Honour Forums

Discuss the Honour system.

1. John Paul
   Member

   Hi All

   We played an excellent game last night and it all worked well, but (you know it was coming) we played British Guard against French conquest (both with light cav support) the British were the defender, I played the British and (If I do say so my self) I played it spot, on slowing his attacks firing at his columns and wearing him down waiting for my cav to arrive. When they did they went in to almost immediate combat with his cav.

   The game went full length along with all bonus turns and in the end I had lost two small units of Inf and one cav and he had lost two Inf and two cav. The game had timed out so officially a draw. I just felt this is harsh on the Brits as they had done all asked of them; they held the French and Killed more of the opposition that they had lost.

   Do other people feel it is a bit harsh on the defender of a game that the only way to win is the break a (normally) numerically superior force?

   This is more of a competition problem as last night we agreed it was victory to the British. I can just see competition games where players could say they want to be the attacker just to get the bonus troops but once the game starts nothing compels them to attack more than there opponent.

   Thanks

   JP

   Posted 2 years ago #

2. John Paul
   Member

   Would a good amendment be that if the game times out and the defender is still holding the objective then the defender wins a minor victory?

   Posted 2 years ago #

3. paulus
   Member

   Played against John Paul as the French (Conquest)and agree if the Attacker has not taken the objective and the game has timed out then the Defender should have a minor victory! but alas last nights game was a draw! it was a hard fought game seeing the French advancing across rough ground to take on the Guards!

   What hurt the French most was the Superior Tactical cavalry Commander who launched about four charges and was finally killed (Hitting on 4+ instead of 5+) it really can be effective! we were both 1 point away from breaking in the end....top game!....cheers Paul

   Posted 2 years ago #

4. seldon
   Member

   JP,
   I tend to agree with you. I actually posted a similar comment a while ago. After playing many games I found that in most cases games would end up in attacker victory or draw. I've seen a few defender victories but not many.

   Hoever I do think that many times the defender player gives up the big advantage of setting up second for choosing the table side, and I am not sure how convenient that is. Being able to chose table side or setting up second is a big advantage and it might be that it balances the differences in forces. It is true that the attacked has the additional option of winning by capturing the objective which is a big alternative the defender doesn't have. In the end I feel that many defenders consider a minor victory if the game ends in a draw and they kept the objective so that rule proposed could be an interesting alternative.

   I don't see this issue as a game breaker, but I do think that it takes a more skilful player to really play succesfully as a defender that it takes to get a victory as the attacker, but that is just my view.

   Another alternative that I would like to see is if anyone can come up with scenario variants like an encounter battle ( though unlikely as a napoleonic battle as a moment in a battle it could be ), or some other variant but using the AB and objective views.

   The way in which Lasalle actually organices "pick up" games is one of my favorite things on the game, I think it is really fun !

   cheers
   Francisco

   Posted 2 years ago #

5. John Paul
   Member

   It is by no means a game breaker and as I said in most games it is not a problem. It is just that in more competition orientated games I can only see the advantage for the attacker.

   If you looked at a game between two forces that are exactly the same (say two empire French forces with the same support) both choose to attack so they role a dice to decide, the winner of this role gets two extra units and an extra way to win (gain the objective) the loser can either pick sides or set up second. I don't think those two sides are equal.

   I just think you need to have a way to force the attacker to attack.

   It also rings truer when you think about it;

   If a commander was told to hold the centre of the battle and by the end of the day he is still holding the centre then how can he have not won his little part of the battle?

   Posted 2 years ago #

6. cam_millar
   Member

   Ideally records would be kept of all competition games to build a database of results to see if there are any biases in the game.

   What proportion of games end in a result? Does the attacker win/draw more or less games than the defender? Do organic or Reserves give a higher win/draw result? Do all armies have similar win rates? Does Home Advantage give an edge? and so on...

   Personally based on games played so far, I would always choose to be the attacker in Lasalle in a competition. You get extra troops and hobble the defender with the objective, but are under no obligation to attack. You can always choose to take the draw by not attacking if matchups or terrain is not suitable. But whether the results will back that up, I don't know yet.

   Cam

   Posted 2 years ago #

7. MarkGrindlay
   Member

   Cam,

   I venture to suggest that draws are not going to be the way to do well in any competition.

   Perhaps there is a set of competition rules for some period or other where they are, but I have never encountered a set where a draw is anything other than a sure fire way to mid table mediocrity.

   The chaps who try to win competitions always try to win their games in the most clinical way possible.

   the chaps who like to play 4 or 5 games on a weekend for enjoyment, do not play for draws either (we play for an enjoyable game - which a draw often can be if neither player feels the other deserves to lose).

