A Points System for Lasalle

Honour Forums » Lasalle » Army Lists

A Points System for Lasalle

(20 posts) (10 voices)

Started 1 year ago by cam_millar
Latest reply from Prinny

Tags:

No tags yet.

cam_millar
Member

Below is a first attempt at a points system for Lasalle. Probably Sam should stop reading about now ...

I will post seperately all the whys and hows – but suffice to say this is very much a first draft and has been provided in the vague hope that there may be the odd other person (or the other odd person) interested in this sort of thing.

Otherwise, just consider it an attempt to spark a debate on the best and worst Lasalle units and lists...

==================
Cam's Lasalle Points System v1.0

Infantry
Base cost for infantry unit = 10
+1 if Guard
+2 if Valiant
-0.5 if Unpredictable
-2 if Shaky
-1 if Amateur
-2 if Irregular
-2 if SK0
-1.5 if SK1
+1.5 if SK3
+2 if rifle
-1 if Linear Tactics
+1 Entrenchments
Multiply total by 1.3 if large

Cavalry
Base cost of cavalry unit = 9
+1 if Guard
+2 if Valiant
-0.5 if Unpredictable
-2 if Shaky
-1 if Amateur
-2 if Irregular
+2 if Lance
+2 if Shock
+0.5 if Pursuit
Multiply total by 1.5 if large

Artillery
Base cost of cavalry unit = 8
+2 if Horse
+1 if Heavy
-1 if Light
-1 if 3 Guns
+2 if 5 Guns

-2 for Each Subcommander except if French, Polish, Italian, British, Brunswick, or Prussian (Liberation/Hundred Days)
+1 each SK base
-10 if Send in the Guards

A few examples:
An Austrian Conquest infantry unit (Rel/Exp/Sk1, Large, Linear Tactics) would be 10 -1.5 -1 *1.3 = 9.75pts

Old Guard Lancers (Val/Exp/Guard/Shock/Lance, large) would be 9 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 2 * 1.5 = 24pts

Prussian Landwehr (Unpredictable/Amateur/Sk1) would be 10 – 0.5 – 1 – 1.5 = 7pts

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

Why a points system?

In taking some lapsed Napoleonic gamers, through Lasalle some common responses emerge (other than they like the game!):

* My army is based on [insert obscure historic formation] but I can't use it...
* I have a unit of French lancers - but I can only use them if I have four of them ...
* I have painted a random variety of troops, but I can't seem to use them together ...
* It will take time to get my army up and running, I want to play smaller games with combined arms...
* You seem to need cavalry to win, but there seems to be a LOT of it in every game, can't we just use a couple of units …
* Some of the support choices (particularly the allies) look similar but there is often some that are obviously better value ...

Essentially they want to play with something a bit different than the standard army lists. But I am afraid just putting some troops on the table does not quite fit the local culture - we like to pretend we are playing balanced games.

I would love to say that the points system above was based on careful consideration of the relative merits of units, simulations of performance and a large number of test games. Alas no.

Instead it was a rather crude attempt to back-fit the army lists in the game. What points system could generate something so that the Core Lists were all about the same points, and the Supports Lists were about the same points? Could I derive the secret hidden points system in Sam's head by bashing away with a spreadsheet?

There is a vast number of ways to fit the data. The only constraint I had was to try to have sensible relative points (so all other things equal, a unit with better skirmishers say should be worth at least the same points as one with worse skirmishers) and to be “elegant” - use the fewest possible variables to explain the data.

Some things made sense. But many things did not. Some examples:

I had expected the Reserve Supports to be worth more than Organic Support so I could add a “Reserve Support” negative points cost to reflect that they only are on the table for a part of the game. However, on this points system Reserve Supports are generally worth about the same as Organic Support. They just generally offer troops you can't otherwise get.

I struggled with artillery's relative value – since nearly all list have artillery what base point you use for artillery does not really batter. Lists with 2 batteries suggested artillery is relatively cheap but the 3-battery Russian Reserve Support suggested it must be quite expensive. I choose cheap.

I could not work out any sensible “Send in the Guard” modifier – so just picked a nice round number.

I have not worked out the values for the extra attacking units. I ignored the Spanish and Ottomans. I ignored some special rules.

And so on ...

One way to test if the points system makes sense is to look at the outliers. The Core Lists are generally 65-75 points. But some fall well outside this range.

