800 points too many?

[Moro]

Our club here in Rome is starting playing intensively FOG from a couple of months.

It seems to us that 800 points for a 15" match are too many, both because the play lasts too much and because tactic is hindered from having too many miniatures on the table.
What do you think about? It would not be better playing with only 650 points?

bye

[Polkovnik]

What do you mean a 15" match ?

If you're just starting, then I would recommend playing with less points until you are playing quickly and getting games completed in the time available. We play with 700 pts on a 5' wide table.

[philqw78]

Some people here in UK want 900pt competition games to improve the amount of games finished

[hammy]

I am assuming you are playing 15mm.

What size tables are you using and how long are your games taking?

In the UK the norm is 800 points on a 1.8 by 1.2m table and games usually take 3 1/2 hours or so.

Doubles is now noemally 900 points on the same sized table and the same time.

There are some tournaments run at 650 points on a 1.5 by 0.9m table and these games are usually over in under 2 1/2 hours.

[DaiSho]

What do you mean a 15" match ?

They are 15" miniatures . A real bugger to paint, but boy do they look nice .

Now you understand why he wants to limit the points .

Ian

[mellis1644]

I guess to ask the question a different way - does the table size i.e. table edge and/or potential lack of flanks/congestion which occurs when having many units on the table significantly effect the game play.

In most games it does and I think in FoG that occurs as well from my limited experience. For example, there is the great debate of DBA on 24" or 30" tables and how that effects that game and that's much simpler (in relative terms) and smaller scale than FoG. Also, for different armies some may do better or worse depending upon the size of the table and the points used. As units are eliminated etc. when they hit the board edge and distance is involved when impacts to morale of others when some circumstances occur, as well as the importance of movement and flanks, there has to be effects and impacts when looking at the interaction between board and army size.

The best thing is to find a level where you and your opponents are happy and use that. The rules should play o.k at different levels but the feel of the game may be different as it changes. The size of battles which you like and enjoy will depending upon the types of armies used, the players and their experience with the rules that may vary. Fun games can be had at all levels of points I would assume, but the tactics (even with the same armies) may change.

IMO larger points armies are not necessarily better and 650 pts games are just as much fun as 900 ones - just different.

Hope this helps

[Moro]

Sorry if my post was a bit unintellegible!

We are playing 15 mm on tables 48x72 inches.
We note that at 800 points players can field many miniatures on the table. Maybe too many, especially if the battlefield is cover with terrains.
In order to favour mobility, maybe It could be better playing with less points.
Is this a wrong reasoning?

[Polkovnik]

I think 800 pts on a 6' wide table is about right. With less points I'd play on a narrower table - say 700 pts on 5' wide or 600 pts on 4' wide.
People do play higher pts games on a 6' table but this would get more crowded and favour heavy foot armies.

[hammy]

Sorry if my post was a bit unintellegible!

We are playing 15 mm on tables 48x72 inches.
We note that at 800 points players can field many miniatures on the table. Maybe too many, especially if the battlefield is cover with terrains.
In order to favour mobility, maybe It could be better playing with less points.
Is this a wrong reasoning?

Fewer points will make for a shorter game but if you keep the table size the same you will find that heavy foot armies are badly dissadvantaged compared to light horse armies.

I would hate to try for example Romans vs Parthians at 600 points on a 6' by 4' (72 by 48 inch) table.

[madaxeman]

I strongly believe that 800 points for 15mm miniatures is too few, and makes games longer, not shorter.

With fewer points I agree that the "main" fighting will be over sooner than it is with more points - but after this the time it takes to get to the end of the battle when one side is totally defeated becomes much longer with fewer points, as there is more space for light, and fast moving mounted troops to run away from the victorious enemy.

At 900 points I find that the "fighting" troops make up more of the army, so the winner and loser is probably decided in the main clash of the battle lines. When the main lines have finished fighting and one side has won there is also less space for units of skirmishers on the losing side to run away and hide.

I would much rather not finish games where there has been lots of hard fighting but no side totally breaks, instead of not finishing games because my victorious troops could not catch some units of enemy skirmishers even an hour after we have destroyed their main battle line in hard fighting

tim

[hammy]

900 point singles and 1000 point doubles, you know it makes sense

Actually we could go for 1100 point doubles, that would be fun....

