The Dustbin
Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers
-
- Sr. Colonel - Battleship
- Posts: 1654
- Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:36 pm
- Location: Osaka, Japan
Re: Just 1 day left to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
My only slight reservation would be about be about lumping all the Arabs and Indians together. To me that's like saying all the Macedonian successors are one group, and only one could be chosen. I could see lumping Arab city, Bedouin and conquest lists as one set as they are all centered on Arabia. Probably some of the Indian lists could likewise be lumped together. but in each region, some of these lists were contemporaries and enemies/allies.
Karvon
Karvon
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Just 1 day left to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
True, but given that most of the match-ups in the FOG2DL are ahistorical anyway, I don't think that this presents a major problem. Only the Themed Event aspires to be historically accurate. The main point is to get a good variety of armies in each division so there are plenty of interesting match-ups. I think what I am suggesting will do that pretty much.Karvon wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:36 am My only slight reservation would be about be about lumping all the Arabs and Indians together. To me that's like saying all the Macedonian successors are one group, and only one could be chosen. I could see lumping Arab city, Bedouin and conquest lists as one set as they are all centered on Arabia. Probably some of the Indian lists could likewise be lumped together. but in each region, some of these lists were contemporaries and enemies/allies.
Karvon
Re: Just 1 day left to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
I have no problem with the proposals as such. Your main point about your objective being "to get a good variety of armies in each Division so there are interesting match up's" is an interesting one.stockwellpete wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:46 amTrue, but given that most of the match-ups in the FOG2DL are ahistorical anyway, I don't think that this presents a major problem. Only the Themed Event aspires to be historically accurate. The main point is to get a good variety of armies in each division so there are plenty of interesting match-ups. I think what I am suggesting will do that pretty much.Karvon wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 8:36 am My only slight reservation would be about be about lumping all the Arabs and Indians together. To me that's like saying all the Macedonian successors are one group, and only one could be chosen. I could see lumping Arab city, Bedouin and conquest lists as one set as they are all centered on Arabia. Probably some of the Indian lists could likewise be lumped together. but in each region, some of these lists were contemporaries and enemies/allies.
Karvon
Whilst this is indeed interesting it can on occasion lead to some completely asynchronous match ups where one side given the random terrain may as well pack up and go home from the off.
Has their every been any interest in having a level playing field category....maybe in the Themed event ?......ie to match identical army lists in a series of Civil War engagements.....The best Generals rather than the luckiest ones (on occasion) could then be said to have the best chance........It would be a bit like Formula 1 with the drivers having to drive equally capable cars......
Just a thought.
-
- Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
Pete I'll play whatever you decide to do. However I'd like to throw in my two cents worth. I think bunching all the Arab armies including Abbasids, Umayyads as being the same is going to reduce the number of options available by too much. How would you categorise the Fatimids? If Arabs why not the Successor armies which are more alike than some of the Arab armies mentioned? Would you consider no more than two armies of those you mention per section? I realise that this creates issues with Vikings and Greeks for example as they are essentially identical.
-
- Sr. Colonel - Wirbelwind
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
- Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Re: Biblical: winners post your results here . . .
Div A
Cunningcairn - Egyptian 664-571 BC beat sunnyboy - Phoenician 681-539 BC by 43% to 12%
Cunningcairn - Egyptian 664-571 BC beat sunnyboy - Phoenician 681-539 BC by 43% to 12%
Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here
Division C
Doyley50 (Vikings) beat desertedfox (Byzantine) 61-43
Doyley50 (Vikings) beat KiFi (French) 47-18
Doyley50 (Vikings) beat desertedfox (Byzantine) 61-43
Doyley50 (Vikings) beat KiFi (French) 47-18
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Just 1 day left to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
But that is as much a terrain issue as an army issue. I would not be in favour of excluding what might be considered "outlier" armies. How would we decide what these were, in any case?devoncop wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:32 am I have no problem with the proposals as such. Your main point about your objective being "to get a good variety of armies in each Division so there are interesting match up's" is an interesting one.
Whilst this is indeed interesting it can on occasion lead to some completely asynchronous match ups where one side given the random terrain may as well pack up and go home from the off.
It sounds very sterile to me. And then you have the random terrain and number generators making sure things do not stay too "equal" for long. I can certainly build civil war battles into the Themed Event again (I have done so in the past) but I don't think having "a level playing field" as a theme is too interesting really.Has their every been any interest in having a level playing field category....maybe in the Themed event ?......ie to match identical army lists in a series of Civil War engagements.....The best Generals rather than the luckiest ones (on occasion) could then be said to have the best chance........It would be a bit like Formula 1 with the drivers having to drive equally capable cars.....
-
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 5:49 pm
- Location: Greece
Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
My proposal about it is, every player should choose one core army and one ally army.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
At the moment there are 109 armies available in Early Middle Ages, but if you strictly apply the current criterion of one core army per nation that still leaves you with 48 separate choices for the 10 players in each division. That is still a fairly wide choice - you have to pick 4 from 48.Cunningcairn wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:53 am Pete I'll play whatever you decide to do. However I'd like to throw in my two cents worth. I think bunching all the Arab armies including Abbasids, Umayyads as being the same is going to reduce the number of options available by too much. How would you categorise the Fatimids? If Arabs why not the Successor armies which are more alike than some of the Arab armies mentioned? Would you consider no more than two armies of those you mention per section? I realise that this creates issues with Vikings and Greeks for example as they are essentially identical.
If we look at the armies called "Arab" in the Early Middle Ages list then there are 14 of them (not including the Fatimid Egyptians). What I could do with this group is break them up a bit with the first two only being available in Late Antiquity (even though their end date goes beyond the cut-off of 500 AD). The next 10 stay in Early Middle Ages only (including the last one Arab (Syria/Iraq) which goes beyond the 1000 AD cut off). And the last 2 should really be in High Middle Ages as they start after 1000 AD . . .
