the resounding dullness of the 800 point game.

[jcmedhurst]

Just to amuse myself, I did some stats on Britcon - the late period, I could do the same with early if people are interested.

The tests were with a non-parametric test (Mann-Wilcoxon rank sum test for those who know what that is)

The armies in the late period consisted of 4 cavalry armies (Merovingians etc), 4 Eastern Knight armies (knights with LH and LF such as Hungarians), 4 Heavy Foot armies (Swiss etc), 7 Longbow armies, 5 Medium Foot armies (Catalans etc), 8 Shooty armies (inc Ottomans, Mamluk etc) and 6 Western Knight armies (i.e. Condotta Italian).

None of these army types did significantly better than would be expected by chance, though a couple of types did significantly worse (Western Knights at 1% significance, Cavalry armies at 5%, though with the caveat that we are doing 7 tests, so there is about a 30% chance of at least one by chance alone).

Ottoman taken on its own did do signficantly better at 1% - they were 1st, 4th, 7th and 11th out of 38. So maybe Janissaries are really the problem - or Pete

[mbsparta]

basically, never again.

the table is too big, the armies too full of cheesy LH crap.

either 650 starters on smaller tables, or maybe i'll just go play another ruleset.

......... An interesting discussion ...

I tend to agree with Old-n-Tired as to army size and table size. We play a game of FoG every week. It is not a competitive setting. We use 650 point armies (28mm) for singles games and 1000 point armies if we are playing doubles. We almost always reach a conclusion within 2-3 hours for the 650 point games, but only about half the time with the 1000 points doubles games. All our armies are from the Classical period. We do not have a Parthian style army, yet. So we haven't faced an army full of LH.

What you all seem to be discussing is that age old conflict between tournament/competitive gaming and non-competitive gaming. I would love to try my Crassus' Roman army against a Parthian army. It would be an interesting exercise in meeting the challange that Crassus faced. But in a competitve setting, this type of game is not necessarily enjoyable for the Roman/Infantry army. Still, I would play it, but hopefully not for three long games. But things like playing for ties, avoiding combat, and slow play; do not speak well of the tournament gaming community. It turns away new players and creates ill will with an otherwise excellent gaming system. Playing a game that has very well defined victory conditions, but that are only met 38% of the time is; foolish. If armies are too large, tables too big; not enough time is alloted for play; or players stall or avoid battle; maybe something needs to be rethought. IMHO the first priority of any adult playing a game with model armies should be to ensure that his opponent, an opponent that has worked for months painting his army and set aside precious time from his family and other responsibilites to attend the event, has an enjoyable game. That doesn't mean you have to let him win, but it does mean that winning is secondary to ensuring that your opponent has a good game. If you finish first in a tournament while maintaing this priority, you are truley a champion.

And what is with you guys??? 4 hour games???

Mike B

[Skullzgrinda]

people still field roman armies with virtually no romans.

Nothing unhistorical about that.

Aetius did it. Still could not quite finish off those damned cowardly LH though.

[OldenTired]

IMHO the first priority of any adult playing a game with model armies should be to ensure that his opponent, an opponent that has worked for months painting his army and set aside precious time from his family and other responsibilites to attend the event, has an enjoyable game.
Mike B

mike, if you're ever in town, i'd be happy to have an 800 point with you.

[SDnz]

At the end of the day people will pick the type of tournament they want to play in be it themed or 650pt.

However get some facts right about the tournament you are complaining about. Where you didnt like the first day so did not come to the second.

10 players - NZ has a small FoG scene so reasonable for a local 2 day competition. This was an open 800pt competition.

Later Seleucid - combined arms ancient
Later Ptolemic - combined arms ancient
Late Republican Roman - completely roman
Principate Roman - completely roman (finished first)
Principate Roman - completely roman
Dominate Roman - Complelety roman yes a swarm but not the superior support version (finished 2nd)
Foederate Roman - 7 bgs of cavalry, supports and a 2 bg hun ally - fairly historical
Early North African Dynasties - 6 bgs of cavalry lancer and 10 LH - the only skirmish army in the comp (finished 4th)
Abbasid Arab - 8 bgs of lancer cav and supports (finished 3rd)
Norman - 6 bgs of lancer cavalry and supports


The majority of games were played to conclusion and the competition won by the prinicpate player winning his 4 games. This is Shaun D by the way Che so this is not in any way an anonymous dig, I thought this was a good example of a competition that was almost themed completely by random and there was almost a complete absence of skirmish armies.

