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 

Next year's November tournament theme
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    leagueofancients.org.au Forum Index -> Ancients
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Theme for 2017 ADLG tournament?
1200 to 1550
46%
 46%  [ 7 ]
1300 to 1550
33%
 33%  [ 5 ]
Late Middle Ages Chapter, excluding other lists
6%
 6%  [ 1 ]
None of the above, some other era (please tell us which!)
13%
 13%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 15

Author Message
Tyler
Site Admin


Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 629

PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 3:19 am    Post subject: Next year's November tournament theme Reply with quote

Hi all, just wanted to make a post discussing next year's tournament theme.

Previously there has been plenty of good-natured debate about what theme we should use for the annual ancients/medieval tournaments, if any theme at all...and a bit of debate over how this whole thing should be decided, ie whether it should be popular vote, decided by the committee, or decided by the umpire, who does most of the work.

I think we can all agree that, however it came to be, this year's ADLG tournament, covering 400BC to 400AD, was a great success. As a player I had a great time, and I think it was great for the club.

So, on to next year's theme. During the tournament I discussed it with a number of the players, and everyone seemed happy with a "late medieval" theme for 2017. It's nice and different from our last two themes, and if we leave the geography open, then it also includes some of the later American and Eastern lists, such as Samurai and Chinese, which don't tend to be popular enough for their own tournament, but are a lot of fun if mixed in with the late European lists.

I proposed that we run it from about 1350 to 1550. Others convinced me that we should widen that a bit more, to start at 1300 or 1200.

Others have argued that we should, for simplicity's sake, just go with the relevant chapter in the ADLG book. That excludes a number of lists that start earlier, but continue on into the later period; hence why I prefer to use a chronological date, so that all the armies from that era get to make an appearance.

I've spoken to the committee, and they all agree that a late medieval theme, without geographic restrictions, would be good. It's just the little details.

I thought I would take it to the club before any final decisions were made. So, club, what do you like? Don't just vote in the poll. If you have strong feelings one way or another, let us know why!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 58
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I reckon full, no holds barred, bring whatever the hell you want, open needs to be tried a bit. A few of these "themed" comps just seem to produce a pretty narrow range of armies at the top.

The one you just had seemed to allow cataphracts to float to the top. The last results I saw from Europe were for an earlier period and pretty much all the top pics were Heavy Chariot based. It would perhaps be good to see what are some of the picks people gravitate to in an open format.


Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LyleD



Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 564
Location: East Brunswick

PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 6:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I went for 1200 onwards. How can you have a medieval theme and leave out the crusader sack of Constantinople, the Albigensian crusades, the Mongol incursions into Eastern Europe, Alexander Nevski, William Wallace, and decisive battles like Bouvines, Largs, and Evesham?

I like fairly broad themes and I would be happy for the League to rotate through Biblical (pre 400BC), Classical (400BC to 400AD), Dark Ages (500-1100AD), and Medieval (1200 onwards) themes as long as there was enough support for each.

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



Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 154
Location: Camperdown

PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It looks like a vote with a fairly narrow range of desirable choices. Seems to be the way with democracies these days...

I am of the same opinion as Marty and would like to see an open tournament. I do enjoy a theme but perhaps not every year (I doubt I will get to Canberra).

To add to what he has stated, I would ask everyone to consider the issue of assembling a viable list. It is a different challenge when one can be assured that the army will be unlikely to face knights or heavy chariots (Tyler?!) Choosing a list from anywhere in history adds an increased complexity when catering for potentially any opponent.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Tyler
Site Admin


Joined: 06 Jul 2009
Posts: 629

PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don't feel constrained by the few choices in this poll. I cherish no plans to paint myself orange and disenfranchise half the club!

Personally I like themes. And Lyle's point about picking three very broad ones to rotate through would make a very good system. But if there were strong support for a wide open event, that could work too.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 949

PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the LoA is absolutely on the right track with themes. The look and the feel of a themed tournament is usually tremendous, look at last weekend by way of example! Almost all historical wargames rules work better for games between historical opponents, and imho ADLG is no exception to that general principle.

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



Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 323
Location: Badger Creek

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 3:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the theme idea as long as the theme is not too narrow and I prefer date theme's to the somewhat artificial list separation in the ALDG rulebook. There are two main criticisms of theme tournaments:
1. Not everyone has an army that will fit the theme.
2. The same army will be used by multiple players.

I don't think these criticisms are all that valid with ADLG.

ADLG armies are smaller than FoG or DBM armies so if we make an early choice of theme it gives players a good amount of time to get an army prepared for the tournament. For those players who don't want to commit to a new army there are always club members who are happy to loan figures. Perhaps the club should look at acquiring a medieval army for people to use.

The November comp had 17 players and only two armies were duplicated (Triumvirate Roman and Palmyran). While there was some similarities between the Palmyran armies the two Triumvirate Roman armies were very differently structured. It seems that many more armies are competition viable in ADLG, or perhaps we haven't found the tournament tigers yet.

So my vote is for a theme, but if we are going Medieval then I think that we should push the date back to 1200. It will make more options available while maintaining the Medieval theme.

