Skirmishing

PC/Mac : Digital version of the popular tabletop gaming system. Fight battles on your desktop in single and mutiplayer!

Moderators: Slitherine Core, NewRoSoft, FoG PC Moderator

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1099
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Post by 76mm » Thu Aug 26, 2010 4:54 pm

All this talk about Spartans wants me want to tell about my first game with IF, when I played as the Spartans vs some Egyptian Hoplite army. It was pretty much wall to wall hoplites, and each side pretty much marched straight at each other, not really any tactics to speak of.

The two phalanxes made contact and basically just stood there and duked it out. To make a long story short, the Egyptians simply shredded my Spartans, I think I got thumped by about 40 points (in 800 pt game), it was really ugly. While I should have crushed his center--my Spartans vs. his lame Egyptian hoplites--his hoplites more than held their own. On both flanks, where it was average-protected-hoplite vs average-protected-hoplite, his phalanx simply crushed mine, it was kind of remarkable!

deeter
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by deeter » Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:13 pm

To vonbert's post, I am reminded of good old Paisley and his Swiss thread in which he chronicaled his many wins (lots against me). I recall he was more tha 40 wins to 2 losses before he disappeard. Paisley was a good player but not invincible. His point was that the Swiss were under priced. However, a big MF bow army can beat them easily.

I think the fairest test of generalship is matched games, switching sides.

Deeter

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4678
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:36 pm

deeter wrote:To vonbert's post, I am reminded of good old Paisley and his Swiss thread in which he chronicaled his many wins (lots against me). I recall he was more tha 40 wins to 2 losses before he disappeard. Paisley was a good player but not invincible. His point was that the Swiss were under priced. However, a big MF bow army can beat them easily.

I think the fairest test of generalship is matched games, switching sides.

Deeter
I do miss Paisley :(

Free Company is a very good army to take on the Swiss :wink:

"I think the fairest test of generalship is matched games, switching sides."
That would be a nce addition for DAG battles

deeter
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by deeter » Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:10 pm

That's how pantherboy runs his League matches. I'll be playing my last paired match with the hated Bosporans, so hopefully will get one win and one loss although I don't have much experience using Bospos.

Deeter

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4678
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:15 pm

deeter wrote:That's how pantherboy runs his League matches. I'll be playing my last paired match with the hated Bosporans, so hopefully will get one win and one loss although I don't have much experience using Bospos.

Deeter

I know , I'm in it!, although we in the basement division tend to be forgotten :)

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3399
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by batesmotel » Thu Aug 26, 2010 6:58 pm

deeter wrote:That's how pantherboy runs his League matches. I'll be playing my last paired match with the hated Bosporans, so hopefully will get one win and one loss although I don't have much experience using Bospos.

Deeter
Contrary to popular opinion, the Bosporans don't automatically win on auto-pilot. (Pantherboy is just finishing up demonstrating that to my Bosporans for our league games.)

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4678
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Thu Aug 26, 2010 7:26 pm

batesmotel wrote:
deeter wrote:That's how pantherboy runs his League matches. I'll be playing my last paired match with the hated Bosporans, so hopefully will get one win and one loss although I don't have much experience using Bospos.

Deeter
Contrary to popular opinion, the Bosporans don't automatically win on auto-pilot. (Pantherboy is just finishing up demonstrating that to my Bosporans for our league games.)

Chris

Dont mind Deeter, he is just allergic to nomads, and arrows :)

I find when facing Bospos, I generally either win convincingly, or lose decisively!!

deeter
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by deeter » Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:32 pm

Sorry. Didn't mean to bring up the Bosporans for ridicule, just illustrating paired matches. Which reminds me, Chris, we have our match yet to do before I officially head back to the B league.

Deeter

Gersen
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 6:57 am

Post by Gersen » Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:42 pm

batesmotel wrote:
Sarpedon wrote:I really agree with Gersen on this, as the chap on the other side of the battlefield for the Spartans v Skythians battle. It should have been an interesting match-up (I posted details of which army I was using btw when I issued the challenge - it wasn't an ambush!!!). But even as a newbie player all I had to do was advance my Spartans towards Gersen's LH with a reasonable degree of care to rout the whole lot off the battlefield as they evaded, and/or catch other LH units in the rear. Would a 'historical' encounter have been anything like that? Nope. I love the game, but some aspects of it, as I'm getting to know it, are a bit disappointing. I thought it would be a difficult game - how could my Spartans heavies possibly catch the LH. But no, not how it worked out at all.
To win this battle, the Scythians basically need to be able to get behind the Spartans rather than just getting herded in front of a wall of hoplites. One critical factor in this is whether the number of points you use in the game. The battle is likely to be more interesting at 450 points than 400 (40x 30 vs 30x30 map) or at 650 than 600 (50x30 vs 40x30). One other thing you might want to try is the Saka list versus the Skythian since that does give the Skythians som e lancers. (The Saka list also corresponds to the post 300 BC version of the TT Skythian list so is not really representative of only the Saka tribes. If using the list to represent later Skythians rather than Saka, the cataphract lancers should not be used, only the armoured.)

