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.
melm
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

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

Post by melm » Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:16 am

SnuggleBunnies wrote:
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.
I recall our matches in official Slitherine tournament between Indian and Macedonian. :D
One is that my Indian archers rushed to the high hill, occupied it and camped there, waiting for your Macedonian to advance, while the Macedonian army just moved away from the hill and lined perfect battle array in the open, waiting for my Indian archers to come down. We exchanged turns quickly until the end, finally, small scale skirmish happened in the marsh on the corner of the map!

The interesting thing is, under the rule of the Slitherine tournament, that we both know that scoring some is dominantly better than scoring nothing, we are still reluctant to risk our army to guarantee a lose, let alone DL tournament that in-game scoring doesn't mean much to the final result.

What shall we do then? FOG2 has such feature that terrain greatly affects the battle(not a little), and this is the feature I love comparing with other ancient battle games. But this feature also makes the game running like such that we are discussing. Forcing the India to go to so-called middle ground to line up and clashing with pikes? Or if the hill is in the middle, forcing the pikes to rush uphills? Then the game just becomes terrain luck rolls - let's play what's in the middle. In current FOG2 map generation algorithm, with large probability, middle ground is open, which means middle ground fight constraint favors heavy foot army too much.

Another question is that how can we distinguish the behavior as cowardice or tactic? Heavy foot or cavalry in woods may sound cowardice and passive play, but maybe they are waiting for the right moment to rush out. E.g. One can place 7 squadrons of cavalry to a woods almost on the edge of the map. When opponent's battle array wheeled, his cavalry rushed out to threaten the back of the array(It's an example from my experience). And I have to say, in FOG2, if one wants to use ambush tactic, he has to position his visible units far back to the edge, because he can't deploy his ambush troops crossing the initial deployment line. That's why in Total War, some unit has ambush characteristic has no restraint to the initial deployment zone, in order to give them more space to ambush. Or, shall we rule out the ambush tactics?

The objective of FOG2 match so far is very simple, to destroy the opponent's army. So player tries to destroy the opponent's AND not to be destroyed. So if one doesn't think he can destroy the enemy, he immediately picks "not getting destroyed". It's human nature to think in this way because of the setting of the objective. Shall we alter the objective to be more complicated but fair one or ones?
Last edited by melm on Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

jomni
Sengoku Jidai
Sengoku Jidai
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:20 am

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

Post by jomni » Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:22 am

I’m quite neutral to this issue. It’s a battle of wits. A test of patience and emotions. All-out “mindless” slug fest can be both fun and boring at the same time. Like an Avengers movie. Fun because there’s action but mentally stale because of less scheming. On the other hand, I can understand the boredom induced by “battles” with little action. As a player, I feel more accomplished when winning by using wits as opposed to brute force.

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 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:00 am

melm wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:16 am
Another question is that how can we distinguish the behavior as cowardice or tactic? Heavy foot or cavalry in woods may sound cowardice and passive play, but maybe they are waiting for the right moment to rush out. E.g. One can place 7 squadrons of cavalry to a woods almost on the edge of the map. When opponent's battle array wheeled, his cavalry rushed out to threaten the back of the array(It's an example from my experience). And I have to say, in FOG2, if one wants to use ambush tactic, he has to position his visible units far back to the edge, because he can't deploy his ambush troops crossing the initial deployment line. That's why in Total War, some unit has ambush characteristic has no restraint to the initial deployment zone, in order to give them more space to ambush. Or, shall we rule out the ambush tactics?
People are conflating two different things. People trying to defend this tactic seem to imply I am some neanderthal who just wants to *hulk smash* and run in a line at each other. But there is a distinction between "clever tactics" and just time-wasting. Let's go back to the game at hand.

Image

The yellow bars were were his initial deployment or so. He had a line of skirmishers further up that advanced up to near the hills in his deployment zone. He outnumbered me in skirmishers so I had to keep the skirmisher line tight to my main body so as to not get rushed and immediately lose the skirmisher war. After 2-3 turns he moves his cavalry, but not his infantry to their present location. As my line of skirmishers and the main body moves up at a painful 2 squares a turn for several moves, he steadily backs up his skirmish line all the way to the infantry but always close enough that he could instantly wheel around and pounce on any skirmishers pushed out too far. At this point, I am thinking ok he has to have some stuff in the woods to the right. As I approach and past midpoint, he moves his visible heavy foot behind his cavalry. Despite already being down a skirmisher, I detach a javelin man to scout first blob. Nothing. If I could see into the woods that he had nothing, I could have rushed headlong and stopped his escape. But then if he actually did have stuff in there I would just be the idiot for falling for something so obvious right? Turns out the only thing hidden was a bunch of light javelin horses.

