The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1270
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by devoncop » Fri Jul 05, 2019 6:14 am

Cunningcairn wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 2:45 am
stockwellpete wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 10:01 pm
Cunningcairn wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:39 pm


Are you staying with 1600 points and TT Mod for the Biblical section?
I expect so until we get the other Biblical DLC and then I'll take the hoplite armies out.
Excellent! I still firmly believe the larger armies go a long way in preventing games being determined by 1 or 2 disasters. Should all the allies available to an army in the standard FOG also be available in the TT mod?

I agree with Cunningcairn here. The larger armies work really well.

Cunningcairn
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 947
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

Post by Cunningcairn » Fri Jul 05, 2019 7:34 pm

ianiow wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:24 pm
stockwellpete wrote:
Thu Jul 04, 2019 9:15 am
I know that I keep banging on about no automatic cohesion loss for flank attacks by infantry units, but maybe something like superior foot units do not suffer automatic cohesion loss when attacked in the flank unless it is by another superior foot unit; or turn it around and say that raw infantry units cannot achieve an automatic cohesion drop when attacking other infantry units in the flank unless the unit they are attacking is of the same calibre?
Taking the view that we are really fighting on Octagons rather than squares, I would use Pete's idea that the 3 'rear sides' only are auto cohesion loss but add a compromise that the 2 flank sides could be tested for cohesion loss. Perhaps this will give the Superiors the little boost they need?
Good idea!

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9359
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Skirmishers!!

Post by stockwellpete » Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:11 am

stockwellpete wrote:
Sat Jul 06, 2019 6:27 am
Cunningcairn wrote:
Fri Jul 05, 2019 9:37 am
I think a bigger problem is mismatched opponents like heavy foot versus armies consisting entirely of a horde of skirmishers. The game thankfully doesn't model this type of conflict very well and I believe there does need to be a restriction on the percentage of skirmishers in an army. Not as restrictive as in FOG1 digital league but maybe no more than 50% of an army or 15 elements?
How many armies are there where the number of skirmishers are a problem? Which armies are they?
Cunningcairn replied,

"I think over 15 to 20 skirmishers per 1200 points army list can lead to pointless and frustrating games. To the best of my knowledge there are 21 lists with 20 or more skirmishers. They follow below. The number is the total of LH and LF.

Indo-Parthian – 25
Libyan - 28 and 32
Moorish – 52
Navarrese – 22
Numidian or Moorish - 42 and 52
Palmyran 272 to 273 AD – 24
Parthian – 34
Skythian 750 to 551 BC – 23
Spanish 300 to 10 BC – 25
Spanish Sertorius – 28
9 of the 11 Thracian lists have between 20 and 30."

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9359
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by stockwellpete » Sun Jul 07, 2019 9:12 am

Can I have opinions about the numbers of skirmishers in some of the armies please? Does there need to be some sort of limit set on them? I have not set up a poll yet as I am not sure how much of an issue this is at the moment.

Morbio
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Brigadier-General - 8.8 cm Pak 43/41
Posts: 1887
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:40 pm
Location: Wokingham, UK

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by Morbio » Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:57 pm

I think skirmishers are just another part of the game. I can understand that they can be frustrating to play against, but often they are beatable with the right unit selection and the right tactics. I recently beat Rex's Numidian/Moorish army with the LA Ptolemiac army, it was a close run thing, but an interesting challenge. I accept there are probably some armies that couldn't win (but may not lose) against skirmisher armies, but that's just another facet of the game. I like the idea that armies should be like rock, paper, scissors, with some armies more challenging than others and some match-ups will be one sided. My preference is to keep the variation. The archer based armies were nerfed, now we are considering nerfing skirmishers, horde armies and superior impact foot armies. Let's please keep the variation in the game because I want to avoid games where armies armies are lined up and then march to melee and then a few rounds later someone wins.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the frustration (and the challenge) but I reckon I face maybe 1 or 2 of these armies per season. So I accept the frustration to have the variation.

SnuggleBunnies
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 920
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2015 2:09 am

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by SnuggleBunnies » Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:44 pm

I am wholly of Morbio's opinion

harveylh
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 231
Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2015 11:32 pm

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by harveylh » Sun Jul 07, 2019 1:56 pm

I agree with Morbio. I hate playing skirmisher armies but on average I have played one a season and as he puts it, the frustration is worth the variation.

devoncop
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Lieutenant Colonel - Panther D
Posts: 1270
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 8:46 am

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by devoncop » Sun Jul 07, 2019 2:26 pm

I agree with the a above.

Please can we not nerf medium foot, skirmisher, horde or any other armies.

Thanks 👍

PS.....by the same token I don't think armies should be restricted to one or two from the same category per Division in the League but that is a different debate.

