Suggestions for the League

Moderators: pantherboy, Slitherine Core, NewRoSoft

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9428
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:10 pm

pantherboy wrote:I was just wondering if anyone has an opinion about breaking the leagues into the following . . . My question is how to allocate Rise of Rome, Immortal Fire and Legions Triumphant.
Yes, that breakdown is fine . . . and put IF with "Swifter than Eagles" and put ROR with LT in a separate division.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4650
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Wed Jun 08, 2011 6:15 pm

Hmm, i like pantherboys latest suggestion, the only issue i see is the 3 red headed stepchilden: RoR IF and LT

The problem as i see it is that LT and ROR are imho the most "balanced" expansion packs, meaning any army within each exp likly can have a balanced fight with any other in that same expansion.

However IF(as well as SaS) is , again very subjective, the least balanced. It would be ashame to lump two of the best expansions balance wise with the the least...

Plus IF and RoR together would have like 20 pike heavy armies combined, yikes...

My gut tells me those three expansions are likly the most popular so perhaps they could afford to have seperate divisions?

Morbio
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Brigadier-General - 15 cm Nblwf 41
Posts: 1918
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Post by Morbio » Wed Jun 08, 2011 8:35 pm

I'm wondering if we are getting carried away with trying to fix (improve) something which isn't broken (IMO).

There's lots of good ideas here, but what we have today is great and it caters for the casual player, the serious player with limited packs and the serious 'needs to get a life' player :wink: with all the packs.

I think it is only minor improvement that is required.... and that's mainly around ensuring people don't commit to more than they play in a reasonable timescale.

Also, I'd hate to think that a serious reengineering would mean those lovely spreadsheet that have only recently been created to remove the admin burden would suddenly need to abandoned or redeveloped! :shock:

hidde
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Sr. Colonel - Battleship
Posts: 1697
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 6:31 am

Post by hidde » Wed Jun 08, 2011 9:29 pm

Morbio wrote:I'm wondering if we are getting carried away with trying to fix (improve) something which isn't broken (IMO).

There's lots of good ideas here, but what we have today is great and it caters for the casual player, the serious player with limited packs and the serious 'needs to get a life' player :wink: with all the packs.

I think it is only minor improvement that is required.... and that's mainly around ensuring people don't commit to more than they play in a reasonable timescale.

Also, I'd hate to think that a serious reengineering would mean those lovely spreadsheet that have only recently been created to remove the admin burden would suddenly need to abandoned or redeveloped! :shock:
The way it's done have been fine but to continue to add Leagues for every expansion will mean problem as I see it.
I'm a, perhaps not very serious, but "needs to get a life" player :D and my limit is reached. In the future with lets say 8 Leagues I would participate in 4 or 5 tops.
If most players picks half(or less) of the different Leagues they will be spread out and one League could see lot of players with similar skills while another might be very loopsided.
I think the idea PB have presented is the way to go. Four, maybe five, leagues would be ideal. How the breakdown should look I leave to better informed gents than myself.
And I see no need to change the spreadsheets...more than changing the name of each.

Triarii
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 485
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:58 pm

Post by Triarii » Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:08 pm

Wouldn't grouping the expansions be limiting?
Is it not the case that a player could only sign up if s/he had all the relevant expansions grouped in any one league or they could not play all the other league members?

I think this may pose more problems than it would solve. Certainly with my partners likely view :evil: on buying every expansion.

I am in Morbio's camp - LoEG as Steve has developed it thusfar is successful and enjoyable - downright good fun - and remains inclusive. Expansion groups in a league may exclude some potential players especially any newcomers.

The point that 'a league for every expansion in every season is impractical' is well made but there can be a core of the 3/4 most popular and a rotation of two more as and when they come on stream. And as has been pointed out no-one is forced to sign up for all leagues in a season.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4650
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Post by TheGrayMouser » Wed Jun 08, 2011 10:45 pm

Triarius wrote:Wouldn't grouping the expansions be limiting?
Is it not the case that a player could only sign up if s/he had all the relevant expansions grouped in any one league or they could not play all the other league members?