[mellis1644]

I would much rather not finish games where there has been lots of hard fighting but no side totally breaks, instead of not finishing games because my victorious troops could not catch some units of enemy skirmishers even an hour after we have destroyed their main battle line in hard fighting

tim

-
Isn't that an issue/problem with the victory conditions if one side obviously won 'the main battle line' and the other side keeps avoiding combat to loose the battle?

This is more likely with mismatched armies (e.i. all heavy foot vs all LH for example) and all rules also tend to have issues with the 'run away to live again' player who does not want to loose, but plays for the draw... P.S. the Romans historically in Parthia and others places did have this problem so the rules are modeling reality in this case.

However, as this is a game not a simulation, if clearing those away is causing the game to go on too long, then it seems that the issue is in the victory conditions which you are working around by changing the game board and army size to get a victory.

LF/LH could be worth less BG points for the original army size or something. Another alternative would be for evading troops on the table count as an Attrition point for that turn etc. I'm no expert for suggesting a fix, but it seems that this is a work around for an issue in the victory conditions in these cases.

[hammy]

LF/LH could be worth less BG points for the original army size or something. Another alternative would be for evading troops on the table count as an Attrition point for that turn etc. I'm no expert for suggesting a fix, but it seems that this is a work around for an issue in the victory conditions in these cases.

I think the best 'solution' to the skirmisher problem would be for troops that have evaded off table to be be worth 1 AP as long as you have not lost your camp but once you lose your camp then they become worth 2 AP. This would mean that the silly situation where a few BG of light horse clinging to the edges and corners of the table would not keep an army that had lost its camp alive.

From a history PoV think of the camp as an objective, the heavy army wants to get to the objective, as long as the girly light horse army keeps that safe then being chased off table is not a major issue. Once the camp falls then the heavies have done their stuff and the battle is more easily won.

[philqw78]

Actually we could go for 1100 point doubles, that would be fun....

and you helped design the lists that were designed for a maximum of 1000 pts?

[maxigoth]

I would much rather not finish games where there has been lots of hard fighting but no side totally breaks, instead of not finishing games because my victorious troops could not catch some units of enemy skirmishers even an hour after we have destroyed their main battle line in hard fighting

tim

Dear Tim,

You have destroyed the enemy "ungentlemen" because you force has many "hard fight'en troops". Gentlemen play commanders use the means that are available to win or not lose. FoG is well balanced and simulation of ancient - medieval warfare, and skirmishing is a valid option.

General Yank to General Han, sayes "We did not win, however, you no we never lost and impact or melee combat against you." Han's replied "So what!"

Tim - please no offence is intended --- my point is that Gamers should be allowed to addopt what ever (rule legal) tactics they wish. I recall many years ago in a WRG comp that a almost all pike army commander thougt it not fair of me not to leave terrain with my (what now would be medium foot) and engage in "gentle man to gentle man combat! I got a place in the top 3 and the pikes army did not. Play to win and plan not to loose.

Max

[hammy]

Actually we could go for 1100 point doubles, that would be fun....

and you helped design the lists that were designed for a maximum of 1000 pts?

Actually all the lists can have a maximum of 1150 points before commanders, fortifications and allies so 1100 would not be that much of a stretch.

[timmy1]

Hammy, go for 1205 points double and then all you have to decide is the order of BG. Lets see the Seljuks and the Saka skirmish that for 4 hours.

[rbodleyscott]

I would much rather not finish games where there has been lots of hard fighting but no side totally breaks, instead of not finishing games because my victorious troops could not catch some units of enemy skirmishers even an hour after we have destroyed their main battle line in hard fighting

tim

Dear Tim,

You have destroyed the enemy "ungentlemen" because you force has many "hard fight'en troops". Gentlemen play commanders use the means that are available to win or not lose. FoG is well balanced and simulation of ancient - medieval warfare, and skirmishing is a valid option.

General Yank to General Han, sayes "We did not win, however, you no we never lost and impact or melee combat against you." Han's replied "So what!"

Tim - please no offence is intended --- my point is that Gamers should be allowed to addopt what ever (rule legal) tactics they wish. I recall many years ago in a WRG comp that a almost all pike army commander thougt it not fair of me not to leave terrain with my (what now would be medium foot) and engage in "gentle man to gentle man combat! I got a place in the top 3 and the pikes army did not. Play to win and plan not to loose.

