|
Post by hadrian on Jan 3, 2019 12:28:12 GMT
First of 27 in a non-premier event nets the player 20 points in the league. First of 13 in a premier event nets that same player 25 points. It does seem this needs revision, given that tournament attendance distribution is changing. That's true, but I was answering the question about smaller, i.e. 12 or less players, Premier events.
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Jan 2, 2019 16:08:03 GMT
Just has an effect on the scores Bill applies to the players once ranked- See portsmouthwargames.wordpress.com/society-of-ancients-uk-dba-league/Basically, all tournaments are split into ‘more than 12 players’ and ‘12 players or less’ . Then the ranks achieved in the event get points towards the League. Additionally, a Premier event can allocate a few points more per player. A lower attended Premier event (12 players or less) would give the same scores for eg 1st, 2nd, 3rd place as a higher attended non-Premier event (13+ players). It’s a clever system. Thanks , I am probably being a post-festivities dullard but not quite sure why being first of 27 people in a non-Premier tournament gets you less points than coming first of 13 in a Premier one. I think your earlier question of whether we need a Premier status at all is worth at least considering. Regards, Simon I think that the proliferation of and attendance at DBA competitions has significantly changed since the system was first established (I think there were only 8 annual event at the start). Whilst not DBA active these days (although that may change on second retirement) I would nevertheless suggest that keeping "Premier" status for whatever are defined as "key" events is a good thing. First of 27 in a non-Premier event will not gain you less points than being first in a smaller Premier event, at worst it will get you the same points.
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Dec 7, 2018 12:59:48 GMT
Sure something similar could be used for a club night. Keeping everyone engaged might be a challenge. We just had the two of us, ‘Arhur’ and ‘everyone else’, so plenty to keep us busy. Back in the days when V1 DBA came out, the Portsmouth club (which then used to have a lot more members) used to fit in a 6 player campaign in an afternoon as a diversion from "serious" gaming. Always something for people to do. Nick Harbud used to do much of the organising.
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Nov 2, 2018 16:11:14 GMT
If you're at Warfare on the Sunday I will part of a group putting on a 28mm ancients game on the SoA stand. Drop by for a chat ...... unless its lunchtime as I'll be in the pub then.
|
|
|
Post by hadrian on Oct 16, 2018 8:59:41 GMT
Vodnik and Strelnikov thanks for the response, Vodnik I like the Prussians!Im definitely going to play HFG, the only problem I have is deciding which period to go for. I initially thought ACW but wondered if the lack of cavalry would make for a slow static game? I then considered Napoleonic s because, well there is so much variety of troop types and they would be fun to paint. Then I thought Seven Years War, because why not?Now I just can't decide!🤔 I can also play DBA-HX,I have heard good things about the game. Cheers,Paul. Have you looked at the HFG Yahoo Group?
Thinking about the time to play a game, with 4 other players who only use HFG once or twice a year, we put on a public demo of Blenheim, it took less than 4 hours to play once setup, as did Ramillies (now that's a big cavalry combat). Leuthen, Wagram and Borodino took a whole day, but the GNW games only took an hour or so.
We have put on lots of demos with HFG over the past 10 years, from WSS to GNW, WAS, SYW, AWI, Napoleonics, Crimea, ACW and FPW. Most of the games are written up on the HFG group, with photos.
Overall I think the ACW is less exciting because of the lack of cavalry charges, although never say never, it can happen. Yes, I think the FPW and later needs some more work. But what other rules allow a player to command such large armies and play a game through in less than a day on an accessible sized table?
|
|