GODENDAG 2009 - January 24th & 25th 2009 - USK

[hammy]

The varangians were utterly hard as nails tho.

Boy were they hard......

In the first game a BG of Lombard noble lancers failed a shock troop test and charged the Varangians. We had a handy general so at impact we had a POA and a quality bonus, we won 3-2 or something and the lancers lost a base. In the melee it then dawned on me (I hadn't really thought properly about how hard heavily armoured spearmen are) that even though we were fighting superior armoured swordsmen that we were at ++ in melee. Our overlap just made things even more embarassing, 6 dice hitting on 3s rerolling 1s and 2s Six hits later the two remaining bases of Lombards broke off disrupted and in our next turn the Varangians charged a nearby BG of poor protected spearmen not caring a whit about the fact they could be intercepted by the remains of the Nobles.

I don't think they broke more than three BGs in any one game but simply put they were awesome.

The average Skutatoi in BGs of 8 are pretty handy as well.

[viking123]

Thanks to Richard for a great competition. It was very enjoyable and friendly.

If you want hard troops - I lost track of how many enemy units one unit of 6 Average Protected Thracians with heavy weapons took out in the last game against Kushan. It was either 4 or 5 without losing a base - first a BG of Elephants in a plantation ( the Elephants had a another BG of Elephants next to them and rear support), then a BG of 6 Protected Indian Javelinmen, then a BG of 8 unprotected medium archers (they were assisted by some Cataphracts) then a BG of Indian Cavalry. They may have been another BG in there somewhere

Bob

[davidandlynda]

thank you richard for a great wargame weekend. i had four enjoyable games the comfy chairs when playing you and tom were a nice change to the normal seating.
i have forgiven david for loosing the elephants and having to talk him out of putting the inspired comander in the front rank.
i have also recovered from having to spend the third game on the other side of the table after the first bound with only 3 bgs of light horse (against the christian nubians)
lynda

[rayfredjohn]

Thanks Richard for a great weekend! This was my first Godendag but it won't be my last.

Ray "Bring out the Gimp" Duggins

p.s. being walked home by Hammy was disturbing. Mind you now he's cut his hair the 2 pints
of Guiness and 8 pints of Dark didn't lull me into a terrible mistake.

[madaxeman]

4 match reports now posted on Madaxeman.com to show how our Arab Swarm army fared at 900 ap.

I've also set up a new feature, "add your own comments on our performance" - so you can have a go at adding to the pearls of wisdom of regular expert analyst Hannibal as well...

..if you dare ..

Tim

[rbodleyscott]

Game Completion Rate

I have just analysed the results. To recap, Godendag was a 900 point pairs competition, with "last pair of bounds" being called after 3 hours 20 mins.

The overall game completion rate (one army broken) was exactly 50%, which I submit is satisfactory..

Where it gets interesting is the difference between completion rates for the two themes:

Rise and Fall of Rome - 37.5%

Byzantium and Islam - 67.8%

I really don't think this is coincidence. It seems likely that the Byzantium and Islam games were more decisive because of the faster movement speed of cavalry relative to foot, and less reliance on indecisive skirmishing with LH vs enemy foot.

If people do decide to tinker about with points values, they may need to set different points values for different themes.

[hammy]

Game Completion Rate

I have just analysed the results. To recap, Godendag was a 900 point pairs competition, with "last pair of bounds" being called after 3 hours 20 mins.

The overall game completion rate (one army broken) was exactly 50%, which I submit is satisfactory..

Where it gets interesting is the difference between completion rates for the two themes:

Rise and Fall of Rome - 37.5%

Byzantium and Islam - 67.8%

I really don't think this is coincidence. It seems likely that the Byzantium and Islam games were more decisive because of the faster movement speed of cavalry relative to foot, and less reliance on indecisive skirmishing with LH vs enemy foot.

If people do decide to tinker about with points values, they may need to set different points values for different themes.

One idea I have been thinking of is reducing table depth for themes where foot sloggers are predominant.

[timmy1]

What if camp position was a number of MU from the middle line based upon the modal average troop type? For example if you have a rule that the rear edge of the camp and be no more than 3 and 3/7s the normal move of the prevalant troop type in the army from the middle of the table, if the single largest number of bases (or BG for that matter) is LH, it will be 24 MU from the middle, if it is MF it will be something like 14 MU form the middle.

Does that solve the problem?

[stenic]

Sorry, cross posting threads, but from the 'More toys' thread...

PAW2009 was this weekend. Andy may correct me but I think in 25mm 650AP only 4 games had proper wins (army route) out of 16. In 15mm 800AP not one game had an army route out of 16.

This should be tempered by the fact that the games were a notional 3 hrs but to meet that timeline 'No new turns' was called at 2hrs 45mins. We all played it as such as that was the way it was, but in discussions with Andy after many felt 3hrs 15mins to 3hrs 30mins games would have been better, with warnings 10 mins before the end.

It was frustrating as in my third game I finished my turn just after 'No new turns' was called, so we had to stop and lost 15mins of play... and of course I was just about to give my opponent a final kick in the teeth !! There were similar comments from others that with a couple more turns there would have been a result one way or the other.

