Quote from: Rino on July 07, 2019, 08:56:26 AM

Quote from: craig.w on July 07, 2019, 02:11:17 AM
Is it really horde armies and long spear that's the problem? Is there even a problem? The top 5 armies were:

First Bulgarian Empire
Hussite
Royal Achaemenid Persian
Ottoman Turkish
Khawarij

Maybe someone could post the lists used?

Looking at that list (excluding the Hussite) and the overall 38 armies used the almost complete absence of any Romans, Successor, hairy barbarians, dark age foot-dominant armies, pike armies suggests that the problem is cavalry are under-priced relative to foot. Unless it's a tightly themed competition people usually aren't choosing foot (of course there will be exceptions).

So wouldn't the answer be to get fewer mounted on the table to make it more of a challenge?

I believe that there are some factors pushing for cav armies :
1- duration of the game. Game Less than 3h means you need unit running fast to catch the last points missing.
2- the proximity of the skulls with Britcon. Britcon is post 1066 this year. It Focuses the attention of the gamers on later medieval armies.

Agree x 2

Another possibility would be to change breakpoints so that, regardless of the number of TUG's you have, BP never goes over points value divided by 2000. In effect at 10K you only ever have to break 5 TUG's. Take 13 TUG's if you want but you break if you lose 5.

A little harder to create armies that are virtually unbreakable in a competition time frame.

Martin

Quote from: Rino on July 07, 2019, 08:56:26 AM

Quote from: craig.w on July 07, 2019, 02:11:17 AM
Is it really horde armies and long spear that's the problem? Is there even a problem? The top 5 armies were:

First Bulgarian Empire
Hussite
Royal Achaemenid Persian
Ottoman Turkish
Khawarij

Maybe someone could post the lists used?

Looking at that list (excluding the Hussite) and the overall 38 armies used the almost complete absence of any Romans, Successor, hairy barbarians, dark age foot-dominant armies, pike armies suggests that the problem is cavalry are under-priced relative to foot. Unless it's a tightly themed competition people usually aren't choosing foot (of course there will be exceptions).

So wouldn't the answer be to get fewer mounted on the table to make it more of a challenge?

I believe that there are some factors pushing for cav armies :
1- duration of the game. Game Less than 3h means you need unit running fast to catch the last points missing.
2- the proximity of the skulls with Britcon. Britcon is post 1066 this year. It Focuses the attention of the gamers on later medieval armies.

Also we've had a couple of comps (Brighton & Derby) which were basically classical so people have had a run out with those armies already this year.

Quote from: martymagnificent on July 07, 2019, 09:05:03 AM
Another possibility would be to change breakpoints so that, regardless of the number of TUG's you have, BP never goes over points value divided by 2000. In effect at 10K you only ever have to break 5 TUG's. Take 13 TUG's if you want but you break if you lose 5.

A little harder to create armies that are virtually unbreakable in a competition time frame.

Martin

Has an undesirable impact on other armies though - e.g. Slave Revolt. So not something I'd want to see.

Quote from: martymagnificent on July 07, 2019, 09:05:03 AM
Another possibility would be to change breakpoints so that, regardless of the number of TUG's you have, BP never goes over points value divided by 2000. In effect at 10K you only ever have to break 5 TUG's. Take 13 TUG's if you want but you break if you lose 5.

A little harder to create armies that are virtually unbreakable in a competition time frame.

Martin

The thing is that players aren't taking these armies to not lose. They are taking them to win. How it works is that flank attacks are so powerful in MeG (which is a good thing - makes the game fun apart from anything else) that it only takes one extra unit on the loose to win the game. So if the opposing units are roughly paired up then the larger army has the extra units to roger the flanks. The traditional answer is to use terrain on the flanks and find a way to neutralise multiple units with a few of yours to restore equilibrium (some sort of Pin and Punch strategy). Remains to be seen if people can make that work ... as I reckon we will probably see more of these larger armies. Doesn't have to be true that there is a counter move that works though, every rules set will have weaknesses - it's inevitable. The important thing is that Simon keeps a watching brief on it - which I'm sure he will (it's one of the great things about MeG)

