Number of BG in the Britcon armies

[hazelbark]

There clearly is a problem of sorts. Scoring, # of BGs, list errors.

What I see as a problem that is arising is a trend back toward tiger armies and non-tiger armies. Part of what is great about FoG is greater # of competitive armies vis-a-vis a past rule system.

Also we have the lifecycle of the rock scissors paper moving much faster in the UK than elsewhere. Although the internet spreads this english disease quicker than it once did.

Finally any changes become the law of un-intended consequences.

Solutions:

1) List addendum for tournament purposes. Some don't want to admit the error. But a mild haircut to 1-3 lists would be an errata saying that Bgs small than 4 bases must be 6. I forget the math but I think this would only shave 1 BG off the size of the Dom Swarm.

2) Change scorring system. Have to be careful. The don't lose is a good plan for 24+ players in 5-6 rounds. But a lot of events are under 18 players and only 3-4 rounds. Then you basically need to win each game.

a) perhaps applying a score modifier for drawn games with both a BG disparity of 3 or more and the smaller BG army having inflicted more losses. Sort of if the little guy is beating the big guy then they get a bonus if time ran out.

[stenic]

The issue as far as I'm concerned is that a significant number of players are being the given the means (victory conditions, army size, evades) to play not to lose. While it may be legitimate it makes for excruciatingly boring games and I for one refuse to spend 14 hours over a weekend doing not an awful lot on the tabletop. The competition I umpired last month in Montmelo was the most pathetic example of combat dodging I've seen so far and consisted mostly of draws. The organisers are considering alternatives to FOG for next year.

Julian

Keep it FOG and introduce your other suggestions

Steve P

[hammy]

The issue as far as I'm concerned is that a significant number of players are being the given the means (victory conditions, army size, evades) to play not to lose. While it may be legitimate it makes for excruciatingly boring games and I for one refuse to spend 14 hours over a weekend doing not an awful lot on the tabletop. The competition I umpired last month in Montmelo was the most pathetic example of combat dodging I've seen so far and consisted mostly of draws. The organisers are considering alternatives to FOG for next year.

At britcon just over half the games finished with one army broken. For me that is a reasonable propotion of 'results', any more than that and you probably should be looking for shorter games as you will have a lot of peoplr hanging around waiting for the next game.

If players are actively playing for a draw then perhaps the solution is to change the scoring system you use. That said if a player is out not to 'lose' changing the scoring rarely changes that players mindset.

Difficult.

[hazelbark]

Perhaps the way to deal with the not to lose effect is, is an additional point penalty if over x number of games (single tournament) you don't inflict y % of points on your opponents then your next game you lose points.

So 2 or 3 draws where you aren't doing damage then your next games are likely to be losses.

Justify in campaign terms, your Fabian strategy is breaking your nation.

[hannibal]

If players are actively playing for a draw then perhaps the solution is to change the scoring system you use. That said if a player is out not to 'lose' changing the scoring rarely changes that players mindset.

I'm not sure that it's a case of people playing for a draw - more a case that the rules encourage more small BGs over fewer larger BGs, whereas I think the decision should be more finely balanced. A "command cost" per BG sounds like a good idea, but I think there's another problem in that big BGs are statistically more likely to lose bases as well. Consider 12 identical troops squared off, big BG of 12 vs 2 BGs of 6. If each side inflicts 6 hits so it's a draw, the big BG will lose a base 67% of the time whereas the small BGs lose a base 33% of the time. Is it just me or does that feel wrong? Wouldn't it be an idea to have some kind of death roll modifyer for big BGs?

Marc

[petedalby]

It's great that you guys do all of this analysis but I'm struggling to understand what the point is?

The most telling thing for me is that the Dom Roms have gone from 1st to 3rd to 8th? So the idea that the swarm is all-powerful should be now be dismissed.

Pick an army that suits you and have fun with it. Because it' not the army that wins - it's the person running it.

Why make it any more difficult than that?

[hazelbark]

At britcon just over half the games finished with one army broken. For me that is a reasonable propotion of 'results', any more than that and you probably should be looking for shorter games as you will have a lot of peoplr hanging around waiting for the next game.

