The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[stockwellpete]

I would vote for option 2. It takes the pressure off for the group stage and allows players to have all the matches going simultaneously. Four weeks should be sufficient time in that case.

Yes, this is my preference too and I shall bring it in next season. We have a 10 week season, 4 weeks will be allowed for the group matches and 6 weeks for the 3 knock-out rounds allowing 14 days for each of the paired games. That should make it all a bit more comfortable.

[Aryaman]

Hi
I would like to comment about all cavalry armies, like the Rhoxolani DzonVeijn fielded in the Classical Antiquity Division B. He has the option of winning the match against other mixed armies, but if he gets into trouble he can just retreat and force a draw. I think that is unfair to the other players as the maximum they can get against such opponents is a draw.
IMO those armies should fight the escort baggage instead of the usual skirmish battle, so that the opponent has the option of winning also the match by getting the baggage to the other side of the map.

[Cunningcairn]

Hi
I would like to comment about all cavalry armies, like the Rhoxolani DzonVeijn fielded in the Classical Antiquity Division B. He has the option of winning the match against other mixed armies, but if he gets into trouble he can just retreat and force a draw. I think that is unfair to the other players as the maximum they can get against such opponents is a draw.
IMO those armies should fight the escort baggage instead of the usual skirmish battle, so that the opponent has the option of winning also the match by getting the baggage to the other side of the map.

I think I like the sound of that There have been a lot more draws than when it was played under FOG1 and I believe it is because of the match ups. Cavalry armies even with lancers now struggle to beat MF armies in the open so they try, fail and then run off as Aryaman says.

[ianiow]

Hi
I would like to comment about all cavalry armies, like the Rhoxolani DzonVeijn fielded in the Classical Antiquity Division B. He has the option of winning the match against other mixed armies, but if he gets into trouble he can just retreat and force a draw. I think that is unfair to the other players as the maximum they can get against such opponents is a draw.
IMO those armies should fight the escort baggage instead of the usual skirmish battle, so that the opponent has the option of winning also the match by getting the baggage to the other side of the map.

Very interesting. It is worth play-testing a few of these battles to see if there is a balanced outcome.

[paulmcneil]

Hi
I would like to comment about all cavalry armies, like the Rhoxolani DzonVeijn fielded in the Classical Antiquity Division B. He has the option of winning the match against other mixed armies, but if he gets into trouble he can just retreat and force a draw. I think that is unfair to the other players as the maximum they can get against such opponents is a draw.
IMO those armies should fight the escort baggage instead of the usual skirmish battle, so that the opponent has the option of winning also the match by getting the baggage to the other side of the map.

Isn't that the whole point of more mobile armies? Under FOG1 pikes and heavy infantry could just line up and march from one side of the board to the other sweeping lighter cavalry away. Sounds like if you aren't good enough to deal with cavalry armies you want to remove their main ability to thwart you? Wouldn't it be better to have the option to remove the artificial army victory criteria (i.e. the 40/25%), and have it open ended, so you've got more time to bring them to battle, victory going to last unit standing (or equivalent)?

[Morbio]

Hi
I would like to comment about all cavalry armies, like the Rhoxolani DzonVeijn fielded in the Classical Antiquity Division B. He has the option of winning the match against other mixed armies, but if he gets into trouble he can just retreat and force a draw. I think that is unfair to the other players as the maximum they can get against such opponents is a draw.
IMO those armies should fight the escort baggage instead of the usual skirmish battle, so that the opponent has the option of winning also the match by getting the baggage to the other side of the map.

I think it important that we retain the rock, paper, scissors type of army capabilities. In my opinion it is important that some types of armies are difficult to beat by 'normal' (if there is such a thing) armies. It is these difficult match-ups that allow the great players to shine and give challenge to the average player. In the past there have been calls to nerf or otherwise limit; swarm armies, missile armies, Romans, Judeans, Galatians, .... and now mobile armies. I really don't want to see all armies reduced to a bland mediocrity. I know there are some armies I play moderately well, some I'm hopeless with. Some armies I do well against and some I have no idea how to beat. If everything was easy I'd soon be bored, so please let's keep the variation and challenge in the game.

