Page 7 of 17
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:29 am
by caliban66
As I wrote in other post, if in an open tournament players scored only the AP they cause to their enemies, things would be quite different. Player would focus on winning battles by routing enemies. There would not be room to speculate.
Light horse
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:50 pm
by benos
to be honest it sounds like a combination of things getting people wound up here.
Firstly the attituude of some gamers to getting a draw. Either 'i don't want to lose my precious points '(in suitable gollum turn of phrase)
or 'i was robbed of my win m'lud'
Secondly the mismatch of armies. With nomad types being matched against heavy foot mono-types not making for a good game
thirdly the one dimensionality of competitions? And the trials of the competiiton scoring
On the first point to my untrained ear it can come accross as silly. Most players on here would walk away from here with a win against me.
I will still be trying to give thier army a bloody nose. Because i play to have a fun game first to win second and not to lose a distant seventh.
On the second it is harder to judge but it is a problem of open games on ancient warfare. Trying to cover 3500 years will throw up some oddities. Comparing to WFB with 14 armies to balance or FOW with only 6 years to cover will be a hassle
On the third scenarios can help but having played WAB they can also add to the imbalane hugely.trying to hold ground is no fun with light horse. But neither is stopping them get past the table edge.
Not sure what the answer is. I will give FOG some more time before i declare it not worth my time. But then i enjoy playing the game. Winning is a rare bonus
ben
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:58 pm
by MatthewP
I like the idea of playing on a 6' by 3' table. That could have a number of benefits.
Games would finish quicker
Heavy infantyr would be more involved
Skirmishers would still have a part to play without being able to run and hide
No rule changes
Easy to implement with some masking tape
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:47 pm
by Ghaznavid
caliban66 wrote:As I wrote in other post, if in an open tournament players scored only the AP they cause to their enemies, things would be quite different. Player would focus on winning battles by routing enemies. There would not be room to speculate.
The problem with this is that this might lead to small armies of very tough troops. You can't beat them easily and even if you can't get many points as there aren't many BGs in such an army. I fear in the end this would make more armies unviable for tournaments then currently.
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:55 pm
by Ghaznavid
hoodlum wrote: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.
I'm not sure that the impression that 800 points open set-piece battles are a bit one-dimensional and the 'skirmisher problem' are directly related.
The equal point set-piece approach is a feature of ancients as long as I'm in. The problem is that usually was the way conflicts were decided back then. Special objectives (aside from sieges) as featured in many WWII or SF games are simply not historical and don't lend themselves to well to ancients due to the multitude of highly different armies involved.
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:46 pm
by ethan
Ghaznavid wrote:
I'm not sure that the impression that 800 points open set-piece battles are a bit one-dimensional and the 'skirmisher problem' are directly related.
The equal point set-piece approach is a feature of ancients as long as I'm in. The problem is that usually was the way conflicts were decided back then. Special objectives (aside from sieges) as featured in many WWII or SF games are simply not historical and don't lend themselves to well to ancients due to the multitude of highly different armies involved.
How many ancient battles could meaningfully be thought of as having "objectives" beyond defeating the enemy army? I think this is a funamental difference when looking at ancients vs say FoW.
In a WW2 company level game objectives make sense as you are a small part of a big machine. So saying "you small part will contribute to the overall objective by doing X (taking hill or whatever) makes sense."
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:49 pm
by david53
MatthewP wrote:I like the idea of playing on a 6' by 3' table. That could have a number of benefits.
Games would finish quicker
Heavy infantyr would be more involved
Skirmishers would still have a part to play without being able to run and hide
No rule changes
Easy to implement with some masking tape
How long before everyone took Heavy Foot armies and how exciting would that be with no proper movement? since most armies can take easily three foot of Heavy foot spears ect.
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:58 pm
by MatthewP
You still have the width, which would allow flanks to be exploited. Light horse would still be effective they would just have less time to escape. It would force players to be more inventive with their tactics. It is far too easy at the moment to get a draw with a predominantly light horse army as there is only a small risk of loosing. If there is a real chance of defeat it makes an army more exciting to play (for me anyway).
