The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

Cunningcairn
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Cunningcairn » Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:11 am

In larger games i.e. 1600 and 2000 points it does not take more days to complete a game however the time to complete a turn does increase. Games are still completed in the same number of turns. If Slitherine is able to confirm this from the records of games played it might put an end to people arguing differently.

Cunningcairn
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Cunningcairn » Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:34 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 10:12 am
MikeC_81 wrote:
Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:32 am
But if you are consistently a middling player going 4-5 wins in Division A or you can't get promoted out of a lower division over multiple seasons and this is bugging you, its time to look in the mirror.
Why is it? :roll: If you are one of these "middling players" who accepts that luck evens out over a period of time, but still feels that the vagaries of the rules (e.g. double-drops) and RNG combined spoil some of their matches, then what is wrong with raising these arguments? The central argument here is about quality of gameplay, but your assumption seems to be that players are complaining because they lose matches because of RNG. This is just wrong. We all lose matches because of double-drops/RNG, and we all win some because of it too.
100% correct Pete! Continuously stating that the reason issues regarding bizarre results are raised is because the players complaining aren't happy about losing is absolute nonsense. It is also rather arrogant and counter productive to then create a class (middling) for those who dare to oppose the empire. Players raise issues and some lead to changes and some don't. This iterative process is ongoing and the game continues to improve. Sometimes hackles are raised but the game and process goes on. I don't begrudge anyone disagreeing with my view but if I think think something is plain silly I am going to say so. If it leads to a change then fantastic if it doesn't I move on or sometimes annoyingly I keep trying for change :-)

Karvon
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:36 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Karvon » Sat Aug 10, 2019 11:11 am

To be honest, my irritation with the random factor has led me to stop watching replays most of the time. I spend the time doing something else productive instead. I still enjoy playing over all and no plans of abandoning ship yet.

Geffalrus
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Geffalrus » Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:59 pm

Here's something I've been thinking about regarding the larger battle size discussion:

Take two units.......Average Phalanx and Italian Foot. One pike phalanx costs exactly as much two Italian Foot. In rough terrain the pike unit gets destroyed. In the open, things are a bit more balanced.

Assume the pike is facing two Italian Foot units in open, in charge range, and the foot units are side by side.

- If the pike unit charges one of the two Italian Foot units, and gets a cohesion drop, then they have a decent chance of winning the entire fight because the Foot unit might fully break on the melee round of combat, at which point the pike now only faces one outclassed foot unit. This is because in a normal situation, it takes one turn to line up a flank charge, and then another turn to initiate the charge.

- If the Italian Foot unit does not cohesion drop on contact, then the Foot units have a better chance of winning. If two or more Indecisive rolls occur, then the second Foot unit can line up a flank attack and auto-cohesion drop the pike unit. Once disrupted, the pike unit is relatively easy prey for medium sword units. Even if the charged Foot loses the melee combat round following the Impact, they have a higher chance of surviving long enough for the second unit to flank the pike unit.

Now, increase the number of pikes and Italian foot proportionately and keep them lined up in a similar fashion.

- As the numbers of both increase, you start to have more and more Italian foot facing empty space, and more and more pikes fighting with their flanks protected from easy assault.

- This is in part because the Foot are trapped by their 2 space movement speed. The larger the amount of overlap, the larger distance the Foot have to travel to flank the engaged pikes.

- The longer it takes to flank the pikes, the more time they have to win individual combats with the engaged Italian Foot and leverage their higher POA and the cohesion penalty medium foot have facing heavy infantry in open terrain.

- Additionally, more units mean more rolls and more opportunities for luck to go the way of the pikes. And once it does, the numbers advantage of the Italian Foot start to disappear, at which point the pikes start to look like a better investment.

Basically this is the surface area problem where the larger the object, the greater the ratio of the interior of the object vs. the surface of the object. Obviously, I used an extremely simple scenario to illustrate this. In reality, there are other things the Italian Foot player can do. But that goes for the pike player as well. At a certain point, the pike player benefits from greater total numbers by having less exploitable flanks. This of course can be the case for other units. Ultimately, it might be a way to dilute some of the advantage that mass cheap foot armies have in certain circumstances.

Cunningcairn
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Cunningcairn » Sat Aug 10, 2019 6:35 pm

Geffalrus wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:59 pm
Here's something I've been thinking about regarding the larger battle size discussion:

Take two units.......Average Phalanx and Italian Foot. One pike phalanx costs exactly as much two Italian Foot. In rough terrain the pike unit gets destroyed. In the open, things are a bit more balanced.

