Slitherine

peterrjohnston wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:Why not just make Britcon a three day event?

It is. Start Friday. Play 'til finish or 23:00. Then remaining games timed.

I mean the 2/2/2 format. More time for games, more time for socialising.

It would mean that anyone wanting to play would be forced to take a full day off work and possibly more if they wanted to get to the venue the day before.

With the 1/3/2 format players can take half a day or even just get away from work early and still make the latest start time of 9:00pm

3 games on the saturday is still 1 to many. I think that the British can still learn alot from the Italian way of organising competitions.

English Player 'What time does the afternoon game start?'
Italian Organiser 'When lunch is finished..............'

To many games over the weekend can make it seem more of a chore than a pleasure.

durrati wrote:3 games on the saturday is still 1 to many. I think that the British can still learn alot from the Italian way of organising competitions.

English Player 'What time does the afternoon game start?'
Italian Organiser 'When lunch is finished..............'

To many games over the weekend can make it seem more of a chore than a pleasure.

There are only two comps in the UK with three games on the Saturday. Bricton and the BHGS Challenge. The alternatives of an extra day of play or fewer games don't seem to be very popular.

I already take the whole day off for Britcon so 2 games on the Friday would be fine with me. Why not run a poll?

Coming back to the time issue.

Personally I'd like to see a limit on the number of APs required to destroy an army - as others have suggested - say 12-14 - or 50%, whichever is the lower.

So an 8BG army still only needs to lose 4 for total defeat. An army of 23 BGs would be defeated once it had lost 12-14 AP. So far less attractive to bring an army with loads of small BGs.

petedalby wrote:I already take the whole day off for Britcon so 2 games on the Friday would be fine with me. Why not run a poll?

We may well do so but wargamers and polls are not in general a good mix

Coming back to the time issue.

Personally I'd like to see a limit on the number of APs required to destroy an army - as others have suggested - say 12-14 - or 50%, whichever is the lower.

So an 8BG army still only needs to lose 4 for total defeat. An army of 23 BGs would be defeated once it had lost 12-14 AP. So far less attractive to bring an army with loads of small BGs.

In principle this idea sounds good but I am not sure how much it would do to stop the good players using horde armies. Graham rarely loses 10AP in a game with his dominates for example. It would definitley stop lesser players using hordes but I don't think it would put an end to them.

If anything the best way to stop people using horde armies is for good players to win major tournaments with armies made up of a relatively small number of BGs, just like happened this year at Britcon.

petedalby wrote:So an 8BG army still only needs to lose 4 for total defeat. An army of 23 BGs would be defeated once it had lost 12-14 AP. .

Or once the elusive 15th BG of skirmishers had fled off table of course ....

hammy wrote: If anything the best way to stop people using horde armies is for good players to win major tournaments with armies made up of a relatively small number of BGs, just like happened this year at Britcon.

Or even lucky average ones.

PS Tim's getting bitter again

madaxeman wrote:

petedalby wrote:So an 8BG army still only needs to lose 4 for total defeat. An army of 23 BGs would be defeated once it had lost 12-14 AP. .

Or once the elusive 15th BG of skirmishers had fled off table of course ....

You're just not trying hard enough. My HF undrilled warband killed at least three BGs of skirmishers at Britcon . And my undrilled light spear cavalry hoovered them up by the bucket load.

G

hammy wrote:

petedalby wrote:Coming back to the time issue.

Personally I'd like to see a limit on the number of APs required to destroy an army - as others have suggested - say 12-14 - or 50%, whichever is the lower.

So an 8BG army still only needs to lose 4 for total defeat. An army of 23 BGs would be defeated once it had lost 12-14 AP. So far less attractive to bring an army with loads of small BGs.

In principle this idea sounds good but I am not sure how much it would do to stop the good players using horde armies. Graham rarely loses 10AP in a game with his dominates for example. It would definitley stop lesser players using hordes but I don't think it would put an end to them.

If anything the best way to stop people using horde armies is for good players to win major tournaments with armies made up of a relatively small number of BGs, just like happened this year at Britcon.

That is assuming all Swarm army players take such armies to win. Those I encountered so far (granted not many) were used by players who seem to have taken them not to lose. The current scoring system means that you can lose more BGs then your opponent and still get a winning draw, if you just have a big enough head start in BGs (that is basically what one of those 'swarm players' told me why he thinks that army to be great). That kind of player is not going to switch to small armies just because they are winning big competitions. They are simply more 'afraid' of losing then eager to win.

Ghaznavid wrote: They are simply more 'afraid' of losing then eager to win.

No rule system will change that. Those players will change to other rules.

But if they enjoy their games and people have enjoyable games against them there is no problem. In comps they will sit below centre