800 points too many?

[Scrumpy]

800 is never enough, I always find my best lists weigh in at 801-805.

[rbodleyscott]

Contrast it with the Napoleonic period, where apart from (often exaggerated) “national characteristics”, all the armies are pretty much the same.

I'll not be buying that ruleset then

It has nothing to do with which rule set you use, it is inherent to the Napoleonic period. And it is only my personal preference, some people prefer to outwit their opponent using similar armies and tactics, rather than culture shock, to achieve victory.

Culture shock allows a more formulaic approach, which is (sadly) all I am capable of. My plans are good, my execution of them is often poor.

[Scrumpy]

No plan ever survives the first die roll.

[mellis1644]

LF/LH could be worth less BG points for the original army size or something. Another alternative would be for evading troops on the table count as an Attrition point for that turn etc. I'm no expert for suggesting a fix, but it seems that this is a work around for an issue in the victory conditions in these cases.

I think the best 'solution' to the skirmisher problem would be for troops that have evaded off table to be be worth 1 AP as long as you have not lost your camp but once you lose your camp then they become worth 2 AP. This would mean that the silly situation where a few BG of light horse clinging to the edges and corners of the table would not keep an army that had lost its camp alive.

From a history PoV think of the camp as an objective, the heavy army wants to get to the objective, as long as the girly light horse army keeps that safe then being chased off table is not a major issue. Once the camp falls then the heavies have done their stuff and the battle is more easily won.

I actually like that - and it may help a little for Tim's issue of the 'Benny hill' chase - good description BTW. It means that an opponent has to do their best to defend the camp with a LH/LF army, as without it they likely will be tripped on the edge to a loss.

[philqw78]

once you lose your camp then they become worth 2 AP

I rarely bother defending my camp. But then I don't think my armies are generally described as LH armies. The idea does add a bit of complication though. But is a nice idea

[nickj]

I would much rather not finish games where there has been lots of hard fighting but no side totally breaks, instead of not finishing games because my victorious troops could not catch some units of enemy skirmishers even an hour after we have destroyed their main battle line in hard fighting

tim

-
Isn't that an issue/problem with the victory conditions if one side obviously won 'the main battle line' and the other side keeps avoiding combat to loose the battle?

This is more likely with mismatched armies (e.i. all heavy foot vs all LH for example) and all rules also tend to have issues with the 'run away to live again' player who does not want to loose, but plays for the draw... P.S. the Romans historically in Parthia and others places did have this problem so the rules are modeling reality in this case.

However, as this is a game not a simulation, if clearing those away is causing the game to go on too long, then it seems that the issue is in the victory conditions which you are working around by changing the game board and army size to get a victory.

LF/LH could be worth less BG points for the original army size or something. Another alternative would be for evading troops on the table count as an Attrition point for that turn etc. I'm no expert for suggesting a fix, but it seems that this is a work around for an issue in the victory conditions in these cases.

Not all rules. Armati II uses a system that imposes a time limit on the "faster" army. If the game doesn't finish in time the victory goes to the slower army. This forces engagement.

[CharlesRobinson]

The issue here is not just army size vs table size but the time limit that tournaments have to impose for battles so that everyone can get through on time. From what I have seen most tournaments have 4x6 tables. For me this really limites your army size to 600pts (for FOG). This gives you enough troops to have a strong center and manuever room on the flanks. At 800pts you just run at each other. Take this question outside of the tournament arena though and it just depends on what you like. I collect 1200pt armies and use the 25mm basing for my 20mm armies. I can fit my 1200pt armies on a 4'x8'board, but there are not flanks (not really). All boards are 4' wide but we will table space that reflets the size of the army being played. Table length of 6' for 600pts, 8' for 800pts, 10' for 1000pts, and 12' for 1200pts (our max size). I collect armies at the 1200pt range but only rarely field them at that size. I use parts of the army to make anything from 600pt on up and this gives me plenty of wiggle room to vary my armies. But , I do love fielding the whole thing (I have stand ins for some of the units that I am still working on though - Italian Allies for my Mid-Republican Romans and the Campanian Hoplites for my Carthaginians). I just love the feeling of Epic level battles (ha,ha)

[lawrenceg]

If the game has got to the point where all your opponent's actions are aimed at preserving BGs and he is not carrying out any offensive action then you have won the battle. Historically at this point the loser would be preserving his troops by withdrawing them from the field. I don't think there are any Parthian/Roman battles where Parthians on the point of defeat were twisting and turning to make sure they stayed within a particular rectangle of ground. The tricky thing is to define this point in terms of rules. I quite like both the "evade off table is worth 2 AP if you lose the camp" idea and the "evading costs an AP for that turn only" idea.

