an alternative to limiting nos of BGs...

[WhiteKnight]

All the points made are good ones but the problem I have come up against is the 18-21 BG army that takes ages to move...of course it can be beaten in time but when you only have 12 BG to move and want to win the game, your incentive is to move quickly. The "swarm" that senses a win is difficult can play on the fact that it has a lot of BGs hence a lot of movement decisions to make and use up a lot more time...each one is measured carefully and accurately, which is only right and there are potentially more outcomes to be sorted. It is easier to get a "losing draw" with such an army IMO, so those who choose a larger no of BGs deserve some kind of "penalty", although some who use it will use the numbers and manouverability and still move swiftly once they sense blood! They will still win!

Martin

[davem]

The real problem is that everything can move in a big army as in a small army with seeming telepathic control from the commander. IMHO the lack of a proper C&C system doesn't penalise a swarm army as much as the lack of BG's hurts a small army.
One answer is to look at some of the older methods of subsuming this C&C issue. (No I am not talking about PIPs although they did do this to some extent). I refer more to the George Gush system of "detachments", where a sub unit must remain with a certain distance of its parent unit and certain of its options such as evade, are restricted to falling back to the parent unit etc. There was also a cmd ap cost once a certain no. of units had been exceeded. Perhaps something like either of these could have been considered?

[SDnz]

Isnt it time you gave up on 'the sky is falling'. The statistics on competition winners and number of BGs does not align. If people are so unhappy that they think the game is broken play something else or harden up.

[philqw78]

The real problem is that everything can move in a big army as in a small army with seeming telepathic control from the commander. IMHO the lack of a proper C&C system doesn't penalise a swarm army as much as the lack of BG's hurts a small army.
One answer is to look at some of the older methods of subsuming this C&C issue. (No I am not talking about PIPs although they did do this to some extent). I refer more to the George Gush system of "detachments", where a sub unit must remain with a certain distance of its parent unit and certain of its options such as evade, are restricted to falling back to the parent unit etc. There was also a cmd ap cost once a certain no. of units had been exceeded. Perhaps something like either of these could have been considered?

Very complex though

[lawrenceg]

All the points made are good ones but the problem I have come up against is the 18-21 BG army that takes ages to move...of course it can be beaten in time but when you only have 12 BG to move and want to win the game, your incentive is to move quickly. The "swarm" that senses a win is difficult can play on the fact that it has a lot of BGs hence a lot of movement decisions to make and use up a lot more time...each one is measured carefully and accurately, which is only right and there are potentially more outcomes to be sorted. It is easier to get a "losing draw" with such an army IMO, so those who choose a larger no of BGs deserve some kind of "penalty", although some who use it will use the numbers and manouverability and still move swiftly once they sense blood! They will still win!

Martin

If the problem is that many BGs make it easier to time-waste, then it is the time-wasting that needs a countermeasure, not the number of BGs.

[Ghaznavid]

If the problem is that many BGs make it easier to time-waste, then it is the time-wasting that needs a countermeasure, not the number of BGs.

True, but aside from attempting to penalize players that routinely fail to achieve a certain number of rounds played (or army rout before that) there is little that can be done. Of course chess clocks would solve the problem nicely, but I don't think they would be a popular feature.

[davem]

Isnt it time you gave up on 'the sky is falling'. The statistics on competition winners and number of BGs does not align. If people are so unhappy that they think the game is broken play something else or harden up.

Is your comment directed at me or in general at people concerned about aspects of the game that are percieved to be unbalanced? Do you think the rules are perfect as is? Many of us think there is room for correction to achieve play balance and an open forum such as this is the place to discuss it.
By all means disagree, but at least have the courtesy to do so with relevant comments of your own.
I can see by your prolific activity on this forum, you have a wealth of advice to offer us.

[davem]

The real problem is that everything can move in a big army as in a small army with seeming telepathic control from the commander. IMHO the lack of a proper C&C system doesn't penalise a swarm army as much as the lack of BG's hurts a small army.
One answer is to look at some of the older methods of subsuming this C&C issue. (No I am not talking about PIPs although they did do this to some extent). I refer more to the George Gush system of "detachments", where a sub unit must remain with a certain distance of its parent unit and certain of its options such as evade, are restricted to falling back to the parent unit etc. There was also a cmd ap cost once a certain no. of units had been exceeded. Perhaps something like either of these could have been considered?

