The Dustbin
Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers
Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here . . .
Division E
Aetius39 - Frankish 751-887 AD with Saxon, Continental 600-804 AD allies defeats Barrold713 - German 888-932 AD with French 888-1049 AD allies 49-9
A deep stream separated the armies. The German center forded towards the Franks, while their left side did the same. The Frankish left was winning against the cavalry, archers, and lights, but although the Germans lost a few units in the center, they came close to breaking it. In the end though, it held (just barely) for the victory. GG to my opponent who made it harder than the score looks.
Aetius39 - Frankish 751-887 AD with Saxon, Continental 600-804 AD allies defeats Barrold713 - German 888-932 AD with French 888-1049 AD allies 49-9
A deep stream separated the armies. The German center forded towards the Franks, while their left side did the same. The Frankish left was winning against the cavalry, archers, and lights, but although the Germans lost a few units in the center, they came close to breaking it. In the end though, it held (just barely) for the victory. GG to my opponent who made it harder than the score looks.
Creator of "There Can Be Only One" tournaments in Field of Glory 2.
-
- Major-General - Jagdtiger
- Posts: 2789
- Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
I voted no. It takes a lot of time to play the large battles, and if all 4 sections were to be large I would have to enter less sections for my sanity.
SnuggleBunny's Field of Glory II / Medieval / Pike and Shot / Sengoku Jidai MP Channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjUQy6dEqR53NwoGgjxixLg
Re: Swuul has won Early Middle Ages Division D!
Yes I do. Make no mistake, it is fun to win, but I think here I won because of the army and not so much because my abilities. Then again, nobody had used the British army even once during all the previous seasons, so at least I can pat myself on the shoulder for finding this shunned gem
There are three kinds of people, those who can count and those who can't.
Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division B
GDod - Seleucid 302-301 BC with Lysimachid 320 BC allies beat IMC - Samnite 355-272 BC with Gallic 300-101 BC allies 60-33
Enjoyable as always IMC
GDod - Seleucid 302-301 BC with Lysimachid 320 BC allies beat IMC - Samnite 355-272 BC with Gallic 300-101 BC allies 60-33
Enjoyable as always IMC
-
- Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2019 12:51 am
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
Does it honestly take people so much more time to play large vs medium battles? I haven’t noticed my Biblical or EMA matches taking significantly longer than my CA or LA matches. Then again, I’m very much not a top tier player, maybe people who are spend more time thinking through individual moves than I do.
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
I agree.rs2excelsior wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 5:21 am Does it honestly take people so much more time to play large vs medium battles? I haven’t noticed my Biblical or EMA matches taking significantly longer than my CA or LA matches. Then again, I’m very much not a top tier player, maybe people who are spend more time thinking through individual moves than I do.
Looks to be a disappointing result coming through. I have really enjoyed the bigger battles in EMA and Biblical this season so I think next season I may just enter those Divisions.
-
- General - Elite King Tiger
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:17 pm
- Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
Would it work to have some divisions use Medium and some divisions Large in each section? Or would that be too complicated and too cumbersome to administer?
kronenblatt's campaign and tournament thread hub:
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108643
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108643
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
No, a significant minority of players do not bother to read the instructions so any further complications will cause disruption and chaos, which would then be up to me to sort out. If I have learnt anything from running a dozen seasons now it is to keep things as simple as possible.kronenblatt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:46 am Would it work to have some divisions use Medium and some divisions Large in each section? Or would that be too complicated and too cumbersome to administer?
-
- General - Elite King Tiger
- Posts: 4333
- Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 4:17 pm
- Location: Stockholm, SWEDEN
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
Ok, many thanks for answer Pete!stockwellpete wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 7:31 amNo, a significant minority of players do not bother to read the instructions so any further complications will cause disruption and chaos, which would then be up to me to sort out. If I have learnt anything from running a dozen seasons now it is to keep things as simple as possible.kronenblatt wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 6:46 am Would it work to have some divisions use Medium and some divisions Large in each section? Or would that be too complicated and too cumbersome to administer?
kronenblatt's campaign and tournament thread hub:
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108643
https://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=108643
-
- Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:16 pm
- Location: Australia
Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here . . .
Division C
sunnyboy - Scots 851-1051 AD with Viking 790-899 AD allies beat IMC - French 888-1049 AD with Viking 900-1049 AD allies, 70-33
With both woods and rough terrain favouring defence the Scots sat back and waited for the more adventurous French assault. After winning the skirmish fight the French assault ground down to a bloody and drawn out slogging match. The Scots securing the win with only a turn to go.
