Please don't make me come and get you.

Field of Glory II is a turn-based tactical game set during the Rise of Rome from 280 BC to 25 BC.
MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by MikeC_81 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:22 pm

You can't legislate against this behaviour as it is not a discreet action. Setting armies close together eliminates skill in maneuver. But the entire idea that someone would pick an army in a league setting AND BE WILLING TO DRAW at 0-0 unless handed all the advantages like having their opponent attack entirely uphill the whole way, or hide in a forest is insane. They have no plan to win the game other than to threaten 0 points for their opponent to make them eat every disadvantage you can find. Why are you even in the league or playing the game at this point? Ruskicanuck never ran away and he crushes with the best of them. Pantherboy never turtles on a hill.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9520
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:45 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:22 pm
Why are you even in the league or playing the game at this point?
Why are you playing in the league then, Mike? Recently, you have entered in alternate seasons and you have immediately complained about the way people are playing against you. Last time you did the same thing as well. Looking at the map in your first post, I think it is quite reasonable for your opponent to choose to fight in the woods if they think they are outclassed in the open (I am not sure which armies are involved in this battle). 7 turns have been played and 17 remain so there is enough time for the battle to be resolved with an assault on the woods.

The trick in the FOG2DL is to choose an army that can perform in most types of terrain. With allies now available right across the tournament this should be a bit easier to do than before. I hope the message from me is clear - players are free to use whatever tactics they feel are appropriate in any battle, including building ambushes or adopting defensive positions. Equally players are perfectly entitled to offer, or decline, a restart.

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by devoncop » Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:14 pm

I am not targetting MikeC81 in any way and I appreciate there are a variety of views on this subject but I thought I would just check what army he is using in Classical Antiquity when upset that his opponent is utilising woods and rough terrain to the maximum.........

The answer...... Roman....

Largely Heavy infantry impact foot of high quality......at best in the open .....all becomes clear😉

Paul59
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1965
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2015 11:26 pm

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by Paul59 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:25 pm

devoncop wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:10 pm
Such an approach would hugely disadvantage any armies that rely on mobility making them pointless.

They would also give huge advantages to heavy infantry armies in most cases and eliminate any finesse in manouvre.
I absolutely agree, and I have no problem with the current rules. However there seem to be players here who disagree with that, and would prefer a situation where manoeuvre is not an option, so I was only offering a simple solution if that view wins the argument.
Scenario Designer - Age of Belisarius, Rise of Persia, and Wolves at the Gate.

TT Mod Creator

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by devoncop » Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:31 pm

Paul59 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:25 pm
devoncop wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 2:10 pm
Such an approach would hugely disadvantage any armies that rely on mobility making them pointless.

They would also give huge advantages to heavy infantry armies in most cases and eliminate any finesse in manouvre.
I absolutely agree, and I have no problem with the current rules. However there seem to be players here who disagree with that, and would prefer a situation where manoeuvre is not an option, so I was only offering a simple solution if that view wins the argument.

No problem Paul, I get you are looking to accommodate all views....maybe a "Deathmatch" or "Death or Glory" Division involving just Heavy Infantry armies on completely open terrain with both sides starting 4 squares apart is the answer ........just don't expect me to join ! 😏

AlexDetrojan
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2017 2:48 pm

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by AlexDetrojan » Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:35 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 9:33 am
MikeC_81 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:01 pm
Please don't make me come across the map and get you. This is from the Digital League and I have blacked out the armies involved to avoid naming and shaming but this is absurd and rest assured it is not only this instance. More than half of my games have my opponent with troops within 5-10 squares of their baseline. And one of those that doesn't literally have their army forming a ring around a hill on their half of the map and has no intention of moving off of it.

