"Typical Army" Restrictions

General discussion forum for anything related to Field of Glory Renaissance Wars.

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by nikgaukroger » Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:19 pm

madaxeman wrote:
martinvantol wrote:So a suggestion for an experimental D&G themed comp (to see how it works, not as a permanent situation, of course) ...

Everybody: must field at least 2 BGs of mounted battle troops. Average mounted BGs can be fielded in BGs of 6.

French: at least half the mounted battle troops must be average
Everybody else: may upgrade one mounted BG to superior if their list doesn't already allow it.

You'd probably then get a mix of Anglo-Dutch, French, Austrian and Danish ... although the others wouldn't be unviable. You'd get significant cavalry contingents. Keeping this restriction to a one-off themed comp makes things simpler.

Martin
You are always free to run whatever restrictions you wish at any competition you organise yourself.... But if you want to sound people out about it it's probably better to announce dates and a venue as well, and post any ideas you have in the Tournaments thread rather than here... :wink:
Like you have with the Challenge 8)
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

martinvantol
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:31 pm

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by martinvantol » Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:51 am

alasdair2204 wrote:
So now we are making general changes to all the lists, 1/2 the French mounted must be average, why, you are already making them take more foot if they want guns, it feels like we are starting to get to the place where people should be just allowed to make their own lists up. French lists are not dominating, so can I suggest there are far to many guards in the anglo dutch and that their must be 3 average foot for each superior, when do we stop, it feels like Martin doesn't like mounted armies and is doing everything to hamstring them but doing nothing to foot. French is the only later list I use and it is the only army singled out to have more average, why?

Alasdair

Alasdair
Hi Alasdair,

No new points in this post. But reading your post I felt I had to clarify a couple of things, because what you say suggests that some of my views haven't been understood ...

(1) The context of a lot of the posts in this thread (at least mine) has been suggestions for competition-specific purposes. Small changes to enhance variety in themed competitions because that's where it's easiest to estimate any list-change rules you do make. Obviously the lists won't be re-written any time soon, and making changes that apply in open competitions is very difficult to do in a hurry.

(2) So on this specific issue ... I'm not suggesting the Louis XIV French army is dominant generally. There's nothing in the history of FOGR competitions to suggest that. One point I had made here was that competitions with a Duty & Glory theme result in lots of unbalanced armies (too many foot hiding in terrain and players not bringing enough horse, actually), and a number of posts have been addressing how to correct that. Several people said that if you compel most D&G armies to bring their average horse, this would be too much of a good thing for that French army (i.e. in a D&G competition), which gets the best horse in that sub-period. I think if you were re-writing the lists for that particular sub-period (with historical accuracy in mind and without worrying how they interacted with other armies outside this sub-period) you would have higher compulsory minimums for horse, and other armies than just the French would have more superior horse.

(3) I really don't have a problem with mounted troops. If you look back over some of my past posts you'll notice that I've also been criticising the D&G armies which take minimum mounted. I have a problem with two things only: (a) unhistorical armies and (b) uncompetitive games. I also like to see variety within our competitions. I think lots of people agree on those things.

(4) The root issue is that the lists allow too much leeway (and most people seem to agree, including both list-writers). The lists have to some extent been written to allow armies to fight each other across the whole 200-year period, and this therefore unbalances the D&G sub-period in particular (again accepted by one of the list-writers).

(5) You ask if there too many superior troops around. You really might have a point there. Possibly one of those things to talk about if we ever get to discuss bigger and more long-term list re-writes. (Or if you wanted to suggest limiting superior BGs for a specific competition to see what happens, that might also be an idea).

Hope that clarifies my opinions for you: I like what's historical, competitive and varied. I have really no problem with mounted, no bias towards foot, no dislike of French armies and no intention to stop you winning (other than by trying to beat you!).

All the best
Martin

alasdair2204
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 600
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:40 pm

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by alasdair2204 » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:22 am

Hi Martin

I know you have been consistent re D & G armies have more horse etc but I think the point I was trying to make is that even if D & G armies have to have 2 horse by making the French have to have as many average as superior you due to the high expensive of horse automatically make it very difficult to play if not impossible to play with as its to expensive therefore making it even more about Anglo-Dutch and Swedes, with the suggestions you have made re French it would be impossible for a French army to win a competition. Anglo_Dutch just buy one more horse and carry on

To Quote Raven-Flight 'What the hell?

