Non-equal points

[hazelbark]

Hearing a lot of discussion about campaign battles. What level of point differential do you still feel is worth having a battle? Now there will always be the army match up issues and the need to have the battle of Thermopylae or whatever. But in standard I recruited more than you

Assuming 800 points as the "norm"

+100 +200 ?

Also does it change materially if the "norm" splits the difference. I.E if the differential is 100, then side A has 750 points and side B has 850 points. And does that change the spread toleration?

[shadowdragon]

I've done 1000 vs 800; 875 vs 625 and even 900 vs 600.

The write-up of the last game is here:

viewtopic.php?t=14473

That was a unique set up with a strong defensive position and the larger army needing to deploy from column of march. Don't know if that helps.

[philqw78]

Mr Hall runs a comp in UK with uneven points. Rampage, must be in the tournament bit somewhere

[pyruse]

Depends a lot on the scenario - for instance you might have a small-ish on-table force holding a hill, and having to hold out against a much stronger attacker till a relieving force can fight its way up the table.
The on-table force might be outnumbered 3:1 in this sort of scenario.
Or you could have a couple of Roman units in a fortified camp being attacked by hordes of Gauls while the rest of the army tries to fight its way back through a blocking force.
or a rearguard trying to delay a victorious army, or a treacherous ally who abandods the army.

All of these might require very uneven points to give a fair battle - there's lots of ideas in books like 'Scenarios for wargames' and 'Scenarios for all ages'.

[hazelbark]

Right I am looking for something less than a full scale scenario. So essentialy using all exisitng rules ala being at a tournament with the variation of army points, not by choice like rampage.

But do we have any stats from rampage for how the results differed for people with point mis matches?

[Scrumpy]

Bloody hell Dan. It is hard enough playing you with equal points, now you want an advantage when you play most of us ????

[Irmin]

Depends a lot on the scenario - for instance you might have a small-ish on-table force holding a hill, and having to hold out against a much stronger attacker till a relieving force can fight its way up the table.
The on-table force might be outnumbered 3:1 in this sort of scenario.
Or you could have a couple of Roman units in a fortified camp being attacked by hordes of Gauls while the rest of the army tries to fight its way back through a blocking force.
or a rearguard trying to delay a victorious army, or a treacherous ally who abandods the army.
All of these might require very uneven points to give a fair battle - there's lots of ideas in books like 'Scenarios for wargames' and 'Scenarios for all ages'.

Boy how often did I have that happen to me in the past using rules that shall not be named here.

[DavidT]

In days gone by, a group of us developed a set of rules for WW2 tournaments (and friendly games) which didn't use equal points (as the rules we used didn't have a points system and WW2 points systems tended to be a load of tosh anyway).
A similar system could be used for FoG to give interesting battles where equal points are irrelevant and both players should feel they have an equal chance of winning.
It takes a little bit of work beforehand, but not much.
First, you take an army list and create an 800 AP army (the AP can vary depending on forces/time available). This is the FIXED force. You then create the opposition with, say 1200, AP of troops (again, the AP amount isn't rigid and can vary as desired - it just needs to be larger than the first force). This is the BID force.
The BID force is then split into groups of BGs (e.g one group could consist of the compulsory BGs, the second of a portion of the core infantry BGs, the next of some BGs of skirmishers etc.). You could even just split it into individual BGs, but, except for special units, it is probably better to create groups of 2 or 3 BGs.
Some of the groups in the BID force will be defined as compulsory (e.g the compulsory elements of the list and possibly some MF and LF if you are fighting a battle with a fair amount of terrain.) Just a note on terrain - the battlefield can be set up with any combination of terrain the players wish - either using the rules as they are or any other way.
The FIXED force is then given a side of the table. The players then take the BID force and alternate bidding away groups of BGs, except for the compulsory groups. (If anyone has seen the old game show 'Name that Tune' it is based on this). At some point, one of the players will decide that he can't win with the troops left in the BID force and he can opt out - he now takes the FIXED force and battle commences as normal against the remaining groups in the BID force being used by his opponent. Both players should feel that they have an equal chance of winning based on the terrain, the army match up, the troops they have and their ability.
This can be used in tournaments by asking each player to produce a list for the FIXED force for their army and the BID force (split into groups). The one disadvantage is that it may mean that your opponent ends up playing with your army - but if you insist on playing with your own army, you can bid appropriately.
Complicated to describe, but much easier to put into practice.

