Slitherine

azrael86 wrote:OK then - instead of an interesting and diverse range of colourful armies we have mostly got another bunch of central asian mounted armies, whose main role in history was as mongol roadkill. Vagaries of the points system work against actual mongol, and a pretty arbitrary decision has counted against virtually all the foot in the book.

As others have pointed out above - there is an interesting and divers range of armies in all periods.

Playing against the same opposition all the time is quite dull, or haven't you noticed?

I hadn't noticed, largely because I don't find I am playing against the same opposition, they are all different. TImes move on. I am sure we could all go through the phases that have happened.

I still don't know what your point is or what you are whining about? Are you playing FoG? Your assertion that foot is rubbish is clearly laughable since if you check results then foot armies are more than capable of holding their own against mounted.

That isn't to say a couple of tweaks here and there aren't necessary, if nothing else, to subtly change the game to keep people interested, but I think as a whole the product stands up. Pray tell - what do you want to happen?

philqw78 wrote:

azrael86 wrote:Well, it's a bit strange that there are three Kofun Naras may be related to the fact that it is actually three almost entirely different lists!

Pre 400, 400-645 and 646 -

Kofun Nara has a lot of different options and can be quite interesting. If you like MF without swords, or impact capability.

Or if you like being superior..or armoured...

azrael86 wrote:Or if you like being superior..or armoured...

And drilled. Whats not to like. except the lack of lancers.

dave_r wrote:
I hadn't noticed, largely because I don't find I am playing against the same opposition, they are all different. TImes move on. I am sure we could all go through the phases that have happened.

I still don't know what your point is or what you are whining about? Are you playing FoG? Your assertion that foot is rubbish is clearly laughable since if you check results then foot armies are more than capable of holding their own against mounted.

That isn't to say a couple of tweaks here and there aren't necessary, if nothing else, to subtly change the game to keep people interested, but I think as a whole the product stands up. Pray tell - what do you want to happen?

Oh yes I am playing, (or why would I be looking at warfare entries?) - but like madaxeman I find that the heads I win tails I draw armies are too easy to play. For instance, I played a serb once,- iirc I was condotta - I killed ALL his knights. I lost no significant troops. I got a 13-7 I think. That is just wrong. If you destroy the cream of the enemy's fighting force the score should reflect it. all bg's are not equal.

azrael86 wrote:

dave_r wrote:
I hadn't noticed, largely because I don't find I am playing against the same opposition, they are all different. TImes move on. I am sure we could all go through the phases that have happened.

I still don't know what your point is or what you are whining about? Are you playing FoG? Your assertion that foot is rubbish is clearly laughable since if you check results then foot armies are more than capable of holding their own against mounted.

That isn't to say a couple of tweaks here and there aren't necessary, if nothing else, to subtly change the game to keep people interested, but I think as a whole the product stands up. Pray tell - what do you want to happen?

Oh yes I am playing, (or why would I be looking at warfare entries?) - but like madaxeman I find that the heads I win tails I draw armies are too easy to play. For instance, I played a serb once,- iirc I was condotta - I killed ALL his knights. I lost no significant troops. I got a 13-7 I think. That is just wrong. If you destroy the cream of the enemy's fighting force the score should reflect it. all bg's are not equal.

Then like the madaxeman you need to look at the bigger picture and not just think of destroying some of your opponents troops. If you devote 80% of your resources into killing 20% of your opponent then what do you think the final result is going to be?

peterrjohnston wrote: I'm not sure an argument that the army only becomes semi-functional if you take allies is very valid.

Well for the Tibetans, at their time of greatest power/influence they tended to use nomad allies quite a lot - reading Beckwith's book it looks like that when they don't have them they seem to be at their weakest.

I can't think of any other list that is so handicapped with regards to BG numbers.

Roger's Hussites at 8 BGs seem to be a bit that way

azrael86 wrote: Oh yes I am playing, (or why would I be looking at warfare entries?)

Forgive my curiosity, but where - hard to get a handle on who is who when real names are not used on a forum

- but like madaxeman I find that the heads I win tails I draw armies are too easy to play.