Assume the pike is facing two Italian Foot units in open, in charge range, and the foot units are side by side.

- If the pike unit charges one of the two Italian Foot units, and gets a cohesion drop, then they have a decent chance of winning the entire fight because the Foot unit might fully break on the melee round of combat, at which point the pike now only faces one outclassed foot unit. This is because in a normal situation, it takes one turn to line up a flank charge, and then another turn to initiate the charge.

- If the Italian Foot unit does not cohesion drop on contact, then the Foot units have a better chance of winning. If two or more Indecisive rolls occur, then the second Foot unit can line up a flank attack and auto-cohesion drop the pike unit. Once disrupted, the pike unit is relatively easy prey for medium sword units. Even if the charged Foot loses the melee combat round following the Impact, they have a higher chance of surviving long enough for the second unit to flank the pike unit.

Now, increase the number of pikes and Italian foot proportionately and keep them lined up in a similar fashion.

- As the numbers of both increase, you start to have more and more Italian foot facing empty space, and more and more pikes fighting with their flanks protected from easy assault.

- This is in part because the Foot are trapped by their 2 space movement speed. The larger the amount of overlap, the larger distance the Foot have to travel to flank the engaged pikes.

- The longer it takes to flank the pikes, the more time they have to win individual combats with the engaged Italian Foot and leverage their higher POA and the cohesion penalty medium foot have facing heavy infantry in open terrain.

- Additionally, more units mean more rolls and more opportunities for luck to go the way of the pikes. And once it does, the numbers advantage of the Italian Foot start to disappear, at which point the pikes start to look like a better investment.

Basically this is the surface area problem where the larger the object, the greater the ratio of the interior of the object vs. the surface of the object. Obviously, I used an extremely simple scenario to illustrate this. In reality, there are other things the Italian Foot player can do. But that goes for the pike player as well. At a certain point, the pike player benefits from greater total numbers by having less exploitable flanks. This of course can be the case for other units. Ultimately, it might be a way to dilute some of the advantage that mass cheap foot armies have in certain circumstances.
You might have a very good point here. Having previously played mostly 2000 point games I found the mass, cheap foot armies were not as successful as they were in the 1200 point games. I never really tried to analyse exactly why but your explanation makes perfect sense. It also explains why my favoured style of play which relies heavily on delay and timing is not as successful in the smaller games. Larger point armies are also better for using military principles such as economy of force, focus of force and reserves than in the 1200 points games due to the larger number of units.

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

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by MikeC_81 » Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:51 pm

Geffalrus wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 3:59 pm
- This is in part because the Foot are trapped by their 2 space movement speed. The larger the amount of overlap, the larger distance the Foot have to travel to flank the engaged pikes.

- The longer it takes to flank the pikes, the more time they have to win individual combats with the engaged Italian Foot and leverage their higher POA and the cohesion penalty medium foot have facing heavy infantry in open terrain.
Unlikely to happen as there is no way a player would allow the units opposite the Pikes to engage before the double envelopment was already prepositioned and ready to go.
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

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

Karvon
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:36 pm

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Karvon » Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:41 pm

Having played a number of large and very large battles, I really disliked the extra time required to play each turn and found the games more static and more difficult to obtain decisive results. I doubt I'd join a league in such a case.

Geffalrus
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 679
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Geffalrus » Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:28 am

MikeC_81 wrote:
Sat Aug 10, 2019 8:51 pm
Unlikely to happen as there is no way a player would allow the units opposite the Pikes to engage before the double envelopment was already prepositioned and ready to go.
Mmmmm, depends on the player. And not to get too far into overthinking the scenario, but a pike player would be equally unlikely to walk themselves meekly into a double envelopment.

Anyway, my goal was not to depict a strategy, but rather to illustrate a geometric principle pertaining to the relationship between numbers of units and their relative vulnerability to flanking. Or in other words, this is why heavy infantry wanted to fight in an unbroken line.

SnuggleBunnies
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1046
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Sun Aug 11, 2019 12:38 am

I prefer medium battles as well, due to the time factor. I wouldn't drop out of the league if it switched to large battles, but I would play fewer sections.

