chrisr
Junior Member
Posts: 83 Likes: 7 
|
Post by chrisr on Mar 22, 2017 14:09:25 GMT
The ADLG one day competition at CLC was a rather dismal experience for SELWG players. Previously we have usually won a few games and Steve Tanner even won the whole competition last year. But this year we filled 4 of the bottom 5 places (where we were joined by a 12 year old) and didn’t win a single game out of the 12 we played. After losing my second game I had a lot of time on my hands to chat with people from CLC and a few things struck me. 1. They are playing far more games of ADLG than we are. These games fall into 3 categories:- a) Club games (more on that below);  UK comps; and c) Overseas comps. Playing more games means that they are seeing more different armies and learning more quickly than we are as to what works and what doesn’t. For example I had noticed that most of their armies carried 2-3 LF in almost every command. I had assumed this was primarily to bulk out the army break point, but in fact it’s a tactic they picked up in Spain. The LF are deployed a little ahead and offset from the files of the rest of the command allowing them to absorb a lot of the shooting. 2. If they are playing in a competition they will use the same army 4 or 5 times over the weekend. But they will have tried out the army several times at the club beforehand, altering the composition to tweak it ahead of going away. I don’t know about the other 3 but I hadn’t even put my army on a table before the games at the weekend. In retrospect there were some tactics that only occurred to me that I could have used on the way home. When we went to Burton I had used our army twice, and Bryan not at all. At one point he handed me a dead general and I said ‘You’ve killed the Strategist’. He replied, ‘Oh is he?’ So Bryan had probably not been using his +3 to the dice roll for CPs and hadn’t realised that by putting the general into combat he was risking 4 attrition points. The new club motto for SELWG should be ‘Always woefully unprepared’. 3. Even within the club competitions they organise them on the basis that players should be encouraged to try and outfox each other by trying different army compositions from game to game. So you pick your army, say Early Imperial Roman, but from game to game you can change your list. At our club we don’t do this because of concerns that allowing this approach might (a) favour people with larger figure collections and ( result in some games being played with illegal lists. My response to that is (a) I’d rather have all the options for one list than just the bare bones for 2 lists, and ( given the quality of list checking in most comps (both SELWG and external) I doubt it really eliminates illegal lists – I can think of comps both at the club and at external events where I have been forced to play against illegal lists and 1 occasion where I realised my own list was illegal after the event. I’m as guilty as anyone of joining in lots of different leagues and campaigns and using lots of different rules. But the consequence is that I’m not very good at any of them. Everyone can make their own choices as to whether they want to focus on imp[roving the standard of play at one ruleset or just continue to dabble, but personally I’m getting a bit fed up with providing easy points for others and I feel it reflects poorly on our club. So I’m going to start cutting back on the rule systems I play, and I’d like our leagues to be geared towards giving people the chance to experiment with their army rather than the sterile – you choose your list and you’re stuck with it- approach that’s currently prevalent. ADLG in particular is still relatively new in this country and there’s a lot of learning to be done. Regards C |
|
|
|
Post by lysimachus on Mar 24, 2017 10:42:57 GMT
Chris also e-mailed this round a few people and there has been some further discussion. In the hope of opening this up to the wider community I thought I'd set out some of the concerns and ideas put forwards and ask what others might like to play.
I think the main concerns were around how do we improve the quality of play at SELWG without turning it into an arms race and making sure those seeing that are just starting to discover the joys of historical gaming aren't put off. Most of the solutions suggested were around how "set" the army lists had to be. The range can be summarised as: - Set - You submit the army list before the competition starts and then stick to that exact list throughout. This is how the leagues have operated so far.
- Partially Set - You have a set number of points of troops who form the core of your army and can then vary the rest of the army from game to game. There are a few ideas about how much could be varied and if there are restrictions on that variation.
- Partially Free - You choose an army at the start of the competition but you choose your troops for each game, only the choice of list that you are drawing the army from is set. So if you choose New Kingdom Egyptian you could vary the number of chariots (or any other part of the army) in each game.