There is nothing clever about this. This is just time-wasting. There is no ambush, no secret flank. NOTHING. He had a cryptic opening message about the terrain but no request for a reroll.


Exhibit B.

Image

The blue lines indicate his fixed position around where my army was in red. In the subsequent 6-8 turns, no movement by the infantry was made other than to adjust facing and shifting troops so that I have no gap to come up as I dance a little to see if I can open up a gap. But guess, what interior lines mean he can always move things faster than I can. It became very obvious what he was doing and I even "did nothing" for a couple of turns to see what would happen. No budge. This is also not clever or skillful. This is just saying that you are willing to accept a draw for ZERO POINTS unless you can get your +25 PoA across the board. Any novice knows fighting from top of a hill is good. There is no "wit" involved here. He simply got the RNG terrain in his favour and he is saying come get me if you unless you want zero points. It is like the kid threatening to take his ball home if he doesn't get his way.



Let me spell this out since I know it is a difficult concept for some of you given the comments. There is a difference between a strategy that leverages terrain as part of an active plan destroy your opponent's army, vs a strategy that has no plan to win other than to sit on good terrain and hope your opponent is masochistic enough to attack said position. I decided to try and find a way up the hill. I guess I am just the sucker dumb enough to try when the appropriate response according to some of you is to sit where the red lines are drawn and hit end turn 24 times in a row since "refusing battle" are legitimate tactics in an ancients battle game.

For the final time, I am not asking for any rules or legislation against this behaviour. I am simply asking that if you are such a person that values points so much in a league where the only possible prize is a 25 dollar voucher, then simply have the courtesy of giving me a PM, so I can play opponents who want an honest game. Some of the best games I have had have come from this league. I still remember games with Ruski where both times we met we each raced to terrain that we wanted and proceeded to bludgeon each other as it was a race against time to see who's plan would complete first. I remember the game with dkalenda last season where he pushed his chips into the center and I swung all my cavalry to the right and desperately fed in every last unit to hold the middle until my lancers returned from routing his cavalry. I remember a 58-59 Rome vs Carthage game against Hidde where he used a hill to funnel troops to stretch my flank as we both nervously watched a heavily Vet Principes unit locked in battle with his last standing elephant. I remember my game with harveylh where the game was literally decided by his last reserve cavalry unit pinning a lancer that finally broke through his lines and was threatening his Zealot line to the rear as they were ripping through my Arab City Foot.

Those are the games I want to play. Against good players who aren't afraid of a good fight win or lose. Players who know that terrain is used to help them build a plan for victory, instead of the terrain literally being their plan of victory. These games make the ones I have shown so much worse since, at some point when I figure they won't come out, I say to myself self "really? all this to try to secure a voucher?"
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

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

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 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:17 am

The problem with some players here, is that they are playing a tournament and only concerned about 'their points', getting, losing or :O heaven forbid a draw! Oh the humanity! If you are playing just to win a tourney, then might I humbly suggest that you are playing for the wrong reason. This is the reason I no longer play tournaments. Sure, it would be nice to win, but that's missing the point.The matching of your generalship skills against other online 'generals' should be what you're going after. Only one person here is whinging about his 'situation'. If you don't like how others play, don't be idiotic, just leave the tourney...or better still just play for the fun of it. Not fun? Leave.
Cheers
Alex

melm
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

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

Post by melm » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:17 am

If no suggestion on the game rule or the tournament rule is proposed, then the whole thread is pointless. Whining didn't help to improve anything. What we need to think about is that whether there are any possible rules to rule out a-sportsmanship, or I call it dirty players among my RTS friends. It's not easy job. Because one needs to rule out dirty play but can't rule out the legitimate tactics at the same time. In my opinion, rule is can-do and can't-do before the result realized. In your examples, the result is already realized that you found no ambush, no outflanking etc. But when the game starts, no one knows what's possible there.

