaces the unit type instead of modifying it. I think that sword-fighting cavalry is more common the Meshwesh lists indicate. Cavalry that fight with swords were commonly used for reconaissance. Much of what other games call Light Cavalry or Medium Cavalry could be considered sword-fighting cavalry. Much early-modern cavalry basically fought with sabres (and pistols). Lances are great on level ground but swords are better in difficult terrain. Perhaps sword-fighting cavalry should not be penalized for difficult terrain.

If you had a Camel troop type, you could use battle cards to modify it to show the unusual uses of cavalry.

If something is being treated like a troop type, the rules should handle it that way, even if it is rare. You can always asterisk it as a rare troop type and not show it on all the player aids.

RogerCooper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:17 pm

I don't think middle-class archers need a separate troop type, as adding the ranged-fire battlecard works well as a simple modification.

Sure, but that wasn't my point.

RogerCooper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:17 pm

The problem with sword-fighting cavalry is that it replaces the unit type instead of modifying it. I think that sword-fighting cavalry is more common the Meshwesh lists indicate. Cavalry that fight with swords were commonly used for reconaissance.

In the medieval and ancient period? Not to my understanding. Can you cite some sources?

RogerCooper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:17 pm

Much of what other games call Light Cavalry or Medium Cavalry could be considered sword-fighting cavalry. Much early-modern cavalry basically fought with sabres (and pistols).

That's very important if we ever expand Triumph to the Renaissance/Pike and Shot era, but irrelevant for earlier. Swords and lances, or swords and bows, or (for some) swords and lances and bows, is what you get before the advent of easy gunpowder weapons for mounted troops.

RogerCooper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:17 pm

Lances are great on level ground but swords are better in difficult terrain. Perhaps sword-fighting cavalry should not be penalized for difficult terrain.

Can you cite some sources for this statement? I haven't read anything about Swabians or Kurds being more effective in difficult terrain than other cavalry, and those are the only cases of sword-fighting cavalry I can think of at the moment.

RogerCooper wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:17 pm

If something is being treated like a troop type, the rules should handle it that way, even if it is rare. You can always asterisk it as a rare troop type and not show it on all the player aids.

We have had to make a number of decisions on what to represent, and what not to represent -- and we understand that not everyone will agree with every one of our decisions. We appreciate your input, and in five years or so when we start thinking about whether anything needs to be revised, we'll take your advice under advisement, but until then we'll have to agree to disagree.

David Kuijt wrote: ↑

Sun Sep 22, 2024 11:39 pm

That's very important if we ever expand Triumph to the Renaissance/Pike and Shot era, but irrelevant for earlier. Swords and lances, or swords and bows, or (for some) swords and lances and bows, is what you get before the advent of easy gunpowder weapons for mounted troops.

I look forward to Triumph in Pike and Shot era.

some army lists (quite a few of them, actually -- maybe 1/3 of the armies with Bow Levy, at a guess) are going to get the option of taking the Ranged Attack battle card on their Bow Levy. That makes them into a 3-pt shooty stand, shooting better than Bow Levy, and worse than Archers.

I love this concept. I nominate the Elamites for this treatment, although I suspect they were already on your to-do list.