Slitherine

azrael86 wrote:

madaxeman wrote:
That's actually where I think I doofed up. I entered Warfare thinking that a Dom Rom had a decent chance of beating (ie breaking) a B/P/H army. But to be honest, and in retrospect, I now think that I've tried it enough times and failed to do so that I now doubt whether it is a viable plan. So, given the evidence here that most other armies clearly can't even come close to beating a P/B/H army, you are right, it does mean I picked the wrong army.

The question that I need to think through is whether I want to even bother to enter a competition where I appear to need either a kind draw (no P/B/H armies), or where I need to pick a P/B/H army myself to give me the opportunity to go into each and every game with the possibility winning it.

Maybe it is evolutionary. Swarm armies are vulnerable to massed bow (possibly with the exception of Ottomann and Palmyran). In Empires at least five of the top 6 were non-swarm (3 Kofuns, Koryo and an Indonesian) - the other was Graham E, so whether it was a swarm or not is irrelevant. Christian Nubian is also good against swarms, due to its amazing firepower: likewise Longbows. And of course, any MF shooty army will struggle against the ploddy armoured legions/hoplites or Knights.

First time I've heard of a palmyran as being a swarm along with the Ottomans.

azrael86 wrote:

philqw78 wrote: So Kofun Nara and Koryo are swarms in that definition.

An army of 13 with 8 bg's of Undrilled MF is a swarm?

Less swarmy than 100yw english

Sorry if my army with 11 BGs is a swarm what is a army with 13 BGs still a swarm according to some people.

petedalby wrote:All this agonising over what can win, what can't win.....

Fundamentally it's about the luck of the draw - there will always be an element of rock/paper/scissors - and of course luck plays a huge part in every game.

Pick an army you enjoy playing with and have fun - whether you win, lose or draw. If you lose, try and work out why and what you could have done differently. It's too easy to blame the dice when with a bit of reflection you might see it was your choice of terrian, deployment or a host of other things that you can influence.

But if you opponent is happy to play for a draw it is very hard to do anything about that given the constraints of a 3.5 hour game and no time clocks / blitz moves.

Sense at last

Play the army you like.

Plan for the event and don't blame your opponent if he tries and wins without losing thats the game.

david53 wrote:

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote:
You seem to be all over the place one minute you complain of waiting while large armies are moved the next that I had a swarm with 11 BGs and not using 6 base BGs and then explaining the reason for using small BGs.

Have I missed your point?

Yep. Highly mobile units who can walk away from bad matchups faster than any enemy can follow them are what makes a swarm effective, and having lots of units is just a multiplier to their inherent advantages.

FoG is a game of maneuver, not a game of combat

Dos'nt that make it a better rule set then I have played MM were you line up so far from tthe middle and trundle forward throw dice and thats it. Is it not better if you have to think about your game use a bit of skill at getting an advantage and then fight what you seem to want is people to stand still while you get there with your hordes of medium foot and then lose the combat. You seem to want your cake and mine as well strange indeed. Your point about the swarm is okey if you then did'nt run of and complain about people being able to move around, what you seem to want is people who fight you to only bring undrilled foot.

Having more manoeuvre than was typical historically does make it a better game, however, it can go too far and that is where FoG:AM is currently in the view of many, possibly most, players (and rightly so IMO). FoG:Am could quite happily cut back on the more extreme manoeuvring and still remain a game of skill as opposed to line up and walk forward - in fact I would suggest we have done exactly that with FoG:R (although it may not be appropriate for AM just to mirror those changes as some were period specific).

BTW, as an OT aside, it is quite possible to play a game of manoeuvre in DBMM, however, so many of the players are floppy of ear and fluffy of tail that they don't.

petedalby wrote: Pick an army you enjoy playing with and have fun - whether you win, lose or draw.

That is the underlying cause of the discontent about swarms and shooty cavalry armies.

Army choice is severely limited because with a lot of armies, a draw is no fun. It's a frustrating 3+ hours of chasing stuff you can never catch.

lawrenceg wrote:

petedalby wrote: Pick an army you enjoy playing with and have fun - whether you win, lose or draw.

