Small is Beautiful

[Strategos69]

Smaller armies on smaller tables would eliminate many (but not all) of the needed changes to V1.

I agree that some of the perceived problems of FoG are not felt in smaller tables. I would add that bigger armies on the same tables or smaller tables should be the norm (or the recommended size). For a 650 points Medieval French army the 5 by 3 table is still a little bit large so I guess 4 by 3 would work better for them. It is quite surprising how the same rules changes depending on the armies and the size of the table.

5 by 3 is the standard size I use and I am quite happy. I still have problems with the LF, but not with the LH. The LF tend to survive more and they are important at the end of the game. Some of my failed attempts to attrack people into FoG might have been solved with something as simple as a smaller table.

[acl]

Smaller armies on smaller tables would eliminate many (but not all) of the needed changes to V1.

I agree that some of the perceived problems of FoG are not felt in smaller tables. I would add that bigger armies on the same tables or smaller tables should be the norm (or the recommended size). For a 650 points Medieval French army the 5 by 3 table is still a little bit large so I guess 4 by 3 would work better for them. It is quite surprising how the same rules changes depending on the armies and the size of the table.

5 by 3 is the standard size I use and I am quite happy. I still have problems with the LF, but not with the LH. The LF tend to survive more and they are important at the end of the game. Some of my failed attempts to attrack people into FoG might have been solved with something as simple as a smaller table.

This is exactly what we found at the Central London club. People who had rejected Fog at 800 pts gave our 650 pt tournament a go and got hooked.

[DruOz]

My first tournament will be CanCon 2012: 650pts on 5x3, so really looking forward to it.

The idea of most/all games having a definitive breaking result is appealing.

[Philotomy]

We are fighting with 15mm figures on a 4 ft x 3 ft table, with the terrain, etc reduced in proportion.

How many of you guys that are playing on smaller tables are reducing the terrain like acl is? What about deployment area for battle groups? Anyone reducing that in proportion, as well?

Also, when talking about reducing terrain in proportion, is the better approach to reduce the size of the terrain, or to use standard sized terrain but reduce the number of terrain placements?

[acl]

We are fighting with 15mm figures on a 4 ft x 3 ft table, with the terrain, etc reduced in proportion.

How many of you guys that are playing on smaller tables are reducing the terrain like acl is? What about deployment area for battle groups? Anyone reducing that in proportion, as well?

Also, when talking about reducing terrain in proportion, is the better approach to reduce the size of the terrain, or to use standard sized terrain but reduce the number of terrain placements?

We deploy lights up to 12 inches in, main forces 8 inches.

The terrain is the compulsory piece plus 1 - 3 others. The standard size is reduced to 9 inches, with large ones up to 12 inches in diameter.

Terrain can be placed within 3 inches of other pieces and the distance it can be shifted is reduced in proportion.

I have not tried other schemes, so cannot compare them, but this produces variety and seems to give roughly the same density you get with the standard rules on a 6 ft x 4 ft table.

Alan

[Strategos69]

How many of you guys that are playing on smaller tables are reducing the terrain like acl is? What about deployment area for battle groups? Anyone reducing that in proportion, as well?

Also, when talking about reducing terrain in proportion, is the better approach to reduce the size of the terrain, or to use standard sized terrain but reduce the number of terrain placements?

I am not reducing the deployment area in proportion. The idea is that you can throw dice from the first turn. I have realized people like that in their first game. People willing delaying tactics have to play with leaving their troops not deployed up to the maximum. I have compulsory pieces slightly smaller than the maximum allowed. Other pieces are of the smaller size allowed. That is how the table looks like:



I also have to say that I do not use imperial measure, but metric system so my table is actually 150 by 100, which would make 10 more than the 5 by 3 if I am not wrong. In my case it was by chance that I discovered it as I bough a mat of that size.

[Philotomy]

I just played a game on a 4x3 table using 600 point armies (i.e. starter armies) and scaled terrain. I don't have much experience with tabletop play (just a few games on 6x4) to contrast it with, but it seemed to play fine.

[zoltan]

In NZ we too have experienced support for 650 from people who don't like 800points. Folk seem to like the fast start, getting more games in a given period of time (you can have a decent mini comp in one day which is important for people with youngsters), and greater number of decisive results.

