Damn Light Horse again

[gozerius]

I don't think some people will ever be satisfied regardless of any tweaks to the rules. The tournament scene is based on a premise that any army should be as good as any other army at n points, and should play to conclusion in a relatively short timeframe. This premise is false. And is demonstrated time and again by the complaints on this and other boards about tournament results.

One major factor in players' dissatisfaction is the insistance that a game isn't proper unless a decisive victory can be achieved within the time allowed. Thus any army or plan or troop type which is seen as "unbeatable" within the tournament paradigm is considered unfair. But the problem is in the expectation of a decisive decision. The rules reflect a range of victory margins, but noone uses them because only a decisive decision is acceptable in the tournament paradigm. Everything else is not merely less satisfying, but utterly unsatisfying. It is this mentality that is the problem.

[Ghaznavid]

I agree wholeheartedly. I wonder if the abolishment of the +5 Bonus for an army rout would help at least somewhat in that regard?

[ShrubMiK]

Ditto.

I've suggested before that limiting the possible results to win, draw, loss - and making the margin of a draw pretty narrow so it is fairly uncommon, unless both players really want to sit on their hands and do nothing all game - would make a lot of sense. The main worry seems to be that a finer grained scoring system is needed to avoid ties in a short tournament format. I don't see this as a problem particualrly, the chess world has been dealing with it for years with much larger torunaments, plenty of tie-break systems atre used, which although may be slightly arbitrary are no more so than deciding who wins the tournament by the extra point they gained for dropping an enemy BG to fragmented on the last dice roll back in round 1!

And even then...if you have 16 players/teams, 4 rounds of win/loss results is enough to guarantee establishing a clear winner, 5 rounds for 32, 6 rounds for 64.

[grahambriggs]

I agree wholeheartedly. I wonder if the abolishment of the +5 Bonus for an army rout would help at least somewhat in that regard?

Surely that would reward playing for a draw in a competition? Why would we want to encourage people to do that?

[grahambriggs]

Ditto.

I've suggested before that limiting the possible results to win, draw, loss - and making the margin of a draw pretty narrow so it is fairly uncommon, unless both players really want to sit on their hands and do nothing all game - would make a lot of sense. The main worry seems to be that a finer grained scoring system is needed to avoid ties in a short tournament format. I don't see this as a problem particualrly, the chess world has been dealing with it for years with much larger torunaments, plenty of tie-break systems atre used, which although may be slightly arbitrary are no more so than deciding who wins the tournament by the extra point they gained for dropping an enemy BG to fragmented on the last dice roll back in round 1!

And even then...if you have 16 players/teams, 4 rounds of win/loss results is enough to guarantee establishing a clear winner, 5 rounds for 32, 6 rounds for 64.

True, assuming winners play winners. But there are problems:

- it only works if you have EXACTLY 16, 32, 64 players

- it only works for the winner. You'll get many on 2 wins 2 draws.

- what do you do with the prize if the top 2 players draw their last game? They'll be of similar skill level, so it is likely.

[hammy]

Personally I have to agree slightly that the idea of 800 point open tournament games on 6 by 4 tables is not the most exciting one but to be honest I have not actually played such a tournament since the rules were published so I am only basing this on gut feel.

My FoG tournament gaming to date has been made up of:

1000 point themed tournaments
900 point themed tournaments
900 point open tournaments
800 point themed tournaments
and 650 point open comps on 5 by 3 tables.

I have played a lot of tournament games yet so far have not played a single 800 point open tournament.

In DBM I prefered themed events so I suppose there is no big suprise that I prefer themed comps in FoG. If I do play open comps I have a plan that has a chance to deal with all types of opponents.

The idea of doing away with the win bonus is IMO a very poor one. It will incentivise the not lose crowd as the result will be that they will place as high in comps than players who win half and lose half.

6' by 3' tables may be worth a try. The full width means that there is still space for mounted armies to flap around the flanks and such but with a shallower depth the time factor will be more against them. Light horse work fine at 650 points on 5' by 3' so why should they be crippled on a 6' by 3' at 800. I think the light horse crowd have not thought this one through.

Scenarios sound like a good idea but when you try to come up with balanced and plausible ones for Ancient warfare it starts to get very hard. I don't think that this is a solution for tournaments but it may have a part in a campaign setting.

Changing break points or AP values might help but players will find ways to 'exploit' any system.

I have yet to have a game where more than a couple of BGs have fled off table so I don't see much value in 2 AP for an off table evade.

The idea about BGs disrupting if they rolled a maximum VMD on an evade is an interesting one. I would suggest that perhaps instead of an auto disrupt that a BG that evades either the maximum or even more than its normal move must take a CT which could result in disruption. After all troops running away fast may just keep on running.

The other suggestion I had about reducing the shooting effectiveness of skirmishers against non skirmishers seems to have not been considered neccessary but it would still be an option.

The fundamental issue seems to be that some players don't like playing certain types of army. Perhaps the solution is to have tournaments with "No light horse" themes or "Not many light horse". Either way I don't think this is a FOG issue, I think it is an Ancients issue in general. Many of us have been playing Ancients for decades and the issues with light troops have pretty much always been there. At least in FoG non-skirmishing foot bowmen do actually have a chance to hurt light horse which they didn't in DBM.