That is the underlying cause of the discontent about swarms and shooty cavalry armies.

Army choice is severely limited because with a lot of armies, a draw is no fun. It's a frustrating 3+ hours of chasing stuff you can never catch.

Chasing thin air is indeed pretty boring in FoG but the same can be said of a lot of other games I can think of. Does anyone remember in DBM the lone light horse element holding up half the enemy army with no risk at all to itself? This was eventually cured in version 3.1 of DBM. DBMM has something which atempts to remedy this but I know there were loopholes in the V1.0 rules on this thay you could drive a truck through.

At the moment I am taking armies that are designed to beat the living .... out of skirmishy shooty light horse mobs and they seem to be doing the business.

Personally I think that the absolute best way round the army mismatch issue is not to tinker with the rules as I am pretty sure that historically a classical army was always on a sticky wicket against a horse archer one. The best fix for me ti so get players to bring matched pairs of armies like is done in Principles of War.

The best fix for me ti so get players to bring matched pairs of armies like is done in Principles of War.

I can't disagree more.
This might fix the perceived problem but it is not the way forward.

I started out playing with one army.
I now own a small number of armies, none of which are historical opponents. When I buy a new army it is to fill in a time period which I don't have an army for.

3000 BC to 1500 AD is a long time period, I could continue for a long time buying armies that are not reasonable opponents.

To expect someone to bring two armies to a competition is unreasonable as it assumes everyone has lots of figures in all periods.
Secondly on a practical note I have enough stuff to cart around at a completion with one army and terrain, let alone bringing a second army.

Peter

prb4 wrote:

The best fix for me ti so get players to bring matched pairs of armies like is done in Principles of War.

I can't disagree more.
This might fix the perceived problem but it is not the way forward.

I started out playing with one army.
I now own a small number of armies, none of which are historical opponents. When I buy a new army it is to fill in a time period which I don't have an army for.

3000 BC to 1500 AD is a long time period, I could continue for a long time buying armies that are not reasonable opponents.

To expect someone to bring two armies to a competition is unreasonable as it assumes everyone has lots of figures in all periods.
Secondly on a practical note I have enough stuff to cart around at a completion with one army and terrain, let alone bringing a second army.

Indeed, I was not suggesting that it is a good solution in the real world but it would get rid of the miss match issue.

As someone with getting on for 40 armies I can't actually put together that many pairs of historical opponents and when I can it is usually because I have a very large army with a number of allies and by splitting it I can get a 'pair' either for a civil war or for battles against one of said allies.

What would IMO be a very bad idea would be to make the rules less historical in an effort to force results between skirmisher armies and non skirmishers.

Again, look at DBMM and superior light horse which are now impetuous. This means that Hunnic armies tend to fight like a Rugby scrum in a deep mass right up close and personal with their opponents thus making results far more probable.

hammy wrote: Chasing thin air is indeed pretty boring in FoG but the same can be said of a lot of other games I can think of. Does anyone remember in DBM the lone light horse element holding up half the enemy army with no risk at all to itself? This was eventually cured in version 3.1 of DBM. DBMM has something which atempts to remedy this but I know there were loopholes in the V1.0 rules on this thay you could drive a truck through.

DBMM v2.0 handles it much better. You can slow down the enemy for a while, but you will take losses unless you invest a lot of command and control effort that would normally be better spent on winning somewhere else.

lawrenceg wrote:

hammy wrote: Chasing thin air is indeed pretty boring in FoG but the same can be said of a lot of other games I can think of. Does anyone remember in DBM the lone light horse element holding up half the enemy army with no risk at all to itself? This was eventually cured in version 3.1 of DBM. DBMM has something which atempts to remedy this but I know there were loopholes in the V1.0 rules on this thay you could drive a truck through.

DBMM v2.0 handles it much better. You can slow down the enemy for a while, but you will take losses unless you invest a lot of command and control effort that would normally be better spent on winning somewhere else.

True but what you lose is unlikely to be of consequence and if it is you have done things wrong.

One of the issues with DBx is that a good player can often effectively nullify a large proportion of the enemy force with a small and expendable portion of their own. This is really not something that seems to have happened on the Ancient battlefield, at least not in battles I have read about.

