Slitherine

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:57 am**

The details of the challenge are now out. Games start in the evening of Firday 3rd April. However many turn up earlier with a view to having some fun in the afternoon. Thus an idea!!

How about a real Monster game of FOG. We pick a battle and then take volunteers to put together contingent for the army from their figures. We then scale the table to the players. So if we only have 3 a side then we can play on a 12 x 6 with 2000pts a side. If we have 6 a side then what the hec lets have a 24 x 6 and play the battle with approaching 10000 points on the table.

My opening gambit if Chalons-Sure-Marne as having a nice mix of troops. Attila vs Romans. Anyone interested. I am happy to collate interest levels and dish out suitable contingent sizes and lists to draw from a few days in advance. Likewise happy to put some terrain together, umpire and video itfor posterity.

Any thoughts on other battles that might suit such a format?

Si

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:47 am**

shall wrote:Any thoughts on other battles that might suit such a format?

Magnesia always looks great done like this.

We did it years ago in 25mm on 18ft x 4ft, and the Seleucid phalanx was 5 foot wide. Looked amazing.

Whatever battle you pick, one thing I would say is that unless you want a battle of manoeuvre (unlikely with so many figures on the board) then there isn't much point in the table being more than 4ft deep in either scale. Any deeper will not add to the fun and will just make it difficult to reach the figures in the middle of the table.

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 10:53 am**

This could be one of the problems if not enough organisation goes in. People tip up with there army to add to the battle and just end up commanding their army, to army list design, in a mini battle against someone elses mini army. Each containing all the bits. Hence 6 mini battles. Rather than a huge phalanx with one commander, a wing with practically all the cavalry under a single command, etc, splitting peoples figures so it looks/feels/is the right command structure.

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:09 am**

unless you want a battle of manoeuvre then there isn't much point in the table being more than 4ft deep

Make the centre 4 feet deep and the flanks 6 feet. Turning the end tables side on to give manouver on the flanks where the cavalry are and more of a 'push of pike' in the centre.

a bit like

14 feet wide, 6 feet deep for the skirmishy flanks and your going to have to hit in the middle

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:36 am**

philqw78 wrote:This could be one of the problems if not enough organisation goes in. People tip up with there army to add to the battle and just end up commanding their army, to army list design, in a mini battle against someone elses mini army. Each containing all the bits. Hence 6 mini battles. Rather than a huge phalanx with one commander, a wing with practically all the cavalry under a single command, etc, splitting peoples figures so it looks/feels/is the right command structure.

True enough.

What in fact we did was to split the battle into 3 separate tables - left wing - centre - right wing with rules for only limited and delayed transfer from one table to the next. The deployment was done as per the historical battle.

We allowed each table to play at its own speed, thus minimising the "waiting for everyone to finish a turn" problem.

No doubt the different tables played different numbers of turns, but I don't think that is unrealistic as probably the slowest tables would be the ones with the fiercest fighting. The whole thing worked very well.

Of course the "each player brings a whole army" thing would work quite historically for Chalons as each nation present would indeed form up with all its troops together.

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:51 pm**

All good thoughts chaps. I will take a fuller look at Magnesia. Richard, if you still have any of the organsiational materials maybe you could balst them my way.

I am quite happy to put some time in to make sure the game plays like a big battle rather than individual mini-battles.

We did Chalons as a club game a few years ago and that was very good as the mobility of Attilas army did lead to some good mixing between battle zones.

First question though is..

Who is going and interested in a midday monstr bash on the 3rd? If there rae not enough interested players there is no point putting too much thought into it.

Si

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 2:11 pm**

shall wrote:All good thoughts chaps. I will take a fuller look at Magnesia. Richard, if you still have any of the organsiational materials maybe you could balst them my way.

Well as it was 32 years ago, I may possibly have mislaid them.

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:08 pm**

it was 32 years ago,

I was 'wargaming' with lego bricks, airfix and marbles then, but I'm interested and can get there. Have lots of Romans, only a few Huns

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:28 pm**

rbodleyscott wrote:
shall wrote:All good thoughts chaps. I will take a fuller look at Magnesia. Richard, if you still have any of the organsiational materials maybe you could balst them my way.
Well as it was 32 years ago, I may possibly have mislaid them.

