Interest in XL League?

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Interest in XL League?

Post by 76mm » Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:54 am

I've been playing in several sections of the Digital League and, while I've enjoyed it, I would enjoy a league more with some tweaks to the rules. This proposal is not intended as any sort of criticism of the existing league or its rules, but my preferences are a bit different--if there some other players with similar preferences, we could set up an ad hoc (ie, not officially "sponsored" league).

Here are my thoughts--please let me know if you have any suggestions or if you have any interest. The proposed rules would require a fair bit of administration, but since the league would be small, I think it is doable. These are my initial thoughts on all of these topics, I'm sure they can be improved significantly, please let me know what you think:

1) League games would be XL battles rather than Medium battles. In my view, more epic feel and less impact from a few lucky/unlucky rolls.

2) Restrict league membership to 10 players.

3) Restrict army selection to exclude horsey-shooty armies such as Indians.

4) Have players "bid" for their armies at the beginning of the season by allocating "bid points". Any bid points used to secure an army selection will be deducted from total league victory points at the end of the season. In other words, if players are awarded 3 bid points and a player uses all 3 bid points to select the Roman army, then at the end of the season that player's league score will be reduced by three points. Players can choose to not use any bid points and select less popular armies. The aim of this bidding process is to handicap more powerful armies and introduce more variety. The exact procedures, number of points, etc. would need to be fleshed out, but this is the basic idea.

5) Have more games in a season--have every player play every other player twice.

6) Have a certain number of games (25%?) designated for hilly, wooded, or mountain maps, with the rest Pot Luck (again, partly to handicap heavy armies, partly to introduce more variety).

7) Maybe "reshuffle" the armies at the season's mid-point via a bidding process, so that people don't have to play the same army the whole season (still thinking about whether this makes sense, and how it should work). Players would need to finish all games from first half of season before playing second half. Players could also bid to keep their same armies if they want. Should army selection for the second half occur at the beginning of the season, or the mid-point?

8 ) Rules governing player withdrawal: any completed games from a withdrawing/disappearing player would "count" for the replacement player, but the replacement player would be guaranteed a spot in the next season. I don't like the mechanic of making players replay games if another player withdraws...

9) Rules governing games timing out: must have completed half of games by mid-point of season. More detail needed...

10) To encourage aggressive play, use scoring rules similar to tournament scoring--ie, players get more points for a hard-fought loss than a bloodless draw.

11) Maybe give a prize to the league champion, such as a free version of the next FOG2 DLC, T-shirt, etc.

TheGrayMouser
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4627
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 2:42 pm

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by TheGrayMouser » Sat Mar 24, 2018 3:10 pm

76mm wrote:I've been playing in several sections of the Digital League and, while I've enjoyed it, I would enjoy a league more with some tweaks to the rules. This proposal is not intended as any sort of criticism of the existing league or its rules, but my preferences are a bit different--if there some other players with similar preferences, we could set up an ad hoc (ie, not officially "sponsored" league).

Here are my thoughts--please let me know if you have any suggestions or if you have any interest. The proposed rules would require a fair bit of administration, but since the league would be small, I think it is doable. These are my initial thoughts on all of these topics, I'm sure they can be improved significantly, please let me know what you think:

1) League games would be XL battles rather than Medium battles. In my view, more epic feel and less impact from a few lucky/unlucky rolls.

2) Restrict league membership to 10 players.

3) Restrict army selection to exclude horsey-shooty armies such as Indians.

4) Have players "bid" for their armies at the beginning of the season by allocating "bid points". Any bid points used to secure an army selection will be deducted from total league victory points at the end of the season. In other words, if players are awarded 3 bid points and a player uses all 3 bid points to select the Roman army, then at the end of the season that player's league score will be reduced by three points. Players can choose to not use any bid points and select less popular armies. The aim of this bidding process is to handicap more powerful armies and introduce more variety. The exact procedures, number of points, etc. would need to be fleshed out, but this is the basic idea.

5) Have more games in a season--have every player play every other player twice.

6) Have a certain number of games (25%?) designated for hilly, wooded, or mountain maps, with the rest Pot Luck (again, partly to handicap heavy armies, partly to introduce more variety).

7) Maybe "reshuffle" the armies at the season's mid-point via a bidding process, so that people don't have to play the same army the whole season (still thinking about whether this makes sense, and how it should work). Players would need to finish all games from first half of season before playing second half. Players could also bid to keep their same armies if they want. Should army selection for the second half occur at the beginning of the season, or the mid-point?