I think this may pose more problems than it would solve. Certainly with my partners likely view :evil: on buying every expansion.

I am in Morbio's camp - LoEG as Steve has developed it thusfar is successful and enjoyable - downright good fun - and remains inclusive. Expansion groups in a league may exclude some potential players especially any newcomers.

The point that 'a league for every expansion in every season is impractical' is well made but there can be a core of the 3/4 most popular and a rotation of two more as and when they come on stream. And as has been pointed out no-one is forced to sign up for all leagues in a season.
Correct me if Im wrong , but if two expansions were utilized in a division, a player who only owns one could still participate, he simply cant chose his own army from the expansion he doesnt own, can still play vs any one else in that division ....

Im with Hidde on the "maxed" out thing. I can (and will likly) do 6 next time but probobly couldnt do any more (assuming same format) Grouping the expansion to some degree might help the league maintai some of that "continuity" from season to season as more expansions are added . Imagine if you won a division and next go around none of the players you had played are there next season because there are 10 div's going on ? Would lose some of that friendly rivalry... Just some thoughts...

pantherboy
Tournament 3rd Place
Tournament 3rd Place
Posts: 896
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:30 pm

Post by pantherboy » Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:42 am

Just so that people understand where I'm coming from here are the reasons I'm suggesting such combinations;

1. To limit the number of total leagues to an easily managed level.
2. To allow access to all armies each season rather than on rotation thus allowing everyone to participate regardless of how many modules they own.
3. Having combined books allows a greater diversity in each league but with only armies that existed during that period.
4. A player can experience fighting lists that they don't have access to. They of course will be limited to selecting an army only from the modules they own but will be able to enjoy seeing other lists and possibly giving them an incentive to pick up the missing module.
5. I won't need to change any of the tables or formats.
6. Having fewer leagues will allow a greater concentration of players in each league thus making it more interesting.
7. Allows me the room to formulate some alternate leagues (e.g. all lists) without taxing my time.

These are some of the reasons for my proposal

Cheers,

Steve

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3385
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Post by batesmotel » Thu Jun 09, 2011 5:28 am

pantherboy wrote:I was just wondering if anyone has an opinion about breaking the leagues into the following;

1300-1500
Storm of Arrows
Eternal Empire

1100-1300
Swords and Scimitars
Oath of Fealty

490-1100
Decline and Fall
Wolves from the Sea

Before 600BC
Swifter than Eagles

Integrated into the above rather than their own leagues
Empire of the Dragon
Lost Scrolls
Blood and Gold

My question is how to allocate Rise of Rome, Immortal Fire and Legions Triumphant.

Cheers,

Steve
I would consider putting LT in with Decline and Fall and Wolves from the Sea. It gives a continuity of Roman armies into the Byzantine and of the earlier Germanic armies into their Dark Age descendants. Another possibility might be to split LT date wise and put some lists into the Dark Age period and some in with IF and RoR. The Sassanids, for example, would definitely seem to belong with Decline and Fall as opponents for the early Byzantines and the Arab Conquest lists. Britons and Germans might well fit better in with RoR as opponents for Julius Caesar's Romans and for Gauls.

I think Lost Scrolls and Empires of the Dragon would also benefit from being split by date into multiple groups of contemporaneous armies. I suspect the Blood and Gold may well deserve it's own division or could conceivably be grouped with Swifter than Eagles since both books have armies that in general don't have lots of effective mounted troops.

I think that IF and RoR should be together since the armies in them overlap to a fair degree historically and geographically. Between them they cover nearly all the important Mediterranean powers between the introduction of effective cavalry and the triumph of Rome.

One other possibility you could consider is just breaking groups by dates and letting all the supplements split up between groups based on the dates for individual armies.

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

zumHeuriger
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 272
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 3:12 am

Amry Splitting

Post by zumHeuriger » Thu Jun 09, 2011 2:24 pm

I agree with Chris - split the era's by dates and let the armies fall where they may. I would also propose each grouping pick one (or a reasoanbaly narrow) year for picking sub-lists. This is especially true for things like SoA where the types of troops available changes a lot from E to L (For. Ex. the French and the Swiss).

