650AP table size

[peterrjohnston]

For a tournament I had intended to use 5x3 for 650AP, which works well for FoGAM*. But some have suggested 6x4. Any views?

Perhaps 4' depth is OK, especially with longer range shooting, but 6' seems a little wide for 650AP.


* despite initial misgivings, I now think 650Ap on 5x3 is a much better game than 800AP on 6x4 for FoGAM, which has too much faffing around, and even good on 4x3.

[ravenflight]

For a tournament I had intended to use 5x3 for 650AP, which works well for FoGAM*. But some have suggested 6x4. Any views?

Perhaps 4' depth is OK, especially with longer range shooting, but 6' seems a little wide for 650AP.


* despite initial misgivings, I now think 650Ap on 5x3 is a much better game than 800AP on 6x4 for FoGAM, which has too much faffing around, and even good on 4x3.

I'm thinking that there may be some merit of 6x4. There are many armies that are severely handicapped by the 'free reign' the mounted have in the flanks. This would give those armies a slightly more 'fighting chance' (not incredibly so) than is currently available by sacrificing the flanks to the mounted and having a slightly better chance against them in the centre. Armies like the American or Buccaneer spring to mind. They are still MOSTLY going to get ridden down by the mounted, but gives them a little more of a place to hide.

Might not be what you want tho.

[kevinj]

We used 5x3 for a 650 point tournament last weekend. I think it works very well, if you want to take more advantage of longer range shooting just deploy further back.

[peterrjohnston]

It's only "classical" periods, Italian Wars and 30YW, so no americans and the like.

My main concern was you end up "benny hilling" on too wide a table, but I don't know FoGR well enough to judge.

[madaxeman]

It's only "classical" periods, Italian Wars and 30YW, so no americans and the like.

My main concern was you end up "benny hilling" on too wide a table, but I don't know FoGR well enough to judge.

Not much danger of benny hilling. It's practically impossible to turn an infantry block and move it anyway, never mind the effect of 6" shooting ranges and the like...

[hazelbark]

My main concern was you end up "benny hilling" on too wide a table, but I don't know FoGR well enough to judge.

Benny Hill is virtually impossible for foot. I mean you could turn around, but given shooting you'd need to do that when the foe was a foot away. There is no foot dodging out of the way. Mounted OK a bit more, but I think practically it is more 1-2 turns at best.

[peterrjohnston]

Last check If infantry can't manoeuvre so much, would you not get cavalry dominating on a 6' wide table at 650AP? Seems depth doesn't matter so much, but perhaps 5' wide would be better?

[madaxeman]

Last check If infantry can't manoeuvre so much, would you not get cavalry dominating on a 6' wide table at 650AP? Seems depth doesn't matter so much, but perhaps 5' wide would be better?

If the depth is less the infantry battle may be over sooner so the horse would have less time to win on the wings and then move into the middle to threaten flanks?

Also if you reduce the width to 5 foot the Horse have 40% of the table to deploy in exclusively, at 6' they only have 33%, so arguably its harder to use infantry on a 5' table than a 6' one

[Jhykronos]

Last check If infantry can't manoeuvre so much, would you not get cavalry dominating on a 6' wide table at 650AP? Seems depth doesn't matter so much, but perhaps 5' wide would be better?

If the depth is less the infantry battle may be over sooner so the horse would have less time to win on the wings and then move into the middle to threaten flanks?

Also if you reduce the width to 5 foot the Horse have 40% of the table to deploy in exclusively, at 6' they only have 33%, so arguably its harder to use infantry on a 5' table than a 6' one

One would assume that if you reduce the table width, you'd proportionally reduce the exclusive deployment zones, no?

[mbsparta]

We have been playing 650 FoG-AM on 6x4 tables (28mm) and many of the problems with FoG tend to go away. But, a 650 point FoG-R army tends to take up more room length-wise than a similar AM army. So we usually go with 8x4 for 650 point R games. We stay with the 4 foot table width for both games. We use 1" = 1MU in both games.

We have no experience with 15mm armies. But I imagine the results would be the same. I suggest u try 6x3 for 15mm FoG-R. Odd size I know but it should work??

Merry Christmas to every.

Mike B