8 ) Rules governing player withdrawal: any completed games from a withdrawing/disappearing player would "count" for the replacement player, but the replacement player would be guaranteed a spot in the next season. I don't like the mechanic of making players replay games if another player withdraws...

9) Rules governing games timing out: must have completed half of games by mid-point of season. More detail needed...

10) To encourage aggressive play, use scoring rules similar to tournament scoring--ie, players get more points for a hard-fought loss than a bloodless draw.

11) Maybe give a prize to the league champion, such as a free version of the next FOG2 DLC, T-shirt, etc.
Id be interested but would need to know before I commited to: A how many battles expected over how much time.

Couple things
XL might be a little extreem, especially if your looking to encourage non "power play armies" There are a lot of horde armies at medium size with 20 plus light spear "irregulars" that will swamp maps and make it a little tedious imho. Large hopefully could be considered. Can always do a custom size as well!

11) I'm personally not interested in prizes ( plus how would that work? , send a collections hat aroudn haha)

10) If you really want to encourage this, I beleive that draws should thus not give any points at all, win or bust certainly encourages agressive play!!

*I say this with full conviction as generally, random MP battles almost ALWAYS play out far more interestingly than they do when you play in games that "count" points in leagues etc

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by devoncop » Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:05 pm

As discussed with you previously....definitely interested.

I would go with whatever rules are decided upon. Love XL battles personally. I don't think the issue of facing multiple light spears medium infantry would occur as the armies involved are not likely to include those types of armies.

I don't know but I would imagine : Roman, Macedonian, Ptolemaic, Carthaginian and other similar but still very different armies with lots of variety of troop types......

MikeC_81
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 726
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by MikeC_81 » Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:16 pm

I personally find XL games to be less interesting because there are a lot fewer hard choices to make at that FP level for army comp. 1200 really requires you to know your army and your matchups. Not trying to dissuade you from running one, just pointing out some important differences from 1200 FP
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKmEROEwX2fgjoQLlQULhPg/

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by 76mm » Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:38 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote:
76mm wrote:
Id be interested but would need to know before I commited to: A how many battles expected over how much time.

Couple things
XL might be a little extreem, especially if your looking to encourage non "power play armies" There are a lot of horde armies at medium size with 20 plus light spear "irregulars" that will swamp maps and make it a little tedious imho. Large hopefully could be considered. Can always do a custom size as well!

11) I'm personally not interested in prizes ( plus how would that work? , send a collections hat aroudn haha)

10) If you really want to encourage this, I beleive that draws should thus not give any points at all, win or bust certainly encourages agressive play!!

*I say this with full conviction as generally, random MP battles almost ALWAYS play out far more interestingly than they do when you play in games that "count" points in leagues etc
TGM, devoncop, thanks for your comments. A few responses:
1) number of battles: I figure it would be 18 battles (2 battles vs 9 other players in the league. I'm still thinking about timing, and am open to suggestions--my initial reaction is to have seasons correspond to calendar quarters, but maybe that is not enough time...if not, maybe 4 months? 6 months? I'm flexible on this, depending on what people think is doable...my main concern is to keep people playing throughout the season and not drop out or save 15 of their games for the last two weeks. What I want to avoid though, is having people replay all battles if a player drops out after 10 games or so--those results should stick.

2) I would prefer to stick to XL battles but point taken about some of the armies...I will try to look at the army lists over the coming days and come up with a potential list that weeds out some of the army types that you mention. The overall intent would be to encourage variety but to limit army choices to more or less "conventional" armies (somewhat contradictory I know, but...).

3) Prizes are not a big deal and probably wouldn't motivate anyone anyway, so that could easily be dropped. If first prize is limited to the next DLC, etc. I could probably pick that up, at least for the first season or two, after which I'm sure the e-sport sponsorship offers would come flooding in :-)). I'm really more interested in figuring out how to keep players playing throughout the season, but the only way to really do that would be to give prizes to everyone that completes the tournament rather than the champ, which would not be feasible. But then again, who wouldn't like to show up at their local Walmart wearing a "XL League Champ" T-shirt? Pure sex appeal...

4) Good suggestion on not awarding points to draws, maybe that would work. My only concern with that approach is that it takes two to tango, and if one side goes turtle (putting entire army on far side of impassable river, etc.) one side would be penalized despite being ready, able, and willing to fight. Giving both sides some incentive to fight might work better... But I'm open to suggestions on specific mechanisms, etc. Also, if the army selection is restricted and terrain is more varied, maybe there will be fewer battles in which one side feels completely outclassed and so there would be fewer instances of going turtle.

