Slitherine

Scrumpy wrote:Alexander & co only had the Gods & Fates to deal with, they must have been easier to cope with than Nik, JD, RBS & co.

JD is not a god he is the devil incarnate!

we're only playing the bit where the armies actually face off, just outside shooting distance.

Just outside shooting distance? Shooting distance is a maximum of 6", armies start 28" apart. They are miles apart!

dave_r wrote:

we're only playing the bit where the armies actually face off, just outside shooting distance.

Just outside shooting distance? Shooting distance is a maximum of 6", armies start 28" apart. They are miles apart!

real world dave, real world

When have wargamers ever dwelt in the real world?

grahambriggs wrote:

dave_r wrote:

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?

Actually Alexander used the "play for a dull draw" tactic when it suited - I seem to recall he did this for days on end against Porus with a transverse river until such time as the Indians felt nothing would happen and then crossed upstream.

.......... Uh, no ... Porus used a cheesy terrain rule!

Mike B

I thought the whole point of wargames was to largely escape the real world.

Exactly, at least we can be heroic commanders on the table if not in real life !

I've enjoyed reading all of this. I agree with some points, disagree with others.

As far as fighting against LH armies is concerned, if you can't beat them, it's your fault. Not the rules/table size/terrain/opponents tactics. Alexander managed to do it. I have fought with and against LH with various rules and have been slaughtered, fought out frustrating draws and pulled off stunning victories. Seems about right.

I've played in competitions with varying degrees of success and, on the whole, found it quite enjoyable. I think that increasing the benefits of winning a game has it's merits but penalising draws would be unfair on the players who, when things start to go against them, manage to hang on to prevent utter defeat - a situation I have found myself in more frequently than I care to remember, usually not too successful either.

I have played against those who seem to be going for a "dull draw" and in all honesty, I personally can't see the point of playing that way. You completely surrender the initiative to your opponent who is at liberty to do whatever he wants and if that doesn't work generally you will not be in a position to exploit it. "Real" battles have been that way and again it was up to the more offensively minded general to take advantage. If he didn't manage it then he has no-one to blame but himself.

I think the issue with defensively minded generals is that they can benefit too much from the table edges in a way that a real general couldn't. I'd like to see a deployment area excluding (say) the last 12" each table edge and all HF limited to the central 3" of table.

I think the issue with defensively minded generals is that they can benefit too much from the table edges in a way that a real general couldn't.

They are penalised by the threatened flank modifier.

I'd like to see a deployment area excluding (say) the last 12" each table edge and all HF limited to the central 3" of table.

I presume you mean three foot rather than three inches? Could be a bit congested otherwise...

Sounds great in theory, in practice it doesn't work and just gives a massive advantage to LH armies who run around the sides of an army. Why wouldn't you be allowed to deploy where you want on a Battlefield?

Soldier: "We can't deploy in that field over there sir"
Officer: "Why ever not?"
Soldier: "Erm, well, we set the boundaries and that is too close to the edge"
Officer: "why?"
Soldier: "Erm....."

bobm wrote:I think the issue with defensively minded generals is that they can benefit too much from the table edges in a way that a real general couldn't. I'd like to see a deployment area excluding (say) the last 12" each table edge and all HF limited to the central 3" of table.

There is a system along these lines in the DBMM deployment rules. IMO it favours light horse armies but as far as I can tell it is not seen as a major issue by the fans of DBMM.

It would make armies like Later Hoplite Greek really bad and if by some horrible missfortune all the difficult terrain fell in the middle of the table you would have some very odd games indeed.

I have yet to have an opponent wedge their army in a corner in FoG (It happened a number of times in DBM) but the -1 on CT for insecure flanks which will kick in at both ends of the line does give the aggresive player some options.

Bob wrote 'all HF limited to the central 3" of table.' Are you sure you are not really Dave?

However it reminds me of a game I played once where I was defending with Post Mongol Russians under DBM 3.1. My opponent had Tuareg, so I spent the whole deployment looking for somewhere to hide 22 elements of Cv(O). In the end my opponent decided that they could not ALL be in ambush in the one wood where my Sp(I) and WWg(O) were anchored, so he deployed to face a flank march, 8 Cm(S) facing South with 8 Cm(S) facing North nearer to his baseline, all in strip 60 mm wide between his other 2 commands.

Not being a tournament player and having a grand total of 2 games under my belt can someone enlighten me to the vaguries of the tournament scoring system.

How many points is it for a win, loss or draw? Also are AP taken into consideration in the score?

AP are all that is taken into consideration.

The percentage of the enemy's AP that are lost you get. The percentage of your own AP remaining you get. If you rout the enemy, taking all his AP, you get a 5 bonus providing you didn't do it to each other.

