Slitherine

hammy wrote: You can't do that it is not in the rules .... you will be punnished for such heresy

My Scotsman is taller than your Scotsman.

hazelbark wrote:We had a mini of 400 on i think it was a 3x2 that worked really well too.

Did you make any rules changes?

For the 650 on a 5 by 3 we just change the terrain picks to 2 or 3 per player and make it such that compulsary terrain must be placed even if it cannot fit (a maximum sized piece will not fit if more than 8mu from the table edge).

IIRC we changed terrain and deployment to 2/3rds the rule stated MUs.

At Derekcon 57 last October, we used starter armies from any published book on 5 x 3 tables, reduced the set-up to 12 and 7 inches respectively for skirmishers and formed and used 2.5 hours plus 2d6+3 minutes of random time. The games played very fast and the terrain did not seem to overly disrupt the games. Only 3 games of 9 timed out.

Christopher Anders

I'm not really in it to fight 'historical' battles, but play strategy against another person. It works as is for me.

--------------------------------------------------
Gift Ideas
Gifts

Steal my line :O .

Could be a fun tourney
Play a lot of points on a wide table for one session

then play the same armies with fewer points on a smaller table and compare results

I like the idea of more Legions on the table - better to BASH you with

I do hate those shooty horsey guys running around though - pricks

hazelbark wrote:In all the postings about this, that and the other thing.

Is it possible the formula is more simply points to board width ratio?

In 15mm, should 800 points be played on a 5 foot wide board instead of 6?

A narrow board would to a small degree

Increase the worth of HF.
Reduce the LH scamper away.
Increase value of power troops over fiddily troops.
Make the games more likley to conclude.
Make terrain either a bigger issue or less relevant in its absence.

Historical battles were generally fought on infinitely large tables.

Smaller tables just increase the unrealistic end-of-the-world syndrome.

I agree that varying the board size would make for more interest, and smallewr boards might make foot armies viable.

Most 15mm competitions I play in have 6 feet by 4 tables. Largely, they do this because they were once DBM tables and that was the most common size (hence organisers have tables and cloths in 6 foot multiples). In DBM many troop types fought fine in a single rank plus the odd reserve. Hence filling th4 46 base widths of a 6 foot table was possible for many armies.

Most FoG troop types fight in two ranks to be effective hand to hand. So it's rare to be able to fill 6 feet of table width, hence there is frequently a fairly open flank. Of course, opinions will differ as to whether this is a good thing.

Since there will always be divided opinions on what the ideal table width would be, it might be interesting to see a competition where there were tables of different width (say 5, 6 and 7 feet), allocated randomly. That would test the skills of foot generals finding themselves in the open and mounted finding themselve in close terrain.

grahambriggs wrote:Since there will always be divided opinions on what the ideal table width would be, it might be interesting to see a competition where there were tables of different width (say 5, 6 and 7 feet), allocated randomly. That would test the skills of foot generals finding themselves in the open and mounted finding themselve in close terrain.

That is an interesting idea Graham.

Since there will always be divided opinions on what the ideal table width would be, it might be interesting to see a competition where there were tables of different width (say 5, 6 and 7 feet), allocated randomly.

I have seen this at some competitions. Not sure it was intentional though...

Seems pretty common for HF armies to be devestating as long as they could prevent themselves from being flanked by enemy cavalry. Taking away the extra room to maneuver for mobile troops would make the game more of a march straight ahead and roll dice wouldn't it?

grahambriggs wrote:I agree that varying the board size would make for more interest, and smallewr boards might make foot armies viable.

Most 15mm competitions I play in have 6 feet by 4 tables. Largely, they do this because they were once DBM tables and that was the most common size (hence organisers have tables and cloths in 6 foot multiples). In DBM many troop types fought fine in a single rank plus the odd reserve. Hence filling th4 46 base widths of a 6 foot table was possible for many armies.

Most FoG troop types fight in two ranks to be effective hand to hand. So it's rare to be able to fill 6 feet of table width, hence there is frequently a fairly open flank. Of course, opinions will differ as to whether this is a good thing.

Since there will always be divided opinions on what the ideal table width would be, it might be interesting to see a competition where there were tables of different width (say 5, 6 and 7 feet), allocated randomly. That would test the skills of foot generals finding themselves in the open and mounted finding themselve in close terrain.

Would a mobile shooty army stick around and actually fight where their only option was to fight straight up on a narrow front? Makes no sense.

They would just bypass the immobile foot army, burn the hell out of every farm, field and village in 100 miles, cut off the supply line and reinforcements of the foot army and would typically engage when they felt they have the advantage.

Also from a historical perspective, many armies did well when they could fight frontally, but were whipped when their flanks were threatened. Unfortunatly for them there was no imaginary line cutting off the world on both sides of the world for them to fight between to protect them.

I personally like playing on an 8 foot table, which is what I have in my home, as it is more fun to actually have all the dead area to move around in.

BeansNFranks wrote: Would a mobile shooty army stick around and actually fight where their only option was to fight straight up on a narrow front? Makes no sense.

That's why the rules have a system that allows for flank marches. They mostly don't get used because as Graham points out there is plenty of space on the table for flanking moves. A smaller table might encourage mounted armies to use flank marches and allow infantry armies to charge ahead.

jlopez wrote:

BeansNFranks wrote: Would a mobile shooty army stick around and actually fight where their only option was to fight straight up on a narrow front? Makes no sense.

That's why the rules have a system that allows for flank marches. They mostly don't get used because as Graham points out there is plenty of space on the table for flanking moves. A smaller table might encourage mounted armies to use flank marches and allow infantry armies to charge ahead.

I would personally rather move my models to outflank my opponent than roll a dice to do it...

We were playing a game today, with large (>1000 pts) armies and were discussing this point about skirmishers, table sizes, points, etc.

I think you get a better game (and quicker) by running bigger armies (say 1000 or even 1200 pts). Means that armies can cover more of the board or can deploy in deeper lines. Skirmishers can still do their thing but have less space to run away. Also means those tiny, high-quality armies become a little bit better.

Just on that, we were also discussing the concept of second lines in FOG. I like that there is some encouragement to have them, but I still think its application is slighty flawed (e.g. too much risk of reserves being broken through, so you get the strange sight of reserve columns). Armies frequently fought in two lines, with the second one moving forward when the front one was beaten (some even fought in three). This is harder to do in FOG.
So, perhaps on rout moves after the first one, routing battlegroups can move through friendly battlegroups, but these can take a cohesion test not to be affected rather than be disrupted automatically?

NickW wrote: Armies frequently fought in two lines, with the second one moving forward when the front one was beaten (some even fought in three).

Did they? My knowledge is restricted to European and Near-Eastern military history so can't comment on Far Eastern armies. Over in the West a handful of armies did use second lines and reserves but the number is quite restricted. Most fought in one line without even a reserve.

"Frequently" may perhaps be an overstatement, but they certainly did far more often than we see on table top.

NickW wrote:So, perhaps on rout moves after the first one, routing battlegroups can move through friendly battlegroups, but these can take a cohesion test not to be affected rather than be disrupted automatically?

There has been some discussion of this issue on the FOG 2.0 section of the forum. Suggestions along these lines have been made there.

Polkovnik wrote:

NickW wrote:So, perhaps on rout moves after the first one, routing battlegroups can move through friendly battlegroups, but these can take a cohesion test not to be affected rather than be disrupted automatically?

There has been some discussion of this issue on the FOG 2.0 section of the forum. Suggestions along these lines have been made there.

Ah thanks - I'll have a look at that.