Slitherine

Field of Glory

Some thoughts on themed competitions:

Limitations will be place upon the date of an army entry; not on precluding any “Army List Book”.

Dates articulated within an army list that provides a divide; 80 BC ‘Late Republican Rome’ only before 80 BC may Velites be classed as protected. Utilising this date for 80 BC as commencement of second divide, see “Rise of Rome” p14, and take this date to 1040 AD sited in “Wolves from the Sea” 1041 AD; being the date that Milites may be ascribed Knight Status ‘Norman’ list p69 to be used as start of third divide.

Themed tournament break up by dates:

C3000 BC to 81 BC
80 BC to 1040 AD
1041 AD to c1500 AD

Armies from Blood and Gold may be fielded as follows:
• From # BC to 899 AD; field these armies in theme tournament C3000 BC to 81 BC
• 901 AD to 1299 AD; field these armies in theme tournament 80 BC to 1040 AD
• 1301 to 1499 (the end as they new it) theme tournament 1041 AD to c1500 AD

You will note that no reference is made to the years 9oo, 14oo and 15oo for armies of the Americas; this is to humour the discussion and thoughts of Mayan scholars, Aztec Priest and Inca lama breeders that a century begins with its particular number followed by two round eyes; quaint but silly.

Americas forces are not encouraged so if you field one you will loose 6% of your force points; 800 – 48 = 752p. 650 – 39 = 611ps. For this expenditure you will win initiative if a tied result score is achieved between you and your opponent, and who ever wins the initiative may only choose terrain from your army’s terrain list, unless of cause you are both fielding Americas armies, then revert to plan A.

The idea at present is to run three themed competitions, as above, in Ashfield Canterbury area of Sydney Australia over the span of 2012.

Questions:

What might be your preferred scale and points per army size if you were to play?

Would you play in a tournament focused on C3000 BC to 81 BC?

Would you play in a tournament focused on 80 BC to 1040 AD?

Would you play in a tournament focused on 1041 AD to c1500 AD?

What are your thoughts on the inclusion or exclusion of Americas armies from ‘Blood and Gold’?

Possible weekend March 3rd and 4th, please advise if you are aware of any other wargame competition in Sydney around that time that may hinder patronage?

Possible weekend August 4th and 5th, please advise if you are aware of any other wargame competition in Sydney around that time that may hinder patronage?

Possible weekend November 3rd and 4th, please advise if you are aware of any other wargame competition in Sydney around that time that may hinder patronage?

Regards,
Max

Dont mind the themes in general but

Americas forces are not encouraged so if you field one you will loose 6% of your force points; 800 – 48 = 752p. 650 – 39 = 611ps. For this expenditure you will win initiative if a tied result score is achieved between you and your opponent, and who ever wins the initiative may only choose terrain from your army’s terrain list, unless of cause you are both fielding Americas armies, then revert to plan A.

I find it hard to understand what motivates this? We arent exactly staring down a plague of American armies and are never likely to. If you really dont want American armies turning up just specify no B and G at all. I'll happily agree not to bring my Inca.

Martin

marty wrote:Dont mind the themes in general but

Americas forces are not encouraged so if you field one you will loose 6% of your force points; 800 – 48 = 752p. 650 – 39 = 611ps. For this expenditure you will win initiative if a tied result score is achieved between you and your opponent, and who ever wins the initiative may only choose terrain from your army’s terrain list, unless of cause you are both fielding Americas armies, then revert to plan A.

I find it hard to understand what motivates this? We arent exactly staring down a plague of American armies and are never likely to. If you really dont want American armies turning up just specify no B and G at all. I'll happily agree not to bring my Inca.

Martin

Quite - not that anything run in Oz is going tom affect me in the foreseeable

marty wrote:Dont mind the themes in general but

Americas forces are not encouraged so if you field one you will loose 6% of your force points; 800 – 48 = 752p. 650 – 39 = 611ps. For this expenditure you will win initiative if a tied result score is achieved between you and your opponent, and who ever wins the initiative may only choose terrain from your army’s terrain list, unless of cause you are both fielding Americas armies, then revert to plan A.

I find it hard to understand what motivates this? We arent exactly staring down a plague of American armies and are never likely to. If you really dont want American armies turning up just specify no B and G at all. I'll happily agree not to bring my Inca.

Martin

I would most likely run an Americas army if in 25mm and would not like it to appear that I was setting myself up to do better - say if I ran post classical Mayan. I would prefer not to say no to Americas so how about no point change and keeping with the 3000 - 899 / 901-1299 / 1301 - 1499. Late Mayan, Aztec and Inca would be in the third group; which is for the 'Un-Americas' armies 1041 - 1500.

