Toughening Up CP Reprise

Wanted to give a follow up reflection on a modification to rules around CP that my group made a several months ago. As a general comment we are very conservative group and have made almost no changes to Impetus (the only one that comes to mind is using the Voluntary Interpenetration rule for evading instead of Involuntary.) We were finding in our play that with the various changes over the years CP had become less effective. Most troop types have some added benefit but CP has none. So what we have been experimenting with is allowing CP to keep half their impetus after the first loss until it reach 50% of its starting VBU. So a 8/5 CP would have its first hit become a 7/3 and move down 6/3, 5/3, 4/0. 6/3 units would become 5/2, 4/2, 3/0. What we have found is that the maintaining of a few extra impetus dice has made CP more effective in a rather subtle way. Hardly overturning the system but it is interesting how a couple of extra dice can have an impact. I am sure there other ways to strengthen CP and perhaps Impetus 2 may include some new features that make our approach redundant. As an aside, we have decided to follow the same approach for Elephants since we find this troop type under strength.

V2 is due soon and I'm sure this will be addressed then

We are certainly hoping for a lot in Impetus 2!

Trust me on this one

I think it is an excellent change as it maintains the "shock" power of the CP whilst also degrading their basic morale value (which is one of the problems with Large units - they suck up a lot of damage with barely a shrug) and they once again become something to fear as opposed to being one trick wonders that every single skirmisher targets because the payback for scoring a disorder on disorder loss is staggeringly huge.

I'd advise again this is being looked at in V2

One thing the OP does mention is the idea of troop type specific "special" rules which break or amend the norm. Do you think it is reasonable, and if so should all troops get one?

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:
One thing the OP does mention is the idea of troop type specific "special" rules which break or amend the norm. Do you think it is reasonable, and if so should all troops get one?

As discussed when this was first brought up other troops already get special rules, CP do not.

CL and CM get to evade, CL also get to oblique and ultimately are overpowered for what they are.

This is just an "in house" adaptation as we wait for Impetus 2. I only report to the Forum that this small change has made CP more effective in our games and gives them a small benefit to counter balance the effects of the changes in AI (specifically CM evading, quality and protected flanks.) The changes in AI have overall improved the game but have had a negative impact on CP in our experience (mainly by making it easier to disorder CP and all the negative consequences that come from this.)

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:
One thing the OP does mention is the idea of troop type specific "special" rules which break or amend the norm. Do you think it is reasonable, and if so should all troops get one?

As discussed when this was first brought up other troops already get special rules, CP do not.

CL and CM get to evade, CL also get to oblique and ultimately are overpowered for what they are.  

I think you are missing the point - its not a question about CP it's about all troops - should each troop type have a special rule \ ability?

[quote="Cyrus The Adequate"][quote="Granicus Gaugamela"]

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:
I think you are missing the point - its not a question about CP it's about all troops - should each troop type have a special rule \ ability?

THAT is the EXACT point.

All other troops already have special rules.

S can oblique and run through some terrain
FL can move as fast as medium cavalry with no terrain penalties in certain terrain and are often armed with Impetus reducing long spears
FP get additional protection from missile fire and generally get a B grade rating so they're good in melee, and they get flank support and they are frequently armed with long spear or pike and deny enemy mounted their impetus
CL get to oblique and evade and do the interpenetrating cab rank of death and a few others besides (as stated above CL are overloaded with battlefield capability, they get to play on a major battlefield as if they were a skirmishing party of raiders)
CM get to evade and move quickly despite being only marginally less VBU than the ultra heavies

CP, well, they get bugger all.

And for the most part they get negatives because they're generally classed as some kind of C grade rabble instead of being the formed noble horsemen who live for this kind of stuff.

And that means they don't even charge straight ahead very well because the ability to disorder them is pretty easy with a single skirmisher shot (who get additional effectiveness for shooting at mounted even though they may well be fully barded horses for CP).

Reforming them means they don't act cohesively as a group with their adjacent CP mates and that means they are required to go one out against opponents in line. And if they move more than one pulse in an activation then they generally disorder 2/3 of the time which leaves them as sitting ducks to get a disorder on disorder hit that takes away their Impetus bonus before they even get to use it.

They don't get any kind of bonus to countercharge which is something that they should be champing at the bit to do.

