Is the Board too wide?
Moderators: philqw78, terrys, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
Is the Board too wide?
In all the postings about this, that and the other thing.
Is it possible the formula is more simply points to board width ratio?
In 15mm, should 800 points be played on a 5 foot wide board instead of 6?
A narrow board would to a small degree
Increase the worth of HF.
Reduce the LH scamper away.
Increase value of power troops over fiddily troops.
Make the games more likley to conclude.
Make terrain either a bigger issue or less relevant in its absence.
Is it possible the formula is more simply points to board width ratio?
In 15mm, should 800 points be played on a 5 foot wide board instead of 6?
A narrow board would to a small degree
Increase the worth of HF.
Reduce the LH scamper away.
Increase value of power troops over fiddily troops.
Make the games more likley to conclude.
Make terrain either a bigger issue or less relevant in its absence.
Re: Is the Board too wide?
Certainly a possibility, doubles at 900 on a 6' seems to work ok. Though depth may be easier to fix, change 15 and 10 to 18 and 12.hazelbark wrote:In all the postings about this, that and the other thing.
Is it possible the formula is more simply points to board width ratio?
In 15mm, should 800 points be played on a 5 foot wide board instead of 6?
A narrow board would to a small degree
Increase the worth of HF.
Reduce the LH scamper away.
Increase value of power troops over fiddily troops.
Make the games more likley to conclude.
Make terrain either a bigger issue or less relevant in its absence.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 10287
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
- Location: LarryWorld
Re: Is the Board too wide?
maybe works for HF armies were I have seen wall to wall HF one base deep at 900 points Northern Doubles but all your doing is making a cavalry army unworkable.azrael86 wrote:Certainly a possibility, doubles at 900 on a 6' seems to work ok. Though depth may be easier to fix, change 15 and 10 to 18 and 12.hazelbark wrote:In all the postings about this, that and the other thing.
Is it possible the formula is more simply points to board width ratio?
In 15mm, should 800 points be played on a 5 foot wide board instead of 6?
A narrow board would to a small degree
Increase the worth of HF.
Reduce the LH scamper away.
Increase value of power troops over fiddily troops.
Make the games more likley to conclude.
Make terrain either a bigger issue or less relevant in its absence.
Why not get more event organisers to narrow the books down allowed therefore you'll have more near historical games as possible.
Otherwise your sorting one problum and making another.
Or maybe wait till FOG R is out in September and see how they have sorted things
Re: Is the Board too wide?
Or it might just encourage players to send their cavalry on flank marches.david53 wrote:maybe works for HF armies were I have seen wall to wall HF one base deep at 900 points Northern Doubles but all your doing is making a cavalry army unworkable.
Re: Is the Board too wide?
No. Be quiet you miserable flat foot.hazelbark wrote:Is it possible the formula is more simply points to board width ratio?
Evaluator of Supremacy
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 1506
- Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am
Re: Is the Board too wide?
The song that plays in Dave's nightmaresdave_r wrote: No. Be quiet you miserable flat foot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRIOKvR2WM
Re: Is the Board too wide?
I really meant to watch that song, but as soon as I got to youtube my computer put this onpeterrjohnston wrote:The song that plays in Dave's nightmaresdave_r wrote: No. Be quiet you miserable flat foot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQRIOKvR2WM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqYmBzHP ... 1&index=55
Evaluator of Supremacy
Re: Is the Board too wide?
So, a proposal that might bring some balance into the game with no rules changes and that can be easily reversed if it proves to have too many adverse effects?hazelbark wrote:In all the postings about this, that and the other thing.
Is it possible the formula is more simply points to board width ratio?
In 15mm, should 800 points be played on a 5 foot wide board instead of 6?
A narrow board would to a small degree
Increase the worth of HF.
Reduce the LH scamper away.
Increase value of power troops over fiddily troops.
Make the games more likley to conclude.
Make terrain either a bigger issue or less relevant in its absence.
Something so sensible will struggle to gain acceptance.
Walter
-
- 2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
- Posts: 705
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:55 pm
Re: Is the Board too wide?
I am playing a league with an entirely Heavy foot starter army (597 points) on a five foot table. It works fine and any more points on tabel would even stregthen an already strong position.hazelbark wrote:In all the postings about this, that and the other thing.
