(c'est la magie du net) :"
I was reading through a French wargame blog, in which Might and
Reason was being discussed, and noticed that some players felt that
the points-system was unbalanced in favor of the Prussians. Jean-
Philippe Imbach, for instance (editor of Vae Victus) expressed dismay
that a Prussian musketeer unit was only about 20% more expensive
(10pts vs. 8pts) than its Austrian equivalent, when in fact the
Prussians, on a One Unit – vs. - One Unit basis, are much more
effective than that against most of their foes, given their huge
advantage in firepower.
This is a common complaint among beginning players, particularly if
they play their first game on the receiving end of a line of
bluecoated musketeers. Even after players become experienced and
learn the nuances of controlling the initiative to set up one’s
musketry to one’s advantage, opening fire at either long or short
range, depending upon the tactical situation, and choosing when to
close with the bayonet... Some players still feel that the Prussians
are either over-rated or “too cheap” on points.
I think perhaps this misconception stems from the fact that most
points-based games assume an absolute or fixed scale where a point is
a point, across all armies, period. (Consider, for instance, a
Warhammer Ancients game, in which all armies are 1500 pts.) Might
and Reason is different, in that the points are on a sliding scale
that varies with each national army and changes depending upon what
Skill level of commander you choose.
Frederick seems to be getting a bargain on those 10-point Musketeers,
until we consider that he has only 140 points to spend, while Marshal
Daun has 180 to spend. A difference of 40 points, in this game, is
effectively an entire Force of 4-6 brigades.
Let us re-consider the “cost” of units, but this time as a percentage
of their army’s total available points. Let’s assume that each army
uses the best-possible commander available. So, for instance:
A Prussian 7 SP musketeer unit, costing 10 pts, represents 7% of the
Prussian army’s points.
An Austrian 6 SP musketeer, however, costing 8 pts, represents 4% of
the Austrian army’s points.
And a French 5 SP musketeer, costing 7 pts, represents only 3% of the
Bourbon army’s points.
Thus you can see that a Prussian musketeer does indeed cost almost
twice as much as its Austrian counterpart, in terms of what each army
has available to spend.
The game curves this way deliberately. I wanted to establish some
sort of equilibrium between armies, yet also make the smallest army
(Prussia) big enough to feel like an “army,” while the biggest army
(the Bourbons) shouldn’t be so huge that it’s impossible to collect
and paint.
Many things about army-balance are intangible. How, after all, does
one decide what a commander’s Skill is “worth?” I did actually
calculate how many extra CDs a “Great” commander would get, over a
“Good” commander, over an average number of turns in an average
game... and so on. But even then, one can’t really establish any sort
of absolute values for such things, because one doesn’t know how
those CDs will be used. (And besides, what good is it to get lucky on
the Command Dice if you get unlucky on the D4 and roll a bunch of
short turns where you dump all your excess, wasted CDs out...?)
And then of course the cheaper cost of units also means that an
army’s breaking point rises higher, which is extremely important.
That is part of the “bonus” of buying lots of cheap units: assuming
you don’t lose them in incredible quantities!
So I’ll be the first to admit that point-systems aren’t scientific.
They are, at best, educated guessing. But you should at least know
that I was aware of the appearance of imbalance in the army lists.
Might and Reason is by far the most extensively playtested game I
have ever been involved with, and I do think we got this more or less
“right.”
all the best,
Sam "
sinon le Prussien inflige toujours une moyenne de 2,33 touches vs 1,5 pour l'Anglais.
