Slitherine

The scoring system used at Roll Call, which is the one shown on the Britcon FoG Details page, worked quite well.

I did notice a slight oddity, which is probably due to rounding errors.

vs Mark Muslek I inflicted 5 attrition points and suffered 4. There was thus 1 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 18-14.

vs Andy Ellis I inflicted 2 attrition points and suffered 0. There was thus 2 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 17-15.

(Both armies in each game used the 11-12 BGs column.)

rbodleyscott wrote:The scoring system used at Roll Call, which is the one shown on the Britcon FoG Details page, worked quite well.

I did notice a slight oddity, which is probably due to rounding errors.

vs Mark Muslek I inflicted 5 attrition points and suffered 4. There was thus 1 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 18-14.

vs Andy Ellis I inflicted 2 attrition points and suffered 0. There was thus 2 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 17-15.

(Both armies in each game used the 11-12 BGs column.)

In this case it is more than just a rounding error. The BHGS came up with this table by modifying one that I had calculated (which originally had one column for each BG size gave 0-20 VP for the game). A side effect of the modification was to make it harder to get AR=1. The losses required would in most cases justify an AR of 2. So if the first row was changed to AR = 2 instead of AR = 1, that should get rid of the "result reversal" oddity you describe.

If you had inflicted 4 AP and lost 3, the game would have been 16-16. The difference between this and your 5-4 becoming 18-14 is a true rounding error. We are stuck with this as the AR goes up in steps of 2, unless the BHGS decide to double the size of the table by going up in steps of 1. As I understand it, the BHGS feel that players prefer to have a low number of rows and columns on any table. Personally, I think it is no more complicated to look something up in a 12 x 15 table than in an 8 x 9 table.

vs Andy Ellis I inflicted 2 attrition points and suffered 0. There was thus 2 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 17-15.

Hi Richard - I see that Andy won the competition with his Tartars so you did well to beat him.

Will you have time to post a report? I have a preconceived idea that an army such as the Tartars will be very hard to damage and could prove a popular competition choice.

What's your view?

Pete

petedalby wrote:

vs Andy Ellis I inflicted 2 attrition points and suffered 0. There was thus 2 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 17-15.

Hi Richard - I see that Andy won the competition with his Tartars so you did well to beat him.

Will you have time to post a report? I have a preconceived idea that an army such as the Tartars will be very hard to damage and could prove a popular competition choice.

What's your view?

Pete

It is hard to tell. The battle was in Steppe and the table was largely featureless. Andy only needed a draw to win the competition, so was playing a delaying (skirmishing) game. I managed to wheel out from a corner until my army was deployed across the depth of the table. I then proceeded to sweep forward (like the plunger in a bicycle pump) in an attempt to drive him off the side table edge. By the time limit I had taken about 2/3 of the table and he was sweating a bit.

On reflection, I was probably too cautious in not advancing my left at all until my right had swung round to the far table edge - although at one point my Swiss pikes and Ordonnance longbowmen were in a 1 rank deep formation facing enemy light horse. If I had been a bit less cautious I think I could have forced a battle or driven the Tatars from the field within the time limit.

The only base losses were 2 bases of pikemen on my side, and 1 base of LH and 1 of cavalry on his. Combined shooting by longbowmen and handgunners broke one of his heavy cavalry BGs.

For the record, my army was as follows:


