Slitherine

My fiancee wants to try FOG so I hope I don't make her cry. I'll probably be in full teaching mode that game.

Brian

OhReally wrote:If you don't make new players cry then you are doing something wrong!

hammy wrote: I have to say that in my later DBM days I would always make sure I beat poor or new players but I would also explain to them exactly how I was doing it and then I left an opportunity for them to kill one of my elements if they made a clever move I regularly told them how to achieve that goal. That said if I was playing you at DBM and I start telling you how to block a pin, slip an element into a small space or conform one of my elements to death you could be sure of two things, one that I really didn't care if the element in question died or not and two that you had already lost the game but just didn't know it yet

Hammy, that is a gentlemanly and highly-ethical approach. I heartily applaud this, and congratulate you in all sincerity!

hammy wrote:Using Romans in FoG is a bit like using Swiss in DBM. You are very very tough frontally over a relatively short frontage. The key is getting as much of that frontage into contact as possible. The more points and AP you 'waste' on troops that aren't legionaries the worse things get.

So, the logical approach to fighting Romans with most armies would be to avoid frontal melee engagement, no? Which sort of brings us right back to the OP's question, (paraphrasing shamelessly here), is it ethical to avoid combat? To which I say, "Hell, yes!". I believe what Julian is saying in the second post of this thread is just that it's not OK to deliberately waste time, dragging out each of your turns in the hope that time will expire. To this I heartily agree.

BrianC wrote:My fiancee wants to try FOG so I hope I don't make her cry.

Dude! I am speechless. You are the luckiest man in the world, and yes, you can tell her I said so

I actually considered taking a few Art classes at my local community college, thinking I might meet a girl who liked to paint. So, if you see me at a tourney someday, and my army is painted in shades of pink, mauve, and purple, you'll know the plan succeeded...err, well, sort of...(cough)

possum wrote:

hammy wrote: I have to say that in my later DBM days I would always make sure I beat poor or new players but I would also explain to them exactly how I was doing it and then I left an opportunity for them to kill one of my elements if they made a clever move I regularly told them how to achieve that goal. That said if I was playing you at DBM and I start telling you how to block a pin, slip an element into a small space or conform one of my elements to death you could be sure of two things, one that I really didn't care if the element in question died or not and two that you had already lost the game but just didn't know it yet

Hammy, that is a gentlemanly and highly-ethical approach. I heartily applaud this, and congratulate you in all sincerity!

Why thankyou

To be honest there is a certain degree of advantage to doing this. If you are in a game where you get the feeling your opponent knows that they can do something clever and starts fiddling about trying to do it you might as well just tell them and save the time it will take them to work it out. At the very least present them with ALL the options and let them choose.

possum wrote:
I actually considered taking a few Art classes at my local community college, thinking I might meet a girl who liked to paint. So, if you see me at a tourney someday, and my army is painted in shades of pink, mauve, and purple, you'll know the plan succeeded...err, well, sort of...(cough)

Lynda Fairhurst famously has a pink Han Chinese army - and whole range of matching pink dice

In fact I think I've faced the Han when used by her daughter, Katie

nikgaukroger wrote:Lynda Fairhurst famously has a pink Han Chinese army - and whole range of matching pink dice

In fact I think I've faced the Han when used by her daughter, Katie

Before everyone hops on a plane in search of Katie I feel it only fair to point out that she is now married and probably the only gamer who had to drag her boyfriend to a wargames comp

hammy wrote:Before everyone hops on a plane in search of Katie I feel it only fair to point out that she is now married and probably the only gamer who had to drag her boyfriend to a wargames comp

<sigh>

What a woman!

Marc

babyshark wrote:

hammy wrote:Before everyone hops on a plane in search of Katie I feel it only fair to point out that she is now married and probably the only gamer who had to drag her boyfriend to a wargames comp

<sigh>

What a woman!

Marc

I would not want a GF or wife who played. One of the reasons I play this crap is to GET AWAY from all the womens I have to deal with. I can't imagine bringing them into my hobbies, you might as well smoke around the gas tanks!