Very complex though

Just as a "top of the head" thought, what about some form of simulating the difficulty of passing an order clearly across the battlefield, on the lines of the "send three and fourpence, we're going to the dance"? i.e. the die roll required to pass a CMT could be increased depending on distance from a General and/or if the order has to pass through friendly or enemy BG's?

[jlopez]

If the problem is that many BGs make it easier to time-waste, then it is the time-wasting that needs a countermeasure, not the number of BGs.

True, but aside from attempting to penalize players that routinely fail to achieve a certain number of rounds played (or army rout before that) there is little that can be done. Of course chess clocks would solve the problem nicely, but I don't think they would be a popular feature.

As pointed out in a similar thread in the Rules section, I think a blitz system would solve this problem nicely. With a minimum of 13 turns played you can guarantee a HF army can march to the other side of the table. As a player that forces you to use all purpose armies or historical tactics (flank marches with skirmish armies?). Currently you can depend on running out of time to get you out of trouble and frankly I'm not keen on spending weekends away from home to waste my time.

Julian

[grahambriggs]

Isnt it time you gave up on 'the sky is falling'. The statistics on competition winners and number of BGs does not align. If people are so unhappy that they think the game is broken play something else or harden up.

Hello, and welcome to the forum

I'm not entirely sure your data is correct, at least as far as the UK is concerned. One player has won several large competitions with swarm type armies. But it's more a fact that the winning army was run by Graham Evans who has been winning competitions for years - others have had less success. However, I think that opponents are starting to find ways not to lose at least and to come up with plans to beat it.

Given the +5 points for breaking the opposing army, it would only take a couple of opponents avoiding defeat to mean the swarm doesn't win. It's like many of these 'sky is falling' issues people find ways to prop it up!

Reagrds

Graham

[DaiSho]

Given the +5 points for breaking the opposing army, it would only take a couple of opponents avoiding defeat to mean the swarm doesn't win. It's like many of these 'sky is falling' issues people find ways to prop it up!

On the flip side Graham, is the difficulty in beating swarm style armies (so not getting the +5) causing people who may have been able to win competions in other circumstances to not be able to?

Ian

[nikgaukroger]

On the flip side Graham, is the difficulty in beating swarm style armies (so not getting the +5) causing people who may have been able to win competions in other circumstances to not be able to?

Nope IMO.

[hammy]

Isnt it time you gave up on 'the sky is falling'. The statistics on competition winners and number of BGs does not align. If people are so unhappy that they think the game is broken play something else or harden up.

I did an analysis of Britcon last year and there was not a lot of variation. At present I can't find it but I have found results from Warfare where the number of BGs was included.

In the early period the BGs for the top 5 places were (all numbers from the top): 19, 12, 15, 17, 11 and the last 5 were: 13, 13, 12, ?, 16

In the late period the top 5 were: 12, 14, 13, 12, 14 and the bottom 5: 13, 12, 14, 12, 13 the two armies with more than 14 BG finished in the middle of the pack.

In 25mm (650 points) the top 5 were: 11, 16, 12, 11, 11 the bottom 5: 13, 10, 9, 11, 11 and the army with 21 BG (yes 21 at 650 points) finished exactly half way.

There might be a slight tendancy to more BGs being higher up the results but a lot of that is tied to better players. In the early period the army finishing 2nd was the second smallest in terms of number of BG.

[hammy]

Other info from Warfare

In the early period both armies with 17 BGs were broken twice and broke their opponents twice. Neither of the armies with 19 BG were broken but one of them did win the comp. The other army was never broken but never broke its opponent and the army with 16 BG was broken three times.

In the late period both armies with more than 14 BGs got 4 indecisive games and finished 7th and 10th respectively.

In 25mm the 21 BG army was broken once and broke it's opponent once. The 16 BG army broke its opponents twice and was never broken but placed 2nd.

Over all the 15mm games about 45% finished with one army broken while about 60% of the 25mm games ended in an army break.

[grahambriggs]

Given the +5 points for breaking the opposing army, it would only take a couple of opponents avoiding defeat to mean the swarm doesn't win. It's like many of these 'sky is falling' issues people find ways to prop it up!

On the flip side Graham, is the difficulty in beating swarm style armies (so not getting the +5) causing people who may have been able to win competions in other circumstances to not be able to?

Ian

I think if a player is good enough to win the comp they will work out tactics to fight swarm armies. And a single draw isn't that much of a problem in a comp. However, if the swarm players start getting a lot of draws they'll soon enough have to change if they want to win competitions.

[maxigoth]

The score sheet for competition should be brought into line with the games design philosophy --- page 9.

