The Rally Point (discussion and questions)

[SimonLancaster]

It is a great league by the way to turn to more positive things! Thanks for organising. Just think this restart business is a bit of a clanger..

[stockwellpete]

If people really think so strongly that certain maps are 'unplayable' then they should be excluded before we set up so as not to waste people's time.

I don't believe it is possible to set up the random map generator so as to avoid these difficult maps. Is that correct, Richard?

[ahuyton]

Agree totally with the opposition to restarts.....for the avoidance of doubt in All my remaining games I will politely advise any opponents I will neither be asking for nor accepting any restarts .

How many generals ever ended up fighting on terrain unsuitable for their armies ?....almost all at one time of another....particularly the bad ones (like me ☺).

I think this is a very sensible approach and I will follow suit.

[devoncop]

Agree totally with the opposition to restarts.....for the avoidance of doubt in All my remaining games I will politely advise any opponents I will neither be asking for nor accepting any restarts .

How many generals ever ended up fighting on terrain unsuitable for their armies ?....almost all at one time of another....particularly the bad ones (like me ☺).

I think this is a very sensible approach and I will follow suit.

If we get other players to do this too it could become a movement

[SimonLancaster]

I actually used the word ‘movement’ today to describe the people in agreement with me! All good fun! Let’s not get too cranky!

[Ludendorf]

The thing is, sometimes you get a situation where if either side advances, it's suicide. Rather than agree a boring stalemate or force one player to resign themselves to playing at a steep disadvantage, you just agree another map where advancing doesn't mean certain doom.

[SimonLancaster]

The thing is, sometimes you get a situation where if either side advances, it's suicide. Rather than agree a boring stalemate or force one player to resign themselves to playing at a steep disadvantage, you just agree another map where advancing doesn't mean certain doom.

You mean not make it random any longer? That is not in the rules.. Or just hope that a better map comes up next time?

I also don't really know what unplayable means. I suspect it often means one side is at a disadvantage and doesn't want to fight. Sometimes it may not be the case but often that is what it could well be..

[rbodleyscott]

If people really think so strongly that certain maps are 'unplayable' then they should be excluded before we set up so as not to waste people's time.

I don't believe it is possible to set up the random map generator so as to avoid these difficult maps. Is that correct, Richard?

It is indeed. And what constitutes a difficult map anyway? A map with a steep hill in one corner is "difficult" if the enemy puts their whole army on it. So essentially it would mean not allowing steep hills anywhere on the map!

[rbodleyscott]

Well, I don't think it is in my head. I have talked to a few experienced wargamers and they say that restarts should never have been introduced because they are likely to cause arguments. Which is precisely what I think.

I agree. Even if there are no overt arguments, it can still cause ill-feeling, or the worry that there might be ill-feeling. And while Pete may find that "ridiculous", I don't really think it is up to him to tell us what we feel, or that our feelings are "ridiculous".

One of the huge advantages of computer FOG as opposed to any tabletop ancient rules is that there is absolutely no scope for arguments or discussion because all of the rules are adjudicated automatically by the computer. Such "discussions" finally killed off my enjoyment of tabletop wargames after 45 years, and as a result I have not played a single tabletop game since the last tournament I took part in 2 years ago.

Introducing things to the tournament rules that are not adjudicated by the computer, even if they are "by agreement", is a step in the wrong direction.

[stockwellpete]

Well, I don't think it is in my head. I have talked to a few experienced wargamers and they say that restarts should never have been introduced because they are likely to cause arguments. Which is precisely what I think.

I agree. Even if there are no overt arguments, it can still cause ill-feeling, or the worry that there might be ill-feeling. And while Pete may find that "ridiculous", I don't really think it is up to him to tell us what we feel, or that our feelings are "ridiculous".

One of the huge advantages of computer FOG as opposed to any tabletop ancient rules is that there is absolutely no scope for arguments or discussion because all of the rules are adjudicated automatically by the computer. Such "discussions" finally killed off my enjoyment of tabletop wargames after 45 years, and as a result I have not played a single tabletop game since the last tournament I took part in 2 years ago.

Introducing things to the tournament rules that are not adjudicated by the computer, even if they are "by agreement", is a step in the wrong direction.

Except that I didn't, Richard. I said I found the argument against restarts ridiculous - and I am entitled to my opinion too. Please don't misrepresent what I post. I hope that the FOG2DL is a friendly tournament and that players are able to come to agreement about such things. If it isn't then really I am wasting my time.

It is a pity you didn't express that view when we had the discussion 6 weeks ago. I made every effort to involve people in it and I ran two polls and abided by the results. To start this debate up again just one week into the season is a poor show, in my opinion. We already have situations in the tournament where draws are agreed without the good offices of the computer and as I said before, I am sure some players were agreeing restarts even though there was no provision for them in the rules before.

I just looked back at the debate and on page 20 of "The Rally Point" there is a contribution from pantherboy who ran "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" (LOEG) in the days before the FOGDL. Many of the features of LOEG have been copied by me into the FOGDL. Steve wrote this about restarts, "In the past I never regulated restarts simply leaving it up to the players involved to self-judge and it never led to any issues. I think the most restarts was 2 in LOEG." That is good enough for me and I am not going to be changing the rule on restarts now, just after one week of the tournament.