Thanks for the game!
sunnyboy - Scots 851-1051 AD with Viking 790-899 AD allies beat IMC - French 888-1049 AD with Viking 900-1049 AD allies, 70-33
With both woods and rough terrain favouring defence the Scots sat back and waited for the more adventurous French assault. After winning the skirmish fight the French assault ground down to a bloody and drawn out slogging match. The Scots securing the win with only a turn to go.
Thanks for the game!
Re: Late Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division B
hidde - Indian 546-599 AD with Hephthalite 350-570 AD allies beat desertedfox - German Foot Tribes 260-599 AD with Roman 379-424 allies 44-13
hidde - Indian 546-599 AD with Hephthalite 350-570 AD allies beat desertedfox - German Foot Tribes 260-599 AD with Roman 379-424 allies 44-13
Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division B
rexhurley (Carthage) defeats ulysisgrunt (Lyschamid) 43/13
Finally got one right with my deployment however Ulysis's cause was not helped by large pike blocks being outnumbered and rng
rexhurley (Carthage) defeats ulysisgrunt (Lyschamid) 43/13
Finally got one right with my deployment however Ulysis's cause was not helped by large pike blocks being outnumbered and rng
-
- Tournament 3rd Place
- Posts: 1217
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:30 pm
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
What you could do is make large battles optional where if both parties would like to use large armies than they are permitted to use said format for their match. If either player would prefer medium size than it automatically defaults to medium. To minimize administration when players sign up for a league with army preferences they would also be required to indicate whether they would like large/medium battles. It doesn't add significantly to administration and places the onus on players to identify which matches will be large as opposed to medium.
For example:
Sign me up for EMA.
1. Arab Conquest
2. French
3. German
4. Dailami
Battle size: Large
Once the administrator has allocated players to divisions with army selection they would post the divisions as such:
EMA Division A
1. player 1 (Arab Conquest) medium battles
2. player 2 (Germans) medium battles
3. player 3 (Dailami) large battles
etc.
All that is required now for players is to take note of their opponents preference when setting up the challenge. If your opponent agrees to large as indicated by preference than set it up as large otherwise as medium.
I think this could work and could be applied broadly over every division as long as players are willing to respect each others preferences without applying any stigma to those who prefer medium.
For example:
Sign me up for EMA.
1. Arab Conquest
2. French
3. German
4. Dailami
Battle size: Large
Once the administrator has allocated players to divisions with army selection they would post the divisions as such:
EMA Division A
1. player 1 (Arab Conquest) medium battles
2. player 2 (Germans) medium battles
3. player 3 (Dailami) large battles
etc.
All that is required now for players is to take note of their opponents preference when setting up the challenge. If your opponent agrees to large as indicated by preference than set it up as large otherwise as medium.
I think this could work and could be applied broadly over every division as long as players are willing to respect each others preferences without applying any stigma to those who prefer medium.
-
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:14 am
Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here . . .
Division C
Challenge1 - Arab Conquest 638-684 AD defeated sunnyboy - Scots 851-1051 AD with Viking 790-899 AD allies 43-12
Thanks for the match!
Challenge1 - Arab Conquest 638-684 AD defeated sunnyboy - Scots 851-1051 AD with Viking 790-899 AD allies 43-12
Thanks for the match!
-
- Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
- Posts: 320
- Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:14 am
Re: Late Antiquity: arrange your matches here . . .
Division C
Challenge1 - Dacian 89-106 AD with Sarmatian 25-375 AD allies challenges MikeMarchant - Roman 24 BC-196 AD with Sarmatian 25-375 AD allies
PM sent
Challenge1 - Dacian 89-106 AD with Sarmatian 25-375 AD allies challenges MikeMarchant - Roman 24 BC-196 AD with Sarmatian 25-375 AD allies
PM sent
-
- Field of Glory Moderator
- Posts: 14500
- Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
Hmm . . . very interesting. As I have said already today, I am loathe to make things any more complicated as a significant minority of players just will not take the time to read the instructions and Players Guide that I already provide. But I would be interested to trial this idea in just one section next season (probably Biblical as it is the smallest).pantherboy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 26, 2020 11:02 am What you could do is make large battles optional where if both parties would like to use large armies than they are permitted to use said format for their match. If either player would prefer medium size than it automatically defaults to medium. To minimize administration when players sign up for a league with army preferences they would also be required to indicate whether they would like large/medium battles. It doesn't add significantly to administration and places the onus on players to identify which matches will be large as opposed to medium.
