The Dustbin

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 12255
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:19 am

Karvon wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:47 am
I think the current restrictions are sufficient, though I wouldn't be bothered if such a change was implemented. While I personally like to try new lists, I wouldn't begrudge someone the option of sticking with their favorite. Depending on seeding, they may not get it anyhow. Has this really been an issue so far? Have a significant number of players played the same lists? Do you really want the added work of checking lists against the previous season to insure no one's duplicating?
I am not really too bothered about it, to be honest, as I do not enter the tournament myself. I have already altered the army lists so that each army only appears once in the tournament lists from Season 6 onwards. But as pantherboy took the trouble to post his method from the old LOEG I have decided to poll it to see if it will fly here. The added work will amount to very little as players will quickly start to self-regulate their choices if such a rule were to be introduced. The issue is not so much about the number of players continually using the same lists but is rather more about certain armies never being available for any of the higher rated players in a division. A player rated 3 or 4 receiving such an army as a result of this proposal might very well be in a position to challenge for the top spot and/or win a voucher in the future whereas now they tend to finish mid-table. I do find it a bit boring to see that certain armies end up with the same players season after season. I think the tournament should try and take players out of their comfort zone a bit from time to time.

Bluefin
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 146
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 1:41 am
Location: Anoka, MN

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by Bluefin » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:22 am

With the current season, I decided to select armies I'm not very familiar with and having a blast and will continue to do this in the future. Love the Syracusans, not so much the Franks. That said, I don't think a rule like this is necessary. I think the current selection system is fine. Granted, I'm generally not a very good player (I have "moments" of greatness, though) and know that the odds of me progressing up the ranks is rather slim even if I play the same army every season. But it's a great game, the digital league and tournaments are great fun, and the people involved have been fantastic. Already have my eye on an army that I have never seen anybody select yet so looking forward to the next season!

MikeMarchant
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 2:46 pm

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by MikeMarchant » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:31 am

For my part, I quite like the idea. As with the FoG1 digital league, I find myself agonising over which army to take for competitive games and always want to try something new. I vacillate, I agonise, and inevitably I always selet my trusty Romans - simply because I know what I'm doing with them (to the limit of my lowly abilities) and I would like to do well. Having this new restriction would relieve me of that particular struggle and force me to pick something new. That would be good.

Having said that, I would not want to impose a restriction on other players on the basis of my own weakness.


Best Wishes

Mike

Morbio
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by Morbio » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:33 am

I vote no because, whilst I appreciate the downside for the top players, I think the biggest risk is making the lower players play with armies they are unfamiliar with or aren't good with. This risks them getting hammered and this may be something that may deter entry.

I experimented this time with the Indo-Greek army, something I've never played with before, and I'm struggling to compete with it. I can live with this, at least for now, but I wouldn't want others to have the same fate without a conscious decision.

Geffalrus
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 788
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by Geffalrus » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:49 am

Bluefin wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:22 am
Already have my eye on an army that I have never seen anybody select yet so looking forward to the next season!
Well now I'm super curious. That's very exciting and I hope it goes well next season! :D

harveylh
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 473
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:32 pm

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by harveylh » Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:59 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 10:06 am
harveylh wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:12 am
I'm voting no because I do not want to discourage any player.
I don't understand. How will players be "discouraged"? :? At the very most players will be asked to choose just one different army in their selections each season.
Pete, I do not have a problem with the proposal. However, I know some players who want to play only certain armies. In order to retain as many players in our league as possible, I believe the proposal is an unnecessary restriction.

rexhurley
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1039
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:33 am

Re: Late Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .

Post by rexhurley » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:05 pm

Division B

rexhurley (Numidians) challenges

SpeedyCM (Sassanids 350-476AD)
Triarii (Kingdom of Soissons 461-486 AD)

PW = Javman PM Sent

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 12255
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:06 pm

Morbio wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:33 am
I vote no because, whilst I appreciate the downside for the top players, I think the biggest risk is making the lower players play with armies they are unfamiliar with or aren't good with. This risks them getting hammered and this may be something that may deter entry.
I don't think this argument really works as it would not affect new players at all in their first season and by the time players enter their second season 4 months later they should definitely be able to use more than one army.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 12255
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:10 pm

harveylh wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:59 am
Pete, I do not have a problem with the proposal. However, I know some players who want to play only certain armies. In order to retain as many players in our league as possible, I believe the proposal is an unnecessary restriction.
It's only Rex "the Numidian" we have to worry about. I'll have a word with his elephants. :P

Morbio
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2106
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by Morbio » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:20 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:06 pm
Morbio wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 11:33 am
I vote no because, whilst I appreciate the downside for the top players, I think the biggest risk is making the lower players play with armies they are unfamiliar with or aren't good with. This risks them getting hammered and this may be something that may deter entry.
I don't think this argument really works as it would not affect new players at all in their first season and by the time players enter their second season 4 months later they should definitely be able to use more than one army.
I think you misunderstand my comments, or you underestimate how long it can take to get good with specific armies, especially for the casual player. I've been playing for a few seasons now and I've taken different types of armies to give me some variation. I don't tend to play outside of league matches, so the league matches are my main learning time (yes, I agree, that's not a great way to learn if I want to be competitive) and it can be hard learning. As stated, my Indo-Greek army of this season is a hard struggle, playing pike armies takes a different sort of play, impact foot another and warband armies yet another. Some people might not mind this, but others may be deterred, whether this is a real or only in ones mind.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 12255
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:38 pm

Morbio wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:20 pm
I think you misunderstand my comments, or you underestimate how long it can take to get good with specific armies, especially for the casual player. I've been playing for a few seasons now and I've taken different types of armies to give me some variation. I don't tend to play outside of league matches, so the league matches are my main learning time (yes, I agree, that's not a great way to learn if I want to be competitive) and it can be hard learning. As stated, my Indo-Greek army of this season is a hard struggle, playing pike armies takes a different sort of play, impact foot another and warband armies yet another. Some people might not mind this, but others may be deterred, whether this is a real or only in ones mind.
Yes, but in your first season you have to pick 4 armies however short a time you have been playing the game - and then you get allocated one of them (not necessarily your first choice if there are a lot of new players in your division). For your second season selection you can still choose the 3 armies you didn't get allocated last time, but you would not be able to choose the army you have already played with. So you would, at minimum, need to add just one more army to your new list of 4. Given that a new player could have been allocated any one of the first 4 armies selected in his first season I cannot see how that is a problem if he then gets one of them in his second season. Surely he will be more experienced by then? And given that new players do not usually know what the most popular armies are when they start out their choices barely impact on the issue of certain armies never being available to the higher rated players in their division.

sunnyboy
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Post by sunnyboy » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:12 pm

Division C

Sunnyboy (Ostrogoths 493-561 AD) beat Bluefin (Frank 496-599 AD) 49-8

Fortune did not smile on the Franks. While Frankish warbands would frag and rout in the blink of an eye. A fragged Gothic lancer would improbably survive multiple rounds of combat, disengage then rally back to steady in successive turns.

Thanks for the game!

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 12255
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:28 pm

CLARIFICATION

JUST IN CASE THERE IS ANY CONFUSION - ALL THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS THAT IF YOU USE AN ARMY IN ONE SEASON THEN YOU CANNOT USE IT AGAIN IN THE NEXT SEASON. THE THREE ARMIES THAT YOU SELECTED THAT WERE NOT CHOSEN IN THE PREVIOUS SEASON CAN BE CHOSEN AGAIN NEXT TIME.

General Shapur
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:25 pm
Location: Perth, Australia

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by General Shapur » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:36 pm

I don't think its necessary. If I loose too many with an army it won't see me as its general for the next season (no more Indians or Spartans for me). Not only that, but after 9 games I feel like a change anyway based on what I've seen other players doing (against me).
Previously - Pete AU (SSG)

devoncop
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by devoncop » Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:45 pm

Forgive me Pete. Is it not more restrictive as that as you were talking about lumping all the Diadochi armies into one category and ruling out the whole category.

