the resounding dullness of the 800 point game.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 10:36 pm

Then people are too hung up on the +5 routed enemy bonus. Get rid of it. Tournament players. The rulebook gives four levels of victory. Perhaps it's time to look at them and base the scoring on that. Make it a 10 point scale, a decisive victory is +10, major victory is +8, moderate victory is +7, marginal victory is +6, draws are + 5, marginal loss +4, moderate loss +3, major loss +2, routed 0.
Games that don't end in a rout ARE being won and lost, people are just too fixated on the Decisive Victory. Even using the current tournament scoring, an army that finishes at 19-1 has a greater victory than the one that ended with a rout at 16-9.

MCollett · Post by **MCollett** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:07 am

gozerius wrote:Then people are too hung up on the +5 routed enemy bonus. Get rid of it.
…
Games that don't end in a rout ARE being won and lost, people are just too fixated on the Decisive Victory.

Game that don't end in a rout haven't ended. Crediting the person who happens to be ahead on points when a game is drawn due to lack of time with any form of 'Victory' is a polite fiction.

Best wishes,
Matthew

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:13 am

MCollett wrote:Game that don't end in a rout haven't ended. Crediting the person who happens to be ahead on points when a game is drawn due to lack of time with any form of 'Victory' is a polite fiction.

Best wishes,
Matthew

It is also a Benny Hill problem. e.g. The enemy only has 10% of his army intact. I have lost nothing but I can catch nothing as there is only LH. Is it fair to say I have done worse than 2 knight armies that mostly charged straight ahead and destroyed each other, but 1 of them managed to hang off destruction by a BG of poor LF. Presently, thankfully, no.

Jungle_Rhino · Post by **Jungle_Rhino** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:31 am

I'm not at all experienced in FoG but I think that the problem here is more to do with a poorly defined definition of what constitutes a 'victory' rather than the scoring system.

Throughout history armies have fought for many different reasons, often the reasons directly reflected the troop types and doctrine employed.

The Saracens would harrass the Crusader armies with geurilla style hit and run tactics usually looking to defeat the crusaders operationally rather than tactically.
Conversely knightly armies usually sought victory through a mighty clash of arms.

Those are two extreme ends of the spectrum but there are clearly different definitions of victory there.

Perhaps even different armies could have different victory conditions, like different terrain types? e.g. Sacking a camp could be more valuable for a light horse army and provide an incentive for them to launch a decisive strike against a defensive position. Points for table control is the other obvious one.

benos · Post by **benos** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:52 pm

to be honest this is a problem with every ruleset of pretty much every game, having played WAB with table quaters, people take a couple of small units of skirmishers with which to contest or hold quaters as they dash for them in the last game turn.
the problem is that no matter how you write the rules someone will try and find a way to use them, that someone else will not enjoy.
to be honest my attitude at the few tournies i've been to (coupe of DBM a few WAB, and i've run a couple of WAB one day campaign days, hope to try a FOG tourney at some point over the next year or so) is to go along and get in some games, and to learn something, i don't expect to win (though i have won a WAB theme before , doubt i'll be that good in FOG) so if someone beats me then fair enough, if i win, then thats good too.
so just go to the game and enjoy it,
if your opponent has an army you can't beat, damm the torpedos, charge them down, take a few with you and go to the Bar, there is always the next round.

Ben

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:40 pm

Control of the battlefield was not normally a big thing in Ancient times. Campaigns tended to go on for a while then there would be a battle and more likely than not one side would be badly mauled and flee. In other periods a key bridge, crossroads or rail junction could make all the difference, in Ancient times unless it was a mountain pass generally speaking there was no benefit to holding the field.

Xelee · Post by **Xelee** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:50 pm

While big battles ending in clear routs (when one side breaks, the actual casualites occur) are what I'd think of as 'normal' for ancients and medievals, that may be an artifact of historical reporting. All of the really boring stuff, the long protracted activites up in the hill country or whereever when lesser/lighter forces had to be slowley subjugated over time, are the types of campaigns that tend to get 'summed up' in histories. It's the grand decisive battles that get the detailed reports.

My big issue with the FOG system is that IMO some games are simply more fun than others. It takes quite a long time to bring a LH//Cav army to battle when they don't want to, unless you get the right fall of terrain. The right fall of terrain is a pretty rare matter for a combination of reasons so no matter how much you may desire to get stuck in to at least die gloriusly and head for the bar early, you are probably 'looking forward' to the full four hours of tedious grind. This may mean half of a weekend day spent measuring moves turn after turn after turn and rolling endless CTs

The FOG mechanics are more fun for certain matchups than others.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:09 pm

Xelee wrote:The FOG mechanics are more fun for certain matchups than others.

