Time to limit the number of BGs?

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sat May 02, 2009 11:23 am

Despite predictions that the DomRom Swarm would be the uber army this has not proved to be the case – but any army with a particularly high number of BGs is extremely difficult to defeat within the normal competition game time constraints.

One idea I want to float for competition organisers – why not limit the number the number of BGs?

My proposal – no more than 2 BGs per 100 AP.

So for 800 points – no more than 16 BGs. For 900 points – no more than 18 BGS.

These restrictions would only impact upon a very limited number of armies and such a restrictions would mean that the Army Lists and Rules could be left unchanged.

What do you think?

Pete

recharge · Post by **recharge** » Sat May 02, 2009 11:45 am

From my army list twiddling, I'd think it is pretty hard to come up with an 800 point list in excess of 16 BG's

I managed 1 Roman one, but have never fielded it.

What armies are you seeing and how many BG's?

John

philqw78 · Post by **philqw78** » Sat May 02, 2009 12:48 pm

19 BG Dom Roman
17 BG Parthian
18 BG Thracian
off the top of my head

footslogger · Post by **footslogger** » Sat May 02, 2009 1:20 pm

I think I got 18 with classical indians also.

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Sat May 02, 2009 2:01 pm

Maybe introduce a 'chess clock' where players have 2 hours in a 4 hour game ?

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Sat May 02, 2009 2:57 pm

I do agree that no. of battle groups can be an issue, though I have seeen quite "small" armies defeat "larger" ones...it may depend on the run of the dice and the experience/quality of the players?

In general though I think you should "pay" for the flexibility a large number of BGs confers on your army and Pete's idea has the virtue of simplicity. The alternative would be a tariff in points for each battle group so that if you took a large no. of 4 base BGs it "cost" you more than a smaller no. of 8 base BGs.

Martin

Scrumpy · Post by **Scrumpy** » Sat May 02, 2009 4:09 pm

Sounds like you want the old command points for each unit that existed under 6th edition. Not sure that is a step forward for the game.

WhiteKnight · Post by **WhiteKnight** » Sat May 02, 2009 4:34 pm

Yup I understand your point Scrumpy, but not everything from past rulesets was wrongheaded....after all, after the DBX days of cascades of individual bases, we have returned to something close to "units"?
Many would still play 6th edition games but for the interminable factors to work out and all the record keeping and to an extent the simultaneous move system and order writing and....but for all its shortcomings, there were points in its favour and many still prefer it as a ruleset.

Martin

nikgaukroger · Post by **nikgaukroger** » Sat May 02, 2009 5:26 pm

petedalby wrote:Despite predictions that the DomRom Swarm would be the uber army this has not proved to be the case – but any army with a particularly high number of BGs is extremely difficult to defeat within the normal competition game time constraints.

One idea I want to float for competition organisers – why not limit the number the number of BGs?

My proposal – no more than 2 BGs per 100 AP.

So for 800 points – no more than 16 BGs. For 900 points – no more than 18 BGS.

These restrictions would only impact upon a very limited number of armies and such a restrictions would mean that the Army Lists and Rules could be left unchanged.

What do you think?

Pete

I think there is no need. Taking the Challenge as a good bench mark - open, many good players, etc. - we had a fair mix of number of BGs in the top 10 at the end of the weekend.

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun May 03, 2009 11:23 am

You make a fair point Nik.

With your greater technical know-how would you mind posting this as a poll to see what others think?

Cheers

Pete

footslogger · Post by **footslogger** » Sun May 03, 2009 2:03 pm

I haven't played a swarm of battle groups and I haven't run one myself, but I'm not sure I see a reason yet to impose a limit or make a change to discourage large numbers of BGs.

recharge · Post by **recharge** » Sun May 03, 2009 3:19 pm

Well,in out tourney yesterday; I ran 15 BG's. While only finishing 1 out of 3 rounds; I don't think the number of BG's was the issue.
I had 10 BG's of skirmisher (6-LH and 4-LF) which means a lot of running back and forth with no close combat (hopefully).
The player style also has a tremendous impact. Some are very fussy and deliberate with their moving and step by step thru every modifier.

I've seen the same with DBA tournaments, some play quick and some are verrrry slow. I always assumed it partly because they really didn't have a plan

John

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Sun May 03, 2009 4:00 pm

Im becoming less convinced on the lots of BG thing - I was using a 21 BG army the other day - and all I achieved was tying myself in knots as I couldnt give myself enough room for them to move around each other.