[nikgaukroger]

The issue here is not just army size vs table size but the time limit that tournaments have to impose for battles so that everyone can get through on time. From what I have seen most tournaments have 4x6 tables. For me this really limites your army size to 600pts (for FOG).

I can accept it is true for you, however, I don't think it is true for most comps I have played in where plenty of 800 point games reach an army break conclusion.

This gives you enough troops to have a strong center and manuever room on the flanks. At 800pts you just run at each other.

Again you may have found this to be the case but I find there is plenty enough room for manoeuvre at 800 points.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

I can accept it is true for you, however, I don't think it is true for most comps I have played in where plenty of 800 point games reach an army break conclusion.

The majority of games ive played in comps dont finish on time and I dont think im a slow player, maybe this is because I like to use foot armies?

In France I finished two of my four games and we were playing with an extra hour of game time than UK comps, I remeber seeing that a fair number of games were still running when time was called.

In the UK my record for finishing comp games is even worse as once someone sees they are going to get beat they 'sometimes' play for time to get at least a few more points.

1000 points can be fun but is frustrating as you can end up fighting a line of troops that just march you off the table if your a fleey type, unless of course you play for time.

600 points can be okay but doing parade ground style manouvers or just knowing the 'tricks of the trade' so you are at just the right angle and distance to the enemy to get you the best situation just isnt what I want to play for.

Getting a single point for forcing enemy horse off the table seems abit low to me as in a comp you spend the whole game trying to do this and might not succeed. Even if you do get them near the edge they might escape or just line themselves along the edge so they flee along it and gain at least another turn ot two to keep the points from you.

Anyway enough words of wisdom for today

[philqw78]

The issue here is not just army size vs table size but the time limit that tournaments have to impose for battles so that everyone can get through on time. From what I have seen most tournaments have 4x6 tables. For me this really limites your army size to 600pts (for FOG).

This gives you enough troops to have a strong center and manuever room on the flanks. At 800pts you just run at each other.

Again you may have found this to be the case but I find there is plenty enough room for manoeuvre at 800 points.

There is an appreciable difference at 25mm. The bases are 50% larger so the tables are about 30% smaller, or some other wierd maths.

[nikgaukroger]

Again you may have found this to be the case but I find there is plenty enough room for manoeuvre at 800 points.

There is an appreciable difference at 25mm. The bases are 50% larger so the tables are about 30% smaller, or some other wierd maths.[/quote]

True - I just blundered in with 15mm thoughts

For 25/28mm I'd certainly look to play at the c.650 range on a 6x4.

[madaxeman]

I can accept it is true for you, however, I don't think it is true for most comps I have played in where plenty of 800 point games reach an army break conclusion.

The majority of games ive played in comps dont finish on time and I dont think im a slow player, maybe this is because I like to use foot armies?.

I just finished 5 out of 6 games at the weekend in Roma with a nearly all foot army..

Getting a single point for forcing enemy horse off the table seems abit low to me as in a comp you spend the whole game trying to do this and might not succeed. Even if you do get them near the edge they might escape or just line themselves along the edge so they flee along it and gain at least another turn ot two to keep the points from you.

The only game not to finish was against a LH army. I think 6 units of my foot either did or could have achieved a "touchdown" (getting to the enemy base edge), so the time wasnt an issue. 3 units were fled off table (I think?), but plenty more managed to "escape" into empty spaces on table.

Irrespective of the other arguments, escaping "on table" is still reasonably easy to do, so personally I feel the half-points for fleeing off table is an unfair advantage for these armies.

[urbanbunny1]

I had two of my games end with time called over the duration of the Rome comp. For me, it wasn't for the lack of trying, I was having a relaxed and enjoyable game, and wasn't really pushing it to get a result. I guess with just one win under my belt coming into round five tends to make your view of life a lot more relaxed.

I reckon that if we see 1000 point games in comps, the wall of foot armies will become scary as they will be able to span almost the entire table and getting into their flanks will be difficult. Now, I am a knight player, so, I hate shooty cav/LH armies as much as the next person, but, for me, half the challenge of the game is trying out how to stop them and beat them.