The Good:
Russian Grenadier 83pts
British Light Division 80pts
Prussian Conquest Infantry 80pts
Austrian Avant-Garde 77pts
The Bad:
French Guard (Empire/100 Days) 58pts
Saxon Infanty 61pts
British Pensinsular 62pts

One caveat is that some of these lists may have bad or good support choices that balance out. But is there anyone who thinks that these points are obviously wrong?

For support brigades, most fit in the 45-55 points range, but there are outliers. Again, anyone think the following are silly?

The Good:
reserve French Guard Cav (Liberation) 65pts
organic Austrian Grenz 61pts
organic Prussian Infantry Abteilung 60pts
reserve Prussian Cavalry (1806) 60pts
The Bad:
allied Confed Rhine Cavalry (Liberation) 27pts
Russian Reserve Artillery 30pts
allied Dutch Cavalry (Hundred Days) 36pts
allied Confed Rhine Cavalry (Peninsular) 36pts
allied Italian Cavalry (Peninsular) 38pts

[Is there anyone who would really want to take Confederation of the Rhine cavalry (2 Large Shaky Amateur Pursuit Cavalry and a 3 gun med horse battery) instead of the standard French Light cavalry (1 Reliable Experienced Pursuit, 2 Reliable Amateur Pursuit, and 2 3-gun Medium horse batteries)?]

My view is that you really need combined arms in Lasalle. Most of the Inf + Cav combinations have fairly similar points in the 115-125 pts range, but there are exceptions, for instance:

The Good:
Prussian Infantry + reserve Cavalry (Conquest) 140pts
French Guard Infantry (1813) + reserve Guard Cavalry (1813) 137pts
Russian Grenadier + reserve Cuirassier or Light Cav 132pts
Austrian Avante Garde + organic Hussar 130pts
Austrian infantry + organic Hussar (Conquest) 128pts
Russian Guards + organic Cuirassier 128pts
British Light Brigade + reserve Dragoon 128pts
The Bad:
French Infanty + Confederation Cavalry (Peninsular or Liberation) 98 pts
French Infantry + Italian Cavalry (Peninsular) 100pts
British Infantry + organic Dutch Cavalry 103pts
Guard Infantry + reserve Guard Cavalry 103pts

Enjoy (and well done for making it this far).

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
buttridi
Member

The lists really aren't set up for this type of thing and would need to be re-formated,
Such as
French Peninsular
0-1 Dragoons
2-4 Veteran Infantry
4-6 Conscript Infantry
.......etc...etc
And then Add __% points for the attacker.
This would let you customize it a little but keep it in line with the forces available. I'm not convinced Sam's method is not good enough though I do miss "pointing up a force" as that was always part of the fun. And certainly as it stands there are some troops that will never see the light of day. (It seems my suspicion that the French Guard is not good enough for the "send in the guards" rule might have something to it).

Posted 1 year ago #
Sam Mustafa
Le Grand Fromage

"Could I derive the secret hidden points system in Sam's head by bashing away with a spreadsheet?"

That's like searching for the hidden unicorn in the zoo. Somebody will sooner or later have to break the bad news that there's no such thing as Unicorns!

But if you are determined to go this route, then I'd like to offer some considerations:

How many points are deducted if an army has to use the "Linear Tactics" rule? How many points is "Superior Commander" worth? How many points for having a wider array of Allied brigade choices from one Theatre to another? How many points for having better dice roll chances to get more Vigorous subcommanders, or better tacticians? How many points to add to the Austrian Grenzers for their special ability to break into SK bases, despite being only SK1 battalions?

That way madness lies.

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew
Member

cam_millar
Below is a first attempt at a points system for Lasalle.

I follow the rule if it aint broke dont try to fix it!!
Sams Game is excellent and thankfully means that not every french army is made of Guards..( a sad fact but points systems often means players will only by the best troops and dont have any variety)

Personally I am pleased their is no points system, and the games play very well as they are, I cannot see how a points system will improve the game, sorry to be negative.

Posted 1 year ago #
buttridi
Member

( a sad fact but points systems often means players will only by the best troops and dont have any variety)

lol.....players will always play the best troops....points or not. And I don't think you will have to worry about seeing the French Guards so much.......not because of lack of points.