I am wondering if we can look at the data sliced somehow to look at the midfield. The top players are going to have wins.
What are % of draws when you remove the games of say the top 5 final finishers? Or maybe top 3.

Then also remove the games where over 60% of one sides points were lost. Clearly whatever those were, they were not bloodless. Or remove those where a player get 16+ points but no break.

[hazelbark]

It's great that you guys do all of this analysis but I'm struggling to understand what the point is?

The most telling thing for me is that the Dom Roms have gone from 1st to 3rd to 8th? So the idea that the swarm is all-powerful should be now be dismissed.

Pick an army that suits you and have fun with it. Because it' not the army that wins - it's the person running it.

Why make it any more difficult than that?

Because there is sense of stodginess in the midfield. Perhaps its always the case.

Graham's Dom Rom isn't gone. He only lost one game in the last round to the champ. But its not about the top players.
The other Dom Rom player who finished 18th, never won or lost a game, which is the half way point of the field ironically.
The concern is the style that is heads i win, tails you lose is not healthy in the long run.

Top players do well and other top playerrs figure out how to overcome the new strategems. The question is, if there is a technique that either allows top players massive exploitation or allows midfield players to deny an interesting game, then we have issues.

[azrael86]

Also we have the lifecycle of the rock scissors paper moving much faster in the UK than elsewhere. Although the internet spreads this english disease quicker than it once did.
...
The concern is the style that is heads i win, tails you lose is not healthy in the long run.

Exactly. I'd be interested to know why the number of Ottomans declined this year, as it epitomises the heads I win, tails I draw mentality.

[david53]

It's great that you guys do all of this analysis but I'm struggling to understand what the point is?

The most telling thing for me is that the Dom Roms have gone from 1st to 3rd to 8th? So the idea that the swarm is all-powerful should be now be dismissed.

Pick an army that suits you and have fun with it. Because it' not the army that wins - it's the person running it.

Why make it any more difficult than that?

Because there is sense of stodginess in the midfield. Perhaps its always the case.

Graham's Dom Rom isn't gone. He only lost one game in the last round to the champ. But its not about the top players.
The other Dom Rom player who finished 18th, never won or lost a game, which is the half way point of the field ironically.
The concern is the style that is heads i win, tails you lose is not healthy in the long run.

Top players do well and other top playerrs figure out how to overcome the new strategems. The question is, if there is a technique that either allows top players massive exploitation or allows midfield players to deny an interesting game, then we have issues.

The top players don't think there is a problum Graham lost one game the top players now have cunning plans fighting against the swarm armies and the world will go on.

TBH this has been raised after every event, I can't see it changing any time soon.

[nikgaukroger]

The competition I umpired last month in Montmelo was the most pathetic example of combat dodging I've seen so far and consisted mostly of draws. The organisers are considering alternatives to FOG for next year.

Well, assuming that the organisers are responding to the players comments on their enjoyment of the game, then I'd actually suggest that if it is most of the games then it is very much in the way the players have chosen to play the game. I'd also ask, since you've been banging on about the situation in Spain for some time now, whether the organisers have tried alternative scoring systems, etc. in an attempt to get things moving?

[nikgaukroger]

Nearly all my armies seem to end up with 12-14 BGs (at 800 points) and I don't really have any issues, however, I'd prefer it if we played with 900 points as I think it is a better game at that level

[timmy1]

Oh, the world is about to end - I find myself agreeing with Nik!

900 points does give a better game. Tends to have more chance of a result as there tends to be a shorter 'Benny Hill' phase at the end of the game. Not just in FoG:AM, I might add.

[philqw78]

It does make a difference to which armies are viable as well.

[dave_r]

Because there is sense of stodginess in the midfield. Perhaps its always the case.

Graham's Dom Rom isn't gone. He only lost one game in the last round to the champ. But its not about the top players.
The other Dom Rom player who finished 18th, never won or lost a game, which is the half way point of the field ironically.
The concern is the style that is heads i win, tails you lose is not healthy in the long run.

