Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:21 pm
I do, and IC, FC, TC as well.ShrubMiK wrote: hmmm...does anybody have 13BG armies with an IC and 2xTC?
Page 14 of 22
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:35 pm
No, But I do have an 11BG army with IC and 3TCs. It works for me.ShrubMiK wrote:(hmmm...does anybody have 13BG armies with an IC and 2xTC?).
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:52 pm
I regularly do 13BG armies with an IC, 2xTCphilqw78 wrote:I do, and IC, FC, TC as well.ShrubMiK wrote: hmmm...does anybody have 13BG armies with an IC and 2xTC?
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 2:57 pm
My WotR list has 13 BGs an IC and 2 TCs - its done pretty well.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:37 pm
Later Serbian 14BG IC and 3 x TC'sphilqw78 wrote:I do, and IC, FC, TC as well.ShrubMiK wrote: hmmm...does anybody have 13BG armies with an IC and 2xTC?
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:57 pm
Hmmm...okay.
Each general provides "command points". IC = 2CP, FC = 1.5 CP, TC = 1CP.
Max BGs in army is 4 x number of CPs.
This fits in with what I think is the common sense idea that it takes more or better generals to control a larger number of troops.
Each general provides "command points". IC = 2CP, FC = 1.5 CP, TC = 1CP.
Max BGs in army is 4 x number of CPs.
This fits in with what I think is the common sense idea that it takes more or better generals to control a larger number of troops.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:04 pm
In my opinion, if somebody is taking 16+ BGs and only 3 generals they're probably going to suffer more command and control problems, so I don't think imposing a minimum number of generals would help.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:12 pm
I doubt anybody IS taking 16+ BGs and only 3 generals*
The problem (perhaps) is people with that many BGs and 4xTC.
There would be an additional cost for them (converting one of the TCs allows 20BGs max, but the extra 45 points cost would require 1 or 2 (or perhaps 6 of the 4 x poor slinger variety!) BGs be dropped to make way.
* Putting on devil's advocate hat, the semi-mythical cynical gamer who just wants to avoid losing and has no interest in a chance of winning, or getting an interesting game, might just decide to take minimum generals and maximum BGs.
The problem (perhaps) is people with that many BGs and 4xTC.
There would be an additional cost for them (converting one of the TCs allows 20BGs max, but the extra 45 points cost would require 1 or 2 (or perhaps 6 of the 4 x poor slinger variety!) BGs be dropped to make way.
* Putting on devil's advocate hat, the semi-mythical cynical gamer who just wants to avoid losing and has no interest in a chance of winning, or getting an interesting game, might just decide to take minimum generals and maximum BGs.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:32 pm
ShrubMiK wrote:Hmmm...okay.
Each general provides "command points". IC = 2CP, FC = 1.5 CP, TC = 1CP.
Max BGs in army is 4 x number of CPs.
This fits in with what I think is the common sense idea that it takes more or better generals to control a larger number of troops.
Were is the evidence that we are being overrun by large BG armies in Scotland this weekend only one Dom Rom army with 19 BG out of twenty six armies in the event the winner IIRC had 12 BG's. The number of BGs means little its the experience of the player that counts.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:37 pm
Do you have to repeat yourself quite so many times? 
Plenty of people are expressing a concern. I'm simply suggesting a way in which the concern might be addressed without needing rule changes, list changes, or changes to scoring rules.
If, as you say, the vast majority of armies do not do this then what is your concern? Those armies would not be affected.
Plenty of people are expressing a concern. I'm simply suggesting a way in which the concern might be addressed without needing rule changes, list changes, or changes to scoring rules.
If, as you say, the vast majority of armies do not do this then what is your concern? Those armies would not be affected.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:19 pm
The army I ran at the Derby teams last year had 14 BGs, an IC and 2 TCs. If I had wanted to I could have split my two 8 base BGs into 4 base BGs and fielded 16 BGs with an IC and 2 TCs.ShrubMiK wrote:I doubt anybody IS taking 16+ BGs and only 3 generals*
The problem (perhaps) is people with that many BGs and 4xTC.
There would be an additional cost for them (converting one of the TCs allows 20BGs max, but the extra 45 points cost would require 1 or 2 (or perhaps 6 of the 4 x poor slinger variety!) BGs be dropped to make way.
* Putting on devil's advocate hat, the semi-mythical cynical gamer who just wants to avoid losing and has no interest in a chance of winning, or getting an interesting game, might just decide to take minimum generals and maximum BGs.
I have managed 13 BGs and IC and 2 TCs at 650 points with BGs of 10,10,8,8,8,8,8,6,6,6,6,6,4
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:28 pm
Dangerous to extrapolate from a single competition I would suggest. For example, Peter Johnson has posted today of his frustration at chasing shadows all weekend in another comp...david53 wrote:ShrubMiK wrote:Hmmm...okay.
Each general provides "command points". IC = 2CP, FC = 1.5 CP, TC = 1CP.
Max BGs in army is 4 x number of CPs.
This fits in with what I think is the common sense idea that it takes more or better generals to control a larger number of troops.