Chris
The map was tiny - there was no room for the horse to maneouver. Next time I try a horse army, I'll use a large point army.

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3399
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by batesmotel » Thu Aug 26, 2010 8:51 pm

Gersen wrote:
batesmotel wrote:
Sarpedon wrote:I really agree with Gersen on this, as the chap on the other side of the battlefield for the Spartans v Skythians battle. It should have been an interesting match-up (I posted details of which army I was using btw when I issued the challenge - it wasn't an ambush!!!). But even as a newbie player all I had to do was advance my Spartans towards Gersen's LH with a reasonable degree of care to rout the whole lot off the battlefield as they evaded, and/or catch other LH units in the rear. Would a 'historical' encounter have been anything like that? Nope. I love the game, but some aspects of it, as I'm getting to know it, are a bit disappointing. I thought it would be a difficult game - how could my Spartans heavies possibly catch the LH. But no, not how it worked out at all.
To win this battle, the Scythians basically need to be able to get behind the Spartans rather than just getting herded in front of a wall of hoplites. One critical factor in this is whether the number of points you use in the game. The battle is likely to be more interesting at 450 points than 400 (40x 30 vs 30x30 map) or at 650 than 600 (50x30 vs 40x30). One other thing you might want to try is the Saka list versus the Skythian since that does give the Skythians som e lancers. (The Saka list also corresponds to the post 300 BC version of the TT Skythian list so is not really representative of only the Saka tribes. If using the list to represent later Skythians rather than Saka, the cataphract lancers should not be used, only the armoured.)

Chris
The map was tiny - there was no room for the horse to maneouver. Next time I try a horse army, I'll use a large point army.
Use an army size that is just over a break point for map size. e.g. 450 or 650. It isn't just size that matters. You want a size that is well below the maximum for that map size (400 and 600 points are the maximums for 30x30 and 40x30 respectively).

Chris
....where life is beautiful all the time

omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar » Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:01 pm

deeter wrote:T
I think the fairest test of generalship is matched games, switching sides.

Deeter
of course, no real general ever had the opportunity of paired games switching sides...so i must disagree with you

deeter
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Elite Panther D
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by deeter » Thu Aug 26, 2010 9:09 pm

And few real generals had a choice of what nation they were using and of troop selection. It's a game, not real...

Deeter

omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar » Thu Aug 26, 2010 10:08 pm

deeter wrote:And few real generals had a choice of what nation they were using and of troop selection. It's a game, not real...

Deeter
therefore, the best test of generalship should be one battle a time, on a battlefield you don't know exactly against an enemy army you don't know exactly
this excludes paired games
i'm doing a series of 10 such battles against a very good opponent and it seems to be great fun

davouthojo
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 423
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 1:49 pm
Location: Hong Kong

Post by davouthojo » Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:23 am

After a lot of games (about 10 times too many per my wife) I think that the points system is remarkably balanced.

Of course some armies fit you playing strength better than others...I do better with swarm medium/heavy foot armies, but I still like trying to master the others!

Some armies do better against specific others.....Roman Armoured impact foot Swordsman+ are very good points value against Gauls Protected impact foot swordsman. If you are Isles & Highland, your protected heavy weapons foot are the same POA and much cheaper than Free Company heavy armour heavy weapons.

There is also an advantage from the terrain.......I still have claustrophobic nightmares about that time I was playing the Seleucids against the Illyrians in the middle of a marshy forest.........

But having said all this, I still think that pantherboy will beat me with my army of choice, against the army I pick for him, on terrain that favours me.

And you can't ask more from a points system that that.......