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by 76mm » Sat Mar 24, 2018 6:49 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:I personally find XL games to be less interesting because there are a lot fewer hard choices to make at that FP level for army comp. 1200 really requires you to know your army and your matchups. Not trying to dissuade you from running one, just pointing out some important differences from 1200 FP
This is fair enough, but frankly this is probably why I like the bigger battles more--they are a little more "big picture" and not as much about individual melee results, etc.

Honestly one of the things I dislike about the Medium battles is that a couple of bad die rolls can snowball and it is basically "game over". Very few of my league games have gone to the 60% victory threshhold I(ie, close games), because they often essentially decided within the first few turns of combat. Not completely sure if that is due to the Medium size, but it seems like many more of my XL non-league games are closer, hence my interest in playing in some kind of XL league.

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by 76mm » Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:15 pm

I went through the army lists for the 280-250 BC period and came up with the lists below, broken down into "varied" and "monotype" armies (discussed below). Some feedback would be helpful:

1) I think it would be better to expand the coverage period to include 280 BC to 1 BC, to get a wider range of armies, even if a bit anachronistic...make sense?

2) Almost half of the armies are "monotype" armies which primarily consist of one unit type (Italian Foot, Irregular Foot, etc.). Generally I think these armies would be rather tedious to play, or play against, although I guess it might be nice to let a player play the Ligurians, etc. if they really wanted to. My inclination, however, would be to exclude them if the coverage period is expanded as described above. Or maybe include a couple of them on a "why not" basis?

3) If a country has several different lists covering different periods, I was thinking it would be best to limit army selection to one list (the most competitive) rather than allowing several different Carthaginian, Seleucid, etc. armies. Any reason not to do so?

Here is a "curated" list of the armies from 280-250 BC (to be expanded to cover through 1 BC):
Antigonid 320 BC-300BC
Armenian 331-252 BC
Bithynian 297-74 BC
Bosporan 348-85 BC
Carthag 280-263 BC
Galatian 280-63 BC
Gallic 300-101 BC
Graeco-Bactrian 250-130 BC
Greek (Western) 280-49 BC
Greek 280-228 BC
Lysimachid 320-281 BC
Macedonian 320-261
Pergamene 262-181 BC
Pontic 281-111 BC
Ptolomaic 320-167 BC
Pyrrhic 280-272 BC
Roman 280-220 BC
Seleucid 320-206 BC
Syracusan 380-211 BC

Here are the "monotype" armies which I propose to exclude:
Apulian 420-203 BC [up to 52 Italian foot!]
Atropatene 320-145 BC [up to 48 irregular foot]
Bruttian 430-203 BC [up to 44 Italian foot]
Campanian 280-203 [up to 30 Italian foot]
Caucasian 320BC-426AD [up to 56 irregular foot]
Iberian 331-220 BC [up to 30 Irregular foot]
Illyrian 350-25 BC [up to 29 thureos]
Kappadokian 260-17 BC [up to 24 Irregular foot]
Ligurian 480-145 BC [up to 42 irregular foot]
Samnite 355-155 BC [up to 44 Italian foot]
Thracian 350-46 BC [up to 32 Thracians]
Umbrian 490-260 BC [up to 48 Italian foot]

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by 76mm » Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:26 pm

TheGrayMouser wrote: 10) If you really want to encourage this, I beleive that draws should thus not give any points at all, win or bust certainly encourages agressive play!!
After thinking about this--I'm a bit slow today--this might solve the problem after all, because if you don't get points for a draw, there is no reason for anyone to turtle. Duh. Can anyone think of any downsides to doing this?

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by devoncop » Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:56 am

I too can see the logic in no points for a draw.

Incidently with the latest patch only light troops are able to be placed "the wrong side " of and impassable river on deployment.

Not sure about the Bythinians by the way....they are very weak imo.

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by 76mm » Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:40 am

devoncop wrote: Not sure about the Bythinians by the way....they are very weak imo.
Didn't know that about the patch, thanks for the info.