Were is the evidence that we are being overrun by large BG armies in Scotland this weekend only one Dom Rom army with 19 BG out of twenty six armies in the event the winner IIRC had 12 BG's. The number of BGs means little its the experience of the player that counts.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:47 pm
grahambriggs wrote:Dangerous to extrapolate from a single competition I would suggest. For example, Peter Johnson has posted today of his frustration at chasing shadows all weekend in another comp...david53 wrote:ShrubMiK wrote:Hmmm...okay.
Each general provides "command points". IC = 2CP, FC = 1.5 CP, TC = 1CP.
Max BGs in army is 4 x number of CPs.
This fits in with what I think is the common sense idea that it takes more or better generals to control a larger number of troops.
Were is the evidence that we are being overrun by large BG armies in Scotland this weekend only one Dom Rom army with 19 BG out of twenty six armies in the event the winner IIRC had 12 BG's. The number of BGs means little its the experience of the player that counts.
I'll give you the figures for the one event before the Scottish event at Burton 5 out of 50 armies were to larger part LH shooters. Since both these events were in the UK and the one Peter played at was in Italy maybe my figures deal better with the UK FOG scene, I could of course check warfares and Roll Calls figures from last year if required.
Figures for Challange last year out of 48 armies if you miss the Ottoman Turks who had 6 armies there you had 2 armies that would field large LH BG's.
It just does'nt seem to be a huge problum IMO for a total of three large events in the UK over the last year combined total armies of 124 armies you had 9 armies that could field large BGs of Light horse I have'nt added the Ottoman Turks as they field loads of proper troops?
Skirmishers
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:18 pm
i think the problem may not be just thee number of battle groups. It is at least partly the mindset of the player
WAB had a similar problem with nomads but they fell out of flavour because they at best got mild wins with average players but even the best struggled once the game settled. I expect something similar in fog. Most players want to play to win. If skirmish armies with lots of bg only stop you losing they will end up passed over in favour of better armies. I think it is just that the swarm is the only "classic" well known
at the moment. The message i seem to be getting is the shooty light horse only get a draw against good players. (i of course would lose within 2 hours but then thats me )
that said a few armies might eventually benifit from another look to see if they should be revised. But that is some way off.
So enjoy the game play hard to win and if you lose you get to the bar early. (and don't borrow dice from Nik )
Ben
WAB had a similar problem with nomads but they fell out of flavour because they at best got mild wins with average players but even the best struggled once the game settled. I expect something similar in fog. Most players want to play to win. If skirmish armies with lots of bg only stop you losing they will end up passed over in favour of better armies. I think it is just that the swarm is the only "classic" well known
at the moment. The message i seem to be getting is the shooty light horse only get a draw against good players. (i of course would lose within 2 hours but then thats me
)that said a few armies might eventually benifit from another look to see if they should be revised. But that is some way off.
So enjoy the game play hard to win and if you lose you get to the bar early. (and don't borrow dice from Nik )
Ben
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:42 pm
You continue to miss the crux of this I'm afraiddavid53 wrote:
It just does'nt seem to be a huge problum IMO for a total of three large events in the UK over the last year combined total armies of 124 armies you had 9 armies that could field large BGs of Light horse
You're coming over as worried that your army may become useless -I'm sure you don't really mean that, but is starting to be "methinks he doth protest too much".
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:09 pm
I didn't mention the 27 BG Medieval Irish monster that I fortunately didn't get to play.grahambriggs wrote: Dangerous to extrapolate from a single competition I would suggest. For example, Peter Johnson has posted today of his frustration at chasing shadows all weekend in another comp...
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:06 pm
Is up to 19 BG at 800 pts of Mid-Republicans! 
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:30 pm
And how many of these are 2's, which explode after that first death roll to take? *gg*Is up to 19 BG at 800 pts of Mid-Republicans!
I hate that!
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:19 pm
3 of them
Ya...brittle for sure. But 2pak triarii (superior) @ 26pts behind average 4pak HF...is very good rear support and they can put up a fight if the stuff in front of them breaks.
The army comes out against a Seleucid one with about the same number of BGs that can actually go in the front line and fight initially. But it has much greater staying power because of those 2paks and the 4pak velites.
We had a good battle today but when the Seleucids start to lose BGs, they come up to their break point much more quickly.
Ya...brittle for sure. But 2pak triarii (superior) @ 26pts behind average 4pak HF...is very good rear support and they can put up a fight if the stuff in front of them breaks.
The army comes out against a Seleucid one with about the same number of BGs that can actually go in the front line and fight initially. But it has much greater staying power because of those 2paks and the 4pak velites.
We had a good battle today but when the Seleucids start to lose BGs, they come up to their break point much more quickly.
Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 10:22 pm
nikgaukroger wrote:You continue to miss the crux of this I'm afraiddavid53 wrote:
It just does'nt seem to be a huge problum IMO for a total of three large events in the UK over the last year combined total armies of 124 armies you had 9 armies that could field large BGs of Light horse
You're coming over as worried that your army may become useless -I'm sure you don't really mean that, but is starting to be "methinks he doth protest too much".
Not worried about my army at all I take many types.