One rather drastic example is the Indian army list in IF which goes from 400BC to 500+AD

Tom

Here is an example of the way I would generate a consolidiated list (Date range 44-94AD: Centered on the year of 6 emperors AD69):
Available: (each list would have the approriate sublist - like Thracians would be Thracian client, for ex.)

Thracian
Saka
Skythian
Classical Indian
*Yayoi Japanese
*Early Horse Nomad
Early Sarmatian
Bosporan
Early Armenian
*Qiang and Di
Parthian
Early Moorish
Numidian
Early German
Dacian
*Shilla 3-Kings Korean
Ancient Brittish
Early Scots-Irish
*Koguryo 3-Kings Korean
Principate Roman
*Pekche 3-Kings Korean
Early Alan
Kushan
*eastern Han Chinese
*Kaya 3-Kings Korean
Caledonian
Jewish Revolt


*'s are from Empires of the Dragon

FWIW

Tom

CheAhn
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 9:44 am

Post by CheAhn » Thu Jun 09, 2011 10:26 pm

pantherboy wrote:I was just wondering if anyone has an opinion about breaking the leagues into the following;

1300-1500
Storm of Arrows
Eternal Empire

1100-1300
Swords and Scimitars
Oath of Fealty

490-1100
Decline and Fall
Wolves from the Sea

Before 600BC
Swifter than Eagles

Integrated into the above rather than their own leagues
Empire of the Dragon
Lost Scrolls
Blood and Gold

My question is how to allocate Rise of Rome, Immortal Fire and Legions Triumphant.

Cheers,

Steve

Probably best to split Leagues purely on date no matter what book adding a 600 - 26BC League (keep the Principate Romans out of this division). This would make 4 divisions rising to 6 as more books are released. The 25BC - 490AD League would be mainly LT with some IF & ROR armies.

4 leagues may be too few for addicts so you could add in a Super League and/or a knockout (it would run itself once the draw is posted, another update-able Google doc).

Also, how about 2 games against each opponent in a division, a chance for revenge and to even out the dice. This may mean smallish sized divisions, perhaps trial this with the Super League (that could have largish divisions, but entrants will know they will be up for quite a few games).

I favour self regulation. Just enter what you can manage. The quarterly cycle is good, just need to fill it with the right number of Leagues and game opportunities.


Cheers

ianiow
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1089
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Post by ianiow » Sun Jul 03, 2011 8:32 am

Now that the Season 6 catagories are confirmed, perhaps we could re-name them to make them a little more user friendly?

These standard catagories are used in many tt competions and would be ideal for us:-

pre 600BC "Biblical"
600BC-25BC "Classical"
24BC-495AD "Imperial"
495AD-1100AD "Dark Age"
1100AD-1300AD "Early Medieval"
1300AD-1500AD "Late Medieval"

ericdoman1
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:43 pm

Ian's suggestion

Post by ericdoman1 » Sun Jul 03, 2011 9:48 am

Hi there

I do like Ian's suggestion but as it stands we would have very limited armies in the Biblical and Dark Ages section.

We would need the "Biblical?" addition/book/lists and Wolves from the Sea? respectably.

However in the future when more books/lists etc are available then I would second that idea.

ianiow
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1089
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 11:24 am
Location: Isle of Wight, UK

Re: Ian's suggestion

Post by ianiow » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:43 pm

ericdoman1 wrote:Hi there

I do like Ian's suggestion but as it stands we would have very limited armies in the Biblical and Dark Ages section.

We would need the "Biblical?" addition/book/lists and Wolves from the Sea? respectably.