If you want to do that against me, just let me know upfront via PM. We will reset the map as many times as you want till you get something where you feel that you can play. If that won't do I'll just give you the win like I have done in the past since I don't care about prizing or wins. If you are concerned with Pete frowning on this then just let me know, we can make the game and let a week pass or something and just make up a score to your liking. We are all playing armies we choose so there isn't some automated mismatch going on. There shouldn't be any reason to literally avoid playing the game. I just want a decent game.
I don't have too much sympathy with your argument here, Mike. Basically, you get allocated a map and it is up to both players to deploy on it to their best advantage. If that means one player hiding their army in an attempt to delay contact, or to make an ambush, then that is fair enough in my book. Sometimes a player will feel outclassed by their opponent, and/or their opponent's army, and they will hope for a draw. Sometimes they will be having a bad run and will just be seeking to avoid defeat. If a player can survive for 24 turns and deny their opponent a win then that is just the way the cookie crumbles, in my opinion. You cannot expect players to stand in the open to get slaughtered just so you get "a decent game". What about your opponent's right to a "decent game" too?

The rules in the FOG2DL allow for 2 re-starts if both players agree and low-scoring draws do not win any points at all so there is very little reward for persistent negative play. A very small proportion of maps allow a player to hide their army for a large part of the game. Also, I really do not want players "making up scores", although there is no way that I can police that by myself. So, if you get someone suggesting that to you then I would ask that you let me know that it has happened.
+1 Whinging about an opponent playing uber defensively does not win battles. I'm pretty sure any historical general worth his salt, when faced with said dilemma would not say " Boo Hoo, they've gone all defensive on me!"

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4664
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by TheGrayMouser » Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:36 pm

Paul59 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 1:42 pm
TheGrayMouser wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 12:37 pm

NO, there is no real life example in a field battle where an army decides last minute to run at a right angle of their original battle line and hide in the woods. Such action have one sole purpose by the player, to NOT LOSE the battle, which is very different than making the best of a situation and trying to win..

This is no slight vs the league being that it needs rules, and it would be impossible to have rules re situations like this.. However , and Stockwell might disagree with me, I believe that although rules cannot prevent this, the attitude of players with the weight of discouragement of such "non-games" by the admin., would go a long way. A "These tactics are not in the spirit of the game" so to speak.

Could we have in game mechanics to prevent such things? maybe...

possibly a combo of these:

*Wider yet less deep maps ( relative not absolute...)
*Not allowing deployment near the rear edge
*some rule that units cannot voluntarily go with in 4-6 tile of any map edge unless they are under the auspices of a leader, and or if they do they contribute to ones break point until they get back inside.

* this is probably the best option though: The first 2 turns only units under a leader can move, and they can ONLY move straight forward ( which means that at deployment you can only face forward)
deployment zones would need to be a little wider to make this work methinks...

this would also slow down the silly "race to outflank" gambit that happens at the start of every battle. We have all seen and done it, your flank cavalry never moves straight ahead, it always move obliquely forward haha....
The way that the armies deploy in FOG2 Custom battles, with so much space between the two (12 tiles?), suggests to me that the situation represents a bit of approach marching, rather than two armies deployed for a set piece battle. That being the case there are probably several examples of armies diverting off in all sorts of unexpected directions; Frederick the Great at Leuthen, and various feigned retreats by nomad armies come to mind.

But if the consensus of players is that these matchups should represent battles, and no approach marching, the simplest game mechanic to reduce this issue would be to have the two armies much closer together. If there was only a gap of, say, 4 tiles between the frontlines of the armies it would stop one side running for the hills (or woods!). BTW, some Epic scenarios are set up with a very small gap between the armies; Issos and Granikos are extreme examples with only two tiles between the frontlines!
I would certainly not espouse armies being closer together as this game doesnt have the game mechanics to make that viable ( the old GMT games did and that is why armies were often two hexes away from each other)

Leuthen was a galaxy away from this era and even Fredrick the Great "grand Maneuvering" Ie company columns marching directly at a slothfull enemy and then making a right angle to turn to then deploy into a 2 line battleline, needed a lot of space and time, per Frederick's own play book deploy into line with at LEAST 2 miles distance from the enemy!. And this grand tactical maneuver only worked once ...