The score sheet should start with 10 or less BGs and end with 15 or more battle groups.

Are their issues of inequity if the above was adopted?

[madaxeman]

Given the +5 points for breaking the opposing army, it would only take a couple of opponents avoiding defeat to mean the swarm doesn't win. It's like many of these 'sky is falling' issues people find ways to prop it up!

On the flip side Graham, is the difficulty in beating swarm style armies (so not getting the +5) causing people who may have been able to win competions in other circumstances to not be able to?
Ian

Whether it is or not, it's certainly a great excuse right now - much better than incompetence or poor army choice

[SDnz]

DaveM I assume this is Dave Madigan since I believe you are a New Zealander. My comment was not directed at you but since you obviously took offence maybe you are sensitive. My number of posts on the forums does not indicate my level of play or my understanding of the game. I have been playing for 20 years and think I know some things about rule sets.

This has been a heavy debate in NZ with changes in the scoring system proposed to modify this. At the time I added up all the results where there was info on the size of the armies and the result. There was nothing conclusive, the fact that someone with 19 bgs has won some competitions does not make a statistical trend, as pointed out by other people he is a good player. I regularly play with a 17 bg mounted army and in my last 7 competitions I have played opponents with 11 bgs on 3 occasions and lost. (as a side note I wouldnt consider myself a bunny but my opponents may)

My issue with this debate is that this centres around impressions and intuition not evidence.

[davem]

DaveM I assume this is Dave Madigan since I believe you are a New Zealander. My comment was not directed at you but since you obviously took offence maybe you are sensitive. My number of posts on the forums does not indicate my level of play or my understanding of the game. I have been playing for 20 years and think I know some things about rule sets.

This has been a heavy debate in NZ with changes in the scoring system proposed to modify this. At the time I added up all the results where there was info on the size of the armies and the result. There was nothing conclusive, the fact that someone with 19 bgs has won some competitions does not make a statistical trend, as pointed out by other people he is a good player. I regularly play with a 17 bg mounted army and in my last 7 competitions I have played opponents with 11 bgs on 3 occasions and lost. (as a side note I wouldnt consider myself a bunny but my opponents may)

My issue with this debate is that this centres around impressions and intuition not evidence.

Yup, 'tis me. and this post of yours is much more constructive, backed up with the reasoning why you took your stance. I take no offence, but I was a little taken aback by your initial bald comment with nothing to substantiate it. It is often very frustrating to debate on forums when so often people have monikers rather than names. Have we met, do I know you? My comment about your (so far) only post was uncalled for and I willingly retract it.

Anyway on to the the real debate, BG size. As has been pointed out one of the leading UK exponents of the swarm type army is a good enough player to win major comps in any case and the fact he uses a swarm army is not the only reason for his success. He also did very well under DBM and is a former World Champion.
Rather the issue is whether swarm armies have any unbalancing effect on the game as a whole and other posters have suggested that time to complete a bound can be a factor, particulary when the swarm player is playing for time to avoid loosing.
I have offered one possible approach to penalising swarm armies wrt to more conventional sized ones, I am not so conceited that I believe it is the only approach nor perhaps even possible. I'm guessing you don't believe there is an issue, but if you do think so, have you any suggestions?

Regards

Dave M

[stefoid]

The real problem is that everything can move in a big army as in a small army with seeming telepathic control from the commander. IMHO the lack of a proper C&C system doesn't penalise a swarm army as much as the lack of BG's hurts a small army.
One answer is to look at some of the older methods of subsuming this C&C issue. (No I am not talking about PIPs although they did do this to some extent). I refer more to the George Gush system of "detachments", where a sub unit must remain with a certain distance of its parent unit and certain of its options such as evade, are restricted to falling back to the parent unit etc. There was also a cmd ap cost once a certain no. of units had been exceeded. Perhaps something like either of these could have been considered?

On the assumtion that large numbers of BGs do offer an advanage - something I cant comment on...
.. but a BG is a unit of command. It has an overall commander, what the name of that dude is, I dont know....

But since you have to pay for various levels of commander, from inspired down to field, why not pay for BG commander too? 5 pts per BG?
granted thats not in the original spirit of this thread, which searches for non-rules inspired ways to defeat large BG armies.

I cant see that lots of small BGs in the main battle line is an advantage, if its basically: wall of troops meets other wall of troops. So theres one thing you can do when presented with a swarm - present them with a wall, forcing them to glom their BGs into a wall to meet it. You can do that on a flank just as well as the center.