Slitherine

We are thinking of having a 2 day/ 4 session (4hr) comp here in Sydney later this year but think 800pts is too much for a first run....(many unfamiliar with mechanisms, not enuff troops etc, etc)

We were thinking 650pts as a first cut or should we go smaller. Does anyone have advice/experience with smaller games???

You could have 800 points but set a high minimum expenditure (e.g., 250) on commanders/officers. This will help mechanically inexperienced players, generate more action, speed the games, require less painting, and promote general satisfaction. (This is especially easy to envision if you imagine the sluggish and critical error-prone consequences of the opposite - setting a 120 cap).

NOTE: Just setting out what I thought looked like credible and enjoyable Anglo-Portuguese and French 1812 Corps on the table without looking at points came to around 810 and 750 points when I later tallied them, so I would probably find 650 uncomfortably cramped.

The NZ Nationals scared me from 8oo pts... half games unfinished after 4hrs despite most the players being playtesters...
Sometimes less is more.

The NZ Nationals scared me from 8oo pts... half games unfinished after 4hrs despite most the players being playtesters...
Sometimes less is more.

50% of the games not reaching a conclusion is about average for most competition games. DBM was no exception and nor is FOGA.
We're only just getting to grips with competition play and I suspect that the NZ group are more experienced than most at reducing the risks of defeat.
For new players I suspect that 650pts may be a better place to start - although you may not many selection choices open to you once you taken the minima for each list.

zelzelus wrote:The NZ Nationals scared me from 8oo pts... half games unfinished after 4hrs despite most the players being playtesters...
Sometimes less is more.

Another 10 minutes for 3 of the 5 games and I would have won them...

Organisers should aim for 75% completed games in 3-4 hour games of whatever rules.

Drop the points, allow more time, pre-set terrain, allow closer set-up, whatever it takes.

I ran DBM comps for many years at 350-330AP to get people off the drug of too many points.

regards

David B

Organisers should aim for 75% completed games in 3-4 hour games of whatever rules.

Drop the points, allow more time, pre-set terrain, allow closer set-up, whatever it takes.

I ran DBM comps for many years at 350-330AP to get people off the drug of too many points.

I agree that 75% is certainly a good target to aim for, but is very difficult to achieve.
800pts has been decided upon for an 'evening' game because it gives you a good mix of units. Some players even prefer 1000pts for a single game.
However, competition gaming is very different. At the first sign that things are going wrong players tend to start playing safe to keep their remaining score intact.
There are a lot of things that can be changed to mitigate against this.:
> The scoring system could be changed
> Fixed terrain or longer games (the terrain and deployment usually takes at least 1/2 hour)
> Rule changes to encourage more combat and less 'running away' (although any changes must not detract from the 'normal' game).
It's still early days of competition play though, so we'll be looking at how competitions play out, and we'll certainly be interested in any feedback from anyone who has run or played in a competition.

One way to speed up games in a competition is to use the random terrain generation for the first round games, and keep it in place for subsequent rounds - rotating the players around the tales. However, for this to work you ideally need a minimum number of players - which should be about 4x the number of rounds to be played - if you want to guarantee every player playes on a different table each round. Of course there's nothing wrong with playing on the same table twice.....

Hi,

Some armies cannot meet the minimum requirements at 600 points. So they have to be larger than that. 650 points will be okay for most armies (maybe all, but I have not had time to check them all). Only down side is that there will be little scope for variation in these smaller points armies for some nations. However, for a first comp that is probably a good thing as then all the armies will tend to be balanced. It gives less room for "super-tweaked" armies.
For a little more variation go for 700 points. That might be a good compromise.

Cheers,
John Shaw

Also being the first comp there will be more rules questions so more time not fighting.

vsolfronk wrote:Also being the first comp there will be more rules questions so more time not fighting.

Exactly. The density increases shooting and outcome. Fewer points the inverse.

Two smaller forces are likely to dance not fight.

Interestingly, while 'break point' was reached in only half the games, I am not aware of any of the players commenting that the numbers of draws was an undesirable outcome.

There was one game in particular that was a neither-player-did-hardly-anything draw (Andy and Kendal - you know you you are). Both players are experianced playtesters who were not prepared to do something that placed their units in a situation they might lose - so boring (to an observer) draw resulted. I guess it would be a concern if, as players get more experianced, they play to not lose rather than to win, and we see more non-games.

However from what I recall at Natcon, most drawn games were more a case of one player holding on by the skin of their teeth until time was called. Games that go down to the wire are much more exciting for both players than straight up wins where one side annihilates the other at a canter, then heads off for an early beer.

At this early stage I don't think that 50% of games drawn in the tournie is a negative thing.

I think a more important point here in the UK is to get a reasonable number of entries, so that the rules can be showcased properly.

I don't think this will happen until the errata is sorted and a greater number of army lists are avaliable. As the army lists are not due out until June I am not sure this will happen until Britcon in August.

FoGR is enjoying a 'purple patch' at the moment in the UK and is encouraging themed competitions. So until there is a greater choice in armies I for one will not be changing competition periods.

Just my personnal view

Don

BrettPT wrote:There was one game in particular that was a neither-player-did-hardly-anything draw (Andy and Kendal - you know you you are). Both players are experianced playtesters who were not prepared to do something that placed their units in a situation they might lose - so boring (to an observer) draw resulted.

Sounds like 18th Century Enlightenment prudence - those must have been unreformed armies.

FOG(N) does seem readily adaptable to preceding wars. There is something more viscerally agitating about deciding to move in and take that first close range volley full face than opening the action by skirmishing at medium range.

MikeK wrote:

BrettPT wrote:There was one game in particular that was a neither-player-did-hardly-anything draw (Andy and Kendal - you know you you are). Both players are experianced playtesters who were not prepared to do something that placed their units in a situation they might lose - so boring (to an observer) draw resulted.

Sounds like 18th Century Enlightenment prudence - those must have been unreformed armies.

Leaping to my own defense, I was trying to attack on my right flank but manouvering unreformed troops can be tricky - especially when they refuse to do a second move all game! Given another 10 minutes I think I would have broken two large units of Andy's. Still would have been a draw.

Sometimes terrain placement and deployment soaks up a lot of the time.

Reviewing the comments..thinking

650 pts with set terrain(fair) ...roll for sides.. 1 adjustment roll each...
Set a time for Deployment .... hooter after say 40min,,,so people aware of time spent fuffing about...(penalties perhaps on day2)
Will reward Wins more than points.