Why?: Tabletop v. PC difference in warband size

[Lampros]

On the tabletop, you could bring a max of 15 men into combat (5 heroes and 10 henchmen), whereas in the PC game you can only bring 10 (5 heroes and 5 henchmen). Was the reason for this major change ever discussed? I was not around when the game was in development - or when it was first released - so I apologize if I am beating a dead corpse. But I really feel this change detracted from the gameplay experience in a number of ways. Among other things, 10 v. 10 seems less epic, and each mission seems to end too quickly. I would have preferred longer and fewer missions to rank up, if grinding is a concern. Moreover, a warband that has equal slot of heroes and henchmen seem to reduce the role or power of henchmen overmuch, because even in the aggregate they cannot stand against heroes. Even in role-play terms - for those who care about such things - It is way too "top-heavy." How many military organizations have as many officers as the grunts?

Anyways, the reduction of the warband size and the introduction of the Impressives are the two major deviations from the tabletop that I feel did not add anything to the game and only detracted from the final product. Why fix something that ain't broke?

[Greybush]

Originally posted by Lampros:

I think you may be perhaps misunderstanding the thrust of my argument. I am not saying the game should have had a larger warband out of vacuum. I am saying that there does not seem to have been a compelling reason to change the tabletop rules regarding the max warband size (15 per warband). So I am not sure someone wanting even larger warbands is relevant, as I am not making a preference argument but more a precedent argument.

I understand your argument, but you seem to have missed the part about balance.
Having a good balance with varying warband sizes is a lot harder to accomplish than with equally sized warbands. And as noted by Reaver, TT Mordheim did not have good balance.

Also, max size was indeed 20 units (Skaven, ofc) and minimum size was 12 (Witch Hunters). There were numerous ways to abuse imbalances, and that was with less control over how your units developed than you have here (you had to roll to determine whether you got a stat increase (and then which stat) or a skill).
So like I said, from a balance standpoint, 10 for all offered much more freedom for each unit.

[uddhava]

Originally posted by Lampros:

Originally posted by uddhava:

No, as long as you had the money, no problem. There was a postbattle dice roll (to complicated to explain but it was part of 'exploration, i.e. cashgeneration) which was called 'returnign a favor' which meant you could take a free hired sword. This was often used to take an ogre (which cost 80 gc to hire. In comparison, a rank 1 captain was about 60, and intial budget for a warband was 500 gc).

I see. How strong were they relative to heroes? Were they essentially the equal of 2 heroes the way the devs apparently intend them to be in the PC game?

Have a look :)
https://gurth.home.xs4all.nl/mordheim/Mordheim%20Living%20Rulebook.pdf

The short answer is: they differed. The ogre was expensive but really strong. The Ratogre was way more expensive but didnt cost upkeep as such (upkeep worked different, you couldnt not pay your warriors. Even with ♥♥♥♥♥♥ money you had enough for that, but true hired swords as in merenaries needed to be paid every battle). He did suffer from stupidity but that was not as bad as in the vidya game. The vampire was middle ground being extremely fastand strong but having less wounds (another major difference with the current system) etc. etc. The Possessed was a beast but expensive due to mutations. Its not a really clear cut answer. But overall, Impressives are pretty terrfying ( i still play, and my mate has beastman raiders, Minotaur is very annoying)

[Stardustfire]

A "Leader" in TT started with basic Stats of 4 Mostly, 8-10 Moral, and one or 2 LP. A standard Human got 3 roundabout, exept Moral, thats standard 7 (Skaven 5 Moral, but Agility of 4-5) .Impressive got for example 7 Str, coud have a stamina of 5, and several LP. And now take into account we talk about a W6 Compare System here and not (biggest downpoint for me at the PC game) about a 100 System.

[killershrike]

I played the tt a LOT back in the day, was active in the online community for it, and made a fair amount of custom content for it that was used fairly widely (warbands, hired swords, etc) though that was more than 15 years ago so my memory isn't 100% anymore.

Warband size and composition varied by warband, and part of the 'balancing' of a roster was that less good units came in more plentiful numbers. Thus Skaven were a weenie horde of shuriken hurling doom, for instance. But bringing every warband up to an assumed equal footing at equal numbers is a reasonable thing to do in a PC format, and is easier to 'balance', particularly given the choice for AI opposition to have a roughly mirrored line up.