We use 5x3 and retain the standard set up distance (you don't have to set up at the max). 650 points certainly brings a "DBA" flavour to FoG which is perceived as more fun in comparison with the tourney tiger circuit.

[Polkovnik]

We play 700 pts on 5' by 3' as our standard game. No change to deployment distances (so be careful about where you deploy LF as they can be charged by LH on turn 1), but we reduce terrain choices to 2-3 and compulsory pieces cannot be large. This keeps the maximum amount of terrain in proportion to what is in the rules.

[wildone]

We have just completed a 650 pt tournament on 3 x 5 tables with normal terrain rules and deployment options. We played 2.5 hour games.
The majority of the games played were completed within the allotted time with a clear result, 2 games timed out with a draw and 1 game was called by the players concerned when it was obvious that no clear result was going to happen before time was up.
these were the armies used:
- Andalusian 970 AD
- Komnenan Byzantine 1200 AD
- Later Macedonian 150 BC
- Early Medieval German 934 AD
- Medieval German City League 1489 AD
- Later Polish 1443 AD
- Later Seleucid - 160 BC
- Later Russian - 1481 AD
- Ilkhanid Mongol 1260 - 1308 AD
- Early Medieval German 962 AD
- Later Ptolemaic 30 BC
- Principate Roman 260 AD
- Norman 1066 AD
- Bosporan 42 AD
- HYW English Continental 1346 AD

regards
Brent

[IanB3406]

We recently did the same thing. 8 players included Huns, Mongols, ottomans, another mounted and a the rest foot.......I am convinced now 3' is the way to go. Mounted can still do there thing and foot at least have a chance to push enemy of the table in the time frame. 3' depth cures so many perceived fog issues I think it's a much better way to play......Mongols won and a foot army took second.

[LeslieMitchell]

650 played on a 5x3 table is great format, Stockport Pick'n'Mix and games Expo tournament are some of the best single player tournament I've played in

Leslie

[Agesilaus]

I would just like to add my strong support for this concept. In Adelaide we are running a second 650 point comp this year. This followed the success of an earlier one played with 650 points on 6 x 4 tables. That tended to favour cavalry armies.

650 on 5 x 3 works even better. Few draws, still room for a flank attack, and with one less terrain piece each a table that is not too cluttered.

I think a 4 x 3 table would make things too easy for knights and phalanxes. Three feet depth prevents games being dragged out, while five feet width gives cavalry a chance of a flank maneouvre. When you take out flank zones, four feet width would allow some armies to line up "wall to wall" impact troops, killing general skill.

[david53]

We are fighting with 15mm figures on a 4 ft x 3 ft table, with the terrain, etc reduced in proportion.

How many of you guys that are playing on smaller tables are reducing the terrain like acl is? What about deployment area for battle groups? Anyone reducing that in proportion, as well?

Also, when talking about reducing terrain in proportion, is the better approach to reduce the size of the terrain, or to use standard sized terrain but reduce the number of terrain placements?

We deploy lights up to 12 inches in, main forces 8 inches.

The terrain is the compulsory piece plus 1 - 3 others. The standard size is reduced to 9 inches, with large ones up to 12 inches in diameter.

Terrain can be placed within 3 inches of other pieces and the distance it can be shifted is reduced in proportion.

I have not tried other schemes, so cannot compare them, but this produces variety and seems to give roughly the same density you get with the standard rules on a 6 ft x 4 ft table.

Alan

So what you have actually done is scale down everything thus making it the same as playing on a 6 by 4 table. Can't see the point you playing on a three foot table but then limit the deployment.

Hammy has run 650 events in the Midlands and Manchester over the last couple of years the only change he does is limit terrain to comp plus three.

Allowing the same deployment allows LH to charge each other in the first bound more interesting IMO.

I am a firm belivier that a 5 by 3 table is the way to go but you can use IMO 800 points quite easy with it.

Dave

[ravenflight]

So what you have actually done is scale down everything thus making it the same as playing on a 6 by 4 table. Can't see the point you playing on a three foot table but then limit the deployment.

Agreed.

In my first game of the CanCon/Hammy format I deployed forward like I always do. I quickly realised that you don't HAVE to. The format change actually makes a big difference in many things. Do you put your terrain all the way forward? Do you hold it back so that you can deploy back - etc etc.

