The Rally Point

The FOG Digital League

Moderators: Slitherine Core, NewRoSoft, FoG PC Moderator, FoG: Leagues&Tourns&SeekingOpponents Subforums mods

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by stockwellpete » Sat Dec 21, 2013 6:41 am

The Catalan army would only be allowed 5x "poor" LF archers, Klay. It is a strong army build that you have posted, but the "poor" MF contingent is definitely an inviting target for the other player. Unless you just hide them right at the back of your army then it will require very careful play with them to get them in range to shoot without exposing them to melee attack. With LF they can just evade, MF cannot - and if they are "undrilled" as well ("poor" troops usually are), then they can be quite cumbersome to use, even though they are not HF.

In Season 1 the Catalans and other "super armies" were just not allowed by us, so at least the modified 50/10 rule, plus the other restrictions for individual "super armies" we are now suggesting, will bring them all back into play. It is also worth pointing out that we will review the situation at the end of Season 2 and we will also have to take into account how various armies perform under the new coding once we have it.

klayeckles
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 546
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 12:47 am

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by klayeckles » Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:15 pm

That's good...thank-you for all the effort and gathering of input...I just offer mine for all to chew on. Good gaming!

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

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by ericdoman1 » Sat Dec 21, 2013 3:17 pm

That's not a Catalan Company army it is Achaians with Catalan ally

So you would need 2 gens and therefore it has too many points

But yes it can be 50bps and it would be tough

This is a super army, hidde won a division with it quite convincingly a while back and has similarities to the Cataln armies. I think PB had spotted it a while back and prevented it from being used.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Rally Point

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Dec 30, 2013 10:15 am

The results of The Rally Point polls were as follows . . .

Poll 1 Are you in favour of a reduction in the playing season to 10 weeks?
Yes - 24
No – 6

Poll 2 Would you prefer the reduction in the playing season occur straight away or be introduced gradually?
Yes – 19
No – 9

Poll 3 Did you enjoy playing in the FOG Digital League?
Yes – 27
No – 0

Poll 4 Did you like the way the tournament threads were presented on the forum?
Yes -18
OK - 8
No – 0

Poll 5 Did you find the level of intervention by the committee generally acceptable?
Yes – 25
No – 3

Poll 6 Should the group stage matches of the themed events be subject to a schedule?
Yes – 13
No - 5

Greetings44
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:31 pm

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by Greetings44 » Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:09 am

Presumably the committee will not be seeking sponsorship from Slitherine for season 2 since you view their DAG lists are 'not fit for purpose'

Happy New Year

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Dec 31, 2013 1:35 pm

Greetings44 wrote:Presumably the committee will not be seeking sponsorship from Slitherine for season 2 since you view their DAG lists are 'not fit for purpose'

Happy New Year

We already have sponsorship for Season 2 from Slitherine. :D I really have no idea why you are suggesting that we do not regard the DAG lists as "fit for purpose" though. It is a bit of an odd thing to say really. :? As a committee we are entitled to set the rules for the competition and we feel that some modest changes to some of the armies in the DAG lists will be beneficial to the tournament. :wink:

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

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by deeter » Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:34 pm

My 2 cents: I like these changes so much that I might consider entering the league again.

Deeter

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Jan 01, 2014 8:55 pm

deeter wrote:My 2 cents: I like these changes so much that I might consider entering the league again.

Deeter
You would be very welcome, deeter. :D

Londo
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Panzer IIIL
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:22 am

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by Londo » Thu Jan 02, 2014 3:14 am

Hi guys! I've been traveling, haven't had the opportunity to contribute to this interesting discussion, would like to throw in a quick comment.

First, I like the 50/10 proposal in its latest version, and think it will improve the competition.

Second, I agree that the problem isn't with LH - they're relatively expensive and not that useful.

Third, I think there are three types of units that are a problem: poor LI, poor MF bow, mobs. We haven't, as far as I saw from scanning this thread, discussed mobs. But they're actually quite significant.

Some armies get more mobs than others, for no comprehensible reason, which gives them a significant advantage against other similar armies. Example: Seleucids IIRC get some mobs, 6? (sorry, still traveling, don't have the game available to check). Other successor armies don't. What logical reason is there for this? This gives Seleucids a nice BP advantage in a close game, and helps turn them into one of the killer armies. (Theoretically one could work troops round to attack the mobs; in practice this doesn't happen very often before the game ends.)

If I were FOG God, I would decree that *every* army list in *every* book gets an *identical number* of mobs, poor MI, poor LI (say 0-6 of each). Peasants, slaves, raw recruits, and camp followers should not have been hard to obtain in any era and place; indeed, I suspect that they were generally more regarded as a nuisance than a help.

