The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[MikeMarchant]

I realise I'm pretty new to this so please ignore me if you feel it appropriate but I have a couple of observations...
a) if someone is 'camping' can't you take an army that works against an 'encamped' army? Eg: one that has lots of shooting that can just whittle them down or one with quality mediums that can go toe to toe with them in terrain? Picking an army to use in the tourny with plenty of options is surely part of the process. If you take an army that only has cavalry or pike then you've probably got it coming
b) winkling a 'camper' out is just one of the many challenges you can face, chasing horse archers about the battlefield can be just as challenging!
c) some people are getting pretty wound up about a bit of fun...
Cheers,
Dave

All good questions, Dave.

a) You don't know that you're opponent is camping until after you have picked your army, and then it's too late for you to select a force specifically to deal with that. You might be able to guess, when you've seen the terrain, but that guess can sometimes be spectacularly wrong.
b) Absolutely right.
c) Some people approach the game as a bit of fun; some approach the game with deadly seriousness. There's space for both on the field, but you can probably guess who is the likley victor.


Best Wishes

Mike

[stockwellpete]

I realise I'm pretty new to this so please ignore me if you feel it appropriate but I have a couple of observations...
a) if someone is 'camping' can't you take an army that works against an 'encamped' army? Eg: one that has lots of shooting that can just whittle them down or one with quality mediums that can go toe to toe with them in terrain? Picking an army to use in the tourny with plenty of options is surely part of the process. If you take an army that only has cavalry or pike then you've probably got it coming

Yes, absolutely correct. When I played in the tournament myself I used to think of the 9 matches as part of a single campaign, and that I would have to choose 4 armies before the start of play, one of which would give me the best chance of dealing with the different army and terrain types that I would be likely to encounter across the season as a whole.

b) winkling a 'camper' out is just one of the many challenges you can face, chasing horse archers about the battlefield can be just as challenging!

Yes, that's right.

c) some people are getting pretty wound up about a bit of fun...

Yes, it takes all types, I guess.

[Swuul]

What about increasing the guaranteed spots to drop to lower division and climb up to higher division was raised from 1 to 2? On the other hand people wouldn't feel (justifiedly or not) ruined if they have to accept a 0-0 draw as they still have a very good chance to promote by winning most of the other 8 matches, and on the other hand, people wouldn't be so eager to attempt to get 0-0 draws because offering more than a couple (and losing a few of the other 6) might very well mean you are going to drop down a division. It would also help the players who feel uncomfortable in their current division (but who aren't bad enough to become 10th in division to drop, or not good enough to win a majority of their matches to have even a chance to climb up a division), plus it would give players a goal to fight for ferociously if somebody clinched the one guaranteed spot already early in the season.

[devoncop]

I realise I'm pretty new to this so please ignore me if you feel it appropriate but I have a couple of observations...
a) if someone is 'camping' can't you take an army that works against an 'encamped' army? Eg: one that has lots of shooting that can just whittle them down or one with quality mediums that can go toe to toe with them in terrain? Picking an army to use in the tourny with plenty of options is surely part of the process. If you take an army that only has cavalry or pike then you've probably got it coming
b) winkling a 'camper' out is just one of the many challenges you can face, chasing horse archers about the battlefield can be just as challenging!
c) some people are getting pretty wound up about a bit of fun...
Cheers,
Dave

If certain "veterans" displayed as much maturity and sense of perspective as you have done here Dave the sum total of worldwide wisdom would jump up quite a few notches

Well said.

[General Shapur]

What about increasing the guaranteed spots to drop to lower division and climb up to higher division was raised from 1 to 2? On the other hand people wouldn't feel (justifiedly or not) ruined if they have to accept a 0-0 draw as they still have a very good chance to promote by winning most of the other 8 matches, and on the other hand, people wouldn't be so eager to attempt to get 0-0 draws because offering more than a couple (and losing a few of the other 6) might very well mean you are going to drop down a division. It would also help the players who feel uncomfortable in their current division (but who aren't bad enough to become 10th in division to drop, or not good enough to win a majority of their matches to have even a chance to climb up a division), plus it would give players a goal to fight for ferociously if somebody clinched the one guaranteed spot already early in the season.