Posted 1 year ago #
Gun-Pit Paul
Member

I prefer historical scenarios (well, nearly historical), so no points system for me.
Which is why I choose these rules.

Posted 1 year ago #
Rupert of Hentzau
Member

Building up a nice Napoleonic army is a labour of love. Many of us have forces that have been in the field longer than any of the sets of rules that have come and gone. I am mainly a 28mm player, and I cannot see anyone spending the time and money to make an army just for LaSalle on the basis that is a supposedly superior mix of brigades. People are motivated by what they have read of a particular army, and what figures excite them.

If there is any purpose for a points system I think it is more along the lines of which forces are already owned by gamers and appear too weak and need to be revised in some way. For this too happen the first thing is for a gamer to pay 10 games plus with their list and then use this forum to propose changes.

I am only up to about 7 games, but in 28mm I think the biggest possible flaw is that with a Core force and 1 Add-on, the off table Brigades are too hard to get on and the player with strong cavalry forces that can start on table have too much of an advantage. Having said that I won my last game when my off table Cuirassiers arrived in the nick of time to save my Austrians from having to take a Break test.

I worry that players who already have British in particular will not be tempted to do another army, but might be tempted just not to play. We have a 2 day Napoleonic convention coming up in September and I am hoping the LaSalle competition there will give us a better handle on how well Sam has got the balance.

Overall I would have to say that LaSalle has got me excited about Napoleonic’s again after several years feeling flat on the period, and despite pre4viously announcing that the 3,000 figures I have were enough, I have ordered more - so well done Sam.

Cheers
Bryan

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

"If there is any purpose for a points system I think it is more along the lines of which forces are already owned by gamers and appear too weak and need to be revised in some way."

This was certainly my main motivation. My French cavalry for instance consists of 1 Hussar, 1 Chasseur, 1 Lancer, and 1 Dragoon regiment. We play these as the standard Light Cavalry list, but keep forgetting the Lancer is really just another Hussar and the Dragoon a Chasseur.

An alternative would be to play the units as they look, but tinker with their grading so the Brigade was not too strong.

Actually, on the points I derived, this combination is within the normal variation for a support list, but if I wanted to try to balance it out, I could:

* downgrade the Hussar to Reliable; or
* downgrade one of the Dragoon, Lancer or Chasseur units to Shaky; or
* downgrade any two of the regiments to Amateur; or
* add a "bad" subcommander

I personally like the idea of having a few choices like this - I like tinkering with army lists.

"I think the biggest possible flaw is that with a Core force and 1 Add-on, the off table Brigades are too hard to get on and the player with strong cavalry forces that can start on table have too much of an advantage."

That is starting to be my view as well - cavalry is mandatory, and organic support cavalry highly preferred.

"We have a 2 day Napoleonic convention coming up in September..."

I think there is also one proposed for July in PN as well? I am certainly hoping to get to one or both. Can't wait to play in a Napoleonic Tournament. Believe my last one was in 1981!

Ca

Posted 1 year ago #
Andrew
Member

Rupert:
"I cannot see anyone spending the time and money to make an army just for LaSalle on the basis that is a supposedly superior mix of brigades."

That would be me and several others that I know off, That are either starting from scratch or rebasing existing armies to fit with these rules. Having played many tiresome rulesets over the years these rules are a breath of fresh air to the concept of napoleonic gaming.

Cam:
"The Bad:
French Guard (Empire/100 Days) 58pts
Saxon Infanty 61pts
British Pensinsular 62pts"

Currently I am building up a Saxon core list based around the VII corp of 1812, with an organic cavalry support, having play tested using sabots. Whilst I may agree they are not the strongest core using your points system, Its the tactics as a commander using these troops that wins the day.

I can see why a points list would serve a purpose for some players, but my concern is that Sams efforts at designating the quality of troops is fairly accurate therefore each nations designations as written in the rules:

i.e. Polish Infantry = reliable / experienced / sk2
Bavarian dragoon = Reliable /Experienced /Pursuit

should remain as is and could not be upgraded etc.

i.e. polish infantry = valiant / experienced / sk3
bavarian dragoon = valiant / experienced / shock / pursuit

therefore maintaining the integretity and values of each nation respectively. Thus avoiding the superman syndrome I have seen appear on gaming tables from many points based systems.