- Totally Free - You can not only vary the army between games but you can change the list. So one week you might use Imperial Romans and then the next change it to Wars of the Roses.
The strength of using set lists is that it helps build an understanding of your troops and what they can do, very useful when new to the game. The drawback is that it prevents experimentation as the list can't be changed to try out new tactics or ideas. At the other extreme being able to change everything between each game allows for rapid evolution of ideas and tactics. The downsides are that it could advantage those with larger toy collections and may encourage an element of chasing success rather than developing counters (by which I mean that someone who gets beaten by Elephants in one game doesn't try to work out how to stop the elephants but instead goes for an army with elephants in it assuming that they are super troops).
So, where does that leave us? With some more questions is the answer. - Are there any of the formats above that people find more appealing?
- Are there any that cause reactions of fear and horror?
- What periods might people like to do once the dust from the chariot wheels starts to settle? Classical? Dark Ages? Medieval? Open?
- And has the option to play in 25mm been a success? Do you still want the opportunity to get the big toys out?
- Finally, is there anyone straining at the leash to run an ADLG comp? There are at least two people already who are willing, so no pressure to come forwards. Rather this is more of a chance to flag that you are working on the best competition ever before someone else jumps in and starts signing people up.
So here is your chance to share your views and have a say (maybe) in how the next ADLG comp is run.
Mike
|
|
chrisr
Junior Member
Posts: 83 Likes: 7
|
Post by chrisr on Mar 24, 2017 14:54:26 GMT
To answer Mike's questions:-
1. My preference for format, in order, would be Partially Free, Partially Set, Totally Free, and last (and very much least) Set. One point that hasn't really been drawn out is that the ADLG lists are relatively restricted already. Some rule sets (eg GW's games) have army lists that are very open. Set lists may make sense in that context. But ADLG's lists are pretty restricted. For example you can't run Early Imperial Romans without legionaries and you can't run it with a large number of high quality cavalry. So the amount of tailoring available within a list is limited whichever Partial approach you use.
2. The idea of using Set lists strikes me, at this point, as boring, unimaginative, and hopelessly fearful. It's a stale and tired format. It isn't helping anyone. You make a mistake with your initial selection and you spend the next 10 months regretting it which makes all those games (a) less than fun and (b)missed opportunities to try something different. How does that encourage new players and how does that make us better players?
3. I'm happy to play almost any period. In my limited experience the rules work best in period but there are chariot armies that can mix it with the best of the medieval armies (eg Assyrians) and Classical armies that are happy v anyone. I think the biggest mistake is to draw the period too tightly (which was my main beef with Chariot Wars), but maybe take two or more periods together.
4. I'd love to get my 25mm toys out. Sadly my earliest army is Hoplite but from then forward I can play in most periods. But again I'm happy to play 15s or 25s.
5. I'm prepared to run a competition. But I'm happier still to let other people do it. What I won't do is join in another league which is just another repeat of what we've done before. We need to at least try something different. If it doesn't work it's not a disaster, but we'll never know if we can do things better unless we try. I really don't understand why people appear frightened of trying new things.
Regards
C
|
|
|
|
Post by denis on Mar 24, 2017 15:09:24 GMT
There is a lot of food for thought here (and in the posts in the e-mail chain. Popcorn is also available.)
Taking Mike's questions in order (a) my preference would be "partially free". I accept that, in a national competition, one is stuck with the same army for the duration, but if we are treating the club competitions as a place to practice for the national (and international) stage, then the opportunity to try out various combinations strikes me as desirable. Is it worth making my legionaries armoured? Pay the points and give it a go. Do I need more light troops? Ditto. Would allies be allowed? One for the organiser. It might also encourage people to paint for the competition. ("If I finish off those heavy infantry I bought three years ago and add a couple of Heavy cavalry, I can ditch the allied command and victory will be mine" etc etc.) The drawback - as I see it - is that we may end up knowing how a chariot-heavy army works and then find that the next national competitions are Dark Age Europe, Armies of the Steppes and High Medieval. ( I don't think wholly open would be much fun in practice. It strikes me as a recipe for an arms race, but I could be wrong. (c) My ADLG armies are drawn from my (much smaller) DBA armies, most of which are from Book II (Classical). A Medieval theme would mean a lot of painting (or borrowing an army). (d) I don't have any 25mms. (Not strictly true as my painting table is currently covered with 28mm Andalusian crossbowmen, both foot and mounted, but these are for a different rule set and won't be used for ADLG or for DBA.) (e) See below.
