What about the table size for 15mm games?

This forum is for any questions about the rules. Post here is you need feedback from the design team.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design, hammy, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

Post Reply
lanceflint
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 8:37 pm

What about the table size for 15mm games?

Post by lanceflint » Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:17 pm

Table Size?

OK we have only played 5 games, all historical match ups, but it seems that definite trends are appearing:

Most of the terrain ends up in the flank/table edges areas ??“ Good

Open area placement is too powerful? ??“ Bad?

Deployment is so flexible and open to serious gamesmanship ??“ Bad

Protecting baggage is frequently pointless and it can be used as a decoy to mask the true deployment area of the army ??“ Very Bad

800 points is more than enough to produce a good fight ??“ Good

800 points often seems too many to reach a conclusion, even after 4 hours, with both sides getting stuck in ??“ Bad

Nearly all flanks are totally in the air ??“ Good and Bad, but this massively favours mounted armies

The need to cover a respectable frontage, especially for barbarians, means no significant reserve (even for those armies that used them) ??“ Very Bad

A game of manoeuvre by the mounted/drilled army usually succeeds ??“ Not Good

Battlelines are frequently split to create positions of advantage and quite a lot of dancing ensues ??“ Bad



The conclusion would be that maybe the game would be improved by fighting on a 5 foot wide table, and possibly even reducing the depth as well?

Now that you have picked yourself off the floor what do you think?

At this stage of the play testing are these valid observations?

Lance.

shall
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 6137
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2006 9:52 am

Post by shall » Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:14 am

The conclusion would be that maybe the game would be improved by fighting on a 5 foot wide table, and possibly even reducing the depth as well?

Now that you have picked yourself off the floor what do you think?

At this stage of the play testing are these valid observations?

Lance.
Interesting and radical....I guess I am wondering if peoples diagnostic view is the same as your own. Mine is a bit different on several areas....the same in a couple......so I guess I think...if your points are generally true then the conclusion makes some sense.

What are other people's views on Lance's experiences please. I'll store my own for later.

Si

jre
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 3:17 pm
Location: Zaragoza, Spain

Re: What about the table size for 15mm games?

Post by jre » Tue Jan 02, 2007 10:59 am

I have played mostly non-historical games (4 non nd 3 historical ones).

Most of the terrain ends up in the flank/table edges areas ??“ Good

Agreed. It has to be considered to anchor your flanks, however. And ambushes can be used to envelop flanks too.

Open area placement is too powerful? ??“ Bad?

Bad if you are playing a rough terrain army. Unfortunately I feel it is historical (for large battles).

Deployment is so flexible and open to serious gamesmanship ??“ Bad

Considering how critical is set up, specially heavy foot and knights/cataphracts, I see no other option that does not have many battles over at start. I still prefer it to WRG style arguments over the accuracy of the set-up drawings.

Protecting baggage is frequently pointless and it can be used as a decoy to mask the true deployment area of the army ??“ Very Bad

Unless your army is big, the baggage is quite important. I see its use as a lure or decoy quite historical as well.

800 points is more than enough to produce a good fight ??“ Good

I like the fact that you can lose a wing and still be in the game.

800 points often seems too many to reach a conclusion, even after 4 hours, with both sides getting stuck in ??“ Bad

We are having some troubles finishing in 4 hours, but so far 5 out of 7 did so. We blame more our own lack of familiarity with the armies.

Nearly all flanks are totally in the air ??“ Good and Bad, but this massively favours mounted armies

As the flank charge thread shows, right now flanks are not so fragile as they look. And getting a BG in position to charge is a several bound undertaking (except for light horse, but they are not so dangerous as others). Menaces and Interception are the best way to protect flanks.

The need to cover a respectable frontage, especially for barbarians, means no significant reserve (even for those armies that used them) ??“ Very Bad

It is true that most armies the only way to keep a reserve (if only as rear support) is to refuse a flank. But that is much easier to do in this game.

A game of manoeuvre by the mounted/drilled army usually succeeds ??“ Not Good

Not in our experience, unless their opponent diddles. Infantry can cover quite a lot of ground in a straight line, without regard for the drill. Set up is more critical for undrilled armies, but that is why they are cheaper...

Battlelines are frequently split to create positions of advantage and quite a lot of dancing ensues ??“ Bad

We find that (except for mostly mounted armies) dancing happens on the sides while the center sees mostly shiftings and echeloning to try to achieve optimal pairings or delay/avoid unfavorable ones. Although maybe that is why your games are longer than ours... We even had a couple of battles that were just a general clash along the line.

Jos?©

Post Reply

Return to “Rules Questions”