[ShrubMiK]

Graham, notice I did say something about making the margin of the draw small so it is quite unlikely to occur...

Using the Swiss system it is not so much a case of matching winners against winners, as it is of matching players on the same number of points together....so obviously you make sure to get pairings "right" at the top of the scoreboard and work down, ideally any funny pairings you are forced to use come towards the middle of the pack where they are unlikely to ultimately influence the outcome of the tournament. Odd numbers of players and the occasional draw I think are taken care of in this way.

If all goes perfectly until the last round, when the two leaders on 100% scores choose to draw by not moving from their deployment areas, well there's not a lot you can do about that. Countback won't separate them. Sum of opponents scores might well do so. Or you can split the combined prize money for 1st and 2nd place. Or flip a coin. Or blindfold somebody and get them to randomly stick a pin in one of the players. Perhaps better still, disqualify both of them for being wimps

Having more rounds than than log(2) of the number of players could also lead to problems, even with zero draws, since it is now possible for all players to lose at least one game. Again, some sort of tie-break or pooling of combined prize money doesn't seem that unappetising to me.

[kevinj]

Or you can split the combined prize money for 1st and 2nd place.

Prize Money? Where can I find these competitions?

[ShrubMiK]

Take up chess instead

Okay, if there is no prize money involved, you might say that the issue of how to spearated ties is arguably even less pressing!

[azrael86]

Sorry, I didn't want to start a flame! I thought with a such start of my post was clear I wanted to joke. I meant if you play tennis, you can do it with any racket, because they all hit a ball (of course more expensive rackets have greater performance, but you still them to hit a ball). In a wargame, army choice has a greater impact on your play, because different army = different game plan. Obvious, I know, but just to explain my thought.

No problem. Obviously if your heart's desire is to field Spartacus' army, then you are going to need a bigger budget. But if you are flexible then there are choices.

[azrael86]

I don't think some people will ever be satisfied regardless of any tweaks to the rules.

If you are suggesting that it isn't possible to write a perfect ruleset for ancient/medieval, then you are almost certainly right. For other periods, e.g. WW", Napoleonic, then you can write a ruleset and you can test it against actual results for all eventualities. If you can recreate most of the results as they happened, then it works. In ancients, even the well-documented battles are usually in need of considerable interpretation, and to top that we are trying to cover "what if's" like samurai invasions of Mexico.

Whether you think rules writing is an art or a science, it will develop, because that is the nature of the beast.

[mbsparta]

I don't think some people will ever be satisfied regardless of any tweaks to the rules. The tournament scene is based on a premise that any army should be as good as any other army at n points, and should play to conclusion in a relatively short timeframe. This premise is false. And is demonstrated time and again by the complaints on this and other boards about tournament results.

One major factor in players' dissatisfaction is the insistance that a game isn't proper unless a decisive victory can be achieved within the time allowed. Thus any army or plan or troop type which is seen as "unbeatable" within the tournament paradigm is considered unfair. But the problem is in the expectation of a decisive decision. The rules reflect a range of victory margins, but noone uses them because only a decisive decision is acceptable in the tournament paradigm. Everything else is not merely less satisfying, but utterly unsatisfying. It is this mentality that is the problem.

................. Do you really want to spend a day or two playing a game that has no winner or loser? Players that play to avoid defeat or use an army that cannot be beaten are the problem.

Mike B

[marioslaz]

................. Do you really want to spend a day or two playing a game that has no winner or loser? Players that play to avoid defeat or use an army that cannot be beaten are the problem.

Mike B

You got the heart of the problem. With certain coupling, game is a nonsense, because a side cannot make anything to win (side without mounted shooters) the other make the match but with a low chance to win (side with mounted shooters). But there is an error in all discussion since here. Many people play LH army because they love them. IMO it's not right to look at such people as evil players. I think it's possible to get a solution without to modify rules (like to weak LH that will be unhistorical). This is just a rough idea. We can introduce a scoring system alternative, we could call it, just for example, "Skirmishing scoring system". Before match start, a player with a mounted shooters army should state what kind of match he wants to play. If he wants to play a skirmish, both players use the alternative system to judge victory. This system is all to define, just for example you can imagine points for troops who leave the table after crossing it, of course of non shooters side.

[hammy]

You got the heart of the problem. With certain coupling, game is a nonsense,

Possibly but rather than nonsense it might be better to say with certain matchups a draw is the most likely result

because a side cannot make anything to win (side without mounted shooters) the other make the match but with a low chance to win (side with mounted shooters).

Here I don't agree. You don't need mounted shooters to deal with skirmishers or mounted shooters. You can deal with these troops in many other ways. My Early Libyans (famed for their mounted shooters) comfortably smashed a Mongol army for example.