You mentioned that the other taunting you to attack. It does sound very unfriendly. But I am sure you don't want to be friend with him. Think about ancient cases, taunting is a legitimate tactic. There are tons of taunting cases in the Romance of Three Kingdoms. Why not act as Sima Yi did? Before the battle of Illipa, the Romans and the Carthaginians were doing the same thing.

I had the game that I fully used the advantage of terrain because of the army, and I also had the game that I assaulted uphill and secure the victory. I give these two examples to show +25POA may not offer easy win. And in some situation, some army really needs terrain to help. So, if one is accusing the other turtling on the hill, we also need to judge what the army they are using. In your example, you brushed out your opponent's army on hill, so I give up judging. What I mean is that the problem is not that simple.

Then, what can be done after the result is realized if we can't work out better rules? I am afraid only adjudicator can help. we know that, in sports, adjudicator will warn extremely passive play(now we see that there is passive play in sports, sadly, kind of human nature), and he has the right to punish the a-sportsmanship behavior. We may introduce this into FOG2 tournament too. However, we also need to define what passive play is for the sake of that it won't be totally adjudicator subjective view. This is the idea that I can contribute so far. This is also the reason that I advocate game replay that we can judge(or learn) the games when the results are realized. Just like football judge needs to watch replay video to help their decision.
Last edited by melm on Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:34 am, edited 2 times in total.

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 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:26 am

melm wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:17 am
If no suggestion on the game rule or the tournament rule is proposed, then the whole thread is pointless. Whining didn't help to improve anything. What we need to think about is that whether there are any possible rules to rule out a-sportsmanship, or I call it dirty players among my RTS friends. It's not easy job. Because one needs to rule out dirty play but can't rule out the legitimate tactics at the same time. In my opinion, rule is can-do and can't-do before the result realized. In your examples, the result is already realized that you found no ambush, no outflanking etc. But when the game starts, no one knows what's possible there.

I had the game that I fully used the advantage of terrain because of the army, and I also had the game that I assaulted uphill and secure the victory. I give these two examples to show +25POA may not offer easy win. And in some situation, some army really needs terrain to help. So, if one is accusing the other turtling on the hill, we also need to judge what the army they are using. In your example, you brushed out your opponent's army on hill, so I give up judging. What I mean is that the problem is not that simple.

What can be done after the result is realized if we can't work out better rules? I am afraid only adjudicator can help. we know that, in sports, adjudicator will warn extremely passive play, and he has the right to punish the a-sportsmanship behavior. We may introduce this into FOG2 tournament too. However, we also need to define what passive play is for the sake of that it won't be totally adjudicator subjective view. This is the idea that I can contribute so far. This is also the reason that I advocate game replay that we can judge(or learn) the games when the results are realized. Just like football judge needs to watch replay video to help their decision.
Or maybe.....

Radical suggestion.......

Just play the game as it is designed to be played and it you are not happy then don't play it :roll:

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9523
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

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

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:31 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.
MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:53 pm
A farce which is totally allowable under your rules . . .
Make your mind up, Mike.

Najanaja
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Dec 01, 2009 4:35 am
Location: Australia

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

Post by Najanaja » Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:09 am

[quote=AlexDetrojan post_id=810090 time=1571199435 user_id=174160]
The problem with some players here, is that they are playing a tournament and only concerned about 'their points', getting, losing or :O heaven forbid a draw! Oh the humanity! If you are playing just to win a tourney, then might I humbly suggest that you are playing for the wrong reason. This is the reason I no longer play tournaments. Sure, it would be nice to win, but that's missing the point.The matching of your generalship skills against other online 'generals' should be what you're going after. Only one person here is whinging about his 'situation'. If you don't like how others play, don't be idiotic, just leave the tourney...or better still just play for the fun of it. Not fun? Leave.
Cheers
Alex
[/quote]

+1

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 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:44 pm

Mike, I am in full agreement with your first example , but not on you second, for several reasons. That map has a terrain feature roughly in the center, and sure , it appears your opponent would have had an easier time getting troops on it. However, it seems you could have contested said hill by deployment and or more aggressively maneuvering. Sure, you might have lost the micro combats and found yourself not gaining a foothold and in a worse position but that the way the dice roll. Possibly its you that made this a non game :)

I tend to feel the same as you regarding decisive play. I feel I always have to play the role of the guy that has to assault impregnable positions, as my opponent won’t move but I’m not a top player, which leads me to my second point.