[spike]

In days gone by, a group of us developed a set of rules for WW2 tournaments (and friendly games) which didn't use equal points (as the rules we used didn't have a points system and WW2 points systems tended to be a load of tosh anyway).
A similar system could be used for FoG to give interesting battles where equal points are irrelevant and both players should feel they have an equal chance of winning.
It takes a little bit of work beforehand, but not much.
First, you take an army list and create an 800 AP army (the AP can vary depending on forces/time available). This is the FIXED force. You then create the opposition with, say 1200, AP of troops (again, the AP amount isn't rigid and can vary as desired - it just needs to be larger than the first force). This is the BID force.
The BID force is then split into groups of BGs (e.g one group could consist of the compulsory BGs, the second of a portion of the core infantry BGs, the next of some BGs of skirmishers etc.). You could even just split it into individual BGs, but, except for special units, it is probably better to create groups of 2 or 3 BGs.
Some of the groups in the BID force will be defined as compulsory (e.g the compulsory elements of the list and possibly some MF and LF if you are fighting a battle with a fair amount of terrain.) Just a note on terrain - the battlefield can be set up with any combination of terrain the players wish - either using the rules as they are or any other way.
The FIXED force is then given a side of the table. The players then take the BID force and alternate bidding away groups of BGs, except for the compulsory groups. (If anyone has seen the old game show 'Name that Tune' it is based on this). At some point, one of the players will decide that he can't win with the troops left in the BID force and he can opt out - he now takes the FIXED force and battle commences as normal against the remaining groups in the BID force being used by his opponent. Both players should feel that they have an equal chance of winning based on the terrain, the army match up, the troops they have and their ability.
This can be used in tournaments by asking each player to produce a list for the FIXED force for their army and the BID force (split into groups). The one disadvantage is that it may mean that your opponent ends up playing with your army - but if you insist on playing with your own army, you can bid appropriately.
Complicated to describe, but much easier to put into practice.

Dave,

Your not suggesting a FoG comp at Q Con, based on this are you
(I might be tempted to visit you all again)

Spike

[hazelbark]

So I gather from the Rampage results that I could find, only one game was won by the player with 700 vs 900. However I don't know out of how many.

[DavidT]

Dave,

Your not suggesting a FoG comp at Q Con, based on this are you
(I might be tempted to visit you all again)

Spike

I might be tempted. Not this year though, but I'll seriously consider it for next year.

If you want to visit us again, we'll be running a (standard) FoG tournament for the Celtic Championship on 21/22 May and another at Q-Con at the end of June.

[azrael86]

So I gather from the Rampage results that I could find, only one game was won by the player with 700 vs 900. However I don't know out of how many.

Rampage has run for 2 years, with about 20-25 players. so that's something like 100 games, but only 25% are played with 700 and the same with 900, suggests that 700 v900 would be no more than a dozen games (and probably less, given that 75% of the time you have a choice). So one win out of maybe 6 or 8?

Difficult to draw many conclusions from such a small pool - without knowing other factors- matchup, initiative, etc. Even things like the physical size of the army will have a bearing - it's quicker to move 900 pts of French ordonnance than 700 pts of Inca!

[hazelbark]

So I gather from the Rampage results that I could find, only one game was won by the player with 700 vs 900. However I don't know out of how many.

Rampage has run for 2 years, with about 20-25 players. so that's something like 100 games, but only 25% are played with 700 and the same with 900, suggests that 700 v900 would be no more than a dozen games (and probably less, given that 75% of the time you have a choice). So one win out of maybe 6 or 8?

