New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

nyczar
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:04 am

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by nyczar » Fri Aug 17, 2018 10:41 pm

aye, but now there is one less Macedonia army to deal with! one chink is all it takes :wink:

Kabill
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Kabill » Sat Aug 18, 2018 8:07 pm

Turn 12

We're still waiting for the outcome of Nosy_Rat's second attack against paulmcneil but I figured I would get the new turn sorted now. An update on that game would be helpful to know whether it's worth holding on for. But provisionally I'll say the deadline for turn 12 orders will be Monday at 6pm GMT.

EDIT: We're at a stage now where I there's no one I can send my orders to might not be affected by them. In view of this, I'm going to write my orders in a password protected Word document that I will link to (I was going to attach it but the forum won't let me). When the turn is processed, I will then also release the password to allow you to check my orders if you want. Hope that's ok but if anyone has a better idea then let me know

Spain Turn 12 Orders: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7r63eohf0th5m ... .docx?dl=0

Campaign Map Turn 12.jpg
Campaign Map Turn 12.jpg (465.13 KiB) Viewed 2393 times
Kabill's Great Generals Mod for FoG2: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=492&t=84915

Nosy_Rat
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Staff Sergeant - Kavallerie
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:00 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Nosy_Rat » Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:22 am

I'm pretty sure the last battle will result in a draw. We'll probably finish it in a day, but I won't mind you adjucating it in favor of Paul if you don't want to wait.

Edit: Also, I think there should be my forces (4 of them?) in 38.

Kabill
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Kabill » Sun Aug 19, 2018 11:10 am

Nosy_Rat wrote:
Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:22 am
I'm pretty sure the last battle will result in a draw. We'll probably finish it in a day, but I won't mind you adjucating it in favor of Paul if you don't want to wait.

Edit: Also, I think there should be my forces (4 of them?) in 38.
Yes, sorry, I think I removed them when faffing around with different colours for the Persians and then forgot to put them back in. I'll leave it for now but will update when I put in the outcome for 46 as well.

I'm happy to hold out for the outcome if you reckon you'll be done soonish - I don't think the outcome will matter to anyone besides the two of you.
Kabill's Great Generals Mod for FoG2: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=492&t=84915

Kabill
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Kabill » Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:36 pm

Nosy_Rat's attack on paulmcneil in 46 has been inconclusive. I will resolve this as a draw. Because the defending force outnumbered the attacking force, the attacking army is destroyed and the defending force loses 1 army.

With that resolved, the issue of draws:

In principle, I like the idea of linking outcomes with route %. However, it is inconsistent with the way in which partial losses work elsewhere in the rules (which use final casualties, not route %) and there's a risk of mistakes and anomalies if we start using route % for something. If I was starting a game from scratch, I'd probably use route % for everything, but I'm not actually trying to wholesale rework the rules mid-way through the campaign (whatever it might look like!). I just wanted to remove what I consider to be an anomalous situation, where the main context in which someone would would play for a draw actually is almost as bad as them losing.

Regarding Morbio's point about whether the attacker needs further encouragement to attack, my own point here was only that a draw should never produce an outcome which is ultimately better for the attacker than the defender. Currently, that's true if the defender outnumbers the attacker (the attacker loses all armies and the defender basically loses only one) but it's unusual for an attack to be made with an inferior force. In contrast, it's not true where the attacker outnumbers the defender (defender loses all armies, attacker loses a number of armies equal to the defending force) which is the most likely situation one might play for a draw. So that latter situation is all I was looking to resolve. I don't therefore think the attacker needs to lose more than the defender to encourage them to attack (which was implied in nyczar's suggestion); I just think an outnumbered defender should stand to have gained something from a draw and certainly shouldn't come out in a weaker relative position than they started with.

In so far as my original suggestion - half army size rounded up - addresses this problem while remaining consistent with the existing rules, I therefore still think it's the best option. I would propose a slight amendment, though, that the attacker lose armies based on the *largest* force while the defender lose armies based on the *smallest* force. E.g. In a 2x3 battle, the attacker loses 2 armies and the defender loses 1; similarly in a 4x2 battle the attacker loses 2 and the defender loses 1. This means the defender will never lose more than the attacker, to offset situations where the attacker might use a smaller force and play for a draw to inflict heavier loses on the defender than suffered themselves.

