Page 7 of 8
Re: Warfare 2011
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:29 pm
by david53
rbodleyscott wrote:nikgaukroger wrote:I'd move away from just using the books to decide the theme as they are really only a "get you started" guideline and are far from perfect.
Agreed. The DBx list books were never designed as tournament themes, yet (sadly) they got used for most tournaments.
The FOG list books are designed to address the issue of "off the shelf" tournament themes to the extent that this is possible, but as Nik says, with a little thought and effort, more "bespoke" tournament themes can easily be created and would almost certainly be popular as long as they are not excessively narrow (and some leeway is allowed for morphing).
For example, there is clearly room for an "Ancients" theme excluding shooty cavalry armies, to represent the approximate type of opponents most western Ancient armies were designed to fight.
(The rules are not wrong in making it hard for such armies to defeat shooty cavalry armies - they had the same problems historically when they met them. But then again, most of them never did meet them historically, so a theme without them would be entirely reasonable.).
I understand but as an example the Roman theme at Warfare was for me a a ideal example of a good mix of armies, no mass LH armies TBH no Skythians ect what it did lack was the barbarian type armies two ancient Britains and a Gallic excepted.
I would say a period by area and date might work or it might just be to narrow, I do like the chance to play armies I have'nt fought before I managed two at Warfare, I do think people like that chance it adds something to the games if the opponent has a new army you've not fought before..
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:51 pm
by timmy1
Tim, not been to Warfare as a competition player so might be speaking out of turn but if the Roman theme did not have enough hairy barbarians, how about making it 700 points for the semi-civilised chaps (any drilled army that is not Roman), 750 points for the Romans, and 800 points for barbarians (or something similar)? Classical writers are always on about about how there were savages beyond counting (well JC is anyway) - now is the chance for the numbers to be recreated on the table.
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:45 pm
by rbodleyscott
timmy1 wrote:Tim, not been to Warfare as a competition player so might be speaking out of turn but if the Roman theme did not have enough hairy barbarians, how about making it 700 points for the semi-civilised chaps (any drilled army that is not Roman), 750 points for the Romans, and 800 points for barbarians (or something similar)? Classical writers are always on about about how there were savages beyond counting (well JC is anyway) - now is the chance for the numbers to be recreated on the table.
It's an interesting idea.
Here is a simpler suggestion - Barbarian invasions theme in which there is 1 point discount on Undrilled Impact Foot.
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:47 pm
by timmy1
That works too (indeed it is better as it is simple) but does not penalise the S*ss*n*ds enough for my liking... :)
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:48 pm
by dave_r
timmy1 wrote:Tim, not been to Warfare as a competition player so might be speaking out of turn but if the Roman theme did not have enough hairy barbarians, how about making it 700 points for the semi-civilised chaps (any drilled army that is not Roman), 750 points for the Romans, and 800 points for barbarians (or something similar)? Classical writers are always on about about how there were savages beyond counting (well JC is anyway) - now is the chance for the numbers to be recreated on the table.
It had loads of hairy barbarians!!!
Bosporans, Ancient British, Sassanids to name but a few.
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:51 pm
by dave_r
Seluselus wrote:So here was I thinking that tactical naivety, a lack of knowledge of the rules, an army that manoeuvred like a stranded whale on Roker beach, a propensity to throw dice like a drongo at the most crucial moments and my total ineptitude as a General contributed to my shambolic performance at Warfare.
But No!!!!...the tables were three inches too wide...phew!!!
For one moment I thought it was my fault.
I will sleep a lot easier tonight. After all it's only a game....isn't it?
Is that you Chris?
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:12 pm
by Seluselus
Is that you Chris?
Good God No............well yes actually........how could you tell!!!!
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:54 pm
by david53
Seluselus wrote:Is that you Chris?
Good God No............well yes actually........how could you tell!!!!
Who elese knows the stranded Whales play at Roker Park whats the time again Dave......
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:14 pm
by azrael86
timmy1 wrote:700 points for the semi-civilised chaps (any drilled army that is not Roman), 750 points for the Romans, and 800 points for barbarians (or something similar)?
Aside from being rather easy on the Romans - why should they get more points than, say a Carthaginian or a Seleucid?
It appears you are classifying the Greeks as semi-civilised!
Like Richard's suggestion, although I'm not sure why he has opted to discount undrilled IF but not other undrilled medium foot (e.g. Picts, etc).
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 8:35 pm
by timmy1
Every good Roman knows why they should get more points - Punic treachery is legendary. As for S*l**c*ds, they are just effete Persians in disguise. Greeks - have to watch out for them - they kept objecting to perfectly civilised Roman taxes and make Roman boys grow up soft :)
I think Richard's point (and mine) is that the undrilled MF armies are those least seen. This is to give an incentive for them to be seen in the theme. Personally I would add irregular defensive spearmen to the list but I am not the theme setter so it is his choice. RBS and I were trying to and 'balance' to people's army choices for the theme and encourage a wider choice of armies.
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:26 pm
by dave_r
Seluselus wrote:Is that you Chris?
Good God No............well yes actually........how could you tell!!!!
The fact you used the phrases "Roker Park", "total ineptitude" and "shambolic performance" in the same sentence
That has to point to a sunderland fan. One who is old enough to remember Joker Park.
Why aren't you doing the Northern Doubles on Sunday then?
