Change in attrition rules to make games finish quicker

[Polkovnik]

We are finding that many of our games don't reach a conclusion in the time we have to play, and also that towards the end you can find youself chasing enemy BGs around the battlefield in an attempt to engage them to get the last few attrition points required for the win.
We are going to try a house rule to get a quicker conclusion to our games, as follows :
An eliminated enemy BG is worth 3 attrition points.
An eliminated BG is one that is removed from the battlefield due to autobreak, not being able to complete a rout move or being reduced to one base. Broken BGs that rout off the table are still worth 2 attrition points.

This will mean that you now have to eliminate a third of the enemy BGs, rather than a half at present, which seems to be too high to me. It also means there is a benefit to pursuing broken BGs, and a full stength BG which breaks and routs away is not as bad to the owning player as if it is removed through losses, which seems to better reflect the concept of attrition losses - the broken BG that routs can return to fight another day, whereas the eliminated one cannot.

[hammy]

Another option is to play with smaller armies on smaller tables.

How many points and what table size are you using at present?

[Hepius]

In our friendly games we just call it quits when it becomes apparent that one side has won. We can't stand Benny Hill Time, and the 50% break level too often ends in BHT.

[hammy]

I have found that a lot of players moving from DBM to FoG have a subconcious programming to only really aim to kill 1/3 of the enemy army and they possibly overcomit to doing that and then are not in a possition to get the last few APs for the win. I have a feeling that in my early games I did exactly the same. As I have played more and more I am generally finding that I have enough commited and have engaged enough of the enemy to get a decisive result.

[hazelbark]

Rather than losing 3, I would suggest two other options.

start both sides with having lost 2 AP.

Add MORE points. Seriously the greater density the more crashing and less skirmishing.

[SirGarnet]

Sometimes the AP system means clearly won battles go on too long, sometimes battles stilll in doubt end prematurely. I would tend to favor being 1/3 of an army behind at any point is a loss. the required margin declining as losses increase so that the first to 2/3 of the army lost loses regardless of margin. An even fight could last a while.

But I like to see the conclusion.

[shall]

We played with a few variant on the victory conditions before settling on the one in the book.

As people get better one might play with 900pts and have armies break on 3/4 AP totals.
Or moving to 3 and 2 AP for the 2 and 1 at present.

All, and others, are decent options if you want to speed up a result.

We found the current version the best balance for the time being though in general. Tournament play so far suggests a decent mix of big results and medium results and few if any dull draws. So it seems pretty reasonable for now. That is not to say we wouldn't give consideration to tweaking things in the future if we felt it a good idea. We are keeping a pretty close eye on the first 2 years of competition play to look for proven patterns.

Si

[nikgaukroger]

Add MORE points. Seriously the greater density the more crashing and less skirmishing.

I'm getting quite sold on 900 points as being a good level - those extra couple of BGs seems to tip the game to a bit of a better balance IMO.

[rogerg]

Hammy's point is worth considering. The Benny Hill stage can be a result of setting up too wide. Years of playing DBM have probably undervalued the use of reserves. Two years of FoG playing and I think there is a lot still to learn.