The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[SLancaster]

I do think around 6-7 games is the optimum for many people. Others have said that they get tired with 10-15 games on the go. But, again, some are very happy with playing lots of games.

[ianiow]

I like to only have 2-3 games running at one time (so only 1 section for me each tourney). If I'm winning I check my email for a new post every 5 mins. If I'm losing you can barely drag me to the computer to endure another round of humiliation. So if I'm playing slowing guys, don't get too frustrated - it's means you will probably beat me! That said, I always finish my games.

[edb1815]

I trust everyone has seen the announcement about FOG Medieval as a standalone game rather than a FOGII Ancients DLC. My question for Pete is any thoughts about how to integrate this into the DL for the Medieval section? A separate DL just for that or maybe simply players in that section must have the game with no other changes. Assuming that army break points remain the same, etc.

[stockwellpete]

I trust everyone has seen the announcement about FOG Medieval as a standalone game rather than a FOGII Ancients DLC. My question for Pete is any thoughts about how to integrate this into the DL for the Medieval section? A separate DL just for that or maybe simply players in that section must have the game with no other changes. Assuming that army break points remain the same, etc.

For starters I will just open a High Middle Ages section as we had in FOG1. It will be armies at 1200pts. We will need to see how the DLC's are organised before we decide if we go beyond that very simple approach.

[SSB]

I will join the discussion as the new guy in DL tournament. I had 16 matches going at once. I played one turn per day on most days and two some days. I am new to this and am not the best player, but am learning every day between gameplay and chat with players. Also, I had 4 other matches that were not DL games. I am currently finishing up 8 matches in the league right now. For me, I think 6-7 matches at the same time with 1-2 turns daily would work best for me. However, when I was at 16 matches, I tried to play 1 turn per match per day.
I am interested in the new medieval game and look to see many of you in any future DL matches. If anyone in my divisions in current DL is reading this, send me a challenge. I also want to thank the FOG II community / DL community for making this tournament a joy to be playing in.

[gamercb]

I tend to aim for 3 games to start with in each section I am in and I pick up challenges as quickly as I can. I can have 6 to 10 games on the go. I play as many turns as I can in the time I am on my computer but these days, that is a lot less than I did in previous seasons, so I am tending to average 1 turn a day. Some days, if my opponent is doing their turn quickly I can get through several turns and when the server goes slow as last weekend, no turns for some games.

[gamercb]

I have had two games where I felt there was quite a lot of gamesmanship or misinformation (to put it nicely) going on.

First game I am fighting Mr X. I am about to get over 25% and he says to me, "Good game, you will win in a few turns when you go over 25%". The map was bad with mountains and forest at the back. Mr X had hidden a lot of his troops at the back in the forest. I plodded on. It wasn't an enjoyable game. Turns went by and I still hadn't won. Then I realise that the score was 37-9 or something. You need to get over 40% to win outright. His horse army just kept running from me and the game ended up as a draw.

I am not saying that he lied to me because he forgot about the rule. But, maybe people should be careful about what they say during a game because it is misinformation. (I felt stupid as well for believing him and forgetting about the rule.)

A few games later and I am playing Mr Z. The game is 31-29 and he suddenly says to me, "You will win in a few turns and good game." He thought his elephants would rout or something. I said that there is a long way to go.. I don't mind people saying something like, "I am doing badly here" but to say good game is not on, I think. If you are 20 points behind then it becomes more understandable. It also become understandable if you want to concede a game then you can say what you want. Mr Z goes on to probably win the game as it is 62-55 to him now.

In both cases the players didn't think they were doing anything wrong. But, I think it is bad sportsmanship. Others would say that they are being disrespectful, deceiptful or using gamesmanship.

I have recently moved up to Div B and C respectively. Maybe this kind of thing goes on more. Maybe some think that there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe in both cases the players think that they have done nothing wrong. I just think that you should be careful with your words and especially if you are telling someone that they have won the game when that clearly isn't the case!