However in the future when more books/lists etc are available then I would second that idea.
Yep, season 6 will problably have to drop the 'Biblical' and 'Dark Age' catagories this round due to lack of army lists.

pantherboy
Tournament 3rd Place
Tournament 3rd Place
Posts: 896
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:30 pm

Post by pantherboy » Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:48 pm

I'm posting the threads as part of my reforming for Season 6. I won't be holding a Biblical or Dark Ages league until one of the appropriate expansions is released.

ericdoman1
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 6:43 pm

Continued

Post by ericdoman1 » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:34 pm

I think we should keep the same format ie a division(s) for each addition until more books/lists have been released.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9428
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Post by stockwellpete » Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:24 pm

The idea that I am having at the moment is that the medieval section might eventually work best as two divisions entitled "Medieval: Western Europe 1100-1500" and "Medieval: Eastern Europe and the Crusades 1100-1500".

Armies obviously reflect a number of factors including geography, economic development and political organisation - and it might make for a more coherent competition if "Oath of Fealty" and "Storm of Arrows" go together and then "Swords and Scimitars" might pair off with "Eternal Empires". Something to think about anyway. :wink:

pantherboy
Tournament 3rd Place
Tournament 3rd Place
Posts: 896
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 3:30 pm

Post by pantherboy » Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:37 am

TheGrayMouser wrote:I would think those three armies might overpower many SAS armies

Navarre: 15 HA knights AND longbows w the English ally! (no sas army has longbows)
Scots Islanders: horde army, and if its the one with tons of impact mediums, no other army has that in SAS, it will be a defacto destroyer of defenceless defensive spears:)
Swiss: enough said
I took a look at the blurb in the DAG and the actual TT book for SOA and discovered that the dates the DAG state at the top are incorrect. The Scots are 1300 to 1493 and the Navarrese are 1350 to 1378 and as such are not eligible for this League. I have removed them from the list. The Swiss list however does begin at 1291 and as such will be included. Since it is the early list it lacks pikes and is rather one dimensional fielding all superior HF with HW. So be it. I would feel confident fighting them with any of the SAS lists.

Cheers,

Steve

Demetrios
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: Hamburg / Germany

Re: Suggestions for the League

Post by Demetrios » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:04 am

Gentlemen.

I ´d vote for allowing more participants for the respective leagues. Suggest a league size of 16.
Would mean 15 battles for each participant. That would allow the weaker players to encounter even the "big numbers" and make the
contest more challenging. I´ve experienced the LoeG as a community of very kind, reliable and fair players, so most probably a tournament
of that size could run without any problems. To make things easier, partcipation in more than 1 league could be restricted to those players who
played all matches over a period for maybe 2-3 seasons.

Cheers, Klaus
Sic transit Gloria Mundi !

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9428
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the League

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:59 am

Demetrios wrote:Gentlemen.

I ´d vote for allowing more participants for the respective leagues. Suggest a league size of 16.
Would mean 15 battles for each participant. That would allow the weaker players to encounter even the "big numbers" and make the
contest more challenging. I´ve experienced the LoeG as a community of very kind, reliable and fair players, so most probably a tournament
of that size could run without any problems. To make things easier, partcipation in more than 1 league could be restricted to those players who
played all matches over a period for maybe 2-3 seasons.

Cheers, Klaus
I think 16 would be too many, Klaus. A lot of "dead" matches between mid-table players towards the end of the competition would not get played. I think ten is the right size - and I would actually guarantee that the A divisions always have ten players. There are only a few of us good enough to win the A divisions but a lot of us would get some "sense of achievement" if we could get into the top ten and maintain our place there over a number of seasons.

Just to give an example, if we had 26 players entering a league, I would go 10 for Div A (9 battles), 10 for Div B (9 battles), and 6 for Div C (but they would play "paired games" to give them 10 battles altogether).

Demetrios
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 281
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: Hamburg / Germany

Re: Suggestions for the League

Post by Demetrios » Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:12 pm

Hi, my friend !

Maybe you are right, but so far this is the most reliable wargamer community I´ve ever experienced.
So extending the league to a bigger size might be a task for the future.

Cheers, Klaus
Sic transit Gloria Mundi !

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory: League of Extraordinary Gentleman”