All Ancients games seem to suffer from the superior knowledge that wargamers have over likely outcomes and bad fights are in general something people aim to avoid. In FoG for drilled armies this avoiding is probably too easy but as I said earlier it is not a FoG only thing.

lawrenceg wrote:

petedalby wrote: Pick an army you enjoy playing with and have fun - whether you win, lose or draw.

That is the underlying cause of the discontent about swarms and shooty cavalry armies.

Army choice is severely limited because with a lot of armies, a draw is no fun. It's a frustrating 3+ hours of chasing stuff you can never catch.

I disagree so much here you should not pick an army just to beat another army, pick it adjust it because you enjoy playing with it. Doing this you will gain experience skill and enjoyment in equal measures instead of putting all the ills of the world down to the army your opponent may bring to the table.

david53 wrote:

lawrenceg wrote:

petedalby wrote: Pick an army you enjoy playing with and have fun - whether you win, lose or draw.

That is the underlying cause of the discontent about swarms and shooty cavalry armies.

Army choice is severely limited because with a lot of armies, a draw is no fun. It's a frustrating 3+ hours of chasing stuff you can never catch.

I disagree so much here you should not pick an army just to beat another army, pick it adjust it because you enjoy playing with it. Doing this you will gain experience skill and enjoyment in equal measures instead of putting all the ills of the world down to the army your opponent may bring to the table.

But if you happen to enjoy playing a Republican Roman army and then find that every tournament you go to you are playing Parthians you could well decide that tournaments are not for you if they are just going to result in you chasing thin air all the time. That is I think the point that other people are trying to make.

hammy wrote: What would IMO be a very bad idea would be to make the rules less historical in an effort to force results between skirmisher armies and non skirmishers.

There is, however, quite a bit of scope for balancing the game between the two types whilst retaining the historicality - and that opportunity should not be missed IMO.

nikgaukroger wrote:

hammy wrote: What would IMO be a very bad idea would be to make the rules less historical in an effort to force results between skirmisher armies and non skirmishers.

There is, however, quite a bit of scope for balancing the game between the two types whilst retaining the historicality - and that opportunity should not be missed IMO.

Cut the move distance of LH make all CMT requiring an 8 and no turn and move for infantry that would allow a fairer game all round.

david53 wrote:

nikgaukroger wrote:

hammy wrote: What would IMO be a very bad idea would be to make the rules less historical in an effort to force results between skirmisher armies and non skirmishers.

There is, however, quite a bit of scope for balancing the game between the two types whilst retaining the historicality - and that opportunity should not be missed IMO.

Cut the move distance of LH make all CMT requiring an 8 and no turn and move for infantry that would allow a fairer game all round.

Well, if we're going to play this game on this thread then:

LF, MF and LH lose 1MU movement.

Each single wheel can be no more than 90 degrees.

Drilled and Undrilled have the same manoeuvre options - the drilled benefit is passing on a 7 not an 8.

Turn 90 and move issue - probably none for infantry, reduce mounted to 2MU move or 3MU for LH.

Cannot wheel when forming column (Dave R mentioned it to me earlier).

Shall we move posts from this point onwards to the V2 sub-forum

hammy wrote:

david53 wrote:

lawrenceg wrote: That is the underlying cause of the discontent about swarms and shooty cavalry armies.

Army choice is severely limited because with a lot of armies, a draw is no fun. It's a frustrating 3+ hours of chasing stuff you can never catch.

I disagree so much here you should not pick an army just to beat another army, pick it adjust it because you enjoy playing with it. Doing this you will gain experience skill and enjoyment in equal measures instead of putting all the ills of the world down to the army your opponent may bring to the table.

But if you happen to enjoy playing a Republican Roman army and then find that every tournament you go to you are playing Parthians you could well decide that tournaments are not for you if they are just going to result in you chasing thin air all the time. That is I think the point that other people are trying to make.

I agree with Hammy.

