WM: Points Instead of Unit Count for Breakpoint

[Stormwind]

http://www.ulthuan.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=40244

I was just googling for Warmaster stuff and found this old topic.

The poster suggests using the points of defeated units instead of the usual method for determining when an army "breaks".  This would make playing a more "elite" army or list more attractive.

Has anyone tried playing it like this?

[Gorrin]

Not tried this but I do use a house rule where losing the general does not lose you the battle. I use an import from fire and fury where your senior "hero" becomes genteral with a random command value which could (on a rare dice roll) be better than the original one. But could also be worse.

The lose the general automatically lose the game rule doesn't sit well with me. On a d6 say a 1 or 2 game over. 3 or 4 hero is one less command as dead general but gets his command range. 5 the same. 6 one better.

Just imagine if Britain had lost Trafalgar the moment Nelson was shot. The bullet that took out Joseph Johnston put Robert E Lee in command...one of the best generals in history.  Just sayin

[Stormwind]

If someone threw their General into battle against me I would assume it was because I was such an awful opponent they just wanted the evening to be over. =)

[Aquahog]

That's not what I got from it. The poster seems to be in favour of that rule to encourage more less elite units.

"First, play with break point determined by points not number of units. Otherwise some cheap regiments (and less armored) can be rare sight."

I'm not following the logic. Cheap units increase your break point way faster than expensive ones. That's a very good reason to bring them. Bringing only expensive stuff lowers your break no matter what system you pick.

[cjbennett22]

I don't think Robert E Lee was a great general, just a great and humble man.  Stonewall Jackson and "old blue eyes" Longstreet were the tacticians, along with their commanding lutienants, Ewell and Hood for example.  The only thing that took the Union forever to win was their complete lack of unity and drive.  Gettysburg was a victory for the north but tactically it was still a loss for the Army of the Potomac as they let Lee south again.  The king of spades was a defensive minded general in a world that was becoming a defensive fighting force and World War 1 proved that trend out to its peak.

It's not really a bad rule when you think about the Feudal chain of command.  When the man in charge dies then no one could possibly replace him because back then he was usually "graced by god" and all that.  All of his banner men pledged their lives and now that he is dead, the pledge is upheld and the job is done. 

"Get the heck out of here before we die too!!!"

The only time I lose my general is because the game is over on my opponents next turn unless I can somehow squeak out this last win so I put my general in the fight just to add the 2 attacks to help the odds.

I find that the usual breakpoint rule works really well for campaigns, you win a fight and push your enemy back but you didn't kill any of his good troops so the next fight will not be as easy as you might think or heck, your enemy might attack you back immediately.  Also, the breakpoint rule really makes a player cycle his troops and try to use them all which is a strategy that feeds well off of the ordering system that Rick Priestly set up for the game.....I think anyways.  I always beat my brother because he refuses to cycle his troops and usually just pushes his cavalry forward until they are all dead and then I come to kill his infantry    Cycling troops was also a good strategy back in the American Civil War, just to bring it all back around.

My wish on the subject is, I wish it was easier to kill the characters, at least just the heroes and spell casters and to break down the command structure that way, making my opponent really use the command structure this game is based on.

[Aldhick]

Well written CJ

[Gorrin]

Hopefully we're not talking about the same longstreet who when confronted with a once in a lifetime chance on the battlefield of chickamauga to envelop and utterly destroy a union army decided instead to eat a lunch of sweet potatoes.

And then get his arse kicked by Burneside.

That's Burneside.

[mlkr]

...And back on topic Like Aquahog says - Using points as breakpoint would def favour putting your expensive stuff in the list before the cheap stuff. It would make for interesting/different games but it would also alter some dynamics of the game.

One of the (few?) drawbacks of using expensive/elite units is that they lower your possible breakpoint when determining by units. You might want filler units to raise it to give you some staying power. If you count breaking by points you wont have the need for fillers, your breakpoint is going to be the same regardless of armybuild. It takes away from the game I think :/

Today I try and chase down opponents fillers to more easily reach his breakpoint while at the same time keep some of my fillers away from him to keep me inbthe fight. Breaking by points you most likely would want to get the expensive stuff instead.

But, not having played it I cant really say for sure - maybe there will be other changes in the meta that influence the game in a positive way ? I say try it out a few times and see if it adds anything unexpected! ^_^


/Mlkr

[Ole]

I wish it was easier to kill the characters, at least just the heroes and spell casters and to break down the command structure that way, making my opponent really use the command structure this game is based on.

You can hunt them anyway. If you send an harassing Unit over them the must flee. And since the commanders are moved after the Troops, it can delay the plan of your opposite quite al lot

[cjbennett22]

I try that stuff, to invoke the -1 command and to move their characters, but it never seems to work to any real advantage.  Just makes me sacrifice a unit as they always get slaughtered and just help my enemy move closer anyways when they "fallback" out of combat after destroying every last stand.  Yes, when everyone is killed off I allow a unit to go in any direction with that movement and not blocked by a front edge (which isn't there anymore).

Also, I looked up the battle of Chickamauga and Longstreet was in command but it was Hood that made the brilliant move to attack what might have been and was an empty spot in the Union line and then he was hit by Union reserves coming in to fill in the gap.  He took heavy casualties from enfilade fire and fell back.  There was never any Order to NOT keep going by Longstreet and roll up the entire union army and the casualties were about even for both sides, only off by 2 thousand plus in a 110,000 man battle.  The union army retreated back to Chattanooga that night and next day.  Union Generals were all taken down a peg for not being able to keep a tidy line.  Sorry to bring it back up, love my American civil war history.