Ordonnance French 1486 AD
Territory Types: Agricultural, Developed, Woodlands. Pre-Battle Initiative Modifier: 1
OOM Troop name Type Qlty Training Armour Missile Close Combat Bases Cost per base Points
C-in-C FC 1 50 50
SG TC 1 35 35
SG TC 1 35 35
SG TC 1 35 35
1 Handgunners Light Foot Average Drilled Unprotected Handgun - 4 4 16
2 Bidets Light Foot Average Drilled Unprotected Javelins Light Spear 6 4 24
3 Swiss handgunners Light Foot Average Drilled Unprotected Handgun - 6 4 24
4 Polearmsmen Heavy Foot Average Undrilled Armoured - Heavy Weapon 4 9 36
5 Swiss pikemen & halberdiers Heavy Foot Superior Drilled Protected - Pikemen 8 8 64
6 Swiss pikemen & halberdiers Heavy Foot Superior Drilled Protected - Pikemen 8 8 64
7 Polearmsmen Heavy Foot Average Undrilled Armoured - Heavy Weapon 4 9 36
8 Ordonnance men-at-arms Knights Superior Drilled Heavily Armoured - Lancers, Swordsmen 4 26 104
9 Ordonnance men-at-arms Knights Superior Drilled Heavily Armoured - Lancers, Swordsmen 4 26 104
10 Ordonnance longbowmen Medium Foot Average Drilled Protected Longbow Swordsmen 8 9 72
11 Ordonnance longbowmen Medium Foot Average Drilled Protected Longbow Swordsmen 8 9 72
12 Francs archers Medium Foot Poor Undrilled Unprotected Longbow - 6 4 24
Total 12 BGs 795

I agree with you Lawrence - and not just because of the result with Richard

I don't see why we have to 'step' in 2's.

Great fun playing new players, btw. Always good to play people you haven't played before, and to learn something new each time!

I was well beaten by the Tatars. In retrospect I didn't adopt the best tactics (I did better against the similar Ilkhanid in the next game by using a different strategy) and the dice were not in my favour, Andy agreeing. Andy played it well though so deserved the win.

The major problem in fighting the Tatar is the ease with which they can rally troops. A broken unit fled straight through the middle of their lines in the game and was rallied quite easily (being superior) behind the lines. Similarly, a fragmented LH was bolstered back to steady. Essentially, because the Tatar attack is largely shoot and run, they have no need to commit commanders to the fight. Anything that goes down the moral ladder has its retreat covered by LH skirmishers while the generals do their stuff to recover the damaged BG.

I think I may have just argued that the rules simulate a LH skirmish fight really well.

I would not suggest that the game system has a problem. Fighting mounted bow armies with a mixed force is difficult. It is a challenge I look forward to having another go at. With the benefit of hindsight (and a better army composition) I would not expect to get so badly beaten again.

If a mounted army wants to avoid combat, then there is little to prevent it doing so against a foot army. However, to win FoG games you have to get stuck in with a lot of troops at some point. The mounted bow armies will find it difficult to win competitions if they just skirmish to a draw.

rbodleyscott wrote:
The scoring system used at Roll Call, which is the one shown on the Britcon FoG Details page, worked quite well.

I did notice a slight oddity, which is probably due to rounding errors.

vs Mark Muslek I inflicted 5 attrition points and suffered 4. There was thus 1 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 18-14.

vs Andy Ellis I inflicted 2 attrition points and suffered 0. There was thus 2 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 17-15.

(Both armies in each game used the 11-12 BGs column.)



In this case it is more than just a rounding error. The BHGS came up with this table by modifying one that I had calculated (which originally had one column for each BG size gave 0-20 VP for the game). A side effect of the modification was to make it harder to get AR=1. The losses required would in most cases justify an AR of 2. So if the first row was changed to AR = 2 instead of AR = 1, that should get rid of the "result reversal" oddity you describe.

If you had inflicted 4 AP and lost 3, the game would have been 16-16. The difference between this and your 5-4 becoming 18-14 is a true rounding error. We are stuck with this as the AR goes up in steps of 2, unless the BHGS decide to double the size of the table by going up in steps of 1. As I understand it, the BHGS feel that players prefer to have a low number of rows and columns on any table. Personally, I think it is no more complicated to look something up in a 12 x 15 table than in an 8 x 9 table.

Good to hear that the system worked well in general. Lawrence came up with it after we talked at Leeds IIRC. I changed it to make it fit the 32-0 computer system that will be used at Britcon. I think the eventual system - if we like the concept and early signs are good - is likely to go back to a 0-20VP version.

Lawrence would you mind sending me the twaeked version you suggest that keep sit to 32-0 and we will test this version at Britcon.

tx

Si

PS well done Richard!!

Question about the results :
There is much equality. Don't you think that it would not be possible to refine the system of calculation of the points to avoid that ?