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 

Victorian Renaissance Title 2016
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    leagueofancients.org.au Forum Index -> Renaissance
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 948

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

With only 8 players playing all 4 rounds, this year's event was our smallest Renaissance Tournament since the demise of DBR and the rise of FoGR. IMHO it certainly shows that a free form tournament is not a draw factor at all, and indeed the evidence favours the contrary conclusion.

I think Nick's point about the FoGR lists being open to tournament style gaming is one of the reasons why I am less enamoured of FoGR. But I fear that a free form tournament necessarily invites and wholly legitimises that style. There is nothing wrong per se in a player exploiting this if this the format used. The problem lies in the tournament format not the individual.

Conversely a tournament employing a good selection of robust well thought out scenarios should mean that no single style Wunderwaffen list will dominate. This the beauty of FoW. Although, no doubt first rate players like Michael G will always do well, just as Andrew Oates does in FoW.

For my part, I am happy to try to work up a body of new scenarios. It would be good too if others also stuck their hands up. With sufficient playtesting and prior notice, we should build up a good well thought out array of scenarios and avoid some of the issues from the last couple of FoGR tournaments without imposing all of the burden on the poor bunny sticking his hand up to run the event.

cheers
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nick



Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 133
Location: Bentleigh

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's a good idea, that probably needs longer planning than normally given.

I also think the artillery/Skirmishers interaction needs a house rule given that FOGR no longer seems to be supported by the authors.

What about shooting through Skirmishers is a -1 disadvantage for the artillery plus all rolls of 1 cause a hit against the friendly Skirmishers?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard



Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 1047
Location: Elsternwick

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Marks right .

Play an open tournament get armies that suit tournament play , scenarios were always seen as the" leveller "

He's also right in that the creation should be a group effort and done with plenty of time & play testing
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Michael Bornstein



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 812

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually we really had 10 players for both days as Stephen Green had to work in the morning and Richard Gordon had to take his sister to the airport at the last minute.

Numbers were similar to last year still making it the largest FoGR tournament in the country on average.

Scenarios or free form makes little difference as we do not get the people from Canberra or Sydney coming down to play, possibly because it is difficult to get time off to travel.

The artillery/skirmisher interaction is not an issue in the ECW/TYW period as their is less artillery and much fewer skirmishers.

The question with scenarios is getting them written and tested. Except for the ones done by Martin, Mark and myself, no one else has actually written anything.

Some of mine have worked well, Lutzen, Breitenfeld, Edgehill: others not so well. This could be improved by more testing but it would be nice to have some new ones done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Michael Bornstein



Joined: 22 Sep 2006
Posts: 812

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would also recommend that proposed scenarios be tested by people other than the designer,
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Richard



Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 1047
Location: Elsternwick

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh , the choice of army is quite important too
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
m.gray



Joined: 10 Dec 2006
Posts: 46

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 6:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm, don't know about having " legitimacy ".

On this occasion I didn't think there was a quantum difference.

I had 8 guns, 1 big infantry group.

I was drawn against European armies with
6 guns, 1 big infantry;
5 guns 1 big infantry 1 small, plus some poor baseliners
4 guns , 2 big infantry

with large amounts of mounted in all of them.

No one was going wall to wall pike and charging.

If we are talking about historical I don't think any rule system really works historically for a comp.
At the end there is no battle line and in a tight game everyone is chasing mounted and skirmishers all over the shop to get the points. Looks stupid.

I will say this for scenarios.

At least you can win without having to do the Benny Hill skirmishers chase, which would be a positive for many you would think.

The incredible irony about this discussion is that I was warned when I started FOGR that despite some success in our scenario tournaments it wouldn't work in a standard comp.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mick.G



Joined: 25 Jul 2013
Posts: 134
Location: Broadmeadows

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Interjection from a novice!

Question from a novice: could generic scenarios be "borrowed" from other games (like FOW) and be used? Would this upset the historic feel of the game?

Comment from a novice: I love games where you get to create your own version of an army. I like putting myself in the place of those great generals of the past and try to improve on their achievements.

Suggestion from a novice: as has been said; house rules can fix parts of the game that all are unsatisfied with - as long as all are satisfied with the house rule.

(Now I'm getting brave)

Rebuke from a novice: this discussion is about a game! It's meant to be satisfying AND FUN. Is it possible to accurately re-create the for of war using dice, tape measures and an all-seeing bird's eye view of the battle field?

P.S. I hope I haven't now excluded myself from the Brotherhood of FOGR as I have ordered a rule book, miniatures and hope to be ready for next year's tournament.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Morgan



Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 321
Location: Badger Creek

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 11:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think that the use of scenarios will remove the use of "super" lists. It just changes the parameters used in selecting the lists. The Ottoman list I used in last years comp was selected specifically with the use of scenarios in mind. I would not have chosen the same list for an open comp. Good list selection goes a long way to improving your chances of victory whatever the format. I am quite comfortable with my ability to select a good FoGR or FoGA list, but I still have not mastered FoW lists.

However I do find that massed artillery in FoGR is too powerful. I think to some degree this is a fault of the lists where artillery is over represented in some lists. There are a number of ways this could be changed such as:
forcing all artillery to deployed in the first batch of units or
adding additional costs for every artillery unit after the first (the Maurice rules use this).

However, as wargamers are an inventive lot I am sure someone will come up with some other troop combination that everyone else thinks is too powerful.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Richard Gordon



Joined: 15 Oct 2011
Posts: 563

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that scenarios can help level things and am happy to help with writing a few. From having done them on FOG N, they're great fun to design and play.