Late Antiquity only
Arab (Bedouin) 300-636 AD
Arab (City) 300-633 AD
Early Middle Ages only*
Arab (Conquest) 629-637 AD
Arab (Conquest) 638-684 AD
Arab (Umayyad) 685-750 AD (Damascus)
Arab (Abbasid) 747-793 AD (Baghdad)
Arab (Abbasid) 794-814 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 815-835 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 836-873 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 874-946 AD
Arab (North Africa) 789-999 AD
Arab (Syria/Iraq) 890-1008 AD*
High Middle Ages
Arab (North Africa) 1000-1160 AD
Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD
So that would leave one choice from 10 Arab armies in Early Middle Ages, which is almost the same as the current one choice from 9 Byzantine armies. Plus the Fatimids of Egypt can be considered a second Arab choice as they have dastardly not called themselves "Arab". I think there are going to be anomalous situations with whatever I come up with but I think the one army/one nation rule is still OK for Early Middle Ages.
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
- Location: Isle of Wight, UK
Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
I've said it before and I will say it again. I prefer having a few battles in my group where the armies are of similar makeup. Its a better test than facing a horde of skirmishers or a MF army hiding in a patch of woodland every other game.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
Well, if you would like to submit an army list for the Early Middle Ages section from which players would make their choices then that would be very interesting.
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: Biblical: arrange your matches here . . .
Division A
sunnyboy (Phoenician 681-539 BC) challenges harveylh (Achaemenid Persians 545-481 BC)
PM sent
PW: harveylh
sunnyboy (Phoenician 681-539 BC) challenges harveylh (Achaemenid Persians 545-481 BC)
PM sent
PW: harveylh
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: Classical Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .
Division C
Sunnyboy - Jewish 167-164 BC challenges Cromlechi – Carthaginians, Hannibal in Africa (202BC)
PM sent
PW: Cromlechi
Sunnyboy - Jewish 167-164 BC challenges Cromlechi – Carthaginians, Hannibal in Africa (202BC)
PM sent
PW: Cromlechi
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: General Shapur has won Late Antiquity Division D!
Congrats General, well done on winning the division!
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
- Location: Isle of Wight, UK
Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
All of them. Just make it so you can't pick the (exact) same army. I think players have a tendency self moderate anyway and will choose a different army to their opponents naturally. I can't see everyone choosing Arabs or Romans etc. No need for cumbersome rules. Less work for you.stockwellpete wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:47 pmWell, if you would like to submit an army list for the Early Middle Ages section from which players would make their choices then that would be very interesting.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
I don't see how this would help with the two issues that you originally identified - players fielding hordes of skirmishers or players hiding their MF armies in the woods. On top of that, players make their army selections before the divisions are announced and many will not be sure which division they are going to play in. Players who finished near the top of an A division last time will do, but what if you have come 2nd, 3rd or 4th in Divisions B, C or D? Where you will be playing all depends on the proportion of players returning to the same section from the previous season. If 80%+ return it is much easier to predict where you will play than it is if the figure is only 50%+.ianiow wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:36 pm All of them. Just make it so you can't pick the (exact) same army. I think players have a tendency self moderate anyway and will choose a different army to their opponents naturally. I can't see everyone choosing Arabs or Romans etc. No need for cumbersome rules. Less work for you.
I think there might be a case for more managed army selection lists where, for one season at a time, certain types of army might be excluded, to both create more historical match-ups and reduce the number of asynchronous match-ups. I would be interested in such an idea myself, but I have never suggested it as I think it would be very controversial and might affect recruitment quite negatively.
However, the idea that I was edging towards with my comments on the Arab and Byzantine armies earlier today was that maybe there is a group of nations whose armies are heavily represented in the lists who might be allowed 2 armies instead of 1. So, maybe, the Byzantines, Romans and Arabs for starters. Who else? The Carthaginians perhaps? It would need some research, but if we said something like those nations with 6 or more armies in a FOG2DL section army list could be allowed 2 core army selections, then that might be quite popular. But I definitely cannot agree to a situation where we could possibly have 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7 players with the same core Roman army, just with different allies, in the same division.
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
The final result of the poll was 21-7 in favour of rolling out the allies feature across the whole tournament from Season 6 onwards . . . so we shall.
Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
This is exactly my point too Ian.
I hear what you say Pete. I just wondered if the demand was out there for a "level playing field" section.
If you say there isn't ......then fine.....I get that terrain across the battlefield can still vary but certainly the disparities between two hoplite armies from Greece on any usual field of battle are a lot less than that of a Moorish Horse Archer one v a pike phalanx one using the same map.
Re: General Shapur has won Late Antiquity Division D!
Impressive job, congratulations!
-
- Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
- Location: Isle of Wight, UK
Re: Last few hours to vote in the poll on the new "Allies" feature
I guess it boils down to me hating having to choose 3 standby armies and worse, getting one of them. If I take a liking to an army (and it doesnt have to be a particularly good army), I practice with it, read up on it, device strategies for it, then I want to play it. Even if I have to fight another player with a similar army (especially so - because two close armies are the ultimate test of generalship imho).stockwellpete wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 2:03 pmI don't see how this would help with the two issues that you originally identified - players fielding hordes of skirmishers or players hiding their MF armies in the woods.ianiow wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:36 pm All of them. Just make it so you can't pick the (exact) same army. I think players have a tendency self moderate anyway and will choose a different army to their opponents naturally. I can't see everyone choosing Arabs or Romans etc. No need for cumbersome rules. Less work for you.