   And the player who I used to see getting the most draws in tournaments, did so due to timing his games out because he over analysed each move - in fear of losing through an error.

   Perhaps others have different tournament players in their area, but I dount such will be attracted to Lasalle, as they cannot micro manage their army lists thanks to the excellent Army Builder.

   Let us not worry until we actually have some tournament reports - which I would not expect until into the second year of play, when chaps have worked out the armies they like best.

   Posted 2 years ago #

8. paulus
   Member

   I have never heard/known of any Napoleonic tournaments? ...do any of you think their ever will be? ....cheers Paul

   Posted 2 years ago #

9. Borodino
   Member

   i think there's a distinct possibility at Maelstron if there's enough support

   Posted 2 years ago #

10. zel
    Member

    I am toying with a FOWtype VP system that could work better…will trial in our Comp day here in Sydney.

    If the attacker solely controls the objective or the defender has broken (as per the book) then the attacker is the winner, otherwise the Defender wins..consult the chart

    Winner Loser
    6.........1......Loser inflicts<20% loses on winner
    5.........2......Loser inflicts >20% losses on winner
    4.........3......Loser inflicts >33% losses on winner

    • If you win but the loser has more pursuit cav than you then downgrade your victory by one level to a minimum of 4-3 …

    • Guards must win or are automatic 1-6 losers

    Incorporates Sams ideas but adds granularity to the scores.

    Posted 2 years ago #

11. John Paul
    Member

    works for me,

    Also if ther was an event at Maelstron I would be intrested.

    JP

    Posted 2 years ago #

12. cam_millar
    Member

    Zel - Be interesting to see you idea goes.

    My gut feeling is for "comp" players (aka evil bloodsucking leeches) it encourages the defender to turtle up around the objective and play an ultra defensive delaying game.

    Their best result is what would otherwise be a scoreless draw - don't lose too many units (lose less than 20%) and don't lose the objective, but don't worry about inflicting losses on the attacker.

    In an (obviously silly) example, a defender could lose almost all their army and kill none of the attacker's, but if they don't break and still contest the objective they will come out 4-3 on points.

    If a table like Even/1 (River Crossing) came up, both guys would be desperate to defend. The attacker can at best add one more bridge, but the defender could then cover their side of both bridges with a wood, town or wall. Pretty much a guaranteed 6-1 to defender.

    If mud came up, the defender would probably have a huge advantage.

    I also think that lots of organic light cav would be very valuable to a defender - throw them out ahead quickly as an expendable road-bump and hope it takes sufficient time for the enemy to kill them that they can't break the rest of your army or get to the objective. You then get the win.

    But, as I said above, the key for me is for us to build a database of results so we can start to see biases in the game.

    Cam

    Posted 2 years ago #

13. John Paul
    Member

    Perhaps I'm missing something and Sam has covered this with the defender picking sides / to deploy last. All other issues I have had have turned out Ok after more playing and as my 15mm army is going to be French I suppose I should stay quiet.

    It just keeps feeling wrong that as the attacker you don't have to attack.

    Posted 2 years ago #

14. zel
    Member

    The above victory conditions force the attacker to attack otherwise they only get 1 VP...Comp organisers obviously need to ensure the playing boards are fair to dissuade super-defensive play. The advantage of the FOW system is that you continue to be rewarded for destroying enemy even if you cant win...to reduce the level of the winners victory.
    That said all VP systems are exploitable, nature of the beast...I have already seen people choosing Valiant Hussars over better heavier cav expressly because they offer a greater level of victory in the end game.

    Posted 2 years ago #

15. Pickton
    Member

    I could be wrong, but to me it seems that just having both sides attacking would be the best way to conduct tournament games, or is that too simple?

    Pickton

    Posted 2 years ago #

16. MarkGrindlay
    Member

    I can't see that working for a Spanish player, or a British Penninsular army played by someone who has read a couple of books on the period, or a Russian army with all those guns trying to advance lengthways down the small edge ...

    it is usually one attacker and one defender because that's how it usually was.

    For my part, I think the defender losing if they lose the objective works, but I also like some measure of the attacker having to attack - my compromise would be a penalty for the attacker if the game ends after turn 14 (thats a for-example random pick) and they are not within say 8 BW (again, for example) of the objective.

    so they have a penalty for not getting in there - but its not obligatory, just as the defender has a penalty for not defending it - but they too can choose not to without throwing the game.

    which leaves most of the game decision up to how the players want to play it on the day.

    Posted 2 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.