Have you considered that they may have actually thought you were about to win and wanted to compliment you. I have been in that situation, admittedly in a close battle where at the end of my turn I was on 59% and my opponent was in the low 50s. What happened is that a few of my units rallied and I dropped to around 50% and actually went on to win, which suprised both of us. I had complimented him on what I thought would be his victory because I thought I might not get the chance if he won in his turn.

[SLancaster]

I have had two games where I felt there was quite a lot of gamesmanship or misinformation (to put it nicely) going on.

First game I am fighting Mr X. I am about to get over 25% and he says to me, "Good game, you will win in a few turns when you go over 25%". The map was bad with mountains and forest at the back. Mr X had hidden a lot of his troops at the back in the forest. I plodded on. It wasn't an enjoyable game. Turns went by and I still hadn't won. Then I realise that the score was 37-9 or something. You need to get over 40% to win outright. His horse army just kept running from me and the game ended up as a draw.

I am not saying that he lied to me because he forgot about the rule. But, maybe people should be careful about what they say during a game because it is misinformation. (I felt stupid as well for believing him and forgetting about the rule.)

A few games later and I am playing Mr Z. The game is 31-29 and he suddenly says to me, "You will win in a few turns and good game." He thought his elephants would rout or something. I said that there is a long way to go.. I don't mind people saying something like, "I am doing badly here" but to say good game is not on, I think. If you are 20 points behind then it becomes more understandable. It also become understandable if you want to concede a game then you can say what you want. Mr Z goes on to probably win the game as it is 62-55 to him now.

In both cases the players didn't think they were doing anything wrong. But, I think it is bad sportsmanship. Others would say that they are being disrespectful, deceiptful or using gamesmanship.

I have recently moved up to Div B and C respectively. Maybe this kind of thing goes on more. Maybe some think that there is nothing wrong with it. Maybe in both cases the players think that they have done nothing wrong. I just think that you should be careful with your words and especially if you are telling someone that they have won the game when that clearly isn't the case!

Have you considered that they may have actually thought you were about to win and wanted to compliment you. I have been in that situation, admittedly in a close battle where at the end of my turn I was on 59% and my opponent was in the low 50s. What happened is that a few of my units rallied and I dropped to around 50% and actually went on to win, which suprised both of us. I had complimented him on what I thought would be his victory because I thought I might not get the chance if he won in his turn.

I think I mentioned it is different if you are 20 points down or something or on 59 like you say. It just seems a bit odd to ‘give up’ at 31-29. In this situation you might say you think things are going to go badly. No reason to say good game and tell the opponent that they have won.

In the other example I was annoyed because I was specifically told that after two units routed I would go over 25% and it was game over. Of course a mistake was made. But, it altered the result because I wasted five turns wondering what was going on. In the end I missed out on the win by 2% because it was 38%-9% and time ran out.

The main reason I posted was because these two examples happened in my last few games. I wanted to let new players especially know that you should just keep playing and ignore the chat such as I have had. Most people are doing this already, I am sure.

[rbodleyscott]

In the other example I was annoyed because I was specifically told that after two units routed I would go over 25% and it was game over. Of course a mistake was made. But, it altered the result because I wasted five turns wondering what was going on. In the end I missed out on the win by 2% because it was 38%-9% and time ran out.

Really? Don't you think it is up to you to know the rules? The victory conditions are clearly stated on the screen if you open the briefing panel.

It seems a bit "blame culture" to blame your opponent for misleading you if you make a mistake because you cannot be bothered to read the victory conditions.

And to call it "gamesmanship" is intolerably unfair and abusive. I believe Pete has already had words with you about this. I would suggest that you cease to repeat this calumny against your opponent, named or not.

[SLancaster]

In the other example I was annoyed because I was specifically told that after two units routed I would go over 25% and it was game over. Of course a mistake was made. But, it altered the result because I wasted five turns wondering what was going on. In the end I missed out on the win by 2% because it was 38%-9% and time ran out.

Really? Don't you think it is up to you to know the rules? The victory conditions are clearly stated on the screen if you open the briefing panel.

It seems a bit "blame culture" to blame your opponent for misleading you if you make a mistake because you cannot be bothered to read the victory conditions.

