4 base skirmishing BGs

[peterrjohnston]

I particularly dislike the type of army that has, say, three BGs of strike troops and the rest light forces. You have to respect the strike force but that tends to mean if you beat it you don't get the time to hoover up the lighter stuff. The opponent can throw the strike in, exploit if it wins, run away if not.

But it would be a strange sort of Ancient/Medieval wargames rules that prevented such perfectly historical army organisations from being used. (e.g. Parthians)

It's the scoring system that's creating the problem, in my view and I think Grahams. A sacrificial small number of BGs that's likely to cause as much damage as it loses, plus loads of swirling LH combined with a high breakpoint, means under 25-0 means you'd be unlucky not to get at least a winning draw. I don't think the Parthian battle tactic was to sacrifice the cataphracts...

Now if we'd based the scoring system on what's in the rules, it wouldn't have been a problem...

I quite like the refinement you suggest for maximum break-points based on army points size.

[grahambriggs]

I particularly dislike the type of army that has, say, three BGs of strike troops and the rest light forces. You have to respect the strike force but that tends to mean if you beat it you don't get the time to hoover up the lighter stuff. The opponent can throw the strike in, exploit if it wins, run away if not.

But it would be a strange sort of Ancient/Medieval wargames rules that prevented such perfectly historical army organisations from being used. (e.g. Parthians)

I don't have a problem with Parthian army organisations being used. I do have a problem when I go to a competition and play armies that mostly consist of air, with a bit of grit mixed in. The issue I have is that there are so many armies that seem to have this option that it becomes all a bit samey.

For example, I had a great time last year at the Alexandria IWF - played six new opponents, all US, with varied results. The armies though were, how shall I put it?, mostly air with some grit. In the fifth round I was drawn against Medieval Castille. Thank heavens - a real army that I can have a battle against rather than a dance competition. I recall three groups of night and the rest skirmishers. I don't know the history of Spain that well but were their armies really couds of skirmishers and a smaller number of knights?

It's lucky that all the player were excellent folks and very pleasant because if not it would have been a dull old weekend.

[hazelbark]

Here's another simple suggestion. Keep the the current scoring system except that the break point of the army cannot exceed 1 AP per 60 points army total. (15 for a 900 point game, 13 for 800, 10 for 650). Allow armies to contain as many BGs as the player wants but the break point of the army cannot exceed that limit. Scores for uncompleted game are calculated on AP lost/min(total BGs,maximum permitted break point).

This is or an approximation is a good idea.

The Hammy argument of such and such happened in the UK at the top tier is a BAD argument for a host of reasons, among them:
UK is not sole location
Top players are anomalies not norm
And most importantly the game should not cater to top players, it needs to cater to a diverse base. And the mid range in particular is where bad habits form and populate too many playing pools.

[dave_r]

The Hammy argument of such and such happened in the UK at the top tier is a BAD argument for a host of reasons, among them:
- UK is not sole location
- Top players are anomalies not norm

Hammy's isn't a bad argument, it is simply a logical answer to the original argument.

I have been following this discussion with interest and my thoughts are that adding BG's can make an army hard to break if you pick the right army (i.e. one with lot's of skirmishers in it) and on the face of it this can lead to armies with a composition of lot's of skirmishers with a few strike BG's to pack the punch.

This can lead to unrewarding games when there is an army mismatch, which causes a lot of people to complain that these type of armies are dominating tournament play and something needs to be done about them. The logical counter position to this of course, is that the majority of tournaments in the UK are won by armies with 12-14 BG's as Hammy has pointed out. The most recent IWF was won by an army with 12 BG's in it.

Of course these are two of the extreme views and reality lies somewhere in the middle. It is likely that the top players would win with whatever type of army they chose to use as they generally pick a better army and use it better than a mid-table type person. There are some people who turn up to tournaments and their first aim is to not lose - picking an unbreakable army is a good first step to achieving this and a large BG type army can be, on the face of it, an easy way to accomplish this. Of course, there are those who would also succesfully argue that an army of many BG's is more brittle, tends to be of lower quality and one break can ensure a chain reaction.

It also stands to reason that if you bring an army that can't deal with a particular troop type then you can hardly complain afterwards that when you face such an army it is not fair. Given that there are large amounts of Light Horse and Light Foot lurking about, it would therefore make sense to pick an army that can deal with them.

I think the bottom line is that if many types of army are perceived to be popular / powerful / unbeatable then the game as it stands is fairly balanced. I like the scoring system as it stands and the continuing arguments back and forth would seem to indicate that no change is required.

[ethan]

It also stands to reason that if you bring an army that can't deal with a particular troop type then you can hardly complain afterwards that when you face such an army it is not fair. Given that there are large amounts of Light Horse and Light Foot lurking about, it would therefore make sense to pick an army that can deal with them.

If the game becomes too focused on skirmishers that alone is a negative. Too much of DBM was based around dealing with LH one way or another. Skirmisher armies should be a viable choice, they did reasonably well historically after all, but if the tourney game revolves around them - as they tend to have a bloodless I can either win or draw you can only lose or draw type of play it is a problem.