I thought you were at the original battle itself....?

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:40 pm**

Hmm, 32 years ago I had already formed one wargames club, was a member of anther club and had at least two Ancients and one WWII army as well as a load of Napoleonics figures. All of which apart from my plastic Ancient Britons I no longer have and I can't for the life of me remember what I ended up doing with them all

If I am going to be at Ascot early I would be interested in a little FoGing as I will probably be FoWing in the tournament propper. I have lots of Romans, Huns and Goths.

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 3:53 pm**

Any of the War of the Roses battles could be fun and given the troop types it allows each player to use his own troops without it looking silly.

Other "battle of nations" which might work:

most of the major battles against the Almoravids and Almohades in Spain with multiple Christian contingents and similar divisions along ethnic lines (Arab, Berber, Ansalusian, Chrisitian allies/mercenaries) on the Muslim side.

Same again for the Later Crusader battles with various feudal/allied contingents on both sides.

Anyway, very interesting idea. Might even take a quick look to see if there are any cheap flights over from Spain.

Julian

PS: The Swindon club used to do something similar to teach DBM to beginners. Everybody brought 150 points + general of whatever and we split players evenly between sides. Everybody deployed behind screens after a quick team huddle to decide who was going where, the screens were lifted and voila!

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:59 pm**

sorry if I have missed something but where exactly is this all going to happen.

Will

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:40 pm**

On the Friday afternoon before the BHGS Challenge tournament http://www.bhgs.co.uk/Challenge/Intropage.htm

The venue is setup and available on the Friday for practice games and other fun stuff.

The Britcon venue is available from the Thursday morning and a fair number of people make a long weekend of it and get to take advantage of all the space on the Thursday and Friday.

Posted: **Wed Jan 21, 2009 5:57 pm**

I can't make it, obviously, but in response to the call for suggested battles involving contingents from many different nations, what about Plataea?

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2009 7:33 am**

Code: Select all

Hammy said

32 years ago I had already formed one wargames club

You and Herbert Wells?

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:10 am**

shall wrote:All good thoughts chaps. I will take a fuller look at Magnesia.

Thinking about it, I;d actually suggest something more mounted-orientated and fluid rather than an infantry slog. Unless you add in extra rules, a fight between two lines of pike / legionary BG's will still see half the BGs lose cohesion and then break and rout inside 2-5 turns irrespective of how wide the line is or how deep the formations are.

Massed mounted BGs would have more ebb and flow, as well as a chance for them to be rallies and returned to the fray

Posted: **Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:08 am**

madaxeman wrote:
shall wrote:All good thoughts chaps. I will take a fuller look at Magnesia.
Thinking about it, I;d actually suggest something more mounted-orientated and fluid rather than an infantry slog. Unless you add in extra rules, a fight between two lines of pike / legionary BG's will still see half the BGs lose cohesion and then break and rout inside 2-5 turns irrespective of how wide the line is or how deep the formations are.

Massed mounted BGs would have more ebb and flow, as well as a chance for them to be rallies and returned to the fray

I think the Chalons idea is a good one.

Posted: **Sat Jan 24, 2009 10:05 am**

Ok I shall spec up a battle and post it here and then people can sign up.

Si

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2009 12:36 pm**

Someone please say that photos will be taken of this event and that some will be posted here. Please, oh please.

Posted: **Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:43 pm**

James reading your quote 'Hmm, 32 years ago I had already formed one wargames club, was a member of anther club and had at least two Ancients and one WWII army as well as a load of Napoleonics figures. All of which apart from my plastic Ancient Britons I no longer have and I can't for the life of me remember what I ended up doing with them all.'

Me too, and I was less than a year forming my 2nd wargames club. I still have my plastics from that time, as well as my early Minifigs metal figures (other than my WotR English army that is over the pond with my little brother).

Slitherine

Monster FOG

Monster FOG

Re: Monster FOG