[stockwellpete]

I have always thought that when you play in a section like Classical Antiquity or Late Antiquity that at least one of your nine opponents will choose a horse archer army and at least one of them will choose what we used to call a "horde" medium foot army. The trick has always been (if you do not want to use horse archer or medium foot armies yourself) to choose three armies at the outset that stand a reasonable chance of coping with them. So you need the option to choose a good cavalry arm and to choose some missile units (skirmishers will do) in all three of your choices, as you cannot be certain which army of the three will be allocated to you by me.

I am always looking for ways to freshen up the tournament and offer new challenges but I am not sure that "Escort the Baggage Train" is a suitable variation for the FOG2DL. To implement it would raise a lot of problems. I had a look at it on single player tonight and found out that you are given 6 carts to get up the other end of the map, and these carts disappear on impact with enemy units. So an army like the Parthians could pick 20+ light horse archers and they are almost certain to break through to destroy the carts, It is not clear to me how many carts you have to get up to the other end to win, but I imagine it would be at least 4 out of 6. I am not sure if missile fire destroys the carts but if it does then the Parthians would find it very easy. The carts also lose morale if they are next to a unit that routs, but it is not clear if they can ever recover morale. Leader units certainly cannot be put with them to help them regain cohesion.

[devoncop]

The other aspect is the baggage train option of a match up would be incredibly boring to play every time a horse archer type army was involved....not just for the opponents of the horse armies but even more so for anyone playing them.

I am no great fan off the horse armies but it would be very unfair to those players that like them.

[paulmcneil]

Most "issues" with troop types are not with their abilities, it's with the points system, if armoured swiss pikes had been twice the price in FOG1 they wouldn't have been such a super army (even in less able generals' hands) because you would always have been able to get around their flanks and rear. If the points system reflects battlefield ability then there won't be problems. Galatians as an example, are relatively cheap per punch they pack on a small board, i.e. if they spread more or less from edge to edge they have a massive advantage, less numbers (higher price) or bigger boards (width and depth) and they can be eminently beatable.

[Herode_2]

Note for our beloved tournament manager- and for anyone sending me a PM:
For some reason, I no longer receive email notifications when a PM is sent to my account. I've checked the Board preferences > Edit notification options an the appropriate boxes are checked all right.
No idea what's going on, please accept my apologizes for not being very responsive on PMs since last week.

[gamercb]

I have not been getting email notifications that I have been sent PMs so you are not alone.

[paulmcneil]

I'm not getting notifications either

[TheGrayMouser]

My thoughts on some of the above comments regarding draws/ horse armies and possibly the increased use of the “tactic” of forcing a draw:

Get rid of awarding points for draws except when both armies break on same turn.

There is really no negative to this, if you want points you need to play to win , not so as: to not lose , and/or play tentively to win at onset but if the odds even slightly turn against you revert to playing not to lose.
If you want to sit in a corner, fine you just won’t get points and your opponent ha every incentive to try to root you out. Same thing when you are blessed with a map that gives you nice terrain. The way it is now, everyone is so damn quick to say “looks like a draw” at the slightest perceived disadvantage.

[stockwellpete]

My thoughts on some of the above comments regarding draws/ horse armies and possibly the increased use of the “tactic” of forcing a draw:

Get rid of awarding points for draws except when both armies break on same turn.

In the FOG2DL both armies breaking on the same turn is considered a "tie" rather than a draw with both players getting 2 points each. I think that is a perfectly reasonable outcome.

There is really no negative to this, if you want points you need to play to win , not so as: to not lose , and/or play tentively to win at onset but if the odds even slightly turn against you revert to playing not to lose.
If you want to sit in a corner, fine you just won’t get points and your opponent ha every incentive to try to root you out. Same thing when you are blessed with a map that gives you nice terrain. The way it is now, everyone is so damn quick to say “looks like a draw” at the slightest perceived disadvantage

I think awarding no points for draws in all circumstances is too harsh, although I do think we probably need to do something a bit different in Season 3. I have a few ideas that might help to create a shift in behaviour . . .

i) allow players to re-start a match by agreement within the first two turns if they feel that the map is likely to produce a draw.

then link this rule change to either . . .

ii) players are allowed one point for only the first two draws that they record in any division. The third, or any subsequent draw after that, will score 0 points.

or

iii) players will only score one point for any drawn match if they are able to inflict at least 20% losses on their opponent. This would introduce the differential draw where a match drawn 21-19 would mean one player would get one point while the other would not.