Overall, this solution is more forgiving on the attacker than the current rules, which partially addresses Morbio's point about forlorn attacks: in most circumstances, the attacker would lose less armies on a draw than they lose now (which is usually all of them, unless they outnumber the defender, which is part of what I'm trying to resolve anyway) so while calling off an attack is not costless, it will typically be less costly than in the existing rules. In reverse, an outnumbered defender will not be obliterated on a draw, and reinforcements notwithstanding will enter the following turn in a stronger relative position than they were in previously (I've checked with all regular battle combinations to be sure!), while a defender which outnumbers their attacker will take loses similar to the current system (the single exception is 3x4, where the defender will take 2 losses on a draw rather than 1 in the current system but I don't consider that to be a major problem). This seems to be a fair compromise between Morbio's concern for allowing flexibility on attacks and nyczar's point about incentivising the attacker, while also addressing the problem I wanted to address and remaining consistent with the style of other rules. As such, I think it's the best option.

I am of course happy to continue the discussion. But if I've persuaded those opposed to the change, I'd like to implement this for the next set of battles. (Sorry for not engaging with this sooner - I was originally persuaded by the alternative suggestion in some form but then on reflection came out with the conclusions I've outlined above.)
Kabill's Great Generals Mod for FoG2: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=492&t=84915

Ludendorf
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Ludendorf » Mon Aug 20, 2018 10:03 pm

I'm ok with this. It does seem a bit harsh that previously one side was annihilated during a draw. Historically, if an army invaded and then decided to retreat, the attacker would take more casualties than the defender because they would be harried back towards their own lands, so it makes sense things are harsher on the attacker. However, the entire army being annihilated doesn't feel right.

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3457
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by batesmotel » Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:57 am

This sounds like a good way to handle draws from my PoV.

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

nyczar
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:04 am

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by nyczar » Tue Aug 21, 2018 2:52 am

While strategically fighting (or not fighting) for a draw to wear down an opponent's forces is a perfectly sound strategy in real warfare, it it just not a fun form of play for me. The discussion here and in the Digital league forum has been spirited and interesting. I like it that we are trying to address competitive gamesmanship that veers to far towards competitiveness at the expense of fun.

I am mostly ok with your suggestion and appreciate the thoughtfulness. My core agreement stems from the perspective of campaign moderating and mistake prevention than from anomalous results. I don't see an issue in a system that uses one approach in one circumstance and another in a different circumstance as being mutual exclusive. Whatever encourages the best gamesmanship executed in the spirit of fun game play is, for me, the key principle.

Using our current system of armies, how one gets to the defender losses in a draw (50% of larger or smaller force) is less important to me than that the attacker ought to suffer more than the defender. I know your proposal accounts for that in 4x1 and 3x2 circumstance, but when the battle is even, at 4x4 or 3x3, if the attacker sees the lay of the land and sees no sound plan, the disincentive for playing for a draw is still not strong enough IMO. Hence, I would amend the modification to be attacker losses = defender losses +1. I am not as analytical as some of you, so i don't know if this might create issues, but for me a situation where an attacker could choose not fight and earn equal losses as the defender is not a strong enough middle ground between what is being proposed and the harsh rules set we are using now. I don't want to slow down decision making, but I do want to state my view. maybe a quick poll? ultimately, let it be known I wont be upset if the proposal is instituted as written.

nyczar
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:04 am

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by nyczar » Tue Aug 21, 2018 3:12 am

Follow up thought: consider this. Over the last two turns, Nosy_Rat has destroyed (at least) a combined 30 Roman, Etruscan , and Galatian armies. Facing such a formidable foe, Batesmotel, Lundendorf and I could create the "draw triumvirate" and seek just to wear Nosy_rat down with planned draws while the might of our combined territories slowly builds an overwhelming superiority that could never be withstood by even the most skillful of generals.

At even attacker/defender loss, strategically this could be done, at defender plus one for attacker losses, this would be much harder to do. I think the strategic dimension of our campaign needs to be a factor in this decision.

I would never, btw, engage in this form of play, but as one American founder said, "if men were angels, we would not need government" :).

Kabill
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Kabill » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:29 am

Ok, I see better where you're coming from (I've not really been thinking of draws in even games at all).

The difficulty I'm finding with adding +1 to attacker's losses is that this almost always results in complete destruction of the attacker's army. Given what Morbio wrote above, and also Ludendorf's recent post, this seems to be something that we want to avoid.