You seem to be putting top players on some kind of pedestal of fascinating game play and chivalry. Let me tell you, many top players are top because they refuse to lose. Maybe not all , but most would gladly maneuver in the exact way as the blue player in your example. I played guys that I’ve never won against whom have called for draws when I have slightest advantage but would merrily park on a hill themselves.

Any way not sure what rules could do fo this issue. Perhaps the league could use a rule that each player can force a re roll of the map, but it must be declared at your deployment.

Better, have each battle have a designated attacker/defender. In a draw the defender gets 1 point, if he wins 4, but if the attacker wins he get 5 or 6 ( just throwing #’ out there). I don’t have any skin in the game as I don’t play in league anymore, but perhaps Pete could put this into one of his famous polls? ;)

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 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:06 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 4:00 am

People are conflating two different things. People trying to defend this tactic seem to imply I am some neanderthal who just wants to *hulk smash* and run in a line at each other. But there is a distinction between "clever tactics" and just time-wasting. Let's go back to the game at hand.



The yellow bars were were his initial deployment or so. He had a line of skirmishers further up that advanced up to near the hills in his deployment zone. He outnumbered me in skirmishers so I had to keep the skirmisher line tight to my main body so as to not get rushed and immediately lose the skirmisher war. After 2-3 turns he moves his cavalry, but not his infantry to their present location. As my line of skirmishers and the main body moves up at a painful 2 squares a turn for several moves, he steadily backs up his skirmish line all the way to the infantry but always close enough that he could instantly wheel around and pounce on any skirmishers pushed out too far. At this point, I am thinking ok he has to have some stuff in the woods to the right. As I approach and past midpoint, he moves his visible heavy foot behind his cavalry. Despite already being down a skirmisher, I detach a javelin man to scout first blob. Nothing. If I could see into the woods that he had nothing, I could have rushed headlong and stopped his escape. But then if he actually did have stuff in there I would just be the idiot for falling for something so obvious right? Turns out the only thing hidden was a bunch of light javelin horses.

There is nothing clever about this. This is just time-wasting. There is no ambush, no secret flank. NOTHING. He had a cryptic opening message about the terrain but no request for a reroll.


Exhibit B.



The blue lines indicate his fixed position around where my army was in red. In the subsequent 6-8 turns, no movement by the infantry was made other than to adjust facing and shifting troops so that I have no gap to come up as I dance a little to see if I can open up a gap. But guess, what interior lines mean he can always move things faster than I can. It became very obvious what he was doing and I even "did nothing" for a couple of turns to see what would happen. No budge. This is also not clever or skillful. This is just saying that you are willing to accept a draw for ZERO POINTS unless you can get your +25 PoA across the board. Any novice knows fighting from top of a hill is good. There is no "wit" involved here. He simply got the RNG terrain in his favour and he is saying come get me if you unless you want zero points. It is like the kid threatening to take his ball home if he doesn't get his way.

Let me spell this out since I know it is a difficult concept for some of you given the comments. There is a difference between a strategy that leverages terrain as part of an active plan destroy your opponent's army, vs a strategy that has no plan to win other than to sit on good terrain and hope your opponent is masochistic enough to attack said position. I decided to try and find a way up the hill. I guess I am just the sucker dumb enough to try when the appropriate response according to some of you is to sit where the red lines are drawn and hit end turn 24 times in a row since "refusing battle" are legitimate tactics in an ancients battle game.
So my earlier comment was directed to medium infantry army tactics and frankly no I am not having a difficult time with any concept here. Apparently you disagree that a defensive plan is a viable tactic. Looking at your exhibit B that can certainly be a valid tactic by your opponent. Let's take for example the Persians and put that army on the hill- mainly medicum bow armed foot. I am not going to rush off the hill into your heavy infantry I will wait for you to attack or try to win the cavalry battle on the flank. That is certainly a valid and historical tactic in my mind. How about a famous example then - Hastings - the Normans were forced to attack a defensive position uphill and yet won the battle in the end. What about when the late medieval DLC comes out, would you have have the English Longbowmen rush out from behind the stakes to attack the French knights?