I don't enjoy playing with "PBH" ("Grit and Gravel" maybe if swarm is too blurred a term?) type armies - I find them tedious to use, I see no intellectual challenge in chucking a line of lancers at anything other than pikemen, whilst skirmishing and shooting at anything else until it maybe fails a couple of cohesion tests, and it is also too easy to avoid losing with them so there is almost no risk involved in using one either

Given that I don't own a wall of bowmen (and some periods don't permit their use anyway) after this weekends experience I'd be very cautious about entering any comp period where I might come across these type of armies, as I know that playing at least one grit and gravel army during a weekend with a "normal" army is a waste of 3.5 hours of my life, and I frankly have better things to do.

Bring on FoGR !

madaxeman wrote:I don't enjoy playing with "PBH" ("Grit and Gravel" maybe if swarm is too blurred a term?)

I suggest "Get Out OF the waY" (GOOFY) might be a suitable technical term for armies with the ability to get out of the way of anything dangerous.

Although grit and fluff might be a more appropriate alliteration...

madaxeman wrote:

hammy wrote:

david53 wrote: I disagree so much here you should not pick an army just to beat another army, pick it adjust it because you enjoy playing with it. Doing this you will gain experience skill and enjoyment in equal measures instead of putting all the ills of the world down to the army your opponent may bring to the table.

But if you happen to enjoy playing a Republican Roman army and then find that every tournament you go to you are playing Parthians you could well decide that tournaments are not for you if they are just going to result in you chasing thin air all the time. That is I think the point that other people are trying to make.

I agree with Hammy.

I don't enjoy playing with "PBH" ("Grit and Gravel" maybe if swarm is too blurred a term?) type armies - I find them tedious to use, I see no intellectual challenge in chucking a line of lancers at anything other than pikemen, whilst skirmishing and shooting at anything else until it maybe fails a couple of cohesion tests, and it is also too easy to avoid losing with them so there is almost no risk involved in using one either

Given that I don't own a wall of bowmen (and some periods don't permit their use anyway) after this weekends experience I'd be very cautious about entering any comp period where I might come across these type of armies, as I know that playing at least one grit and gravel army during a weekend with a "normal" army is a waste of 3.5 hours of my life, and I frankly have better things to do.

Bring on FoGR !

TBH I can't figure you out you hate an army that manourves you hate LH armies put your quite happy to take to a table a 17 Battle group army thats all average except the superior Bows Medium foot 4 base drilled battle group not forgetting the LH superior bow of course.

What is it you want an army thats not only got lesss BGs than you one that of course can't move out of the way of your dancing drilled medium foot battle groups.

If you hate it that much why do you play it can't see the point?

Bring on FOG R its already been played at Britcon and Roll Call this year, and I did ask them months ago if they would allow FOG R but i here its on for next year.

david53 wrote:
TBH I can't figure you out you hate an army that manourves you hate LH armies put your quite happy to take to a table a 17 Battle group army thats all average except the superior Bows Medium foot 4 base drilled battle group not forgetting the LH superior bow of course.

What is it you want an army thats not only got lesss BGs than you one that of course can't move out of the way of your dancing drilled medium foot battle groups.

If you hate it that much why do you play it can't see the point?

I initially started using Dom Roms because I felt they had a chance of taking on Grit and Gravel armies and beating them.

I felt rather embarrassed in using it so I tried to make it less cheesy with "only" 15-16BGs and by always including 3-5 sets of proper full-fat fully tooled up legionaries, but even so I still never quite shook the feeling that it has so many structural advantages over other armies that using it is somehow "cheating".

But I took succour in a belief that GnG armies enjoy even more structural advantages so in a way they were guilty of "cheating" even more than I was - so my MLMBDR was MLMB than its opponents as well as its Pinnerian prototype - so all was well in the world.

However, through painful experience, I no longer believe that my MLMBDR army can beat Grit and Gravel. So, using an army that is sort of cheating anyway, AND is ineffective is no longer floating my boat. This means the MLMBDRs are firmly in what is already a rather large "no point in using this in a competition" pile of toy soldiers.

Currently the "can break grit and gravel armies" pile is a lot, lot smaller than the "can" one.

Which is kinda sad. Especially for all the thousands of 15mm little chaps sat in 40 sets of draws in my back bedroom.