I think there's two alternatives then:
- The first would be for the defender to suffer -1 losses, rather than the attacker suffering +1 losses. I.e. with 1 or 2 armies, the defender loses nothing on a draw while the attacker would lose 1; with 3 or 4 armies, the defender loses 1 and the attacker loses 2. This results in the attacker always losing more than the defender and avoids total destruction of the attacking army in most instances (only exception being 1 attacking army which seems fair enough). However, it does mean that with only one or two armies, the defender has less incentive to offer battle, since they don't lose anything for a draw, so it might be reproducing the issue in reverse (e.g. in a 1x1 or 2x2 battle, the defender may be incentivised to avoid battle because they don't lose anything for doing so, but the attacker does).
- The attacker loses one half their force strength rounded up while the defender always loses a single army regardless of the size of the defending force. This results in even losses in small battles (1x1, 2x2, 1x2 and 2x1) but fewer loses in larger battles. While this only partially resolves nyczar's issue, I think the part it resolves is the most important, i.e. it mitigates nyczar's hypothetical sapping strategy since the defender can never lose more armies than they can replace as the result of drawn games, meaning the defender can never be in a *worse* situation than they were on the previous turn as the result of a draw (which is the thrust of the problem nyczar's raised, where e.g. you could weaken a 4 strength army down to 2 which even with the replacement build leaves it with fewer armies and more vulnerable to attack, which is something a numerically superior attacker could then exploit). This solution means there's never an incentive for the attacker to play for a draw, because they will always lose at least as much if not more and shouldn't end up in a stronger strategic position than previously; but also not an incentive for the defender to play for a draw in a small and evenly matched battle since they still stand to lose something.
Kabill's Great Generals Mod for FoG2: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=492&t=84915

Morbio
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Brigadier-General - Elite Grenadier
Posts: 2089
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Morbio » Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:18 pm

I'll add one complicating factor, with a simple solution (IMO) that needs documenting in the rules before the situation occurs.

In the event of a draw the attacker needs to be able to withdraw whence they came. Which will be fine in the vast majority of situations and we can use any of the proposals previously listed to determine the losses and thus what remains to go home. However, if the home province is lost then the withdrawing army would be forced to stay and so we can reasonably assume it would be harried to destruction. Does that make sense? An alternative might be withdrawal to any other home province that borders the attacked province, but that adds one more bit of complication and may be a bit unrealistic given the era in which the game represents. So I'd vote to keep it simple... if an army can't retreat to safety it is destroyed!

Kabill
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Kabill » Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:43 pm

Morbio wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 12:18 pm
I'll add one complicating factor, with a simple solution (IMO) that needs documenting in the rules before the situation occurs.

In the event of a draw the attacker needs to be able to withdraw whence they came. Which will be fine in the vast majority of situations and we can use any of the proposals previously listed to determine the losses and thus what remains to go home. However, if the home province is lost then the withdrawing army would be forced to stay and so we can reasonably assume it would be harried to destruction. Does that make sense? An alternative might be withdrawal to any other home province that borders the attacked province, but that adds one more bit of complication and may be a bit unrealistic given the era in which the game represents. So I'd vote to keep it simple... if an army can't retreat to safety it is destroyed!
Yes, definitely. I think that's already in the rules somewhere and I see no reason to change that (and if not am happy to formalise it).
Kabill's Great Generals Mod for FoG2: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=492&t=84915

nyczar
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:04 am

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by nyczar » Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:58 pm

The modification from Attacker losses = Defender losses +1 to Defender losses = Attacker losses -1, never less than 1 indeed captures the spirit of my concern and is better aligned with some of our fellow player's thoughts. I say lets do it and see how it goes.

Kabill
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Kabill » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:36 pm

Turn 12 Battle List:

- Nosy_Rat lands an invasion force of 4 Dacian (89-106AD) armies onto the shore of nyczar's South Rome, protected by 4 Roman (199-106BC) armies - Nosy_Rat is victorious, no armies lost

- At the same time nyczar lands 4 Roman legions (199-106BC) on the beaches of Nosy_Rat's Greece 27, defended by 4 Dacian (89-106) armies - Nosy_Rat is also victorious, again no armies lost

- batesmotel joins again in a coordinated attack, assaulting with 6 Roman (199-106BC) armies against Nosy_Rat in Dacia 23, protected by 4 Dacian (89-106) armies - Nosy_Rat continues their exceptional win-streak, with no armies lost

- Elsewhere, Cunningcairn advances 4 Ptolemaic (320-167BC) armies into gamercb's Lysimachid 31, protected by 4 Antigonid (320-301) armies - I'm currently treating this as a win to Cunningcairn: last information was that gamercb's force was above 60% routed but Cunningcairn is currently away and can't check the turn. Will ask gamercb for information.

- In a dual attack looking to conquor the Antigonids outright, Cunningcairn also attacks with 4 Ptolemaic armies into gamercb's Slave Revolt 36, defended by 2 Antigonid (320-301) armies - Cunningcairn's forces triumph with no armies lost

- In the south, Kabill launches a raid with 4 Spanish (80-70) armies along the coast of Cunningcairn's Ptolemy 49, defended by 4 Ptolemaic (320-167) armies - Kabill is victorious with no armies lost

- Simultaneously, Kabill also commands 4 armies of Spanish (80-70BC) raiders to land on the final stronghold of Morbio's Syracusians, Slave Revolt 35, defended by 4 Syracusian (412-281) armies - Kabill is also victorious, with no armies lost

- But in a counter-attack, Morbio launches his own invasion with 4 Syracusian (412-281) armies against Kabill's Carthage 52, defended by 4 Spanish (80-70) armies (dammit - I meant this to be protected by Carthaginian forces but forgot to add it to my orders!) - Kabill successfully defends Carthage, putting an end to the Syracusian dominion.