Its a moot point as RBS appears to view open skirmish mode to represent jockeying for position and etc. which leads to basically open comp play style where anything the engine allows is fair game.
It would be nice though, if open battles are to be deemed "operational-like" to actually have some operational mechanics... ( wings come onto the field with time gaps etc etc, units in march column,or to win some sort of "initiative roll and be able to declare the angle of your front line, bla bla bla)

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by Geffalrus » Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:05 pm

Here's my two cents:

Personally, I have a hard time being passive unless I'm facing an enemy who is way, way more inherently mobile (example being a pike army vs a horde of light horse). I do generally believe that it is better to be mobile and active than passive and overly defensive. This has gotten me into trouble sometimes..............but overall, it's been fairly effective. I've also rather enjoyed watching who is aggressive when facing me, and who is not. The psychology of the players and their armies is downright fascinating, and easily the best part of the League, in my opinion.

If someone is camping on a good defensive position, take advantage of this by marching around his flank, or massing in one area. Or just blast him in the face with arrows until he has to choose between the hill or his life. And if your army completely lacks rough terrain units or a good ranged component...........well guess what, maybe you shouldn't have chosen an army focused only on heavy infantry and cavalry. If you min-max to dominate on open terrain, and there's no open terrain for you to dominate, you basically just screwed yourself. No one else did that to you.

Right this very moment, devoncop is staring at my Polish army camped on a hill with marvelous forested flanks filled to the brim with light archers. My Plan A is win the taunt war and get him to advance in range of all my arrows. Failing that, Plan B is [redacted], followed by a [redacted], at which point, his own defensive position will become untenable, and then I shall crush him like bug. Or he'll deploy a cunning counter plan and I'll get SUPER embarrassed and never hear the end of it. Such is the joy/stress of the Digital League!

Sometimes one side gets the gods' gift of better terrain. Hopefully you picked an army capable of dealing with that. If not, request a map re-roll. Most people are chill enough to agree. If they don't, then you both get to sit there and grind out a draw. That happens sometimes. That DEFINITELY happened a lot in history. Like, for serious - ancient commanders recognized how dangerous and decisive battle could be, and often did their best to avoid it unless they had the numbers/omens/terrain in their favor. Unless there were other factors involved that pressured them to force battle like a need for a morale boosting victory, or a spy report that the enemy was weak, or whatever. Sometimes they lost, sometimes they won. But everything we see in FoG2 where battles end in bloodless draws, or one side gets a good terrain roll, or the other side gets disgusting cohesion rolls...........that's all historically authentic, frustrating as it may be sometimes.

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by devoncop » Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:53 pm

About those redacted bits.........Can I submit a freedom of information request ?

The way this season is going I need all the help I can get !

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by devoncop » Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:54 pm

devoncop wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:53 pm
About those redacted bits.........Can I submit a freedom of information request ?

The way this season is going I need all the help I can get !

(If all else fails I shall ring Mr.E.Snowdon in Moscow and get him to dig into the Polish battle plan files):wink:

MikeC_81
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by MikeC_81 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:53 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:45 pm
MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:22 pm
Why are you even in the league or playing the game at this point?
Why are you playing in the league then, Mike? Recently, you have entered in alternate seasons and you have immediately complained about the way people are playing against you. Last time you did the same thing as well. Looking at the map in your first post, I think it is quite reasonable for your opponent to choose to fight in the woods if they think they are outclassed in the open (I am not sure which armies are involved in this battle). 7 turns have been played and 17 remain so there is enough time for the battle to be resolved with an assault on the woods.

