Britcon FoG:R

[nikgaukroger]

Richard and I have been thinking about what the format should be for the FoG:R at Britcon this year, and have come up with 2 possibilities for a "theme". We're looking to keep things different from comp to comp so that we don't fall into some of the pitfalls that was done with FoG:AM, we are also adamant that some sort of theme is the way to go.

1. No date restrictions but armies must be "eastern" - so think Poland eastwards with none of the western European armies allowed.

2. Any army from 1660-1698.


Thoughts would be appreciated - but please bear in mind this isn't a poll and this isn't a democracy

[petedalby]

Both options seem to rule out my Swedes - so I guess it would be back to A&M for me.

[quackstheking]

Hi Nik,

Neither are really attractive to me!!

For period 1 I only have Poles and they're not that competitive an army and period 2 threatens to be a Later Swedish/Louis XIV mash up.

I would probably give it a miss!

Don

[rbodleyscott]

For period 1 I only have Poles and they're not that competitive an army

Well the whole point of the theme is to give them and other eastern types more of a chance. What makes you think they would not be competitive within the theme?

[kevinj]

I'd be happy with the Eastern theme. I have a number of armies that could fit and would be happy to help if anyone was looking to borrow stuff.

I agree that the post 1660 theme would boil down to a very limited choice. I'd still play it rather than AM if it was what was on offer though.

[peterrjohnston]

We're looking to keep things different from comp to comp

Except it's the "World Championships", not a part of a series of UK competitions. Although granted a lot of the players will be from the UK.

Picking an "obscure" theme seems like a good way of discouraging entries a what is supposed to be one of the major competitions of the year. Surely something obvious, even if arguably not as interesting, makes more sense?

Only one period?

[nikgaukroger]

period 2 threatens to be a Later Swedish/Louis XIV mash up.

I think there may be imaginative choices in such a period if you look away from western Europe - but YMMV.

[nikgaukroger]

We're looking to keep things different from comp to comp

Except it's the "World Championships", not a part of a series of UK competitions. Although granted a lot of the players will be from the UK.

Picking an "obscure" theme seems like a good way of discouraging entries a what is supposed to be one of the major competitions of the year. Surely something obvious, even if arguably not as interesting, makes more sense?

Only one period?

There is no mandated format for "The Worlds" (as noted in the AM discussion on Britcon), so the fact it is such a championship isn't really a factor - IMO what is is making sure it is an enjoyable comp and that should drive any theme, whatever it actually is. The point about obscurity is valid though, which is one reason for posting in the first place.

As for the number of periods I would think just one - whilst FoG:R numbers are pleasantly higher than I had expected, I don't think we're yet up to enough to really justify more than one period.

[timmy1]

Nik

For thw Worlds it has to be open. Britcon FoGR has not been going long enough to get stale.

If it were theme (and I have two or three armies for each of the proposed themes) I would not attend.

[peterrjohnston]

There is no mandated format for "The Worlds" (as noted in the AM discussion on Britcon), so the fact it is such a championship isn't really a factor - IMO what is is making sure it is an enjoyable comp and that should drive any theme, whatever it actually is. The point about obscurity is valid though, which is one reason for posting in the first place.

Perhaps I didn't explain so well. I'm not arguing against themes and for the "traditional" mandated format of open. Rather the contrary, that you need to be fairly open in theme and somewhat traditional in choice of theme to encourage attendance, particularly non-UK, I would have thought.

[nikgaukroger]

There is no mandated format for "The Worlds" (as noted in the AM discussion on Britcon), so the fact it is such a championship isn't really a factor - IMO what is is making sure it is an enjoyable comp and that should drive any theme, whatever it actually is. The point about obscurity is valid though, which is one reason for posting in the first place.

Perhaps I didn't explain so well. I'm not arguing against themes and for the "traditional" mandated format of open. Rather the contrary, that you need to be fairly open in theme and somewhat traditional in choice of theme to encourage attendance, particularly non-UK, I would have thought.

Ah, apologies if I misunderstood

I see where you are coming from. Hopefully we'll get a reasonable number of people feeding back and we can see what they all think.

[petedalby]

I have no problem with a themed event. Usk was themed, well supported and good fun. But as others have noted, this is the 'Worlds' - and attracting overseas players should be one of the objectives to make it special.

I suspect the majority of players are likely to have 30YW or ECW armies - and if you want to encouarage a good turnout perhaps this should be a consideration?

Or keep it open - would that be so bad?

[marshalney2000]

I think that FOGR has the opportunity to be attractive to a lot of players this year many of whom however will not have access to the same range of armies that they have collected for a number of years for dbm and FOG Am. To severely limit army choice will exclude many players and should only be done at the great risk of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[kevinj]

I agree that any theme needs to be sufficiently open to be attractive to a wider range of competitors, but we have seen at Usk, where there were more Fog R players than AM, that a theme can produce a good change from the " standard" armies.

I think that whatever label is put on the competition, the principal driver has to be to make it attractive to play in. For me, a themed event would always be more attractive than open and, in my opinion, works better with the rules.

[daveallen]

Not keen on the proposed themes:

1660 to 1690 seems to me perverse as it cuts out the popular TYW and ECW armies that most people have (or have access to) and is a period that would push players towards the massed musket option that doesn't really interest me. The only good thing about it would be the lack of geographical restriction.

The eastern option is better, but again seems to have been selected to cut out the armies most players already have.

If there needs to be a theme, and I'm not convinced there does, then I agree with those comments that it should be as wide as possible.

so that we don't fall into some of the pitfalls that was done with FoG:AM, we are also adamant that some sort of theme is the way to go.

Thoughts would be appreciated

In my opinion, there doesn't seem much chance of repeating the mistakes of AM at the moment - theme or no, R comps remain resolutely eclectic with no army reaching half a dozen in any one event. Do you really need to risk reducing the momentum R has built up by restricting the potential field at biggest comp in the calendar?

Dave

[marshalney2000]

I echo the slightly boring thought of massed musket against massed muskets of the 1690s.
I do not know about other players but at the moment I am still enjoying playing against a wide variety of different types of FOGR armies and getting myhead around the effectiveness of different troop types, weaponry etc.
John

[alasdair2204]

Personally for events like the Challenge and Britcon

I prefer not having a theme to get as wide a range of armies as possible, and the challenge of taking the right army, I think the range of armies at Britcon was great last year

Especially as I try to play something different

The 1660-1698 Theme I think would be far to narrow and restricive on armies lots of Swedes, French and anglo Dutch I imagine and to be fair I wouldn't be interested.

By then we will have had this year

Usk pre 1591 900pts

Badcon pre 1591 900pts

Ascot Challenge 800pts

Milton Keynes Campaign Armies of Gustavus, League of Augsburg and Armies in India 800pts

BHGS Doubles is 15mm Themed 900pts, The House of Romanov,1613-1699 Mosts armies from Clash of empires and Duty and glory

BHGS Roll Call 15mm - 800pts - “Western Europe” any army from “Wars of Religion” and “Trade and Treachery”.

Attack Devizes 900pts

So lots of themes which would be great so i don't think the odd open is a bad thing

Anyway just my thoughts

cheers

Alasdair

[donm]

I do not know about other players but at the moment I am still enjoying playing against a wide variety of different types of FOGR armies

Why take away the main reason why so many of us have moved away from FoGA.

Don

[nikgaukroger]

How about any army before 1630?

[petedalby]

How about any army before 1630?

Hi Nik - you've had replies from 9 players, 8 of whom appear to be in favour of an open tournament.

Pre-1630 still excludes the 30YW and ECW - which many / most players have.

Why? What are we missing?