So, you take away the only advantage the French have, make it into a disadvantage and then expect people to turn up with them?

I wouldn't be coming anyway (I'm in teh wrong country) but if I lived there you woudl just have lost me as a player!'

Exactly my thoughts

Cheers

Alasdair

peterrjohnston
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1506
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:51 am

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by peterrjohnston » Fri Dec 06, 2013 10:49 am

This is all very interesting, but can it be assumed these restrictions won't be in place at the worlds next year?

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:02 am

peterrjohnston wrote:This is all very interesting, but can it be assumed these restrictions won't be in place at the worlds next year?

Any restrictions mooted here are unofficial as has been stated.

Unless a comp organiser includes something in their comp rules/info none will apply.

If any were to be made official they would be announced as such and put up on the Field of Glory website (as well as this forum of course).
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

kevinj
Major-General - Tiger I
Major-General - Tiger I
Posts: 2379
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:21 am
Location: Derbyshire, UK

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by kevinj » Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:06 am

It's probably a safe bet but you'd need to get in touch with the organisers to confirm. We MAY try some of these options at BHGS Challenge, but that's still to be confirmed.

martinvantol
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:31 pm

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by martinvantol » Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:58 am

alasdair2204 wrote: I know you have been consistent re D & G armies have more horse etc but I think the point I was trying to make is that even if D & G armies have to have 2 horse by making the French have to have as many average as superior you due to the high expensive of horse automatically make it very difficult to play if not impossible to play with as its to expensive therefore making it even more about Anglo-Dutch and Swedes, with the suggestions you have made re French it would be impossible for a French army to win a competition. Anglo_Dutch just buy one more horse and carry on
Hi again Alasdair,

Fair enough. I certainly wouldn't want to hobble the French in that period. It's an important army for the period for three reasons:
(a) impact foot,
(b) better mounted, which IMO should still be better than its peers in some way, and
(c) its historical significance.
Losing the French in that period would mean losing a significant bit of variety. In fact, I want to use it myself some time.

However, I don't want the only remedy against it to be to put down as much terrain as possible and maximise firepower.

I had thought the combination of impact foot and higher proportion of superior mounted (within period) would be enough. You obviously don't think so.
How would you ensure balanced armies in that sub-period, together with having at least half a dozen viable armies?

All the best
Martin

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by nikgaukroger » Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:09 pm

martinvantol wrote: How would you ensure balanced armies in that sub-period, together with having at least half a dozen viable armies?

I'm not sure referring to "balanced armies" is actually helpful - its a bit subjective I think as to what that means.

I'd prefer to aim for something that could be described as "historically plausible" armies based on the historical record but allowing players a reasonable degree of flexibility (of course the last bit is subjective as well so call me a hypocrite <g>). So, for example, the mooted foot:artillery restriction would be a reflection of that. Another might be a Duty & Glory competition where the western armies mounted arm (inc. Dragoons) had to be 25% to 50% of the bases fielded based on the fact that about a third of the troops were mounted historically, but we allow players flexibility as that is desirable.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

alasdair2204
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 600
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:40 pm

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by alasdair2204 » Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:14 pm

Its more a points issue with the expense of mounted, double the foot minimum is the easiest which means 4 average foot probably, personally though I still think its more about having a plan, to beat different types of armies and terrain is not always the answer as it often detracts from the plan. For example although we beat him Tim's bucaneers he beat two mounted armies at Oxford (Tartars and Poles) and if Tim hadn't rolled four 3's in a row for morale against us could have caused us all kinds of problems and he is an extreme case of all foot.

I'll have a think and see if I can come up with anything else.

Cheers

Alasdair

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by hazelbark » Fri Dec 06, 2013 4:04 pm

I think the other piece that you keep overlooking is the need to be on a 4x6 table. 4x5 works very well at 800 pt in 15mm

timmy1
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Lieutenant-General - Nashorn
Posts: 3436
Joined: Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:39 pm
Location: Chelmsford, Essex, England

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by timmy1 » Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:34 pm

Nik

I find myself in agreement with you (that must be the third time ever), "historically plausible" is the key.

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by ravenflight » Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:06 am

martinvantol wrote:However, I don't want the only remedy against it to be to put down as much terrain as possible and maximise firepower.
Let me tell you how (I think) the battles would fall into place.