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:06 pm
by madaxeman
david53 wrote:MatthewP wrote:I like the idea of playing on a 6' by 3' table. That could have a number of benefits.
Games would finish quicker
Heavy infantyr would be more involved
Skirmishers would still have a part to play without being able to run and hide
No rule changes
Easy to implement with some masking tape
How long before everyone took Heavy Foot armies and how exciting would that be with no proper movement? since most armies can take easily three foot of Heavy foot spears ect.
Maybe people who like playing with LH armies and don't like playing against foot armies would then stop doing these sort of competitions, in much the same way that those players who find playing with & against skirmish-heavy armies tedious are now starting to do when it comes to competitions with the existing format?
Perhaps then the LH players could start a thread on this forum about how they might get together to address the issue, and make some suggestions ?
And perhaps some of the players who liked the 3' table games could then post repeatedly in the "anti-3' table" thread to say that they didn't see there being any issue at all?
That would give everyone a fair crack of the whip !!

Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:25 pm
by hazelbark
david53 wrote:MatthewP wrote:I like the idea of playing on a 6' by 3' table. That could have a number of benefits.
Games would finish quicker
Heavy infantyr would be more involved
Skirmishers would still have a part to play without being able to run and hide
No rule changes
Easy to implement with some masking tape
How long before everyone took Heavy Foot armies and how exciting would that be with no proper movement? since most armies can take easily three foot of Heavy foot spears ect.
Why not a 5'x4' table?
Depth allows skirmishing. Narrow prevents zipping to side. Perhaps a slight uptick in FMs.
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:40 pm
by jlopez
ethan wrote:Ghaznavid wrote:
I'm not sure that the impression that 800 points open set-piece battles are a bit one-dimensional and the 'skirmisher problem' are directly related.
The equal point set-piece approach is a feature of ancients as long as I'm in. The problem is that usually was the way conflicts were decided back then. Special objectives (aside from sieges) as featured in many WWII or SF games are simply not historical and don't lend themselves to well to ancients due to the multitude of highly different armies involved.
How many ancient battles could meaningfully be thought of as having "objectives" beyond defeating the enemy army? I think this is a funamental difference when looking at ancients vs say FoW.
In a WW2 company level game objectives make sense as you are a small part of a big machine. So saying "you small part will contribute to the overall objective by doing X (taking hill or whatever) makes sense."
Well, a fair few cultures (Greeks, Romans and medieval europeans) considered holding the battlefield at the end of the day as a sign of victory. Probably not convincing enough to compare with routing the enemy army but it's a start. That's easily simulated by have the central sector on the other side counting as an objective. If you have twice the APs of non-skirmishing troops in your opponent's central sector you get X extra points as a bonus (or you gain X and your opponent deducts X). It's simple and it might just encourage people to field some heavy stuff in the centre to hold their own central sector and/or seize the other side's. A bit like they did historically.
Julian
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:57 pm
by Ghaznavid
jlopez wrote:Well, a fair few cultures (Greeks, Romans and medieval europeans) considered holding the battlefield at the end of the day as a sign of victory. Probably not convincing enough to compare with routing the enemy army but it's a start. That's easily simulated by have the central sector on the other side counting as an objective. If you have twice the APs of non-skirmishing troops in your opponent's central sector you get X extra points as a bonus (or you gain X and your opponent deducts X). It's simple and it might just encourage people to field some heavy stuff in the centre to hold their own central sector and/or seize the other side's. A bit like they did historically.
Just historically their opponents didn't always agree. (I doubt the Skyhians cared much if some Greeks kept the "battlefield".)
I'm also afraid it's not really so simple and will give certain armies a huge advantage. Assuming you have one side with say a center of Off. Spears, Pikes or Knights and the other army gets only shooty Cv. as heavies (Mongols for example), there is about zero chance that they can keep or take the center vs. a massive push. Given enough time they might be able to whittle the troops in the center down by shooting or flank charges, but it's doubtful they will get the time in an tournament setting.
