There might be some milage in this. I wouldn't want to go back to the random generic scenarios of 7th Edition (such as the "Attack on a marching force") but, if a competion organiser created a number of scenarios that contributed to the scoring, and published them prior to the event, players would have to design lists that were capable of achieving the objectives. It could make an interesting competition.But without recognising the concept of who is invader and who is invaded in a particular table-top battle I'm not sure you can implement this sort of thing with any realism. And to do that properly really needs scenarios. Which, don't get me wrong, are great - but perhaps not best suited for competition play
Damn Light Horse again
Moderators: terrys, hammy, philqw78, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design
-
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Derbyshire, UK
I am not sure you need that. What you need is the rules to reflect that, for whatever reason, these two armies have decided to have a set piece battle. That is the key, FoG is about set piece ancient battles, not skirmishing away, not days long attrition campaigns, not a week long strategic retreat out onto the steppes, all that might be very important to ancient warfare but it is not part of a FoG battle.ShrubMiK wrote: But without recognising the concept of who is invader and who is invaded in a particular table-top battle I'm not sure you can implement this sort of thing with any realism. And to do that properly really needs scenarios. Which, don't get me wrong, are great - but perhaps not best suited for competition play. A simple encounter battle between two forces, with whoever gets most units off the opponents side of the table winning, doesn't seem to have much real-life relevance.
The Parthians may have spent a long time and a lot of effort trying to wear the romans out, but what we are fighting is not that campaign but rather the point at which the Parthians decide it is time to stop the Romans.
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3071
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
I agree. Oh dear; something has gone hideously wrong here....nikgaukroger wrote:Nice analysis there Tim - and I think correct.

A thought regarding how we could represent this in the game. Count the number of non-skirmisher BGs in the opposing army. If the number of attrition points inflicted on non-skirmisher BGs equals or exceeds this, you get a 3 point bonus. Either side can then claim a further 2 victory point bonus for breaking the enemy army.
Example.
Your Romans fight a Parthian consisting of 3 BGs cataphracts, 3 BGs MF 2 BGs LF and 7 BGs LH. Total of 6 non skirmisher and 9 skirmisher BGs.
The cataphracts charge in to chance their arm. The three BGs of cataphracts break, giving 6 attrition points of non-skirmishers. So the Roman gets 5 extra victory points for that. It might reflect the fact that losing the cream of the army meant a strategic defeat.
If there are no further attrition points, the Roman will score 10 points plus 10 points for their army being intact, less 6 points (for the Parthian losing 6 attrition points out of 15) and 3 bonus points for a total of 10+10-6+3= 17. The Parthians score 10+6 (points gained)- 10 (no enemy points lost) = 6. A 17-6 win for the Romans (todays scoring would be 14-6)
If, on the other hand, the Roman army takes out only the cataphracts but is destroyed itself:
Romans score 10 + 0 (points for their own army), - 6 (for the damage on the Parthian Cataphracts) + 3 bonus points so 7 in total. Parthians get 10 + 6 (own army) - 0 (enemy army routed) + 2 (bonus points for breaking the Romans) = 18. So the Parthians would win 18-7 (todays scoring would be 21-4)
This would mean:
- no changes to the game rules.
- 25 point system retained for Karsten's sanity
- taking out enough enemy "real" troops more painful than today
Regards
Graham
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3002
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Just saying that if the enemy camp is sacked that all "evaded off table BGs" count as full lost APs, but if the camp isn't sacked, they continue to count as 1 achieves the desired result pretty much perfectly I think.
The only mental contortion is to rationalise the "camp" as being a marker indicating that once the enemy get that far they have gotten "far enough" to count as "breaking thru a set piece attack by a more strategically mobile force".
And in any case this is also arguably a better rationalization than seeing the camp (of a "Parthian" army) as being a fixed agglomeration of baggage which is located close to the battlefield and who;s loss will discomfort the army less than having any 3 of its units flee off table.
The only mental contortion is to rationalise the "camp" as being a marker indicating that once the enemy get that far they have gotten "far enough" to count as "breaking thru a set piece attack by a more strategically mobile force".
And in any case this is also arguably a better rationalization than seeing the camp (of a "Parthian" army) as being a fixed agglomeration of baggage which is located close to the battlefield and who;s loss will discomfort the army less than having any 3 of its units flee off table.
http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
I use them extensively. If you play somebody called Nik they also have a tendency to arrive on the first boundFair point dave. However are flank marches all that common? And to use them every game surely we would see more field commanders who never seem to get out these days?

Yes, I typically use an FC as a sub-general for this exact purpose.