Another option, shamelessly plagiarised from the Society of Ancients championship, might be as follows:
The competition is completely open: 200 points, any army and any agreed scale. You can stick to the same list throughout, vary the list or change armies completely. (So if you want to practice for a forthcoming national competition, you can. Equally, if you want to dust off an army that hasn't seen action since everyone used Humbrol enamels, you can do that too.) You can play any other member of the club, but no more than twice against the same opponent, and as many games as you like over a fixed period - say 12 months. Three points for a win, one for a draw and none for losing.
The players total number of points is divided by the square root of the number of games he or she has played to give their final score. (This rewards people who play more games, e.g a player who plays 4 games and draws them all has 4 points. Divide this by the square root of 4, gives a final score of 2. A player who plays 9 games and draws them all has 9 points. Divide this by the square root of 9, gives a final score of 3.)
If this appeals, I'd be happy to run it/help run it. (Square roots really aren't that scary.)
Denis
PS Chris R replied while I was typing this. |
|
|
|
Post by gavmeister on Mar 30, 2017 16:19:21 GMT
My preference remains for sticking with a set list through a competition and trying to play better during it. I can change my army at the end if I have learnt anything. I should explain that I'm used to playing a tightly restricted DBA or Big Battle DBA army list. I don't mind a bit of freedom in a competition if anyone has the time and enrgy to police it but I dread the gamesmanship which might be unleashed by a free for all.
We already see a few dubious troop choices being made 'because the army list in the book allows it'. This is a much bigger problem in LADLAG (than DBA or DBMM) because the army lists are essentially an amateur rip off of 20+ year old DBM army lists which are full of yesterday's interpretations of armies, and with lots of options allowed it seems due to gamer demand rather than historical justification.
I think the DBMM lists, based on latest research and interpretation by genuine experts, are much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by elpresidente2016 on Mar 30, 2017 21:24:16 GMT
I'm happy playing art de la Guerre. I think it's the best option " out there" at the moment. Having a fixed list competition means the lists are checked, which prevents cheating, even " inadvertent" and also means there is no advantage in holding off playing to see what the opposition turn up with. A lot of people haven't got enough figures to provide flexibility in their list, so if, for example, they have picked late roman, they probably have legionaries and auxiliary. They may not have cataphracts for an Armenian ally, or Frankish foot, to vary their list. Which hands an advantage to those who have, and delay playing to see what the opposition have got. I've run fixed list competitions as they are simpler, but have still had problems getting all the games played. I have concerns that giving people the choice and variety would be taken as an excuse, and this may delay competitions even more.
To improve the clubs overall meta-game, would require people playing lots of games with different armies This is desirable, although difficult to achieve. Having a fixed list competition ( or two) has at least seen people dusting off their ancients, and playing games. There have even been people playing games, outside the competitions, to gain experience with their armies, or, day I say, for fun.
If people really want to take the challenge, I think the best option is that you play a person, and they turn up with whichever army they choose, like the SOA competition that Denis published. Then it's down to your choice and skill, against whatever challenge turns up. I feel that a partial option is the worst, as once people are tied in to one army, they are limited to what figures they have, which could lead those two have extensive collections to exploit those who don't.
That said, I'm happy playing ancients, and will fit in with whatever is decided. I'm not precious about running competitions, and believe that there is enough scope that if someone suggests a short limited thing, ( like chariot Wars) this can be run alongside a major "Open" competition.
At the end of the day.... 1. Its toy soldiers, and not worth getting upset about and 2. It's just nice to get the ancients dusted off and on the table.
Tony
|
|
UK comps; and 