There are lots of solutions to this issue...basically as long as Rock-Paper-Scissors is working we are fine (Cavalry armies beat LH whcih Beat foot which Cavalry) but when that starts to break down it is bad.

[olivier]

IMHO, numbers of BG aren't the sole problem, it's a combo between BG numbers, time limit, AP and fair play.
in a comp at 800 AP with 14+ BG, it's very easy to not lose in 3H30 if you want to!
On other hand, slow play, hiding in terrain or table setting is another means to not lose in 3H30. It's no less in use in tournament than the swarm use.
I think the scoring system is not broken, if you doesn't want to see swarm put an upper limit on the number of BG accepted in the comp, augment the time of play or reduce the AP played! it's more easier than finding an scoring system on the air
And with a new system, I'll bet the same thread reappear in 6 month because some wicked players found a way to bypass it!

[peterrjohnston]

The logical counter position to this of course, is that the majority of tournaments in the UK are won by armies with 12-14 BG's as Hammy has pointed out. The most recent IWF was won by an army with 12 BG's in it.

How is concentrating on 1 player out of a tournament the logical answer? As Olivier and Dan state, it's the whole tournament that matters. If you take a large army, within the constraints of a tournament it is very easy under the present scoring system to avoid defeat. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with these types of armies; I like steppe and cavalry/LH armies and the game should certainly allow them to work, as it does. It's the scoring system I have a problem with.

As Hammy quotes Britcon 2009 ancients as one result: out of the top 10 at least 5 were probably armies with 15+ BGs - 2 Dominates, 1 Christian Nubian, 1 Skythian and 1 Parthian. Not one of them ever lost a game. Granted it's the top of the table, but out of 26 games (some played each other), not a single game was a complete loss? (For the other 5, there were 3 complete defeats).

Oh, and the winner the previous year of the same period had 19 BGs...


I think the only way to settle the argument would be to look at percentage of wins for all games over time. If it's going down, either players are getting remarkably better at avoiding defeat, or something is wrong with the relationship between the scoring system and army design.

[hazelbark]

IMHO, numbers of BG aren't the sole problem, it's a combo between BG numbers, time limit, AP and fair play.
in a comp at 800 AP with 14+ BG, it's very easy to not lose in 3H30 if you want to!
On other hand, slow play, hiding in terrain or table setting is another means to not lose in 3H30. It's no less in use in tournament than the swarm use.
I think the scoring system is not broken, if you doesn't want to see swarm put an upper limit on the number of BG accepted in the comp, augment the time of play or reduce the AP played! it's more easier than finding an scoring system on the air
And with a new system, I'll bet the same thread reappear in 6 month because some wicked players found a way to bypass it!

I very much agree with your points. Although it is harder to hide in terrain in FoG than previous rules.

[petedalby]

Lots of good solid reasoning. And agree with most of the points. We can't make someone play who wishs to avoid defeat. Unless we introduce chess clocks?

Here's another simple suggestion. Keep the the current scoring system except that the break point of the army cannot exceed 1 AP per 60 points army total. (15 for a 900 point game, 13 for 800, 10 for 650). Allow armies to contain as many BGs as the player wants but the break point of the army cannot exceed that limit. Scores for uncompleted game are calculated on AP lost/min(total BGs,maximum permitted break point).

But this suggestion from Richard looks good to me? The only refinement is that an army with less BGs should still break at 50% losses.

Just needs someone to try it? Please?

[rbodleyscott]

Lots of good solid reasoning. And agree with most of the points. We can't make someone play who wishs to avoid defeat. Unless we introduce chess clocks?

Here's another simple suggestion. Keep the the current scoring system except that the break point of the army cannot exceed 1 AP per 60 points army total. (15 for a 900 point game, 13 for 800, 10 for 650). Allow armies to contain as many BGs as the player wants but the break point of the army cannot exceed that limit. Scores for uncompleted game are calculated on AP lost/min(total BGs,maximum permitted break point).

But this suggestion from Richard looks good to me? The only refinement is that an army with less BGs should still break at 50% losses.

That is implicit in the proposal. The break point cannot exceed the specified points, but it can be less if there are less BGs than the maximum break point.

[Ghaznavid]

I will see if the players for the tournament in Amberg end of March agree to try it.

[madaxeman]

I have been following this discussion with interest and my thoughts are that adding BG's can make an army hard to break if you pick the right army (i.e. one with lot's of skirmishers in it) and on the face of it this can lead to armies with a composition of lot's of skirmishers with a few strike BG's to pack the punch. This can lead to unrewarding games when there is an army mismatch,

about right up to here..

which causes a lot of people to complain that these type of armies are dominating tournament play and something needs to be done about them. ,

..but thats where the analysis goes awry IMO. These armies arent winning tourneys, however they are somewhat spoiling the tourney experience for people who have to face them during tourneys. A big part of this is because the current tourney scoring system does not appear to give sufficient reward to players with more "usual" armies when they do as good a job as seems to be possible in terms of "beating up" swarm/LH armies

It also stands to reason that if you bring an army that can't deal with a particular troop type then you can hardly complain afterwards that when you face such an army it is not fair. ,

Yup, true enough. But if you face one, and do as well as is practically possible, and still dont get rewarded by the points system ....

