Page 1 of 1

Smaller Triumph games, dumb question on

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:21 pm
by jdesmond
Salutations, gentlefolk !

Hath anyone ever tried playing Triumph with 40 or 36 points a side ? Your opinion on this variant ?

Yours, John

Re: Smaller Triumph games, dumb question on

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 7:35 pm
by David Kuijt
jdesmond wrote:Salutations, gentlefolk !

Hath anyone ever tried playing Triumph with 40 or 36 points a side ? Your opinion on this variant ?
Why stop there? 12 pts!

Seriously, .... .... .... why? That would mess with the command point system (with unpredictable results), and make the army lists unusable because they are predicated upon 48 pts. While some army lists might be translatable to 36 (or more easily, 24), it would become impossible to use any allies, as the ally component sizes are built based upon 48 pts.

You can multiply the point totals easily enough and still use the army lists (especially if you use an integer multiplier) but dividing them (reducing them by some percentage or fraction) will get you into serious problems with the army lists.

Re: Smaller Triumph games, dumb question on

Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 10:39 pm
by Bill Hupp
36 to 40 points might work OK in terms of using armies before you get them built up fully with point system (I.e. barbarian armies that might have 16-18 stands.)

Example: 12 stands of Early Franks at 3 points per stand (old DBA army) vs. 12 stand Roman army scaled down to 36 points.

Bill