Slitherine

Played my latest game against Lance on Monday night - Later Seleucid vs Later Republican Roman.

It was an enjoyable game with virtually no queries but with both armies using expensive troop types we didn't have many figures on the table. I used cataphracts for the first time and they worked well againt the Roman HF. It was a good even fight but the death of a Roman TC led to 5 failed CTs which swung things decisively in my favour. The game ended 29-3.

We both felt it would have been even better if we were playing on a smaller table, say 4 x 4 or even 4 x 3?

Any thoughts on that?

Pete

I can see your point. 15mm FoG games at 800 points generally don't come close to filling the table. It's all due to the fact that most troop types fight in two or more ranks. For me this is a good thing as it reduces the edge of the world effect but I can see that it would in theory be possible to play on a significantly smaller table.

Having faced a medieval scots army with nearly enough protected offensive spear to cover a 6' wide table I am not sure I would want to fight one on a 4 by 3 though

Hammy

No worries!

More incentive to flank march?

I agree it won't be suitable for all periods but if themed periods feature - which I'm sure they will - tweaking the table sizes could really help the game.

Pete

I am hoping that after a year or so of play we will all be comfortable with 1000pts singles games. I really like this level of game very much as lots of new things come into play. It fills your table pretty well then and reserves come into play more as do the flank marches. But we will have to see how it goes.

Manzikert with 1650pts a side should be fun on Sunday.

Si

shall wrote:I am hoping that after a year or so of play we will all be comfortable with 1000pts singles games. I really like this level of game very much as lots of new things come into play. It fills your table pretty well then and reserves come into play more as do the flank marches. But we will have to see how it goes.

Manzikert with 1650pts a side should be fun on Sunday.

Si

Doesn't a 1000 points tip the balance decisively in favour of armies with superior troops? With 800 points you can pretty much fill the table with crud and attempt to make use of them but at 1000 points I'm not sure that it is still feasible.

Besides I'm not sure I can face painting that many extra troops for my armies. I'm already painting spare figures and rebasing others to field 800 points for all my armies but 1000 points...

Enjoy Manzikert and if you're playing Byzantines...watch your back.

Regards,

Julian

shall wrote:I am hoping that after a year or so of play we will all be comfortable with 1000pts singles games. I really like this level of game very much as lots of new things come into play. It fills your table pretty well then and reserves come into play more as do the flank marches. But we will have to see how it goes.

This notion makes me nervous. I am concerned that with that many BGs on the table the available room to maneuver will diminish markedly. I very much do NOT want a straight ahead slog, where all is more-or-less determined by the deployment.

Marc

This notion makes me nervous. I am concerned that with that many BGs on the table the available room to maneuver will diminish markedly.

With my little experience, I can say when you augment the number of points played you augment your depth first before augmenting you line.
Olivier

No need to be nervous - it is a personal view rather than an official one, and as I said something to be thought about after a year or so of play at 800 pts say with feedback from many.

For what its worth I find at 1000 pts you get more rear support ideas coming into play and can boost an avergae line more often this way to fend off superior opponents and you get enough troops to flank march a bit more often if facing something too solid. You can also have a reserve ins oem armies that can make better use of their mobility.

My Ancient Britons felt very good at 1000pts and its nearly all average. So did my Mongols for very different reasons.

It will be a matter of personal preference and at the end of the day more of a competition organisers choice than a rules issue.

From a rule standpoint, we have starter armies at 600pts and 800 pts suggested for a 3 hour singles game and that will remain.

Si

babyshark wrote:

shall wrote:I am hoping that after a year or so of play we will all be comfortable with 1000pts singles games. I really like this level of game very much as lots of new things come into play. It fills your table pretty well then and reserves come into play more as do the flank marches. But we will have to see how it goes.

This notion makes me nervous. I am concerned that with that many BGs on the table the available room to maneuver will diminish markedly. I very much do NOT want a straight ahead slog, where all is more-or-less determined by the deployment.

Marc

I agree. I think 800 points is preferable for singles games, but each to their own.

Yep could well prove to be true that 800 remains the best number to work with and I wouldn't have any issue with that if it continued so.

Time will answer all such questions I expect. Fun whatever.

Doing 800 pts tonight downt he club - Komnenan Byzantine and I will report back how it does (proper Varangians and the Emperor).

Have just packed it in the box - geez it looks small!!

Si

Doing 800 pts tonight downt he club - Komnenan Byzantine and I will report back how it does (proper Varangians and the Emperor).

Hmmm! Remember me something! I'll wait this report with impatience

Slightly different to your Olivier but not very different. I'll let you know how it goes.

Si