To stop it being gamed the number of players being assigned a new division could be a die roll or some other random. That way you would never really want to risk a 0-0....just in case.

[stockwellpete]

What about increasing the guaranteed spots to drop to lower division and climb up to higher division was raised from 1 to 2? On the other hand people wouldn't feel (justifiedly or not) ruined if they have to accept a 0-0 draw as they still have a very good chance to promote by winning most of the other 8 matches, and on the other hand, people wouldn't be so eager to attempt to get 0-0 draws because offering more than a couple (and losing a few of the other 6) might very well mean you are going to drop down a division. It would also help the players who feel uncomfortable in their current division (but who aren't bad enough to become 10th in division to drop, or not good enough to win a majority of their matches to have even a chance to climb up a division), plus it would give players a goal to fight for ferociously if somebody clinched the one guaranteed spot already early in the season.

It is not that I am opposed to this idea as such, but there would be a major problem with it if we moved to a definite 2-up and 2-down. And that is because I never know how many players from each section will return in the following season. Sometimes 2-up and 2-down would work just fine in situations where the number of players returning for the next season was high, say 8 or 9 out of 10. But in situations where the number of returnees were as low as 5 or 6 out of 10, and 2 of them were from the automatic relegation places, then I would be searching for 6 or 7 players to promote to fill up the division. This would immediately lead to un-balanced divisions where some players were much, much better than others.

So a far better approach is the one we have now where there is definitely 1-up and 1-down and other promotions and relegations are discretionary. This allows me to cope more easily with the differing rates of return across the tournament.

[nyczar]

I got tipped off there was a lively debate on the topic of camping but I was still surprised to see three pages to catch up on. Much to respond too, here it goes....

I agree that in a tournament that involves anachronistic match ups, assuming a defensive posture may be the best way to play a list if you want to maximize your point potential and minimize your opponents. In a tournament setting, you cant fault people that play to win the macro divisional game. If someone picked a list that required defensive play more than 5 games a season, I would say that player needs to improve their list choices as there is no way a defensive mindset will dominate at the higher levels of play. But there will be times when playing defensively is the best tournament choice. If I am to be honest, I can not refute that.

And yet why do I hate facing camping play so much? I dislike the time it takes to engage, I resent the thought that I should be the only one to risk defeat, I don't like "giving in" and trying something knowing I will likely lose. Of course, there is the obvious solution, that not every list offers, and that is missiles....if you play against a camper, bring missiles. But not every list offers this choice. In the absence of balance choices for all list, the only possible solution I can offer, which I doubt many will like, is to add turns to league play...maybe 30 rather than 24...this would allow the attacker more time to dress his forces for a better assault....lots of draw backs I know but more time would help to deal with camping play.

In the end though, the possibility of facing defensive play is a reality of the DL. I, like RBS, could write a book titled "Confessions of a high "B" low "A" player". My goal any season is 6 wins....my thinking for the other 3 includes losses and draws. I know a 9-0 run is like Moses coming down from the mountain with 15 commandments (he dropped the other five---only those of you who like Mel Brooks movies will get that), but in reality 9-0 is beyond hard, especially at the top levels.

Other thoughts based on the string i have just read:

Even elite players have styles that may be used against them, this is learned through suffering

Pete does an admirable job balancing conflicting demands and allowing us our fun; I understand the map re-roll compromise but every time I am a good sport I lose...no more Mr. nice guy here...

An automatic map veto is a disaster waiting to happen....when I read that idea my first thought went to how I would use it only when my opponent pissed me off with their set up, better to have a "gentleman's" rule as
we do- but see above...I will no longer be one!