Regards,
max

I would put all the Americans in your pre 80BC, as they are all pre-iron age.

philqw78 wrote:I would put all the Americans in your pre 80BC, as they are all pre-iron age.

Thank you philqw78 that is a good place to put them in, and all in the one themed time span of 3000 BC to 81 BC based on technology. I did not like the idea of placing them all in a post Columbian era which would mean in the third tier. 'Blood and Gold' states on page 4 that "this book covers the armies of the Pre-Columbian America"; and to place them in the third tier would mean that they can avoid an awful lot of armies with impact foot.

The plan is now to place them as philqw78 recommends; do I hear any arguments?

I do not want to just leave them out altogether, or run a separate comp just for 'Blood and Gold'; it would be impracticable.

Max

A much better idea

Martin

Max,
what a coincidence I was talking to other people at MOAB about the possibility of themed comps!

I also was talking about the Central Coast Wargames Club running a FoG themed comp in March as well!

The advantage of having a comp on the Central Coast is that it is half way between Newcastle and Sydney and we could attract people from both cities. I spoke with a number of Newcastle people and they believe people would come down.

As we have a number of people who have the more classical armies I would put dib’s on the middle period theme.

How would this fit in with your plans?

Regards
Kevan Barwise

Dragnipur wrote:Max,
what a coincidence I was talking to other people at MOAB about the possibility of themed comps!

I also was talking about the Central Coast Wargames Club running a FoG themed comp in March as well!

The advantage of having a comp on the Central Coast is that it is half way between Newcastle and Sydney and we could attract people from both cities. I spoke with a number of Newcastle people and they believe people would come down.

As we have a number of people who have the more classical armies I would put dib’s on the middle period theme.

How would this fit in with your plans?

Regards
Kevan Barwise

Hi Kevan,
I will move to May for a comp of Horse and Musket era. Then August (FoG 1st span 3000 BC - 81 BC) and November (FoG 3rd span 1041 - 1500).

All are only plans at moment. Our club is strinking, however we wish to continue by having a few competitions in 2012.

I will be up for a March on Central Coast.
Max

C3000 BC to 81 BC
80 BC to 1040 AD
1041 AD to c1500 AD

Why 81 BC what is the split there? You have legions before and after. With the abudance of armoured foot and cavalry you have drawn serious questions into the viablity of the chariot armies.

I see the 1041 is to get all the knights late. But you pratically eliminate the armoured knights by doing this. As they are unviable if heavy knights abound.

I have usually found when thinking about themes, decide what you want for a theme, then craft it to comply.

hazelbark wrote:

C3000 BC to 81 BC
80 BC to 1040 AD
1041 AD to c1500 AD

Why 81 BC what is the split there? You have legions before and after. I see the 1041 is to get all the knights late. But you pratically eliminate the armoured knights by doing this. As they are unviable if heavy knights abound.

I have usually found when thinking about themes, decide what you want for a theme, then craft it to comply.

What I wanted was three comps (that is practical within a year of gaming) that included all books. Then I crafted it to comply. I placed all Knights in the last division of the three (mainly - on two to a base combat in melee). I will trust that the costing within FoG answers questions of Knight on Knight, armoured as opposed heavily armoured, and undrilled against drilled.

Why 81 BC is a good question; the reason is Heavy Chariots (see p 29 EotD) no chariots after 100 BC; I used a noted change in the west - decline or vanishing of Velites post reforms of Marius as an east west correlation. Your point "with the abundance of armoured foot and cavalry you have drawn serious questions into the viability of the chariot armies" and history did this also; I am comfortable with this.

Americas Indians and Sub continent Indians were where I had difficulty – Heavy Chariots for the later and the former just were to stick‘em.

Thanks for you input. Two alternate dates other than 81BC and 1041 that would allow for a three comp inclusive of all books; I would be interested to hear your thoughts?

Regards,

Max

I would play in these comps assuming it didn't clash with other personal committments. I enjoyed the last Barbarians event. I do not know of any Sydney FOG events on at these times.

The date ranges seem fine to me. Providing this much notice should allow players to plan/paint/borrow forces where necessary.

I personally don't care which period the blood and gold armies end up in. They are a bit of a sideshow in my opinion

I would be happy with either scale but I expect you will attract more players in 15mm.

Paul Collins.

These themes sound fine and I am interested in all of them. Prefer 25mm as there are hardly any 25mm comps left. Also I can only run an army from each theme in 25mm.

Geoff