Either of these two options would virtually end the situation where there is an agreed 0-0 draw almost immediately. The number of draws has gone up sharply this season compared to Season 1. I will provide statistics after August 12th so interested players can make a comparison. The draws tend to occur more often in the higher divisions although not exclusively there. I am not in favour of wholesale changes to the existing scoring system as it has worked quite well for nearly six seasons now and I am totally opposed to the idea that we should copy the scoring system used in the automated tournaments. I will not be doing that.

[TheGrayMouser]

Haha, I didn’t think you were from the generation of the “ participation trophy”. I fail to see how it’s “harsh” to not get points when you fail to win.

Any way I don’t think part I of you solution does much since it’s not the map ( I have yet to see a map both players found unplayable) as much as a player feeling he cannot win a match and thus going for a draw. The reasons are varied but ones I have come across( in all my games, not necessarily the dL): I can’t win vs your army, I picked the wrong troop types, my army stinks and I need points any way I can get them.... I have also had an army disengage and flee around the edges while I chased in vain when ( I guess) he thought I was going to win...
The more common one is when someone has good ( but not necessarily decisive) terrain to defend and the opponent says if you don’t come down it will be a stalemate. The incentive ( draw points) to not even try is always going to be present, and means if you just want to play a game you have to resign yourself to always attacking and never getting to use a map to your own advantage, since you opponent will force a draw. Well, enough boo hoos from me. I suspect your position is entrenched I won’t belabor this anymore. Cheers man!

[Ludendorf]

I'm honestly not sure what to say to this situation. I will agree that truly insurmountable terrain is fairly rare; I think I've only ever had to rearrange a match due to awful terrain once. As for players disengaging or refusing to engage... hmm.

I typically go into battles with both an offensive and a defensive plan. I always ask myself the question when I have defensible terrain; what if my opponent simply refuses to advance? I have two options in that situation; send out my skirmishers (with my army close behind ready to support) and drag them out, or replace my defensive plan with my aggressive one. How valid those options are usually comes down to how many skirmishers I have in the first place. This is why skirmishers are so incredibly important; they are your way of forcing the other player to do things they don't want to do, and that includes forcing them to come out and fight when they don't want to fight. A large part of whether I decide to build an aggressive or defensive approach is whether or not I have more skirmishers available than my opponent; if I have skirmishers available, I generally hang back and defend. If I lose the skirmisher war or simply don't have a lot of skirmishers to begin with, I generally feel the onus is on me to attack or at least advance. (What are my soldiers going to do; sit around and get peppered with missiles for the duration of the battle?)

Where things get tricky is if both sides didn't bring skirmishers or both groups of skirmishers have been smashed. It's hard to oblige an opponent to move when you have nothing to compel them to react to.

One solution to both this issue and the issue of players just running away when facing defeat could be to introduce a marginal victory rule. If the battle has run on, one side is clearly on the losing side, and the only thing saving them from utter ruin is the finite period of the day, we could award a single point to the loser (for managing to preserve their army) but give the full 4 point win to the winner. That way, the winner isn't penalised by the other side taking flight, but there is still a degree of value to not getting your army completely pummelled and being able to withdraw in good order once the sun goes down. This covers Cannae-like situations or Marc Antony's unsuccessful foray into Parthia afterwards where one side is effectively defeated, but the other side can't quite finish them off yet. Tactically and even strategically they may be beaten, but they maintain their order and may be able to slink back to the nearest fortress to reorganise and fight another day, or at least mount a final defence.

