leagueofancients.org.au Forum Index leagueofancients.org.au
League of Ancients
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Limits on armies in tournaments

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    leagueofancients.org.au Forum Index -> Renaissance
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Richard



Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 1026
Location: Elsternwick

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 1:57 am    Post subject: Limits on armies in tournaments Reply with quote

Interesting restrictions for a big tournament in the UK

Field of Glory: Renaissance
EUROPE’S TRAGEDY
Any European army 1618-1648 (including Russia and Turkey).
The following list modifications and additional restrictions will apply:
To represent usual historical proportions in European armies of this period, ignoring artillery, the army cannot include more than 1 battle foot unit more than it has battle mounted units. (e.g. If you have 5 BGs of mounted battle troops, you can have up to 6 BGs of foot battle troops).
No more than half of all mounted battle troops can be Superior or Elite. Armies with insufficient Superior mounted battle troops in their army list to achieve this limit can upgrade whichever type of Average mounted troops in their list is most expensive in points to Superior to achieve the above limit.
No more than half of all foot battle troops can be Superior or Elite.
The army must have at least 6 bases of foot battle troops per heavy or medium artillery base.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LyleD



Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 559
Location: East Brunswick

PostPosted: Thu Sep 29, 2016 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just my ten cents worth of opinion, but the "restrictions" expressed for that tournament don't seem to be clearly thought out.

1. The first restriction limits the number of foot BG, which I didn't think was a problem with most army composition. It still allows people to maximise their cavalry. This is fine for armies like Russians, Poles and Ottomans, but atypical for most European armies.

2. The second rule puts a limit on the quality of mounted troops, which is probably more realistic. However, it then allows people to upgrade their average troops which seems to contradict the original intent. Why should historically average troops be allowed this upgrade? To make armies more even in competition?

3. The restriction on the quality of foot troops seems fine, but why don't they have the cavalry "upgrade" mentioned in the previous rule. Wouldn't it be easier just to limit the number of superior/elite BG an army could have and let players make the choice of whether they wish to have good cavalry, foot or a bit of both.

4. I can understand the last rule as it tries to prevent artillery parks that aren't a feature of this period in Europe.

Overall, I think this type of tinkering only works in a restricted time period and geographic area and they got that right. I'm not so sure about rules 1 to 3.

Lyle
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 929

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Lyle's points are generally right:

1. There is no need to restrict the number of foot units - how else are you ever going to field Montrose Scots or Irish Rebels etc etc. Indeed, I think any such limit should be the other way around, i.e. you can only have one more cavalry unit than foot units. Save for one or two very rare isolated examples, most European armies of the period 1618-1648 were preponderantly foot (including Russians and Ottomans, Poles were probably the one exception and maybe Hungarian Rebels too).

2. The limit on Elite or Super cavalry makes sense but there is no reason to justify any ahistorical upgrading of average cavalry units to meet some tournament paradigm... Much as I would love to have some Superior Horse with my Montrose foot Razz Razz

3. The limit on Elite or Super foot makes sense and I for one see no need to ahistorically upgrade average foot for the same reason as above.

I am all in favour of tinkering to get the cheese out of the FoGR lists - I always liked the FoGR rules but found the lists hugely disappointing (they were literally plagiarised DBR lists prepared with a view to tournament style play rather than historical accuracy). But I think our concept of scenarios for tournaments is one really good way to resolve this problem. By ensuring that scenarios encourage more historical army compositions that fixes much of this. And a limit on Grand batteries 200 or 300 years before Napoleon makes sense to me!

cheers
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    leagueofancients.org.au Forum Index -> Renaissance All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group