Page 4 of 7

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 6:50 pm
by nikgaukroger
martinvantol wrote:
I'd be happy to have a go with the artillery changes - there seems to be consensus. I'm sure it'll be an improvement and I hope it works the way we intend. Which comps will it apply to?

All the best
Martin
To any comp where the organisers wanted to implement it. Tim could possibly tell us whether the BHGS would be using it ...

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 7:51 am
by alasdair2204
Schnockel wrote:I have to admit I am on the opposite side. I look at the western and eastern lists and find they have plenty of 'normilization' of the armies just in their minimums. Also, the idea of the ranges given in the army books is to allow the player to adjust an army based on his preferences and prejudices. Some of us handle cavalry better than infantry. Some handle skirmishers better than they do battle troops. At least for the above mentioned lists, the artillery limitations seem to be pretty restrictive. They also aren't as effective as one might hope, but they do have an effect. This whole system is based on NOT being historical, in that both sides are always equal. The system is set up for competitions.

If players want to gimmick their armies with a certain type of BG, they will eventually come across an opponent they are ineffective against. I say just leave it as it is and adjust the problem army list minimums with addendum.

Dave
I totally agree with this, yesterday at the Southern league there were three of the same mounted armies that came in the top five at warfare and none came in the top 8 at all, it is far more a case of working out a strategy of how to beat these armies, I feel we are looking at making changes to suit one persons view of the game rather than anything else. As I have said before I for several (Dagestan, Tatars) years played all mounted with no artillery but was forced to take artillery after regularly getting beaten by Pike and Shot armies who just walked me of the table. I still think we are massively over reacting to one competition, and as I have said above the next competition yesterday did not have anything like the same results.

cheers

Alasdair

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:42 pm
by rbodleyscott
Alasdair wrote: As I have said before I for several (Dagestan, Tatars) years played all mounted with no artillery but was forced to take artillery after regularly getting beaten by Pike and Shot armies who just walked me of the table.
Agreed. Which does rather suggest that the only restriction required (if any) is a required minimum of non-light foot per medium/heavy artillery unit.

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 8:49 pm
by gibby
I think that was almost the consensus anyway and agree that is still needed.
cheers
Jim

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Mon Dec 02, 2013 11:08 pm
by martinvantol
alasdair2204 wrote:
I totally agree with this, yesterday at the Southern league there were three of the same mounted armies that came in the top five at warfare and none came in the top 8 at all, it is far more a case of working out a strategy of how to beat these armies, I feel we are looking at making changes to suit one persons view of the game rather than anything else. As I have said before I for several (Dagestan, Tatars) years played all mounted with no artillery but was forced to take artillery after regularly getting beaten by Pike and Shot armies who just walked me of the table. I still think we are massively over reacting to one competition, and as I have said above the next competition yesterday did not have anything like the same results.

cheers

Alasdair
Hi Alasdair ...
There was the major difference, however, that this was a table with pre-set terrain. Terrain on most of the tables was a lot more dense than max mounted armies would choose.
Interesting that you brought something different. I suspect it's because you saw this?
Congratulations on winning, by the way. Did you enjoy using something different?

:-)

All the best
Martin

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 9:48 am
by daveallen
rbodleyscott wrote:Agreed. Which does rather suggest that the only restriction required (if any) is a required minimum of non-light foot per medium/heavy artillery unit.
Unit??? Are you taking this WRG/Gush theme a bit far perhaps? :?

I too am not sure this is a good idea, especially as there are armies where the minimum compulsory foot would be doubled simply because of the minimum compulsory artillery.

How about applying the restriction to non-compulsory artillery - each base of non-compulsory Med/Hvy Artillery requiring at least x bases of non-compulsory non-light foot.

Having said that, can I make a plea for this not to apply at Britcon? Especially as some of us will be using the same armies a week later in the worlds. It will also act as a control for the experiment...

Dave

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:20 am
by nikgaukroger
daveallen wrote:
I too am not sure this is a good idea, especially as there are armies where the minimum compulsory foot would be doubled simply because of the minimum compulsory artillery.

Could you identify them - off hand I can't think of any but as I suspect they are armies in which I have little interest that might be no surprise :D

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 10:28 am
by daveallen
Early Russian, Kalmar Union, Later Imperial Austrian, to name but three. Though only the Russians would have to double their minimum.

Dave

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:14 am
by madaxeman
daveallen wrote:Early Russian, Kalmar Union, Later Imperial Austrian, to name but three. Though only the Russians would have to double their minimum.

Dave
So only the Russians then out of that list..?

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 11:20 am
by nikgaukroger
daveallen wrote:Early Russian, Kalmar Union, Later Imperial Austrian, to name but three. Though only the Russians would have to double their minimum.

Dave
So only one list then would actually require doubling, one needs a 1.5x multiplier and the Austrians already meet the minimum if they take their shot only BGs as MF not LF.

You know, all those would fall into the "whoop-de-fucking-do" category for me as being no real problem.

