The Discussion thread . . .

Moderator: Field of Glory 2 Tournaments Managers

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

The Discussion thread . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Feb 15, 2018 11:40 am

This thread is for all the players in the competition to ask questions about various aspect of the rules, to make suggestions for changes in future competitions, and to generally talk about anything relevant to the Knock-out Tournament. Anything goes really, as long as it is conducted amicably.

FroBodine
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 521
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2008 4:16 am
Location: California, USA

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by FroBodine » Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:00 pm

First question - how are the armies assigned in the knockout tournament? Are armies assigned, or do we have to choose our own army? And, if we have to choose our army - is it from a specific list, or can we select any army in the FOG2 universe?

Thanks!
-=Jeff

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

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:44 pm

FroBodine wrote:First question - how are the armies assigned in the knockout tournament? Are armies assigned, or do we have to choose our own army? And, if we have to choose our army - is it from a specific list, or can we select any army in the FOG2 universe?

Thanks!
-=Jeff
Players will be choosing their own army and there is no allocation of armies by me. I haven't made up my mind yet on whether every army will be available for selection, or whether the massed bow armies are excluded this time. These armies are being looked at by Richard in the current beta and there is a possibility that a change to them might occur while the KO tournament is in progress. That might cause some problems if it occurs so it might be better to exclude those armies from the outset (Indians, Indo-Greeks and Nabataeans). The Silk Road armies will also be excluded as I am assuming not everyone has downloaded those.

MikeC_81
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by MikeC_81 » Mon Apr 02, 2018 7:04 pm

We should not ban any armies. Bow armies are at the top of the spectrum but not necessarily in a tier unto themselves. Klayeckles and other Indian list winners are all skilled players who likely will do well regardless of army selection. There are also a very large number of poor/mediocre results in Season 1 which indicates to me that skill in handling the army is very much a big factor.

There is also the issue of keeping Mounted Archer armies in check. If mass bow armies are banned, it is likely these lists immediately jump to the top end of the power spectrum and become far and away the best armies
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

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

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

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:34 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:We should not ban any armies. Bow armies are at the top of the spectrum but not necessarily in a tier unto themselves. Klayeckles and other Indian list winners are all skilled players who likely will do well regardless of army selection. There are also a very large number of poor/mediocre results in Season 1 which indicates to me that skill in handling the army is very much a big factor.

There is also the issue of keeping Mounted Archer armies in check. If mass bow armies are banned, it is likely these lists immediately jump to the top end of the power spectrum and become far and away the best armies
The issue is that the massed bow armies might be changed mid-tournament and that some players who have chosen them will then complain about it and want to change their army. In this tournament you pick one army at the start and stick with it right the way through. I will have all the details finalised by Sunday.

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

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by klayeckles » Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:58 am

MikeC_81 wrote:We should not ban any armies. Bow armies are at the top of the spectrum but not necessarily in a tier unto themselves. Klayeckles and other Indian list winners are all skilled players who likely will do well regardless of army selection. There are also a very large number of poor/mediocre results in Season 1 which indicates to me that skill in handling the army is very much a big factor.

There is also the issue of keeping Mounted Archer armies in check. If mass bow armies are banned, it is likely these lists immediately jump to the top end of the power spectrum and become far and away the best armies
Mike,

Good pts you make...I think i can add a comment after playing both as and against the indians in the league...I think the classic indians have too many advantages...not just bow. they also have a very large realitively cheap mobile contingent including lots of pachyderms...and outnumber every other army on the board...each one of those is an advantage unto itself; having all of them combined is too much. true, they require a differnt approach--players that walk up and slam their indian face into a phalynx may have problems (but not always due to numbers), so a first timer might bungle it badly, but once you get the hang of them, they're deadly. the closest i came to a loss was against the gauls; with random anarchy charges into my second line after routing troops, they had decimated my bowmen...but they're not a big morale hit because indian numbers are so great...when it was over my wimpy chariots and weak cav were pounding into the gauls backside again and again...most of which was disrupted from missile fire.