Their frequent C grade status means that even a straight ahead charge which should be their absolute core ability cannot be unleashed until the enemy is close, if they charge over a distance greater than 1 pulse (I am aware of the charge bonus that every single unit that can melee gets) in an activation then they are 66% likely to disorder and then a single melee hit takes off their Impetus bonus for the rest of the game. And if there are enemy skirmishers or light cavalry about then they are relatively easily lured into missile range and disordered and then weakened.

The special ability I would like to see for all melee based CP (ie non missile armed) is to get a bonus of 1 or possibly 2 on the discipline when charging straight ahead for their entire activation and for ALL CP to have the Impetus bonus progression as previously discussed.

I would also float the idea that if any unit charges then any adjacent CP unless they have lost 50% of their VBU must make a Discipline test NOT to charge alongside them unless those CP have previously been placed on Opportunity.

Heavy cavalry should be fearsome warriors using the best equipment and wearing the best armour. Instead they are all too frequently treated as a C grade rabble who are evenly matched against B grade medium cavalry (the better B discipline giving the VBU 6 CM effectively 7 dice against the VBU 7 discipline C CP) and that discipline bonus never goes away unlike the Impetus bonus.

I'm pretty sure that's the longest list of false or debatable claims and statements we've had here in a long while, even without the shouty use of BOLD.

However rather than point out where I would disagree and set off a long thread about CP which will achieve absolutely zero other than waste our time I think its best to suggest we wait til v2 as I'm 100% certain this is being addressed.

I was more interested in what the general feeling toward special rules for units was - should there be something that makes each troop type stand out, a "trick" for want of a better word?

I wouldn't necessarily say Cyrus that every troop type should get a special rule. Rather, it has been our experience that with the changes in AI CP generally don't perform as well as they used too with respect to other troop types. So for instance FP now get +1 CT bonus fighting mounted troops (that has been around for a while but wasn't in the original rules.) With the new rules concerning quality and protected flanks melee results have changed between troop types. Now it is true that CP get the benefit of these changes too but realistically a couple of extra dice at the high end doesn't seem to make much difference. But for instance there has been a notable improvement in our experience between a warband rolling 4 dice versus 6 (with the addition of two dice for two protected flanks) against CP. Again, overall I like the new rules but think they generally worked against CP as a class.

I'd agree the balance has shifted a little but I'm not sure the problem is actually as bad as it is made out here. The last tournament I played was won convincingly by a CP army.

I'm 100% certain there will be changes in V2 that make CP more powerful, but I was wondering more about the idea that other troop types should have a defining characteristic

One of the things that I like about Impetus is that any army can beat any other army. That makes Impetus very different from WRG 7 where there are impossible match ups. In a tournament situation a player on a lucky streak can go far. So it doesn't surprise me that a CP army could win a tournament.

I think GG's observations above have some validity. Most other troop types have some inherent benefits. I suppose that CP's inherent benefit (defining characteristic) is that they are the only troop type that can go higher than VBU 6 and impetus greater than 4 (the only exception I know of is Elite Mongol CM at VBU 7). Of course, they pay for their benefit with lots of points unlike most of other troop types.

As an aside, not all of GG's rules suggestions above are crazy.

The defining characteristic of CP seems to be their very hard hitting Impetus. Problem is that in the rules currently there are too many ways to remove this bonus, reducing the high cost CP equivalent to CM or even better CL in combat. I think the main change to fix CP is some way to maintain that Impetus bonus even after losses.

Now I think Impetus 2 will help this quite a bit when many CP will move 2 & charge 3-4, giving them a better chance for a first impact without being chipped away by shooting. Even still I'd like to see the Baroque system of keeping I until 50% VBU.

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:I'm pretty sure that's the longest list of false or debatable claims and statements we've had here in a long while, even without the shouty use of BOLD

Apparently false or debatable claims that you can neither counter nor debate...

Not sure what use you see a forum as if you want to comment randomly and then not address the facts that are raised but each to his own I guess.

remember all that happens if you keep the Impetus system of keeping your I until you've got 50% casualties is that you then have to upgrade Longbowmen and other infantry, otherwise you don't get anything like the historical interaction between these troop types.
And of course if you've upgraded these infantry to cope with Knights, you then have to change other mounted troops etc.