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

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by MikeC_81 » Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:41 pm

A super small request. Could you post the year of the armies chosen in the FoG2DL archive? Even if it is just the starting year if space is a problem? I noticed that season 5 did not have them. Thanks!
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

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

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10057
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by stockwellpete » Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:32 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:
Sun Aug 18, 2019 9:41 pm
A super small request. Could you post the year of the armies chosen in the FoG2DL archive? Even if it is just the starting year if space is a problem? I noticed that season 5 did not have them. Thanks!
You will find the armies chosen by players for Season 5 at the bottom of page 381 in The Dustbin.

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

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by MikeC_81 » Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:22 am

Do you anticipate that the armies will be restricted to allies that fall primarily in the same time period? ie Arab City 300AD can potentially pick Sassanid 591 AD - 628 AD as allies. Do you consider allies are 'part of the kit' or do allies have to conform to the same time period rules?
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

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

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10057
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:57 am

MikeC_81 wrote:
Mon Aug 19, 2019 4:22 am
Do you anticipate that the armies will be restricted to allies that fall primarily in the same time period? ie Arab City 300AD can potentially pick Sassanid 591 AD - 628 AD as allies. Do you consider allies are 'part of the kit' or do allies have to conform to the same time period rules?
I have no plans to interfere with the selection of allies.

rbodleyscott
Field of Glory 2
Field of Glory 2
Posts: 22721
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:25 pm

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by rbodleyscott » Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:27 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:42 am

These armies will eventually be available in High Middle Ages

Anglo-Danish 1017-1041 AD
Arab North Africa 1000-1160 AD
Arab Syria/Iraq 1009-1150 AD
Byzantine 988-1041 AD
Fatimid Egyptian 978-1073 AD
Georgian 1008-1049 AD
Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD
Polish 966-1057 AD
Rus 960-1053 AD
The end dates for most Dark Ages armies is the date at which we assume the armoured cavalry transition from cavalry to knights. This is perforce a bit subjective/arbitrary, but we take it as being circa 1041 for Normans (Battle of Monte Maggiore), 1050 for most westerners, and rather later for some such as Poles etc.

The lists above that have dates that go well after that are ones that don't undergo the transition from cavalry to knights at all.

So I would recommend a start date of 1050 for the High Medieval period - nobody in their right mind will use the pre-knight versions of the western armies anyway as they will be rubbish in the Meta.

So I would suggest that this list becomes:
These armies will eventually be available in High Middle Ages

Arab North Africa 1000-1160 AD
Arab Syria/Iraq 1009-1150 AD
Fatimid Egyptian 978-1073 AD
Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD
Polish 966-1057 AD
Rus 960-1053 AD
The other nations will of course be represented, but with lists more appropriate to the High Middle Ages period.
Richard Bodley Scott

Image

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10057
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Sep 02, 2019 3:11 pm

rbodleyscott wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 9:27 am
stockwellpete wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:42 am

These armies will eventually be available in High Middle Ages

Anglo-Danish 1017-1041 AD
Arab North Africa 1000-1160 AD
Arab Syria/Iraq 1009-1150 AD
Byzantine 988-1041 AD
Fatimid Egyptian 978-1073 AD
Georgian 1008-1049 AD
Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD
Polish 966-1057 AD
Rus 960-1053 AD
The end dates for most Dark Ages armies is the date at which we assume the armoured cavalry transition from cavalry to knights. This is perforce a bit subjective/arbitrary, but we take it as being circa 1041 for Normans (Battle of Monte Maggiore), 1050 for most westerners, and rather later for some such as Poles etc.

The lists above that have dates that go well after that are ones that don't undergo the transition from cavalry to knights at all.

So I would recommend a start date of 1050 for the High Medieval period - nobody in their right mind will use the pre-knight versions of the western armies anyway as they will be rubbish in the Meta.

So I would suggest that this list becomes:
These armies will eventually be available in High Middle Ages

Arab North Africa 1000-1160 AD
Arab Syria/Iraq 1009-1150 AD
Fatimid Egyptian 978-1073 AD
Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD
Polish 966-1057 AD
Rus 960-1053 AD
The other nations will of course be represented, but with lists more appropriate to the High Middle Ages period.
I can look at the 1050 or 1100AD cut-off date once we open the High Middle Ages section. Presumably that will be sometime next year, maybe for Season 8 or 9. If it is to be 1050AD then Arab North Africa 1000-1160 AD, Arab Syria/Iraq 1009-1150 AD and Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD can transfer from Early Middle Ages to High Middle Ages.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10057
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Themed Event re-structure for Season 6

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:38 am

Themed Event restructure details

For Season 6 we will be using jomni’s Silk Road mod (v1.7). You can download the multi-player version of the mod in game using the “Download Community scenarios” facility.