Max

Of course Tim's complaint reflects the historical complaint of gentlemen who encased themselves in sufficient armour to make them virtually invulnerable and then complained that their (hopelessly underequipped) enemy were too cowardly to meet them face to face, preferably in single combat.

Equally historical is the scornful laughter from the skirmishing army at this (Western Imperialist) hypocrisy.

What this in fact represents is culture shock, a major feature of the Ancient/Medieval period. A prime example would be the Crusades. For me, this is one of the main features that makes the Ancient/Medieval period of wargaming attractive. Contrast it with the Napoleonic period, where apart from (often exaggerated) “national characteristics”, all the armies are pretty much the same.

[maxigoth]

This topic thread questions if 800 ponits is too many for 15mm. I believe 800 points on a 6' x 4' table is optimal and 650 points for 25mm, on same sized table.

For competitions in 15mm using these rules (FoG) I am of the view that it should not be accepted that a force contain more than 16 battle groups --- consistent with P9 Design Philosopy.

Would it not be reasonable to have armies that deploy 16 or more battle groups pay in some way --- eg points All Generals cost 10pts more; loss of an initiative point for each BG over 16; or any BGs over 16 incur one disruption marker to be placed by owning player.

When armies begin to deploy 16 or more units --- in competition --- it can favour the skirmish tactical practioner.

Thoughts please?

[madaxeman]

Tim - please no offence is intended --- my point is that Gamers should be allowed to addopt what ever (rule legal) tactics they wish. I recall many years ago in a WRG comp that a almost all pike army commander thougt it not fair of me not to leave terrain with my (what now would be medium foot) and engage in "gentle man to gentle man combat! I got a place in the top 3 and the pikes army did not. Play to win and plan not to loose.
Max

No offence taken I'm not - contrary to what it might seem - complaining about skirmishers being "unfair" or about people using "underhand" (but legal) tactics to win. My point about more points is that I feel 800 points can sometimes (often) lead to the final phase of a game simply not being much FUN!

This is nothing to do with whether the armies are heavy, skirmish-filled or a mixture of both. Instead, its because I often find that there are too few troops left on table after each side has been involved in heavy fighting, and so these "too few" units have too much space and opportunity to run away from each other.

If two typical 800 point armies can muster 25-6 BGs between them, if both sides have set about each other and are on brink of mutual defeat there are only around 14-16 BGs left on table -and I generally find they can escape form each other and getting the last couple of BGs takes ages. Two 900 AP armies might start with 30+ BGs on table, and at the end of a hard fought game there can still be close to 20 BGs moving around - so chances are some of them are already very close together, and the chances for "escape" are less - so they have to fight!

Of course Tim's complaint reflects the historical complaint of gentlemen who encased themselves in sufficient armour to make them virtually invulnerable and then complained that their (hopelessly underequipped) enemy were too cowardly to meet them face to face, preferably in single combat.

Erm, no. This is supposed to be an equal-points game thats fun to play, not a one-on-one combat to the death.

The last few turns of a hard-fought game where as the clock ticks down and where both sides still have a chance of total victory or total defeat SHOULD be about the most entertaining situation possible. At 800 points, I find it's instead often an anticlimax, as 3 hours of exciting fighting peters out into a rather dissappointing 30 minutes of "Benny Hill Music", with units chasing each other into the corners of the board instead of trying to finish each other off.

Equally historical is the scornful laughter from the skirmishing army at this (Western Imperialist) hypocrisy.
What this in fact represents is culture shock, a major feature of the Ancient/Medieval period. A prime example would be the Crusades. For me, this is one of the main features that makes the Ancient/Medieval period of wargaming attractive.

Likewise, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Irrespective of the matchup, 2 nearly-beaten 800 AP armies occupy a lot less table space than 2 nearly-beaten 900AP armies, and so the incentive to take risks to try and win (and risk losing) vs the possibility to just "Benny Hill" away from each other seems to me to be better balanced for gameplay reasons at 900AP than at 800AP.

Contrast it with the Napoleonic period, where apart from (often exaggerated) “national characteristics”, all the armies are pretty much the same.

I'll not be buying that ruleset then