I am all in on the idea of the Companions Cup...of course it was done in FOG1 days, what wasn't?....When I started FOG2 it was the Brits that always beat up on me but now there are a lot of Yanks that can do so as
well; I'd be happy to be the 4th or 5th starter on "Go USA Team". with Japan canceled, we do need something else to do this summer other than the DL. We could even have an Olympic squad made up of all the lone country representatives

While this wont work in DL tournament play, and Slitherine tournaments are disappointing because of no shows, the answer to many frustrations is mirrored matches. The concept of a mirror match makes things perfectly fair because all the stuff one can complain about is suffered by your opponent in exactly the same way.

[Schweetness101]

I do like the idea of either player being able to 'dictate' a map re-roll, at least once, as it were, rather than being required to ask for it. You shouldn't be able to do so indefinitely, but one guaranteed re-roll if you want it seems right.

What does everyone think about getting a -1 CT modifier for back edge camping? say, within 4 tiles of your side's back edge? (obviously that would be in a mod and not in the DL, but just floating the idea here for feedback)

[edb1815]

For exactly the reason that Harveylh posted. For the same reason, DanZandibar posted which originally rekindled this topic. For the exact reason that I got annoyed with chasing players into their spawn in the DL. 0-0 draws rarely happens because 90% of the time the player who is actually needing points in the standing will essentially cave and be forced to play on the "camper's terms of high-risk assault when threatened with a 0-0- draw. But I am sure you know this already.

And I refer you to the earlier contributions from Snugglebunnies and klayeckles . . .

Snugglebunnies - "Still, there's no sense getting that irritated about it. If you win all your matches except those in which your opponent camped too hard and went, say, 6 wins and 3 draws - you're very likely to promote a division. A player who always camps will not do so well, and is unlikely to promote. Even if they do promote, it's behavior that works better against less experienced players who aren't as versed in strategies like weighted flanks etc. as in higher divisions."

klayeckles - "i have to say snuggles hits it on the head...camping is perfectly legit. why would someone get frustrated by that? if i'm a general leading an army of 50,000 troops and i find myself with a battlefield that greatly favors the enemy if i move...wouldn't i be foolish to move? endangering the lives of all my soldiers? live to fight another day is one of the oldest adages of combat. some armies are just plain not cut out to fight certain armies on certain map types."

I can't say I have ever played for a draw. If I come across a camping opponenet I try to assault his position. I can't help it. I might decidet to be sensible, but then my impetuousity will get the better of me and I'll try to figure out a way to defeat him. I am never angry, upset or frustrated by such defeats. The only games that irritate me are those (win or lose) that are decided not by the play of the game, but by RNG.

To comment on klayeckles point: This is to look at only half the story. There's something rather important missing from this question. If I was a real general, leading 50,000 real men in the field, and I met an army camping in a position highly favoruable to my enemy I wuld break off a highly mobile scouting/blocking force and then take my army off to ravage his countryside, sack his towns and cities, march on his capital. He's welcome to maintain the sovereignty of his hill. If he wants to stop me destroying/conquering his county he can march down off his hill, and while he trails off across the country after me my blocking force can harrass him, alert me, and I can find ground favourable to me to meet him on. If he's on the offenseive, on my territory, he's doing me no harm sitting on his hill. That buys me time to recruit and train more troops, to find ways to cut his supply lines (if he has any) and to construct such fortification, siege engines, etc that can help me overcome his position.

One of the failings of FoG, is the lack of flexibility afforded to troops, especially in those armies famed for their felxibility. For example, while a Roman army might deploy by legion and by cohort (or maniple) on the field of battle in the conventional sense, this was the exception rather than the rule. The majority of miliatry engagements were small affairs, not pitched battles. A real cohort of Roman legionaries, facing light foot on a difficult hill would not form up shoulder to shoulder, shields locked and attempt to march up the hill the way they would across a field agains a formed up Carthaginian or Macedonian army, they would break up into loose formations and fight more like medium foot. Any real centurion who didn't do this would be very quickly broken back down into the ranks. FoG doesn't allow this and so Roman legionaries are practically helpless in situations where historically they would simply adapt to overcome the enemy.