The Anglo-Dutch would take their two BG's of mounted, say "such is life" and use them as rear support. In the mean time the French would go 'holy hell, I've just spent about 1/3 of my total points on 4 BG's of mounted JUST so I can get 2 BG's of Superior.

The Anglo Dutch would STILL fight the same 'heaps of terrain' fight and the French would not be able to close with the enemy mounted because they would be hiding behind Foot with Regimental Guns.

The French would try to assault, lose a good % of their foot on the way in. Finally impact with the Anglo Dutch for 1 turn phase of 'advantaged' and probably lose that combat because of the Regimental Gun. Even if they win, AND the enemy disrupt, the chances are they have all of their bases and the French are down 1-2 bases meaning if anything it's an even fight, and more likely the French will lose just as many as they win and any they lose will make the unit close to autobreak (if they didn't autobreak on the way in).

Just my view.

alasdair2204
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Sergeant Major - SdKfz 234/2 8Rad
Posts: 600
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:40 pm

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by alasdair2204 » Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:36 am

ravenflight wrote:
martinvantol wrote:However, I don't want the only remedy against it to be to put down as much terrain as possible and maximise firepower.
Let me tell you how (I think) the battles would fall into place.

The Anglo-Dutch would take their two BG's of mounted, say "such is life" and use them as rear support. In the mean time the French would go 'holy hell, I've just spent about 1/3 of my total points on 4 BG's of mounted JUST so I can get 2 BG's of Superior.

The Anglo Dutch would STILL fight the same 'heaps of terrain' fight and the French would not be able to close with the enemy mounted because they would be hiding behind Foot with Regimental Guns.

The French would try to assault, lose a good % of their foot on the way in. Finally impact with the Anglo Dutch for 1 turn phase of 'advantaged' and probably lose that combat because of the Regimental Gun. Even if they win, AND the enemy disrupt, the chances are they have all of their bases and the French are down 1-2 bases meaning if anything it's an even fight, and more likely the French will lose just as many as they win and any they lose will make the unit close to autobreak (if they didn't autobreak on the way in).

Just my view.

You are absolutely right French wouldn't stand a chance, I certainly wouldn't use them, as usual becomes all about the anglo dutch

Alasdair

martinvantol
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 140
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 10:31 pm

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by martinvantol » Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:50 am

ravenflight wrote: The Anglo-Dutch would take their two BG's of mounted, say "such is life" and use them as rear support. In the mean time the French would go 'holy hell, I've just spent about 1/3 of my total points on 4 BG's of mounted JUST so I can get 2 BG's of Superior.
The Anglo Dutch would STILL fight the same 'heaps of terrain' fight and the French would not be able to close with the enemy mounted because they would be hiding behind Foot with Regimental Guns.
Fair enough as an opinion. But we are at some point going to have to experiment with something, go over the heads of some of the objectors and see how it goes. It's worth remembering that just having the experiment will create a competition with a different feel, and so should be something we should try to do.
Alasdair is correct in saying that currently we've got a formula to restrict the "pistols + artillery" armies, but haven't done anything to restrict the equally unhistorical "max shot, min horse" armies. D&G doesn't quite work at the moment, in the sense of encouraging historical armies (my opinion, although I think quite a few others agreed). These points probably also apply to some TYW armies (probably Weimarians and French).

Currently we have the following suggestions ...

(a) Armies are compelled to bring a certain % of mounted battle groups. There's disagreement over what would be the effect. Some say the Anglo-Dutch would not have enough foot to cover the table and would be compelled to fight with average mounted BGs against better French mounted - therefore too much of an advantage to the French. Others (like yourself) say the Anglo-Dutch could still hide amongst the terrain, hide away their mounted troops and nothing much would change.

(b) Do the above but increase the attractiveness of average mounted BGs. You could do this either by allowing average BGs of 6 bases, or by saying that an average BG of mounted auto-breaks at fewer than 2 bases. I haven't heard many criticisms of these approaches yet, although this is the point where you're starting to tinker with the rules, rather than just the lists. (This is possibly my preferred choice to start with.)

(c) Do the above but allow all D&G armies a superior BG of horse, if they can't have one currently (i.e. most). You might additionally have to insist on the French having some number of average horse. Alasdair has said this would penalise the French too much (ok, having to have half average horse might be rather harsh on them).

Is that a fair summary of the discussion on D&G currently? Where's the consensus on this issue?