Top players do well and other top playerrs figure out how to overcome the new strategems. The question is, if there is a technique that either allows top players massive exploitation or allows midfield players to deny an interesting game, then we have issues.

I really think there is no issue here. If you look at the early fog armies at Britcon then out of the 38 in total, four were above 15.

What that says to me is that a lot of people have saw big armies doing well and decided to have a try. They have decided it doesn't work as well as they thought so they are going for something else. It would appear this phase has lasted about the same length as the previous ones.

Tim and Peter tend to highlight that bigger armies are more difficult to lose with, but the bloke on the street has decided he want's something else.

Julian is forever banging on about how in Spain there are endless draws, but it still seems that they are playing. Perhaps the problem isn't the players but Julian. I don't know. Certainly it will be interesting to speak to the Spanish at Lisbon to see what they think about their domestic games. The bottom line is that if you have two players intent on playing for a draw there isn't a ruleset in the world which is going to prevent it.

FoG entries at Britcon were up this year - if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Incidentally, Graham's Dom Rom army was beaten by Paul Brandon's Christian Nubians 22-3. Yet when Paul Brandon played Paul Longmore with the other Dom Rom he lost 13-7. Perhaps that says it all.

I agree with what Pete Dalby said up above.

[jlopez]

The competition I umpired last month in Montmelo was the most pathetic example of combat dodging I've seen so far and consisted mostly of draws. The organisers are considering alternatives to FOG for next year.

Well, assuming that the organisers are responding to the players comments on their enjoyment of the game, then I'd actually suggest that if it is most of the games then it is very much in the way the players have chosen to play the game. I'd also ask, since you've been banging on about the situation in Spain for some time now, whether the organisers have tried alternative scoring systems, etc. in an attempt to get things moving?

They refuse point blank to deviate from the rules. There is a great respect for orthodoxy and a fear that tinkering with anything might lose them players. I've sent suggestions to the design team as they won't listen to anybody else.

Julian

[azrael86]

They refuse point blank to deviate from the rules. There is a great respect for orthodoxy
Julian

Sounds like they expect the... never mind, I'll get my coat.

[jlopez]

Julian is forever banging on about how in Spain there are endless draws, but it still seems that they are playing. Perhaps the problem isn't the players but Julian. I don't know. Certainly it will be interesting to speak to the Spanish at Lisbon to see what they think about their domestic games. The bottom line is that if you have two players intent on playing for a draw there isn't a ruleset in the world which is going to prevent it.

Apart from the winner (another one who's giving up on FOG) on 81 points, the scores for the second through to the ninth player was 56.8 to 49. That's out of eighteen players. Last year we had 34 players.

And you are right the problem is mine. I'm still trying to do something about declining interest for ancients in Spain when maybe I should do something else and let everybody else enjoy their bloodless draws.

Julian

[hammy]

They refuse point blank to deviate from the rules. There is a great respect for orthodoxy and a fear that tinkering with anything might lose them players. I've sent suggestions to the design team as they won't listen to anybody else.

I don't think that the suggestion was that you should change the rules but that you could perhaps change the tournament format.

Use tighter themes, changes the points, change the table size, use a Rampage style uneven point army system, change the scoring system or any of a number of other things I have not heard of.

Personally I am no longer excited by standard point level open tournaments on a 6 by 4 table.

In the UK we have:
800 point open
800 point lose theme
800 point tight theme
900 point open doubles
900 point themed doubles
65- point open on a 5 by 3 table
and variable points per game

[hammy]

It's great that you guys do all of this analysis but I'm struggling to understand what the point is?

The most telling thing for me is that the Dom Roms have gone from 1st to 3rd to 8th? So the idea that the swarm is all-powerful should be now be dismissed.

Pick an army that suits you and have fun with it. Because it' not the army that wins - it's the person running it.

Why make it any more difficult than that?

Exactly. If Graham Evans can't win a Britcon 2 years in a row with a Dom Rom swarm then the Dom Rom swarm is mode definitley not broken in terms of game balance.

Perhaps we should be more worried that lancer cavalry are too powerful?