Excelsior Entertainment Forums
Warzone => Game Questions => Topic started by: Durandal on September 27, 2006, 10:41:49 PM
-
I recently noticed that the Dragoon Sergeant is 3 points less than the Hussar Sergeant. However the Dragoon is superior in almost every way, so my question is: does the survival training really add that much of a cost to the Hussar Sergeant or shourld the PC be swapped. I haven't been able to find anything in the FAQ about it but I thought getting a second opinion on it would be helpful. Thanks.
-
I would say the Hussar's SGT PC is wrong and should be PC-21 since almost all SGT's are only 3 pts more than a the normal trooper.
-
It would help if the rubric on how these were calculated would ever see the light of day. Sadly it is being held hostage. I would almost be willing to pay a Statistics Major in college some beer money to try to reverse engineer the system.
-
How much beer money would it cost?
-
Depends on the Stats Major. If he was poor, not that much.
-
the system is not "logic" anyway... deadshot on a model with 1 wound and rifle is less valuable than on a 3 wounds hmg guy
-> the system is crap/unlogical anyway IF it is based on fixed costs for a given ability
and besides: do you really belive this guys did good playtesting??
--> a official point value is neccessary to bring players together but has nothing to do with ballancing
imho, of cours..
cu´s
-
From what I managed to figure out before the math part of my brain melted:
Some stuff added flat costs, skills and such. It seems that Wounds were a multiplier to points, like 2 woulds would raise the point cost by x1.2 or so. I would really like to see the rubric one day, just to see if my own math was right.
-
The only real way to tell is to input all the units into your system and see how they balance against the acutal points costs.
That's the sort of monkey work I'd hire a stats guy for.
-
the system is not "logic" anyway... deadshot on a model with 1 wound and rifle is less valuable than on a 3 wounds hmg guy
-> the system is crap/unlogical anyway IF it is based on fixed costs for a given ability
and besides: do you really belive this guys did good playtesting??
--> a official point value is neccessary to bring players together but has nothing to do with ballancing
imho, of cours..
cu´s
Please, Aldrien,
Before you slap someone's reputation through the mud, know of what you are speaking. I know, for a fact, that extensive playtesting has, indeed, been done on this game. Further, saying something is your "humble opinion" while complaining loudly about it is akin to slurring one's mother without the foreknowledge of knowing the person's mother of whom you speak.
Before Excelsior, there were many that developed this game. Since, I've seen playtesting, personally. I've seen corrections when corrections were needed to be made. And while you will never satisfy everyone (heck, even I think that Vulkans are underpriced, but use 'em anyway), the majority will always see that the game is (not-quite-perfectly) balanced.
I know that this is a public forum, but this community prides itself in a bit of decorum (even through it's incessant trash-talk) and I, for one, take offense to ignorance. The game has been, continues to be, and will be further, playtested. While you are more than entitled to your opinions (even baseless ones), try to get your facts straight before spewing venom.
-
I recently noticed that the Dragoon Sergeant is 3 points less than the Hussar Sergeant. However the Dragoon is superior in almost every way, so my question is: does the survival training really add that much of a cost to the Hussar Sergeant or shourld the PC be swapped. I haven't been able to find anything in the FAQ about it but I thought getting a second opinion on it would be helpful. Thanks.
The Hussar Sergeant's weaponry explains part of it. A shotgun and a machine pistol is a lethal combo. Further, his Survival Training: 2 is very worth it when fighting in any other environment than those bright sunny days that everyone seems to favor (we always try to include some environmental effects).
Points costs are based on environmental effects. Those that don't use environmental effects are going to notice that Vulkans, for example, are far superior than their points show. Add Level 2 Desert rules, and suddenly, Vulkans aren't a great choice (Slower and subject to inevitable weapons jams due to the number of dice that they roll).
The points are more than fair as the grunt Hussars are less expensive than the Dragoon grunts. Add the totals and compare the squads, not the individual models, as the rubric is based on the entire cost of the army, the terrain/environment, and the force composition.
-
Before you slap someone's reputation through the mud, know of what you are speaking. I know, for a fact, that extensive playtesting has, indeed, been done on this game.
Well.. let me apologize for beeing to much harsh..
I was in fact not too much carefull with my tone.. even when I don´t belive there was too much playtesting..
Part of my impression is also from 1. Edition (I missed the 2.) were way too much was unbalanced..
The thing is that: There are many strage things in this game wich show a deficit in testing (not only in balance but in inconsistence)
example:
2 rams as one slot (wich might not be too hard, but why?)
vulcans as elite (in regular armys there is only 1 support / 2 grunts..) => bauhaus with vulcans and skimmer?