Difficult to draw many conclusions from such a small pool - without knowing other factors- matchup, initiative, etc. Even things like the physical size of the army will have a bearing - it's quicker to move 900 pts of French ordonnance than 700 pts of Inca!

Agreed. But does suggest that 200 points is +/- near the limit.

[ShrubMiK]

I think the way to make unequal points work (possibly) is to connect it to tactical initiative and victory conditions.

In real life, except in exceptional circumstances the smaller army is less likely to want to commit to the chance of battle, so it is up to the larger army to manoeuvre to try to force battle, whilst the smaller army will of course seek a good defensible position. The onus is then on the larger army to attack and win a clear victory. An indecisive battle would be a moral victory for the smaller force, and living to fight another day might enable them to gain the advantage in the future course of the campaign, e.g. reinforcements arrive, larger army finds it hard to resupply, smaller forces manages to hold on long enough to reach a friendly city, etc.

In game terms, the smaller army gets more say in positioning terrain to their benefit, and the victory conditions are slanted so that a draw or near draw becomes a win for the smaller army. (Exact mechanisms to achieve the above TBD). The larger army MUST be aggressive.

Hopefully this means the smaller army is not actually disadvantaged in real terms, a number of pussy-footing draws (e.g. those where an equal sized army hides in terrain with no significant prospect of being dislodged) could be avoided, and some slightly different tactical situations would result on the table-top - how likely are we to see something like Hastings under normal equal points battle situations?

Of course, as usual it would be LH armies that might be the fly in the ointment - if they are the smaller army and would win by avoiding decisive contact.

Something along the liens of the bidding idea might help - each player decides the size (in points) of their army, between some limits, e.g. 700-900. Army size contributes "tactical initiative points" to each player according to some formula. Each base of LH counts bonus TIPs. The army with the most TIPs takes the tactical initiative. Perhaps the amount of difference between TIP totals affects in some way how much extra control over terrain the defender gets. Thus armies with lots of LH are unlikely to be in the position of defender able to avoid decisive contact and gain an easy win, unless they are very much smaller than the opposition and/or the opposition has significant numbers of LH of their own to counter with.

[ScotGore]

We've got a campaign going right now. We have a mechanism in place to let the player's decide when the numbers are "too much" to be overcome by brilliant play or other advantages.

Here's how it's written in the campaign rules:
Fighting Withdrawal
If a player finds themselves facing a dramatic numeric disadvantage or other reason they may not wish to face the opponents army on the table top then upon being notified of a battle either player can elect a Fighting Withdrawal. Notify the moderator of this election as soon as possible after being notified of the battle. Instead of meeting for battle, the casualties are diced by the moderator and players will be notified of their casualties. Players should update army lists submit them to the moderator as described above to reflect losses in the fighting withdrawal. Armies performing and forcing a fighting withdrawal still do not earn a movement point in the upcoming turn.

We are currently at turn 13 of a 15 turn campaign. We had our first "fighting withdrawal" in turn 12. A players army who while victorious in two prior battles is now reduced to about 600 points and too distance from their capital to re-inforce, was impacted in turn 12 by a newly re-inforced enemy army of 800. The 600 point player choose to fighting withdraw. The losses in a fighting withdrawal are likley smaller than a if he choose to stand and fight (it's a dice roll favorably modified by a fighting withdrawal).

Two other players (also in turn 12) have impacted. One is slightly less thtn 800 and the other is around 650. The 650 Player is electing to stand and fight, however he purchased 48 inches of field fortifcations in the hex . While outnumbered, he will pretty much be able to put up a stockade for much of his force.

If it's an engagement triggered by some sort of campaign mechanics, I would try to arrange a way to let the involved players decide to fight it out versus build a hard and fast campaign engagement rule that makes the choice for the players.

My thoughts
Scot

[timmy1]

One way to allow larger differences to work is for me to have 1000 points and my opponent to have 500. Then I might win a game of FoG against David Cutner (who is less than 1/3 my age!)