And to call it "gamesmanship" is intolerably unfair and abusive. I believe Pete has already had words with you about this. I would suggest that you cease to repeat this calumny against your opponent, named or not.

Please don't call me abusive and come up with all this nonsense. I am simply replying to gamercb. I didn't make a big deal of it. I am simply expressing my opinion and if you don't like it fine. I will finish with my last thoughts on this:

1. 25% and 40% to win. Players always remember that it is 25% difference to win. Lots of them (I have seen it before and others have mentioned it) forget about the 40% rule. Making this clear is especially good for new players. Obviously, my opponent forgot about the 40% rule so that is two Division B players in one game as an example.

2. Being completely honest about this if I had told my opponent directly that when two of my units break and he goes over 25% difference then he will win, and then the game doesn't finish over the next five turns, with my cav running away or at the back, and the timer ends, then I would have talked to Pete and my opponent and offered a concession.

I think it is misleading my opponent and directly affecting the game result. You are telling people something that isn't true. It isn't good enough to say that everyone should know the rules (in my opinion).

That is it. I know some people may think that it isn't gamesmanship. I wanted to share this on the forum to highlight this issue. Also, people will know to carry on if not over 40% after this discussion!

[stockwellpete]

That is it.

It certainly is. Time to move the discussion on to something else now please.

[stockwellpete]

klayeckles posted this in the Classical Antiquity "arrange your matches here" thread , but it might do better in here . . .

"quick comment...i haven't played classical for a while, and i'm impressed with the different army builds out there...some good combos. (unfortunately i'm relearning a few things)
secondly, wondering if others are noticing the larger battles tend to create more conventional battles... i'm seeing more straight up slug fests, and less manouvering. (maybe more historical, but less creative maneuvers and strategy)"

[SLancaster]

I was against going to 1600 points for many categories but it hasn't made so much of a difference in gameplay for me.

[Cunningcairn]

I have had more exciting and interesting battles in the 1600 point games with plenty of good maneuver and creative opponents. The only historical slugfests I recall were the Themed event games against klayeckles and GDod. These were hoplite versus hoplites battles as neither army had many medium foot or mounted to choose from and was to be expected. In saying that I really enjoyed all four of those games which were very close and exciting. According to the league results Klayeckles has only played one other 1600 point game other than these four Themed event games so his view is understandable.

[LuciusSulla]

I've just finished a 1600 pts game against CheAhn and it is full of maneuver. But that's probably partly because he/she picked a full horse archer army. One major maneuver worth mentioning is withdrawing all my cavalries on my right wing to mid-right behind infantry line; then I used a part of this cavalry force to envelope a part of his horse archers with the assistance of several of my irregular foots in a swamp.

Another 1600 pts game against Cunningcairn would probably end soon as well. In that game, my left wing/Cunningcairn's right wing is on higher ground than the other part of the map. I decided to emphasize on this wing and punctured his right wing with a concentration of light artillery + mass archers + legionaires. Realizing that my thin right wing could not withstand enemy assault, I withdrew almost the entirety of my right wing infantry to my left while my left wing pushed into enemy line, leaving only 2 infantry and 1 light artillery behind which could not retreat in time. To avoid his army hitting my withdrawing infantries on the back, my two calvaries in the middle fell back while continuingly facing the enemy, ready to charge enemy flank if they decide to envelope my retreating forces. It is very likely the last turn of our game now (unless he rally more than 15% of his troops at the start of his turn), and around 40% of my opponent's army was never engaged in close combat aside from slaughtering the 2 infantry and 1 artillery I left behind.

I would say at least in my games so far, 1200 pts and 1600 pts makes little difference in playing style. Maneuvers and tactics largely depends on the terrain and army builds.

[ericdoman1]

I have clicked on rules and guidance links but "they do not exist". Could I be redirected please and or is it my firewall preventing me?

[stockwellpete]

I have clicked on rules and guidance links but "they do not exist". Could I be redirected please and or is it my firewall preventing me?

They are in the "Stickies", Eric.

[ericdoman1]

The what?

[Swuul]

The what?

[ericdoman1]

Yep got it but thanks Swuul