the resounding dullness of the 800 point game.

[Andy1972]

The thing is about Mongol and such armies... They didn't really have all that much baggage.. They swarmed.. If charged.. Would run away.. And would give ground waiting for their opponent to over extend itself... Same goes with the Parthians... Hehe, I have taken quite a few HF armies against Shooty cav/LH armies.. I usually take an IC to help ward of the shooting, armored troops help also... But i know this was a historical tatic and i don't complain about it... Just shove them off the table. These folks that just want to line guys up and have a slug fest.. Which would be fun.. But some armies never did that. As for battle size.. I have no problem with 800 points.. And around here(the midwest/eastcoast)) They are starting to do 800pt 25mm and 900pt!! 15mm.. Its because a large majority want it that way.. For me it don't matter. Though i find 650 points good on training a person to play.. It is just too small of a game, and your troop selection is quite limited. I bought and/or painted these guys, i want to play with them! My only problem is i can only handle 3-4 game tourneys.. The IWF was way too long.. 6 games! I was drooling wanting to go home at the start of my 5th game on Sunday.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

Alternatively, the loss of a camp could be used as a decider/impact for victory purposes etc. So that loosing your camp could effect the end results in that it would reduce the owners end result level by one etc - i.e. make a draw a loss for the player who looses their camp. That would not effect the end result of the battle but would effect the scoring in the comp, making it more likely that players will want to defend that.

That sounds like an interesting idea.

[Scrumpy]

Still don't see the dullness coming in at 800 pts. Had a very enjoyable game today against Bill McCampbell where his Later Sicilians just held on for a narrow win over my De Warrene led Middle Plantagenet English.

Very exciting game, and after all, the worst days gaming beats the best day sat in an office.

[timmy1]

Scrumpy wrote 'and after all, the worst days (sic) gaming beats the best day sat in an office.' Ahem to that.

[ottomanmjm]

Maybe if FOG had vitory points for table control that could change things?

That may be an idea. Although a little hookie, the value of camps in some rules sets (such as the Dbx ones) at least means that skirmishing armies have something which they need to defend. In FoG the camp is really not that important in a tournament if a LH/Shirmish army is playing to avoid defeat.

Maybe extra points for sacking camps in would help in tourney's - after all these were key factors in ancient campaigns in retaining the field etc. That would not affect army break points but would be a bonus to go for and something for player to really defend.

Alternatively, the loss of a camp could be used as a decider/impact for victory purposes etc. So that loosing your camp could effect the end results in that it would reduce the owners end result level by one etc - i.e. make a draw a loss for the player who looses their camp. That would not effect the end result of the battle but would effect the scoring in the comp, making it more likely that players will want to defend that.

Just random thoughts.

The problem with this is that HF armies are more likely to lose their camp than Cav/LH armies. Sure the HF can tramp across the table but it is more likely for a unit of LH to sneak around behind the HF and take the baggage.

[mbsparta]

I still don't get the 800/900 point games with four hour time limits, but I do realize this seems to be sizes most prefer.

What if the scoring was different (for example):

Win: 3 points
Lose: 1 point
Draw: 0 points

If niether side can capture a win with broken BG's; then neither side gets any points. There would be incentive to play for a win (or a loss for that matter) rather than settle for a tie. Of course the scoring could be something other than 3-1-0. But you get the idea. Do not reward unfinished draws of any kind.

Mike B

[OldenTired]

I still don't get the 800/900 point games with four hour time limits, but I do realize this seems to be sizes most prefer.

What if the scoring was different (for example):

Win: 3 points
Lose: 1 point
Draw: 0 points

If niether side can capture a win with broken BG's; then neither side gets any points. There would be incentive to play for a win (or a loss for that matter) rather than settle for a tie. Of course the scoring could be something other than 3-1-0. But you get the idea. Do not reward unfinished draws of any kind.

Mike B

i'd support something like this, because it actively penalises draws.

as it is there is an entrenched culture in the old-DBM community that actively encourages draws. if you're facing a LH army, you just sit it out, take the draw and the points.

but... that's not how historical battles are fought. alexander didn't get to gaugamela and say, "bugger... a lot of mounted there... better sit about for three days until they piss off".

if you get no points for a draw, then why take an army with little to no punch? answer - you don't.

[dave_r]

but... that's not how historical battles are fought. alexander didn't get to gaugamela and say, "bugger... a lot of mounted there... better sit about for three days until they piss off".

Alexander didn't - but plenty of other Generals did. Perhaps that is reflected by the tabletop generals?

If you have a plan then it is possible to mash LH armies. Nobody is saying it is easy but it is possible. If you choose to sit and moan about Light Horse for 4 hours during a game then you are hardly going to win are you?