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:39 pm
by azrael86
timmy1 wrote:Every good Roman knows why they should get more points - Punic treachery is legendary. As for S*l**c*ds, they are just effete Persians in disguise. Greeks - have to watch out for them - they kept objecting to perfectly civilised Roman taxes and make Roman boys grow up soft
I think Richard's point (and mine) is that the undrilled MF armies are those least seen. This is to give an incentive for them to be seen in the theme. Personally I would add irregular defensive spearmen to the list but I am not the theme setter so it is his choice. RBS and I were trying to and 'balance' to people's army choices for the theme and encourage a wider choice of armies.
PUNIC treachery is legendary? You wouldn't catch a Roman rebelling against the Senate or the Emperor, would you?
I merely observe that there didn't seem to be many successors around, and whatever you think of the later seleucids surely Al and the boys should be making the odd appearance?
I didn't think Greeks were trying to make boys *soft*, but maybe that's just gossip.
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:11 pm
by madaxeman
Oh - don't forget (if you wish) to post your lists from warfare into the Wiki at
www.madaxeman.com.
http://www.madaxeman.com/wiki2/tiki-index.php
Adding a column of "*" 's to the first column in the army builder spreadsheet allows you to cut and paste from excel into the wiki and maintain formatting very easily.
tim
Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 11:16 pm
by philqw78
madaxeman wrote:Adding a column of "*" 's to the first column
I'm not sure it calls for such bad language though
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:11 am
by peterrjohnston
hammy wrote:
Having played Swiss vs Ottoman I can testify that it is a pretty dull game and that the Swiss have very little hope of pulling off a win. That said the Ottomans will struggle to beat a well played Swiss as well.
Well, therein lies a conundrum. Historically the Swiss were renowned for fast aggressive attacks, whereas the Ottomans' deployed with the Janissaries and supports in a fortified centre. Whereas we have the Janissaries dancing better than the chorus line at the Royal Ballet Company, and relatively the Swiss plod along like a primary school production of Swan Lake.
Manoeuver again... I really wish we'd bite the bullet on this one and look at making infantry movement rates that are based on historical behaviour (I think FoGR has this?), rather than function ("I have a bow, so I move 33% faster than you!"). The whole MF/HF movement rate division is a hangover from past rule-sets.
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:51 am
by nikgaukroger
peterrjohnston wrote:hammy wrote:
Having played Swiss vs Ottoman I can testify that it is a pretty dull game and that the Swiss have very little hope of pulling off a win. That said the Ottomans will struggle to beat a well played Swiss as well.
Well, therein lies a conundrum. Historically the Swiss were renowned for fast aggressive attacks, whereas the Ottomans' deployed with the Janissaries and supports in a fortified centre. Whereas we have the Janissaries dancing better than the chorus line at the Royal Ballet Company, and relatively the Swiss plod along like a primary school production of Swan Lake.
Manoeuver again... I really wish we'd bite the bullet on this one and look at making infantry movement rates that are based on historical behaviour (I think FoGR has this?), rather than function ("I have a bow, so I move 33% faster than you!"). The whole MF/HF movement rate division is a hangover from past rule-sets.
FoG:R has HF and MF moving the same - 3MU. It also has Determined Foot for the Swiss who move faster (4MU) and are less affected by terrain than HF. Means Swiss do have a rapid attack and with BGs up to 16 bases they appear to behave more like the historical Swiss than they do in FoG:AM.
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 1:54 pm
by peteratjet
nikgaukroger wrote:
FoG:R has HF and MF moving the same - 3MU. It also has Determined Foot for the Swiss who move faster (4MU) and are less affected by terrain than HF. Means Swiss do have a rapid attack and with BGs up to 16 bases they appear to behave more like the historical Swiss than they do in FoG:AM.
Why not re-define Swiss pike in Ancient/Medieval FoG as Medium Foot then?
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:03 pm
by hammy
peteratjet wrote:nikgaukroger wrote:
FoG:R has HF and MF moving the same - 3MU. It also has Determined Foot for the Swiss who move faster (4MU) and are less affected by terrain than HF. Means Swiss do have a rapid attack and with BGs up to 16 bases they appear to behave more like the historical Swiss than they do in FoG:AM.
Why not re-define Swiss pike in Ancient/Medieval FoG as Medium Foot then?
The problem wiht that is that it would make them a POA worse off at impact against mounted and they would take a -1 in close combat with heavy foot. It would also mean that they soent their time lurking in uneven ground, not really something the Swiss were noted for.
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:16 pm
by azrael86
hammy wrote:peteratjet wrote:nikgaukroger wrote:
FoG:R has HF and MF moving the same - 3MU. It also has Determined Foot for the Swiss who move faster (4MU) and are less affected by terrain than HF. Means Swiss do have a rapid attack and with BGs up to 16 bases they appear to behave more like the historical Swiss than they do in FoG:AM.
Why not re-define Swiss pike in Ancient/Medieval FoG as Medium Foot then?
The problem wiht that is that it would make them a POA worse off at impact against mounted and they would take a -1 in close combat with heavy foot. It would also mean that they soent their time lurking in uneven ground, not really something the Swiss were noted for.
Heavy foot (Fast)
Posted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 2:20 pm
by nikgaukroger
Just import Determined Foot from FoG:R - 4MU move and not disordered by Uneven terrain.
To really get the "look and feel" you'd also have to consider the FoG:R keil rules and larger BGs.