- Finally, in the north, Ludendorf attacks with 4 Galatian (280-63) armies in a bid to conquer paulmcneil's Seleucid 39, defended by a host of 9 Seleucid (124-63) armies - Ludendorf's forces triumph

Trivia for the turn: six of this turn's nine battles were launched from the Eastern Mediterranean sea zone, and next turn that zone will be occupied by a grand total of at least 52 armies controlled by almost all remaining players :shock:

Turn 12 Battle Deadline: 6pm GMT, Sunday 2nd September

EDIT: Oh, also, the password for my order file for this turn is: #SpainT12 and the file can be found at https://www.dropbox.com/s/7r63eohf0th5m ... .docx?dl=0

It has, however, occurred to me that this won't work, as in principle I could edit the file over the turn submission (which I couldn't do if I sent it as an attachment like I wanted to - I only just realised this). So I'm going to have to think of another idea.
Last edited by Kabill on Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:23 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Kabill's Great Generals Mod for FoG2: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=492&t=84915

Kabill
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:52 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Kabill » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:40 pm

nyczar wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:58 pm
The modification from Attacker losses = Defender losses +1 to Defender losses = Attacker losses -1, never less than 1 indeed captures the spirit of my concern and is better aligned with some of our fellow player's thoughts. I say lets do it and see how it goes.
Separating this out from the battle post for clarity: sure, lets go with this then. That's basically an amalgam of those two alternatives I raised. So, for clarity:
- On a draw, the attacker loses half of the total number of attacking armies, rounding up.
- On a draw, the defender loses one less army than the total lost by the attacker, but with a minimum of 1.

This means that the defender will usually only lose 1 army but might lose more if there is a very large attacking force.
Kabill's Great Generals Mod for FoG2: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=492&t=84915

nyczar
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:04 am

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by nyczar » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:47 pm

Kabill wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:36 pm
Turn 12 Battle List:
Nice commentary.

Cunningcairn
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Colonel - Fallschirmjäger
Posts: 1454
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Cunningcairn » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:50 am

Games posted for Gamercb PW gamercb for both

4 Ptolemaic (320-167BC) armies attack Lysimachid 31, protected by 4 Antigonid (320-301) armies.

4 Ptolemaic (320-167BC) armies attack Slave Revolt 36, defended by 2 Antigonid (320-301) armies

nyczar
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Sergeant First Class - Elite Panzer IIIL
Posts: 405
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 4:04 am

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by nyczar » Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:39 am

Attack on 27 is posted PW is rubicon

Ludendorf
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
1st Lieutenant - Grenadier
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by Ludendorf » Wed Aug 22, 2018 11:19 am

Ludendorf (Galatian 280-63BC) challenges paulmcneil (Seleucid 125-63 BC). Password is 'silvershields'.

gamercb
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 269
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:53 pm

Re: New FOGII (April 2018) Campaign Tournament (bbogensc)

Post by gamercb » Fri Aug 24, 2018 1:29 pm

Kabill wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:40 pm
nyczar wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:58 pm
The modification from Attacker losses = Defender losses +1 to Defender losses = Attacker losses -1, never less than 1 indeed captures the spirit of my concern and is better aligned with some of our fellow player's thoughts. I say lets do it and see how it goes.
Separating this out from the battle post for clarity: sure, lets go with this then. That's basically an amalgam of those two alternatives I raised. So, for clarity:
- On a draw, the attacker loses half of the total number of attacking armies, rounding up.
- On a draw, the defender loses one less army than the total lost by the attacker, but with a minimum of 1.

This means that the defender will usually only lose 1 army but might lose more if there is a very large attacking force.
My personal view is if you attack, then you need to achieve victory and if the defender can survive, they have achieved their objective. These changes are better than the previous results, but if you attack with 5 armies against 2 defending armies and it is a draw, then you lose 3 armies and have 1 left whilst the defender loses 2 and has none left. If 5 armies cannot defeat 2 armies then there is something wrong. It may be terrain, as I have found in some of my games, but that is the rub of the game and war. If you enemy gets the right terrain, it can negate your advantage.

I would add one more rule, the defender always has a minimum of 1 army left if a draw.

Colin

Post Reply

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