This lack of felxibility proably hurts the Romans more than most other armies and perhaps particualry against pike armies. After the Punic wars, there were two superpowers in the ancient world (you could maybe include Rome as a third, up and coming, super power) Macedon and Seleucia. Both of these were highyl successful pike army empires. The Romans defeated both, across many wars, largely because the Roman legion is a highly mobile and highly flexible military machine and the pike army is not. In FoG the Roman legionaries get no advantage for this mobility and felxibility, and so it is very difficult for a Roman army to defeat a pike army on eqaul terms. If they fail to get a result on impact, it's pretty much all over. Hitory tells a different story.


Best Wishes

Mike

There are a lot of dead Legionaries in the Teutoburger Wald that would disagree with you. I think you are correct at a certain tactical level, however FOG takes a more top down approach at a more grand tactical level. The flexibility is built in at the army level with unit selection and points. As for the pike armies there is evidence that a pike phalanx could operate in rough terrain and in open order like a Roman cohort. However neither would want to operate that way, nor would they be as effective in combat, which is modeled in FOG. The Roman's as well as the pike armies do have lighter infantry formations available. There is another thread which reviews a detailed book, "An Invincible Beast", about pike armies and their capabilities.

viewtopic.php?f=477&t=100249

Speaking of forests, one of the early posters complaining about a 0-0 draw and a camping army did just that to me in a Slitherine automated tournament. He took his medium infantry army and hid from my Romans in a forest at the corner of the board. Nevertheless personally I agree with Pete that the 0-0 draw is a very rare event.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I played 36 games this season, and only one was a 0-0 draw - and it was my doing. I felt quite unable to advance with my Vikings in Ireland list in the open against Nosy_Rat's army, and he was unwilling to advance against my strong position.

[SLancaster]

Map rerolls are a bit of a nightmare. Player B requests a new map and it is great for his phalanx army. Can player A then ask for another map?? They go to the 'compulsory' third one.

I mean, if we were talking about two fairly equally balanced armies it wouldn't be so bad. But, you might have a skirmisher army v a phalanx army and the issue of the map could really influence the outcome of the game.

Then you have all the wasted time in messing about sending messages and setting up the game again..

[desertedfox]

I played 36 games this season, and only one was a 0-0 draw - and it was my doing. I felt quite unable to advance with my Vikings in Ireland list in the open against Nosy_Rat's army, and he was unwilling to advance against my strong position.

Well Snuggles, according to our resident "Doctor Phil", aka MikeC,

just the psychological blow to their ego when losing is enough for them to take up negative gameplay and accept a 0-0 draw

,

apparently you have an ego problem. Maybe he can suggest a remedy along with his insightful diagnosis.

[nyczar]

Pete,
I think you missed this part of desertedfox's post,
In one game this tourney I had crazy good defensive positions, my opponent suggested I come out of it to fight in the open, where I pointed out to him I would be slaughtered.


I asked for a map reset and desertedfox said no. Don't both players have to agree to a map reset? That is my understanding. So as I said before I could accept a 0-0 draw or try if I was very lucky to get a point or two attacking a very strong defensive position. What other choice did I have?

Harvey

Yes, I understood that bit. It wasn't clear to me from what you had written whether you had suggested a re-start or not. As he said "no" then your options were reduced to . . .

1) accepting a 0-0 draw
2) making an all-out attack and hoping for the best
3) making a limited attack to try and get to 25% (a limited attack is sometimes possible if you can get onto a flank, it depends on the terrain)

I have recently completed another match vs defensive play. I dont like being put into the situation of being the player that must take the risks, that is the fundamental reason why i dont like seeing defensive play. That being said it is legit in tournament play. As a 0-0 draw feels distasteful. I did not see an option for an outright win so I went for option 3...try to salvage 2 points. Unfortunately my timing was off. Going for the 2 points I think is the best option generally. A distasteful option to be sure.

[Captainwaltersavage]

My matches are now over.