FOG 1 saw large indian armies too; but it was a bit harder to get flank charges going, as well as massed bow shots due to less forgiving sightlines...thus the cheap mounted and massed bow was not as effective, so they were not a "super army" as they are here in skilled hands.

if players are free to draft any army; and most are drafting to win, we'll see a pile of indian types. IMHO... thus after winning as indians, and losing to indians, i believe a tweak is coming, and i support it. they're due for a tweak, and i think it might happen soon...so i see Pete's point. and hey...there's a lot of armies to pick from...we'll hardly miss em :wink:

bbogensc
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:51 am

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by bbogensc » Wed Apr 04, 2018 10:02 pm

Many of the Greek or earlier Italian-Greek armies can field 25+ heavy infantry with cheap skirmishers and would match up well against the Indians. The problem is just that nobody plays these in league because 65% of all players choose a Macedonian-type army and nobody wants to go up against pikes with a Greek or early Italian army. That is the problem, not the Indian archers. The game would also even out against the Indians, and yield more realistic to historical results, if mounted archers had the same range as foot archers. I've discussed this in other posts.

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

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:45 am

The decision is that the massed bow armies (Indians, Indo-Greeks, Mountain Indians and Nabataeans) will be excluded from the first KO tournament because they might be subject to modification during the course of the tournament.

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

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Mon Apr 09, 2018 9:16 am

Recruitment will be opening this time next week so please start thinking about the army that you are going to use. The most important things to know about the tournament are these . . .

For all matches in this competition players will select "Open Battle" and will field a "Medium" army and choose a "Medium" battlefield unless otherwise directed. Players are free to customise their army before each battle so "Default" is the correct Force Selection option. Terrain will always be "Pot Luck" unless otherwise specified. There are no exceptions to this standard set-up for a match.

Players will choose one army at the start and will use that army for the entire tournament. It does not matter if someone has already chosen your army. There is no restriction on the number of times a certain army may be chosen by players.

Each round will be of 14 days duration. Matches not completed in this time will be subject to adjudication.

The massed bow armies (Indian, Mountain Indian, Indo-Greeks and Nabataeans) cannot be chosen for this tournament as they may be subject to modification while the tournament is underway.


Please note: it is recommended that you have all the available DLC's if you are going to enter this tournament.

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

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by stockwellpete » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:15 am

The draw for each round of the tournament will be held "live" on this forum alternatively at 9am (GMT) or 9pm (GMT). Using my trusty bingo kit, I will draw out the matches in batches of four (batches of two in the later rounds) and then post them on the forum. When we did this before we would usually get a little audience of 7 or 8 players watching the draw unfold. :wink:

mhladnik
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:00 pm

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by mhladnik » Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:04 pm

Dear all,

I'm in a busy period in life, privately and professionally, so I decided to skip this one (though I'd like to try the KO format at one point). Have fun, hope to see you again in the next season of the league.

Barrold713
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Sergeant - 7.5 cm FK 16 nA
Posts: 224
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 12:34 am
Location: Michigan, U.S.A.

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by Barrold713 » Tue Apr 17, 2018 12:04 am

Looking at those Krappodokians... :shock:
:mrgreen:

bbogensc
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:51 am

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by bbogensc » Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:54 pm

Just looking at the factions selections in the knock out tournament, very few players (I think nobody thus far) is choosing to play factions with core units: (a) Lancer (b) Heavy Cav, or (c) Horse Archer. One player took Hepthalite I noticed, which is sort of a mix.

If game modifications are being considered then maybe these cav factions should be improved to make mounted armies more viable (?)

One suggestion is that maybe units in pursuit should not be flankable, or should be able to evade charges. Or maybe the player should get to control the pursuit move to a degree. I note its quite aweful to have a lancer or cavalry charge succeed and then get flanked on the pursuit when its mostly out of player control.

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: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by Kabill » Wed Apr 18, 2018 3:46 pm

bbogensc wrote:Just looking at the factions selections in the knock out tournament, very few players (I think nobody thus far) is choosing to play factions with core units: (a) Lancer (b) Heavy Cav, or (c) Horse Archer. One player took Hepthalite I noticed, which is sort of a mix.

If game modifications are being considered then maybe these cav factions should be improved to make mounted armies more viable (?)