[OldenTired]

However get some facts right about the tournament you are complaining about. Where you didnt like the first day so did not come to the second.

10 players - NZ has a small FoG scene so reasonable for a local 2 day competition. This was an open 800pt competition.

Later Seleucid - combined arms ancient
Later Ptolemic - combined arms ancient
Late Republican Roman - completely roman
Principate Roman - completely roman (finished first)
Principate Roman - completely roman
Dominate Roman - Complelety roman yes a swarm but not the superior support version (finished 2nd)
Foederate Roman - 7 bgs of cavalry, supports and a 2 bg hun ally - fairly historical
Early North African Dynasties - 6 bgs of cavalry lancer and 10 LH - the only skirmish army in the comp (finished 4th)
Abbasid Arab - 8 bgs of lancer cav and supports (finished 3rd)
Norman - 6 bgs of lancer cavalry and supports

weeeell... my whinge is about 800points on a large table, and the weekend just reinforced my dislike for the medium. plus, the main reason for not coming in was father's day, which i stated well before my afternoon game. if it had been a regular sunday i would have attended.

[Andy1972]

For fathers day you should get to do what YOU want to do!

[OldenTired]

For fathers day you should get to do what YOU want to do!

well, my options were:

1. fighting LH for 3 1/2 hours to reach the stuff quivering in fear at the back of the board (i.e my afternoon game on the saturday)

2. eating a mountain of bacon

if you need to work out which is more fun, then you need help.

[fatismo]

Figure I'll drop my 2 cents in seen I was the LH player

First off, "playing lancer armies with max LH and hardly any Cav" I think is how it was put. I had 6 BG's of a possible 8BG's of Cav.

My opponent gets some favourable terrain and pushes out from a corner with blocks of big nasty pike, and I should charge that with my lancers? Have you checked those factors, I don't think so. I'll try and skirmish and get some disruptions first, of course that’s not easy with that big IC umbrella and units of 8.

Interestingly enough I enjoyed the game from a standpoint that my opponent was polite and friendly throughout and then I see this thread. If you don't like my army and think I'm a cheesey player man up and tell me to my face, I'm a big boy I can take it. I play the army because, one I like it and two think it's competitive, both are important factors.

I was the only LH army there, I didn't win. In fact I got spanked in my first game (big up's to Peter Hood) which lead to poor OldenTired having to face me.

Finally "oh well I haven't done very well in my first 2 games, don't think I'll bother turning up tomorrow" Oldentired words, not mine.

[OldenTired]

Interestingly enough I enjoyed the game from a standpoint that my opponent was polite and friendly throughout and then I see this thread. If you don't like my army and think I'm a cheesey player man up and tell me to my face, I'm a big boy I can take it. I play the army because, one I like it and two think it's competitive, both are important factors.

if you'd care to point out where i called you a cheesy player?

[Skullzgrinda]

I think this thread is in a hole, and will not be improved with further digging.

[OldenTired]

I think this thread is in a hole, and will not be improved with further digging.

right there with you.

[fatismo]

"the table is too big, the armies too full of cheesy LH crap."

"1. fighting LH for 3 1/2 hours to reach the stuff quivering in fear at the back of the board (i.e my afternoon game on the saturday) "


Your words, and I was the only LH player

[OldenTired]

"the table is too big, the armies too full of cheesy LH crap."

"1. fighting LH for 3 1/2 hours to reach the stuff quivering in fear at the back of the board (i.e my afternoon game on the saturday) "


Your words, and I was the only LH player

well, apologies that you associated the first comment with yourself, it was general and directed at *any* LH army (including shaun's LH domroms)

as for the 3 1/2 hours? sorry man, but better things to do that sit in a cold hall on a sunny day.

[fatismo]

Thats cool if you got better things to do than wargame, but perhaps better not to register for a 2 day tourney, if you are going to pull out of the second day leaving someone with a bye who actually wants to be there and play.