I've reviewed various armies covering roughly 280-1 BC, trying to pick the most competitive list for each nation, and came up with this:
Ancient British 60 BC-80 AD
Antigonid 320 BC-300BC
Armenian (Tigranes) 83-69 BC
Bithynian 297-74 BC
Bosporan 84-11 BC
Carthag (Hannibal in Italy 216-203 BC)
Dacian 50 BC - 88 AD
Galatian 280-63 BC
Gallic 300-101 BC
Germanic Foot Tribes (105 BC - 259 AD)
Graeco-Bactrian 250-130 BC
Greek (Western) 280-49 BC
Greek 227-146 BC
Jewish 64 BC- 6 AD
Lysimachid 320-281 BC
Macedonian 320-261
Pergamene 190-129 BC
Pontic 281-111 BC
Ptolomaic 320-167 BC
Pyrrhic 280-272 BC
Roman 280-220 BC
Seleucid 320-206 BC
Slave Revolt 73-71 BC
Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70 BC
Syracusan 380-211 BC

There are 25 armies on this list, but I think that for the bidding process to really have any effect, it will have to be pared down to something like 15, so many of the weaker/non-diverse armies will probably be eliminated, including Bithynian, Slave Revolt (*sniff*), etc. Otherwise, many of these armies have a good mix of heavy and medium troops so would be pretty good choices for league play. Any other nominees for elimination?

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by devoncop » Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:54 am

I am not sure the Hoplite based Greek armies are competitive but maybe that's just me.

The others look OK.

Some I personally would avoid but I can see some folks could do well with them with more skill than me.

Hendricus
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:05 pm

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by Hendricus » Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:36 pm

76mm wrote:
TheGrayMouser wrote: 10) If you really want to encourage this, I beleive that draws should thus not give any points at all, win or bust certainly encourages agressive play!!
After thinking about this--I'm a bit slow today--this might solve the problem after all, because if you don't get points for a draw, there is no reason for anyone to turtle. Duh. Can anyone think of any downsides to doing this?
Are you sure every player cares about points ?
I like the idea of an XL league.

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by 76mm » Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:12 am

Hendricus wrote: Are you sure every player cares about points ?
I like the idea of an XL league.
Of course maybe not everyone cares, but when designing rules for a competitive league, it seems like it would make sense to take into account that most players would prefer to do well in the competition, even if it is not the most important thing. Speaking for myself, if playing in a competitive league and I thought my army was seriously outclassed, I would go for a draw instead of a likely defeat if I could get points for doing so.

A few other thoughts... Here is a pared-down army list; not everyone would want to play all of these armies, but it seems like a good mix. I was not familiar with some of these armies (Bosporan, Pergamene, etc.) but all of them seem like they would be competitive, at least in the right hands.
Antigonid 320 BC-300BC
Armenian (Tigranes) 83-69 BC
Bosporan 84-11 BC
Carthag (Hannibal in Italy 216-203 BC)
Dacian 50 BC - 88 AD
Gallic 300-101 BC
Greek 227-146 BC
Jewish 64 BC- 6 AD
Lysimachid 320-281 BC
Macedonian 320-261
Pergamene 190-129 BC
Pontic 281-111 BC
Ptolomaic 320-167 BC
Pyrrhic 280-272 BC
Roman 280-220 BC
Seleucid 320-206 BC
Spanish (Sertorius) 80-70 BC

Also, I think I might have to drop the rule about requiring more use of non-open terrain, because I can't think of how to implement it...if anyone has any ideas, please let me know, because I would prefer to keep this requirement--in my view more interesting terrain results in more interesting battles!

Also, what do you all think about this idea of "re-bidding" for armies half-way through the season? I like this idea for two reasons:
1) I think players would be more willing to experiment with armies if they know they won't be stuck with a potentially weak army for the whole season; and
2) if designed correctly, this re-bid mechanism can be used to incentivize players--even those who are not doing well--to complete games in the first half of the season. For instance, the mid-season "re-bid" could be designed so that (i) all players who have completed at least [7] games by that point get one free bid point in selecting their army for the second half of the season, and (ii) players who have not completed at least [7] games by that point do not get one free bid point and can only select their army for the second half from the "leftover" armies not selected by the players who have completed [7] games. Hopefully I explained that clearly...

I'm still trying to think of ways to motivate players not to drop out before the end of the season, but not sure how much success I'll have with that. I think the only real remedy would be to keep the league small so that it might be easier to maintain a waiting list of players willing to step in as replacements.

Any other thoughts?

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by devoncop » Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:57 am

One idea for the half season rebid process would be based on the NFL system of draft. I am no expert on this at all being from the UK but there could be a reverse priority of picks for the second half of the season....ie rather than bidding for armies with points the first choice of army would go to the bottom player at the halfway point, the next choice would go to the second bottom and so on...