Nosy_Rat
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 251/1
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz  251/1
Posts: 143
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:00 pm

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by Nosy_Rat » Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:10 pm

While somewhat annoying, skirmisher-based armies are pretty easy to deal with once you got the idea of what to do.
Those armies are barely played in the league, anyway, so I don't think they are in need of regulation.

Triarii
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 480
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 4:58 pm

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by Triarii » Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:02 pm

Same opinion as Morbio.
Please do not regulate/adjust lists.
Learning to cope with clouds of lights It is just another example of the varied learning/experience in the game. They can certainly be beaten.

Geffalrus
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 524
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:06 pm
Location: Virginia, USA

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by Geffalrus » Sun Jul 07, 2019 11:40 pm

I second Morbio's opinion.

I didn't realize the full tactical potential of light javelin horse until I received a thrashing from Rexhurley's Moorish army (it's still ongoing, so please pray for me). Skirmish armies are an interesting puzzle to solve, but seem to be working as intended.

Cunningcairn
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Captain - Heavy Cruiser
Posts: 947
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:05 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by Cunningcairn » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:01 am

Morbio wrote:
Sun Jul 07, 2019 12:57 pm
I think skirmishers are just another part of the game. I can understand that they can be frustrating to play against, but often they are beatable with the right unit selection and the right tactics. I recently beat Rex's Numidian/Moorish army with the LA Ptolemiac army, it was a close run thing, but an interesting challenge. I accept there are probably some armies that couldn't win (but may not lose) against skirmisher armies, but that's just another facet of the game. I like the idea that armies should be like rock, paper, scissors, with some armies more challenging than others and some match-ups will be one sided. My preference is to keep the variation. The archer based armies were nerfed, now we are considering nerfing skirmishers, horde armies and superior impact foot armies. Let's please keep the variation in the game because I want to avoid games where armies armies are lined up and then march to melee and then a few rounds later someone wins.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the frustration (and the challenge) but I reckon I face maybe 1 or 2 of these armies per season. So I accept the frustration to have the variation.
Well put!

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

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by klayeckles » Mon Jul 08, 2019 5:16 am

i generally feel a bit naked if i'm outnumbered in the skirmisher department...but the ultra high skirmish armies never get picked in the leagues i've been in...which suggests to me that they aren't a good choice to win a division. and frustrating...YES. but remember frustration comes when the enemy doesn't do what you want her to do...which is just what a general ought to strive for. So facing a skirmish army demands some different tactics, and careful thought about unit choices. so i agree with Morbio.

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9359
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Skirmishers!!

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:32 am

OK, this does not seem to be "an issue" in the FOG2DL right now. I will leave this thread here today and then move it to "The Rally Point". Thanks for your input. :wink:

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9359
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Jul 08, 2019 6:35 am

These slightly adjusted army lists seem to be uncontroversial so they will be adopted for Season 6 onwards. I will move this thread to the Rally Point this evening if there are no more comments.

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3383
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by batesmotel » Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:25 pm

What are you using for a date range for the Later Middle Ages? All the lists you currently list as moving to High Middle ages feel far more Dark Age-ish and similar and contemporary with the Early Middle Age armies, e.g. the various post conquest Arab armies, Vikings and the various horse archer/steppe armies in that period than they do with knights and the rise of Eurpean chivalry. I'd suggest a cut off date of the start of the First Crusade (1095) or at least post Norman Conquest (after 1066) or Manzikert (1071). I think both historically and troop mix wise, the later cut off date makes more sense.

If you want a round number for a start date, 1100 makes much more sense than 1000. If you want to keep the range of dates for early medieval, it would probably make more sense for it to start with the Arab Conquest or around 600 AD.

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

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9359
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Jul 08, 2019 1:59 pm

batesmotel wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 12:25 pm
What are you using for a date range for the Later Middle Ages? All the lists you currently list as moving to High Middle ages feel far more Dark Age-ish and similar and contemporary with the Early Middle Age armies, e.g. the various post conquest Arab armies, Vikings and the various horse archer/steppe armies in that period than they do with knights and the rise of Eurpean chivalry. I'd suggest a cut off date of the start of the First Crusade (1095) or at least post Norman Conquest (after 1066) or Manzikert (1071). I think both historically and troop mix wise, the later cut off date makes more sense.

If you want a round number for a start date, 1100 makes much more sense than 1000. If you want to keep the range of dates for early medieval, it would probably make more sense for it to start with the Arab Conquest or around 600 AD.

Chris
If I alter the dates for Early Middle Ages to 600-1100 AD we get the following army list (which includes all the armies previously earmarked for Late Medieval) . . .