Maybe the way comps get scored could be changed to motivate people to be more definative in their playing style. For many of my comp games, the first two hours feel like very much like Tim's games, where you dance around, trying to create a bunch of breaks and then frantically try to exploit them. Maybe if the scoring was changed to "no result, no points" then maybe people wouldn't hang at the back of the table .

Ramblings from someone who lives in the wadding pool with the beginners at comps.

Simon

100% All Natural Urban Bunny

[Xelee]

...Maybe the way comps get scored could be changed to motivate people to be more definative in their playing style.

We have ganged local Flames of War comps to rank players according to wins and then use VPs to resolve ties on those rankings. We were getting too many players willing to play for a draw from the start because it seemed better than a loss to them, a kind of 'maximin' strategy.

I experienced precisely that in one of my games, the player wanted to just play to time. He changed his tune when he pointed out that either one of us won, or both of us would be recording our results as losses. Flames of War is a game with clear victory conditions, but perhaps something could be adapted for FOG?

[philqw78]

Irrespective of the other arguments, escaping "on table" is still reasonably easy to do, so personally I feel the half-points for fleeing off table is an unfair advantage for these armies.

But the LH costs as much as your legio and cannot fight it. If LH is to be hamstrung the points cost should come down.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

I just finished 5 out of 6 games at the weekend in Roma with a nearly all foot army..

How long was each game and did you rush through? Its good you managed to finish that many but I find that very difficult to do in the UK.

We have ganged local Flames of War comps to rank players according to wins and then use VPs to resolve ties on those rankings.

Sounds like a good idea.

But the LH costs as much as your legio and cannot fight it. If LH is to be hamstrung the points cost should come down.

I dont have the books with me but for some reason I though LH, Jav, Lt Spr cost 7 points, dont the Sup legion cost about 11?

[philqw78]

I dont have the books with me but for some reason I though LH, Jav, Lt Spr cost 7 points, dont the Sup legion cost about 11?

Armd Super Legio normally cost about 14 pts. The most expensive LH about 13 (Szekelers). At 7 pts you can get some Indian MF bow to fight with your LH, Jav, Lt Sp. The LH still cannot fight them. The szekelers would find it hard, but not insurmountable. So for combat power LH are very expensive. If a rule forces them to fight they should be reduced in cost.

EDIT: At the same points the szekelers would find it very very difficult due to being outnumbered almost 2-1

[lawrenceg]

Irrespective of the other arguments, escaping "on table" is still reasonably easy to do, so personally I feel the half-points for fleeing off table is an unfair advantage for these armies.

But the LH costs as much as your legio and cannot fight it. If LH is to be hamstrung the points cost should come down.

I think Tim's point is that normally LH will escape to an empty part of the table (for zero AP) rather than evade off (for 1 AP). If the chasing player by application of unusual effort and skill manages to force the LH off table, it is still only 1 AP. So LH are normally 0 AP, worst case 1 AP, an unfair advantage. Changing to normally 0 AP, worst case 2 AP would not be hamstringing them.

Nik G, who has used shooty LH/Cav quite a lot and successfully, has IIRC previously stated that he thought it a bit of an unfair advantage and curtailing or compensating for it might be beneficial. (I think this is right, but it may have been the steppe terrain advantage he was discussing)

I would also point out that it is an advantage that helps most when the player has for all practical purposes lost the game. This is a bit of an anomaly in a game which is set up to make playing for a draw difficult. It has been amply demonstrated in tournaments that LH have enough advantages to win plenty of games - do they really need advantages that stop them losing as well?

[philqw78]

and the "evading costs an AP for that turn only" idea.

You also wrote this though Lawrence which is a major difference. Adding the total of the cut backs on LH together so far goes too far, but just saying evading off table for any BG is 2 AP is good for me as I have stated before.

Nik G, who has used shooty LH/Cav quite a lot and successfully, has IIRC previously stated that he thought it a bit of an unfair advantage and curtailing or compensating for it might be beneficial. (I think this is right, but it may have been the steppe terrain advantage he was discussing)

I think Nik was agreeing with evade off table for 2 AP

Most LH armies can significantly reduce the terrain on table in Agricultural and Developed. 1xSmall compulsory (an open field in Agri, so no problem could be big) 2 open areas, nothing else. The open goes down after the compulsory, before any other rough. So steppe is not massively better than Agricultural. A lot of the LH armies don't get steppe.