This would incentivise the players who struggle in the first round of games as they would know they would get strong armies in round 2.....what do you think ?

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by 76mm » Mon Mar 26, 2018 8:02 am

devoncop wrote:This would incentivise the players who struggle in the first round of games as they would know they would get strong armies in round 2.....what do you think ?
Interesting idea...I like it but am trying to think of potential drawbacks (other than the fact that the top-ranked players might get a bit chuffed about having to play with the "dregs" for the second half of the season).

Especially if we have to abandon the idea of playing more non-open maps, this idea might be a way to prevent players with some of the stronger heavy armies from crushing everyone for the whole season.

One of my main objectives is to keep people interested, engaged, and playing throughout the longer proposed seasons, so this might be a good way to help achieve that. Thanks for the idea!

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9317
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:38 pm

Divide your final army list into three groups according to their strength, A, B and C. If your league is going to have 10 players then that means 9 matches each (or 18 if you play each opponent twice). Divide these 9 matches into three groups and allocate the armies so that each player gets an A, a B, and a C army for 3 battles each during the course of the season. I will be doing something like this in Season 2 for the From Cyrus to Tigranes section. If you want to reduce drop-outs then stick to 9 matches per season. If you go to 18 matches then players who start badly are more likely to drop out. Remember, in a small league the range of player abilities in a division will be wider than average and you will get more one-sided battles (see Classical Indian Division B in the FOG2DL). Players who feel outclassed are more likely to bail out.

Another way to deal with possible drop-outs is to structure the tournament so that the problem is minimised. Use the Themed Event in the FOG2DL as your basic model (depending how many players you get). As an example, have 4 groups of 6 players with the top 4 qualifying for the knock-out phase (last 16). This will mean that players will get 5 group matches and most will still have a chance of finishing in the top 4 when they are playing matches 4 and 5. Once you get to the KO stage then there are hardly ever any drop-outs.

Cunningcairn
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 924
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by Cunningcairn » Wed Mar 28, 2018 9:03 am

I agree with everything you've said about XL battles 76mm and would like to play in your tournament. Would you consider a period where all armies are predominantly of the same composition i.e. infantry or cavalry dominant. Despite the criticism of shooty armies(Indians) I find the worst match ups are infantry versus cavalry armies. The TT mod gives many variants of early European armies that could be "regionilised" for an interesting 10 team tournament. Whatever you decide I'd still like to play as I also prefer the large battles.

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

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by klayeckles » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:08 am

Cunningcairn wrote:I agree with everything you've said about XL battles 76mm and would like to play in your tournament. Would you consider a period where all armies are predominantly of the same composition i.e. infantry or cavalry dominant. Despite the criticism of shooty armies(Indians) I find the worst match ups are infantry versus cavalry armies. The TT mod gives many variants of early European armies that could be "regionilised" for an interesting 10 team tournament. Whatever you decide I'd still like to play as I also prefer the large battles.
pete's comments are great...just do one round of battles, so folks don't get tired and drop...then do another league! new players, new energy...same number of games for those that stik it out.

i suggest large not XL battles...you lose manouver space, and crowd the battle feild to the pt that it gets to be a face slam. also it really limits the amount of variation in the army design when it gets XL. bidding system sounds great...little curious on the details of that (blind bidding, bidding for a particular army, or just putting pts out there to get priorty pick, sequential where bidders can bid a pt per round for the army they want? all options) limiting army choices a must (no indians etc) . longer time frame is nice given all the other options and tournies underway.

I'm in (but just a maybe for XL)

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by 76mm » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:22 am

Hey guys, sorry for not responding, have been really busy. Thanks everyone for their comments.

