"Typical Army" Restrictions

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

Moderators: hammy, Slitherine Core, FOGR Design

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 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:13 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
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.
[/quote]

So where does this leave the discussion on D&G armies currently?
I'm perfectly happy to give this infantry/artillery mix a try (even though it's not my personal preference). But I don't see how it addresses the D&G issues.
Where we have D&G armies they're not historical. I haven't seen anybody argue the opposite.
Where suggestions have been put forward there have been objections, but usually without counter-suggestions.

Thanks

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 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:49 pm

martinvantol wrote:
So where does this leave the discussion on D&G armies currently?
I'm perfectly happy to give this infantry/artillery mix a try (even though it's not my personal preference). But I don't see how it addresses the D&G issues.
Where we have D&G armies they're not historical. I haven't seen anybody argue the opposite.
Where suggestions have been put forward there have been objections, but usually without counter-suggestions.

Thanks

Martin

I think this leaves us at the point where somebody running a D&G period comp has to say they are going to include some form of restrictions. Which is where we are at with any form of restrictions - as although Tim mentioned using the artillery one at The Challenge there has been no official announcement I am aware of.

Perhaps this is your chance to put in a bid for a round of the Southern league?
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

donm2
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by donm2 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:21 am

Guys,
Perhaps this is your chance to put in a bid for a round of the Southern league?
Not sure this would add anything to a very successful format and I for one would not want to see it tinkered with.

Don

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 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:05 am

donm2 wrote:Guys,
Perhaps this is your chance to put in a bid for a round of the Southern league?
Not sure this would add anything to a very successful format and I for one would not want to see it tinkered with.

Don

And here we run into a very typical problem with wargamers IMO. On one hand we have an issue that people think needs addressing* but when it comes to actually making a change they shy away from doing so which can only perpetuate the issue.

I note that one "donm2" previously said:
donm2 wrote:I whole heartily agree with you. I have struggled with my various irregular armies for sometime now, but decided I would fight fire with fire for Warfare.

I am more than happy to play with more balanced armies if the competitions force this, but if you want to challenge for places, them you may be forced down this route.
Apologies to Don for picking on him for this example, he isn't the only one.




* as a generality, clearly there is not a unanimous view.
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

Maniakes
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 220
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:15 pm

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by Maniakes » Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:21 am

nikgaukroger wrote: And here we run into a very typical problem with wargamers IMO. On one hand we have an issue that people think needs addressing* but when it comes to actually making a change they shy away from doing so which can only perpetuate the issue.
To be fair the original issue that was raised was that max mounted/heavy artillery/max dragoon armies might "break" the game. Whether you believe that or not, a concensus has been reached about what could be tried to prevent that and now we just have to wait for some evidence (and it sounds like the proposal will be tried at some point). All the other stuff comes from the fact that the Internet runs at faster speeds than the competition cycle. So we have swerved off into a discussion about things that may be "unhistorical" rather than things that might "break the game" - this is surely a concern for individual competition organisers and what Themes they want to put on and what restrictions to have on those themes.

donm2
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by donm2 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:14 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
donm2 wrote:Guys,
Perhaps this is your chance to put in a bid for a round of the Southern league?
Not sure this would add anything to a very successful format and I for one would not want to see it tinkered with.

Don

And here we run into a very typical problem with wargamers IMO. On one hand we have an issue that people think needs addressing* but when it comes to actually making a change they shy away from doing so which can only perpetuate the issue.

I note that one "donm2" previously said:
donm2 wrote:I whole heartily agree with you. I have struggled with my various irregular armies for sometime now, but decided I would fight fire with fire for Warfare.

I am more than happy to play with more balanced armies if the competitions force this, but if you want to challenge for places, them you may be forced down this route.
Apologies to Don for picking on him for this example, he isn't the only one.




* as a generality, clearly there is not a unanimous view.
Nik,

My comment was made after Warfare and was aimed at mainstream competitions. The Southern League has overcome the problem by very carefully thought out themed rounds.

There has been no complaints about any round of the Southern League, in fact we have had the complete opposite and we have had large numbers of new players entering.

The problem is not within the Southern league, but the mainstream competitions.

I am sure you can use your influence to bring about change in the mainstream, but it may be worth taking a vote amongst the top ranked 30+ players to make sure you have a consensus first.

Don

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 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:26 pm

donm2 wrote:
Nik,

My comment was made after Warfare and was aimed at mainstream competitions.

Fair enough.

Must say, as an aside, that given its numbers/popularity I had considered the Southern League quite mainstream :shock:
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

donm2
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by donm2 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:46 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:
donm2 wrote:
Nik,

My comment was made after Warfare and was aimed at mainstream competitions.

Fair enough.

Must say, as an aside, that given its numbers/popularity I had considered the Southern League quite mainstream :shock:
Nik,

The Southern League has just completed it's first year. I have played in the FoGR competition at both Britcon and Warfare for the last three years and just to bring us back to subject, it was after Warfare that Martin posted. He hasn't included the recent Southern League round in any of his follow up posts.

Don

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 » Mon Dec 09, 2013 11:47 pm

donm2 wrote:
Nik,

The Southern League has just completed it's first year. I have played in the FoGR competition at both Britcon and Warfare for the last three years and just to bring us back to subject, it was after Warfare that Martin posted. He hasn't included the recent Southern League round in any of his follow up posts.

Don
Maybe because its late, but I'm not sure I quite see your point here.