The trick in the FOG2DL is to choose an army that can perform in most types of terrain. With allies now available right across the tournament this should be a bit easier to do than before. I hope the message from me is clear - players are free to use whatever tactics they feel are appropriate in any battle, including building ambushes or adopting defensive positions. Equally players are perfectly entitled to offer, or decline, a restart.
I don't think you have been outside of competitive play for so long that you forgot Mounted Lancers and Heavy Foot Spears don't belong in the forest :roll: ? That is what my opponent has. I joined thinking that there were like minded players who would try and beat each other in a battle. The tactics I have experienced so far amount to playing football and surrounding the ball with all 11 men in a corner refusing to move and telling your opponent that you will start playing the game if they move the goalie out of the way. It is a total farce.

A farce which is totally allowable under your rules, I agree. I never told anyone to not do it. I simply said that if you are so desperate not to lose as to refuse open battle and would rather cower away in a corner of the map where it is nigh impossible to get at, simply *tell me* and I will give you the win rather than waste my time poking around the woods with skirmishers and systematically eliminating ambush possibilities only to find that when I get even remotely close, you shuffle your guys off into a forest.

I could easily respond by simply refusing to advance and 3 of 6 games would literally be at a standstill with half the map separating the armies. I didn't know people signed up for a tournament in a game featuring ancient battles only to refuse battle?
devoncop wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:14 pm
I am not targetting MikeC81 in any way and I appreciate there are a variety of views on this subject but I thought I would just check what army he is using in Classical Antiquity when upset that his opponent is utilising woods and rough terrain to the maximum.........

The answer...... Roman....

Largely Heavy infantry impact foot of high quality......at best in the open .....all becomes clear😉
Nonsensical. Tell me how many Roman armies have done well in the entirety of the league history. It is literally me and a couple of players keeping this army's head above water. I also took Greek allies and I can pump out cavalry and medium foot at a high rate if the terrain calls for it. This is not a terrain issue other than a fortress style setup with a refusal to move off of it. His troops are actually higher quality than mine and are more point efficient. It is one of the best lists in Classical right now. Yet he insists on having a 25 PoA advantage across the board and is willing to draw unless he gets it. I play Romans because I am a history fan, not because they are the best. I would say more but more details and pics would instantly reveal who it is. Once again I am not in the business of publicly naming or shaming.
AlexDetrojan wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:35 pm
+1 Whinging about an opponent playing uber defensively does not win battles. I'm pretty sure any historical general worth his salt, when faced with said dilemma would not say " Boo Hoo, they've gone all defensive on me!"
Idiotic response. The correct decision would be not to approach the army planted on terrain and force him out through some strategy maneuver. But wait....we are playing a game of ancient battles.....as in, both sides want to battle....but apparently one side is playing the game and choosing not to battle.

devoncop wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:54 pm
(If all else fails I shall ring Mr.E.Snowdon in Moscow and get him to dig into the Polish battle plan files):wink:
If I wanted to name and shame I would have done so. I specifically took a pic of EMA because all the armies are so similar there you can't figure out just by looking at it who it is.

Once again, to reiterate, I am not looking to "punish" players. I just want them to stop wasting my time with this nonsense. Send me a PM if you are more interested in getting points than winning the game. If I decide to sit on my side of the field and don't come forward you get nothing anyways. If I decide to come get you, I might actually win, and similarly you get nothing. Just take the free win offer so I can move on to someone who is actually interested in having a battle.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

Nijis
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 529
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 5:33 pm

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by Nijis » Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:06 pm

Hopefully you picked an army capable of dealing with that. If not, request a map re-roll. Most people are chill enough to agree.
Most players are, and usually I will. Still, I hate being in a position in a game where I have to choose between being a decent real-life opponent and a general who doesn't take every advantage that the system offers.

I'm pretty sure any historical general worth his salt, when faced with said dilemma would not say " Boo Hoo, they've gone all defensive on me!"
In this game, though, we're playing situations where both sides need to fight - maybe the generals need to show their troops that they aren't cowards, or because of logistical issues, or one side does not want to abandon its loot. So, there are valid historical reasons for preventing one side from hunkering down on the edge of the map.