Life, games and war the same then

Xelee · Post by **Xelee** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:33 pm

Well in life and war, it is neccessary to fight your battles. It is not so in gaming (how many of us play only one system, really?), where it is neccessary only to have fun.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:31 am

Well play someone you can beat every time.

Xelee · Post by **Xelee** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 12:32 am

What has this neccessarily got to do with beating people Phil?

ethan · Post by **ethan** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 2:35 pm

Xelee wrote:All of the really boring stuff, the long protracted activites up in the hill country or whereever when lesser/lighter forces had to be slowley subjugated over time, are the types of campaigns that tend to get 'summed up' in histories. It's the grand decisive battles that get the detailed reports.

It is also my belief that this is what FoG is intended to simulate. Not day/weeks/months long campaigns of small unit actions and ambushes. Undoubtedly these were a feature of ancient warfare, but not a feature I believe these rules are intended to simulate.

I have often thought it would be great if there was an equally well done set of skirmish rules for simulating this and all sort of low level fights on a 1 figure=1 man scale that would let you do a fight say between your Norman lord, his retainers and the enemy or a group of Roman legionairres marching into the hills to chase down some bandits.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:32 pm

Xelee wrote:What has this neccessarily got to do with beating people Phil?

Winning is always more fun.

gozerius · Post by **gozerius** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:14 pm

I can think of a number of campaigns where the armies met across a valley and stood and watched the other, sizing them up. Then one or the other decided it wasn't worth the risk and went home. So why shouldn't we see the same sort of behaviour from our tabletop commanders? Also some battles were ended prematurely due to night falling, weather etc. Steppe armies in particular were known to withdraw in good order if things weren't going their way. Better luck tommorrow. You want to increase the chances of decisive victories? award APs for killing enemy generals. (1 AP for TC, 3 for FC, 5 for IC). Or make the CT for seeing a commander die apply to everyone in command range. Probably helps the slipperier armies, though.

Skullzgrinda · Post by **Skullzgrinda** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:42 pm

gozerius wrote:I can think of a number of campaigns where the armies met across a valley and stood and watched the other, sizing them up. Then one or the other decided it wasn't worth the risk and went home. So why shouldn't we see the same sort of behaviour from our tabletop commanders? Also some battles were ended prematurely due to night falling, weather etc. Steppe armies in particular were known to withdraw in good order if things weren't going their way. Better luck tommorrow. You want to increase the chances of decisive victories? award APs for killing enemy generals. (1 AP for TC, 3 for FC, 5 for IC). Or make the CT for seeing a commander die apply to everyone in command range. Probably helps the slipperier armies, though.

I agree. Some people seem to want a cage fight rather than the potentials of a field engagement.

Skullzgrinda · Post by **Skullzgrinda** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:45 pm

philqw78 wrote:
Xelee wrote:What has this neccessarily got to do with beating people Phil?
Winning is always more fun.

Usually. One exception comes to mind. A very close loss after a wild, vicious fight is better than an easy win - IMO.

I speak of games only. In real life I want to win without fighting, per the Venerable Sun Tzu.

Xelee · Post by **Xelee** » Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:11 pm

philqw78 wrote:
Xelee wrote:What has this neccessarily got to do with beating people Phil?
Winning is always more fun.

Well, it may be for you. I always find the close games between guys I generally do not play but who pull out one unexpected move after another, and do not make simple mistakes, to be the most satisfying, even if I lose. So I think there is room for a few more distinctions in how you rank options.

Personally, spending four hours to eventually 'win' a game of toy soldiers seems a little pyrrhic. I do agree however that spending four hours to finally lose a game is definitely the worst option no matter how you rank them.

Cerberias · Post by **Cerberias** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 4:38 pm

Gidday blokes, first time posting.

For me, I prefer a fight against an opponent that takes strategic skill and tactical knowledge to beat, instead of a simple line-up and roll dice sort of fight. An army that you win or lose based on a few key decisions instead of getting the right troops into the right enemy troops so that you have the advantage. Playing against a LH army or other skirmisher army takes lots of skill to beat for certain armies, and thats what makes a game fun in my eyes.

I mean, I play for the thrill of taking on a good opponent and out-thinking them, not out-rolling... although with all dice games that does come into it somewhat

.

johno · Post by **johno** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:37 pm

Um, but surely

getting the right troops into the right enemy troops so that you have the advantage

is part of the Skill set?

and knowing which are the Right troops to throw against something is part of the Knowledge?

or am I missing something here?

Irony is so hard to do in plain text...

johno

Cerberias · Post by **Cerberias** » Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:39 pm

Sorry, bit tired. Just trying to say that from what little I have played, I enjoyed the challenge of taking on a skirmisher army more than taking on a player who just wants to get stuck in for a win or loss. With the game going on longer theres more chance for strategies to take effect and tactics to evolve, which is what draws me to this game.

the resounding dullness of the 800 point game.

competitions