BrianC wrote:The original theme in this thread was that I wanted to know if any kind of strategy was either gamey (cheese) or frowned upon. It seems that most games both sides advance towards the other and battle it out in the middle. At least that has been my experience. Except for a few times where one side would just sit at its starting point so as to not engage. A while back I played a game where as a Roman I did not want to rush forward and battle my opponents pike BGs until the cavalry battle was completed, we were actually winning that one. But I felt at the time that its my move I must move the full 3MU otherwise I'm just playing a cheesy style. Or is it ok to huddle around your camp in a corner when faced with a numerically superior opponent? Using the board edges to protect your flanks.
I just wanted to find out what others were doing and what was acceptable and or not acceptable. Just trying to get a general feel.
Brian

A "hang-back" strategy isn't cheesy. It's okay if either your game plan dictates that part of you army holds back whilst waiting for something else to happen (e.g. to win with your cavalry on a flank). You may also be forced to hold back in a comp because of tactical circumstance - e.g. Romans in open terrain vs a steppe horse archers army.

If you look in the AAR section I've got a report of my Republican Romans - with lots of photos - at the IWF in Helsinki. The reports are in six entries and titled IWF Helsinki # - Romans vs xyz. Of you can follow this link to the introduction viewtopic.php?t=7032

Neil

I would not want a GF or wife who played. One of the reasons I play this crap is to GET AWAY from all the womens I have to deal with. I can't imagine bringing them into my hobbies, you might as well smoke around the gas tanks!

But if she played, you wouldn't need to get away...


Regarding the original theme, hanging back isn't cheesy--it may well be the best playing style to win vs. a particular army. (Hanging back can be dumb if it misses a different opportunity or is fueled by indecision or fear.) The original example of using cavalry to beat up flanks plays to that army's strengths, which one should do. Delay by terrain choice & deployment, screening troops and other non-direct stratagems are also perfectly acceptable, often needed to get the most out of an army that's outclassed in a particular dimension.

But if she played, you wouldn't need to get away...

If my wife played I would find a different hobby.. each to their own, or not as the case may be.

philqw78 wrote:

But if she played, you wouldn't need to get away...

If my wife played I would find a different hobby.. each to their own, or not as the case may be.

Definitely. My wife used to play ancients with me and still likes the history and the minis, but doesn't have the time right now (someday she may be able to again

Dale

OK, skip the Art classes. Let's find a local community college with an Ancient History department, hmmm, hmmm...

And I can see how it might be a bit awkward to have the wife coming to tourneys, Phil. Especially if your girlfriend was going to be there.

Back to the original topic,

I have used this strategy extensively with my Gauls specifically against Romans. I use my superior cavalry to beat the Roman cav, and I use skirmishers to keep the legionaries from double moving. Once I have won the flanks, I turn to the center and move my infantry for the first turn -- sometimes it is the 5th or 6th turn.

There is a point system. Some Troops cost a lot more. Use them to their best advantage. Some troops cost a lot less. Use them to their best advantage.

Play a scenario game, play to win the scenario.

Play a competition game, play to win the competition.

Play a game, play to win. This means many different things, 'cos its only a game. Win friends, win respect, win something you haven't had 'cos that bloke has beat you every game 'til now. But its still only a game. Nobody really dies.

Thanks for all the feedback guys, great for putting things in perspective. And thanks Neil for the AARs I really enjoyed them. And vercingetrix, what you said about Gauls makes sense, play to the strengths of your army while exploiting potential weaknesses of your opponent. And of course Phil summed it up nicely.

Oh and to Possum, do a google for Possum Strategy. Your even more famous now

Great thread and inputs

Brian

hammy wrote:Interesting reading.

I have to say that in my later DBM days I would always make sure I beat poor or new players but I would also explain to them exactly how I was doing it and then I left an opportunity for them to kill one of my elements if they made a clever move I regularly told them how to achieve that goal. That said if I was playing you at DBM and I start telling you how to block a pin, slip an element into a small space or conform one of my elements to death you could be sure of two things, one that I really didn't care if the element in question died or not and two that you had already lost the game but just didn't know it yet

Some of the nicest comments I have had in my Wargaming career are from players who I handily beat but appreciated the 'lessons' they learnt as a result.

You have to be careful how you do this though. I don't doubt for a minute that you have the best intentions and are trying to help so I'll exclude you from the next comments as you were not the offending party.

