Slitherine

hazelbark wrote:. But...So was this just a Benny Hill event or were rounds only like 1 hour 45 mimutes?

The former

Well from my stand in umpiring walking around position on the Sunday I'd say it wasn't a Benny Hill fest in the main (some exceptions as always). The games at Warfare are shorter than normal for GB singles - 3 1/4 hours plus a small amount of random time (1-5 mins IIRC) as opposed to either 3 1/4 hours plus 1-15 mins or 3 1/2 hours plus 1-15 mins which is more usual.

Plus most British players are cagey and don't commit on the chance of a good win.

Whistle stop finish didn't help either

hazelbark wrote:Holy Benny Hill.

Am i reading this right that there are bascially no players that broke more than 1 opponent's army?

I see several close. But...So was this just a Benny Hill event or were rounds only like 1 hour 45 mimutes?

It's one of the reasons I didn't enter that period; lot's of decent players with tough armies that can disengage if things go bad. I would have liked to take my Persians but could just see a weekend of dancing.

Instead I took grit and air to the Dawn of Chivalry theme and broke two enemies, was on the way to breaking another and only needed to avoid a loss in the last game (so I still attacked just a bit more cautiously).

I found that in a three and a quarter hour game where I put in a big attack somewhere a delaying LH wing didn't get caught as the enemy mostly moved at 4MU.

dave_r wrote:Whistle stop finish didn't help either

That's just a failure to adapt to the comp rules - just like most of the GB team didn't at the 2010 ITC ...

hazelbark wrote:Holy Benny Hill.

Am i reading this right that there are bascially no players that broke more than 1 opponent's army?

I see several close. But...So was this just a Benny Hill event or were rounds only like 1 hour 45 mimutes?

That was just in the one period, I'm sure the other periods had significantly higher number of games with broken armies, in fact I played in 4 games where we had a broken army in each game.

fevgrinder wrote:

hazelbark wrote:Holy Benny Hill.

Am i reading this right that there are bascially no players that broke more than 1 opponent's army?

I see several close. But...So was this just a Benny Hill event or were rounds only like 1 hour 45 mimutes?

That was just in the one period, I'm sure the other periods had significantly higher number of games with broken armies, in fact I played in 4 games where we had a broken army in each game.

Nothing to do with there being more people in the Roman period than the other two period combined then.

How would adding more players to the pool make it more likely for any one player to experience 4 games with an army break?

ShrubMiK wrote:How would adding more players to the pool make it more likely for any one player to experience 4 games with an army break?

I'll throw it back how come 14 players had more breaks in their games than 28 players did.

Ah ok - fair point!

In the Roman pool 7 army breaks out of 88 games seems quite small to me.

Since I had two games with a lot of Benny Hill, I would suggest it has more to do with mid table benny hill than the missing 30 minutes.

Maybe its down to lots of people learning how not to lose and missing the part about how to win a game.

Dave

david53 wrote:In the Roman pool 7 army breaks out of 88 games seems quite small to me.

Maybe its down to lots of people learning how not to lose and missing the part about how to win a game.

I don't mean this as a slam, as I actually like many of the GB players, but if results like this became common in my neck of the world I would worry about the game's player base. Now this 7 out 88 doesn't tell how many would have been different with 15 minutes.

I look forward to stats on other pools.

Given what we know globally about game styles and trends, there oughts to be some thought to what could evolve this as I think merely saying it was a bit shorter probably is just denying reality.

Dawn of Chivalry - 7 breaks out of 28 games

25mm had 13 breaks in 24 games

FoG R has 17 in 52 (although my gut feel is they have more in the 17-19 point range as well)

ethan wrote:Dawn of Chivalry - 7 breaks out of 28 games

25mm had 13 breaks in 24 games

FoG R has 17 in 52 (although my gut feel is they have more in the 17-19 point range as well)

1 in 4; 1 in 2 and 1 in 3. Seems more than a coincidence. Another American conspiracy.

Anyway the thing is UK players are different. They are happier with a friendly game that ends in an amiable draw than having fun, well one of them having fun.

I will admit that I had a game at Warfare without a single combat as we both raced around each others opposite flank. Very interesting, but not fun.

philqw78 wrote:

ethan wrote:Dawn of Chivalry - 7 breaks out of 28 games

25mm had 13 breaks in 24 games

FoG R has 17 in 52 (although my gut feel is they have more in the 17-19 point range as well)

1 in 4; 1 in 2 and 1 in 3. Seems more than a coincidence. Another American conspiracy.

Anyway the thing is UK players are different. They are happier with a friendly game that ends in an amiable draw than having fun, well one of them having fun.

I will admit that I had a game at Warfare without a single combat as we both raced around each others opposite flank. Very interesting, but not fun.

That would be the game where your Varangian Guard ran away from the enemy average spears I assume

philqw78 wrote:Anyway the thing is UK players are different. They are happier with a friendly game that ends in an amiable draw than having fun, well one of them having fun.

I presume you honestly think this reflects the attendees, but...
1) Do you think it effectst he number of players?
2) Would you have travelled to say Lisbon for a similar series of amiable draws (had of course that happened) ?

I get not every game is a knock out, nor needs to be. I have had some fun games that ended nearly even, but with good tense points. But if games evolve toward the inconclusive too often then I would expect less participation.

Over here this has not hit to this degree. But to the degree it has we have lost the palyers to FOW and elsewhere.

hazelbark wrote:

philqw78 wrote:Anyway the thing is UK players are different. They are happier with a friendly game that ends in an amiable draw than having fun, well one of them having fun.

I presume you honestly think this reflects the attendees, but...
1) Do you think it effectst he number of players?
2) Would you have travelled to say Lisbon for a similar series of amiable draws (had of course that happened) ?

I get not every game is a knock out, nor needs to be. I have had some fun games that ended nearly even, but with good tense points. But if games evolve toward the inconclusive too often then I would expect less participation.

Over here this has not hit to this degree. But to the degree it has we have lost the palyers to FOW and elsewhere.

What you should remember Phil is one of the top players in the UK ie on the top tables more than not.

He therefore may not see the same side that i have seen grow over this last year in FOG from the mid tables.


Dave

hazelbark wrote:I presume you honestly think this reflects the attendees, but...
1) Do you think it effects the number of players?
2) Would you have travelled to say Lisbon for a similar series of amiable draws (had of course that happened) ?

I had Three very amiable games in Lisbon. 1 big win a couple of close draws with lots of death. Oh, and another one that I don't like to talk about!

I get not every game is a knock out, nor needs to be. I have had some fun games that ended nearly even, but with good tense points. But if games evolve toward the inconclusive too often then I would expect less participation.

Over here this has not hit to this degree. But to the degree it has we have lost the palyers to FOW and elsewhere.

I'm sure it will affect numbers. Most FoW games have a result, helped by the scenarios. The DBM players that did not move to FoG have in the main gone to FoW. So more results are needed. Even if they are close but do give a winner. How to do that can be put on the shoulders of organisers. But they have enough to do, more than 1 rule set for a start. So IMO it needs to go in the rules and the authors need to stop shirking their responsibilities.

philqw78 wrote:I had Three very amiable games in Lisbon. 1 big win a couple of close draws with lots of death. Oh, and another one that I don't like to talk about!

hmmm. I had one game I like to talk about a lot at Lisbon. Funny coincidence.

So IMO it needs to go in the rules and the authors need to stop shirking their responsibilities.