Re: Camps
benos wrote:Fair point dave. However are flank marches all that common? And to use them every game surely we would see more field commanders who never seem to get out these days?
Ben
Last week I used 2 out of 4 over the weekend
-
- Field of Glory 2
- Posts: 28295
- Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm
Re: Camps
Actually you don't always want flank marches to arrive too soon - sending them with a TC is one way to reduce the chance of that happening - but your army has to be able to cope for a long time without the flank march.benos wrote:Fair point dave. However are flank marches all that common? And to use them every game surely we would see more field commanders who never seem to get out these days?
At Burton (which, ahem, we won) our Seljuks sent a flank march (with a TC) in 3 out of 4 games. In two of them we were getting a bit anxious by the time they arrived. In the final game, they arrived and were deployed on the table before the guys on the next table had finished initially deploying their armies.
Re: Camps
rbodleyscott wrote:Actually you don't always want flank marches to arrive too soon - sending them with a TC is one way to reduce the chance of that happening - but your army has to be able to cope for a long time without the flank march.benos wrote:Fair point dave. However are flank marches all that common? And to use them every game surely we would see more field commanders who never seem to get out these days?
At Burton (which, ahem, we won) our Seljuks sent a flank march (with a TC) in 3 out of 4 games. In two of them we were getting a bit anxious by the time they arrived. In the final game, they arrived and were deployed on the table before the guys on the next table had finished initially deploying their armies.
Also at Burton our 3rd game and the second flank march came on sadly for us in the first bound our mistake for taking a FC we really wanted it later in the game. Yes there is a growing amount of flank marchs and good it is too against HF in one line much better if they are undrilled.
-
- 1st Lieutenant - 15 cm sFH 18
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:44 am
- Location: Germany
I kinda like this. Might be something to build upon.grahambriggs wrote:A thought regarding how we could represent this in the game. Count the number of non-skirmisher BGs in the opposing army. If the number of attrition points inflicted on non-skirmisher BGs equals or exceeds this, you get a 3 point bonus. Either side can then claim a further 2 victory point bonus for breaking the enemy army.
<snip>
This would mean:
- no changes to the game rules.
- 25 point system retained for Karsten's sanity
- taking out enough enemy "real" troops more painful than today
Karsten
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
~ We are not surrounded, we are merely in a target rich environment. ~
-
- Sergeant - Panzer IIC
- Posts: 195
- Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 1:34 pm
- Location: MK, UK
Nice idea Graham - I like it. You would have to take care of the situation where both kill half the capital troops since this is not mutually exclusive. Perhaps neither side gets the bonus if both achieve this (to avoid collusion) unless one has broken the enemy when he gets it.grahambriggs wrote:A thought regarding how we could represent this in the game. Count the number of non-skirmisher BGs in the opposing army. If the number of attrition points inflicted on non-skirmisher BGs equals or exceeds this, you get a 3 point bonus. Either side can then claim a further 2 victory point bonus for breaking the enemy army.
There is also the problem of where I kill only skirmishers and less than half the good stuff to break the army ..
Oh dear it is becoming more complicated

Ian Stewart - Loving FOG, but still learning
-
- Major-General - Tiger I
- Posts: 2379
- Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
- Location: Derbyshire, UK
The problem that I see with this is that both sides could achieve it, possibly leading to a 28 point game.A thought regarding how we could represent this in the game. Count the number of non-skirmisher BGs in the opposing army. If the number of attrition points inflicted on non-skirmisher BGs equals or exceeds this, you get a 3 point bonus. Either side can then claim a further 2 victory point bonus for breaking the enemy army.
I've given up on FOG for two reasons:
1. The current scoring system encourages players to play not to lose since you get points both for killing the enemy and for avoiding your own losses. This makes for tedious and usually slow games as players dither over whether a risk is worth taking under the FOG scoring system. This reasoning is often applied not just to a particular battlegroup but to the entire game usually when mismatched armies meet and I for one cannot bear to sit three and half hours at a table in the full knowledge that I'm wasting my time and will not secure a victory unless I field a fast army.
2. As Ethan has pointed out FOG is supposed to be about set-piece battles and yet, in fact, it is mostly about skirmishing and avoiding a set-piece battle.
My proposed solutions for open competitions would be:
1. You get 1 point for routing your opponent's army and 0 for any other score. The traditional 25-0 FOG scoring system is then used to sort out ties. Should hopefully encourage players to actually have a go instead of playing safe and if it doesn't it won't take long for those players to realise they could have scored just as much if they's stayed at home.