So if say Geffalrus with his pike fetish played with the Antigonids one season he would not be able to choose the Lysymachids the following season ..........or am I misunderstanding ?

sunnyboy
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by sunnyboy » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:06 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:05 pm


At the moment players who are rated in the top places in a division, particularly in the A divisions which tend to be more stable in their composition from season to season, never know which army they are going to get, whereas players who receive their army allocation before the better players have a much greater chance of getting their preferred army. For instance, players who finish 6th, 7th or 8th know that they are very likely to get their first choice of army in the next season.This means that certain armies are never, or hardly ever, available to the higher rated players. One way to mitigate this a little bit is to say that players cannot have an army from the same nation in consecutive seasons. I think it is a very mild regulation, to be honest, given the number of armies (with different allied options) that are available now.
Personally I like the idea, however I also understand people wanting the opportunity to play a favourite army.

If this is primarily a concern at the top flight, and less so in the lower divisions. Maybe this could be the price of admission to the big league and the rule be introduced to Division A only?

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 12255
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:45 pm

devoncop wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:45 pm
Forgive me Pete. Is it not more restrictive as that as you were talking about lumping all the Diadochi armies into one category and ruling out the whole category.

So if say Geffalrus with his pike fetish played with the Antigonids one season he would not be able to choose the Lysymachids the following season ..........or am I misunderstanding ?
I think this Diadochi business is a bit of a minefield really. The period in question is roughly 322-275 BC and only the Lysimachid army fits neatly into that timespan. On top of that the first two Seleucid armies within that period (320-303 and 302-301 BC) are not really pike armies at all, with their medium sized armies fielding a maximum of only 4 pike units. Apart from that, the various Diadochi armies are fairly similar, usually with between 6-8 pike units available (the later Macedonians have 10).

At the moment a player can select Antigonids, Lysimachids, Macedonians and Ptolemaics as his four choices knowing full well that he will be allocated one of the pike armies. I would like that to stop really. And if there are four players in a division doing something similar then that division is going to end up with 4 pike armies in it and I think that is probably two too many.

To answer your question (and to deal with Geffalrus's pike fetish), one way to deal with it is to say that in Classical Antiquity if you are allocated with one from the Antigonid, Lysimachid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic or Seleucid group of armies in one season then you cannot pick from that group of armies in the next season. At least that is straightforward for players to understand. Exemptions could be offered for the two earlier Seleucid armies mentioned earlier as they only have a few pikes. So a player could still pick an early Seleucid army, plus the Pyrrhic army as well (a pike army), in the season after using a fully-fledged pike army.

The other thing to do with it is to say that the Antigonid, Lysimachid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid armies constitute one "nation" in the same way that Achaemenid Persian, Carthaginian, Roman, Thracian, Byzantine and Arab armies do - and then give them an exemption from the "one nation" rule so that 2 armies from the group can appear in each division. We have already agreed to this mechanism for the other armies in our most recent poll. I think this would work OK myself and increase the variety of armies selected in Classical Antiquity.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 12255
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:49 pm

sunnyboy wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:06 pm

Personally I like the idea, however I also understand people wanting the opportunity to play a favourite army.

If this is primarily a concern at the top flight, and less so in the lower divisions. Maybe this could be the price of admission to the big league and the rule be introduced to Division A only?
Yes, this could be a Plan B. I would actually make it for Divisions A and B. I think it is more of an issue for the higher divisions as the A divisions only lose players through relegation, whereas the B and C divisions lose players through promotion as well. The D divisions, where they run, often have a lot of new players in them.

uneducated
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 759
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2019 12:42 pm

Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .

Post by uneducated » Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:52 pm

Division D

uneducated (Jewish 163-111 BC) defeated KiFi (Macedonian 320-261 BC) 60-41

The Battle of Swan Lake

This general began his battle, like every battle, afraid and feeling he would lose. In this, he is usually right, though on this occasion, he was wrong. In his tent before the battle, he instilled fear in the heart of his own army by praising the prowess of the Macedonian Phalanx and outlining how the Jews could never beat them toe-to-toe with their medium foot. He instructed his marshalls to assemble on the slopes of on the right, and to make their peace as they were unlikely to see another night through. This was to be their swan song, and it was fitting that the lake beside the slopes on which they were all to die took the form of a swan, or a duck.