But there is an error in all discussion since here. Many people play LH army because they love them. IMO it's not right to look at such people as evil players. I think it's possible to get a solution without to modify rules (like to weak LH that will be unhistorical). This is just a rough idea. We can introduce a scoring system alternative, we could call it, just for example, "Skirmishing scoring system". Before match start, a player with a mounted shooters army should state what kind of match he wants to play. If he wants to play a skirmish, both players use the alternative system to judge victory. This system is all to define, just for example you can imagine points for troops who leave the table after crossing it, of course of non shooters side.

But surely the issue here is that if the 'evil' LH player takes a skirmish army and can somehow win these non games by using the skirmish system then isn't that going to encourage more games of chasing thin air on the part of the 'righteous' plodding heavy foot armies?

[marioslaz]

because a side cannot make anything to win (side without mounted shooters) the other make the match but with a low chance to win (side with mounted shooters).

Here I don't agree. You don't need mounted shooters to deal with skirmishers or mounted shooters. You can deal with these troops in many other ways. My Early Libyans (famed for their mounted shooters) comfortably smashed a Mongol army for example.

I admit I have very little experience of gaming, but I played one time a game with an Italian Communal Army against a Steppe Army. My opponent was a good friend of me and sure he's not an "evil" player. We both love our armies, but after 3 hours we both have the feeling to have played for nothing: he rolled a lot of dice, breaking one of my knights BG, which I rallied because he had no chance to take an advantage of such situation, since I keep my army "very close" to avoid he could isolate some BG of mine. It would be quite different if I had the chance to score points in an other way; because with actual system I can score only if I break opponent BG, or if I push them out of the table, both near impossible with my army. I think that our feeling is the feeling of many players who compliant actual scoring system. Of course now you can say they use the wrong army, or they could use this or that tactic, or whatever else you "great players" are used to say to ordinary players. The problem is that many players:

• want to play with armies they love for reasons which are not of tournament game opportunity
• have not a lot of armies to play different tactics in relation to tournament options

If an ordinary player make hundred of kilometres in a weekend to participate to a tournament and play several such nonsense game, he likely will move to another game, where he could have more fun. Because this is the key. When I play, I don't need to win to have fun, I had a lot of fun in match I lost, but where I played my army in a way I like, This IMO is the needing of many ordinary players.
In Italy, they are starting to limit number of LH bases in tournament. This is not a solution, in my opinion, because in such way you negate to some player the chance to use their favourite armies. This is not a solution, as I said, this is the first step toward FOG end in Italy tournament.

[dave_r]

Perhaps that is just inexperience.

I had a agame with Bosporan against Medieval Castilian a couple of days ago - I had 12 BG's of skirmishers and 5 BG's of Cav Lancers. The Castilian had three BG's of Knights and some MF and HF as well as about 5 BG's of skirmishers. We had a cracking game which ended 18-7 to the Bosporan.

Although I won I still took around 70% casualties, so it is possible to break armies with skirmishers, you just need to take a few risks to do it. If you aren't prepared to take those risks then you aren't going to win. But that is the case for all armies and is a problem for players.

[rbodleyscott]

Aye, you really cannot make any realistic judgements regarding the FOG system after only a few games. The interactions are too complex for that.

(Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you are at liberty to make a judgement as quickly as you like. However, the path of wisdom is not to assume that you have analysed everything correctly so quickly).

In fact it is a good thing if players who cannot win with a LH army are bored by their games - with a bit of luck they will bring something different next time that they are capable of using in a more decisive fashion. But denying the use of LH armies to those who do know how to win with them is a rather unfair solution.

If tournament organisers are banning LH armies because they draw against HF armies, then logically they should ban the HF armies too, for the same reason.

Of course they could go for "Western Europe only" themes. (Which is rather historical. This is more or less what Western European nations have done throughout history: "we can't beat eastern steppe armies so let's just ignore them and hope they go away. They are all cads and bounders who won't fight like men anyway.")

[azrael86]

Of course they could go for "Western Europe only" themes. (Which is rather historical. This is more or less what Western European nations have done throughout history: "we can't beat eastern steppe armies so let's just ignore them and hope they go away. They are all cads and bounders who won't fight like men anyway.")

Last time I checked, this had been working for the last 1500 years....and those mighty steppe armies haven't actually been successful at all in Europe since the 13th century.

[dave_r]

Is that because they couldn't or because they couldn't be bothered?

Remember, military prowess is only one of a number of factors needed to succesfully invade and occupy another country.

When the Mongols ventured into Western Europe in the 13th Century, it was only the fact that the Great Khan died that saved all of Europe from a nasty ravage...

[rbodleyscott]

Is that because they couldn't or because they couldn't be bothered?

Remember, military prowess is only one of a number of factors needed to succesfully invade and occupy another country.

When the Mongols ventured into Western Europe in the 13th Century, it was only the fact that the Great Khan died that saved all of Europe from a nasty ravage...

And since then there has always been a strip of buffer states with armies half-way between Western European and steppe type armies (i.e. Poland and Hungary) for the Western European armies to hide behind.

But more importantly, after the 13th century Western Europe was heavily fortified, so winning battles with a steppe army would not win the war anyway.

And from the later 16th century on, European armies had enough fire power for steppe armies to be pretty much obsolete. This is pretty much the state of affairs in FOGR.