I am not disagreeing that on occasion you will get terrain that causes a stand off in which case the parties could re-roll or call it a draw to avoid wasting time. Going back to your original screen shot you still have 17 turns left, so what happened? Did you catch his cavalry outside the woods? From the screen shot it appears options for points are still available. Did you ask your opponent to concede to a draw so as not to waste time?

nyczar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:04 am

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

Post by nyczar » Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:23 pm

The simplest way to avoid turtling is to have objectives, similar to the central position idea shared earlier. There was thread I contributed to some time ago where I asked about the design decision to avoid objectives. It was a very reasonable RBS response, which I dont recall :oops:. In essence, it was a game choice and objectives have issues as well. I have had two games where i faced passive play. In both cases I had a heavy list facing off against crappy medium/ skirmishers/cav/etc. No way my opponents would win in open terrain. They used terrain and to avoid boredom, I tried to assault, knowing it would likely fail. two draws. Other times I have left favorable terrain and tried an assault because I just don't like passive play. Still others, I have faced a horde and no way was I going to expose my flanks to a pincer, and I become more passive :( . In the absence of objectives, I dont think there is a guideline on how one ought to achieve victory, nor avoid defeat. Especially in the DL where match ups are frequently anachronistic.

I like the idea of division focused not just on periods alone, but also on list types and even terrain type. Perhaps a heavy division that is played on (agricultural) maps vs pot luck. I know for some that would be boring, but for others, it might be a welcomed option.

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 » Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:59 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:31 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.
MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Oct 15, 2019 6:53 pm
A farce which is totally allowable under your rules . . .
Make your mind up, Mike.
How are those two statements in-congruent with each other???
TheGrayMouser wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:44 pm
Mike, I am in full agreement with your first example , but not on you second, for several reasons. That map has a terrain feature roughly in the center, and sure , it appears your opponent would have had an easier time getting troops on it. However, it seems you could have contested said hill by deployment and or more aggressively maneuvering. Sure, you might have lost the micro combats and found yourself not gaining a foothold and in a worse position but that the way the dice roll. Possibly its you that made this a non game :)
It is not in the centre, the screenshot was cut off unlike the first example. His skirmishers easily reached the hill before mine. At best I would have to attack up the narrow slope on the south end and even then it would leave me in an awkward position where the rest of my army now has to assault the main extension going east.
TheGrayMouser wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:44 pm
You seem to be putting top players on some kind of pedestal of fascinating game play and chivalry. Let me tell you, many top players are top because they refuse to lose. Maybe not all , but most would gladly maneuver in the exact way as the blue player in your example. I played guys that I’ve never won against whom have called for draws when I have slightest advantage but would merrily park on a hill themselves.
Of all the games in Division A or B that I have played, I have never had to chase someone to the extent of Exhibit A or have someone be as deeply committed to an all terrain game plan with the exception of a player not mentioned who sat on top of a hill with Pikes(!) on his baseline and it took me until the final possible turn in the game to break his army.
TheGrayMouser wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:44 pm
Any way not sure what rules could do fo this issue. Perhaps the league could use a rule that each player can force a re roll of the map, but it must be declared at your deployment.
There is no rule you can legitimately enforce without bending gameplay awkwardly or forcing artificial constraints. The rules already punish players who do not fight in such a manner by scoring 0 points for both parties. A result that many seem very happy to accept. This is a mindset issue, not a rules issue. Hence, I have not asked for any rule changes, only that I be informed ahead of time before I waste a ton of time planning unit selection and playing several turns only to find out what will happen.
edb1815 wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:06 pm
So my earlier comment was directed to medium infantry army tactics and frankly no I am not having a difficult time with any concept here. Apparently you disagree that a defensive plan is a viable tactic. Looking at your exhibit B that can certainly be a valid tactic by your opponent. Let's take for example the Persians and put that army on the hill- mainly medicum bow armed foot. I am not going to rush off the hill into your heavy infantry I will wait for you to attack or try to win the cavalry battle on the flank. That is certainly a valid and historical tactic in my mind. How about a famous example then - Hastings - the Normans were forced to attack a defensive position uphill and yet won the battle in the end. What about when the late medieval DLC comes out, would you have have the English Longbowmen rush out from behind the stakes to attack the French knights?
Yes a valid tactic historically. A tactic of refusing battle. Great! Why play a game of ancient battles then if you intend to refuse battle? :lol:
edb1815 wrote:
Wed Oct 16, 2019 5:06 pm
I am not disagreeing that on occasion you will get terrain that causes a stand off in which case the parties could re-roll or call it a draw to avoid wasting time. Going back to your original screen shot you still have 17 turns left, so what happened? Did you catch his cavalry outside the woods? From the screen shot it appears options for points are still available. Did you ask your opponent to concede to a draw so as not to waste time?
Still going on. He turned around some of his horse and his infantry is just outside the tree line. gonna have to scout the woods in the NW with whatever skirmishers I have left to find out where the rest of the army is. Keep in mind it takes around SEVEN TURNS just to execute that wheel and I have already not scouted part of the NE woods thoroughly to try and save time. That leaves 10 turns to close in the woods, and scout, and try to extract 40 percent with a 25% margin. An almost impossible task when infantry move 2 squares a turn.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