For players who disengage the moment things start going wrong, or while they're possibly still a little ahead, (!) I'm not sure. I haven't had a player behave in that manner towards me yet. Players disengaging after being put on the back foot has happened; I've only had one player take their army and run for the nearest forest even in that scenario though, and my above suggestion would fix that quite handily. If at least 15% of one side has routed, and the difference in score is 10% or greater, I think there is room to claim a victory there.

[ianiow]

One solution to both this issue and the issue of players just running away when facing defeat could be to introduce a marginal victory rule. If the battle has run on, one side is clearly on the losing side, and the only thing saving them from utter ruin is the finite period of the day, we could award a single point to the loser (for managing to preserve their army) but give the full 4 point win to the winner. That way, the winner isn't penalised by the other side taking flight, but there is still a degree of value to not getting your army completely pummelled and being able to withdraw in good order once the sun goes down. This covers Cannae-like situations or Marc Antony's unsuccessful foray into Parthia afterwards where one side is effectively defeated, but the other side can't quite finish them off yet. Tactically and even strategically they may be beaten, but they maintain their order and may be able to slink back to the nearest fortress to reorganise and fight another day, or at least mount a final defence.

For players who disengage the moment things start going wrong, or while they're possibly still a little ahead, (!) I'm not sure. I haven't had a player behave in that manner towards me yet. Players disengaging after being put on the back foot has happened; I've only had one player take their army and run for the nearest forest even in that scenario though, and my above suggestion would fix that quite handily. If at least 15% of one side has routed, and the difference in score is 10% or greater, I think there is room to claim a victory there.

This gets my vote. If you opponent is hill sitting, nibble a 10% lead off him and he will have to come down and fight!

[stockwellpete]

One solution to both this issue and the issue of players just running away when facing defeat could be to introduce a marginal victory rule. If the battle has run on, one side is clearly on the losing side, and the only thing saving them from utter ruin is the finite period of the day, we could award a single point to the loser (for managing to preserve their army) but give the full 4 point win to the winner. That way, the winner isn't penalised by the other side taking flight, but there is still a degree of value to not getting your army completely pummelled and being able to withdraw in good order once the sun goes down. This covers Cannae-like situations or Marc Antony's unsuccessful foray into Parthia afterwards where one side is effectively defeated, but the other side can't quite finish them off yet. Tactically and even strategically they may be beaten, but they maintain their order and may be able to slink back to the nearest fortress to reorganise and fight another day, or at least mount a final defence.

For players who disengage the moment things start going wrong, or while they're possibly still a little ahead, (!) I'm not sure. I haven't had a player behave in that manner towards me yet. Players disengaging after being put on the back foot has happened; I've only had one player take their army and run for the nearest forest even in that scenario though, and my above suggestion would fix that quite handily. If at least 15% of one side has routed, and the difference in score is 10% or greater, I think there is room to claim a victory there.

Yes, this is an interesting idea. In terms of the points tariff currently in the FOG2DL we are using 4 points for a win, 2 points for a tie and 1 point for a draw. We are not using 3 points at all, so perhaps we could use that for a "marginal victory"? I agree that the winning margin in these circumstances should be 10% but I am not sure whether it would be necessary to also say that you have to destroy at least 15% of the enemy army. I think it might be more straightforward to say if you are ahead by 10% or more at nightfall then you can claim a marginal victory. The loser of such a match would get no points.

[pantherboy]

The idea of marginal victories sounds excellent. It is usually quite easy to pick off 10% of a turtled force without losing anything in return. This could lead to a strategy where you pick up the 10% then retire back across the map running the clock out. To avoid this players would need to adopt more forward positions so that they could counterattack if falling behind with time enough to catch a retiring enemy.

[gamercb]

My suggestion to add to the confusion

Win - Winner gets 4 points, loser 0
Draw where both players have scored at least 10% casualties but one side is ahead by 10%. 3 points to the highest points, 1 to lower so it is worth fighting to get a point.
Tie where time has run out and the difference in casualties is less than 10%, both sides get 2 points.
Draw where one side has scored less than 20% casualties why the other side has not scored 10% casualties. Leader gets 1points and 3 points are wasted.

To draw, the battle must be fought for a minimum number of turns otherwise neither player gets any points.

Colin