So if you have 10 BG, 10 AP, and lose 4BG routed and 1 fragmented you have lost 9AP so 90%.
If he has 10 BG and loses 5 BG, all his AP, 100%, 10pts
So
You Have 10% remaining, 1pt, 10 pts from the enemy, +5 pts for routing him, 16pts
He gets 0 remaining, 9pts from you, no bonus 'cos you were not routed, so scores 9.

philqw78 wrote:AP are all that is taken into consideration.

The percentage of the enemy's AP that are lost you get. The percentage of your own AP remaining you get. If you rout the enemy, taking all his AP, you get a 5 bonus providing you didn't do it to each other.

So if you have 10 BG, 10 AP, and lose 4BG routed and 1 fragmented you have lost 9AP so 90%.
If he has 10 BG and loses 5 BG, all his AP, 100%, 10pts
So
You Have 10% remaining, 1pt, 10 pts from the enemy, +5 pts for routing him, 16pts
He gets 0 remaining, 9pts from you, no bonus 'cos you were not routed, so scores 9.

So if I've read this right a draw will always be 10-10 reagrdless of AP won or lost because a +5 victory bonus is only by routing the enemy.
Could there be a winning draw bonus (less AP lost than opponent) of say +5 pts thus promoting a try to win mentality and a win bonus of +10.

dave_r wrote:

I think the issue with defensively minded generals is that they can benefit too much from the table edges in a way that a real general couldn't.

They are penalised by the threatened flank modifier.

I'd like to see a deployment area excluding (say) the last 12" each table edge and all HF limited to the central 3" of table.

I presume you mean three foot rather than three inches? Could be a bit congested otherwise...

Sounds great in theory, in practice it doesn't work and just gives a massive advantage to LH armies who run around the sides of an army. Why wouldn't you be allowed to deploy where you want on a Battlefield?

Soldier: "We can't deploy in that field over there sir"
Officer: "Why ever not?"
Soldier: "Erm, well, we set the boundaries and that is too close to the edge"
Officer: "why?"
Soldier: "Erm....."

The ability of LH to ride around heavy foot seems entirely convincing to me. Are you proposing a 6' (got it this time!) deployment zone for the heavy foot and even wider for light horse? Why can't LH deploy wider than their opponents?

Irmin wrote: So if I've read this right a draw will always be 10-10 reagrdless of AP won or lost because a +5 victory bonus is only by routing the enemy.
Could there be a winning draw bonus (less AP lost than opponent) of say +5 pts thus promoting a try to win mentality and a win bonus of +10.

If both sides are routed, it will always be 10-10.
If neither side is routed (i.e. a timed-out draw) the scores still depend on the AP.

So if both armies are 10 BG and you lose 3 AP (so you would need to lose another 7 AP to be routed) but the opponent loses 8 AP the scores are:

You: +8 for what you killed, +7 for what you have left = 15
Opponent: +3 for what he killed, +2 for what he has left = 5

You could give a winning draw bonus, but some players think it encourages people to get slightly ahead and then play defensively/waste time to maintain their winning draw position.

lawrenceg wrote:

Irmin wrote: So if I've read this right a draw will always be 10-10 reagrdless of AP won or lost because a +5 victory bonus is only by routing the enemy.
Could there be a winning draw bonus (less AP lost than opponent) of say +5 pts thus promoting a try to win mentality and a win bonus of +10.

If both sides are routed, it will always be 10-10.
If neither side is routed (i.e. a timed-out draw) the scores still depend on the AP.

So if both armies are 10 BG and you lose 3 AP (so you would need to lose another 7 AP to be routed) but the opponent loses 8 AP the scores are:

You: +8 for what you killed, +7 for what you have left = 15
Opponent: +3 for what he killed, +2 for what he has left = 5

You could give a winning draw bonus, but some players think it encourages people to get slightly ahead and then play defensively/waste time to maintain their winning draw position.

So you could, in theory, draw a game and score more points than someone gets by winning

To me that says the winning bonus needs to be bigger.

Irmin wrote: So you could, in theory, draw a game and score more points than someone gets by winning

To me that says the winning bonus needs to be bigger.

IMO if you are 90% of the way to winning for no loss and you run out of time, you deserve more points than someone who technically won but with huge losses to his own army (narrowly avoided mutual destruction).

If you break your opponents army your score is 25 - 1 for every 10% of your break point you lose in terms of AP.

e.g. if you lose 2 AP from a 10 BG force and break your opponent then you score 23 (8 for what you have left, 10 for what you killed and a bonus of 5) and your opponent 2 (0 for what he has left, 2 for what he killed, no bonus).

It is possible (although difficult) to 'win' 15-10 but to do so you need to loose 95% or more of your AP and not break so you need a minimum of 20 BGs to even have a chance to get this score.

You can 'draw' 20-0 but your opponent would have to have lost more than 95% of their AP while you lose nothing.

I have seen 16-9 scores and 19-1 on a reasonably regular basis. 19-1 is by some definitions a 'draw' yet 16-9 is a 'win'