More Restrictive Army Lists

[nikgaukroger]

I think looking at whether or not a type of army can be beaten is a bit of a simplistic way of looking at things - it ignores whether or not competitions are enjoyable. I think this comment of Tim's is pertinent here:

Suddenly there are 2, 3, 5, 7 or more people using army designs that no-one has been able to figure out a way to (consistently) beat in the last 3 years? And not only "hard to beat" , but "hard to beat" in a "you're not even going to get a sniff of winning" sort of way. Surely as the proportion of these armies grows, this will surely start to make life unpleasant for a lot of the players who never even get to think about threatening for 2nd place?

Whilst we all like to win, and I for one find I enjoy comps more when I win games , it is not the be all and end all for most players and other factors are also important for most of us - and I suggest that for many of the FoG:R comp players having army compositions that reflect, within reasonable bounds, historical armies is one of those from comments made (not just on this forum).

I think this is all an over-reaction.

Maybe. We said that about "swarms" in FoG:AM and were probably right, although some adjustments were made in v2, and we said it about "grit and air" in FoG:AM as well, and were wrong. So a 50:50 chance on this one maybe? The FoG:R scene is smaller and thus less resilient than the FoG:Am one IMO - I'd err on the side of caution and do something in this case. What that something might be is open to debate, at least I've put forward a concrete idea to be shot at.

[Maniakes]

I got turned over by two of these armies at Warfare (my opponents know who they were!) but I have to say I really enjoyed both games. Probably that was because my Transylvanians had enough mounted that I could be busy doing something and having hope while I was losing. So facing these armies doesn't automatically mean having a bad game! I must say though I felt a little sorry for Dave A (known here by the mysterious username of daveallen) who brought a mostly MF army and even got turned over by my mounted (on a table as bald as a snooker table, unfortunately for him). If nothing changes there will be some army choices like that one which will just disappear. As always though I just want to say about any changes - make very sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease (as any retired doctor will tell you!)

[martinvantol]

Hallo again,
It’s been an interesting exchange of comments on these two threads. I’m pleased we don’t think the rules need fixing. There’s no shortage of suggestions for competition organisers to try here.
I just wanted to come back again on a few points …

1. To those who don’t want any further limitations on choice … I could continue to make points against the cav-max armies, but views seem to be so heavily in favour of changing things, or at least trying changes on an experimental basis. The suggestions from Nik (proportions of horse vs foot) and Richard (minimum proportion of average horse) look reasonable and each worth a try. At the very least each of those formats would give us a different competition.

2. Duty & Glory … my initial post did mention this. This is a further list issue which needs a fix, in my view. Armies in this period were not “terrain and firepower” armies. We’ve never yet had a D&G competition with proper historical armies (infantry centres with cavalry wings).

3. Will games just become “line-up and shoot”? Absolutely not. The rules strike a nice balance between different types and formations of foot. I don’t think there’s any consensus on what’s best. There’s also a good balance between foot and horse where you have historically balanced armies.

4. Rapid raider forces … if you want to have these then maybe this should be a themed competition on its own. Those sorts of forces didn’t come up against the 10,000+ mixed-arms armies, did they?

5. Over-reaction? No. It’s a point I’ve been making for some time … just that I haven’t posted it on the forum.

6. What I want from a competition is:
(a) All my games to feel contested and to feel I’ve got a chance. My competitive record isn’t great, and I’ve still attended competitions regularly. It's where I get pointless games that I start to question whether I should do it.
(b) Historically plausible games.
(c) The variety that has been painstakingly incorporated into the rules to come through.
I could start using a cav-max army myself, or else configure something else unhistorical in a different way … that would answer (a), but not (b) and (c).

Martin

[rbodleyscott]

5. Over-reaction? No. It’s a point I’ve been making for some time … just that I haven’t posted it on the forum.

I am not saying it is an over-reaction to recent tournaments. I am saying that the idea that mounted armies are in danger of predominating is possibly an over-reaction to Alasdair's success. (As is other players trying to copy him).

However, the most successful counter to mostly mounted armies is (in my view) to bring an almost entirely infantry army. Which is also not historical, but it would be suicide to bring large numbers of not very good cavalry to fight armies that have lots of very good cavalry.

Therefore, I have nothing against trying to force players to use more historical army compositions, at least in some tournaments as part of the defined theme.

As has been said before, the army lists are lenient, so as to try not to exclude any historical force compositions. In other words, they don't force players to bring typical armies.

So some tournament organisers might want only Typical armies to be fielded. If we could come to a consensus on what restrictions would be desirable to enforce more typical army compositions, then they would not be official, but they could be given an appropriate name and then tournament organisers who want to use them could specify that "Typical Army Composition Restrictions 2014" (or whatever) apply, without having to reinvent the wheel. They could then be tweaked each year if issues became apparent.

[nikgaukroger]

4. Rapid raider forces … if you want to have these then maybe this should be a themed competition on its own. Those sorts of forces didn’t come up against the 10,000+ mixed-arms armies, did they?

Well they did come up against forces similar in size to themselves (or larger, Roundway anyone?) who were of a more "conventional" mix.

[martinvantol]

4. Rapid raider forces … if you want to have these then maybe this should be a themed competition on its own. Those sorts of forces didn’t come up against the 10,000+ mixed-arms armies, did they?

Well they did come up against forces similar in size to themselves (or larger, Roundway anyone?) who were of a more "conventional" mix.

Hi ...

Then, in my view, competition organisers should state the type of scenario they're looking to recreate in their competition. I'm guessing, but I suspect most players want the feel of the big pike & shot pitched battles of the period (I'm certainly in that group anyway).

Lists and competitions shouldn't try to be all things to all men. Allowing maximum choice, paradoxically, doesn't provide for real maximum variety.

Martin

[nikgaukroger]

OK, lots of good discussion here over the last week or so. Can I suggest that it would be useful to now concentrate of Richard's suggestion here - viewtopic.php?f=70&t=46575 - as a concrete suggestion on how to move forward? Please comment on it if you feel this is an issue that matters.

[urbanbunny1]

I got turned over by two of these armies at Warfare (my opponents know who they were!) but I have to say I really enjoyed both games. Probably that was because my Transylvanians had enough mounted that I could be busy doing something and having hope while I was losing. So facing these armies doesn't automatically mean having a bad game! I must say though I felt a little sorry for Dave A (known here by the mysterious username of daveallen) who brought a mostly MF army and even got turned over by my mounted (on a table as bald as a snooker table, unfortunately for him). If nothing changes there will be some army choices like that one which will just disappear. As always though I just want to say about any changes - make very sure that the cure isn't worse than the disease (as any retired doctor will tell you!)

It was revenge for the last time you turned me over and showed me the power of 8 x bow with regimental guns.

Simon

the Aussie one

[hazelbark]

5. Over-reaction? No. It’s a point I’ve been making for some time … just that I haven’t posted it on the forum.

I am not saying it is an over-reaction to recent tournaments. I am saying that the idea that mounted armies are in danger of predominating is possibly an over-reaction to Alasdair's success. (As is other players trying to copy him).

However, the most successful counter to mostly mounted armies is (in my view) to bring an almost entirely infantry army. Which is also not historical, but it would be suicide to bring large numbers of not very good cavalry to fight armies that have lots of very good cavalry.

It is not just Alasdair. You look a the mechanics including table size and time to play to a result and mounted is the fast moving decisive forces. You are right about the counter, but event he counter is in effect a negation attempt and may not be able to win only not lose.

Another simpler option is to make superior cavalry have more of an effect on army break points. You can use it, but they cost you if hurt. This is a modest change that will only effect the edges.