Slitherine

Just curious what participants' thoughts were.

Absolutely fine. In the time available my 14 BGs of Armoured HF had no difficulty pushing Phil's Early Hungarians off the rear table edge and sacking his camp. Unfortunately when time was called I was 1 point short of breaking Phil's army!

Of course it did help that Phil (on winning initiative) picked my terrain - Byzantine bowling alley. So billiard table and HF stretched across it marching forward at 3 MUs per turn after the first move. I do recall Phil (in something of a hazy blur) muttering, "Stephen, you're moving very quickly". We had a great game from my pov!

I prefer smaller tables Matt, so it suited me- Nice to play more heavy foot armies, when normally they are badly out manovered be skirmishing crap

And shooty armies are not completely undone by the table size. My Hungarians were 9/12 shooty mounted and Pauls Christian Nubians, 13/16 shooty, did OK

Certainly more in your face with less cahnce for dancing around. And IMO more enjoyable.

But looking at the performance of the Bosphorans not a table size for an army with 8 BG of lancer cavalry

What was the effect on the terrain (if any), both selection and placement ? I wasn't there, but in discussion prior to the weekend we thought that with no change in terrain rules that there would be less terrain as many "average" sized pieces wouldn't fit.

Three wrote:What was the effect on the terrain (if any), both selection and placement ? I wasn't there, but in discussion prior to the weekend we thought that with no change in terrain rules that there would be less terrain as many "average" sized pieces wouldn't fit.

Easy... Bring terrain that fits the competition!

spike wrote:

Three wrote:What was the effect on the terrain (if any), both selection and placement ? I wasn't there, but in discussion prior to the weekend we thought that with no change in terrain rules that there would be less terrain as many "average" sized pieces wouldn't fit.

Easy... Bring terrain that fits the competition!

Thanks, that helps answer the question.

Thre wrote:What was the effect on the terrain (if any), both selection and placement ? I wasn't there, but in discussion prior to the weekend we thought that with no change in terrain rules that there would be less terrain as many "average" sized pieces wouldn't fit.

Overall I don't think there was much effect.

IIRC I won initiative in all my games bar one. The one I lost had far too much terrain for me, one that I won had a huge game breaking piece in the middle and some down the edges, so again far too much. Three were decent tables, but I could have wished for les and one I thought was a perfect bowling alley until my opponent dismounted his whole army.

Selection of terrain just meant not taking maximum sized pieces as they may not fit. Hilly terrain tended to be more dense and steppe less from what I saw.

i still think 900pts on a regular table would be better...

dave.

900AP on a 48 wide table might be enough, but the table depth also IMO needs to be reduced. This both speeds up the game and reduces the scope for skirmishing and hiding.

900AP on a 48 wide table might be enough

900 on a 4 foot wide table! I love infantry armies but this may be too great a troop density even for them

Martin

Five foot wide at Britcon left a little room for manoeuver. 4 Foot wide and nine hundred points would leave very few armies viable. Pike, Romans, Armoured Hoplites.

Great if you want to do a Campaign based in Rome or Greece, but pretty crap for everyone else.

philqw78 wrote:Five foot wide at Britcon left a little room for manoeuver. 4 Foot wide and nine hundred points would leave very few armies viable. Pike, Romans, Armoured Hoplites.

Great if you want to do a Campaign based in Rome or Greece, but pretty crap for everyone else.

.... Hey!! What's wrong with Romans and Greeks??

But what is the alternative? ... A table that is so large the Greeks and Romans would never fight on it? As a tournament outsider-looking-in, the real litmus test for a tournament is, are Romans, Greeks and Macedonians represented, and did they perform well. Tournaments infested with and/or won by less "common" armies show a problem with table size, the rules or army size. Who wants a game that claims to model ancient warfare in which the more popular armies are worthless? And speaking of army size, who wants armies so large it is hard to finish a battle in the time alloted?

Nothing is more frustrating than working for 9 months on a new Roman army , painted and based with your own loving hands, on your own precious spare time, only to arrive at the tournament to find your flanks turned every game and your legions ignored because every game is played on the steppes or desert. Sounds like crap too huh?

Mike B

I won't answer the first question but:

IMO 4 foot wide is too small, 6 foot wide to big.

The 4 foot table would be ruled by Romans, pikes and armoured Off Spear. Just as now the 6 foot tables are ruled by manoeuver armies.

Five foot as used at Britcon produced a lot more Romans and Greeks than before, and a lot less manoeuver armies. But I used a manoeuver army and didn't do too badly.

I also agree that upping the points and keeping the table the same size (6 foot) would produce longer games, and at competition that is not a good thing as they will end as draws at time out.

marty wrote:

900AP on a 48 wide table might be enough

900 on a 4 foot wide table! I love infantry armies but this may be too great a troop density even for them

Martin

Oops. Meant 900 on 72 wide table, meant reduce the 48" depth.