Personally, I think the PC game take on it is better from a "gamist" perspective, though the original tt version was more flavorful and lore-appropriate for WH Fantasy. I also like that they buffed the heroes and the henchmen in the PC version as both are much more capable at the high end than in the tt.

I also like that they allow us to chose skillups and stat bumps vs randomly determining them, and I like that wyrdstone hunting was made an active part of the game rather than an after-battle roll off.

There are some things I would prefer were done a little differently in the PC interpretation, but all in all I actually prefer the PC version to the tt version mechanically.

So, yeah, I would have been fine with it if they had opted to retain the idea of different warband roster sizes and just "balanced" encounters by rating like the tt version, but I'm also ok with the decision to instead set relative unit strength and numbers to an arbitrary equilibrium. Personally, I never in a million years expected to see a blast from my personal past like Mordheim turned into a PC game, much less one that is a very reasonable approximation of the tt vs a in-name-only interpretation. And we get Necromunda too? Gobsmacked!

[Pizza_Lawyer_420]

The irony here is that in Mordheim you typically would have a larger group to work with where as in Necromunda you have a smaller group. In TT Mordheim there was a difference between Henchmen and Heroes, for Necromunda, not really. Thus having a different engine that can handel more stuff for Necromunda while having an engine that can't for Mordheim is backwards. Oh well.

[Lampros]

Originally posted by Pizza_Lawyer_420:

The irony here is that in Mordheim you typically would have a larger group to work with where as in Necromunda you have a smaller group. In TT Mordheim there was a difference between Henchmen and Heroes, for Necromunda, not really. Thus having a different engine that can handel more stuff for Necromunda while having an engine that can't for Mordheim is backwards. Oh well.

Maybe they should've made Necromunda first? ;)

Or better yet, Mordheim 2 should be made soon after?

[Lampros]

Originally posted by killershrike:

I played the tt a LOT back in the day, was active in the online community for it, and made a fair amount of custom content for it that was used fairly widely (warbands, hired swords, etc) though that was more than 15 years ago so my memory isn't 100% anymore.

Warband size and composition varied by warband, and part of the 'balancing' of a roster was that less good units came in more plentiful numbers. Thus Skaven were a weenie horde of shuriken hurling doom, for instance. But bringing every warband up to an assumed equal footing at equal numbers is a reasonable thing to do in a PC format, and is easier to 'balance', particularly given the choice for AI opposition to have a roughly mirrored line up.

Personally, I think the PC game take on it is better from a "gamist" perspective, though the original tt version was more flavorful and lore-appropriate for WH Fantasy. I also like that they buffed the heroes and the henchmen in the PC version as both are much more capable at the high end than in the tt.

I also like that they allow us to chose skillups and stat bumps vs randomly determining them, and I like that wyrdstone hunting was made an active part of the game rather than an after-battle roll off.

There are some things I would prefer were done a little differently in the PC interpretation, but all in all I actually prefer the PC version to the tt version mechanically.

So, yeah, I would have been fine with it if they had opted to retain the idea of different warband roster sizes and just "balanced" encounters by rating like the tt version, but I'm also ok with the decision to instead set relative unit strength and numbers to an arbitrary equilibrium. Personally, I never in a million years expected to see a blast from my personal past like Mordheim turned into a PC game, much less one that is a very reasonable approximation of the tt vs a in-name-only interpretation. And we get Necromunda too? Gobsmacked! :warpstone:

Thanks for your detailed take. I actually agree with you that many adjustments for PC were justifiable.

[vex]

As others have said, I just want to throw in that Mordheim TT was for the most part very poorly balanced. I'm glad they didn't go for a faithful adaptation.

As far as warband size in the PC game goes...I don't feel larger warbands would enhance the experience very much.

I feel this way because the most effective strategy in most matches is setting up choke points where you can keep engagements at a manageable size, holding the rest of your units in a reserve for when your front line starts to buckle. In most of my fights, 3-4 of my fighters hang back and swap with wounded fighters as needed. More units would just add to that reserve, which would just make matches take longer...not a good thing in my opinion.

The only benefit I can see from a larger warband is that it would dilute the value of any individual unit, making an injury or death less devastating to the warband. I don't really know if that would be good or bad.