Since I'm not FOG God, maybe the 50/10 proposal could be modified so that the 10 limit is for poor MI, poor LI and mobs combined? But if I'm putting this up a bit late, I'm still happy with 50/10 as it stands.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jan 02, 2014 6:50 am

We have made the decision for Season 2 now, Paul - but we will review it again when Season 2 is completed. The "50" part of the "50/10" rule is intended to deal with large numbers of MF (and Mob) while the "10" part is to do with LF. It will be interesting to see how it works out and hopefully players will feedback experiences as the season progresses. Of course, it is possible for us to draw the restrictions more tightly than we have done (an alternative would have been to set the maximum unit limit at 45 and to have barred "poor" LF completely), but seeing as the poll was tied I think we have pushed this as far as we can at the moment. I am hopeful that we won't lose any players over it anyway. Another idea we have in the locker for a subsequent season is that all armies must have 3 or 4 leader units - that would make for some interesting tactical choices too and we may poll the idea in future. :wink:

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Jan 02, 2014 11:36 am

Result of the two Talking Points polls were as follows . . .

Poll 1 Are you generally in favour of the changes suggested for the "super armies"? The result was 13-7 in favour and these restrictions will be introduced for Season 2.

Poll 2 Are you in favour of the "50/10" rule? The voting was tied 13-13. The "50/10" rule will be introduced with two modifications. LH will be excluded from the rule and players may pick as many "poor" LF as they like in the 10x LF that are allowed.

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

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by ericdoman1 » Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:46 pm

How many players took part? You had 3 periods each with 4 divisions, each division consisted of 10 players

20 votes seems very small so the majority abstained, probably didn't mind or couldn't be bothered.

My knowledge of democracy is not good but I reckon that does not seem to democratic to me?

Then we have a 13/13 vote. This is probably < 50% as well but even then I believe once there is a tie, nothing really happens.

If there are possible problems with super armies, then just remove them and based on how well they have done, you should include Post Seleucid, Dacian, Palmyran and Latin Greece Achaians. Wondering what your definition of super armies are?

The bottom line is who uses what.

I am no author of any rules but the gentlemen who wrote them are experts in their field, compared to us average people and have always included light foot, dating back to WRG 5th edition in the 70s. It is part of the game, how do I stop legions, how do I beat pikemen, how do I defeat hordes and should I really take a closer look at how I build my armies.

Out of the 1400+ games played I reckon 2 to 3 % had armies that were 50+ in size. I was one of those who had armies that could be quite large but out of my 44 games, 3 of my armies were 50 - 52 bps in size.

Personally more time should have been spent contacting SLitherine and asking if they could erase some of the bugs in the game and or fix V1, Keith where are you? It is now been over a year (give or take a month or 2) since they began developing V2. I asked them way back if they could fix a few things in the game and they said no as they were developing V2.


Allowing us players to be involved via the polls was excellent, changes are always good but if these changes are based on a minority (votes have confirmed this) not sure. I would imagine my little post will be ignored but had to get something off my chest, better out than in LOL.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by stockwellpete » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:24 pm

It is a bit late for all this now, Eric. You have had plenty of time to express your views. :?

The committee runs the league - that is the most important bottom line. And the polls we organised were indicative, not binding on the committee. We made that very clear from the outset. There were really no good arguments coming about the restrictions on the "super armies" to make us reconsider. Neither were there any serious arguments about the 50 unit limit for armies. Where we did have a lot of discussion was over the 10 unit restriction on skirmishers. So we shifted our ground twice to accommodate what we regarded as reasonable objections - first by removing LH from the restrictions altogether and secondly by removing the 5 unit limit on "poor" LF.

Just over 70 players entered the FOGDL in Season 1 but if people didn't want to vote, or more likely if they had drifted away from the forum once they had finished their matches, then that is up to them. All we could do as a committee was provide a platform for people to put their case and an opportunity for people to vote on what we were considering for Season 2. We have done this in a quite reasonable way and we will not be changing our decisions now.

By the way, trying to get Slitherine to modify FOG 1.0 would have been a completely futile exercise as they themselves have made abundantly clear - so we decided not to waste our time. :wink:

rexhurley
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:33 am

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by rexhurley » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:30 pm

Being one of the players who was not allowed a first pick due to it creating "inbalance" in a division (LRR like as friggin if!) I agree with Eric.

If a few make some arbitary decisions based on their views and a Poll doesnt cover everyone (which it didnt I for one didnt vote) you will decline the quality of the event if we get restricted. Yes Klay's uber cheese of zillions of Poor Mi and LI are annoying but then what's the difference between that and say the Jews or Catalans or anything like that sooner or later people will figure a way around it or you will come across the other nemesis list as with Ian and his Palmyrans v my Jews in the Cup, play the game as it is, organise the League as a league and leave the rest to us, DONT over police it or restrict otherwise we may as well piss off and play in Fogman's events.

Cheers Rex

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by stockwellpete » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:34 pm

rexhurley wrote:b] DONT[/b] over police it or restrict otherwise we may as well piss off and play in Fogman's events.
See you then. :wink:

rexhurley
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 2:33 am

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by rexhurley » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:44 pm

stockwellpete wrote:
rexhurley wrote:b] DONT[/b] over police it or restrict otherwise we may as well piss off and play in Fogman's events.
See you then. :wink:
okay taking a different line since you may listen this time if I dont rage (not possible by the way!) one of the lists I was thinking of taking for something different and its definitely not uber, was Numidians those lists require a min of 8 LI and a max of 48, it cant fight squat, its cant do much damage but should be a laugh a minute fr some chilling time, with the restrictions outlined I cant take it so not only have you restricted out the defined "uber" armies you have also restricted some fun choice.