One thing that does occur to me is that this big army approach depends on flank attacks. Are they a bit too easy at the moment? Particularly the shallow angle ones. Looking at Will's blog pictures all Hunter's flank attacks look like they started well behind the flank, which is fine ... but it is possible to wangle a flank attack from just behind the front edge of a unit. Is that adding to the potency of the big armies? I know Richard had a suggestion for changing to a back edge of the attacker needing to be behind a flank. Seems to me like the last main area of the rules that still needs looking at again (actually independent of whether it affects this big army question)

all the best

Dave

Dave, an excellent summary and spot on in terms of the strategy that Hunter and I adopted. We play each other every second week so you can imagine the fun we have trying to out do each other.
Our strategy is pin and flank. In my three wins at Skulls every game came down to pinning with the large infantry units while getting the cavalry on the flanks.
Game 1 took out elephants
Game 2 Flank attack on superior heavy chariots. Four chariot units in one impact charge that went down the line one after another.
Game 3 Flank attacks on Will's Samurai
To be honest in most of the games there was terrain on the flanks - look at Will's photos of our game. The problem is that it is very rare for the terrain to cover the flanks of a small professional army.
Not sure why I am trying to stop a winning tactic that is working well but to be honest it just does not feel right. Would love to paint and use a small high quality army but to be honest just does not seem viable to me. Not seen Alasdair using too many either.

Should also take the opportunity of praising Hunter and his army choice. I always accuse Hunter of being a tight wad with money and he applies the same philosophy to his army choices. He looks out, not for poor troops but those that he deems very cost effective.
Looking at his Skull's army he only had two troop types namely:
5 units of 8 average tribal close foot with shieldwall and nothing else. Not great fighters but a nightmare to kill when 4 deep.
8 units of 6 average cavalry formed loose long spear. Very mobile and can put up a good fight against all mounted as they cancel melee expert, have a plus in close terrain.
Having two troop types, it is no need to coordinate lots of different troop types.
The good news is that his army falls outwith the dates for Britcon but the bad news is that his new army follows similar thought patterns.
Indeed he did lose one game at Skulls against heavy chariots a troop type he is not familiar with playing with or against.

Royal Achaemenid Persian and Ottoman Turk came 3rd and 4th - were they large armies of average? Not played against either in MeG but in other rule sets they generally have decent troops in the mix. Would be keen to see how they did their army lists...

Another thing about these large armies, which has bugged me from the start to be honest, you can outscout a large army but end up putting your whole army down before his (I know because my brother has Pictish and he always deploys last unless I 100% outscout him). In fact I remember Richard commenting about this with his Lycian army "Only 5 PBS and 2 Scouting Cards, but with 15 UGs, quite often was able to deploy some UGs after my opponent, even when outscouted." Not having a dig here at Richard, but this feels wrong.

eg I outscouted the Pictish horde  (19 UGs, 6 were SUGs I think) by 60%. Pretty comprehensively you would think. He deployed 12 UGs, mostly skirmishers, I then deployed my entire army (11 UGs), and he matched up my weakest parts with his 6 best TUGs. There has to be a better way surely.

I wondered if you two were related..   

Quote from: mad lemmey on July 07, 2019, 03:20:05 PM
I wondered if you two were related..   

Any more comments like that and you will be hearing from my lawyer seeking substantial damages!!

Yeah, good luck with that, I'm barrasic!

Quote from: mad lemmey on July 07, 2019, 06:03:33 PM
Yeah, good luck with that, I'm barrasic!

Is that before or after Jurassic?

Quote from: marshalney2000 on July 07, 2019, 07:07:52 PM

Quote from: mad lemmey on July 07, 2019, 06:03:33 PM
Yeah, good luck with that, I'm barrasic!

Is that before or after Jurassic?

Bar sick?

Hi folks

Firstly Will was terribly unlucky to draw crap cards and watch his opponent throw great dice throughout the game.  It happens.

To the question - If it had been me I would have put my Japanese flexibles through the terrain to create a line from one long table edge to the other (with a few BW and 3/4 size spaces between TUGs admittedly) and plodded forward inviting me to fight on a reduced frontage where my mobility is negated and its largely no weapon foot or cavalry versus spears.   It takes time but if I need the win - which I did after bombing out with a 2 in round 1 - then I have to fight.   

Hope that helps.

HH

Oh and Will ........ don't worry about the sulk.   We are friends and I look forwards to you taking my advice and ramming it down my gizzard for a 15-0 revenge win at Britcon.  Its only a wargame!
HH