[stockwellpete]

It is indeed. And what constitutes a difficult map anyway? A map with a steep hill in one corner is "difficult" if the enemy puts their whole army on it. So essentially it would mean not allowing steep hills anywhere on the map!

I don't think the notion of a "difficult map" is that mysterious, to be honest. Maps where one army has its deployment severely restricted, or where it is suicidal for one or both armies to move out of their respective deployments zones can reasonably be regarded as "difficult". All players with a bit of experience in the game recognise these sorts of maps. I am not sure how often these maps occur, maybe 1 in 20, or 1 in 15, something like that anyway.

[stockwellpete]

The thing is, sometimes you get a situation where if either side advances, it's suicide. Rather than agree a boring stalemate or force one player to resign themselves to playing at a steep disadvantage, you just agree another map where advancing doesn't mean certain doom.

You mean not make it random any longer? That is not in the rules.. Or just hope that a better map comes up next time?

I also don't really know what unplayable means. I suspect it often means one side is at a disadvantage and doesn't want to fight. Sometimes it may not be the case but often that is what it could well be..

Ludendorf meant that you agree a restart using the "pot luck" terrain setting. One player may well be at a disadvantage because of the map and ask for a restart, but the other player may refuse because the map suits them very nicely. Or the map might be very difficult for both sides (for example maps where one half of the map is completely open and the other half is full of terrain).

[rbodleyscott]

I agree. Even if there are no overt arguments, it can still cause ill-feeling, or the worry that there might be ill-feeling. And while Pete may find that "ridiculous", I don't really think it is up to him to tell us what we feel, or that our feelings are "ridiculous".

Except that I didn't, Richard. I said I found the argument against restarts ridiculous - and I am entitled to my opinion too. Please don't misrepresent what I post.

Then I suggest you post your replies more clearly, and avoid pejorative terms like "ridiculous". I am not misrepresenting my understanding of what you posted:

Also, I agree with the players above who say that the whole business leaves a nasty taste in the mouth. I felt compelled to ask for a re-roll in one of my games, because in my view (though not my opponent's) an attack would have been suicidal. Under the old system I would have settled for a 1 point draw if the enemy chose not to leave his position. I felt bad about asking for the re-roll, and concerned that my opponent would think worse of me for doing so.

I find this ridiculous. The rules are clearly explained. You are entitled to ask and your opponent is entitled to say yes or no. End of. Either agree the re-start or get on with the game.

You ought to be apologising rather than claiming I am misrepresenting what you posted.

[stockwellpete]

You ought to be apologising rather than counter-attacking.

You're out of luck there then, Richard.

[rbodleyscott]

To start this debate up again just one week into the season is a poor show, in my opinion.

I did not restart the debate, I merely responded to somebody else's post.

[stockwellpete]

To start this debate up again just one week into the season is a poor show, in my opinion.

I did not restart the debate, I merely responded to somebody else's post.

But you could have said "we have debated all this openly and democratically with a poll just a few weeks ago so now is not the time to re-open the argument. But you didn't do that. Instead you threw your considerable weight (on this board, I mean) behind the argument of a new player with a week's experience of the tournament. I had already said that I would be happy for us all to revisit the discussion at the end of this season. And I am the one who is supposed to apologise?

[rbodleyscott]

To start this debate up again just one week into the season is a poor show, in my opinion.

I did not restart the debate, I merely responded to somebody else's post.

But you could have said "we have debated all this openly and democratically with a poll just a few weeks ago so now is not the time to re-open the argument. But you didn't do that. Instead you threw your considerable weight (on this board, I mean) behind the argument of a new player with a week's experience of the tournament. I had already said that I would be happy for us all to revisit the discussion at the end of this season. And I am the one who is supposed to apologise?

I see. Well in that case I apologise.

However, I don't think anyone was suggesting that the rules should change during this season. We were merely providing feedback on our experiences with the new rules so far.

[devoncop]

I have 're read all the above and I agree completely with RBS both on the specific issue at hand and also on his feelings towards the antagonism generated once "the human factor" is introduced into a neutral arena like a computer regulated game such as this.

Indeed the tone of this discussion kind of proves my point and is in stark contrast to the excellent spirit that Seasons 1 and 2 were conducted (spookily enough when everything on the battlefield was left to the computer) .

I have decided life is too short to get involved in such things so I will be resigning the games underway and will not be participating further and shall return to my single player idyll.

I wish all the remaining players all the best.

[Stimovsky]

Good morning,
I have been unable to setup a game in Late Antiquity, division C involving Rhoxolani 350BC-24AD vs Visigoth 419-621AD, I suppose that is so because there's no overlap in time frames ?
It's also possible I haven't had enough coffee yet for my brain to work properly. Please let me know if I missed something.

[rbodleyscott]

Good morning,
I have been unable to setup a game in Late Antiquity, division C involving Rhoxolani 350BC-24AD vs Visigoth 419-621AD, I suppose that is so because there's no overlap in time frames ?
It's also possible I haven't had enough coffee yet for my brain to work properly. Please let me know if I missed something.

You just need to toggle off the Date (and possibly also the Geography) filter.