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

Schweetness101
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:12 am

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

Post by Schweetness101 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:41 am

I'd say I mostly agree with Mike's view here, although I'm more sympathetic to the first example that was more camping on the map edge type of behavior. The second looked like the player had moved into roughly the middle of the map to take up a forward defensive position, which seems a pretty legitimate strategy, especially if paired with well timed counter attacks.

Honestly, in cases like the latter one I actually like it when my opponent takes up a defensive position, because then they hand all of the initiative to me, and I can line up my best troops + concentrated ranged fire on their worst troops, and break through their line, all the while unmolested by their best troops who they don't want to move because they've taken up a nice spot on top of a hill.

If you want to see a really egregious example of this camping behavior though checkout this screenshot from a tournament I competed in where my opponent just camped the back edge of the map in the forest lol:

https://imgur.com/TEXW4j9
https://imgur.com/a/yZkhgDS

Image
Image

I just gave that game up after I'd moved across the map to find that he wasn't going to come out lol. Not really worth the time so I just ended it. In all fairness he rolled a bad army, but even so the above to me seemed ridiculous.

One solution could be a cohesion test malus on the edges of the map on your respective side. Like -2 within 2 tiles of the back edge and the side edges of your half of the map, and a -1 between 2 and 6 tiles back, something like that. Most of the time it's not a problem because players either don't camp, or if they do it's because they're not very good and are just handing you the initiative, but when it matters it's super annoying. I can especially see how it's more of an issue in tournaments because people will be more likely to play to win.

One thing any given individual could do is compile a black list of people who play in a way they dislike, and just not take up games with them. Maybe that could be a more easily implemented feature? Not something actually in the game, but a blacklist of people who may not accept your games because you don't want to play them. Although that would add a lot of drama lol. Blacklist is kind of a dirty word after all haha. I mean blocked players is I guess what it's normally called in video games.

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 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:49 am

Schweetness101 wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:41 am
checkout this screenshot
Dude, where are your skirmishers???? You're really just rolling up on him with pikes, thureos, and your xystos?

melm
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 498
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:07 pm

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

Post by melm » Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:05 am

Schweetness101 wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:41 am
I'd say I mostly agree with Mike's view here, although I'm more sympathetic to the first example that was more camping on the map edge type of behavior. The second looked like the player had moved into roughly the middle of the map to take up a forward defensive position, which seems a pretty legitimate strategy, especially if paired with well timed counter attacks.

Honestly, in cases like the latter one I actually like it when my opponent takes up a defensive position, because then they hand all of the initiative to me, and I can line up my best troops + concentrated ranged fire on their worst troops, and break through their line, all the while unmolested by their best troops who they don't want to move because they've taken up a nice spot on top of a hill.

If you want to see a really egregious example of this camping behavior though checkout this screenshot from a tournament I competed in where my opponent just camped the back edge of the map in the forest lol:

https://imgur.com/TEXW4j9
https://imgur.com/a/yZkhgDS

Image
Image

I just gave that game up after I'd moved across the map to find that he wasn't going to come out lol. Not really worth the time so I just ended it. In all fairness he rolled a bad army, but even so the above to me seemed ridiculous.