Not just you and the boy Porter - although people called Dave seem congenitally unable to grasp the concept

For instance, I played a serb once,- iirc I was condotta - I killed ALL his knights. I lost no significant troops. I got a 13-7 I think. That is just wrong. If you destroy the cream of the enemy's fighting force the score should reflect it. all bg's are not equal.

So something for a scoring system topic really, rather than a whine about army choices (although one can clearly influence the other).

nikgaukroger wrote:

azrael86 wrote:

- but like madaxeman I find that the heads I win tails I draw armies are too easy to play.

Not just you and the boy Porter - although people called Dave seem congenitally unable to grasp the concept

To be honest it's a toss up between "too easy to play" and " but if you don't take something capable of countering them, you face having 1-2 tedious, unwinnable games each weekend which represent a waste of your time and money".

For the last 2 years at Warfare I've probably gotten this compromise wrong. Third time lucky maybe...!

nikgaukroger wrote:

azrael86 wrote: OK, I withdraw the phrase top billing, in favour of 'appearing instead of many more significant armies" - like the Tang, Tibetan, Ming and Khmer.

You know, if there had been a load of Ghurids I'd agree you may well have a point, however, there is just the one and if we look at the rest of the armies chosen we are hardly short of "big players" amongst them. There are a lot of lists available in an EotD comp, and it is hardly surprising that some big names are not represented - especially given the number of players.

It is an improvement over some period competitions. Under DBM Graham Evans and I had a last round, top table clash which was a Hilakku civil war

peterrjohnston wrote:

david53 wrote: Not sure I think you could make 11 at a try? and if all are Cats someone will have to fight them then.

Internally there's 4 BGs available, buying the cheapest options comes to 154AP. 6BGs of Cats gets you to 634 AP. As the list is so inflexible, there's no options left. To do better internally you could maybe use the Abbasid troops in the special campaign option, but apart from a relatively cheap BG of spear, it's yet more expensive mounted. So maybe 11BG.

I would love to take this army in fact the army I'm taking for the ancient period at Warfare could quite easily be a Tibetan it comes in at the same BGs. Will see now so few BGs do in the event.

I have just been asked to let all competitors know that unfortunately wheeled trollies/tool-boxes/etc. cannot be wheeled across the main floor in the competition hall. As you will recall (all too painfully, I suspect) this is a bowling hall over while various covers are laid. Apparently, even through the coverings, wheel caused rucks in the bowling surface, and the bowlers balls go funny...

Trollies can be wheeled around the paths around the outside, but not across the bit inside the small walls.

I would be grateful for your co-operation and assistance, we nearly couldn't get the bowling hall this year due to problems last year with clearing out on Sunday in time for a bowls event in the evening, and problems could mean that we won't get it next year. Without the bowling hall, there would be so little table-space that I doubt that we would be able to offer the major competitions next year.

Tim Child

As somebody suggested out to me just as I was arriving...that hall definitely should count as difficult going!

ShrubMiK wrote:As somebody suggested out to me just as I was arriving...that hall definitely should count as difficult going!

Impassable to wheeled vehicles.

Very good, with extra enjoyment for EoTD Players who had the "great table hunt" . It'd be interesting to see whether the variation in table depth affected results.

Hope the bowlers balls weren't inconvenienced.

azrael86 wrote: It'd be interesting to see whether the variation in table depth affected results.

Not if you measured it before the game started, like the people I was sitting alongside.

Well was totally shattered after a 4 hour drive home last night.

Thanks to Dave Ruddock, Paul Johnston, Chris Proudfoot and Andy Kitcher for 4 great games. Apologies if I was off with anyone at any point but I do suffer badly from sleep deprivation when away from home.

Thanks to the organisers for setting up a great competition as usual.

And well done Dave and Ian on your joint 1st place. Dave how did you manage to do something with 12 BG's that I couldn't do with 18?

Catch you all soon.

Rob

philqw78 wrote:Later Horse Nomad ??

These were in fact Mongols. (Chagatai).