Agreeing with the op, it would be interesting to do some analysis on the multiplayer results.....if slitherine wish to release the file, I'd be happy to play around with it to produce some stats.....

omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar » Fri Aug 27, 2010 6:29 pm

i think that there is a problem, or more than one, with skirmishing and retreating
in a recent game i played with a roman army against the gauls, i had a screen of light troops against a double numbers of enemy light troops (gauls usually outnumbers romans 2:1)
now, when attacked by his light troops, half of mine retired, this was to be expected and the reason why i put it there, so no problem; the other half stayed there and the majority lost the engagement (hmmmm, why did they stay put, if they were at a disadvantage? i don't know)
they were obviously pinned there, eventually contacted by his medium or heavy troops and routed (they can't disengage, as we all know)
a numidian cavalty unit, in retreating, disrupted 9 (yes, i mean NINE) legionary units that were waiting for the attack in good terrain (an upslope)
now, this can be an extreme example (it never occured to me in hundred of games), but it certainly ruined the match.
even before this unfortunate path of retreat, i was already losing 22:6 just because my light troops weren't able to disengage...but i think my tactics were the only one viable and historically correct
so, what didn't work?
i resigned the game
:(
Last edited by omarquatar on Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Xiggy
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 7:55 pm

Post by Xiggy » Fri Aug 27, 2010 8:44 pm

I have a bad habit of losing lite troops. Cost me a lot of games. That is one of the things, I am trying to remedy. But it is my generalship that is the issue.

omarquatar
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 295
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2009 9:48 am

Post by omarquatar » Fri Aug 27, 2010 9:01 pm

Xiggy wrote:I have a bad habit of losing lite troops. Cost me a lot of games. That is one of the things, I am trying to remedy. But it is my generalship that is the issue.
but in my example, i don't think my generalship was at fault
problems are:
sometimes they stand, when you want them to run, sometimes they run, when you want them to stand
one light cavalry unit retreating and disrupting nine friendly HF units, i think it should go into the Annals

deadtorius
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4173
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:41 am

Post by deadtorius » Fri Aug 27, 2010 10:28 pm

in the next update with S&S we can expect to get an option to order our lights and I think maybe cav to either act as they do now, stand and fight regardless or run away regardless. It will bring the game more into line with the TT where you can either try to stand or just evade with your lights. Right now we have no control over them so hopefully when you can tell your whole line to run and hide you will lose less points to silly lights with suicide tendencies.

Gersen
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 128
Joined: Tue May 25, 2010 6:57 am

Post by Gersen » Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:21 am

deadtorius wrote:in the next update with S&S we can expect to get an option to order our lights and I think maybe cav to either act as they do now, stand and fight regardless or run away regardless. It will bring the game more into line with the TT where you can either try to stand or just evade with your lights. Right now we have no control over them so hopefully when you can tell your whole line to run and hide you will lose less points to silly lights with suicide tendencies.
This works for me!

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4678
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:39 pm

deadtorius wrote:in the next update with S&S we can expect to get an option to order our lights and I think maybe cav to either act as they do now, stand and fight regardless or run away regardless. It will bring the game more into line with the TT where you can either try to stand or just evade with your lights. Right now we have no control over them so hopefully when you can tell your whole line to run and hide you will lose less points to silly lights with suicide tendencies.
I dont want to sound like a pessimist but i have vey little hope that the above new feature is going to add any additional realism to the game nor mitigate some of the effects of the current system for the following reasons:

1. well, the idea of giving individual orders to LF seems like a game mechanic more in tune with modern war or WW2, something like oppurtunity fire.. just doesnt seem very ancienty/medievaly

2. the ping pong effect of lights vs lights and the gamey byproduct of the current game mechanic where poor quality light foot is actually better than higher quality (because it can evade better troops and pin superior ones, to then be crushed by heavies) is not going to be mitigated

Why? well if both players set their stance to medium, the effect will be exactly the way it is now... If A sets his agrresive and B least , again really not that much differnt overall and B's LF will be almost impossible to catch.....They will also act much like a list that has a lot of poor LF anyhow

Also in terms of "realism", i do have a problem that one can tell a bow unit, no armour, no side arms that he is the lucky unit that will stand ground whatever comes his way.... Light Foot was meant to skirmish, thats it , period...

Also, are these stances ONLY going to effect lights vs another light or include other units?? If all sitations then there are going to be new , gamey tactics that will arise.... Example, i have a large BP army with a lot of lights, I can afford to use some as cannon fodder and halt up an entire phalanx by setting a few lights with the stance "never evade" and tie up the opponents entire heavy battle line, well, for maybe 1-2 turns at the least......

Anyways, i just dont see it adding too much value, but worst case it will just increase micro management and add new gamey tactics
I , hopefully, am off base though, I was very dubious of the double moves as well, now I use them all the time and couldnt honestty imagine the game without them, so I guess will have to wait and see...

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory Digital”