In fact it makes me wonder what would happen if we just said that all non-artillery minima in all lists were doubled - effectively raises the minima for lists from c. 200 points to c. 400 points.

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:25 pm
by nikgaukroger
And now to be a little less grumpy about Dave's point :)

In reality I think there are probably more lists than you might initially think that would have their infantry minima raised if it were required that 6 bases of non-light foot were fielded for each base of medium or heavy artillery. IIRC you can add the Later Imperial Spanish to the ones you named for example. However, I would suggest that as the list minima are so low I would suggest that effectively raising them slightly is of no real consequence and will not make armies chosen from those lists less historically based (and probably more).

I very much doubt that the vast majority of players would not find the extra requirement onerous or unreasonable and that the variety of armies seen at competitions would not suffer, and nor would player enjoyment.

I also note that nobody seems to be worried that the Qing would be forced to take infantry that they currently do not need to take ... :shock:

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 1:58 pm
by kevinj
I also note that nobody seems to be worried that the Qing would be forced to take infantry that they currently do not need to take
I took 40 bases in my army for Warfare. I have another 8. How many more would I need? I may need to paint the crossbowmen, at least they're only 2 points a base!

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:09 pm
by madaxeman
kevinj wrote:
I also note that nobody seems to be worried that the Qing would be forced to take infantry that they currently do not need to take
I took 40 bases in my army for Warfare. I have another 8. How many more would I need? I may need to paint the crossbowmen, at least they're only 2 points a base!
Wouldn't Richard's "up to half the maximum" capture this anyway?

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:17 pm
by madaxeman
nikgaukroger wrote: ... as the list minima are so low I would suggest that effectively raising them slightly is of no real consequence and will not make armies chosen from those lists less historically based (and probably more).
Or you could just say "if more guns than the minima are taken, there is a requirement to field 6 bases of HF or MF per gun, up to a maximum of half of the allowed maxima of such types in the army".

Under the principle of changing as little as possible....

As a final thought, would you include Mob in the list of mandatory foot types? They can't exactly run away... and players might also be choosing really cheap foote anyway?

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:18 pm
by kevinj
If I were being serious it probably would! :twisted:

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:20 pm
by nikgaukroger
madaxeman wrote:
kevinj wrote:
I also note that nobody seems to be worried that the Qing would be forced to take infantry that they currently do not need to take
I took 40 bases in my army for Warfare. I have another 8. How many more would I need? I may need to paint the crossbowmen, at least they're only 2 points a base!
Wouldn't Richard's "up to half the maximum" capture this anyway?

Qing have more than enough infantry in their list to meet the 6 bases per med/hvy artillery idea without even needing the safety net. However, my point was following Dave's post that nobody seems to be bothered that this list would be forced to take infantry if it takes med/hvy artillery, where as at present it does not have to (for historical reasons), but have raised questions about other lists who would have to field additional infantry but to a lesser degree than the Qing. I guess that is because people would always take the infantry anyway :roll:

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:24 pm
by alasdair2204
As you know I don't agree with this and feel that the competition scene will then be dominated by all infantry armies, as it is at the weekend Bens infantry french blew Dons mounted army away and in later / open competitions it will be a world of Anglo-Dutch and later Danes, no one is making them take 3 average horse

just my thoughts again

Alasdair

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 2:33 pm
by nikgaukroger
madaxeman wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote: ... as the list minima are so low I would suggest that effectively raising them slightly is of no real consequence and will not make armies chosen from those lists less historically based (and probably more).
Or you could just say "if more guns than the minima are taken, there is a requirement to field 6 bases of HF or MF per gun, up to a maximum of half of the allowed maxima of such types in the army".

Under the principle of changing as little as possible....
You could, however, I suspect for a lot of armies (the majority?) it will make no difference which way you word it so I'd stick with the suggested as it is, IMO, slightly simpler (but to be fair there is little in it).

As a final thought, would you include Mob in the list of mandatory foot types? They can't exactly run away... and players might also be choosing really cheap foote anyway?
Personally I'd stick to "real" troops.

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 3:31 pm
by Maniakes
alasdair2204 wrote:As you know I don't agree with this and feel that the competition scene will then be dominated by all infantry armies, as it is at the weekend Bens infantry french blew Dons mounted army away and in later / open competitions it will be a world of Anglo-Dutch and later Danes, no one is making them take 3 average horse

just my thoughts again

Alasdair
Isn't the best way foward to try this out once or twice - as part of another "Theme" that the competition organiser chooses. Would go well with a 30YW overall Theme. Then see how popular it is and if it has any unintended consequences. I wouldn't want to see it introduced for every competition either - variety is what we want. Lots of different formats (like the preselected terrain for example) have been really good for keeping things fresh so far. This could be another one - with the bonus that it might encourage some people to stay in the FOG:R scene who might otherwise drift away.

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Posted: Tue Dec 03, 2013 4:46 pm
by madaxeman
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.......