Lets play with more toys!

david53 · Post by **david53** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:13 pm

philqw78 wrote:Or play 800pts on a smaller table for a quicker game where the LH can't escape

Then everyone picks swiss?

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:31 pm

And the problem with 'Then everyone picks swiss' is?

I've got 500 AP of DBM Swiss so 900 points of FoG Swiss works for me.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:08 pm

Its all horses for courses, table size and number of points will dictate army selection. Bactrian 1000pts, poor, 800 pts good, 900pts ok

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:23 am

I'm intrigued as to why nobody has asked why 900 points for singles may be suggested. I suspect that in the light of other topics on the site people are making assumptions.

frederic · Post by **frederic** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:41 am

It takes already a long time for me to paint 800 pt so 900....

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 11:43 am

Some players would struggle to finish in time with 400 pts, let alone 800, 900 or 1000.

Will be interesting to see how many games time out when someone runs a 900 pt tournament.

Nik, what would you have added to your winning Seljuk Turk army ?

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:03 pm

Another ghilman BG probably and then mess around with other stuff to spend the other 24 points.

timmy1 · Post by **timmy1** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:05 pm

Nik, I'll bite. 'I'm intrigued as to why nobody has asked why 900 points for singles may be suggested. I suspect that in the light of other topics on the site people are making assumptions.' Why might 900 points for singles be suggested?

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Fri Jan 23, 2009 8:07 pm

and what assumptions....

my only assumption was that you were talking about singles games at 900pts

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:28 am

Well over the weekend in Usk there were a fair number of games that completed in the alloted 3 1/2 hours. I am still pretty much sticking to ny 50% completion rate of doubles games. Two of our games eneded with our opponents army broken, one ended with a big dent in our opponents right wing and the other while ending 11-9 would have turned into a 17-3 and possibly a 22-3 rather rapidly.

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:53 am

turned into a 17-3 and possibly a 22-3 rather rapidly.

Dependant upon a LF v's Ghilman charge, exciting.

hammy · Post by **hammy** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 8:00 am

philqw78 wrote:
turned into a 17-3 and possibly a 22-3 rather rapidly.

Dependant upon a LF v's Ghilman charge, exciting.

Yes, if the game had gone on we had a very good chance of picking up 4 or 5 APs just from one charge by LF javelinmen into the flank of a BG of fragmented Ghilmen who were in a gulley. Assuming the Ghilmen broke they would rout through the adjacent BG of disrupted Ghilmen (also in the gulley fighting our knights) and the LF would be almost certain to puruse into their flank, if that broke the second BG (again looking likely as they would have been fragmented by being burst through) then the LF would have hit the elephant BG that was also fighting our knights in the gulley (it's a long story) in the flank.

At the same time another BG of LF would have sacked the Ghaznavid camp.

Fun stuff.

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:01 am

I will have to do an analysis of the Godendag results, but my impression was that at least 50% results were outwright wins. The proportion of wins diminished in each round. There also seemed to be more outright wins in the Byzantium and Islam section than in the Rise and Fall of Rome section. This is presumably because the troops were faster moving.

It seems to me that 50% outright wins is the sort of proportion we should be aiming for. If all games ended in outright wins then decisive play would not be rewarded.

I don't agree with Nik's opinion (expressed to me personally) that Double Games are slower than singles games at the same points value. (or even as fast). The extra time used by consultation between the players is more than compensated for by the division of labour over the majority of movement and combat resolution. It is important, of course, that players do actually play in a genuine doubles mode, so that a large degree of "parallel processing" in fact occurs. Some teams who are not used to doubles play, or in which one player is a "puppet" of the other, and not trusted to make any moves of his own, may play slower.

I think it would be a mistake to increase the points value of single games without increasing the time available for them. This was a tendency in DBM tournaments, to their detriment in my opinion. For some reason there seems to be an inertia which prevents points totals being reduced again if the increased total proves unsuccessful. A classic example was the 400 point 28mm DBM game on 6 x 4 tables. The first few 28mm DBM tournaments were 325 points, then 350, then 400. 400 was clearly too much to allow any sort of manoeuvre, but once that had been used it never got reduced again to a more manageable level.

