Declared Attacker and Defender Side for Upcoming Tournament

[Atherys]

Just a suggestion from me. Declaring an attacker and defender army will determine the victor of score below 25 difference or 0-0 easier after 24 turn runs out, which is the defender. It also makes more sense historical wise in my opinion because a battle only happen when one army wants to attack another for value. Not sure if this rule has a drawback, probably the number of scenarios that can happen due to pre-determined role? Or perhaps defender that deploys too far back and then retreat even more?

[rbodleyscott]

Noted.

What do others think?

[tyronec]

Am not sure if I am understanding this right, but does it mean the defender army is declared the winner if the scores remain low ?
That would I think promote more static games where one side could sit in a defensive position. So in a paired match you might end up with two non event battles with one win to each player. Would prefer to see the scoring system promoting active play over passive play, as it does now.

[rbodleyscott]

Am not sure if I am understanding this right, but does it mean the defender army is declared the winner if the scores remain low ?
That would I think promote more static games where one side could sit in a defensive position. So in a paired match you might end up with two non event battles with one win to each player. Would prefer to see the scoring system promoting active play over passive play, as it does now.

Agreed.

[Atherys]

Am not sure if I am understanding this right, but does it mean the defender army is declared the winner if the scores remain low ?
That would I think promote more static games where one side could sit in a defensive position. So in a paired match you might end up with two non event battles with one win to each player. Would prefer to see the scoring system promoting active play over passive play, as it does now.

Huh, when you put it that way, it will still be a waiting game for each pairing...

[grahamed]

Surely in a paired games tournament attack/defence with a significant points advantage for the attacker will encourage action rather than discourage it?

[gfs26]

Maybe, placing a sort of FLAG in the defender setup zone, the result is a win for defender if no rout treshold is reached and the defender controls the FLAG, otherwise, the winner is the attacker (always in the case that the routing treshold is not reached).
The defender could choose a location for the FLAG in a limited setup zone (maybe restricted to the centre of the setup zone, far from the rear border)

[rbodleyscott]

The game already includes Attacker/Defender scenarios where the attacker must rout the enemy before the time limit or lose.

[companion]

To promote aggressive play in a meeting engagement, designating a target area (an area constituting of multiple tiles) at the center of the map should be sufficient.
Much better if the area could be autogenerated by the mapmaker.

The side with most presence at the target area wins for cases counting as draw. i.e. one army is assumed to have "held the field," while the other withdrew.

If horse archer armies are involved, maybe the target area should be located closer to the horse archers.

[grahamed]

The game already includes Attacker/Defender scenarios where the attacker must rout the enemy before the time limit or lose.

Good point Richard, have those been tried in a tournament? If not maybe try one out sometime in future?

[rbodleyscott]

The game already includes Attacker/Defender scenarios where the attacker must rout the enemy before the time limit or lose.

Good point Richard, have those been tried in a tournament?

Not as far as I am aware.

If not maybe try one out sometime in future?

Seems like a good idea.

[Atherys]

Surely in a paired games tournament attack/defence with a significant points advantage for the attacker will encourage action rather than discourage it?

Yeah, perhaps putting bonus score towards the attacker side if they win will promote them to advance.