Given that there are large amounts of Light Horse and Light Foot lurking about, it would therefore make sense to pick an army that can deal with them.,

Not great news for those of us with all the army books and loads of figures then...

I think the bottom line is that if many types of army are perceived to be popular / powerful / unbeatable then the game as it stands is fairly balanced. I like the scoring system as it stands and the continuing arguments back and forth would seem to indicate that no change is required.

I'll give you "popular" and "powerful" as supportuing your case, but not "unbeatable". Thats just plain wrong in the contest of a game and a scopring system that is IMO supposed to reflect how well you do in that game.

[bertalucci]

I'd vote for Richards very simple proposal

[nikgaukroger]

..but thats where the analysis goes awry IMO. These armies arent winning tourneys, however they are somewhat spoiling the tourney experience for people who have to face them during tourneys. A big part of this is because the current tourney scoring system does not appear to give sufficient reward to players with more "usual" armies when they do as good a job as seems to be possible in terms of "beating up" swarm/LH armies

Essentially it seems to boil down to the idea that the "swarm" armies, especially those which are manoeuvrable, have taken the place in FoG that the "table sitters" did in DBM - in both cases it takes a good player to win with them but an average player can avoid losing with them if they want to.

And I think there is merit in such a view. It does mean that what you want to achieve with a change to a scoring system is to make it less useful to try to avoid losing as that is where the issue lies. Richard's suggestion may well do that. As for testing it, that would only be useful if it is tested where there is an issue with players taking swarms already, testing where they do not is a bit pointless.

[philqw78]

I'll give you "popular" and "powerful" as supportuing your case, but not "unbeatable". Thats just plain wrong in the contest of a game and a scoring system that is IMO supposed to reflect how well you do in that game.

So you propose a system where if a LH army faces a HF army either side can get bonus points for doing well, because neither has much chance of winning. But HF v's HF and LH v's LH would give no bonus. Therefore a cavalry lancer force should get bonus points for doing well against both of these as it stands little chance of catching well played LH and little chance of breaking though well played HF. A balanced army should not receive any bonus beacause it has tools to take on all comers.

[madaxeman]

I'll give you "popular" and "powerful" as supportuing your case, but not "unbeatable". Thats just plain wrong in the contest of a game and a scoring system that is IMO supposed to reflect how well you do in that game.

So you propose a system where if a LH army faces a HF army either side can get bonus points for doing well, because neither has much chance of winning. But HF v's HF and LH v's LH would give no bonus. Therefore a cavalry lancer force should get bonus points for doing well against both of these as it stands little chance of catching well played LH and little chance of breaking though well played HF. A balanced army should not receive any bonus beacause it has tools to take on all comers.

I'd just settle for a system where people called "Dave" are penalised. Much easier but achieves the same result

[philqw78]

I'd just settle for a system where people called "Dave" are penalised. Much easier but achieves the same result

Brilliant idea Dave

[grahambriggs]

which causes a lot of people to complain that these type of armies are dominating tournament play and something needs to be done about them. ,

..but thats where the analysis goes awry IMO. These armies arent winning tourneys, however they are somewhat spoiling the tourney experience for people who have to face them during tourneys. A big part of this is because the current tourney scoring system does not appear to give sufficient reward to players with more "usual" armies when they do as good a job as seems to be possible in terms of "beating up" swarm/LH armies

Armies can dominate tournament play without winning the tournaments. If, say 15 out of 40 entrants take surviveable swarms to a 4 round tounaments that could be 60 games of "hunt the swarm". The winner might have a small or large army but will only play 4 games. So in terms of the experience of the average punter, you might be 15 times more likely to play a "survivor swarm" than to play the winner.

I like Richard's suggestion as a 'normal' approach to tournament scoring. It has the added benefit that tournament organisers could vary it if they didn't mind swarms. Or could make it more severe if they wanted very decisive games - e.g. if only 3 hours were available you could make the breakpoints lower.

Regards

Graham

[dave_r]

I'd just settle for a system where people called "Dave" are penalised. Much easier but achieves the same result

I see we reach the crux of the matter. Tim want's a headstart against people called Dave.

How many points do you need?

[peterrjohnston]

The other possible BG break limit method, rather than Richard's fixed limit suggestion, is for each BG beyond say 12, to only count 1/2 towards army break-point. So a 14 BG army would break on 13, 16 on 14, 18 on 15 etc.

The one slight problem with this is what to do with the 1/2 break points, which would slightly be open to gaming. Does a 15 BG army break on 13 or 14 (13.5)?