Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-19-2018, 06:38 AM   #11
hal
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buffalo, New York
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Cavalry Rifles

Quote:
Originally Posted by lugaid View Post
What I'm saying is that Skirmishers with Mounts do not have the Cv class, but cost more than your stats for a Horde ($90K total for the Skirmishers with Mounts vs. $75K for your version of Horde). If you raise the price in line with what Ulzgoroth proposed, following a different train of logic, then they cost more than Skirmishers with Mounts ($100K vs. $90K total), making the addition of the Cv class seem more appropriate.
Gotcha.

Light Infantry plus mounts does equal light cavalry as far as costs are concerned. Doing the math in that fashion would seem to imply that the cost for the Horde could just as easily be equal to the cost of the Skirmisher plus mounts trained to fight atop the mounts.

So, you go with what makes the most sense - that's the best any GM or game designer can do.

When I look at what comprise a unit's basic training per GURPS MASS COMBAT, I see the following factors:

Light Infantry is the basic core element that utilizes skirmishing style combat that largely prefers NOT to close into melee as its preferred tactic.

Medium Infantry fights in closer order than does Light, but in a more dispersed order than heavy. It is still trained to fight in either of closer order or skirmish order. The cost to raise Medium is a mere 75% that of either of close order troops using shock tactics or open order skirmishing troops - yet it gains a 50% increase in TS. It does however, lose the Rec function that Light Troops had.

Skirmishers are an odd duck in that scheme of things in that they start with two functionalities from the get go. They also benefit from a 25% reduction in cost over their TL 1-5 counterparts.

When you look at the cost mounted close order troops that happened to be armored as well, that is when you get into an oddity of sorts. If Hvy Cavalry is to Hvy Infantry at TL 1-4, then Hvy Cavalry at TL 5 should be to Hvy Infantry at TL 5. At TL 1 - 4, the cost of Hvy Cavalry costs 500% that of Hvy Infantry - they gain only one functionality. If you went with that kind of ratio, then in theory, at TL 5, their cost should be 500% that of hvy infantry. As best as I can see, Line Infantry at TL 5 is the closest thing we'll see to Hvy Infantry (fighting in close order). Like their TL 1-4 counterparts, the Line Infantry gives up its Rec function retains its cost being equal to that of its lighter cousin. Unlike its TL 1-4 counterparts however, the Line Infantry only gains a 50% increase in its troop strength instead of 100% like its TL 1-4 cousin does against its light infantry model.

Heavy Cavalry (units that fight in close order and employ shock tactics to close in and destroy their enemy) with its 500% price tag, becomes a mere 333% more costly at TL 5.

Couple this with the fact that Light Cavalry in terms of Hvy Cavalry costs, is a mere 50% the cost of Hvy Cavalry. So, if you went that route? Horse Pistol at 50% cost becomes $50,000 to train. Light Cavalry is the same as Heavy Cavalry in functionality save for the fact that it gains Rec functionality - but at a cost of losing 60% of its TS value.

So, should Mounted Skirmishers (mounted Light Cavalry) be priced at 50% the Hvy Cavalry costs, and lose 60% of its TS? At TL 5, this would result in a TS of .4 x 6 or 2.4, just to have the ability to have Rec added to its CV value.

Ratio wise? Different approaches spell out different answers. I could see why you would have a problem trying any of the approaches spelled out above or in prior responses.

Which is why, I started off with "go with what makes sense". To my mind? Learning to ride horses so that you can get to where you're going is not the same kind of training that one gets when one has to fight atop horseback in battle. That's why I reject the concept that Light Infantry plus Mounts is the same as gaining CV functionality. It is just unfortunate, that despite the description in Mounts, the addition of the cost for Mounts does equal granting Light Infantry the CV function *ironic smile*. In the end? I console myself with the fact that from what I've read regarding troops that historically dismount for combat instead of entering combat atop mounts - is that it takes manpower to hold the mounts during battle. I consider "Mounts" to not only be horses to transport infantry into battle, but also extra men to hold the mounts at readiness during battle itself.