One solution could be a cohesion test malus on the edges of the map on your respective side. Like -2 within 2 tiles of the back edge and the side edges of your half of the map, and a -1 between 2 and 6 tiles back, something like that. Most of the time it's not a problem because players either don't camp, or if they do it's because they're not very good and are just handing you the initiative, but when it matters it's super annoying. I can especially see how it's more of an issue in tournaments because people will be more likely to play to win.

One thing any given individual could do is compile a black list of people who play in a way they dislike, and just not take up games with them. Maybe that could be a more easily implemented feature? Not something actually in the game, but a blacklist of people who may not accept your games because you don't want to play them. Although that would add a lot of drama lol. Blacklist is kind of a dirty word after all haha. I mean blocked players is I guess what it's normally called in video games.
But all he has is massed archers and mobs, and a few Sparabara if I am correct. He surely can't confront your pikes in the open. Too suicidal. I don't really think it egregious.

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 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:11 am

melm wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:05 am

But all he has is massed archers and mobs, and a few Sparabara if I am correct. He surely can't confront your pikes in the open. Too suicidal. I don't really think it egregious.
An excuse that can't be applied to a tournament like the DL where players get to pick what they want.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

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

jomni
Sengoku Jidai
Sengoku Jidai
Posts: 1386
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 1:20 am

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

Post by jomni » Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:56 am

Maybe we should create a clean map option. No terrain features for (certain) tournaments.

cromlechi
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 2:29 pm

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

Post by cromlechi » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:18 am

I was accused of camping once on this forum during a previous season. It was quite funny as I had no intention of camping and it was only a few moves in. My opponent who made the complaint was the one who refused to move in the end and lost. Just because someone hasn't committed doesn't mean they wont change their mind at some point. I've had battles where there's been no real engagement until the final few turns and still had a result. It takes two to tango and seems crass to complain that the opponent hasn't moved to fight on terrain you favour when you are doing the same thing. If you want the win you have to take the risk or settle for a draw. Keeping moving forward and you'll engage.

Schweetness101
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 6:12 am

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

Post by Schweetness101 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 4:38 am

melm wrote:
Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:05 am
But all he has is massed archers and mobs, and a few Sparabara if I am correct. He surely can't confront your pikes in the open. Too suicidal. I don't really think it egregious.
he had something like twice as many infantry/bowmen units as I had infantry, great superiority in lights, and a few units of excellent ranged cavalry, and with so many massed archers and sparabara he could have disrupted many pikes before closing and routed them with flanks. He he could have absolutely fought the battle. Even if the odds are against him he could have tried at least. I mean otherwise what's the point? it's a video game, might as well play it if you are going to logon.

oh and to clarify it was from an earlier tournament but not the DL tournament, like above didn't want to identify though, just using as an example

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 » Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:25 am

seems crass to complain that the opponent hasn't moved to fight on terrain you favour when you are doing the same thing. If you want the win you have to take the risk or settle for a draw.
This is absolutely right.

I think the origin of the problem for those like Mike who are unhappy is that there is a assumption that fighting in clear terrain is a "fair fight" whilst fighting on rocky hills or woods is somehow less "worthy".

Very few maps have a mass of forest or rocky hills taking up the majority of their central areas, whilst a lot have clear terrain in these parts of the map (albeit some will have patches of rougher areas spread around) .

In those situations larger areas of rough terrain at the map edges may be the only optimum terrain for some armies (just as the clear terrain is optimum for HI dominated armies deployed by Mike and Schweetness above).

I would ask ....if there were a large forested area in the centre of the map would you send your phalanxes and heavy legions into them to fight an army of irregulars ? I would guess not.

Yet you expect those same type of armies to come out and fight on your preferred terrain and rely on achieving overlaps and flanking to win as head to head they will be slaughtered...

Open terrain fighting = Good

Rough terrain fighting = Bad

is not an equation with any validity yet seems to be the cause of this complaint.


Where I do agree with Mike is it is a waste of everyone's time to plod across a map to the rough terrain "camper" with HI hoping they will come out before the game ends if they have no intention to do so. I have agreed 0-0 draws on a couple of occasions by turn 3 or 4 in tournaments with no hard feelings just by sending in game messages. This seems much more sensible.
Last edited by devoncop on Thu Oct 17, 2019 5:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II”