[peterrjohnston]

I still don't get the 800/900 point games with four hour time limits, but I do realize this seems to be sizes most prefer.

What if the scoring was different (for example):

Win: 3 points
Lose: 1 point
Draw: 0 points

If niether side can capture a win with broken BG's; then neither side gets any points. There would be incentive to play for a win (or a loss for that matter) rather than settle for a tie. Of course the scoring could be something other than 3-1-0. But you get the idea. Do not reward unfinished draws of any kind.

Mike B

i'd support something like this, because it actively penalises draws.

It would also encourage fixing the score.

[mbsparta]

It would also encourage fixing the score.

........... What do you mean?

Mike B

[philqw78]

I still don't get the 800/900 point games with four hour time limits, but I do realize this seems to be sizes most prefer.

What if the scoring was different (for example):

Win: 3 points
Lose: 1 point
Draw: 0 points

If niether side can capture a win with broken BG's; then neither side gets any points. There would be incentive to play for a win (or a loss for that matter) rather than settle for a tie. Of course the scoring could be something other than 3-1-0. But you get the idea. Do not reward unfinished draws of any kind.

Mike B

Losing is better than drawing. If it looks like I will lose I'll just roll over and die. In a close fought game many people would do it. Some would be lucky and have it done against them, generally the better players.

Being conceited but YIPPEEE

And what about mutual destruction?

[peterrjohnston]

It would also encourage fixing the score.

........... What do you mean?

Because if a game is heading for an unfinished draw, then both players have an incentive to collude in fixing the result. Under the current bonus for a win system, only one player has an incentive to fix a result, which is self-checking.

If you want to encourage wins, increase the bonus for a win. Making it +30 instead of +5 would mean wins matter, the rest is tie-breaker. It would be somewhat similar to the old 3-1-0 (1 being a draw) used for DBM in France.

[philqw78]

If you want to encourage wins, increase the bonus for a win. Making it +30 instead of +5 would mean wins matter, the rest is tie-breaker. It would be somewhat similar to the old 3-1-0 (1 being a draw) used for DBM in France.

And +30 for a win would encourage very 1 dimensional armies. Which I like.

[peterrjohnston]

If you want to encourage wins, increase the bonus for a win. Making it +30 instead of +5 would mean wins matter, the rest is tie-breaker. It would be somewhat similar to the old 3-1-0 (1 being a draw) used for DBM in France.

And +30 for a win would encourage very 1 dimensional armies. Which I like.

Don't know about what effect it would have in FoG, but in DBM I always thought 3-1-0 encouraged more aggressive play and obviously more aggressive army design. However, as I think FoG doesn't encourage the toolkit style of army design, you may be right.

The downside of 3-1-0 is that, certainly over a 4 game meeting, it becomes effectively knock-out.

[OldenTired]

If you want to encourage wins, increase the bonus for a win. Making it +30 instead of +5 would mean wins matter, the rest is tie-breaker. It would be somewhat similar to the old 3-1-0 (1 being a draw) used for DBM in France.

And +30 for a win would encourage very 1 dimensional armies. Which I like.

Don't know about what effect it would have in FoG, but in DBM I always thought 3-1-0 encouraged more aggressive play and obviously more aggressive army design. However, as I think FoG doesn't encourage the toolkit style of army design, you may be right.

The downside of 3-1-0 is that, certainly over a 4 game meeting, it becomes effectively knock-out.

yeah, but what we'd like to see is hard armies that fight bloody battles.

i want to be taking HANDFULS of troops of the table

[paulcummins]

so you would rather see people give up trying to win when they are losing, and just go with the loss so they get more points? Thats nuts

I want it to be worth while to fight tooth and nail to try and hold off the rampaging hordes.

I can see it now - the knights crash in, destroying the first BG or 2 of the enemy.

the enemy folds to get the point.

or - the knights crash in, roll 1s for death rolls, so that army gives up to get the point.

[OldenTired]

then build an army designed to last more then two turns.

they're doing it now field shooty armies and exploit draws, so why wouldn't player behaviour change to field tough melee?

[paulcummins]

but what is the point of trying if your shock troops die?

2 knight based armies - knights hit each other, one side wins the luck , the other side then gives up. no incentive to try and claw it back with the lighter troops. as soon as you dont have an advantage, you might as well give up.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

I suppose it depends on how much you want to win and how much you want to play...

[OldenTired]

but what is the point of trying if your shock troops die?

2 knight based armies - knights hit each other, one side wins the luck , the other side then gives up. no incentive to try and claw it back with the lighter troops. as soon as you dont have an advantage, you might as well give up.

remind me to play you whenever i get the chance. you seem to want to give up pretty easily.