If I had to price horses by training costs - combat horses used in combat vs transport horses, I'd have to make it such that combat trained horses cost more. MUCH more. If adding CV value to a light infantry amounts to an increase in cost of $60,000 - then docile mounts should be priced at a lower cost that that. GURPS MASS COMBAT doesn't do that. <shrug>

If it were me? I'd re-price the "Mounts" cost to something lower, or simply accept that for what ever reason(s) - David Pulver or the playtesting crew determined that mounts should be identical to the difference in cost between light Cavalry and Light Infantry.
hal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 06:22 PM   #12
lugaid
 
lugaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA USA
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Cavalry Rifles

I think that the difference is, and it seems weird that it would be this simple, that Light Cavalry is a TL2 unit, while Light Infantry and Mounts are both TL1. In other words, at TL1 if you want Cv effectiveness, buy Chariots. At TL2, don't bother to get Mounted Light Infantry since it's easy enough to train horses for skirmishing actions and soldiers to fight from their TL2 mounts (not, to be sure, the unit type "Mounts").

Returning to the original impetus for this discussion, I feel embarrassed to report that it is entirely unnecessary after all, since I found one sentence in the source material that notes that Hordes are "mounted infantry". This is supported elsewhere in the description of the LotMS battlefield, where the authors note that the occasional Heavy Machine Gun is used in most battles. Definitely going to need to keep After the End and especially Pulver's Warlords of the Apocalypse article in mind. But yeah, Hordes seem to be a mix of Mounted Skirmishers, Light Cavalry, and possibly a few Mounted Rifles. Since there are a limited number of Hordes in the setting, each with a different combat strength and such, it will probably be worth my while to work out each of the 28 Hordes in detail.

The setting provides that the Hordes speak a number of languages: "Native American, English, or French dialects". We are given the name of one Horde, the Blue Wind Horde, which was led by Budura, currently the First Rider of Transwyoming, during her campaign to rid the Sioux Peninsula of Nahuas prior to gaining that title (and perhaps after, though the source is not explicit about that; it would seem likely that she would retain the name, out of affection if nothing else, to name her Ruler's Entourage). That provides one model for naming some of the others, though some names in French should probably also exist as well; I'd imagine most of those would be in the northeastern part of the setting, where there is some Québecois influence.

Despite my failure to notice that element of description before now, this discussion has proven very useful to me, at least, in clearing up some of the ideas in Mass Combat.
lugaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2018, 07:52 PM   #13
hal
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Buffalo, New York
Default Re: [Mass Combat] Cavalry Rifles

No need to feel embarrassed. :)

If I got a dollar for every time I've been *ahem* slightly mistaken, I could probably enjoy a few nice juicy steaks and a few bottles of Scotch and a few...

Well, you get the idea.

When you get to talk with other people, you get a chance to have someone else's point of view totally separated from your own. It avoids the trap of what I call the echo-chamber effect. Thinking outside the box is good - as is examining the foundations or framework of how things are done. My wife tells me I use too much logic at times (ok ok, expecting people to behave logically is a failing of mine!!!). Long story short however, each time I get into a discussion and see others point(s) of view, it keeps me from going too far down any one given path and then wishing maybe I'd considered other options.

I've always been a tinkerer. I remember going to AFTERMATH! to glean ideas for when GURPS was young and GURPS HIGH TECH 1st edition had yet to see the light of day. I've stolen ideas or concepts from other game systems and tried them out to see how well they work with GURPS. I even used the RECON mass combat rules at some point in time to reasonably good effect. Ever wondered what PHOENIX COMMAND would look like if you merged the gun damage rules with GURPS? (My advice is to stay clear of it - although with modern computers, it could be made to work easily enough!!!).

So, play with what you've got, invent what you need, and as the advice goes, when in doubt, roll and shout. The game is the thing, and how the players react in game and to the game is something better than playing a first shooter game on Xbox or Nintendo or what ever else is out there. :)
hal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.