Derby World Teams - 28/29 September 2013

[kevinj]

I’m looking for some feedback to help me set the themes and any other changes for this year’s competition. For those who are not familiar with the format, Derby is a tournament for teams of 3 players, each of whom play in separate themed pools, but the draw is organised so that all members of one team play against those of another team.

There’s always the option of doing the same as last year again, but I think it’s worth considering alternatives so that tournaments don’t get too stereotyped. I’d welcome comments in two specific areas, plus of course anything else that you think may be helpful.

1) Themes. Last year, being the first time the tournament was run, I opted for 3 wide themes, essentially Early and Late European (and immediate vicinity) and everything else. Is that something that people are happy with, or would you prefer to see more focus in one or more of these? Is there any scope for running one of the themes in 28mm scale?

2) Army Size. Last year we used the “traditional” 800 point armies, but with teams there is scope for adding some variation. Here are some suggestions that might provide a bit of variety:
Fixed Pool Size – Each theme has a different army size, e.g. 750, 800 and 850 points.
Flexible Points – Each team must submit one army in each of 3 sizes (e.g. 750, 800 and 850 again) but may choose freely which pool they use for each. Possibly with bonus points if you beat a bigger army.
Fully Flexible – Armies have a minimum size (e.g. 750 points) but teams can otherwise choose for themselves how they allocate the points (e.g. they could have three 800 point armies, two 750 and one 900, or any other combination). Again, possibly with bonus points if you beat a bigger army.

Please either post thoughts here or send them by email/PM.

[list_lurker]

I like the Derby theme as it is.. ie themed teams. One comment is we could get slightly shorter games - as this is one of the larger shows in that region/time of the year.

I quite like the smaller (5x3) format with smaller points (650/700)

also a whackadoodle theme would be good. That way i get to play in it

[madaxeman]

FWIW I think the Southern League has demonstrated that there is sufficent support (and ownership of armies) to make some of the more ostensibly off-beat or narrow themes viable, and also likewise for unusual formats too - so I'd not worry too much about either of those issues as being an issue.

Different points per pool does sound interesting, as it makes some armies more viable.

[nikgaukroger]

1. Themes - my preference is very much for narrow themes (to the extent I'll no longer play ones I think too open).

2. Army size - variety is good.

[list_lurker]

Here is an idea. JGL used to run a competion where there was a tight theme, with a list of available armies. But only one army of each were allowed. You could do it on ranking to selection first, or first come etc... or some bidding mechanism (lets say lowest points wins the army bid). I'm sure we can come up with something creative.

People have 8 months to come up with the figures

[list_lurker]

Theme idea -

Turks vs the Med (each game with a compulsary Coastline)

[list_lurker]

Theme idea -

Apocalypto - Spanish vs the New World

[johngl]

Here is an idea. JGL used to run a competion where there was a tight theme, with a list of available armies. But only one army of each were allowed. You could do it on ranking to selection first, or first come etc... or some bidding mechanism (lets say lowest points wins the army bid). I'm sure we can come up with something creative.

People have 8 months to come up with the figures

What's with the "used to"? The eleventh in the series, "Et Tu Brute" with all armies from 1st Century BC Rome and enemies, is next weekend. Richard Jeffrey-Cook drew the short straw and he's Spartacus. This is DBM, by the way.

My method of army-choosing is to rank players according to their scores in the last three competitions; the lowest-ranked gets a free choice and the highest-ranked gets no choice at all. People seem to like the idea; last week I announced that this would be the last such competition as we were losing our venue, and this resulted in numerous protests and the offer of a new venue - so it'll be on again in 2014.

[kevinj]

I'd like to push this on so that I can write up the details and get them published. The prevailing opinions so far from postings and conversations that I've had are that tighter themes and variable points would be popular. Based on this (and what is currently known of themes being offered in other competitions) my current thoughts are:

Pool 1) An early period theme based in western Europe. I'm inclining towards adding a mandatory minimum number of HF/DF BGs so that we see plenty of Keils and Early Tercios.

Pool 2) A later period from the Restoration (1660) to 1698 covering a wider part of Europe including Russia and also the Ottomans.

Pool 3) I'd like to see something for the non western armies. Possibly India? This would be Simon's "whackadoodle" theme.

