Slitherine

As we were a bit short of time reading the rules to prepare new lists, we just recalculated the armies from our last game to fit with the new points values. That gave the Burgundian Ordonnance 24 extra points (cheaper average troops) and the Early Byzantines slightly less points (expensive cavalry bows and superior troops).

Despite the army being smaller the Byzantines got a better result than last time. They were very unlucky with terrain placement, with all seven terrain features on the Burgundian side, so they had few tactical choices to face the three Burgundian knight BGs.

Despite losing a general, a 4 knight BG (supported when they already were winning by dismounted knights) beat 2 6 cavalry BGs, although both were rallied before leaving the board. That immobilized half the Byzantine commanders, and by the game's end they were in the way of the advancing knights once again.

This time round the legion beat up a longbowmen BG (hampered by another unfortunate TC casualty), but while winning against the bows they lost against a pikemen BG. The firepower loss of the bows was quite noticeable, as the bows needed 4 hits against the 12 strong BG, possible with 6 dice but very hard with 4 dice.

Against smaller BGs, however, the effect was the usual, and a 6 base BG of longbows supported by some LH broke the 4 cavalry bow BG that covered the Byzantine left flank.

The Byzantines were still in the game however when a 4 knight BG autobroke after winning impact and melee against the Boukellarii and an Isaurian MF BG. Two 1s in death rolls (after suffering 3 hits in both phases) and we get a reminder of why Superior troops got more expensive.

In pursuit the Boukellarii hit the Burgundian artillery and took it out too. The Burgundian general died in the pursuit, as well, making him the 3rd TC casualty.

The other surviving Byzantine lancer cavalry BG however had been charged by another knight BG and was quickly ground down and broken.

We stopped after three hours and a half, with the score at a misleading 6-6, as only one Byzantine BG was steady, (against 9 Burgundians) and there were two running melees with bad odds for the Byzantines. The Byzantines had 9 BGs and the Burgundians 13.

That made us reflect that army size is not reflected in the current score system, so if we had finished after 4 hours 8-8 (quite possible if the Boukellarii had kept forward towards the Burgundian camp), it would be a draw while the Byzantines were 1 point away from decisive defeat while the Burgundians were still five points away. So it favors armies with few BGs and/or bigger BGs. Which will be something to keep in mind when building armies, so if you are slow and defense minded, go for less BGs than if you are aggresive and fast.

Jose

jre wrote: That made us reflect that army size is not reflected in the current score system, so if we had finished after 4 hours 8-8 (quite possible if the Boukellarii had kept forward towards the Burgundian camp), it would be a draw while the Byzantines were 1 point away from decisive defeat while the Burgundians were still five points away. So it favors armies with few BGs and/or bigger BGs. Which will be something to keep in mind when building armies, so if you are slow and defense minded, go for less BGs than if you are aggresive and fast.

It's true. The rules having to be played in tournament, it is better to avoid this type of injustice.

Does nobody have an idea to solve this problem?

nicofig wrote:Does nobody have an idea to solve this problem?

Any game where there is a time limit will need some way to score an uncompleted match.

The question really is what should generalship scores be based on? Is defeating your opponent (breaking their army) the be all and end all or is taking no losses and inflicting some more inportant?

For those that follow the wonderfull sport of cricket there is a system called Duckworth Lewis and it is used to work out results of time constrained matches. Essentially it values the proportion of your available resources used comapred with that of your opponent.

Consider two armies, army S with 8 BG's and army L with 16. If S acumulates 6 attrition points and L picks up 12 they both have lost the same proportion of their resources so the game is a draw but if both take only 4 attririon points then S has used 50% of it's resources to 25% of L's, L should therfore be considered the winner.

Either way a scoring system should give some sort of kill bonus for actually defeating your opponent.

If you assume a 32 point system (it's just what DBM uses at present in the UK) and allocate say 12 points for defeating your opponent and the remaining 20 on a sliding scale of used resources (0-10 each for % of attrition points acumulated) then you might get something like:

Case 1 S=6, L=12 -> score 10-10 (each has lost the same percentage but no win bonus)
Case 2 S=4, L=4 -> score 7-13 (S has lost 50%, L only 25 still no win bonus)
Case 3 S=8 (broken), L=15 -> score 9-23 (S gets 9 for 90% of the job, L gets 12 more for a win)
Case 4 S=0, L=16 (broken) -> score 32-0 (nothing for L as S won with no loss)

The numbers can be tweaked endlesly but something along these lines seems sensible to me.

Hammy

Here is a interressant system. However isn't it likely to support the armies with many troops against the little armies ?

nicofig wrote:Here is a interressant system. However isn't it likely to support the armies with many troops against the little armies ?

The idea is that you score based on the proportion of your force you have lost. Large armies can lose more and still get a good score but their troops will probably be weaker therefore more likely to be lost.

Should we get an Attrition point for a killed IC?

There are many historical instances where the fleeing/dead IC caused one side or the other to collapse. Is a CT enough?

markm wrote:Should we get an Attrition point for a killed IC?

There are many historical instances where the fleeing/dead IC caused one side or the other to collapse. Is a CT enough?

We have pondered this and decided that it is. It isn't just a CT though. If he is the only general on a wing, you won't be able to bolster or rally any troops until another general gets there (if one ever does). If he is an ally, the troops in the ally contingent can never be bolstered or rallied.

Having lost three generals this game, its effect was more annoying than crippling. It is true that winning the combats makes generals less necessary, but I still think that the distances of effect should increase, in my opinion to the command range of the general. The loss of a general in a 4 strong knight BG, or an 8 strong normal BG will only affect someone close behind, but little else. If they would benefit from the general's presence, they should be aware of his loss.

That could affect slightly the point cost of FCs and ICs, so it is not something to do lightly, but at least the distances of effect would be easy to remember.

And the death of an inspired general could be a momentous event.

Jose

And the death of an inspired general could be a momentous event

Exactly.

In most of the games I have played, everyone takes an IC. This probably means they are too good for the points, so a downside, ie. increased panic range, or an Attrition point, may balance them up a bit!?

In most of the games I have played, everyone takes an IC. This probably means they are too good for the points, so a downside, ie. increased panic range, or an Attrition point, may balance them up a bit!?

Perhaps make evey BG within the General's range should take a CT if he dies, rather than the current 3 inches?

Would certainly make an IC's death momentous!