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Sun May 03, 2009 4:18 pm

Instead of imposing a maximum BG army size why not just place a AP level at which all armies break.

- People can then still structure their armies however they like.
- It solves Grahams comment regarding the difficulty with finding those last few attrition points within a comp game time. (Tim's Benny hill IGOUGO description)
- It reduces the (IMO) silly effect where some armies can really bulk out thier BG size with 8-12 point filler groups. All armies get one or two of these so its pretty much even but there are some where its
- There is still benefit in larger numbers of BGs for mobile armies (angles, concentration of fire and presenting multiple threats) without artificially increasing the difficulty that there is to actually send the army packing

If a battlefeild justificaiton is really needed for this the disportionate BattleGroup to Atrtrittion Points needed to break armies of the same points size could be described as reflecting the breakdown of control the CinC has to keep the army together when things start to go bad.

This could be something like:
800 AP 12 points
600 AP 10 points

or whatever you feel like being the norm

petedalby · Post by **petedalby** » Sun May 03, 2009 5:57 pm

Im becoming less convinced on the lots of BG thing - I was using a 21 BG army the other day - and all I achieved was tying myself in knots as I couldnt give myself enough room for them to move around each other.

I guess that's the point I'm trying to make Paul.

I'm not suggesting they will always win.

But while you were CMTing and moving 21 BGs - did your opponent get the opportunity to beat you?

Pete

doctormm · Post by **doctormm** » Sun May 03, 2009 8:12 pm

My issue with the battlegroups in FoG is not their numbers. It's the fact that for so many purposes, they all count as the same. You've still got "filler" (after the ridiculous geometry that bore such importance, the thing I hated most about DBx). Breaking a 4 stand unit of MF is worth the same as breaking an eight stand unit of Janissaries. Granted long term the loss of the Janissaries is a bigger deal, but time limits mean that often doesn't come into play.

paulcummins · Post by **paulcummins** » Sun May 03, 2009 9:04 pm

and that is also a damn good point

I (think I) play fairly fast, in fact I try to play as fast as I can. In club games I would expect to be finished in 2 1/2 to 3 hours. I have only finished 1 21 Bg game (I lost BTW)

not losing is good, but army breaks are substantially better.

I think the big no of BG army will fade - it doesnt win so well

rogerg · Post by **rogerg** » Sun May 03, 2009 9:51 pm

I think it is still to early in the life of FoG to make changes. I wouldn't want to see a BG limit. Large numbers of small BG armies have not impressed me that much.

I am thinking of making my 800pt Hussites 9 BG instead of 8 though.

Ghaznavid · Post by **Ghaznavid** » Mon May 04, 2009 1:48 am

doctormm wrote:My issue with the battlegroups in FoG is not their numbers. It's the fact that for so many purposes, they all count as the same. You've still got "filler" (after the ridiculous geometry that bore such importance, the thing I hated most about DBx). Breaking a 4 stand unit of MF is worth the same as breaking an eight stand unit of Janissaries. Granted long term the loss of the Janissaries is a bigger deal, but time limits mean that often doesn't come into play.

True, the "cheering squads" to bolster the army break point bother me too, but it's difficult to balance. For example if you use point values instead, people will become reluctant to risk expensive BGs, not to mention we might see 6th Edition style suicide attacks from cheap BGs again.

That said I kinda like the suggestion from expendablecinc. It changes very little but curbs excesses and speeds up the 'endgame' which is about the only time IMO where large numbers of BGs really make a difference.

expendablecinc · Post by **expendablecinc** » Mon May 04, 2009 4:54 am

doctormm wrote:..Breaking a 4 stand unit of MF is worth the same as breaking an eight stand unit of Janissaries. Granted long term the loss of the Janissaries is a bigger deal, but time limits mean that often doesn't come into play.

I think this is fine - in regard to skirmishers as it reinforces historical on table behaviour of skirmishers.

when comparing like with like - varying only BG size and quality then the speed and ease of dispatching the group counteracts the impact of losing them.

anthony

Time to limit the number of BGs?

Time to limit the number of BGs?

Re: Time to limit the number of BGs?

use max attrition points needed to break the army instead