I think a few players were perhaps more 'methodical' than others but in general people got on with games; we just simply ran out of time.

I forgot to say in the other thread, on the journey home we wondered about using chess clocks and any one who runs out of time has their attrition loss adjusted by +2 prior to score calculation.

Steve P

[hammy]

I have found that a lot of players who are relatively new to FoG seem to expect the game to slow down as it progresses and proceed accordingly because that is the way DBM games went. In practice if you focus a little the later turns of a FoG game can be over in a few minutes maximum.

I suspect that as players get used to the tempo of FoG games there will be more games where one army routs. That said 3 hours (potentially minus 15 mniutes) is not a long time for 800 points. The 650 point games I run on 5 by 3 tables mamaged 50% completion in 2 1/2 hours and I suspect that had the 25mm games been played on 6 by 3 tables there would have been more completions.

Another thing is that it takes a lot more to beat a FoG army than a DBM one. In DBM you needed 1/3 of one command and a bit to break your opponent. A lot of armies would rout on the loss of perhaps 12 bases or 7 and the camp. In FoG you need to actually fight more of the enemy and a lot of players have not realised this yet.

FWIW neither of my games at Vapnatack completed but in one we had 14 of the 15 AP needed for the win and a BG of LH heading for an undefended camp. In the other our attack plan which involved inserting 3 BGs of Dailami into 2 BGs of Iphikratean hoplites and one of Hypaspists failed badly when we got one hit at impact out of 6 dice on + with effectively elite troops and then they killed our ally general My elephants with a general being beaten at imact by a BG of superior companions wasn't fun either...

[stenic]

My elephants with a general being beaten at imact by a BG of superior companions wasn't fun either...

Tell me about it... last round and looking for the extra points so in go the elephants with a leader against the halbadiers. What could possibly go wrong...? Well, him scoring 2 hits, me none, then failing the death roll and him killing the general. Fortunately no one was close enough to be affected by the debacle.

Comes from being greedy. Had more time been available they'd have waited for the nearby pike to help but I played the odds for meagre gains and lost.

Steve P

[babyshark]

I have found that a lot of players who are relatively new to FoG seem to expect the game to slow down as it progresses and proceed accordingly because that is the way DBM games went. In practice if you focus a little the later turns of a FoG game can be over in a few minutes maximum.

I suspect that as players get used to the tempo of FoG games there will be more games where one army routs. That said 3 hours (potentially minus 15 mniutes) is not a long time for 800 points. The 650 point games I run on 5 by 3 tables mamaged 50% completion in 2 1/2 hours and I suspect that had the 25mm games been played on 6 by 3 tables there would have been more completions.

My experience running FoG tournaments in the US--at Cold Wars and Historicon--generally confirms that. The events at both conventions were full of newbies and I found that there were few completed games (that is to say, one army routed) in Round 1, more in Round 2, and that most games completed in Round 3. This pattern held true in each event at both conventions.

I sense a pattern.

Marc

[jlopez]

My experience in Spain is that experienced players tend to impose a certain rythm on their opponents and as result get decisive results. They also tend to field fast armies. The vast majority of players spend most of their time faffing around with skirmishers trying to obtain a massive advantage through shooting and manoeuvre before daring to commit the heavy stuff. Inevitably, players run out of time before they can achieve an advantage or exploit it.

Unfortunately most players are unable to see that their own lack of aggression is the reason for their lack of success. Most of them have come from DBM where advantages were obtained through manoeuvre and cannot seem to adjust to a rule set where opportunities are largely thrown up as a result of hand-to-hand combat. If you want to rout the opposing army you HAVE to get into melee as soon as you can.

If any newbies are reading this then here is my advice:

1. Line up your BGs in a historical formation and don't leave gaps for your opponent to exploit
2. Don't try to manoeuvre, your opponent knows how to do it better than you.
3. Attack like a maniac irrespective of the match-ups. BE AGGRESSIVE!

The toughest games I had last year were against two complete beginners who actually heeded my advice. In both cases, I was unable to develop my own battle plan because my opponents were all over me in no time and converted the game into a slugging match where luck was more important than skill. It took me a long time and serious losses to recover the initiative. One newbie I coached (well, pretty much whipped him into attacking all along the line) at the Alcoy tournament came third by using those same tactics. Most other newbies just sat there like frightened rabbits staring at the oncoming car with predictable results.

Julian

[stenic]

My experience in Spain is that experienced players tend to impose a certain rythm on their opponents and as result get decisive results. They also tend to field fast armies. The vast majority of players spend most of their time faffing around with skirmishers trying to obtain a massive advantage through shooting and manoeuvre before daring to commit the heavy stuff. Inevitably, players run out of time before they can achieve an advantage or exploit it.

A good point and well made. In my last game at Plymouth this weekend we were both playing to win the event (I was in 1st, he in 3rd place with 5 points seperating us). We both went at each hell for leather and had one of the bloodiest battles I've been in. 10Bgs to 7BGs for me in the end but it was very close as I'd rallied one BG the previous turn.

Steve P

[azrael86]

Game Completion Rate

I have just analysed the results.

Have they been posted anywhere?

thanks