There is no doubt in my mind that 900 points worked better than 1000 points (which we tried previously) for the Godendag doubles.

If any increase is contemplated I strongly suggest that it be piloted in one or two tournaments rather than rolled out across an entire series.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:03 am

Usk was my first experience of FOG doubles format and 900 AP although Lance and I had played some some solo games at 900AP.

We had 4 enjoyable games and 2 went to completion. The biggest time bandit seemed to be the amount of consultation between the players.

On this experience I can't see why 900AP isn't more manageable and quicker for a singles game.

Pete

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:27 am

rbodleyscott wrote:
I don't agree with Nik's opinion (expressed to me personally) that Double Games are slower than singles games at the same points value. (or even as fast).

And quite publically earlier in this topic

Remains my view.

The extra time used by consultation between the players is more than compensated for by the division of labour over the majority of movement and combat resolution. It is important, of course, that players do actually play in a genuine doubles mode, so that a large degree of "parallel processing" in fact occurs. Some teams who are not used to doubles play, or in which one player is a "puppet" of the other, and not trusted to make any moves of his own, may play slower.

I think it would be a mistake to increase the points value of single games without increasing the time available for them. This was a tendency in DBM tournaments, to their detriment in my opinion. For some reason there seems to be an inertia which prevents points totals being reduced again if the increased total proves unsuccessful. A classic example was the 400 point 28mm DBM game on 6 x 4 tables. The first few 28mm DBM tournaments were 325 points, then 350, then 400. 400 was clearly too much to allow any sort of manoeuvre, but once that had been used it never got reduced again to a more manageable level.

400AP 28mm was hardly ever played. I know that the BHGS did do it once but because it was too cramped it dropped down again. Can't recall other 28mm comps though.

There is no doubt in my mind that 900 points worked better than 1000 points (which we tried previously) for the Godendag doubles.

An extra years experience playing for most (?) players undoubtably helped get results IMO.

stenic · Post by **stenic** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:39 am

Whilst I like to get as many toys as possible on the table too (we've done 850AP in 28mm) it is worth remembering that increasing points doesn't mean people will bring that many more toys. Many are just as likely to start taking the upgrades and get more (and/or improve) generals.

Oh, and the 28mm 850AP game took about 5hrs plus and just about reached a conclusion.

Steve P

rbodleyscott · Post by **rbodleyscott** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:40 am

One good thing is that if some respected players are suggesting larger points totals, then we have presumably achieved our design objectives regarding speed of play.

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:35 pm

One thing on a "look and feel" aspect I found the Decline and Fall games at the weekend felt more satisfying with a slightly larger number of troops on the table. Some 800 point games feel a bit empty figure density wise but these seemed to have a good balance between enough toys and enough space for armies that want/need to manoeuvre. I'd be interested to hear from the players in the earlier pool.

dave_r · Post by **dave_r** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:00 pm

Just done some analysis on the Northern Doubles results during 2008. It must be noted that this was a doubles event at 900 points, with a lot of players with very limited FoG experience.

Out of 46 games then 27 reached a conclusion, giving a completion rate of about 59%. Or if you are called Hammy then 58.69565%.

It should be noted that there is some artificial scoring in place which encourages players to not have more than 15 BG's which may account for this.

I'd be interested to hear from the players in the earlier pool.

Depends, with LH being fairly swirly then sometimes it can look like a lot less toys on the table. With three flank marches in one game that cuts down the toys as well.

Personally I am happy with doubles at 900 points, I would not like to face a Scots army at those points in a singles game...

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Mon Jan 26, 2009 1:04 pm

Even though you didn't ask for comments from the later pool I'll give them anyway. We had plenty of room to manouver in every game. The terrain worked well for us. However, if you ask Bruce about his game in the mountains against us, with Arab Conquest, he certainly didn't have enough for his Lancer and Heavy Foot army. The reason we beat him really.

Odd because twice our opponents chose mountain terrain, and I'd never fought in it before. And both times it worked well for us the way the terrain landed