Winter Tournament - with small armies

[flatsix518]

All,

While I really, really like the 500pt tournament format -- I guess I was feeling nostalgic for the old DBA sized tournaments on TT.

So I started fooling around with FoG digital. It looks that by limiting army sizes to 200pts, some very small games can be constructed.

Things I like about this scale are:

1) Armies are really small -- generally less than 20bg's.
2) The armies seem to be more like their historic essence -- not the fine-tuned killer armies we normally try to build.
3) There is a LOT of maneuver space on the generated map.

Are there others who might be interested in a tournament based upon "small" 200 pt armies. This would be something to start later this month as LoEG season 9 winds down.

I'd see it running along typical LoEG lines (maybe open leagues, not restricted to periods). I think I'd add that at initial deployment, no army can deploy within 5 hexes of the side edges of the board.

Anyone interested in such a concept?

John

[iversonjm]

I'd be interested.

[solly]

Ciao John.
I like yours idea, but I think that is better to play with army of same periods, like in season 9.
Maybe is possible to play two or more challenge, one to the other, playing different periods.
What you think?

[flatsix518]

Yes -- we can discuss the format.

I've been playing some 200pt games against the AI -- they go pretty quick!

John

[Turk1964]

Gday John
Yes i wouldnt mind seeing how 200 pt contest would go.Would probabbly make it same period like LOEG Imperial,Classical,Darkages,Medieval one of those.

[flatsix518]

Turk,

Here are my current thoughts.

Everyone challenges everyone else. In other words, two games are played against each opponent. (If a large number signs up, we'll organize into groups to keep a reasonable number of players/games -- winners advance to a final group.)

When posting a challenge, a player can choose any army and the opponent is limited to the same book. A player does not have to reveal the army they're running when posting their challenge.

Sooo, I could challenge you with an LTR army and you could challenge me back with a D&F army. We'd play the two games and score them like LoEG.

Does that sound reasonable?

John
aka flatsix518

[solly]

Yes, good. Only a think for me: not from the same book, but the same periods like in tournament.
. . . I don't like playing with the army of E.I. for example!

[flatsix518]

The advantage of limiting it to same book, is that the posted challenge would assure "within book" matchup. But you bring up a good point, not everyone has or wants to play every book.

We could have challenges align to the LoEG periods. When a player announces a challenge for another player, he would have to say what period his army is in and the challenged opponent would have to answer the challenge with an in period army.

[flatsix518]

I've been thinking a bit about army sizes for two reasons.

1) I really would like to see the armies be relatively small. Think DBA -- or the number of BG's there would be on TT FoG -- around a dozen.

2) It is possible that some horde armies could be hyper competitive in this scale. We may want to allow them, but set some size limitations. Say armies have to be a minimum of 12 BG's and not more than 24BG's.

What do you guys think?

John

[Supervark]

Flatsix am interested in fighting with 200 point armies. Think they will have to be limited as horde armies would have a definite advantage with this number of points. So a minimum of 12BGs may be a maximum of 20BGs not 24. Give the smaller armies with superior troops a chance.

[flatsix518]

I am tending to agree.

Bagration1812 and I are doing a little 200pt play testing.

I'll let everyone know what we're discovering.

Flatsix518

[Turk1964]

I think limiting horde type armies is a good idea as this then develops good tactics instead of using an army twice that of your opponent to win by weight of numbers.Id be willing to help you test out 200pt armies as i like the concept.When i first started playing this game i would quite often play smaller armies to learn better tactics and it was also very enjoyable.I will post a couple of 200pt games from Rise of Rome. Password=trials

[flatsix518]

Turk,

I'm leaning towards the following special deployment rules:

1) No BG's can be placed within 5 hexes of the side borders.
2) No part of a camp can be placed within 10 hexes of the side borders.

I'm trying to limit the playability of the "edge of the world flank security" that plagues table top and FoG digital play. These two rules make it difficult to play that, since a player even if deploying near the board would still have to move there, and likely expose their camp to attack if they do.

I'll be sure to deploy that way.

John

[flatsix518]

All here my early observations after a game with Bagration1812:

1. I think the 200 pt FoG game resembles FoG table top more than DBA. We were running two cav armies (Sassanid Persians and Seljuk Turks) and got way more spread out than would occur in DBA. It really is what the FoG table top games would be like if the 15mm game were played on say an 8'x5' table instead of the 6'x4' table.

2. I do think the horde armies are going to have to be constrained. So I am looking at the 12 to 20 BG group limits that have been suggested.

3. I think that the games will either be really quick, or really long. If two players run "battle line" armies (hoplites, romans, etc.) they will probably get into it and resolve things quickly. If two cav armies, or a LC army takes on a battle line army -- a lot of games could very well go the full turn limits. Play is quick since you don't have to watch an opponent's 40 to 100 BG army make its move. And it doesn't take long to move a 12 to 18 BG army.

4. Unit positioning will be even more critical, I think, than the big games. One little mistake can cost you a good chunk of your army.

5. I think there will be more draws at this size. There will also be more games going the distance with victors having not broken the enemy army. I'm thinking that we may want to score: 3pts for breaking the opponent army, 2pts for winning without breaking the opponent, 1pt for draws, 0 for losing.

6. In addition to the "5 hex" rule regarding BGs. (Not to deploy within 5 hexes of the side edges) -- I think we should also make camps be more than 10 hexes from side edges.

7. I agree with the suggestion to use the LoEG League categories in our matchups. Basically, the tournament will be a two game round-robin. Every player will challenge every other player. You can run a different period/army with each challenge. This way everyone will get a chance to run their favorite periods and armies.

I welcome comments from everyone who has been following this thread.

Flatsix518

[ianiow]

I think the best counter balance to horde armies is to...

---not buy all the superior stuff in your own army---

Try buying the average stuff instead!

[Turk1964]

Thats a fair enough comment Ianiow. But i am in favour of a BGs being no more than 20 as this would curb the horde armies which will simply swamp a small 14 BG army.It doesnt really worry me playing against an army twice the size of mine but there are a lot that dont like it when faced with a a huge horde army which manages to kill your superior troops with ease

[FedeM]

Well, huge numbers are the only chance some armies have...

And Historically too...

[flatsix518]

Remember, we're going to be playing "blind" within period. I recently beat several horde armies in LoEG play, but that was because I knew ahead of time that I was going to be up against a horde army. In one instance, I took all my Roman Legions to "protected" class and half my auxilia and purchased an Arab ally with lots of cheap MF. It worked. But I wouldn't run that for my "general purpose" list.

Also remember that we're on a 200pt army list. In a lot of cases, there aren't cheaper options for "core" units and those consume most of the 200 points -- leaving few options.

Having said all that, it looks like most 200 point armies are going to be in the 16 to 19 unit range anyway. So I think we could allow a higher limit for "horde" armies, to say 24 BGs. People should be able to take on a lower quality army that is 50% larger, I would think.

John
flatsix518

[solly]

Hi guys.
Usually I play Cilician Armenian. This is not an horde army and it is not possible to play in 20 units: I think that 24 is a good limit, maybe more, but not less

[voskarp]

This sounds great (even if the whole idea is to keep it small). I find the rules as suggested by flatsix so far good. I simply can't wait...