[OldenTired]

Thats cool if you got better things to do than wargame, but perhaps better not to register for a 2 day tourney, if you are going to pull out of the second day leaving someone with a bye who actually wants to be there and play.

that'll be my first comment on this thread.

[Xelee]

10 players - NZ has a small FoG scene so reasonable for a local 2 day competition. This was an open 800pt competition.

as for the 3 1/2 hours? sorry man, but better things to do that sit in a cold hall on a sunny day.

I'm a bit leery about this whole 3.5-4 hour 800pt standard as well. We have been playing our FOG games at 600 pts (mix if table sizes) and are getting our speeds up. The standard I am used to is 2.5 hour rounds MAX (often more like 1.5, depends on the army/scenario/teaching new guy the ropes) for the only other system I have attended events for. FOG at that speed will suit me well.

The next upcoming local FOG comp will be 800pts and I am still having a very hard think about whether that will be fun. This is depite, you will note, my just having aquired new figs for the purpose of expanding out to that level. We'll see.

Given 600 AP seems to give a nice range of 'stuff', I am not sure that 800 AP is entirely worth the added effort.

[MARVIN_THE_ARVN]

Ive already mentioned in other threads that I find it difficult to finish 800ap in the given 3.5 hours, this is not doubt down to the fact I can only play rarely so dont have a chance to 'train' myself to play fast with my army of choice.

Never tried 600-650ap's but would be interested in giving it ago, might even get round to painting my 25mm Samurai if I do

Ive found with Tourneys its best not to go wanting to fight any particular type of army as you will probably not get the chance to play it. Im all up for the big infantry fights in the middle while the cavalry fight it out on the flanks but that isnt what everyone is looking for so I have to limit myself to walking forward while the enemy rains death down upon me and keeps out of my way or watch as his units make moves that would making a backing dancer look on in awe.

Maybe if FOG had vitory points for table control that could change things?

[grahambriggs]

Just to amuse myself, I did some stats on Britcon - the late period, I could do the same with early if people are interested.

The tests were with a non-parametric test (Mann-Wilcoxon rank sum test for those who know what that is)

The armies in the late period consisted of 4 cavalry armies (Merovingians etc), 4 Eastern Knight armies (knights with LH and LF such as Hungarians), 4 Heavy Foot armies (Swiss etc), 7 Longbow armies, 5 Medium Foot armies (Catalans etc), 8 Shooty armies (inc Ottomans, Mamluk etc) and 6 Western Knight armies (i.e. Condotta Italian).

None of these army types did significantly better than would be expected by chance, though a couple of types did significantly worse (Western Knights at 1% significance, Cavalry armies at 5%, though with the caveat that we are doing 7 tests, so there is about a 30% chance of at least one by chance alone).

Ottoman taken on its own did do signficantly better at 1% - they were 1st, 4th, 7th and 11th out of 38. So maybe Janissaries are really the problem - or Pete

I took one of the Merovingians with a balanced force of 32 impact HF, 20 armoured light spear cavalry, 16 LH, 10 LF. I found this an excellent combination against the skirmish armies. The cavalry in particular were very good being non shock, fast and deadly when they caught the enemy. I also found that, whether or not I could bust a LH army, it was very satisfying to smash lots of the LH.

But I do know what Olden Tired means - my early persians had a frustrating time against swarm armies.

[mellis1644]

Maybe if FOG had vitory points for table control that could change things?

That may be an idea. Although a little hookie, the value of camps in some rules sets (such as the Dbx ones) at least means that skirmishing armies have something which they need to defend. In FoG the camp is really not that important in a tournament if a LH/Shirmish army is playing to avoid defeat.

Maybe extra points for sacking camps in would help in tourney's - after all these were key factors in ancient campaigns in retaining the field etc. That would not affect army break points but would be a bonus to go for and something for player to really defend.

Alternatively, the loss of a camp could be used as a decider/impact for victory purposes etc. So that loosing your camp could effect the end results in that it would reduce the owners end result level by one etc - i.e. make a draw a loss for the player who looses their camp. That would not effect the end result of the battle but would effect the scoring in the comp, making it more likely that players will want to defend that.

Just random thoughts.