(ok, they don´t get very good CC troops, but that is hardly a deficit, exp. with JC)
cyb peoples volentiers with 3 HMG compared to cap LI with max 1 LMG
no militia chars
chemiman with no sniper (not in errata = correct!)
command helmet 2 points for grunts, 1 for elite? tactical sense is the best ability in the game.. (imho)
general cost of cheap grunts to better grunts : +2 points for a much better deal, statwise and specialist option wise? How much does a ability cost??
cost of cap dogs (17P, only having group attack and predator sense with low LD but S6)
(We tested the dog heavy army.. may work for some guys, but generally they bite the dust with CC7 and low strenth.. with that cost, how do you pile them up at one enemy, and when he´s dead, the 2-3 dogs get blasted away... at 17 P)
the paradeploy rules... that was very good playtested indeed...
make your leadership and it works, don´t make it and you are dead (no actions)... at LD 13 for stormtrenchers (ex.) at 28 points. not to forget the many instant death options..
one support / 2 grunts?
Further, saying something is your "humble opinion" while complaining loudly about it is akin to slurring one's mother without the foreknowledge of knowing the person's mother of whom you speak.
well, without knowing the playtesters, I know the quality of the work...
the game mechanisms are very nice!
but
the overall style of the book/missing details/errors does not give the best impression about their work accuracy..
therefore I don´t belive in real proper playtesting. may be wrong, and all that sloppy work (why is not the point! everyone has excuses or reasons) is based on too much playing ;)
the majority will always see that the game is (not-quite-perfectly) balanced.
the game is much better balanced than 1. ed (2., dont know)
but this is based upon the general similarity of point costs (~17-20 grunts, 25-30 for elites) and the unimportance of most abilitys.
It simly does not make a difference if a fig costs 17 or 20 points when a single grenade/FLT can kill 1 or 4
it is not based, however (imho) on a calculated and logical point system.
and I, for one, take offense to ignorance.
I must say that you should not mark my comment as ignorant!
Maybe (too) harsh, but nothing I said was ignorant >:(
the system is not "logic" anyway... deadshot on a model with 1 wound and rifle is less valuable than on a 3 wounds hmg guy
-> the system is crap/unlogical anyway IF it is based on fixed costs for a given ability
is this wrong?
and besides: do you really belive this guys did good playtesting??
a book like the 3. edition with soo many errors and missing details does not point to careful playtesting.
playtesting does not only mean playing games but means to think about what you put in (and how you explain it. show the rules to a novice and some will be hard to get) and to try to break the rules... the vulcans are the most prominent example, but also the bauhaus intergroup change is a clear sign of missing something..
--> a official point value is neccessary to bring players together but has nothing to do with balancing
again I fail to see any ignorance.
The game has been, continues to be, and will be further, playtested.
sorry for the mock, but the only comment to this is: and needs to be
While you are more than entitled to your opinions (even baseless ones),
such a devasting comment based upon 3 lines of posting? that I call prejudice.. especially because I am known (not to you, anyway) as a rule-exploiter, wich means I normally have a good understanding of rules...
try to get your facts straight before spewing venom.
sorry, but I did not spewing venom
.
I said a point system that is based upon fixed cost for a given ability is not good
and that I don´t belive in good playtesting. the makers of 3. ed did not earn my respect with the book (only with the game mechanism!) therefore I feel ok to say do you really belive this guys did good playtesting??
wich is really not spewing anything.
I must say that I did not like your comment. as I made myself gulity of beein too impolite I will not ask for a excuse, but I think you yourself could have found far more adequate words.
cheers
Aldrien
-
Thanks for the answer dmcgee1, it was one of those things I always wondered about as it didn't jive with my normal point cost logic so I was just wondering if the cost was right. The explanation you give definately makes sense, we should start playing more games with weather conditions so that I'm not being over charged for my Venusian Rangers. ;D
-
Aldrien
Thanks for the apology - I am especially grateful that you labeled it as an apology or I might not have noticed. As for trying to debate your points - been there done that and it never changes so enjoy your opinions. You won't change them no matter what I say so I won't waste the time.
-
I must say that I did not like your comment. as I made myself gulity of beein too impolite I will not ask for a excuse, but I think you yourself could have found far more adequate words.
cheers
Aldrien
Yep, I am guilty of being a bit harsh. My apologies for reacting in kind to what I read. That said, perhaps a more polite conversation can take place regarding the original subject. Sorry for the hijacking, Durandal.
-
I would say the Hussar's SGT PC is wrong and should be PC-21 since almost all SGT's are only 3 pts more than a the normal trooper.
Heh,
Phil, you should know better ;)
-
I am impressed so far with the self-policing that has occurred in this thread. You\ve all managed to keep it to a low grumble. I believe the thread; however, has run its course. THe posed question has been asked and answered and now we are swerving toward (but so far avoided) the edge of the cliff into flammage. Let's move on from here so I don't have to lock this down. Thanks!