All the best
Martin

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:09 pm

martinvantol wrote: These points probably also apply to some TYW armies (probably Weimarians and French).

At the risk of derailment, I'd be interested to hear why you think those two may be out of whack (and which French - Early 17th Century, TYW, Early Louis XIV or some or all of these).
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by nikgaukroger » Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:16 pm

martinvantol wrote:But we are at some point going to have to experiment with something, go over the heads of some of the objectors and see how it goes.
Spot on IMO.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

daveallen
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 542
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 9:21 am

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by daveallen » Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:07 pm

madaxeman wrote:Right.. in the absence of anything else, lets give it a go at the BHGS Challenge then and see if the roof caves in on the world.......
I am lost in a welter of suggestions and counter-suggestions across several threads!

Tim, can you post what is proposed (or has been decided) in a separate dedicated thread. Or maybe on the BHGS site.

Thanks,

Dave

ravenflight
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1966
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 6:52 am

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by ravenflight » Sun Dec 08, 2013 11:25 am

nikgaukroger wrote:
martinvantol wrote:But we are at some point going to have to experiment with something, go over the heads of some of the objectors and see how it goes.
Spot on IMO.
Well, kinda.

I really think that if you do 'this experiment' you wont find any (many) French players and so the experiment will be null.

Anyway - do what you wanna do. I really don't care as I'm so far away from being able to compete in a Brit comp that it really doesn't matter.

benjones1211
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:45 am

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by benjones1211 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:18 pm

I agree with Alasdair here, despite being an Infantry man myself, although my current French army has more than the minimum mounted. I enjoy the chance to take on any type of army and seeing if I can come up with a plan that can cope. Trying to limit lists can be very difficult and potentially damaging, the only option I half agree with is to make armies have a minimum infantry for artillery mix. Even there I can see some armies being adversely affected such as Ottomans.

Also as for limiting how many Superiors the French can have, or any other army I find just biased. A lot of the D&G armies can only have Average Horse but some of them can be armoured. The French are Superior but must be unarmoured, a unit of Armoured Average against an unarmoured Superior is statistically very close and really depends on the impact round. If the Average don't disrupt or lose a base then the superiors are at a disadvantage. (And if Impact Sword a real disadvantage)

The reason Alasdair's Superiors usually blow away the opposition is that they out number them but if an Anglo Dutch army had as many BG's of Average as the French have of Superiors in straight fight it would be very close.

As for giving other armies one superior WHY??

Ben

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by nikgaukroger » Sun Dec 08, 2013 1:47 pm

benjones1211 wrote: the only option I half agree with is to make armies have a minimum infantry for artillery mix.
Which I think is the only one being seriously considered for trying out to be fair.

Even there I can see some armies being adversely affected such as Ottomans.
Except they weren't when we finally got around to looking at the "or half the maximum number of those types of infantry that their army list allows if this is less." part of Richard's wording.

Also as for limiting how many Superiors the French can have, or any other army I find just biased.
I assume you mean limits that don't already exist in the lists - otherwise you're talking about nearly every list in every book. I'd also be a bit wary about making sweeping statements on this anyway, as the reality is that troops gradings in the lists are a bit arbitrary anyway being based on a somewhat subjective view of troop performance from an incomplete (and itself biased) historical record. The focus of the French, in the D&G context, is rather unfortunate as there are other armies in that book which can also field large number of Superior mounted as has been pointed out, and should be included in any discussion.



A lot of the D&G armies can only have Average Horse but some of them can be armoured. The French are Superior but must be unarmoured,
Well, apart from the part of the list they can be Armoured ...


a unit of Armoured Average against an unarmoured Superior is statistically very close and really depends on the impact round. If the Average don't disrupt or lose a base then the superiors are at a disadvantage. (And if Impact Sword a real disadvantage)
Essentially this was part of the calculation when deciding on the troops capabilities and grading.

The reason Alasdair's Superiors usually blow away the opposition is that they out number them but if an Anglo Dutch army had as many BG's of Average as the French have of Superiors in straight fight it would be very close.
Don't forget the auto-break points when looking at this. You also need to look at the uses of the troops outside of a straight mounted clash when looking at their relative utility for their army - this is a significant influence, IMO, on what troops people take when drawing up a list.

As for giving other armies one superior WHY??
Indeed.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory : Renaissance Wars : General Discussion”