Mass Combat: What's up with Titans?

[Peter Knutsen]

Titans have the same classes as Giants, and cost the same to raise and maintain, but they have much better TS. Is this deliberate? I can't see the logic.

Secondly, why is there no infantry that is equivalent to Horse Archers? Okay, I realize that the equivalent shouldn't get the Cavalry class, but why are there no infantry units (at low TL anyway) that combines Fire and Recon, the same way Horse Archers do? I want to make cool ninja units, much cooler than the one in the book, but I don't want to have to make them mounted (even though the Cavalry role is nice on top of everything else).

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Secondly, why is there no infantry that is equivalent to Horse Archers? Okay, I realize that the equivalent shouldn't get the Cavalry class, but why are there no infantry units (at low TL anyway) that combines Fire and Recon, the same way Horse Archers do?

I would suspect because real low-tech foot skirmishers ten, IIRC, to have been armed with javelins and the like, which don't justify F. Still, I think there is a niche here that, even if historical examples are rare, would be nice to have filled. Easy to see how to do it, though, from the examples given (even though there is no rule explicitly given that lets you plug the gap.)

I want to make cool ninja units, much cooler than the one in the book, but I don't want to have to make them mounted (even though the Cavalry role is nice on top of everything else).

I don't see F really fitting into the legends of Ninja all that well, but if you want a low-tech foot skirmisher unit with bows, then you could just say they have basically the same relationship to light infantry that horse archers have to light cavalry, so add F and add 20% to cost to raise and maintain, TL is 2 (like bowmen):

Archer Skirmishers
TS: 2
Class: Rec, F
WT: 1
Mob: Foot
Raise: 48K
Maintain: 10K
TL: 2

Another option is to use stone age warriors, instead of light infantry, as the base.

Stone Age Archers
TS: 1
Class: Rec, F
WT: 1
Mob: Foot
Raise: 30K
Maintain: 6K
TL: 0

[Plasmabunny]

Classic D&D rangers sort of fit the F and Recon mould. Scouts with the ability to snipe.

[The Colonel]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

I would suspect because real low-tech foot skirmishers ten, IIRC, to have been armed with javelins and the like, which don't justify F. Still, I think there is a niche here that, even if historical examples are rare, would be nice to have filled. Easy to see how to do it, though, from the examples given (even though there is no rule explicitly given that lets you plug the gap.)

Slingers would be an obvious suggestion - IIRC quite a lot of ancient armies used shepherd slingers as skirmishers and recce units.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by The Colonel

Slingers would be an obvious suggestion - IIRC quite a lot of ancient armies used shepherd slingers as skirmishers and recce units.

But then we're down to TS 1, and Light Infantry are already fairly week in the TS department. Going lower isn't fun.

Think fantasy rangers. They don't have to be higher than TS 2, but they need both Fire and Recon.

[cmdicely]

But then we're down to TS 1, and Light Infantry are already fairly week in the TS department. Going lower isn't fun.

OTOH, TL5 musket/rifle armed skirmishers are only TS2, F, Rec Foot troops; and TL5 musketeers are equal to TL2 bowmen, just more expensive. Slingers -- probably a better default name for my skirmish adaptation of stone age warriors than my original "Stone Age Archers", though they could be either -- as TL0, TS1 F, Rec troops and Archer Skirmishers (or "Rangers") as a TL2, TS2 F, Rec troops I think fill the hole pretty well, and are plausible and balanced.

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Think fantasy rangers. They don't have to be higher than TS 2, but they need both Fire and Recon.

Certainly, that makes sense for, say, the Dúnedain Rangers (either of the North or of Ithilien) from LotR, and I'd probably use my Skirmisher Archers as the base for them, with upgrades for Troop and Equipment Quality, as well. One could even argue that the Dúnedain, even as far as they've fallen by the War of the Ring, qualify as Super-Soldiers, though I'd probably stop short of that.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

One could even argue that the Dúnedain, even as far as they've fallen by the War of the Ring, qualify as Super-Soldiers, though I'd probably stop short of that.

Oh, I dunno about that. The Rangers of the North were certainly played up pretty heavily when they showed up in the books. I wouldn't rate the rangers of Ithilien quite that high, but there were only 30 Rangers, and people still talked about how much it would help their fight.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by cmdicely

OTOH, TL5 musket/rifle armed skirmishers are only TS2, F, Rec Foot troops; and TL5 musketeers are equal to TL2 bowmen, just more expensive.

As far as I can see, TL2 Bowmen are same stats as TL5 Skirmishers except the Bowmen cost more to raise and maintain.

Also, if it wasn't clear from my original post, I'd be happy with a base TS of 2 for TL1 or TL2 Rangers, as long as they get both Rec and Fire. But what would a good raise/maintain cost be? 48k$ and 10k$? Or should they cost more?

[The Benj]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

Titans have the same classes as Giants, and cost the same to raise and maintain, but they have much better TS. Is this deliberate? I can't see the logic.

The only advantage I can see is that Giants are potentially transportable (WT 8, as compared to a Titan's -) and are more useful as Engineers (as that's partially based off WT), but that doesn't seem to much make up for being only 5% the TS, does it? Hmm...

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by The Benj

The only advantage I can see is that Giants are potentially transportable (WT 8, as compared to a Titan's -) and are more useful as Engineers (as that's partially based off WT), but that doesn't seem to much make up for being only 5% the TS, does it? Hmm...

Yeah, I can't help but think that the Titan element should have the same cost to raise/maintain as the Leviathan, rather than the Giants (and that the Flying Leviathan should too, instead of being the same to raise/maintain as the Sea Monster.)