One suggestion is that maybe units in pursuit should not be flankable, or should be able to evade charges. Or maybe the player should get to control the pursuit move to a degree. I note its quite aweful to have a lancer or cavalry charge succeed and then get flanked on the pursuit when its mostly out of player control.
The Palmyrian list is probably "mixed" rather than specifically what you mean by a "mounted" list (it can field some good-quality infantry and a core of massed bowmen) but I'd argue it is strongest as a mounted/primarily mounted list and has been chosen by me and at least one other entrant. I'm not suggesting it's a top-tier pick - I'm personally playing them because I wanted to avoid a comfortable infantry-focused list and I quite enjoyed them in the tournament - but there's therefore at least a few examples of horse-focused armies selected. (But also, in fairness to your argument, I did pick this list specifically over the most horse-heavy lists because I just don't get them, c.f. my thread on playing Huns vs. Romans, and wanted something with a bit more flexibility).

On that, though, I'm not sure the issue with horse-heavy armies is a factor of pursuit mechanics. I'd argue it's a combination of:
1) Infantry armies are overall easier/more intuitive to play;
2) Combined-arms are typically stronger than one-trick armies, and combined-arms lists tend still to be infantry-leaning, e.g. Romans);
3) The tournament rules encourage a flexible army list which can face any opponent (exacerbating point 2); and maybe also
4) A lot of the horse-heavy armies are in the most recent DLC, which I suspect means overall lower levels of experience with them (exacerbating point 1 above).

I'd also argue that horse-heavy armies are weaker than infantry heavy armies in general. Horse units tend to be a lot less durable, while their propensity for disengaging enemy infantry units means that it can be difficult to get proper flanking attacks as you can't reliably get your units to pin enemy infantry down. This is part of the reason why I've picked the Palmyrian list specifically: they get a small number of heavy infantry choices and also a good number of cataphract choices they can use as an anvil where required. But ultimately, I think that's an issue with list composition rather than game mechanics or unit abilities, the same way that not seeing anyone playing e.g. Iberia or Italian Hill Tribes doesn't mean medium foot need a buff.

(I'd concede an exception for regular, as opposed to light, horse archers which I don't personally find very effective as they are. But that's as likely to be a factor of my skill with them as anything else.)
Kabill's Great Generals Mod for FoG2: http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=492&t=84915

MikeC_81
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Elite Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 731
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 2:28 am

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by MikeC_81 » Thu Apr 19, 2018 3:38 am

bbogensc wrote:Just looking at the factions selections in the knock out tournament, very few players (I think nobody thus far) is choosing to play factions with core units: (a) Lancer (b) Heavy Cav, or (c) Horse Archer. One player took Hepthalite I noticed, which is sort of a mix.

If game modifications are being considered then maybe these cav factions should be improved to make mounted armies more viable (?)

One suggestion is that maybe units in pursuit should not be flankable, or should be able to evade charges. Or maybe the player should get to control the pursuit move to a degree. I note its quite aweful to have a lancer or cavalry charge succeed and then get flanked on the pursuit when its mostly out of player control.
Be careful what you wish for. Playing against armies that are predominately all Horse Archers can be absolutely infuriating. :twisted:
FoG 2 Post Game Analysis Series on Youtube:

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

Ludendorf
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by Ludendorf » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:00 pm

Just wishing everyone good luck and, above all, an enjoyable tournament.

bbogensc
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:51 am

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by bbogensc » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:38 pm

MikeC_81 wrote:
bbogensc wrote:Just looking at the factions selections in the knock out tournament, very few players (I think nobody thus far) is choosing to play factions with core units: (a) Lancer (b) Heavy Cav, or (c) Horse Archer. One player took Hepthalite I noticed, which is sort of a mix.

If game modifications are being considered then maybe these cav factions should be improved to make mounted armies more viable (?)

One suggestion is that maybe units in pursuit should not be flankable, or should be able to evade charges. Or maybe the player should get to control the pursuit move to a degree. I note its quite aweful to have a lancer or cavalry charge succeed and then get flanked on the pursuit when its mostly out of player control.
Be careful what you wish for. Playing against armies that are predominately all Horse Archers can be absolutely infuriating. :twisted:
If you line up a force of horse archers against a heavy infantry army shoot over 24 turns, the horse archers will break 2 to 4 by the end of the game. If the infantry has any supporting lights or cav this can be further avoided or reduced in several ways. Meanwhile, any cav lost is serious break%. If the cav charges and wins it will pursue and is subject to a counter.