I take it that was not your intent however it is an output of a blinkered view :( while trying to fix a perceived problem for some you have created another for others.

Hmm I just read the whole thread, question with the LRR you say we may only have four veteran legionairre units and you say your stated goal is authenticity htf can only having four vets be authentic in a Caesarian army??? perception v anothers perception perhaps, weird and wonderful and making us into clones are we?

As for hoards driving you off the board lols now I know that is a personal hate of yours but then I didnt do that with a hoard did I, perhaps your being coloured in your view here Pete, and oh before you say the discussion is over like with Eric your original post said the thread and inputs would stay open until recruitment begins on the 10th so we still have more time for contributions/debate/opinions unless of course we are speaking to a closed mind :roll:

And while editing this Eric has reposted, the main point of my main argument is summed up by him in his last sentence. I have seen FOW destroyed by similar views of few on forums and it would be a shame to see a similar thing happen here. The question I suppose you should ask yourselves is if you were running a TT event on a large or National scale would you restrict is such, I think you would always answer no as it would be the death of your event.

Anyways my two cents worth see you in a couple of weeks.

Regards Rex
Last edited by rexhurley on Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:00 pm, edited 3 times in total.

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

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by ericdoman1 » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:54 pm

I made numerous comments along the way with reference to super armies, army compositions etc and your last post was only a few days ago. Most would ignore it, even though I have had quite a bit of experience in playing games, in particular competitions for nearly 25 years and know the authors, Richard Bodley Scott, Simon, Terry, Keith (Hexware), the Mcneils (there was a memorable ocassion in Preston and Leeds?) quite well, having stayed with them, talked with them and on a few ocassions gotten quite tipsy with them.

Again it is better to get things off your chest rather than keeping it to yourself.

I don't mind whatever happens (within reason) as I enjoy playing. Changes are always good when decided by the majority and or by people who know the game. As Rex has pointed out players will still find ways and means of building the right army (already have a few options) BUT if changes are made by a very small minority, who have no real idea of the game or have some delusions of megalomania that in my view is not good. Luckily we do not have anybody like that in our game :D
Last edited by ericdoman1 on Sat Jan 04, 2014 9:02 pm, edited 2 times in total.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9344
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by stockwellpete » Sat Jan 04, 2014 8:56 pm

rexhurley wrote: okay taking a different line since you may listen this time if I dont rage (not possible by the way!) one of the lists I was thinking of taking for something different and its definitely not uber, was Numidians those lists require a min of 8 LI and a max of 48, it cant fight squat, its cant do much damage but should be a laugh a minute fr some chilling time, with the restrictions outlined I cant take it so not only have you restricted out the defined "uber" armies you have also restricted some fun choice.

I take it that was not your intent however it is an output of a blinkered view :( while trying to fix a perceived problem for some you have created another for others.

Regards Rex
Yes, there may be a bit of "swings and roundabouts" to what we have done, but the main purpose of the restrictions is to bring all the "super armies" back into play. Just consider some of the armies we are talking about here - Catalans, Arab Conquest, Dailami, Republican Roman , Swiss and Christian Nubian - lots of players will choose these armies in Season 2 but not many (if any) will want to use the Numidians. We are gaining far more for the competition than we are losing here, Rex. :wink:

Turk1964
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Lieutenant Colonel - Fw 190A
Posts: 1138
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 1:14 pm
Location: Victor Harbor South Australia

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by Turk1964 » Sat Jan 04, 2014 10:17 pm

I have just read through all these negative comments regarding the digital league and quite frankly if you don't like it then don't play. The vast majority of players have supported the changes but a minority have become very vocal over the army composition rule .Let's try it out and then have some constructive criticism when season 2 ends. We are trying very hard to make the Digital League an enjoyable experience for all not just a few.

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

Re: The Talking Point: army composition

Post by ericdoman1 » Sun Jan 05, 2014 10:58 am

I just wish to clarify something as there is a possibility some players may have gotten the wrong impression. The latter part of my post is based on what happened in WRG5th and 6th edition a long time ago. Rules were being changed by players who only really wanted to benefit thmselves. These were players who only played in a small club and wished to remain the best at that club. They never went to comps, as they knew they would be soundly beaten and even went as far as to interpret rules differently to have an advantage at that club.

As for the organisers in these comps, I have a lot of respect for the work they do and they do know the game so a big thank you to all.

I do not mind the 50/10 rule and so will play but of course if other ideas were brought in that would put me off playing, I like others would stop playing. For example I do not play in fogman's comps (now) as Fog of War and double moves are off

Post Reply

Return to “The FOG Digital League”