Thanks to everyone who played my late entry Romans - (also known as the last turkey in the shop). I've learned a lot and tried out some different tactics and had to read a great deal. Hopefully I will be better the next time we play. Delighted to have a chance at playing some competitive games that were actually pretty friendly. Im going to find an army and an era that I prefer at some point but this was great fun.

Thanks to Pete for organising the whole thing and allowing me to join the reserves.

Captain Savage

[gamercb]

I hope we all agree that Pete does an excellent job and I enjoyed playing you along with all my other opponents, even if you destroyed my armies.

Thanks to all.

[stockwellpete]

The theme for Season 9 will be "hoplite warfare" and I have drawn up this provisional schedule. If you have alternative army pairings that you think might be more interesting then please let me know. Remember, all these will be paired games. The army size will be 1600pts for all battles.

Group stage (players will get 2 of these pairings)
1. Cypriot 680-550BC v Egyptian 570-525BC (Egyptian invasion of Cyprus 570BC) - groups A+C
2. Lydian 550-546BC v Achaemenid Persian (Thymbra) 547BC (war between Lydia and Achaemenid Persia under Cyrus the Great) - groups B+D
3. Roman 490-431BC v Etruscan 490-331BC (war between Rome and Etruscan cities 483-476BC) - groups A+C
4. Spartan 460-281BC v Greek 460-281BC (Peloponnesian war 431-404BC) - groups B+D
5. Syracuse 410-281BC (with Greek allies 460-281BC) vs Carthage 410-341BC (war with Carthage 397-392BC) - groups B+D
6. Thessalian 404-352BC v Greek 460-281BC (Jason of Pherae reign 370BC and after) - groups A+C

Semi-Final and Final
1. Official scenario - Plataea 479BC (Greek v Persian) - semi-final 1
2. Official scenario - Cunaxa 401BC (Persian v Persian/Greek) - semi-final 2
3. Official scenario - Chaironeia 338BC (Greek v Macedonian) - final


Edited.

[harveylh]

Even though I won this year's theme with horse armies, I'm happy to see infantry armies in the Theme. I hope never to have to play with the Avars again.

Harvey

[pompeytheflatulent]

Syracuse 410-281 with Greek allies vs Carthage 410-341? (small number of scutarii & warbands to spice up mostly hoplite or hoplite equivalent armies)

Greek Mercenary 460-281 (Anabasis) vs Achaemenid Persian 419-329? (The Persian list in this one got as much hoplites as the earlier Lydian vs Persian match-up combined )

Maybe change the Spartan vs Greek match-up to the 460-281 Peloponnesian War version for a bit more troop variety?

[TomoeGozen]

Syracuse 410-281 with Greek allies vs Carthage 410-341? (small number of scutarii & warbands to spice up mostly hoplite or hoplite equivalent armies)

Greek Mercenary 460-281 (Anabasis) vs Achaemenid Persian 419-329? (The Persian list in this one got as much hoplites as the earlier Lydian vs Persian match-up combined )

Maybe change the Spartan vs Greek match-up to the 460-281 Peloponnesian War version for a bit more troop variety?

I'm liking these match ups

[stockwellpete]

Syracuse 410-281 with Greek allies vs Carthage 410-341? (small number of scutarii & warbands to spice up mostly hoplite or hoplite equivalent armies)

Greek Mercenary 460-281 (Anabasis) vs Achaemenid Persian 419-329? (The Persian list in this one got as much hoplites as the earlier Lydian vs Persian match-up combined )

Maybe change the Spartan vs Greek match-up to the 460-281 Peloponnesian War version for a bit more troop variety?

Thanks for these suggestions. I will add the first and third ones to the list. I am a bit confused about the Greek (Mercenary) list and its dates 460-281BC. I am aware of the official scenario for the battle of Cunaxa in 401BC, which I considered for the knock-out stage before choosing the other two in preference. There were 10,000+ Greek mercenaries in that battle but their army was defeated. Afterwards the surviving Greeks went on a long march and eventually reached safety 2 years later. Perhaps it is better to add Cunaxa to the possible scenarios we can use so then we have three, two for the semi-finals and one for the final?