Lots of players switched over to cav armies in the KO tourney so Im interested to see how these perform.

bbogensc
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 198
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2018 5:51 am

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by bbogensc » Mon Apr 30, 2018 12:50 pm

I should say my hypothesis is that a Roman army (of any era really, but especially the later DLC) can prevail against Indian, however the horse lists have little chance against most army lists. The lancer horse (eg, german horse tribe) cannot force a victory even on home terrain, and are less likely to prevail (ie, win) than early numidian I dont share your concern that horse archers will dominate once foot archers are modified.

Ludendorf
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Master Sergeant - U-boat
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 5:35 pm

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by Ludendorf » Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:17 pm

The best way I've found for mixed armies to combat the cavalry scourge is to mix cavalry and infantry together and support one another in lockstep. If you can throw in some very cheap infantry, ideally heavy infantry like limitanei or raw hoplites, to act as a screen in front of the main line, and bring skirmishers to fight back against any horse archers, then that makes the line even stronger. It gets to the point where there's just too much meat for the cavalry to chew through; even with localised breakthroughs, they generally get ground down and spat out. Even if the screen fails before it can be supported in time, the enemy melee cavalry often break through into a bad situation as bbogensc has laid out. Artillery can help, and skirmishers are a must to protect against horse archers and lights. Elephants are also devastating if you've brought them.

That said, if you're ever a horse commander facing that situation, your best bet is probably to advance slowly, keep formation, attack the infantry screen one unit at a time overpowering them with superior lancers (or shooting them to bits with horse archers) and then target the cavalry of the main line first. Once the skirmishers, screen and cavalry are gone, the infantry shouldn't be able to do much to you. It's tricky though, because one lancer unit smashing through before support can get to it can give the cavalry-infantry mix in the rear a window to engage and destroy the breakthrough unit, and that breach in your line can let them move up and support their screen. Ideally, skirmishers should disrupt the screening units. The main takeaway is not to advance too quickly and get drawn into what is essentially a gigantic cavalry trap designed to break your formation and preserve theirs. If the enemy has elephants, try and screen your lancers with something capable of shooting and disrupting them; you're toast if steady or even disrupted elephants get into melee with your lancers and they'll spread mayhem through your other cavalry forces too.

If you're using infantry screens and horse archers are shooting them to hell, then it's a good idea to advance suddenly. Push forward and try to catch units of horse archers behind your screen where the cavalry and infantry can murder them in relative peace. Use skirmishers to combat other skirmishers and above all, don't get your cavalry drawn out ahead of their supporting infantry. That's part of what happened to Crassus at Carrhae. Protecting your skirmishers is paramount here; you don't need skirmisher supremacy, but you do need to be able to protect yourself. If you have horse archers of your own, these can be mixed in with the infantry like any cavalry and make excellent fire support at parts of your line that are unprotected by skirmishers.

If there's no screen and you're predominantly horse archers, try throwing out some skirmishers ahead to hit the enemy cavalry or get round the flanks with the medium cav. If you just ride up boldly to the enemy line, the enemy cavalry are likely to catch you, and then the infantry will come in and kill you. If you have to approach, try and disrupt the enemy cavalry first. The infantry are more dangerous in melee, but they have to catch you before they can kill you.

Just my thoughts. I have a fair chunk of experience fighting cavalry armies with mixed forces. Not so much the other way round.

Herode_2
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2014 1:48 pm
Location: France

Re: The Discussion thread . . .

Post by Herode_2 » Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:19 pm

Slightly OOT about the current tactical discussion (which I am carefully reading BTW :D ) but for the KO Tournament managers : I had to kill the process while playing my turn against Ludendorf. The game froze and nothing happened when I clicked on the "End turn" button. Not sure how notifications go after that sort of stuff and, more importantly, I don't know how to save the corrupted state of the game (since it was frozen...) in order to send it to the devs for further debug. Anyway, I guess the file is still operational now ; if any doubt remains, just let me know.

Post Reply

Return to “Knock-out Tournament”