As for points variation, how do you see the relative merits of a different limit per pool (such as 750, 800, 850) compared to allowing each team to select their own army size per pool, but with bonus points for beating a bigger army? I'm thinking along the lines of 5 points for beating a 100 point larger army or 2 for a 50 point difference.

I also like the idea of a fixed pool of armies. I don't think I can fit it in here, but I have something else in mind that might work. I'm thinking of devising an auction system for allocation of armies which would give a handicap to those who chose the "better" options.

[rbodleyscott]

The problem with an Indian theme is that everyone who wants to compete seriously will bring Mughals.

(Unless they are handicapped in some way)

[rbodleyscott]

How about an Islamic theme - only Islamic armies permitted.

That gives a fair range of interesting options - including those with light lancers which would struggle in a theme with western armies in it.

Or a non-european theme - with no pikes permitted (to avoid confusion).

[quackstheking]

I like the Islamic theme - excludes things like Samurai and Chinese but lets in the Arabs, Ethiopians, Mamluks etc! Should exclude the Ottomans though if they're catered for elsewhere or include them in the Islamics but take them out of the Restoration theme - seems more logical.

This is then very similar to the Early Ottoman expansion theme that Alasdair ran at the Oxford one day competition which was very successful.

Don

[alasdair2204]

Tight themes etc is good and would be enjoyed,

I am also not convinced that moghul would dominate india, that said the ottoman / arab theme sounds like a good and effective solution,

Not happy about compulsory number of HF / DF as the majority of periods are infantry heavy anyway, you could probably achieve the same thing by making it western Europe (look at Southern League Southampton round) which is essentially Italian wars plus Irish, anglo irish, Scottish, English, border reivers where the vast majority of armies and all the effective ones are mostly foot though you could be wacky and play border reivers or condotta which would definitely not dominate.

Cheers

Alasdair

[kevinj]

Thanks everyone for the comments.

Pool 1) Alasdair's suggestion is pretty much what I had in mind. Most of those armies have big lumps of foot, if things like Hungarians, Turks and Tartars are not available the cavalry armies won't dominate.

Pool 2) I'd like to keep the Turks in this one, they provide an alternative to the other armies and were a significant influence in Europe at the time.

Pool 3) The Islamic army idea is interesting but produces some odd exceptions. You could have Muslim Indian or Mughal, but not Hindu Indian. The Ottoman expansion used for Southern League 1 is a possible but does include a number of western armies. How about Mainland Asia, up to c1600?

[kevinj]

Here's my updated proposal for the 3 pools. Unless anyone spots a significant issue with these in the next few days, I'll publish them via the official website.

Pool 1 Western Europe 1494-1569 (no battle troops with Musket or Impact Pistol)
Armies, any from Trade and Treachery plus Early Imperial Austrian, Kalmar Union, Early Danish and Vasa Swedish from Clash of Empires
850 Points

Pool 2 Europe from 1660-1698
Any from Duty and Glory plus Cossack and Later Ottoman from Clash of Empires
750 Points

Pool 3 Mainland Asia and the Near East 1494-1595
Mamluk, Early Ottoman, Aq Qoyunlu Turcoman, Anatolian Turcoman, Tatar, Early Russian, Caucasian States, Safavid Persian from Clash of Empires
Ming Chinese, Korean, Mongol, Tibetan, Muslim Indian, Hindu Indian, Thai, Burmese & Khmer, Vietnamese, Desert Bedouin, Settled Arab States, Colonial Portugese, Mughal, Wokou Pirates, Jurchen, Jin and Qing from Colonies and Conquest
800 points

[quackstheking]

Hi Kevin,

I like and agree with all 3 period suggestions.

However, I think Period 2 should stick with 800pts.

The armies available are small enough already due to the more expensive troop types in this book and there is no real logic to reducing the points other than to have 3 periods each with a different points total.

Don

[list_lurker]

personally I think lower points is better. Not because the armies are smaller , but because it circumvents peoples attempts to cover army weaknesses -outside of the core troop selection. The compulsary minimums are a higher % of the overall amry, therefore , the army will look more like its historical archetype.

If its cossacks , lets see the cossacks !

[kevinj]

I deliberately picked Pool 2 to have lower points to encourage some different thought in creating armies. Unless there's any more input on this I think I'll stick with it.