Unfortunately they did prove to be road kill vs Graham Evans's Han Chinese, and Steve Murton's Kofun-Nara Japanese.

Thanks to everyone involved - organisers and players. Although not exactly setting the world alight, I was pleasantly surprised with how my Foederate Romans did - upper end of mid-table mediocrity I think

From an umpiring view also thanks to everyone for making it an easy job - especially those ruled against who all took it in the right spirit - and to my opponents, Keith, Dave, Jim and Peter, who put up with the times I had to go and be an umpire.

I would like to thank everyone involved for a great weekend just gone. From my perspective as organiser it was another memorable weekend, although perhaps I could do with forgetting the moment, just as I was inputting the last scoresheet and printing off the penultimate theme's results, that the ever-so-helpful staff-member from the Rivermead unplugged my computer from the wall...

Particular thanks should go to Ian Colby (who set the FOG themes and took all the entries), Nik Gaukroger and Richard Bodley-Scott (player umpires, ruling with a rod of iron as ever ;o) ) and Bryan Holmes (who gallantly stepped in at the last minute to fill a gap and provide a game to the "bye" player each round), not to mention the teams of WAR club-members who gave up time and muscle-power on Friday night and Sunday evening to do the set-up and strip-down - that "Difficult Going" flooring in the competition-hall is an absolute nightmare to get down and up and is unbelievably heavy!

On to the announcements of winners:-

FOG 15mm Rise of Rome/Legions Triumphant/Immortal Fire
1 Dave Redhead - Bosporan
1 Ian Stewart - Palmyran
3 Dave Ruddock - Bosporan
4 Graham Briggs
5 Phil Powell
6 Wayne Dare
7 Nik Gaukroger
8 Paul Johnston
9 Rich Love
10 Pete Reilly
10 Darrell Pearce
12 Robert Taylor
12 Keith Martin-Smith
14 Ian MacKay
15 Matt Standen
16 Simon Clarke
16 David Saunders
16 Simon LeRay-Meyer
19 Tim Porter
20 Martyn Simpson
21 Andy Kitcher
21 Allan Saull
21 Charles Masefield
24 Jim Simpson
24 Keith Pullen
24 Stephen Stead
27 David Bannister
28 Richard Collins
29 Duncan Thompson
29 Chris Proudfoot
31 Dave Finnegan
31 Rob Horn
33 Jeremy Hill
34 Ian Hayward


FOG 15mm Empires of the Dragon
1 Peter Townshend - Kofun-Nara Japanese
2 Graham Evans - Warring States to Western Han Chinese
3 David Fairhurst - Medieval Indonesian or Malay
4 Jon Akers
5 Martin Van Tol
5 Steve Murton
7 David Morrison
8 Roger Greenwood
9 Harrison Pearce
10 Nick Standen
11 Richard Bodley-Scott
12 Gordon Jamieson
13 Robin Poulton
14 Lance Flint
15 Dave Allen
16 John Patrick
17 Lynda Fairhurst


FOG 25mm Oath of Fealty/Eternal Empire/Storm of Arrows
1 Richard Jeffrey-Cook - War of the Roses English
2 Tom Elsworth - French Ordonnance
3 Don McHugh - War of the Roses English
4 Simon Elliott
5 Steve Hacker
5 Martin Hays
7 Colin Betts
8 Dino Monticoli
9 Peter Cross
10 Ian Carbutt
11 Andy Claxton
11 Richard Smith
13 Roger Draper
14 Graham Fordham


Full results (scores by round and opponent) have been tabulated and are just about to be sent out to Hammy and the BHGS for publication - if someone would kindly tell me how to upload an Excel spreadsheet here, I can put them on this site too. Unlike the R&R, just importing the data will IMV be unreadable as all the columns get stripped out.

I hope to see everyone again next year! The format is intended (subject to any seriously-intense lobbying) to be much the same in terms of the competitions to be offered (different themes, obviously), with the addition of a 15mm FOG:R competition (we have missed the Rennaissance theme since the practical demise of DBR).

Cheers,

Tim Child

Many thanks to organisers, list checker and umpires plus my four opponents. Congrats to the winners!