2. The attrition point value of an army is calculted as follows: Skirmisher battle groups are worth 0 attrition points, camps 2 attrition points and all others 1 attrition point. All off-table BGs (including skirmishers) still cost 1 attrition point and routed BGs 2 attrition point. The idea being that the greater the proportion of skirmishers in an army, the more brittle it is. In the case of mismatched armies (LH vs HI) the foot army may actually have a chance of winning by taking the baggage and dealing with another BG or two.
To those addicted to shoot and scoot tactics, you can either take a risk, use flank marches for your LH or field more Cv instead of LH. In other words, you wouldn't have it all your own way anymore.
Julian
1. The current scoring system encourages players to play not to lose since you get points both for killing the enemy and for avoiding your own losses. This makes for tedious and usually slow games as players dither over whether a risk is worth taking under the FOG scoring system. This reasoning is often applied not just to a particular battlegroup but to the entire game usually when mismatched armies meet and I for one cannot bear to sit three and half hours at a table in the full knowledge that I'm wasting my time and will not secure a victory unless I field a fast army.
2. As Ethan has pointed out FOG is supposed to be about set-piece battles and yet, in fact, it is mostly about skirmishing and avoiding a set-piece battle.
My proposed solutions for open competitions would be:
1. You get 1 point for routing your opponent's army and 0 for any other score. The traditional 25-0 FOG scoring system is then used to sort out ties. Should hopefully encourage players to actually have a go instead of playing safe and if it doesn't it won't take long for those players to realise they could have scored just as much if they's stayed at home.
2. The attrition point value of an army is calculted as follows: Skirmisher battle groups are worth 0 attrition points, camps 2 attrition points and all others 1 attrition point. All off-table BGs (including skirmishers) still cost 1 attrition point and routed BGs 2 attrition point. The idea being that the greater the proportion of skirmishers in an army, the more brittle it is. In the case of mismatched armies (LH vs HI) the foot army may actually have a chance of winning by taking the baggage and dealing with another BG or two.
To those addicted to shoot and scoot tactics, you can either take a risk, use flank marches for your LH or field more Cv instead of LH. In other words, you wouldn't have it all your own way anymore.
Julian
Perhaps a way forward would be to put strict time limits on each phase of the game. Oh, hang on, you tried that and all the players hated it didn't they?1. The current scoring system encourages players to play not to lose since you get points both for killing the enemy and for avoiding your own losses. This makes for tedious and usually slow games as players dither over whether a risk is worth taking under the FOG scoring system. This reasoning is often applied not just to a particular battlegroup but to the entire game usually when mismatched armies meet and I for one cannot bear to sit three and half hours at a table in the full knowledge that I'm wasting my time and will not secure a victory unless I field a fast army.
Only where Light Horse are involved. If you have two Heavy Foot armies staring at each other there ain't much skirmishing going on. Nearly sounds historical that.2. As Ethan has pointed out FOG is supposed to be about set-piece battles and yet, in fact, it is mostly about skirmishing and avoiding a set-piece battle.
A solution isn't needed because there isn't really a problem.My proposed solutions for open competitions would be:
It would be easier if you just cut out the middle man and banned skirmishers. These sort of ridiculously draconion rules would kill half the armies in the game.1. You get 1 point for routing your opponent's army and 0 for any other score. The traditional 25-0 FOG scoring system is then used to sort out ties. Should hopefully encourage players to actually have a go instead of playing safe and if it doesn't it won't take long for those players to realise they could have scored just as much if they's stayed at home.
2. The attrition point value of an army is calculted as follows: Skirmisher battle groups are worth 0 attrition points, camps 2 attrition points and all others 1 attrition point. All off-table BGs (including skirmishers) still cost 1 attrition point and routed BGs 2 attrition point. The idea being that the greater the proportion of skirmishers in an army, the more brittle it is. In the case of mismatched armies (LH vs HI) the foot army may actually have a chance of winning by taking the baggage and dealing with another BG or two.
You mean use unhistorical tactics? I can assure you that unprotected Cavalry Bow Sword fight every bit as badly as LH, unprotected bow sword.To those addicted to shoot and scoot tactics, you can either take a risk, use flank marches for your LH or field more Cv instead of LH. In other words, you wouldn't have it all your own way anymore.