Alan 651-1049 AD
Andalusian 756-1049 AD
Anglo-Saxon 600-949 AD
Anglo-Saxon 950-1016 AD
Anglo-Danish 1017-1041 AD
Arab (Conquest) 629-637 AD
Arab (Conquest) 638-684 AD
Arab (Umayyad) 685-750 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 747-793 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 794-814 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 815-835 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 836-873 AD
Arab (Abbasid) 874-946 AD
Arab (North Africa) 789-999 AD
Arab (Syria/Iraq) 890-1008 AD
Arab (North Africa) 1000-1160 AD
Arab (Syria/Iraq) 1009-1150 AD
Armenian 639-717 AD
Armenian 885-1045 AD
Avar 632-826 AD
Breton 580-1072 AD
British 600-1030 AD
Bulgar 631-679 AD
Bulgar (Volga) 675-1237 AD
Bulgar (Danube) 680-851 AD
Bulgar (Danube) 852-1018 AD
Byzantine 600-649 AD
Byzantine 650-739 AD
Byzantine 740-903 AD
Byzantine 904-962 AD
Byzantine 963-987 AD
Byzantine 988-1041 AD
Croatian 625-849 AD
Croatian 850-1102 AD
Dabuyid 642-760 AD
Dailami 928-1055 AD
Fatimid Egyptian 978-1073 AD
Frankish 600-750 AD
Frankish 751-887 AD
French 888-1049 AD
Georgian 1008-1049 AD
German 888-932 AD
German 933-1049 AD
Ghaznavid 962-1187 AD
Indian (Hindu North) 600-1049 AD
Indian (Hindu South) 600-1049 AD
Indian (Rajput) 650-1049 AD
Irish 900-1049 AD
Khazar 650-737 AD
Khazar 738-969 AD
Khorasanian 821-1003 AD
Lombard 650-775 AD
Lombard 776-1049 AD
Magyar 830-1049 AD
Moravian 833-907 AD
Navarrese 778-899 AD
Navarrese 900-1049 AD
Norman 923-1040 AD
Pecheneg 850-1122 AD
Pictish 477-850 AD
Polish 966-1057 AD
Rus 860-959 AD
Rus 960-1053 AD
Sassanid Persian 591-628 AD
Sassanid Persian 629-651 AD
Saxon (Continental) 600-804 AD
Scots-Irish 477-846 AD
Scots 851-1051 AD
Serbian 625-849 AD
Serbian 850-1039 AD
Spanish 718-899 AD
Spanish 900-1049 AD
Turkish 600-1036 AD
Viking 780-899 AD
Viking 900-1049 AD
Viking (Ireland) 780-899 AD
Viking (Ireland) 900-1049 AD
Visigothic 622-717 AD
Welsh 600-1049 AD

It would mean these 22 armies going to Late Antiquity (around three-quarters of these still have an army from their nation in EMA) but there would still be 80 armies to choose from in EMA . . .

Anglo-Saxon 449-599 AD
Armenian 477-627 AD
Avar 553-557 AD
Avar 558-631 AD
Byzantine 493-550 BC
Byzantine 551-578 AD
Byzantine 579-599 AD
Frankish 496-599 AD
Gepid 493-567 AD
Huns, Western 455-559 AD
Hun, Sabir 463-558 AD
Indian 546-599 AD
Lombard 493-567 AD
Lombard 568-569 AD
Lombard 570-649 AD
Moorish 350-698 AD
Ostrogoth 493-561 AD
Romano-British 407-599 AD
Sassanid Persian 477-590 AD
Slav 500-599 AD
Turkish 552-599 AD
Vandal 500-534 AD

I quite like the look of this and have no objection if we use this in future. Any comments?

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3383
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by batesmotel » Mon Jul 08, 2019 2:59 pm

For what it's worth, that split seems much more historically sensible than the earlier. (But then I'm biased given I made the suggestion originally.)
....where life is beautiful all the time

stockwellpete
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 9359
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2010 2:50 pm
Contact:

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:04 pm

batesmotel wrote:
Mon Jul 08, 2019 2:59 pm
For what it's worth, that split seems much more historically sensible than the earlier. (But then I'm biased given I made the suggestion originally.)
Can you see any problems with it? I cannot at the moment. There may be a few armies that come with the next medieval DLC that date primarily between 1000 and 1100 AD to be added to the list.

batesmotel
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 3383
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:52 pm

Re: Revised army lists for Season 6 . . .

Post by batesmotel » Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:13 pm

I don't see any issues. The lists for the final Byzantine/Sassanian wars under Heraclius that weakened both empires and left them suceptible to the Arab conquest fall into EM now, but that seems fine. I'd only see a problem if the appropriate lists for the Persians and the Byzantines for Heraclius' wars didn't fit in the same period. Two Sassanian armies in early Medieval is perhaps a little weird but given each list covers such a short period, it works for me.

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

Post Reply

Return to “Field of Glory II Digital League”