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:54 pm
by jlopez
Ghaznavid wrote:jlopez wrote:Well, a fair few cultures (Greeks, Romans and medieval europeans) considered holding the battlefield at the end of the day as a sign of victory. Probably not convincing enough to compare with routing the enemy army but it's a start. That's easily simulated by have the central sector on the other side counting as an objective. If you have twice the APs of non-skirmishing troops in your opponent's central sector you get X extra points as a bonus (or you gain X and your opponent deducts X). It's simple and it might just encourage people to field some heavy stuff in the centre to hold their own central sector and/or seize the other side's. A bit like they did historically.
Just historically their opponents didn't always agree. (I doubt the Skyhians cared much if some Greeks kept the "battlefield".)
I'm also afraid it's not really so simple and will give certain armies a huge advantage. Assuming you have one side with say a center of Off. Spears, Pikes or Knights and the other army gets only shooty Cv. as heavies (Mongols for example), there is about zero chance that they can keep or take the center vs. a massive push. Given enough time they might be able to whittle the troops in the center down by shooting or flank charges, but it's doubtful they will get the time in an tournament setting.
The cav could try to occupy the other central sector which effectively negates the loss of their own? They could even try to rout the enemy army through shooting, charging, flank marches...etc before the end of the battle. Dare I say it? They could play to win?
To be honest, I can't say the idea appeals to me either but at the moment anything is better than the current format as far as I'm concerned. Better get back to painting my Shermans.
Julian
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:04 pm
by Delbruck
How many Carrhae type battles were there really? There were probably a fair number that we are not aware of, but I doubt there were many. All of the Hun battles were set piece, and most of the Mongol advantage were strategic or operational. Most of these type of battles would probably have occured because the civilized state was invading the steppes. But this was rare. Normally the nomads would be invading civilization. Even in the cases where the steppes were invaded, such as Darius' invasion of Scyhtia, there probably many more skirmishes than real battles.
Not having tried it, but it sounds like a 5 x 3 table for normal 800 point battles could have a lot of merit. If one wanted to give the nomad LH some chance, perhaps a +6 or better initiative to armies choosing steppe terrain would allow a 6 x 4 table. The 5x3 table would probably encourage more armies like Turks and Mongols to use CV instead of LH, and armies like Parthians to max out on CT's. On the face of it, it would encouage more traditional infantry armies instead of masses of LH.
Hal
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:08 pm
by petedalby
How long before everyone took Heavy Foot armies and how exciting would that be with no proper movement? since most armies can take easily three foot of Heavy foot spears ect.
I'm not advocating every comp should be on a 5 x 4 table or even a 5 x 3 table.
But wouldn't it be fun if at least one was so we could see how it went? Try something different?
I tried 350 points on 3 x 2 table (I think?) - in 25mm - it was great fun!
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:10 pm
by hazelbark
Delbruck wrote: perhaps a better initiative to armies choosing steppe terrain would allow a 6 x 4 table. The 5x3 table would probably encourage more armies like Turks and Mongols to use CV instead of LH, and armies like Parthians to max out on CT's. On the face of it, it would encouage more traditional infantry armies instead of masses of LH.
A variant of this to correct Steppe terrain. Normal boards are 5x4 unless an army has Steppe, when it can instead choose a 6x4 table, but then the loserr of initiative gets to pick the terrain from their own list.
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:21 pm
by caliban66
Ghaznavid wrote:caliban66 wrote:As I wrote in other post, if in an open tournament players scored only the AP they cause to their enemies, things would be quite different. Player would focus on winning battles by routing enemies. There would not be room to speculate.
The problem with this is that this might lead to small armies of very tough troops. You can't beat them easily and even if you can't get many points as there aren't many BGs in such an army. I fear in the end this would make more armies unviable for tournaments then currently.
Umm, I see your point, but I don't see in that way. It's not sure to kill many BG's with the army you describe. A good tournament army would be one focused on win battles rather on not to loose any BG.