Posted 1 year ago #
Grinner
Member

I can see the allure in a point value system in that it takes all the intangibles and boils it down to cold hard numbers, not to mention allowing for force customization, but I agree with Sam in that the way this rule set is set up, from it's very core, that this may not be appropriate. Take the Spanish army list for example. Most of its units are crap, but they have a lot working in their favor that can't be expressed by unit values alone. And for every value you've assigned to a particular statistic, one could argue a different value. Why value valiant above guard. Valiant gets you nothing if you fight another valiant unit, whereas guard still gets you the +2 dice. Why penalize an irregular unit? They may not be appropriate for battles with a lot of open terrain, but I've had great success with my irregular Grenzers as an Austrian. They're great for advancing across bad ground or holding a forest and turning it into thorn in my enemy's side. Or to follow Sam's line of questioning, how many points for my Austrian's ability to form mass formation?

I agree also that the main issue is those that already have their armies built, the old guard as it were. I've only recently gotten into the Napoleonic era of miniatures through a friend, though I've been playing miniatures of other forms for years. I was introduced to the Lasalle rule set before ever buying my first mini. As such I've been able to tailor the purchase and assembly of my army to fit the Army Builder list. For someone like me, having a predefined selection of units, with the variety coming in what I choose to take as my support choice, makes building my first army much easier than if I were confronted by some monstrously confusing spreadsheet nightmare of point values. This may make a few of the grognards curse me and my progeny but my experience in tabletop gaming before being exposed to Lasalle was in Warhammer Fantasy. That is a rule set currently in its seventh iteration, and you need a computer program just to build a unit because there are so many damn numbers to crunch just to build a relatively small army.

I've always loved the Napoleonic era, I was an avid fan of Horatio Hornblower and Richard Sharpe when I was younger and the focus of my history minor was in Napoleonic Europe, but the sheer expenditure of time and money needed to gain entrance to the gaming world of the Napoleonic era was always so far out of my reach that I never thought I'd get involved aside from the occasional con. I can build an army from the AB list without bankrupting myself (thanks in large part of course to the Victrix plastic box sets, though granted it's going to be a monstrous bit of kitbashing to make my British minis look like Austrians, wrong shakoes, no mustaches, etc). What Lasalle has done is made Napoleonic wargaming accessible to the average gamer like myself, not just the hardened veteran, and this may or may not be a good thing from the vet's point of view, but I can't imagine having a lot of new blood getting involved and excited about Napoleonic gaming is a bad thing.

Hmm... on reflection that post veered off sharply from the topic, didn't it?

Posted 1 year ago #
eljeffe418
Member

In addition to what guyot and grinner said, simply put; A lack of a points system forces you to take that shaky/sk0/whatever unit instead of just twinking out four units and adding a battery, thereby making you plan your maneuvers more. This, in turn, makes you a better general. I'd rather play a varied Corps instead of having a few LeRoy Brown Battalions. (The baddest Batts in the whole damn town)

That said, could I see a points system for Reserve battalions? Yeah that would make some sense as long as your core army is preserved. But it takes a bit more to make a points system than just arbitrarily assigning numbers.

Posted 1 year ago #
buttridi
Member

addition to what guyot and grinner said, simply put; A lack of a points system forces you to take that shaky/sk0/whatever unit instead of just twinking out four units and adding a battery, thereby making you plan your maneuvers more. This, in turn, makes you a better general. I'd rather play a varied Corps instead of having a few LeRoy Brown Battalions. (The baddest Batts in the whole damn town).
----------------------------------------------------------
You can't use the points system without a framework - see my earlier post. You use it with revised lists where inside each army structure you have minimums that must be met....so you are in effect not 100% customizing your force. It allows people to play with there current troops not having to paint more. The lists aren't set up that way, and I think even most Nap players with existing troops are going to have to get something added to make there force for LaSalle work.

Posted 1 year ago #
cam_millar
Member

I have already lost this war - feel a bit like General Mack ...

I suspect this is one of the those things where most of us agree with the end goal, but not the means.

Presumably no one thinks that Sam's AB lists are a complete representation of all the armies in the Napoleonic Wars. They just provide a few balanced lists that provide a reasonable feel for the armies and can be used against each other for a "fair" contest.

If I am using 1812 French, the list tells me there is exactly one way I can have my core division. Does that cover all the possible ways we could classify all the troops in all the 1812 French Corps? Course not.

