Britcon FoG:R

[madaxeman]

I also think FoG R is still fresh enough not to need a theme just yet for Britcon.

Also once you get past "Gendarme" armies I'm starting to think that you can make a case that the "arquebus foote+Keils+good Cuirassiers" armies can be just as good as the later "all-shot+ooops my horse are crap" armies anyway, so "open isn't broken".

[peterrjohnston]

How about any army before 1630?

Your other option, rather than thinking of the theme, is to not use the "standard" 800AP on 6x4. Variety is a new challenge.

[rbodleyscott]

How about any army before 1630?

Hi Nik - you've had replies from 9 players, 8 of whom appear to be in favour of an open tournament.

You were warned that it is not a democracy.

Pre-1630 still excludes the 30YW and ECW - which many / most players have.

And there was I thinking that the 30 Years War started in 1618.

Why?

For your own good. (And it isn't our fault that you are a johnnycomelately and hence anything would seem fresh. )

What are we missing?

The idea is to exclude the optimised armies of the later 30YW and thus allow the non-optimized armies a run out. And also make the armies of the preceding century somewhat more viable.

Anyway, the theme allows your Swedes to be used (as Early Gustavan Swedish).

[petedalby]

Thanks for the history lesson Richard - much appreciated.

The idea is to exclude the optimised armies of the later 30YW and thus allow the non-optimized armies a run out. And also make the armies of the preceding century somewhat more viable.

And that's the bit I don't get. It's the 'World's' - surely you want to maximise attendance? - and yet you propose to exclude the period from which most people can field armies.

I guess I'll just wait and see what you decide.

[hood_mick]

Have to say I would prefer open. I only really have Thirty years war stuff and have no intention of buying any late armies.

[daveallen]

The idea is to exclude the optimised armies of the later 30YW and thus allow the non-optimized armies a run out. And also make the armies of the preceding century somewhat more viable.

Hmmmm.

I see the problem - you think people are turning up with 'optimised' 30YW armies because they're tournament tigers. Whereas we (by which I mean I) think it's because they either like the armies or they're the only ones they have.

If you're right then these armies should cluster near the top in open comps, but they don't.

In fact, it's almost always a predominantly mounted army at the top. Yet there's no mass conversion to Tatars, or whatever.

All of which suggests to me that people are using armies they like and they're having fun playing against a wide range of opponents.

Alastair has shown we have a good balance of themed comps in the calendar. Making the biggest comp of the year themed would reduce the pleasure we all get from playing against the widest possible range of armies and opponents. Please don't do it!

Dave

[kevinj]

As the deviant among those who have offered an opinion on this, here's how I see it.

My experience of open competitions to date has been that they are greatly dominated by armies from Wars of Religion and Duty and Glory, which cover the 17th Century Western European armies that we have been told the rules deliberately favour. I did some analysis of army selections from Open competitions in the last year, to see if this perception was supported. Here is the breakdown of WoR and D&G out of the totals from 5 last year:
Challenge 2011 7/10 (3)
Rampage 2011 8/10 (2)
BHGS Doubles 2011 5/10 (2*)
Britcon 2011 21/26 (2*)
Warfare 2011 18/26 (2*)

That's over 70% of armies from 2 of the 6 books. Dave's post arrived while I was writing this and it led me to further analyse the success of these armies. In brackets is the number of top 3 positions reached by WoR and D&G armies. The asterisk shows the competions where the other amy was used by Alasdair, so over 5 competitions only one other person achieved a top 3 finish with a non WoR/D&G army.

I accept that there is an argument that these selections are in some cases limited to what people have available. However the limited period for Usk did not put people off and it attracted more entries than Fog AM, something I cannot remember happening for any ruleset when both Ancients and Renaissance were both available at the same competition.

This all leads me to suspect that an "Open" period is likely to continue to be dominated in this way and perversely would lead to a narrower selection of armies. I will play whatever option is chosen, but I just wanted to make the point that "Open" does not necessarily mean more variety.

[nikgaukroger]

This all leads me to suspect that an "Open" period is likely to continue to be dominated in this way and perversely would lead to a narrower selection of armies. I will play whatever option is chosen, but I just wanted to make the point that "Open" does not necessarily mean more variety.

Interesting. I've thought for a while that the idea that open comps produced more variety was something of a myth, however, that was based on gut feeling rather than any sort of analysis - so it is interesting to see a bit of analysis that may well support my instinct.

[peterrjohnston]

Piffle and codswallop mixed in with confirmation bias!

Britcon in 2011 had 17 different types of armies. How much variety do you want? Everyone using a different army?!

The vast majority of them might be from Wars of Religion, but it doesn't take a genius to realise that's the period for which most players have armies and like! (not me, but...)

An incidentally, the most popular at 4 players was Later Louis XIV, exactly the first suggested theme.

[nikgaukroger]

Piffle and codswallop mixed in with confirmation bias!

[gibby]

Well, this is some saga.

If I had a vote it would be for open.

So apart from the its a dictatorship statement why don't you have a vote.

cheers
Jim

[kevinj]

Piffle and codswallop

Well at least I avoided Balderdash and Poppycock!

[peterrjohnston]

Twaddle and tommyrot!

[quackstheking]

OK - my vote for THIS year - Open!!

I't's easy to forget that all the books have been available for less than a year and no-one (except for Alasdair!) has sussed out the optimal army yet. At last years Britcon (which I didn't attend) it was no surprise to see 4 D&G armies as the lists had just been released and the "perception" was that they would be the stronger armies!

Don

[nikgaukroger]

So apart from the its a dictatorship

It is, however, a benign dictatorship - and as such I think we will be recommending an Open competition again this year.

Many thanks for the feedback

[petedalby]

Thanks for listening.

[daveallen]

Thanks for listening.

I thank you and numerous religion-crazed Scots in a box downstairs thank you too.

Dave

[jdm]

Personally I have always enjoyed open tournaments over period specific, but just a personal view so I can se where you are coming from

JDM

[timmy1]

Can we hope to see your good self putting some toys on the table at Britcon this year, JD?

[jdm]

not planned that far ahead as yet and I am a bit rusty, and no wise cracks that it won't make any difference cause I never new the rules in the first place

JDM