Anyway, the further we get from the rulebook, the more weird solutions we may find. I also think that a scoring system based on victory conditions described by the rulebook may also work quite well. 0 for loosers or draws, points for all those kind of victories. The armies in a tournament may then focus on winning.
scoring systems
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:00 pm
by benos
Ok a couple of comments i have had from freinds who have tried FOG and DBM, but normally play WAB, 40K or FOW
firstly the "lots of shoving and tokens but you don't seem to be doing much"
this has been said a number of times to me, it can be both a good and a bad thing, but if your tourney players are off to other rulesets perhaps it is because they want to see dynamic things happening (figures taken off the table, often in batches or whole units, tanks blowing up etc)
"it takes too long" : WAB generally runs in about 2 hours, FOG in about 3 if the players are generally pretty fast. I know i get through turns pretty quickly, but have seen players take an inordinate amount of time to decide, this happens in other systems but it is less noticible as they run quicker
"is that all the bow range" very common from those playing WAB etc is the feeling that in FOG you cannot do much with missile power, unless you are light horse, and that the range of missiles is what hurts (this is because they see that you get maybe a couple of shots off since the range is not much different to the move rates of close combat capable troops)
finally FOG does not have the "cool toys with special rules" factor, i personally think this is a good thing, but when presented with shiney new effects just for thier army it may seem that the army has a better feel.
now these are all from people having tried a couple of games, but who usually play other systems. perhaps they may be part of the reason for a fall in FOG competition numbers rather than light horse.
especailly when the unhistorical matches are more likely in ancients warfare.
I am not advocating changing FOG to match these, but there are more reasons why competiton numbers may be falling.
personally i would encourage organisers to run a range of compatitions: straightforward open, open scenario based, and themed. this way it is more likley a wargamer will find something to thier taste, from my experience with WAB I have played in and helped run, open, themed, and scenario based events. all of which attracted different players (there was some overlap) while one player may enjoy taking on all comers in a straightforward battle another prefers to fight Romans vs Gauls in a scenario or similar historical set-ups. If you only cater to one type you lose out to ther systems that provide for it.
Ben
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:14 pm
by dave_r
now these are all from people having tried a couple of games, but who usually play other systems. perhaps they may be part of the reason for a fall in FOG competition numbers rather than light horse.
Are competition numbers falling? Burton had over 50 teams in February, compared to mid 30's last year. Northern Doubles Fog numbers are up. Britcon numbers seem up.
I think the person said that numbers in NZ and Spain were falling, which is not the same as tournament numbers are falling. Seems popular enough in the states and the UK.
Which is not to say we should ignore the fact that numbers are falling in Spain and NZ. However, because the player numbers are so low in NZ then it is a special case. How many ancient players are there in total?
Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 8:52 pm
by jlopez
dave_r wrote:now these are all from people having tried a couple of games, but who usually play other systems. perhaps they may be part of the reason for a fall in FOG competition numbers rather than light horse.
Are competition numbers falling? Burton had over 50 teams in February, compared to mid 30's last year. Northern Doubles Fog numbers are up. Britcon numbers seem up.
I think the person said that numbers in NZ and Spain were falling, which is not the same as tournament numbers are falling. Seems popular enough in the states and the UK.
Which is not to say we should ignore the fact that numbers are falling in Spain and NZ. However, because the player numbers are so low in NZ then it is a special case. How many ancient players are there in total?
In Spain we're looking at a pool of 100 or so potential ancients competition wargamers most of whom will only play at their local club's competition with a handful of others travelling from outside the area. FOG is still being played at clubs and there is little sign of diminishing interest there but the rules aren't motivating players enough for them to travel any distance. To give you an example, the Barcelona club has an internal league of twenty or so players who play on a regular basis. Of these maybe half might participate in the club's own open competition in November and if you're lucky half a dozen will show up at the Montmelo competition (10 miles away) in July.
Initally I thought it might have something to do with the recession but FOW competitions are well attended and increasing in numbers. I think Benos has made a fair point about FOG's lack of dynamism compared to other rulesets. Most new entrants to the hobby refuse point blank to spend significant amounts of time and money painting a large army to then spend three to four hours doing not an awful lot. Increasingly the veterans are also coming to the conclusion that they have better things to do with their time. I for one stopped playing FOG after my first FOW competition when I realised how much more fun it was to play than FOG which isn't bad when you consider I got hammered in every single game.
Julian