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by Geffalrus » Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:16 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:53 pm
devoncop wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:54 pm
(If all else fails I shall ring Mr.E.Snowdon in Moscow and get him to dig into the Polish battle plan files):wink:
If I wanted to name and shame I would have done so. I specifically took a pic of EMA because all the armies are so similar there you can't figure out just by looking at it who it is.
For the record, devon is referring to my comment about our EMA match of Poles vs. Byzantines. He's using a political reference as an attempt at smack talk. Little does he know that I'm taking all his words and writing them on my arrows. He'll get back his words soon enough. :twisted:

Cunningcairn
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 994
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by Cunningcairn » Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:57 pm

Geffalrus wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:16 pm
MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:53 pm
devoncop wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:54 pm
(If all else fails I shall ring Mr.E.Snowdon in Moscow and get him to dig into the Polish battle plan files):wink:
If I wanted to name and shame I would have done so. I specifically took a pic of EMA because all the armies are so similar there you can't figure out just by looking at it who it is.
For the record, devon is referring to my comment about our EMA match of Poles vs. Byzantines. He's using a political reference as an attempt at smack talk. Little does he know that I'm taking all his words and writing them on my arrows. He'll get back his words soon enough. :twisted:
LOL!

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1283
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by devoncop » Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:58 pm

Geffalrus wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 7:16 pm
MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:53 pm
devoncop wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 5:54 pm
(If all else fails I shall ring Mr.E.Snowdon in Moscow and get him to dig into the Polish battle plan files):wink:
If I wanted to name and shame I would have done so. I specifically took a pic of EMA because all the armies are so similar there you can't figure out just by looking at it who it is.
For the record, devon is referring to my comment about our EMA match of Poles vs. Byzantines. He's using a political reference as an attempt at smack talk. Little does he know that I'm taking all his words and writing them on my arrows. He'll get back his words soon enough. :twisted:

Correct on all points :mrgreen:

edb1815
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Delaware, USA

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by edb1815 » Tue Oct 15, 2019 8:09 pm

Sounds like Mike has run into the bane of PVP players everywhere, a player who will only fight at good or overwhelming odds. Although usually found in multiplayer sandbox games and not as much in a wargame setting.

Personally I have only had one incidence of a turtling opponent since FOGII was released - that was in one of the Rome tournaments when my opponent (who is not currently playing in the league) found a large woods in the corner of the map and stayed in there with his warband army. (I managed to kill a couple of skirmishers and ironically got points for the win due to the tournament bug.)


Having said that I occasionally play armies favoring rough terrain - Persians for example and I will seek out advantageous terrain. One of my current battles involves a cavalry army against my mostly medium foot on a fairly wooded/rough map. We are both going for the 20% and maneuvering. I don't see anything wrong with using terrain that favors your army. Now Mike said that his opponent is hiding in the woods with heavy infantry which is a bit odd. Maybe someone with a known winning reputation will get that more I don't know, but I have not my rating is too low. :lol:

The biggest issue here is the waste of time rather than just reroll or say hey lets just call it a draw, Mike did you query the other player in chat? I know Pete did an analysis of draws awhile ago and came up with the 20% rule which helps, but I am not sure you can legislate this situation.

NikiforosFokas
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2016 4:59 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by NikiforosFokas » Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:04 pm

Nijis wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:35 am
I don't blame a player for doing what they think is necessary to preserve their army, but I believe that there should be some sort of rule to prevent turtling. Maybe if no casualties have been inflicted for five turns running, then whoever controls the four middle squares wins a 40-0 victory, or something like that. In nine games out of 10 it's not a problem, but for that 10th game, it can be very frustrating.
Totally agree. It is realistic for any ancient or medieval army to refuse to give a battle but it is also realistic that they would not remain at the battlefield trying to claim a draw. And since the game has a tactical and not a strategical scope it would be absolutely fair to suppose that if you refuse to give a battle you lose.
We really have to find a solution for this. I am not sure the middle square thing will be fair but it would be better than no rule. Another solution would be that any unit that do not move for 2-3 turns would have to take a morale test. Or...Or. There are many possible solutions but since i see that there is little chance for this to happen, I would like just to say that I agree with Mike.
For Byzantium!!