If someone thinks that Davout's 1st Corp was the bee's knees, of course they can decide his infantry were Elite. If they think the provisional regiments in other Corps were worse than average, of course they can treat them as conscripts. If they think during the retreat the French infantry were not quite as enthuisatic and they should be Shaky then go for it.

The issue is what is the best way to do this while continuing in the AB approach of competitive balance.

We could pester Sam to give us more official army lists, but he has pretty much indicated he is finished.

For a lot of people the answer seems to be, don't sweat it - just put some figures on the table, push them around, and see what happens. Or play an unequal scenario. Or refight a battle. Or wait till you have played 50 games and then work it out.

My approach was to try to derive something from the army lists that would allow me to do this now.

So if someone said "let's play an AB game, but I want to use the French 30th Ligne as my core choice - they are 5 Elite Infantry with a 4 gun med battery" I would say fine - that seems (on my points system) to be an AB sized army - but I would only let them have only 2 Veteran infantry if attacking.

Or they might want to use elements of the 12th Division from Victor's Corp and say "I am using 4 Veteran and 3 Conscripts with a 4 gun med battery - I am treating the Provisional regiment as conscript". Again, that seems to me to be a AB size game.

Would these armies be fair AB armies - no idea. Probably only Sam can tell us (go on Sam, are they?). But they are a starting point (or, given the reaction so far, an ending point).

With the free Nafziger OOBs now available it is very easy to find real Napoleonic forces. Sam has given us most unit characteristics. But we have no mechanism to turn them into AB size armies.

Personally I think if Lasalle is to develop as a competition game on the scale of FoW, DBM, FoG, or Warhammer, then it will have to find a way to inject a lot more variety in the armies. Fighting, or fighting with, Empire French Infantry + Light Cavalry over and over may get old fast.

Cam

Posted 1 year ago #
Prinny
Member

Cam you could be right, that playing the same list over and over could get old fast.

But ....( You knew there would be one)

They joy is that you can change your support option, and get a new gaming experience.

As for the list option there is always this nice forum to post lists ideas and who knows Sam (great guy, could you pay for my next army im already thinking of getting?) may post it up as an official pdf.

As this game grows I hope that this sort of thing might happen, I mean here in little old NZ in the next few months we have 3 Lasalle tournies happening. As a new player to Naps this fills me with joy, and some of the old hands are dusting of their collections to show us how its done, and what a great sight a fully painted army is, though my brits are going to get smacked all over the table by them.

Posted 1 year ago #
Rupert of Hentzau
Member

"3 Lasalle tournies" ?

I am aware of Palmerston North in July and Upper Hutt in September.
Whats the other one?

Posted 1 year ago #
Prinny
Member

Panzershreck

Call to Arms

Napcon

Those are the ones I am aware of

Posted 1 year ago #
GamesPoet
Member

I'm very excited about how the Lasalle rules system is set up, and the opportunites it can provide.

Been far removed from this hobby for quite awhile, and only just coming back into it through WFB and 40K in the last 2 years, and both those are a good distance from the historical gaming I did as a youngster. The army lists give a player a sense of focus when building a force to use on the table top, with out all the math required for a points system.

About a half dozen relatively local guys have picked up Lasalle as a way to give Napoleonics a try, all of whom are quite familiar with WFB and 40K, yet they're looking for something different. They've decided to create British and French armies because of the new plastics available from Victrix and Perry. The army lists give us a way to make sensible and quick purchases without getting into all the math typically seen with the point systems for WFB and 40K. It is neat that the armies can be tailored by picking different support choices, and having the terrain setup the way its provided for in the rules will give more variety, too. Also, with time, money, and energy being what they are there are limits (imagine that!), and the army lists help aleviate some of the issues with these.

As Grinner gets at above, Lasalle and its list system helps with accessibility, and this can be a good thing for newer, journeymen, and veterans alike. I'm hoping this helps grow the hobby, and I'm glad the army lists have been provided.

Posted 1 year ago #
Rupert of Hentzau
Member

Prinny,

I had not heard of a laSalle comp at Call to Arms, Do you have any details as there is nothing on the Warlords website?

Posted 1 year ago #
Prinny
Member

Hi rupert it is in 28mm, 45 mm (ish) wide bases, i have asked one of the warlord crew to tweak the website so hope to have some info up there soonish, not going to be too serious. ( fingers crossed)

Tim

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.