The format has changed from previous seasons. For this season 12 players will constitute a pool, which will be divided into 4 qualifying groups of 3 players. At the group stage players will play each other in paired games (mirror matches) so the total of individual battles played by each player will be 4. Only the winner of each group will proceed to the knock-out stage, which will consist of semi-finals and final (again using paired games).

The group stage will use the earlier Silk Road armies (dates predominantly BC) and the knock-out stage will use the later (dates predominantly AD) armies.

Players will initially select two armies for the qualifying group stage from this list . . .

Beidi 1046-701 BC
Beidi 700-220 BC
Chinese (Zhou) 1046-701 BC
Chinese (Zhou & Warring States) 700-351 BC
Chinese (Zhou & Warring States) 350-222 BC
Chinese (Qin) 221-207 BC
Chinese (Han) 206-100 BC
Chinese (Han) 99 BC-23 AD
Di 1046-701 BC
Di 700-201 BC
Donghu 1046 BC-209 AD
Qiang 1046-701 BC
Qiang 700-201 BC
Wuhuan 208-201 BC
Xianbei 208-201 BC
Xiongnu 221-201 BC
Xiongnu 200 BC-155 AD
Xirong 1046-220 BC

Players will automatically get their two choices and in each paired game will play one battle using their own choice of army and one battle using their opponent’s choice of army.

Players qualifying for the knock-out stage will chose from this list . . .

Chinese (Han) 24-219 AD
Chinese (Three Kingdoms - Wei) 220-265 AD
Chinese (Three Kingdoms - Shu) 221-263 AD
Chinese (Three Kingdoms - Wu) 222-280 AD
Chinese (Jin) 266-316 AD
Chinese (Jin) 317-420 AD
Chinese (Liu-Song) 421-479 AD
Chinese (Southern Qi) 480-502 AD
Chinese (Liang) 503-556 AD
Chinese (Chen) 557-589 AD
Chinese (Sui) 582-617 AD
Di 200 BC-303 AD
Northern Dynasties (Northern Wei) 386-534 AD
Northern Dynasties (Western Wei) 535-556 AD
Northern Dynasties (Northern Zhou) 557-581 AD
Northern Dynasties (Eastern Wei) 535-550 AD
Northern Dynasties (Northern Qi) 551-557 AD
Qiang 200 BC-303 AD
Rouran 330-499 AD
Rouran 500-555 AD
Sixteen Kingdoms 304-439 AD
Wuhuan 200 BC-207 AD
Xianbei 200 BC-303 AD

Again, players will automatically get their two choices and in each paired game will play one battle using their own choice of army and one battle using their opponent’s choice of army.

Recruitment to this section will follow a slightly different procedure from this season as well. Initially, I will seek to recruit 12 players to fill up the first pool. New players to the league will not be able to apply at this stage. Once I have the first 12 players, and provided there is still enough time to recruit another 12, recruitment for the second pool will open and new players will be able to apply.

Please note: this is not a recruitment thread. Recruitment will open from Monday September 16th.

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

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by MikeC_81 » Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:40 pm

Classical is missing 105BC Romans

Thanks. (stockwellpete)
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

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

Cunningcairn
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Cunningcairn » Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:48 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:40 pm
Classical is missing 105BC Romans

Thanks. (stockwellpete)
So the Roman 105BC is not moving to Later Antiquity?

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

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by MikeC_81 » Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:01 pm

Cunningcairn wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:48 pm
MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:40 pm
Classical is missing 105BC Romans

Thanks. (stockwellpete)
So the Roman 105BC is not moving to Later Antiquity?
Pete said that he is keeping Late Antiquity to 0-599 AD?
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

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

Cunningcairn
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1117
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Cunningcairn » Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:27 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 10:01 pm
Cunningcairn wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 9:48 pm
MikeC_81 wrote:
Tue Sep 10, 2019 12:40 pm
Classical is missing 105BC Romans

Thanks. (stockwellpete)
So the Roman 105BC is not moving to Later Antiquity?
Pete said that he is keeping Late Antiquity to 0-599 AD?
I'm not sure because the proposed army lists still has it moving to later antiquity.

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”