Regards
Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 58
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It seems that many more armies are competition viable in ADLG


It would seem odd to conclude that after a comp where 3 of the top 5 armies are cataphract based. Little differences between essentially similar lists may have been papered over a bit but it would seem that certain 'types" of army are still going to dominate, especially in theme.

I still can't, for example, see my Inca appearing in any comp (open or theme). I've come to realise that whenever a new set of rules emerges one of the claims people make is "everything can be viable now" and it never turns out to be true once you have played a bit.

I like ADLG but I think it is probably better to be realistic about our expectations and to understand what playing themes is going to mean (ie an easier to predict set of armies at the top).

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LyleD



Joined: 25 Sep 2006
Posts: 564
Location: East Brunswick

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I didn't play the Kushan army under Brett, but the two Palmyran armies under Alex and Andrew seemed to have a full complement of allowable Romans and other light troops. So while the cataphracts provided a cutting edge, I don't think I would characterize them as "cataphract based".

A bit off topic, but including our tournament and the events listed on the ADLG page for the last 6 months (28 events - some themed and some open), there was no winning army listed twice.

Open competition winners were Assyrian, Sassanid Persian, Ghaznavids, Yuan Chinese, Feudal Hungarian, Medieval Scots, Mamluks, Nubian, Numidian, Nikephorian Byzantine, Huns and WOtR English.

Classical winners were Seleucid, Republican Roman, Ancient Spanish, Classical Indian, Bactrian/Indo-Greek and Han Chinese.

If you want to look at the armies and actual tournament winning percentages then these are available on the ADLG site under "Rankings". A lot of armies with a 40-60% winning rate, which makes me think that the skill of the player is still probably the major determinant.

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



Joined: 22 May 2012
Posts: 198
Location: Woodend

PostPosted: Sun Nov 27, 2016 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm very happy to continue with the themes, as long as there are generous benefactors at the club willing to help out with loan armies. Although it would be interesting to see what armies people would select for a totally open comp.
The other thing is will it remain a 200pt comp? I understand that Cancon is a 250pt comp, which I think might be fun - more toys on the table is always a good thing Very Happy
_________________
The Dead Cost Nothing!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Richard



Joined: 12 Oct 2006
Posts: 1052
Location: Elsternwick

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CanCon will be

"Cancon 2018 restricted to the following periods:
1) Dark Ages
2) Feudal Ages
3) Medieval Ages
4) Americas restricted to those lists that were not available in Cancon 2017"

How about we just do that ?

As to points , 2018 CanCon hasn't confirmed points ( depends on this first one ) . Personally I liked 200,its an easier entry level for new players & not too daunting if you wanted to paint an army .

Plus I plan to have more trade stands on the Sunday so time to buy toys is good ! Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 58
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't mind the idea of 200 points (although I prefer more toys on the table). I do, however, think that if we play 200 it should be 3 games a day (maybe 2 on day 3 to allow a quick get away). Why turn up to an 8-9 hour a day competition and play for 4 or so hours? Especially given people should be quicker with the rules by then.

In any case 2018 is a long way off.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin Morgan



Joined: 03 Dec 2007
Posts: 323
Location: Badger Creek

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 8:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think two games a day is fine, especially in a three day comp. Six games gives enough games to determine a fair result. The games in the LofA comp finished fairly early on day 1, but we would still have had trouble getting a third game in. Games on day two went longer, probably because opponents tend to become more evenly matched later in a swiss chess style comp. Cancon does have slightly longer playing times than we have at the league but I really cant see the point in playing 7 or 8 games rather than 6.

My last Cancon playing FoG left me with a decision at the end of the first game of each day of food or trade stands. There was never enough time for both.

And an early finish on day 3 seems to be a standard request from the Sydney players. It does not really do much for those driving back to Adelaide or Melbourne.

If players want more games then arrange a third (non-comp) game if you finish early - a rematch with an opponent or a game with an interstate player that you do not normally play. The tables are available, so those that want more games do have some opportunity to play them.

Regards
Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
martymagnificent



Joined: 13 Apr 2016
Posts: 58
Location: Sydney

PostPosted: Mon Nov 28, 2016 10:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Perhaps we should wait till we see what game times are like as people become more familiar with the rules.

I do feel that if you are that committed to two games a day, we should play 300 points. It only takes about 3 hours. If you gave everyone standard comp times (ie 3 1/2 hours) all the games will finish with a result and all but the slowest players will have plenty of time for roaming.

A 300 point ADLG army is still smaller than a FOG or DBM army. Anyone who had an army before still will. The Europeans may be playing 200, but they are also playing 3 games a day.

Martin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Cawdorthane



Joined: 18 Jan 2007
Posts: 949

PostPosted: Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Marty

Our recent LoA experience at 200 points in November had numerous drawn games at over 3 hours a piece - that may well be due to the learning curve effect or the fact that 90% of armies fielded had solid cores of Heavy Foot. I agree with Richard S and Martin M that we should wait & see how things go at Cancon in January and then review prior to next year's LoA Ancients competition. But there is very little interest amongst Victorian players for 3 games a day of just about anything... My personal vote would be for 200 points, if only because that is the ADLG authors' suggested basic points game and the various table and terrain scales are built around it, as are the army lists (and it seems to produce fun relatively quick games).

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 -> Ancients All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
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