Is it possible the formula is more simply points to board width ratio?
In 15mm, should 800 points be played on a 5 foot wide board instead of 6?
A narrow board would to a small degree
Increase the worth of HF.
Reduce the LH scamper away.
Increase value of power troops over fiddily troops.
Make the games more likley to conclude.
Make terrain either a bigger issue or less relevant in its absence.
The problem is that the experience in points/tabel width balance is entirely different with different army types. ie in the biblical period battles 800 on a six footer leaves lost os spares for rear support and only a few avenues for flankarama.
Hellenisic armies real romans and pike are much more expensive per frontage so 900 is probably better.
Dark ages and the balance swings back 9eg a scots highlander army is almost identical to a late hoplit greek and can pretty well fille the table with offensive spearmen.
into middle ages and 5 feet still leaves plenty of room to manouver with 800 points of armoured drilled HF and knights.
Different point to table ratios provide variety and variety is good.
5' wide tables are going to help foot armies to some extent but I suspect that 3' deep ones might work better.
1000 or 900 points on a 6 by 4 seems to work just fine.
650 points on a 5 by 3 is a popular format in the UK
I suspect that 600 points on a 4 by 3 would be worth a go and I think it has been tried in Aus
There is nothing forcing people to play 800 points on a 6 by 4 after all.
5' wide tables are going to help foot armies to some extent but I suspect that 3' deep ones might work better.
1000 or 900 points on a 6 by 4 seems to work just fine.
650 points on a 5 by 3 is a popular format in the UK
I suspect that 600 points on a 4 by 3 would be worth a go and I think it has been tried in Aus
There is nothing forcing people to play 800 points on a 6 by 4 after all.
The rules do say it is "ideally designed" for 6' x 4', so to go against that would incur the wrath of certain players as a conspiracy against their army type. Some players feel the terrain rules favour horse armies over foot so if the board were smaller terrain might feature more often.hammy wrote:Different point to table ratios provide variety and variety is good.
5' wide tables are going to help foot armies to some extent but I suspect that 3' deep ones might work better.
1000 or 900 points on a 6 by 4 seems to work just fine.
650 points on a 5 by 3 is a popular format in the UK
I suspect that 600 points on a 4 by 3 would be worth a go and I think it has been tried in Aus
There is nothing forcing people to play 800 points on a 6 by 4 after all.
Walter
Well, that doesn't mean you HAVE to play on a 6 by 4 does it.waldo wrote:The rules do say it is "ideally designed" for 6' x 4', so to go against that would incur the wrath of certain players as a conspiracy against their army type. Some players feel the terrain rules favour horse armies over foot so if the board were smaller terrain might feature more often.
Walter
All I can say is that by the sound of it UK gamers are a lot more open minded than furriners when it comes to what they play.
The only FoG tournaments I have ever had to turn players away from because of lack of space have been the one day, three game, 650 point on a 5 by 3 table format ones.
650 points on a 5 by 3, you know it makes sensehazelbark wrote:While I agree, I wonder if that impacts gamers too much. A lot of people needed to expand DBM armies to get to FoG 800, so while I like more, I am not sure it doesn't have a side effect.nikgaukroger wrote:Play with 900 points - works better in my experience. More toys is good
-
- General - Carrier
- Posts: 4957
- Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
- Location: Capital of the World !!
We had a mini of 400 on i think it was a 3x2 that worked really well too.hammy wrote:650 points on a 5 by 3, you know it makes sensehazelbark wrote:While I agree, I wonder if that impacts gamers too much. A lot of people needed to expand DBM armies to get to FoG 800, so while I like more, I am not sure it doesn't have a side effect.nikgaukroger wrote:Play with 900 points - works better in my experience. More toys is good
You can't do that it is not in the rules .... you will be punnished for such heresyhazelbark wrote:We had a mini of 400 on i think it was a 3x2 that worked really well too.hammy wrote:650 points on a 5 by 3, you know it makes sensehazelbark wrote: While I agree, I wonder if that impacts gamers too much. A lot of people needed to expand DBM armies to get to FoG 800, so while I like more, I am not sure it doesn't have a side effect.