Something new and exciting?

[ericdoman1]

Batesmotel 6 (34) vs RexHurley 2 (-34)
Sharkall 6 (9) vs Tiavals 4 (-9)
Stockwellpete 1 (-22) vs Iandavidsmith 2 (70)
Burinus 2 (0) vs Martog 4 (0)
Supervark 4 (0) vs Cytus 2 (0)
Jonno 2 (8) vs Cavehobbit 1 (-8)
Fedem 3 (9) vs TGM 3 (-9)
Todd645 6 (12) vs Turk1964 (-12)
Aristides 4 (0) vs Cromlechi 2 (0)
zumHeuriger 3 (0) vs Tullius 3 (0)


Batesmotel 33 (93)
Sharkall 31(60)
Tiavals 27 (-6)
Stockwellpete 25 (2)
RexHurley 24 (-51)
Iandavidsmith 23 (70)
Todd645 23 (0)
Martog 23 (-47)
Supervark 22 (-34)
Burinus 21 (16)
Fedem 20 (3)
Aristides 20 (-14)
TGM 20 (-42)
Jonno 19 (25)
Cytus 19 (23)
Burinus 19 (16)
Turk1964 19 (-21)
Martog 19 (-47)
zumHeuriger 18 (-11)
Cavehobbit 18 (-18)
Cromlechi 17 (27)
zumHeuriger 18 (-11)
Tullius 12 (-71)

Congratulations once more to Chris (batesmotel) a deserved winner having played all of the top 5 players. Also to Rex and Ian who shot up up the table. Most of all a huge thank you to all of you, who took part.

It is the first time I have run a competition and not been involved. I feel like I may have lost something? and so I will light up a cigarette, nay, a cigar, have a good malt and raise my glass to you all

CHEERS

PS To be continued, maybe?

[iandavidsmith]

Thanks for running the Campaign , it was new and exciting.
Ian

[Aristides]

Yes, thank you Eric.

[ericdoman1]

Cheers to both and A a big thank you as well, especially as you had the worst comp based on not playing that many games

For the future


1. 450 pt armies based on "The Fall and Rise of the Roman Empire". Consisting of armies from ROR, IF, LT and DAF. Armies can be customized for each game.

No player can use the same army but can use variants of armies.

2. Using a Swiss system, although still working on a scoring system for that, one that is pretty straightforward. Would like to make it reasonably close, so a maximum victory would be something like a 10 vs 0 but will be very rare. When there are resignations, slow games etc. Player will receive a 7 vs 3. This is just an example. They will not have the maximum win but probably the lowest. That is a win when you have routed 100% of opponents army

3. 6 rounds, 20 + players. Will now include everybody so should have a fair number of players. I may well take part myself but we shall see

4. Fixed terrain, for example round 1 = Very crowded, round 2 = Crowded etc. Both players must choose said terrain

5. FOW and double moves are on

6. 12 turns and 10 days to complete games. Only players who feel/know they can finish a game in that time should take part

7 It is still early days but would like to incorporate teams of 3 within the comp. Allowing team and individual winners. The teams will have to be vouched for by me. I wouldn't allow a team of 3 players who are overall very good so there would have to be a balance. Hopefully this will be extra motivation/pressure for players to finish.

8 Again early days but would like to increase it to 3 periods (Classical/Imperial, Dark AGes and Medieval), again with teams and a fantasy team game as well just to make it more fun like, interesting. Maybe using 450 pts as the basis to this.

9 Hopefully jonno (who has done an excellent job in The Temporary League) could help with some system.

There we go

[ericdoman1]

Here's a thought on a scoring system for the future

In a game where nobody routs the opponent, that is 100% of opponents army has not been killed, off table etc.