For example:
Sign me up for EMA.
1. Arab Conquest
2. French
3. German
4. Dailami
Battle size: Large
Once the administrator has allocated players to divisions with army selection they would post the divisions as such:
EMA Division A
1. player 1 (Arab Conquest) medium battles
2. player 2 (Germans) medium battles
3. player 3 (Dailami) large battles
etc.
All that is required now for players is to take note of their opponents preference when setting up the challenge. If your opponent agrees to large as indicated by preference than set it up as large otherwise as medium.
I think this could work and could be applied broadly over every division as long as players are willing to respect each others preferences without applying any stigma to those who prefer medium.
I do think it would mean that the default size for all battles in the FOG2DL would revert to medium 1200pt and that both players would have to opt for 1600pts at the start of the tournament to be eligible to play in larger battles. I don't think having default 1200pts for Classical and Late Antiquity plus the Themed Event and default 1600pts for Early Middle Ages and Biblical would be advisable as some players will get themselves in a pickle with it.
The only problem I can see with it at the moment is that players who prefer 1600pt armies will end up playing a mixture of 1200pt and 1600pt matches while those who prefer the default 1200pt will just play 1200pt matches. So it is a little bit more demanding for those who play both 1200 and 1600pts.
-
- Tournament 3rd Place
- Posts: 1217
- Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:30 pm
Re: Larger armies right across the FOG2 Digital League?
I think in the last Pike and Shot tournament I ran a few years back that I gave players the choice of size and maybe once in LOEG as an experiment. I don't remember any complications arising or any angst from players about switching between battle sizes. If anything the players that were advocating for larger got to play some battles at their preferred size versus opponents that were likeminded. As for medium size those players felt no change as they had no concerns. They don't even have to bother taking note of other player preferences and all the onus sits on the shoulders of those that prefer large sizes. If switching between sizes would be confusing for someone they can still opt to simply set their preference for medium to avoid any perceived stresses. In essence what I am saying is that those players that do not read tournament rules closely will simply play medium size as per usual. Only those actively engaged will likely pick large. The only real problem I foresee is a player not carefully reading tourney rules but wants to play large and then sets up all their matches as large regardless of their opponents preference.
As for trial running this idea in a single division I completely concur. Afterwards you could ask for feedback from those involved for their impressions and what complications that may of arisen to evaluate its viability.
As for trial running this idea in a single division I completely concur. Afterwards you could ask for feedback from those involved for their impressions and what complications that may of arisen to evaluate its viability.
-
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:25 pm
- Location: Perth, Australia
Re: Early Middle Ages: winners post your results here . . .
Division D
General Shapur Dailami 928-1055 AD with Armenian 885-1045 AD allies defeats grumpydaddy845 Arab (Conquest) 638-684 AD 58:32
Good Game
General Shapur Dailami 928-1055 AD with Armenian 885-1045 AD allies defeats grumpydaddy845 Arab (Conquest) 638-684 AD 58:32
Good Game
Previously - Pete AU (SSG)
-
- Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 1:25 pm
- Location: Perth, Australia
Re: Early Middle Ages: arrange your matches here . . .
Div D
General Shapur Dailami 928-1055 AD with Armenian 885-1045 AD allies challenges
Bluefin ( French 888-1049 AD pas:Shapur7
baldrick52 Indian 546-599 AD pas:Shapur8
pm sent
General Shapur Dailami 928-1055 AD with Armenian 885-1045 AD allies challenges
Bluefin ( French 888-1049 AD pas:Shapur7
baldrick52 Indian 546-599 AD pas:Shapur8
pm sent
Previously - Pete AU (SSG)
-
- Corporal - 5 cm Pak 38
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun May 02, 2010 1:28 am
Re: Classical Antiquity: winners post your results here . . .
Division F
Thunderbird - Seleucid 166-125 BC with Jewish 163-111 BC allies defeated Morat - Roman 199-106 BC with Greek 227-146 BC allies 74/36
Thunderbird - Seleucid 166-125 BC with Jewish 163-111 BC allies defeated Morat - Roman 199-106 BC with Greek 227-146 BC allies 74/36