If somebody who had just beaten me was patronising me by telling me where I went wrong, letting me kill an element as a "pat on the head" and generally talking to me as if I was somehow less intelligent than him, I'd feel an almost irresistable desire to smash his face in.

I've had to suffer this unasked for "help" on at least one occasion, and frankly it was a struggle to remain polite. It was one of the reasons I gave up DBM doubles, that along with the "hollow centre" deployment, the "super skirmisher", the uselessness of Roman and Macedonian armies compared to obscure armies that nobody had ever heard of and tabletop encounters that may well have been good games, but bore little or no resemblance to any battle I ever read about.

In DBM there has been a tendency to condemn "corner sitters", i.e. defensive players, as unethical on the basis that they deny a better player points that are "rightfully" theirs.

FOG has been set up to make it nigh-on impossible to corner sit successfully. If you are outclassed as a player or by army match up there is usually nothing you can do by playing style or use of terrain to compensate.

Although some people in DBM objected to the idea of advancing to fight with a third of your army and hanging back to avoid combat with the rest, it was a strategy often recommended to beginners.

IMO avoiding combat in FOG by hanging back with all or part of your army is no worse than avoiding it by evading.

Hanging back with all your army and then spending 20 minutes each turn deciding where to move your generals is a different matter.

Yesterday was a good example of the possum tactic. Playing the last game in leading position against the player in second position, he needed to beat me by 15-5 to win the Jaén competition. In other words he needed a difference of five attrition points in his favour to win. My Mid Republican Romans stood no chance of pinning down the Granadines (mostly LF, xbow, LH, javelins, 8 MF, bow and 8 lancers and 4 knights) to a fight so a defensive deployment was pretty much on the cards from the beginning unless terrain was favourable

Unfortunately the terrain was pretty poor for an offensive game with a very open table. I had one vineyard covered hill on my long base edge in the right hand corner and a steep hill about 6 inches from the left hand corner. Fortunately the last piece of terrain, an enclosed field, also fell on my long base edge but due to an open field in the middle of the table I couldn't place it near the centre. My army couldn't comfortably fit between the field and the steep hill but I was prepared to take the risk of thining out the line for the sake of a game. My opponent rolled to move the terrain and duly moved the field to right up to the vineyard covered hill. This was fair enough from his point of view but from mine it meant stretching out my army to such an extent that he was almost guaranteed to break my army simply from shooting. The only solution to win the competition was simply to deploy my entire army in the corner and defend the field and vineyards where I was effectively invulnerable to shooting and close combat. Since I wasn't prepared to commit suicide and nor was I interested in winning a competition by hiding in terrain and twiddling my thumbs for three hours, I offered to deploy between the steep hill and the field if my opponent consented to return the enclosed field to its original position. Eventually this was agreed on, we played a relatively interesting (ie lots of manoeuvering) game where all I could realistically achieve was not to lose by 5 attrition points. I did and he won the competition but that's life.

The point about this post is that you can't have your cake and eat it all the time. If you have an advantage, whether it be in experience/skill or simply through a favourable match-up, don't push it. All you'll manage to do is force your opponent to be very defensive and/or so insecure that he'll intentionally or not slow the game down which makes it hard for you to win. It often pays to offer part of your army as a potential sacrifice or place terrain so your opponent actually believes he may have a chance to win or at least have a fun game.

Julian

Once a game is established and players are aware of good and bad matchups you can get situations where one player genuinely feels that they have no chance. When I started doing well in DBM comps I was using what I would consider 'power armies' where I could ditcate the pace of the game and hit hard while defending or evading elsewhere. As time went on players got wise to these tactics and pulling out wins became harder. As a result I changed my army designs to make the look weaker and to try to encourage my opponents to play the game.

In some ways the FoG Slave Revolt army Martin and I used in Scotland falls into the looking weaker category so perhaps my FoG lists are heading that way already.

Don Julian, you are a very honorable man, as befits a knight of Castile.

I would have sat in the terrain, fiddled my thumbs for 3 hours, and taken home the win

There was an odd sense of deja vu in reading your post, since you and the gentleman with the Granadines had exchanged greetings here in the forums a few weeks ago, and he predicted that you would have trouble.

Anyhow, my congratulations on your fine sense of sportsmanship. And better the silver medal than none