[acl]

I would just like to add my strong support for this concept. In Adelaide we are running a second 650 point comp this year. This followed the success of an earlier one played with 650 points on 6 x 4 tables. That tended to favour cavalry armies.

650 on 5 x 3 works even better. Few draws, still room for a flank attack, and with one less terrain piece each a table that is not too cluttered.

I think a 4 x 3 table would make things too easy for knights and phalanxes. Three feet depth prevents games being dragged out, while five feet width gives cavalry a chance of a flank maneouvre. When you take out flank zones, four feet width would allow some armies to line up "wall to wall" impact troops, killing general skill.

It is great to hear that this format is spreading and working.

The Central London 4 x 3 ft table club competition was limited to Triumph of the Legions armies and earlier, so we did not encounter true knights, though there were some cataphracts. Pikes were popular, but not predominant. There were more HF around, but I'd say a better variety of armies than you tend to get on a 6 x 4. Huns and Palmyrans did reasonably well.

After just one tournament - 70 battles - with still a couple to fight out - it is hard to be sure whether player skill was more or less important than it would have been on a bigger table, tho the results correlate fairly closely to player experience. As this 4 x 3 tournament was so successful, we'll be running another next year: it will be interesting to see if the same players make it through.

In the posts below yours a couple of people reckon that as we reduced the deployment area, terrain size, etc in proportion to the smaller table, the game would not be any better than 800 pts on a 6 x 4. Overall I'd say there were changes, that were to the good, but not too extreme.

Alan

[acl]

So what you have actually done is scale down everything thus making it the same as playing on a 6 by 4 table. Can't see the point you playing on a three foot table but then limit the deployment.

Agreed.

In my first game of the CanCon/Hammy format I deployed forward like I always do. I quickly realised that you don't HAVE to. The format change actually makes a big difference in many things. Do you put your terrain all the way forward? Do you hold it back so that you can deploy back - etc etc.

I can't comment usefully on whether scaling deployment areas, terrain, etc down for a smaller table gives a better or worse game than leaving them as they were as I've only played with these scaled-down. What I can say is that these with 650 pts on a 4 x 3 table gave a battle that was not the same as you get with 800 pts on a 6 x 4. The differences were not drastic, but there were marked improvements.

We wanted a good variety of armies to be viable. People tended to take a number of LH and LF. The gap between the armies gave them a fair-sized arena early in the battle. However, the greater-density of troops largely cut-out the Benny Hill stage. Meaning that lights had to be handled with skill if they were to avoid close combat in the lager stages. It may or may not have been even better had we allowed deployment further forward, but what we did worked well.

Alan

[david53]

I'm not disagreeing with people.

I have raised this on V2 as well size of table would IMO sort out a lot of things wrong on a 6 by 4 table.

I would allow 800 points as this would kill what people call benny hill dead.

It would still allow people the pleasure of using LH put also IMO allow people using HF armies a good chance of a game. The actual problum I have found is when using a HF army on a 6 by 4 table if you draw a LH heavy army is knowing theres nothing you can do to force the issue even if the opponent allows you a chance to do so.

Dave

[acl]

I'm not disagreeing with people.

I have raised this on V2 as well size of table would IMO sort out a lot of things wrong on a 6 by 4 table.

I would allow 800 points as this would kill what people call benny hill dead.

It would still allow people the pleasure of using LH put also IMO allow people using HF armies a good chance of a game. The actual problum I have found is when using a HF army on a 6 by 4 table if you draw a LH heavy army is knowing theres nothing you can do to force the issue even if the opponent allows you a chance to do so.

Dave

I very much agree. Games on these tables feel more like the Classical-era battles you read about, in which HF often had an important role. For me this is the heart of the ancient period. Realise that others are more interested in fighting in the Near East, Mongols, etc and that for these larger tables still have a place. So it would be wrong to go uniformly for smaller tables, but I hope we can break free of 6 x 4 800 pts default.

Alan

[Three]

So it would be wrong to go uniformly for smaller tables, but I hope we can break free of 6 x 4 800 pts default

May I enquire where the 800pt 6x4 arrangement came from originally? I assume it just wasn't plucked from thin air?