Magnesia!

[jacar]

Posted on my blog. This time with Pk at +5 (F) +6 (M) and +4 (Shooting, some special melee cases).

The battle was a one sided affair but interesting.

http://johnswargames.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/670/

Enjoy!

[Martyn]

John, interesting play test and out come.

I am not sure how much benefit there is in play testing additional amendments with two competing versions already needing testing. I think you are going down a bit of a blind alley, I do not see either adopting your suggestions.

However, one comment I would make on your amendments is that it seems to add a lot of complication with a variety of CFs for Pk and different BG penalties. Is the corresponding simplification by the removal of all support factors balanced by the added complication?

[jacar]

John, interesting play test and out come.

I am not sure how much benefit there is in play testing additional amendments with two competing versions already needing testing. I think you are going down a bit of a blind alley, I do not see either adopting your suggestions.


Some folks here suggested that a good way to go was to remove all support bonuses and have at it. So I did just that to see how the game played. As it turns out, the game was at least as fun and made the Pike armies more viable than before against blade armies. So, if Phil is looking and wants to go down that road then why not? Okay. I doubt he will either. :)


However, one comment I would make on your amendments is that it seems to add a lot of complication with a variety of CFs for Pk and different BG penalties. Is the corresponding simplification by the removal of all support factors balanced by the added complication?

I'm not sure it is ore complicated. Just different. You have to know 3 combat factors and 1 modifier. You have to know the 4 units that fight it in melee vs the shooting modifier.

The way it is now, you have 2 CF and 2 support modifiers and who they apply to. It's a little fiddly either way.

I will be buying the 3.0 book either way and depending on what is in it, I may add my "non-supporting ranks" rules to the mix.