By good fortune, the Jews were able to assemble a strong line with their archers on the hill behind them. As the Macedonians advanced, they prepared to die. Between them and eternity lay only a river. Methodically, the Macedonians advanced. The dance began. Nervous, last minute choreography by the Jews unsettled the men on the hill preparing to meet their maker. Macedonian heavy cavalry positioned themselves beautifully poised to utterly destroy the Jewsh line from a rear attack, if the North line fell.

The troops joined in battle. The Jewish missile men taunted and escaped unscathed up to the top of the hill, safe behind their line. Their success in escaping devestation early in the battle, meant their presence and speed was keenly felt at the end.

Somehow, after intense fighting, the Jewish West wall failed, the North wall had to withdraw in emergency, the fighting became piecemeal, and the Macedonian cavalry in particular were making mincemeat of isolated units. The remaining Macedonians were in great discipline and could defeat all around them, yet so few of their comrades were left, their heart for the battle was lost, though those gibbering Jews who surrounded them at the end could have been knocked over with a feather.

Who was the ugly duck, who the swan? It could have turned either way. At some point, the outcome of the ballet was decided and all that now remains is the echo of quiet applause heard in the rustles of the reeds round the lake.

Thank you, KiFi! You are a great dancer!

(In the image, the Jews advanced from the top to the bottom. North is incorrectly indicated and should read South.)
Swan Lake.jpg
Swan Lake.jpg (891.13 KiB) Viewed 1271 times

devoncop
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Poll on player army choices restriction

Post by devoncop » Wed Jul 10, 2019 4:06 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:45 pm
devoncop wrote:
Wed Jul 10, 2019 2:45 pm
Forgive me Pete. Is it not more restrictive as that as you were talking about lumping all the Diadochi armies into one category and ruling out the whole category.

So if say Geffalrus with his pike fetish played with the Antigonids one season he would not be able to choose the Lysymachids the following season ..........or am I misunderstanding ?
I think this Diadochi business is a bit of a minefield really. The period in question is roughly 322-275 BC and only the Lysimachid army fits neatly into that timespan. On top of that the first two Seleucid armies within that period (320-303 and 302-301 BC) are not really pike armies at all, with their medium sized armies fielding a maximum of only 4 pike units. Apart from that, the various Diadochi armies are fairly similar, usually with between 6-8 pike units available (the later Macedonians have 10).

At the moment a player can select Antigonids, Lysimachids, Macedonians and Ptolemaics as his four choices knowing full well that he will be allocated one of the pike armies. I would like that to stop really. And if there are four players in a division doing something similar then that division is going to end up with 4 pike armies in it and I think that is probably two too many.

To answer your question (and to deal with Geffalrus's pike fetish), one way to deal with it is to say that in Classical Antiquity if you are allocated with one from the Antigonid, Lysimachid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic or Seleucid group of armies in one season then you cannot pick from that group of armies in the next season. At least that is straightforward for players to understand. Exemptions could be offered for the two earlier Seleucid armies mentioned earlier as they only have a few pikes. So a player could still pick an early Seleucid army, plus the Pyrrhic army as well (a pike army), in the season after using a fully-fledged pike army.

The other thing to do with it is to say that the Antigonid, Lysimachid, Macedonian, Ptolemaic and Seleucid armies constitute one "nation" in the same way that Achaemenid Persian, Carthaginian, Roman, Thracian, Byzantine and Arab armies do - and then give them an exemption from the "one nation" rule so that 2 armies from the group can appear in each division. We have already agreed to this mechanism for the other armies in our most recent poll. I think this would work OK myself and increase the variety of armies selected in Classical Antiquity.

So presumably if Geffalrus decides not to enter CA the season after he has used his beloved Antigonids (or similar) or I was unable to choose my zealots in LA we would then be allowed to enter the following season and use them then ?

I am not saying that would happen I am speaking metaphorically by the way.
I

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”