Jim Webster wrote:remember all that happens if you keep the Impetus system of keeping your I until you've got 50% casualties is that you then have to upgrade Longbowmen and other infantry, otherwise you don't get anything like the historical interaction between these troop types.
And of course if you've upgraded these infantry to cope with Knights, you then have to change other mounted troops etc.

Longbowmen is another debate entirely, exactly how there are some cavalry that outshoot the classic 100YW English longbowmen escapes me.

The interaction between longbowmen and knights is vital to any ruleset that covers the medieval period. It's like the interaction between legionaries and phalanx in the Hellenistic period (which is probably a bit trickier because our data might not be as good.)

The rules have to ensure that if longbowmen are in good order, knights do not casually ride over them.
Given that knights can hit with twelve or more dice to the longbowman's four in combat, this takes some working on. The longbowmen effectively have to get a casualty off the knights to make them lose their impetus, so they can lose 4 points of impetus, one for the casualty, one for the disorder and suddenly they're down to six dice.

I've played a lot of Baroque and really rate the system. We've taken it and are using it for Napoleonic and all sorts of things.
So I've nothing against the Baroque system of keeping Impetus until a unit is exhausted.
But
If we introduce that to Impetus it cannot be introduced on its own. Because instead of the knights in our example dropping from 12 to 6 dice because of the casualty, they'll drop from 12 to 10 and the longbowmen don't even warrant being regarded as a speedbump.

Jim Webster wrote:remember all that happens if you keep the Impetus system of keeping your I until you've got 50% casualties is that you then have to upgrade Longbowmen and other infantry, otherwise you don't get anything like the historical interaction between these troop types.
And of course if you've upgraded these infantry to cope with Knights, you then have to change other mounted troops etc.

Well that is the point. My experience over the years is that CP have weakened visa vie infantry in Impetus. The small adjustment we are using currently is meant to bring CP back into proper balance with other mounted types and infantry. So I disagree with your basic assumption that infantry would need to be adjusted upwards. That would defeat the whole point of our experiment.

Our play as changed with the new rules in AI. The breadth of an infantry line is now very important and one sees less single units hanging out by themselves. Longbowmen tend be grouped together and supported by other infantry such that they get the bonus of protected flanks. So in the old system a C class CP attacking Longbowmen, the Longbowmen would be rolling 4 dice in melee. Today they are rolling 6 or 7 dice. The difference has significant implications for the Impetus system and is why we see CP often under performing. Don't get me wrong, the overall changes are for the better and I like how FL and T units are better dealing with mounted types and warbands.

As an aside Jim, Longbowmen in Impetus probably should be using stakes when facing CP cavalry like the HYW French. And in your analysis what have the Longbowmen been doing for the past few turns with their firepower? If a French CP can get in on the Longbowmen untouched and without stakes and flank support I think they should be toast. Under AI they actually stand a better chance than they used to, even with our modification.

Granicus Gaugamela wrote:

Cyrus The Adequate wrote:I'm pretty sure that's the longest list of false or debatable claims and statements we've had here in a long while, even without the shouty use of BOLD

Apparently false or debatable claims that you can neither counter nor debate...

Not sure what use you see a forum as if you want to comment randomly and then not address the facts that are raised but each to his own I guess.

Sorry - I'm really trying not to engage too much because I know the problem you are discussing is going to be changed in the relatively near future. I'm not allowed to say anything specific because I've agreed with Lorenzo not to. Given that all I can do is try to suggest the problem is being addressed.

All that would be achieved by entering into debate would be to end up further discussing what is likely to be a dead end because this issue is (and has) already being addressed and the various discussions we would have would also be redundant.

Personally under normal circumstances I would be happy to discuss \ debate \ argue with you (particularly some of those "facts") but in this particular case we will achieve zero. I could and would happily try and pull your initial statements apart but all that would achieve is cause more debate (the internet and all that) to no actual effect.

So please can we just accept Lorenzo is on to this and move on?

I am happy to wait.

Impetus 2 should prove interesting. I wait with a bit of trepidation mainly because I didn't (unlike some others) really like the direction Baroque went in. Still, it is only a game in the end and I would say most of the changes Lorenzo has brought to Impetus have stood the test of time and improved the system.