5 vs 0, 76 - 100% casualties difference
4 vs 1, 51 - 75%
3 vs 2, 01 - 50%

For example if player A receives 23% casulaties, player B receives 80% casualties. The difference is 57%. Therefore the score woud be

Player A 4 vs 1 Player B

A 27% vs B 32%. The difference is 5%, the score would be A 3 vs 2 B

In a game where an army has routed

9 vs 1, 76 - 100% casualties difference
8 vs 2, 51 - 75%
7 vs 3, 26 - 50%
6 vs 4, 01 - 25%
5 vs 5, 0%

Player A 10% vs B 100%, A 9 vs 1 B

A 82% vs B 100%, A 6 vs 4 B

If player B is unable to play due to various circumstance, the score would be Player A 7 vs 3 Player B

Where both armies have routed the score would be 5 vs 5.

I want to make the scores reasonably tight. Have even contemplated the thought of players either not being able to customize an army for each game but must stick with one army build or at best have 2 army builds and must specify to opponent which one they will use. That is army 1 or army 2.

The downside here is the extra admin work needed.

Again this will increase the probability of even the better players having a tough game on their hands when they face X army (armies) as they are unable to customize. It would mean that your army build will have to be skillfully built. Either taking a gamble and hoping you will only face foot armies or to try and build a "balanced" army, one that has a chance against any army.

So when you have the random draw, fixed terrain, initiative, army faced, 12 turns and only 10 days to complete this may well give everybody an equal chance.

[Turk1964]

Gday Eric
I like the look of your draft of rules and scoring but would allow players to choose their own terrain via winning initiative.I think the terrain was never what it should have been when it was pre set. Ok next subject i agree with having say 2 versions of the same army so at least you had some idea as to what you will be facing. Then you would via messaging indicate to your oponent what version you would be playing . I think that would make players choose a good mixed troop type army .Scoring well the simpler the better so as there is no arguments about who got what and what points they should have.I would probably be harder on players who just dont bother playing. Fair enough if you have computer problems or work commitments or personal problems. Just take the time to tell your oponent and organiser and things should be just Jim Dandy. If a player doesnt respond to game requests then warn them politly if they continue to do it ,well thats it. Give their opponent max points and then move on.
Cheers Turk

[Tiavals]

The competition was quite fun in my opinion, even though I didn't win.

So thanks for it, eric.

A team competition sounds interesting for the future.

[rexhurley]

Hey mate not sure on the scoring as suggested as for example with my last army its hard to pull an outright win against heavily armoured opponents but I would be penalised comp points for the casualties i took acheiving those, I suggest the points levels used at the moment are fine but you need to increase the default regime.

Re lists no to modifying between rds thats bs in my opinion, one list play it through like we do when we face each other in a hall and take take your punt as it is I do that all the time anyway and in the future you will see improved scores from me instead of the mucking around like I have done in the past. By doing this you will actually see who the better players are rather than someone knowing enough of history to modify list's to maximise it against a particular opponent

[ericdoman1]

Hi rex

Thing is you did really well with the Later Granadines (The Early Granadines in OAF is better)

All players begin with 1 pt, that is player A = 1 vs Player B = 1,
casualties inflicted is 0 -20, 0 points,
21 -40 1pt,
41 - 60 2pts,
61 - 80 = 3pts
81 - 100 = 4pts

1 pt for an outright win.

Example

Player A = 100% vs Player B = 77%

Player A = 1 (intitial score) + 4 (81 -100% casualties inflicted) + 1 (outright win) Total = 6
Player B = 1 (initial score) + 3 (61-80% casulaties inflicted), Total = 4

Player C =19% vs Player B = 28%, C = 1 vs B = 2

Players can now score 5 pts and so if a player doesn't make his turns for whatever reasons the other player will win 5 vs 1

As for not modifying the list. Yes I would like that BUT how would you know the other player hasn't changed his. You are right in most TT comps you stick with the same army. There was only one comp which allowed you to build 2 armies and as you sat down next to your opponent you'd tell him you are using Army 2 option or Army 1 option.

I think if Slitherine could implement a system where armies can not be modified and for teh game to finish at the end of the 12th turn that would help.

I might also go back to players choose whatever terrain they want. Turk suggsted this, again quite a few games were played when it was very crowded but it wasn't very crowded. Maybe players had made a mistake and not ticked very crowded. That is going back to the normal format of choosing X terrain and then a map if you win initiative. I do like the fixed terrain concept as it does hinder/help certaina rmies and once more increases the random factor.