I don't think anyone should be castigated for the list they choose (so long as it's actually legal!). We all have different styles and types of armies we enjoy using. Massed artillery creating a hole for heavy mounted to rush through doesn't seem too unreasonable a tactic. And the nice thing about playing Mr Gray (in any period) is you know he's going to find a combination to try and do this, so it's always fun designing counter stategems.

Having said that, as a Renaissance historical novice, I find FOG R artillery very powerful especially when used in combination with LF and quite like the idea of a house rule to limit it (if the experts think this isn't historically correct).

Can someone email me the scenarios we have. I'm happy to start working on some.

Of more immediate importance, hopefully everyone now starts warming up their FOG N armies for the worlds biggest Napoleonic tournament in July. Be warned though - there will be scenarios and Michael will be using a lot of artillery and cavalry... Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 948

PostPosted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am happy to commit to publishing one new FoGR scenario a month for the next 6 months. If Richard G writes up several over the next few months and we get a couple from each of several other club members, then over the next six months, that will give us over a dozen.

The beauty of having such a large body of scenarios is diversity. And so you might be able to design a good army suitable for a fair percentage of the scenarios, but you may not even draw those particular scenarios at all on the day and you will almost certainly face scenarios where your would be super list finds a lot of kryptonite on the table...

IMHO the key to good scenarios is:
[1] Tactical problems posed by particular terrain features;
[2] Tactical problems posed by your order of march where part of your army may start off table or you face disadvantageous deployment requirements;
[3] Tactical problems posed by climactic (rain, snow, mud, thirst etc) or temporal issues (i.e. fighting in dim pre-dawn or early dusk lighting);
[4] Clever but novel victory conditions that reward more historical style army designs;
[5] A nice historical blurb explaining the context and outcome of the battle on which your scenario is based to give period flavour.

The aim being for each scenario to create a reasonably balanced but challenging and fun game with a dash of history thrown in for good measure. That is why play-testing of each scenario by a good number of players is essential to ensure that there are no unforeseen holes and that the overall balance is fair.

cheers
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nick



Joined: 18 Mar 2007
Posts: 133
Location: Bentleigh

PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 2:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Richard Gordon wrote:
I don't think anyone should be castigated for the list they choose (so long as it's actually legal!). We all have different styles and types of armies we enjoy using. Massed artillery creating a hole for heavy mounted to rush through doesn't seem too unreasonable a tactic. And the nice thing about playing Mr Gray (in any period) is you know he's going to find a combination to try and do this, so it's always fun designing counter stategems.

Having said that, as a Renaissance historical novice, I find FOG R artillery very powerful especially when used in combination with LF and quite like the idea of a house rule to limit it (if the experts think this isn't historically correct).

I don't think there was any castigating of individuals or comments that their armies were not legal or legitimate, but rather an observation that certain rules were driving army choice and use away from history. As more people do this it becomes necessary to follow to some degree otherwise your army becomes hopelessly outmatched, which is why a number of other armies featured more artillery and mounted than normal.

There is always the case that the nature of tournaments pushes armies away from their historical structures, but it depends on how much. One of the purposes of setting periods is to try to create games with historical feel.

I don't have a real issue with powerful artillery in the Renaissance period, as it was very useful, particularly, for example, the French and the Spanish both used it successfully in the Italian Wars. However, some rules are problematic, such as the absurd benefit of light infantry as I noted.

The other key issue that makes FOGR less historical - which in some ways is not surprising as it was written as a tournament set - is the lack of a wing/command structure. Typically when people play with reasonable historical structures that hasn't mattered, but when mounted can fly all around the table it becomes more noticeable.

As for scenarios I think they will work better if armies are allowed multiple lists, providing options for different circumstances, and perhaps some of different size. Trying to design a balanced list for every eventuality undermines the feel of scenarios IMO. A nice thing about scenarios is to get a more historical level (ie: more) of terrain on the table, but if there is a variety of terrain density then maybe list options become more important, or maybe not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
leadgend



Joined: 03 Oct 2006
Posts: 681
Location: Brunswick

PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The ideal way to play scenarios based on historical battles is to have the armies provided to use with the scenario. It does of course mean letting other people touch your figures so this has usually not been a popular idea.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 948

PostPosted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

We tried players sharing armies 20 years ago in paired doubles competitions. Most people hated it. Not a good idea at all!

I have no problem with an army drawing the odd scenario that it is illsuited for. It can be fun and challenging. I lost count of the number of times my British Paras fought on open tables against stupid Panzer 38T swarms in FoW. You pay your money, take your chances and take your lumps...

Most armies historically did not have the luxury of planning their exact makeup to suit situations and I for one would stick to the tested concept of players fielding a larger more offensive oriented 800 point list and a smaller 650 defensive oriented list. Such design is part of the fun and challenge of a scenario based tournament.

cheers
Mark
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steve Green



Joined: 22 May 2012
Posts: 197
Location: Woodend

PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2016 9:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One thing I have picked up from occasionally looking on the tournament section of the Slitherine website is that some of the tournaments in the UK have arbitrary list restrictions to control (to some extent) how armies are made up - e.g.:
- at least half of all units (infantry and cavalry separately) must be average
- for each base of artillery one average unit must be deployed
- no more than "x" number of superior or elite units.
There were a few others that I can't remember right now, and not all are used in every comp.

I am not necessarily advocating this, but it is something to consider if there is a desire to level the playing field somewhat. I could see problems with enforcing this in certain circumstances for certain lists, but it is something to think about.
_________________
The Dead Cost Nothing!
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
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
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