Perhaps a way forward would be to put strict time limits on each phase of the game. Oh, hang on, you tried that and all the players hated it didn't they?dave_r wrote:1. The current scoring system encourages players to play not to lose since you get points both for killing the enemy and for avoiding your own losses. This makes for tedious and usually slow games as players dither over whether a risk is worth taking under the FOG scoring system. This reasoning is often applied not just to a particular battlegroup but to the entire game usually when mismatched armies meet and I for one cannot bear to sit three and half hours at a table in the full knowledge that I'm wasting my time and will not secure a victory unless I field a fast army.
quote]
The players didn't, the organisers did so we kept the usual format and now we struggle to get 20 players at a FOG competition, most are around twelve players. To give you an example, the Alcoy competition used to pull around 30 ancients players, this year we were down to 17 with myself as umpire/spare player. Next door we had 50 FOW players (a lot of them ex-ancients players) in attendance and we had to turn people away for lack of space. I call that a trend and it isn't a good one for FOG in Spain.
Julian
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3002
- Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
- Location: London, UK
- Contact:
Not quite correct. I think you meant to saydave_r wrote: A solution isn't needed because there isn't really a problem.
"A solution isn't needed because there isn't really a problem if we all just decide to move to Manchester"

http://www.madaxeman.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
Holiday in Devon? Try https://www.thecaptainscottagebrixham.com
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3071
- Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 9:48 am
Well I was thinking that breaking the army in the "usual manner" would be the current 5 pointstimurilenk wrote:Nice idea Graham - I like it. You would have to take care of the situation where both kill half the capital troops since this is not mutually exclusive. Perhaps neither side gets the bonus if both achieve this (to avoid collusion) unless one has broken the enemy when he gets it.grahambriggs wrote:A thought regarding how we could represent this in the game. Count the number of non-skirmisher BGs in the opposing army. If the number of attrition points inflicted on non-skirmisher BGs equals or exceeds this, you get a 3 point bonus. Either side can then claim a further 2 victory point bonus for breaking the enemy army.
There is also the problem of where I kill only skirmishers and less than half the good stuff to break the army ..
Oh dear it is becoming more complicated
Yes, there'd need to be something to cover mutually hitting the capital troops limit in the same phase. Perhaps say no-one gets it (in the same way that a mutual destruction is 10-10 now).
G
-
- Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
- Posts: 3111
- Joined: Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:23 pm
- Location: Fareham, UK
We appear to be going over the same arguments yet again?
Those who play skirmishers see no problem. Those who have to play against them don't enjoy the experience.
The fundamentals of the game work well. We've had several good suggestions in terms of changing the break points and / or scoring systems. These can be applied to specific tournaments - we just need to give them a try please.
Another variable is the table size. Make it smaller and Benny Hill has less room to run around in - whatever the troop type.
Or the AP. Add more points and you achieve the same effect. I'm confident that most players could handle 900 or 1000 AP in a singles game.
I don't think you'll ever legislate for the player who tries to avoid defeat - that is part of the challenge.
Disappointed to read that support in Spain is dwindling though - let's make sure we don't go down the same path.
Those who play skirmishers see no problem. Those who have to play against them don't enjoy the experience.
The fundamentals of the game work well. We've had several good suggestions in terms of changing the break points and / or scoring systems. These can be applied to specific tournaments - we just need to give them a try please.
Another variable is the table size. Make it smaller and Benny Hill has less room to run around in - whatever the troop type.
Or the AP. Add more points and you achieve the same effect. I'm confident that most players could handle 900 or 1000 AP in a singles game.
I don't think you'll ever legislate for the player who tries to avoid defeat - that is part of the challenge.
Disappointed to read that support in Spain is dwindling though - let's make sure we don't go down the same path.
Pete
Unfortunately in NZ we are seeing a drop off in interest in playing 800 point open comps. We have our National Comp this Easter and we have 12 players registered. We have a small gaming community but this is a pretty low number and is getting close to going below critical mass.
Many of the reasons regular comp players have stated for trying and giving up on FOG or not playing 800 point open have been repeated in this forum and this stream in particular. An additional reason they have given has been the sameness of the game and they switch to Fow Or GW comps as they prefer to play different scenarios at a comp.
My personal view is that the spatial dimensions are out of sync and that games should be played on 3 feet deep table. You could still skirmish but you would need something in the army other than skirmishers. It would also mean the wheel of cheese would be less effective as there would be less room to move.
Many of the reasons regular comp players have stated for trying and giving up on FOG or not playing 800 point open have been repeated in this forum and this stream in particular. An additional reason they have given has been the sameness of the game and they switch to Fow Or GW comps as they prefer to play different scenarios at a comp.
My personal view is that the spatial dimensions are out of sync and that games should be played on 3 feet deep table. You could still skirmish but you would need something in the army other than skirmishers. It would also mean the wheel of cheese would be less effective as there would be less room to move.