We shall see?

[Fedem]

If every player takes a screen shot of his build army on DAG and then post them here or in some place where we can see it then you can check if he change it or not.
If he does he looses the battle.

Im not sure though if you would change it so much as in this kind of competition you need impact and melee power to try to win in fewer turns. In my case for example with the English continental I played I tried to bring every HF I could. And I was not able to win any battle on time...

So, again I think with Armies that rely much on Missile fire your chances are little.

Cheers!

[Aristides]

I don't agree that using the same list will somehow benefit more skillfull players. There are simply different skills involved. Building your army to match your opponent's likely forces is a skill in itself. Building a balanced army that should do quite well vs a variety of opponents is a different skill.

Also, I don't think history has anything to do with it - you look at the army list you're facing, figure its strengths and weaknesses and build your own with this in mind.

I think too modifiying your army is quite (if vaguely) historical - e.g., when King Aegesilaos of Sparta invaded the Persian empire he maximized cavalry and light troops (even using Persian deserters and iirc Athenian oligarchic sympathizers as cavalry). It would be unusual when setting out on campaign to take troops appropriate to a variety of enemies.

Lastly, why do we want FoGdigi to imitate TT? They're different games with different advantages - should we not use fogofwar?

Really lastly, I'm not sure about the turn limit idea, myself, as it seems to encourage charging everyone forward quickly at the expense of patient play and grand manoeuvre...

It is interesting, the number of parameters that can be focused on in a comp...

[ericdoman1]

Hi

Yep I think sticking with customizing armies is good.

The intention is not to imitate TT, as FOG-TT and FOG-Digi are very different games, I know. It's just pinching a few ideas here and there.

As for increasing agmes to 12 turns. I have asked this on a few ocassions what is the average number of turns it takes to win a game for everybody. I have had a few difficult ones recently where 2 have lasted 11 turns and one for 16. There is a probability that 2 other games I am playing could well be draws it will not make much of a difference if it is 26 turns for a game.

The idea for my comp in the first palce was somethinga little different based on time. Players will need to "push it" to score, again something different I suppose BUT there will always be players who will prefer not to lose and so games will or may end up being draws or narrow wins. that is another reason for this comp and the random factor. You could be facing a tough opponent, terrain not good, limited time and so on. The Swiss system was probably invented to give players the chance to catch up and that's what makes it exciting in my view.

[Fedem]

Indeed the turns limit is what makes this competition different. If not we will be playing a different competition

[stockwellpete]

I think one element is consistently overlooked in all these discussions about rules and that is that the killing of the enemy C-in-C could be absolutely catastrophic for some armies - yet our various scoring systems usually fail to reflect this. Of course, "killing the leader" would have to be clearly defined from the outset - the "aargh" sound definitely and probably if the commander unit has disintegrated as a result of being surrounded as well.

[ericdoman1]

Pete- Haven't thought about that but to be honest losing a gen is not that bad really. In the TT game losing a gen is not good as you need a gen with a battle group in order for it to rally. Troops can rally by themselves in the pc game.

I think in historcal scenarios losing a general in particular a king or emperor should be taken intoa ccount if a pts system is used. But for any comps I run in the future there will be no pts loss or gain.

thanks anyways for the suggestion

[batesmotel]

The new scoring system looks like it gives too much of a bonus for winning. The difference between a 76-99% non-break is 5-0 versus 9-1 for a break. Would definitely motivate the loser to drag their feet to not finish. For TT tournament scoring, breaking the opposing army is a 25% bonus, e.g. a 20-0 goes to 25-0. Your system makes winning much bigger.

In general it looks like you're adding far more complication to this than the first something different used. My expereince is that more complication makes it less fun both for the runner and the players. YMMV but I'd suggest keeping the rules about as simple as for this comp with possible tweaks for game length and clarifying how incomplete games will be scored. I like 400 points because it leaves some room for maneuver on the map but can live with 450.

If this is going to be a teams competition, then that should be the primary organization. It's fine to have individual prizes, too, but define it as a teams competition and make that the primary orientation.

Chris