As I see it the subject Martin raised was one of a general trend that he saw as undesirable - something you seemed to agree with in your initial response (as I quoted) to his posting. As we are discussing a trend to some degree any single competition is of lesser importance than the wider picture - again my understanding of Martin's posting was not that Warfare was the single case but "one too many" that prompted him to post his concerns about the way he sees FoG:R going in the future. I'm sure we'd like to hear Martin's view post the final round of the SL as (a) he did quite well IIRC and (b) it was slap bang in the period which seems to have the issue in his view (as I understand it). However, as I mention I believe it is trends we need to be looking at and we must be careful not to just look at the last comp and draw conclusions either way based just on that (which again to give him credit is what Martin has, I believe, been trying not to do).
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

donm2
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 208
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 6:24 pm

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by donm2 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 7:53 pm

Nik,

I do not play in many competition these days, teenage children see to that. This year I only played in four mainstream competitions and two of those were doubles. Usk, Devizes, Britcon and Warfare. I am not in a position to comment on the many other competitions or trends in those competitions, however there was a lot of mounted armies at Warfare and I believe this was because many, including myself, have tried to beat such armies with other combinations and failed and so decided to fight fire with fire. In my case the army with all the elephants I used at Britcon was not allowed because of the date restrictions.

I played in the 25mm competition at Slimbridge, but 25mm is dominated by infantry armies because of the lack of open flanks.

My personal view is that competitions that centre around the TYW period encourage mounted armies and not the balanced pike and shot armies of the period. The only other competition I played in this year of a similar period was at Devizes, but the allowed lists did not include a massed mounted option.

If balanced armies is what we would all like to see, then I think this can still be best done with well chosen themed periods and a ratio of artillery to infantry units.

Don

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 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 8:15 pm

Thanks for that Don :D

And I concur wholeheartedly.
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

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 » Tue Dec 10, 2013 9:58 pm

nikgaukroger wrote:Thanks for that Don :D

And I concur wholeheartedly.
We already do reatrictions in the sense that you MUST buy the minimums. Wouldn't a lot of the problems simply disappear/be limited by stating all of 'these' armies must have 18/24/30/36 bases of foot etc?

I mean, if you've bought 4 BGs of foot, aren't you already limited on how much mounted you can field?

Also, I'd move cautiously, as I feel that any change will have unexpected results. For example, perhaps an army that isn't particularly used now could become a real tourney tiger and in six months time Martin or someone else will be suggesting sweeping changes.

We have to remember that most people (many who probably don't post here) only have 1 or 2 armies. If changes completely hamstring an army, chances are they will not be able to paint up a new one in 6 weeks, Unless your name is Simon. This may completely alienate those people making then choose Flames of War or Saga instead, and I can tell you, in Australia at least we CANNOT afford to lose a single player.

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 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 9:54 am

ravenflight wrote:
nikgaukroger wrote:Thanks for that Don :D

And I concur wholeheartedly.
We already do reatrictions in the sense that you MUST buy the minimums.

The list minima are so low as to be fairly ineffective in this - the situation has arisen with these minima after all. Recall that the troop minima are only of the order of 200 points in most list.

Wouldn't a lot of the problems simply disappear/be limited by stating all of 'these' armies must have 18/24/30/36 bases of foot etc?

I mean, if you've bought 4 BGs of foot, aren't you already limited on how much mounted you can field?

As I have previously mentioned I suspect that if you simply doubled the list minima (excluding artillery and probably Light Troops), making them effectively about 400 points, you would indeed address many of the concerns raised. However, you would almost certainly need to do a trawl through all the lists to sort out some exceptions and what to do with *ed minima. It could easily end up being quite messy. Additionally the artillery:foot bases ration suggestion is quite nicely nuanced as it does not remove the (historical) possibilities for largely mounted armies, although some like the Later Louis XIV are probably still breaking historical credibility.

Also, lets not forget that a lot of players like a lot of choice when designing lists - the alchemy involved is all part of the fun.

Also, I'd move cautiously, as I feel that any change will have unexpected results. For example, perhaps an army that isn't particularly used now could become a real tourney tiger and in six months time Martin or someone else will be suggesting sweeping changes.
In this respect the artillery:infantry suggestion is I think quite safe as it is not making actually list changes, just an influence on the choices within the lists.
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 » Wed Dec 11, 2013 8:59 pm

donm2 wrote: The Southern League has just completed it's first year. I have played in the FoGR competition at both Britcon and Warfare for the last three years and just to bring us back to subject, it was after Warfare that Martin posted. He hasn't included the recent Southern League round in any of his follow up posts.
Hi Don,
You're right that I didn't mention the recent SL round.
I did notice the mounted armies didn't do so well. However, this was a competition with pre-set terrain. On the "agricultural" tables the terrain was heavier than those mounted armies tend to manage to arrange and (more to the point) was evenly distributed. In a standard game it seems to be easier for the mounted army to arrange the terrain to create bigger open spaces. So not a competition for the mounted armies really. It was interesting that Alasdair himself brought something very different (which I expect was a good judgement of the terrain rules).
I liked the comp, although I got three historically plausible match-ups and all three games were well contested. The format of pre-set terrain but random table allocation was interesting. And when it's a one-day comp it's good to have a third game.

Martin

madaxeman
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Major-General - Jagdtiger
Posts: 2932
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 5:15 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: "Typical Army" Restrictions

Post by madaxeman » Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:07 am

martinvantol wrote:
donm2 wrote: He hasn't included the recent Southern League round in any of his follow up posts.
Hi Don,
You're right that I didn't mention the recent SL round.
I did notice the mounted armies didn't do so well.
Have you been taking a sneak preview of the reports I'm currently finishing up for my Polish army's games then :twisted:
http://www.madaxeman.com
Become a fan of Madaxeman on Facebook at Madaxeman.com's Facebook Page.

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 » Thu Dec 12, 2013 8:38 pm

Tim

Hey, unlike Britcon 2011, your flank march did turn up in game 1...

Post Reply

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