Geffalrus
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 594
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by Geffalrus » Tue Oct 15, 2019 11:16 pm

NikiforosFokas wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 10:04 pm
Totally agree. It is realistic for any ancient or medieval army to refuse to give a battle but it is also realistic that they would not remain at the battlefield trying to claim a draw. And since the game has a tactical and not a strategical scope it would be absolutely fair to suppose that if you refuse to give a battle you lose.
We really have to find a solution for this. I am not sure the middle square thing will be fair but it would be better than no rule. Another solution would be that any unit that do not move for 2-3 turns would have to take a morale test. Or...Or. There are many possible solutions but since i see that there is little chance for this to happen, I would like just to say that I agree with Mike.
In many Hellenistic battles, the winner was technically the army that stayed on the field of battle long enough to bury the dead, and then make a monument of the arms and armor. Normally this would be the obvious victor...........however, there were a few occasions where the obvious loser snuck onto the field after dark and claimed the dead and their burial rights. In the case of Antigonus the One-Eyed's campaign against Eumenes of Cardia, doing so gave his army the morale boost necessary to stick around and fight the second battle that secured him ultimate victory.

And if you pay attention to the end game text, this matches how things are phrased.

As such, maybe a king of the hill zone could pop up in the middle of the map representing the crucial spot of the battlefield that the winner needed to hold by nightfall? If you win outright before then, great!

klayeckles
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Sergeant Major - Armoured Train
Posts: 552
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:47 am

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by klayeckles » Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:07 am

MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 3:22 pm
You can't legislate against this behaviour as it is not a discreet action. Setting armies close together eliminates skill in maneuver. But the entire idea that someone would pick an army in a league setting AND BE WILLING TO DRAW at 0-0 unless handed all the advantages like having their opponent attack entirely uphill the whole way, or hide in a forest is insane. They have no plan to win the game other than to threaten 0 points for their opponent to make them eat every disadvantage you can find. Why are you even in the league or playing the game at this point? Ruskicanuck never ran away and he crushes with the best of them. Pantherboy never turtles on a hill.
last time i talked to hannibal and alex and rommel they suggested that a general that thinks he can dictate every term of a battle is a dead general. if you want tht, try chess. we can't control our opponent, the terrain, or how she uses it. in this game the strategic aspect of war has past; the scouts have done their job (or failed), and the soldiers have marched for days to try and get the best position. now the field generals must deal with it. You are the field general.

in the league every army has challenges, some are challenged more by terrain (lancers) or lack of it (MF), so occasionally a general might be happy if his opponent asks for a draw. Guess what; every player in the league must deal with it, and so it is equal. this game has dice...we have to roll em and sometimes it doesn't go our way...so we deal with it. Clearly i support the current system...besides, without it my ego would have nothing to blame :roll:

SnuggleBunnies
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Major - 8.8 cm FlaK 36
Posts: 968
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: Please don't make me come and get you.

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:40 am

I fall somewhere in the middle on this issue. It IS annoying when somebody just camps some ridiculous terrain, or runs away the whole time; I think that is pretty rare though. Much more common are standoffs where neither side wants to move into terrain that advantages their foe. Sometimes these end with skirmishing causing one side to feel they have to move, but sometimes they end in a draw. I can understand situations where, for example, you have an army with no cavalry and you don't want to move into the open, or an army of squishy medium foot and you don't want to maneuver into an open plain.

Still, just hiding in the corner in a forest is lame, and a waste of time; it takes half the game just to march over there! This sort of thing is kind of why I think I might enjoy casual skirmish games more than League games. League games are fun because I get matched up against a bunch of skilled opponents who will play their matches through and not just surrender; the downside is that everybody is so concerned about their overall points that this sort of thing is more common. To be fair, I see that in my own play, too - it's overall rather more cautious in League games than casuals.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”