Slitherine

Traditionally I have always favoured larger armies than a list suggests as indeed had my old gaming buddies of some 15 years ago. I would take a list and include all core troops and some elements of optionals/Allies to give me a figure of 1000-1500 (looking at the FOG books) I would then double every maximum in that list and build my army to that to give me a target of 3000-4000 points.

Perhaps we were fortunate in being able to leave games up for weeks on end or until the beer kegs ran out. We actually did a game with 3 players and 16,000 points on a table 20` x 6`or 8` which took ages to complete. I think Simon of "Simons Soldiers" ---"Figure painter extraordinaire" of Bridgend some time ago actually won. Also to not leave him out :- Other player was Dave B old member of Swansea Wargames Club.

Now I ask this because I am rebasing all my old WRG armies to bring them in line with FOG and TBH I would easily make double what the FOG lists state. I don`t want to be leaving the majority of my army on the shelf. Oh! I don`t want to sell off the surplus cheap Nobody would want my painting anyway

I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on this?

Forgive me if this has already been covered but I have not posted here until recently and did a search to no avail with my criteria.

Thanks Terry.

Spartacus wrote:I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on this?

That you're trying to make us jealous.

Not at all mate, When you have wargamed for 45 years you will be the same.

I started when I was 12 and got my parents to buy a Green carpet for my bedroom and stuffed books under it to make a huge playing surface and TBH my mate and I had about 200 very badly painted Hinchliffe figures and spent all weekend with figures running around it playing catch up. It was all great until my Mother walked in too damn close to hills and knocked all the figures over.

I just remembered we did "The Alamo" with 20mm Airfix Napoleonics too. We were not too high up on accuracy in those days and just reckoned that the French looked a bit like the Mexican Army of Santa Anna.

I would say just multiply the book lists by whatever factor enables you to get all your figures on the table, and not worry about it.

If you are using several thousand FOG points then you might consider experimenting with scaling up the BG sizes.

Thanks Lawrence. I must admit that doubling the BG sizes is not something I had thought of, I like the idea. That would work for me as by doing that I could still select a 1000 pt for a tourney if I ever get confident enough to enter one. It would also keep the number of units to an easily controllable number.

Doubling BG size would make Elephants, BWg and Elite 2 base Bg a lot harder, possibly slightly skewing the rules, but would be good to look at.

Not the actual base sizes Phil but the battle group size :- 12 bases in a unit instead of 6 etc. My friends with large armies could do the same. That way everything stays within the ruleset parameters for playing outside our small group in smaller Armies.

Spartacus wrote:Not the actual base sizes Phil but the battle group size :- 12 bases in a unit instead of 6 etc. My friends with large armies could do the same. That way everything stays within the ruleset parameters for playing outside our small group in smaller Armies.

That is what Phil said.

In normal scale FoG elephants can only be in BGs of 2 bases which means that if one base dies the BG routs. If you allow BGs of 4 elephants it significantly changes they way they work.

Perhaps increase the size of everything other than elephant BGs

Oh yes! Of course Phil did.

Well that could well work unless there are other areas of the ruleset that it messes up. Because one disadvantage in having so many troops on the table is the sheer number of units to control that can easily go above 30 plus command.

You would have to think about command radius for generals as well. Or more generals. But more generals, like more units means more things to push around. I would give BG of 4 nellies a go, since everything else is twice the Bg size, and being average the will dissapper after 2 losses anyway. Maybe remove the +1 they get to death rolls. And make the BG even bigger

hammy wrote:

Spartacus wrote:Not the actual base sizes Phil but the battle group size :- 12 bases in a unit instead of 6 etc. My friends with large armies could do the same. That way everything stays within the ruleset parameters for playing outside our small group in smaller Armies.

That is what Phil said.

In normal scale FoG elephants can only be in BGs of 2 bases which means that if one base dies the BG routs. If you allow BGs of 4 elephants it significantly changes they way they work.

Perhaps increase the size of everything other than elephant BGs

Double all the BG sizes in "real" bases, but count them as the original size and take 2 BGs off every time one dies So you have BGs made up of 80/129mm wide double-elements

It would look fantastic, and restrict some maneuvering. Neither are necessarily a bad thing...

Yes! I think if we do double size BG`s and actually use double sized movement trays to house the larger number of bases it will as Madaxeman says look damned cool and not interfere with base/unit sizes for playing outside our small little group.

Thanks for the input people, This seems to be best way forward.