A few responses:
stockwellpete wrote:Divide your final army list into three groups according to their strength, A, B and C. If your league is going to have 10 players then that means 9 matches each (or 18 if you play each opponent twice). Divide these 9 matches into three groups and allocate the armies so that each player gets an A, a B, and a C army for 3 battles each during the course of the season.
Honestly, I want to avoid ranking armies into A,B & C categories, which I'm not sure is really possible in any objective manner. The bidding mechanism is intended to eliminate the need for this--if you don't like an army, don't bid for it... In subsequent seasons maybe the armies could be divided in this manner based on how much people have bid for them in past seasons, but until then I think it would be too subjective.
stockwellpete wrote: If you want to reduce drop-outs then stick to 9 matches per season. If you go to 18 matches then players who start badly are more likely to drop out.
This is clear, but honestly I don't think that 9 games is enough to determine the best player, so I'd prefer to stick with more games (but see below).
stockwellpete wrote: Remember, in a small league the range of player abilities in a division will be wider than average and you will get more one-sided battles...Players who feel outclassed are more likely to bail out.
Also, very true, but since the league will be pretty small hopefully I would be able to hand-pick a fairly homogeneous player pool, although there will be at at least one weak player (yours truly...).
stockwellpete wrote:Another way to deal with possible drop-outs is to structure the tournament so that the problem is minimised. Use the Themed Event in the FOG2DL as your basic model (depending how many players you get).
This is a good idea, maybe have a 9 game "regular season" and then go into playoffs...I will think about this. I will have to look at different ways of running a playoff, I'd like to have about half the league participate in play-offs if possible.
Cunningcairn wrote: Would you consider a period where all armies are predominantly of the same composition i.e. infantry or cavalry dominant. Despite the criticism of shooty armies(Indians) I find the worst match ups are infantry versus cavalry armies. The TT mod gives many variants of early European armies that could be "regionilised" for an interesting 10 team tournament.
I agree with you, although in the latest army list above, IIRC all of the armies but the Dacian are infantry-centric. I included the Dacians for a little variety, but they could be excluded if they are too horsey. I've been meaning to install the TT mod for some time but have not yet done so...I'd be happy to look at the armies in that mod, although I'm not sure how much more variety they could provide than the list above? I'm open to ideas to make the included armies as competitive as possible while retaining some degree of variety (these goals are contradictory but can be managed within reason).
klayeckles wrote:i suggest large not XL battles...you lose manouver space, and crowd the battle feild to the pt that it gets to be a face slam.
hmm, I really don't think that this is an issue at all if you use extra-wide maps. In fact when I set up XL battles for MP I usually make them 50 wide by 35 deep--if anything I've had a few people complain that the maps are too big! I can almost guarantee that these games won't feature any "face-slams".
klayeckles wrote:[XL battles]...also...really limits the amount of variation in the army design when it gets XL.
Maybe, but I think I've mitigated this problem to some extent by eliminating a bunch of the armies from consideration. Take a look at XL-sized armies from my final list above--there is really quite a bit of variety in almost all of them, I have weeded out almost all of the "monotype" armies which force you to choose 50 irregular foot, etc. Or maybe I'm not properly understanding your point?
klayeckles wrote:...bidding system sounds great...little curious on the details of that (blind bidding, bidding for a particular army, or just putting pts out there to get priorty pick, sequential where bidders can bid a pt per round for the army they want? all options)
Good questions, I have some ideas but need to think more about this and will post again with more details once I've done so.
klayeckles wrote:...limiting army choices a must (no indians etc).
Hear, hear. Maybe I'm just a bad person, but honestly I really hate playing against Indian and similar armies.
klayeckles wrote:...longer time frame is nice given all the other options and tournies underway.
Currently I'm thinking about two four month seasons: a fall season (Sep 1-Dec 31) and a spring season (Jan 1-Apr 30), with the summer off so that I'm not responsible for people sitting behind a computer during the summer months (a sincere apology to our comrades in Australia!). Assuming that we stick with 18 games/season, that is a bit more than a game a week on average, so hopefully not too taxing? For this first season, I think I would set up an abbreviated two month season starting May 1 or so with fewer games just to test out some of the ideas, mechanisms, etc. Let me know what people think about this proposed schedule?

76mm
Major - Jagdpanther
Major - Jagdpanther
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:08 pm

Re: Interest in XL League?

Post by 76mm » Thu Mar 29, 2018 10:58 am

After thinking about it briefly, at least for the introductory season I'm thinking about this play schedule:
1) a nine-game regular season lasting for two months.
2) the top four finishers would re-bid for armies and then go into a single-elimination playoff (two rounds--semi-final and final--of two weeks each).

Maybe tweak the timing a bit, but I think that something like this would be a good compromise between a short season and having a few more games to determine placement.

But a couple of potential problems:
1) The main thing I'm concerned about is that--as any fan of March Madness knows--single-elimination playoffs are subject to serious amounts of luck--a bad draw on maps alone could doom someone's playoff chances; and
2) the problem of turtling seems to arise again with this type of playoff.

For these reasons, might have to use mirror games for the play-offs...thoughts?

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II: Tournaments & Leagues”